# Official Journal C 78E/2004

| | ISSN 1725-2423 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 78E |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 4727 March 2004 |

ISSN 1725-2423

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 78E

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 4727 March 2004

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | I   (Information) |
| | EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT |
| | WRITTEN QUESTIONS WITH ANSWER (Part 1) |
| 2004/C 078E/1 | E-0465/01 by Antonios Trakatellis and Rodi Kratsa-Tsagaropoulou to the CommissionSubject: Violation of Community environmental legislation and measures to protect the Loggerhead (Caretta Caretta) sea turtle | 1 |
| 2004/C 078E/2 | E-2369/02 by Chris Davies to the CommissionSubject: Directive 1999/74/EC on the protection of laying hens | 2 |
| 2004/C 078E/3 | E-3463/02 by Christopher Huhne to the CommissionSubject: Economic integration | 3 |
| 2004/C 078E/4 | E-3509/02 by Erik Meijer to the CommissionSubject: Abolition of the arrangement whereby small-scale, occasional trading can be carried out on a cross-border basis using the cash-on-delivery system | 3 |
| 2004/C 078E/5 | E-3522/02 by Bart Staes to the CommissionSubject: Television rights relating to Champions League matches — dispute as to what constitutes news gathering and what is covered by copyright | 5 |
| 2004/C 078E/6 | E-3574/02 by Ilda Figueiredo to the CommissionSubject: Outermost regions and enlargement | 7 |
| 2004/C 078E/7 | E-3644/02 by Hanja Maij-Weggen to the CommissionSubject: Incarceration of Shaiboub | 8 |
| 2004/C 078E/8 | E-3645/02 by Hanja Maij-Weggen to the CommissionSubject: Imprisonment of Shakir | 8 |
| 2004/C 078E/9 | E-3652/02 by Hanja Maij-Weggen to the CommissionSubject: El Kosheh retrial | 9 |
| Joint answer to Written Questions E-3644/02, E-3645/02 and E-3652/02 |
| 2004/C 078E/0 | E-3675/02 by Cristiana Muscardini to the CommissionSubject: Europe and Palestinian terrorism | 10 |
| 2004/C 078E/1 | P-3803/02 by Joan Colom i Naval to the CommissionSubject: Catalan television broadcast on fraud against the ESF in Spain | 10 |
| 2004/C 078E/2 | E-3829/02 by Torben Lund to the CommissionSubject: Trade agreements between the EU and Mexico and safeguarding human rights | 11 |
| 2004/C 078E/3 | E-0072/03 by Erik Meijer to the CommissionSubject: The dangers of selling thawed deep-frozen meat as fresh meat and a requirement to warn consumers against refreezing it | 12 |
| 2004/C 078E/4 | E-0201/03 by Emilio Menéndez del Valle to the CommissionSubject: Gibraltarian police violence (Supplementary Answer) | 13 |
| 2004/C 078E/5 | E-0219/03 by Alexandros Baltas to the CommissionSubject: Countries which have set in place essential elements of the Integrated Administration and Control System for certain Community aid schemes (IACS) | 14 |
| 2004/C 078E/6 | E-0293/03 by Struan Stevenson to the CommissionSubject: Animal welfare in Greek slaughterhouses | 16 |
| 2004/C 078E/7 | P-0439/03 by Elly Plooij-van Gorsel to the CommissionSubject: European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) draft proposal for an Independent Recourse Mechanism | 17 |
| 2004/C 078E/8 | P-0487/03 by Hanja Maij-Weggen to the CommissionSubject: El Khosheh judgment | 18 |
| 2004/C 078E/9 | E-0559/03 by Christopher Huhne to the CommissionSubject: Horse identification documents | 19 |
| 2004/C 078E/0 | E-0622/03 by Brice Hortefeux to the CommissionSubject: Combating cartels | 20 |
| 2004/C 078E/1 | E-0682/03 by María Sornosa Martínez to the CommissionSubject: Dam building project in Rivas de Tereso (La Rioja-Spain) | 20 |
| 2004/C 078E/2 | P-0733/03 by Sebastiano Musumeci to the CommissionSubject: Air transport safety and use of passengers' mother tongue | 22 |
| 2004/C 078E/3 | E-0883/03 by Roberta Angelilli to the CommissionSubject: Use of funds from the Customs 2002 programme by the municipality of Fiumicino | 22 |
| 2004/C 078E/4 | E-1061/03 by Roberta Angelilli to the CommissionSubject: Use of funds from the Customs 2002 programme by the municipality of Ancona | 23 |
| Joint answer to Written Questions E-0883/03 and E-1061/03 |
| 2004/C 078E/5 | P-0895/03 by Glenys Kinnock to the CommissionSubject: Agro-business Bank of Georgia | 24 |
| 2004/C 078E/6 | E-0912/03 by Claude Moraes to the CommissionSubject: Racism and racial attacks in candidate countries | 24 |
| 2004/C 078E/7 | E-0922/03 by José Ribeiro e Castro to the CommissionSubject: Serbia; assassination of the Prime Minister; instability | 25 |
| 2004/C 078E/8 | E-1033/03 by Cristiana Muscardini to the CommissionSubject: Famine in Africa | 26 |
| 2004/C 078E/9 | E-1289/03 by Elly Plooij-van Gorsel to the CommissionSubject: Disruption of market access to the People's Republic of China for photographic products: specific import tariffs not complying with WTO agreements | 27 |
| 2004/C 078E/0 | E-1309/03 by Bill Newton Dunn to the CommissionSubject: Human rights abuses in Laos | 28 |
| 2004/C 078E/1 | P-1409/03 by Othmar Karas to the CommissionSubject: Reform of European corporate taxation policy | 29 |
| 2004/C 078E/2 | E-1431/03 by Pierre Jonckheer to the CommissionSubject: Open-cast coal mine in northern Leon (Valle de Laciana, Spain) | 32 |
| 2004/C 078E/3 | E-1432/03 by Pierre Jonckheer to the CommissionSubject: Open-cast coal mine in northern Leon (Valle de Laciana, Spain) | 32 |
| Joint answer to Written Questions E-1431/03 and E-1432/03 |
| 2004/C 078E/4 | E-1435/03 by Erik Meijer to the CommissionSubject: Increasing Third World dependence on emigration to work in rich countries and earnings transfers from rich countries | 34 |
| 2004/C 078E/5 | P-1483/03 by Johanna Boogerd-Quaak to the CommissionSubject: Protection of information concerning air passengers — Joint Declaration of 4 March 2003 | 35 |
| 2004/C 078E/6 | E-1550/03 by Erik Meijer to the CommissionSubject: Uncontrolled flows of funds on the transfer of media ownership in Poland and possible preferential treatment for Poland as a new EU Member State | 36 |
| 2004/C 078E/7 | E-1551/03 by Paulo Casaca to the CommissionSubject: Labelling of products containing asbestos | 37 |
| 2004/C 078E/8 | E-1568/03 by Erik Meijer to the CommissionSubject: Sharp cuts in passenger services on the Slovakian rail network as a result of secret conditions in a loan granted by the EIB in 1999 | 38 |
| 2004/C 078E/9 | P-1596/03 by Regina Bastos to the CommissionSubject: Closure of Schuh-Union located in Ponte de Lima, Portugal (Supplementary Answer) | 40 |
| 2004/C 078E/0 | E-1670/03 by María Sornosa Martínez to the CommissionSubject: Authorisation by the Commission of projects harmful to the Natura 2000 network | 41 |
| 2004/C 078E/1 | E-1687/03 by Inger Schörling to the CommissionSubject: Botniabanan — Umea river delta, Sweden | 43 |
| 2004/C 078E/2 | E-1688/03 by Anders Wijkman to the CommissionSubject: The construction of the Ladia Galaska road in the province of Aceh, Indonesia | 44 |
| 2004/C 078E/3 | E-1726/03 by Mikko Pesälä to the CommissionSubject: Shooting noise abatement | 45 |
| 2004/C 078E/4 | E-1781/03 by Claude Moraes to the CommissionSubject: The EQUAL funding programme post-enlargement | 46 |
| 2004/C 078E/5 | E-1817/03 by Christopher Huhne to the CommissionSubject: Air pollution | 47 |
| 2004/C 078E/6 | E-1820/03 by Christopher Huhne to the CommissionSubject: Sausage meat | 48 |
| 2004/C 078E/7 | E-1831/03 by Stavros Xarchakos to the CommissionSubject: Statistics concerning poverty and unemployment in Greece | 49 |
| 2004/C 078E/8 | E-1836/03 by Christopher Huhne to the CommissionSubject: Particulates | 50 |
| 2004/C 078E/9 | E-1867/03 by Christopher Huhne to the CommissionSubject: Average cost of capital in the euro area | 51 |
| 2004/C 078E/0 | E-1868/03 by Christopher Huhne to the CommissionSubject: Equity culture | 52 |
| 2004/C 078E/1 | E-1900/03 by María Sornosa Martínez to the CommissionSubject: Nitrate pollution in the Valencia region | 53 |
| 2004/C 078E/2 | E-1906/03 by Stavros Xarchakos to the CommissionSubject: Credibility of televoting and its cost to the European public | 54 |
| 2004/C 078E/3 | E-1910/03 by Margrietus van den Berg to the CommissionSubject: Underground storage of nuclear waste | 55 |
| 2004/C 078E/4 | E-1927/03 by Jules Maaten to the CommissionSubject: Bovine and porcine protein in chicken | 56 |
| 2004/C 078E/5 | E-1955/03 by Baroness Sarah Ludford to the CommissionSubject: Processing of chicken intended for human consumption | 56 |
| Joint answer to Written Questions E-1927/03 and E-1955/03 |
| 2004/C 078E/6 | E-1937/03 by Mihail Papayannakis to the CommissionSubject: Corinth-Patras railway link | 57 |
| 2004/C 078E/7 | E-1946/03 by Camilo Nogueira Román to the CommissionSubject: Investigations into subsidies paid by Spain to the Izar company and resumption of construction work on merchant vessels at the Izar-Fene shipyards in Galicia | 58 |
| 2004/C 078E/8 | P-1951/03 by Giacomo Santini to the CommissionSubject: Provisions banning traffic in Austria | 58 |
| 2004/C 078E/9 | E-1953/03 by Lissy Gröner to the CommissionSubject: Unused EU funding in Bavaria totalling EUR 17 million for 2002 | 59 |
| 2004/C 078E/0 | P-1961/03 by Alexander de Roo to the CommissionSubject: Ispra meeting to discuss the Spanish National Hydrological Plan | 60 |
| 2004/C 078E/1 | E-1970/03 by Proinsias De Rossa to the CommissionSubject: Recycling charges for household goods | 61 |
| 2004/C 078E/2 | E-1971/03 by Cristiana Muscardini to the CommissionSubject: Flying ultralight aircraft | 61 |
| 2004/C 078E/3 | E-1986/03 by Konstantinos Hatzidakis to the CommissionSubject: Atmospheric pollution in Athens and Thessaloniki | 62 |
| 2004/C 078E/4 | E-1987/03 by Piia-Noora Kauppi and Per-Arne Arvidsson to the CommissionSubject: Nuclear safety principles applied to the EU accession countries | 63 |
| 2004/C 078E/5 | E-1991/03 by Erik Meijer to the CommissionSubject: Shedding of light on the circumstances relating to the organisation of the Commission that contributed to the death of Commission official Quatraro in 1993, and the secrecy surrounding the events | 65 |
| 2004/C 078E/6 | E-2001/03 by Jan Dhaene and Patricia McKenna to the CommissionSubject: Radioactive discharges from Sellafield | 66 |
| 2004/C 078E/7 | P-2031/03 by Antonios Trakatellis to the CommissionSubject: Implementation of Community legislation on solid waste and the landfill of waste in Greece | 67 |
| 2004/C 078E/8 | E-2043/03 by Maurizio Turco, Emma Bonino, Marco Pannella, Marco Cappato, Benedetto Della Vedova, Gianfranco Dell'Alba and Olivier Dupuis to the CommissionSubject: Means of putting an end to violations of religious freedom | 69 |
| 2004/C 078E/9 | E-2045/03 by Maurizio Turco, Marco Pannella, Emma Bonino, Marco Cappato, Benedetto Della Vedova, Gianfranco Dell'Alba and Olivier Dupuis to the CommissionSubject: Serious and persistent violations of the fundamental human rights of the Uighur minority in the Chinese province of Xinjiang (eastern Turkestan) | 70 |
| 2004/C 078E/0 | E-2051/03 by Caroline Jackson to the CommissionSubject: Essential oils and consumer protection | 71 |
| 2004/C 078E/1 | E-2056/03 by Kathleen Van Brempt to the CommissionSubject: Ethylene | 72 |
| 2004/C 078E/2 | E-2059/03 by Camilo Nogueira Román to the CommissionSubject: One-year delay by the Spanish government in extracting fuel oil from the wreck of the Prestige off the Galician coast | 73 |
| 2004/C 078E/3 | P-2080/03 by Jonas Sjöstedt to the CommissionSubject: Summary of subsidies to undertakings | 74 |
| 2004/C 078E/4 | E-2084/03 by Graham Watson to the CommissionSubject: 1970 Unesco Convention | 75 |
| 2004/C 078E/5 | E-2087/03 by Marjo Matikainen-Kallström to the CommissionSubject: Recognition of Finnish engineering qualifications in certain Mediterranean countries | 76 |
| 2004/C 078E/6 | E-2101/03 by José Ribeiro e Castro to the CommissionSubject: Common agricultural policy reform — capping | 78 |
| 2004/C 078E/7 | E-2111/03 by Proinsias De Rossa to the CommissionSubject: Comparative study of special needs teaching | 78 |
| 2004/C 078E/8 | E-2120/03 by Isabelle Caullery to the CommissionSubject: Development of renewable energy sources in Moldova | 79 |
| 2004/C 078E/9 | E-2127/03 by Bart Staes to the CommissionSubject: Guarantees as to the correctness of businesses' financial information | 80 |
| 2004/C 078E/0 | E-2166/03 by Giuseppe Di Lello Finuoli to the CommissionSubject: Update regarding of the Italian State and Campania Regional Government funding of the programme contract presented by Agrifuturo | 82 |
| 2004/C 078E/1 | E-2173/03 by Paulo Casaca to the CommissionSubject: Compliance with EU legislation on asbestos | 82 |
| 2004/C 078E/2 | E-2176/03 by Christopher Huhne to the CommissionSubject: Procurement | 83 |
| 2004/C 078E/3 | E-2180/03 by Samuli Pohjamo and Mikko Pesälä to the CommissionSubject: Damage caused by predators in the Finnish reindeer range | 84 |
| 2004/C 078E/4 | E-2186/03 by Erik Meijer to the CommissionSubject: Need for better consumer protection against malicious or negligent practices in international e-commerce | 85 |
| 2004/C 078E/5 | E-2187/03 by Sérgio Marques to the CommissionSubject: Participation by the outermost regions in the RTD framework programmes | 87 |
| 2004/C 078E/6 | E-2191/03 by José Ribeiro e Castro to the CommissionSubject: Funding for the IRENE organisation | 88 |
| 2004/C 078E/7 | P-2194/03 by Michael Cashman to the CommissionSubject: Counterfeiting and piracy | 89 |
| 2004/C 078E/8 | E-2196/03 by Geoffrey Van Orden to the CommissionSubject: Civil protection | 90 |
| 2004/C 078E/9 | E-2197/03 by Bart Staes to the CommissionSubject: Cattle transport — CATRA findings | 90 |
| 2004/C 078E/0 | E-2206/03 by Gerhard Schmid to the CommissionSubject: Action to confine marketing of specified products to the Czech Republic | 91 |
| 2004/C 078E/1 | E-2207/03 by Charles Tannock to the CommissionSubject: Labelling of animal, including poultry, products and problems posed for members of religious minorities eating these products | 92 |
| 2004/C 078E/2 | P-2440/03 by Diana Wallis to the CommissionSubject: Addition of water and protein to chicken meat | 92 |
| Joint answer to Written Questions E-2207/03 and P-2440/03 |
| 2004/C 078E/3 | E-2216/03 by Marco Pannella, Maurizio Turco, Marco Cappato, Benedetto Della Vedova, Gianfranco Dell'Alba and Olivier Dupuis to the CommissionSubject: Arrest of twelve members of an evangelical church in China | 93 |
| 2004/C 078E/4 | E-2221/03 by Alexander de Roo to the CommissionSubject: Situation of the High Flux Reactor in Petten | 94 |
| 2004/C 078E/5 | E-2236/03 by Stavros Xarchakos to the CommissionSubject: Disastrous environmental situation in Greece | 95 |
| 2004/C 078E/6 | E-2240/03 by Bartho Pronk to the CommissionSubject: Follow-up to an application for a driving licence in another EU Member State | 96 |
| 2004/C 078E/7 | E-2241/03 by Kathalijne Buitenweg and Jean Lambert to the CommissionSubject: Funding of enforced return measures | 97 |
| 2004/C 078E/8 | E-2250/03 by Maurizio Turco, Marco Pannella, Marco Cappato, Benedetto Della Vedova, Gianfranco Dell'Alba and Olivier Dupuis to the CommissionSubject: Violation of religious freedom in China. Arrest of Father Lu Xiaozhou of the clandestine Catholic church | 99 |
| 2004/C 078E/9 | E-2251/03 by Joaquim Miranda to the CommissionSubject: Charter for Children in Hospital | 99 |
| 2004/C 078E/0 | E-2277/03 by Mihail Papayannakis to the CommissionSubject: Construction faults on the Ionian highway | 100 |
| 2004/C 078E/1 | E-2291/03 by Marjo Matikainen-Kallström to the CommissionSubject: Equal treatment of Member States in recruiting EU officials | 101 |
| 2004/C 078E/2 | P-2301/03 by Alexandros Alavanos to the CommissionSubject: Implementation of Directive 1999/70/EC | 102 |
| 2004/C 078E/3 | E-2320/03 by Christoph Konrad to the CommissionSubject: First aid at the scene of an accident | 103 |
| 2004/C 078E/4 | P-2340/03 by Giovanni Fava to the CommissionSubject: National site for radioactive waste in Sardinia | 104 |
| 2004/C 078E/5 | E-2348/03 by Camilo Nogueira Román to the CommissionSubject: Measures to be taken in response to evidence that oil from the Prestige is continuing to reach the coasts of Galicia and the Bay of Biscay | 105 |
| 2004/C 078E/6 | E-2349/03 by Camilo Nogueira Román to the CommissionSubject: Galicia and CAP reform | 105 |
| 2004/C 078E/7 | E-2356/03 by Ria Oomen-Ruijten, Caroline Jackson, Johannes Blokland, Alexander de Roo and Karl-Heinz Florenz to the CommissionSubject: Interpretation of the RoHS Directive (2002/95/EC) | 106 |
| 2004/C 078E/8 | E-2380/03 by Christopher Huhne to the CommissionSubject: New business formation | 108 |
| 2004/C 078E/9 | E-2381/03 by Christopher Huhne to the CommissionSubject: Single market | 109 |
| 2004/C 078E/0 | E-2382/03 by Christopher Huhne to the CommissionSubject: Single market | 109 |
| Joint answer to Written Questions E-2381/03 and E-2382/03 |
| 2004/C 078E/1 | E-2391/03 by Elisabeth Jeggle to the CommissionSubject: Numbers of pigs and cattle in the EU 15 and the 10 accession countries | 110 |
| 2004/C 078E/2 | E-2408/03 by Bart Staes to the CommissionSubject: Watching an LCD screen whilst driving a motor vehicle | 111 |
| 2004/C 078E/3 | E-2422/03 by Kathleen Van Brempt to the CommissionSubject: In-car LCD screens | 111 |
| Joint answer to Written Questions E-2408/03 and E-2422/03 |
| 2004/C 078E/4 | E-2436/03 by Ilda Figueiredo to the CommissionSubject: Support for fishermen unable to fish for biological reasons | 113 |
| 2004/C 078E/5 | E-2448/03 by Georges Berthu to the CommissionSubject: Inappropriate incentive to destroy hedgerows | 114 |
| 2004/C 078E/6 | E-2450/03 by Marco Cappato to the CommissionSubject: Infringement by the Salerno Chamber of Commerce of legislation on fixed term employment contracts | 114 |
| 2004/C 078E/7 | E-2466/03 by Erik Meijer to the CommissionSubject: Systematic provision of information to police forces, businessmen and holidaymakers with a view to ensuring that foreign tourists are not punished when they unwittingly break the law | 115 |
| 2004/C 078E/8 | E-2481/03 by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna to the CommissionSubject: Transferable fishing quotas | 117 |
| 2004/C 078E/9 | E-2484/03 by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna to the CommissionSubject: Galicia and CAP reform | 118 |
| 2004/C 078E/0 | E-2495/03 by Christopher Huhne to the CommissionSubject: Common agriculture policy | 119 |
| 2004/C 078E/1 | E-2497/03 by Christopher Huhne to the CommissionSubject: Foreign direct investment | 120 |
| 2004/C 078E/2 | E-2521/03 by Carles-Alfred Gasòliba i Böhm to the CommissionSubject: Linguistic plurality of Spain with regard to passports | 121 |
| 2004/C 078E/3 | E-2548/03 by Joan Vallvé to the CommissionSubject: Linguistic coexistence as reflected in Spanish passports | 121 |
| Joint answer to Written Questions E-2521/03 and E-2548/03 |
| 2004/C 078E/4 | E-2535/03 by Ilda Figueiredo to the CommissionSubject: Farm incomes in Portugal | 122 |
| 2004/C 078E/5 | E-2540/03 by Maurizio Turco to the CommissionSubject: Agreements between the Spanish State and the Vatican State which violate fundamental rights | 123 |
| 2004/C 078E/6 | E-2541/03 by Maurizio Turco to the CommissionSubject: The Gescartera case and agreements between the Spanish State and the Holy See | 124 |
| 2004/C 078E/7 | E-2546/03 by Jules Maaten to the CommissionSubject: Evaluation of tobacco products | 125 |
| 2004/C 078E/8 | E-2556/03 by Robert Evans to the CommissionSubject: Voting in Mallorcan elections | 126 |
| 2004/C 078E/9 | E-2565/03 by Hiltrud Breyer to the CommissionSubject: Residues of hormones, antibiotics and phthalic acid esters in drinking water | 127 |
| 2004/C 078E/0 | E-2566/03 by Markus Ferber to the CommissionSubject: EU aid for construction projects in Italy | 128 |
| 2004/C 078E/1 | E-2569/03 by Christopher Huhne to the CommissionSubject: Bioptic driving | 129 |
| 2004/C 078E/2 | E-2586/03 by Maurizio Turco to the CommissionSubject: New information concerning the refunds for agricultural products exported from the Member States to the Vatican City State | 129 |
| 2004/C 078E/3 | P-2591/03 by Roberta Angelilli to the CommissionSubject: State of emergency due to the drought in the Region of Lazio | 131 |
| 2004/C 078E/4 | E-2597/03 by Roberta Angelilli to the CommissionSubject: Natural disaster alert in Italy | 132 |
| 2004/C 078E/5 | E-2605/03 by Elizabeth Lynne to the CommissionSubject: Recognition of qualifications for language teachers (Supplementary Answer) | 133 |
| 2004/C 078E/6 | P-2606/03 by Armin Laschet to the CommissionSubject: Discontinuation of the infringement proceedings against the Federal Republic of Germany in connection with the Avantis cross-border business park | 134 |
| 2004/C 078E/7 | E-2610/03 by Proinsias De Rossa to the CommissionSubject: Charging consumers for returning waste household electrical equipment | 135 |
| 2004/C 078E/8 | E-2631/03 by Maurizio Turco to the CommissionSubject: Refunds on exports from Member States to the Vatican City State of fresh and frozen beef (code 0201) for 1998. Inconsistencies between CATS and OECD data | 136 |
| 2004/C 078E/9 | E-2632/03 by Maurizio Turco to the CommissionSubject: Refunds on exports from Member States to the Vatican City State of fresh and frozen beef (code 0201) for 1999. Inconsistencies between CATS and OECD data | 136 |
| 2004/C 078E/0 | E-2633/03 by Maurizio Turco to the CommissionSubject: Refunds on exports from Member States to the Vatican City State of fresh and frozen beef (code 0201) for 2000. Inconsistencies between CATS and OECD data | 137 |
| 2004/C 078E/1 | E-2634/03 by Maurizio Turco to the CommissionSubject: Refunds on exports from Member States to the Vatican City State of fresh and frozen beef (code 0201) for 2001. Inconsistencies between CATS and OECD data | 138 |
| 2004/C 078E/2 | E-2635/03 by Maurizio Turco to the CommissionSubject: Refunds on exports from Member States to the Vatican City State of butter and other fats and oils derived from milk, milk products (code 0405) for 1998 | 139 |
| 2004/C 078E/3 | E-2636/03 by Maurizio Turco to the CommissionSubject: Refunds on exports from Member States to the Vatican City State of butter and other fats and oils derived from milk, milk products (code 0405) for 1999 | 139 |
| 2004/C 078E/4 | E-2637/03 by Maurizio Turco to the CommissionSubject: Refunds on exports from Member States to the Vatican City State of butter and other fats and oils derived from milk, milk products (code 0405) for 2000 | 140 |
| 2004/C 078E/5 | E-2638/03 by Maurizio Turco to the CommissionSubject: Refunds on exports from Member States to the Vatican City State of butter and other fats and oils derived from milk, milk products (code 0405) for 2001 | 141 |
| 2004/C 078E/6 | E-2639/03 by Maurizio Turco to the CommissionSubject: Refunds on exports from Member States to the Vatican City State of beet and cane sugar and chemically pure sucrose in solid form (code 1701) for 1998 | 142 |
| 2004/C 078E/7 | E-2640/03 by Maurizio Turco to the CommissionSubject: Refunds on exports from Member States to the Vatican City State of beet and cane sugar and chemically pure sucrose in solid form (code 1701) for 1999 | 142 |
| 2004/C 078E/8 | E-2641/03 by Maurizio Turco to the CommissionSubject: Refunds on exports from Member States to the Vatican City State of beet and cane sugar and chemically pure sucrose in solid form (code 1701) for 2000 | 143 |
| 2004/C 078E/9 | E-2642/03 by Maurizio Turco to the CommissionSubject: Refunds on exports from Member States to the Vatican City State of beet and cane sugar and chemically pure sucrose in solid form (code 1701) for 2001 | 144 |
| Joint answer to Written Questions E-2631/03, E-2632/03, E-2633/03, E-2634/03, E-2635/03, E-2636/03, E-2637/03, E-2638/03, E-2639/03, E-2640/03, E-2641/03 and E-2642/03 |
| 2004/C 078E/0 | E-2645/03 by Eija-Riitta Korhola to the CommissionSubject: Amendment of Article 25(1) of the Kyoto Protocol regarding entry into force | 145 |
| 2004/C 078E/1 | P-2647/03 by Bart Staes to the CommissionSubject: Use of synthetic prohormones for livestock fattening | 146 |
| 2004/C 078E/2 | E-2651/03 by Phillip Whitehead to the CommissionSubject: Consumer involvement in the common implementation strategy for the Water Framework Directive 2000/60/EC | 147 |
| 2004/C 078E/3 | E-2663/03 by Ian Hudghton to the CommissionSubject: Illegal trade in ozone-depleting substances | 148 |
| 2004/C 078E/4 | E-2669/03 by Cristiana Muscardini to the CommissionSubject: ELSA laboratory — transport safety (JRC Ispra) | 149 |
| 2004/C 078E/5 | E-2678/03 by Caroline Jackson to the CommissionSubject: 1991 Nitrates Directive | 150 |
| 2004/C 078E/6 | P-2691/03 by Herbert Bösch to the CommissionSubject: EURES expenditure | 151 |
| 2004/C 078E/7 | P-2693/03 by Caroline Lucas to the CommissionSubject: GMOs | 152 |
| 2004/C 078E/8 | P-2695/03 by Raffaele Costa to the CommissionSubject: Implementation of the Promise programme | 154 |
| 2004/C 078E/9 | E-2702/03 by Bill Miller to the CommissionSubject: Illegally-sourced timber | 155 |
| 2004/C 078E/0 | E-2705/03 by Raffaele Costa to the CommissionSubject: Renewable energies | 156 |
| 2004/C 078E/1 | E-2708/03 by Raffaele Costa to the CommissionSubject: City-Res Network project | 157 |
| 2004/C 078E/2 | E-2732/03 by Herbert Bösch to the CommissionSubject: Possible conflict of interests at the Directorate-General for Competition | 158 |
| 2004/C 078E/3 | E-2736/03 by Glyn Ford to the CommissionSubject: Monkfish quotas | 159 |
| 2004/C 078E/4 | E-2739/03 by Bernd Lange to the CommissionSubject: Leader+: pre-financing by promoters | 160 |
| 2004/C 078E/5 | E-2745/03 by Joan Vallvé to the CommissionSubject: Environmental impact of the enlargement of Eivissa airport | 161 |
| 2004/C 078E/6 | E-2755/03 by Glyn Ford to the CommissionSubject: Requirement for nationality to be listed on driving licences | 162 |
| 2004/C 078E/7 | E-2765/03 by Raffaele Lombardo and Francesco Musotto to the CommissionSubject: Amending Regulation (EC) No 1623/2000 for the use of concentrated musts and rectified concentrated musts | 162 |
| 2004/C 078E/8 | E-2769/03 by Christopher Huhne to the CommissionSubject: Dangerous Goods Safety Advisor examinations | 163 |
| 2004/C 078E/9 | E-2770/03 by Robert Evans to the CommissionSubject: Personal injury awards | 164 |
| 2004/C 078E/0 | P-2776/03 by Hans Kronberger to the CommissionSubject: Conflict between the objectives of Directive 2001/77/EC on renewable energy and the implementation of the EU Water Framework Directive in Austria | 165 |
| 2004/C 078E/1 | P-2782/03 by Torben Lund to the CommissionSubject: EIA report and the Habitats Directive | 167 |
| 2004/C 078E/2 | E-2788/03 by Chris Davies to the CommissionSubject: Use of peat for electricity generation | 168 |
| 2004/C 078E/3 | E-2802/03 by Pedro Marset Campos to the CommissionSubject: Special tolls in France and Germany for the transport of goods by road | 169 |
| 2004/C 078E/4 | E-2805/03 by Avril Doyle to the CommissionSubject: Solar energy | 170 |
| 2004/C 078E/5 | E-2809/03 by Paulo Casaca to the CommissionSubject: Innovative actions in the fisheries sector, 2003/C 115/08 | 171 |
| 2004/C 078E/6 | P-2810/03 by Ari Vatanen to the CommissionSubject: Allowing longer truck combinations in Europe | 171 |
| 2004/C 078E/7 | P-2811/03 by Rosa Miguélez Ramos to the CommissionSubject: Situation of the Mauritanian fishing ground | 172 |
| 2004/C 078E/8 | E-2812/03 by Bernd Lange to the CommissionSubject: Revision of the Directive on driving licences — driving licences for light motorcycles | 174 |
| 2004/C 078E/9 | E-2813/03 by Bernd Lange to the CommissionSubject: Revision of the Directive on driving licences — eyesight requirements | 174 |
| 2004/C 078E/0 | P-2823/03 by Françoise Grossetête to the CommissionSubject: Annex to Directive 90/435/EEC | 175 |
| 2004/C 078E/1 | E-2845/03 by Isabelle Caullery to the CommissionSubject: EU enlargement and air transport | 176 |
| 2004/C 078E/2 | E-2846/03 by Isabelle Caullery to the CommissionSubject: European directive on transport infrastructure charging | 176 |
| 2004/C 078E/3 | P-2847/03 by Miquel Mayol i Raynal to the CommissionSubject: Plans to develop Salobrar de Campos — Es trenc | 177 |
| 2004/C 078E/4 | E-2849/03 by Stavros Xarchakos to the CommissionSubject: Complaints or infringements regarding the implementation of Greece of Community environmental legislation | 178 |
| 2004/C 078E/5 | E-2850/03 by Stavros Xarchakos to the CommissionSubject: Unsatisfactory performance by building and holiday home cooperatives in Greece | 179 |
| 2004/C 078E/6 | P-2855/03 by Christopher Huhne to the CommissionSubject: Biocidal Products Directive | 179 |
| 2004/C 078E/7 | E-2858/03 by Pierre Jonckheer to the CommissionSubject: Opencast mining in the north of León (Valle de Laciana district, Spain) | 180 |
| 2004/C 078E/8 | P-2864/03 by Maurizio Turco to the CommissionSubject: Data and sources indicating the role currently played by the Vatican's financial system in the payment of interest to natural persons | 182 |
| 2004/C 078E/9 | E-2865/03 by Elisabeth Schroedter and Inger Schörling to the CommissionSubject: Destruction of unique parts of the European natural heritage in Brandenburg, Federal Republic of Germany | 182 |
| 2004/C 078E/0 | E-2868/03 by Brice Hortefeux to the CommissionSubject: European electricity market | 184 |
| 2004/C 078E/1 | E-2886/03 by Charles Tannock to the CommissionSubject: Difficulties encountered in the liberalisation of the European rail freight sector | 185 |
| 2004/C 078E/2 | E-2887/03 by Bill Miller to the CommissionSubject: Animal by-products | 186 |
| 2004/C 078E/3 | E-2907/03 by Antonios Trakatellis to the CommissionSubject: Expenditure on and structural indicators for research and innovation in the EU and Greece | 186 |
| 2004/C 078E/4 | P-2909/03 by Olivier Dupuis to the CommissionSubject: Future status of Tibet | 187 |
| 2004/C 078E/5 | E-2921/03 by Glyn Ford to the CommissionSubject: Cotton subsidies | 188 |
| 2004/C 078E/6 | E-2924/03 by Salvador Garriga Polledo to the CommissionSubject: European Council to guarantee energy supplies | 190 |
| 2004/C 078E/7 | E-2927/03 by Michl Ebner to the CommissionSubject: Urgent need to expand voluntary fire services | 190 |
| 2004/C 078E/8 | E-2935/03 by Monica Frassoni and Guido Sacconi to the CommissionSubject: Inclusion of waste among the energy sources coming under the arrangements applying to renewable energy sources | 191 |
| 2004/C 078E/9 | E-2943/03 by Erik Meijer to the CommissionSubject: European taxpayers' contribution to promoting and maintaining bullfighting and other local traditions involving cruelty to animals | 193 |
| 2004/C 078E/0 | E-2946/03 by Dana Scallon to the CommissionSubject: Specific programme for research | 195 |
| 2004/C 078E/1 | P-2947/03 by Peter Liese to the CommissionSubject: Trupbach industrial estate | 195 |
| 2004/C 078E/2 | P-2948/03 by Christopher Heaton-Harris to the CommissionSubject: Whistleblowing provisions | 197 |
| 2004/C 078E/3 | P-2964/03 by Brigitte Langenhagen to the CommissionSubject: Digital recording equipment | 197 |
| 2004/C 078E/4 | E-2965/03 by Graham Watson to the CommissionSubject: Endometriosis research funding | 199 |
| 2004/C 078E/5 | E-2969/03 by Roberto Bigliardo to the CommissionSubject: Management of EUR 150000 of Community funds — involvement of a Romanian government minister | 199 |
| 2004/C 078E/6 | P-2971/03 by Alexander de Roo to the CommissionSubject: Toxic ships | 200 |
| 2004/C 078E/7 | P-2973/03 by Jean-Louis Bernié to the CommissionSubject: Marais Breton site — September 2003 | 203 |
| 2004/C 078E/8 | E-2980/03 by Konstantinos Hatzidakis to the CommissionSubject: Suspension of funding for public works studies in Greece from the Community budget | 204 |
| 2004/C 078E/9 | E-2982/03 by Mihail Papayannakis to the CommissionSubject: Stability pact | 205 |
| 2004/C 078E/0 | E-2983/03 by Mihail Papayannakis to the CommissionSubject: Instances of infringements of Community legislation on the environment | 206 |
| 2004/C 078E/1 | E-2984/03 by Christopher Huhne to the CommissionSubject: Building on seafronts | 207 |
| 2004/C 078E/2 | P-3010/03 by Adriana Poli Bortone to the CommissionSubject: Blackout in Italy | 208 |
| 2004/C 078E/3 | P-3011/03 by Elspeth Attwooll to the CommissionSubject: Fisheries: national boundaries within the EU's EEZ | 209 |
| 2004/C 078E/4 | E-3018/03 by Ilda Figueiredo to the CommissionSubject: Promotions within the Commission | 209 |
| 2004/C 078E/5 | E-3039/03 by Herbert Bösch to the CommissionSubject: Allegations of bribery made against journalists without any basis in fact | 210 |
| 2004/C 078E/6 | E-3044/03 by Graham Watson to the CommissionSubject: Τ Pods | 211 |
| 2004/C 078E/7 | E-3048/03 by Cristiana Muscardini to the CommissionSubject: Coordinating the fight against paedophilia | 211 |
| 2004/C 078E/8 | P-3052/03 by Alexandros Alavanos to the CommissionSubject: Suspension of the payment of Community appropriations for public works studies in Greece | 213 |
| 2004/C 078E/9 | E-3054/03 by Konstantinos Hatzidakis to the CommissionSubject: Replacement of the illegal waste dump at Kouroupitos | 214 |
| 2004/C 078E/0 | E-3055/03 by Margrietus van den Berg to the CommissionSubject: Accounting scandals and corporate governance | 215 |
| 2004/C 078E/1 | E-3058/03 by Gabriele Stauner to the CommissionSubject: Contradictions and inconsistencies in Commission and OLAF statements about the Datashop case | 216 |
| 2004/C 078E/2 | E-3070/03 by Christoph Konrad to the CommissionSubject: Distortions of competition caused by the German Foreign Trade Act | 217 |
| 2004/C 078E/3 | E-3072/03 by Konstantinos Hatzidakis to the CommissionSubject: Provision of the ADSL service in Greece | 218 |
| 2004/C 078E/4 | E-3073/03 by Ioannis Marínos to the CommissionSubject: Cost of bank transactions in Greece | 219 |
| 2004/C 078E/5 | E-3074/03 by Proinsias De Rossa to the CommissionSubject: Avermectin | 220 |
| 2004/C 078E/6 | E-3096/03 by Erik Meijer to the CommissionSubject: Protection of monopolies and high fares by means of aviation agreements with third countries and attempts by potential competitors to break such monopolies | 222 |
| 2004/C 078E/7 | E-3113/03 by Maurizio Turco to the CommissionSubject: Classification of the codes for the units of measurement of quantities exported shown on the Commission's database CATS (Clearance Audit Trail System) | 223 |
| 2004/C 078E/8 | E-3124/03 by Cristiana Muscardini to the CommissionSubject: Working languages | 224 |
| 2004/C 078E/9 | E-3126/03 by Astrid Thors to the CommissionSubject: The cross-border provision of gaming services for humanitarian causes | 225 |
| 2004/C 078E/0 | E-3130/03 by José Ribeiro e Castro to the CommissionSubject: Fisheries — OASIS — Oceanic Seamounts | 226 |
| 2004/C 078E/1 | E-3134/03 by José Ribeiro e Castro to the CommissionSubject: Holland — Ecstasy | 227 |
| 2004/C 078E/2 | E-3151/03 by Herman Schmid to the CommissionSubject: The perception of quality of life in the EU | 229 |
| 2004/C 078E/3 | E-3155/03 by Mogens Camre to the CommissionSubject: Competition-distorting customs duties on fish imported from Norway to Denmark | 230 |
| 2004/C 078E/4 | P-3160/03 by Ioannis Averoff to the CommissionSubject: Authorisation for the construction of a landfill site in the prefecture of Ioannina | 231 |
| 2004/C 078E/5 | P-3165/03 by Chris Davies to the CommissionSubject: Spanish Hydrological Plan (Pyrenees) | 233 |
| 2004/C 078E/6 | E-3169/03 by Michl Ebner to the CommissionSubject: Ban on dangerous dog breeds | 234 |
| 2004/C 078E/7 | E-3174/03 by Charles Tannock to the CommissionSubject: European film-making | 234 |
| 2004/C 078E/8 | P-3178/03 by Rosa Miguélez Ramos to the CommissionSubject: Damage caused by the Prestige: fresh evaluation and the Solidarity Fund | 236 |
| 2004/C 078E/9 | E-3187/03 by Geoffrey Van Orden to the CommissionSubject: Free movement of bankrupt persons in the EU | 237 |
| 2004/C 078E/0 | E-3192/03 by Roberta Angelilli to the CommissionSubject: Eurostat: clarification of President Prodi's powers of intervention | 237 |
| 2004/C 078E/1 | E-3198/03 by Olivier Dupuis to the CommissionSubject: Further camp closures and expulsions of refugees in Ingushetia | 239 |
| 2004/C 078E/2 | P-3201/03 by Antonio Tajani to the CommissionSubject: Search at the Ί1 Giornale' head office in Rome: violation of freedom of the press in Italy | 240 |
| 2004/C 078E/3 | E-3219/03 by Christopher Heaton-Harris to the CommissionSubject: Recognition of fire regulations in the EU | 240 |
| 2004/C 078E/4 | E-3231/03 by Dorette Corbey to the CommissionSubject: Allocation of subsidies under the fifth and sixth framework programmes | 241 |
| 2004/C 078E/5 | E-3255/03 by Marie Isler Béguin and Yves Piétrasanta to the CommissionSubject: Respect for rights and justice following the Bhopal tragedy in India | 243 |
| 2004/C 078E/6 | P-3258/03 by María Ayuso González to the CommissionSubject: Garlic import scheme | 244 |
| 2004/C 078E/7 | E-3260/03 by Michel Hansenne to the CommissionSubject: Approving the setting up of a driving school | 244 |
| 2004/C 078E/8 | E-3262/03 by Erik Meijer to the CommissionSubject: Exclusion of persons who are nationals of another Member State from the right to purchase soft drugs or to be members of a users' association | 245 |
| 2004/C 078E/9 | E-3268/03 by Christopher Huhne to the CommissionSubject: Commission employees | 246 |
| 2004/C 078E/0 | E-3273/03 by Bart Staes to the CommissionSubject: Emissions of refrigerant gases from (Dutch) ships | 246 |
| 2004/C 078E/1 | E-3278/03 by José Ribeiro e Castro to the CommissionSubject: Macao — Forum for Economic and Trade Cooperation | 248 |
| 2004/C 078E/2 | P-3279/03 by Maurizio Turco to the CommissionSubject: Quality checks by the Commission on the Clearance Audit Trail System (CATS) database | 249 |
| 2004/C 078E/3 | E-3280/03 by Maurizio Turco to the CommissionSubject: Lack of specific monitoring of product quantities exported from Member States to the Vatican City State under the export refund system | 252 |
| 2004/C 078E/4 | E-3281/03 by Bartho Pronk, Maria Martens and Albert Maat to the CommissionSubject: Follow-up to question E-1740/02 on the free movement of captains | 253 |
| 2004/C 078E/5 | P-3283/03 by Francesco Speroni to the CommissionSubject: Bananas | 255 |
| 2004/C 078E/6 | E-3293/03 by Claude Moraes to the CommissionSubject: Structural Funds | 255 |
| 2004/C 078E/7 | E-3304/03 by Claude Moraes to the CommissionSubject: Monitoring racial and ethnic discrimination at border controls | 256 |
| 2004/C 078E/8 | E-3317/03 by Íñigo Méndez de Vigo to the CommissionSubject: Cross-border payments | 257 |
| 2004/C 078E/9 | E-3320/03 by Glyn Ford to the CommissionSubject: Transit visas in the EU | 258 |
| 2004/C 078E/0 | P-3323/03 by Roberta Angelilli to the CommissionSubject: Suspected infringement of the rules on public contracts by ATAC in Rome | 259 |
| 2004/C 078E/1 | E-3327/03 by Albert Maat and Jan Mulder to the CommissionSubject: Histomoniasis (blackhead) | 260 |
| 2004/C 078E/2 | P-3332/03 by Herbert Bösch to the CommissionSubject: Export refunds for live cattle | 262 |
| 2004/C 078E/3 | P-3334/03 by Cristiana Muscardini to the CommissionSubject: Politically absurd opinion polls | 263 |
| 2004/C 078E/4 | E-3335/03 by Roberta Angelilli to the CommissionSubject: Editorial offices of the daily newspaper Ί1 Giornale' searched | 264 |
| 2004/C 078E/5 | E-3336/03 by Roberta Angelilli to the CommissionSubject: Suspected violation of the rights of the employees of Alcatel Italia S.p.A | 265 |
| 2004/C 078E/6 | E-3339/03 by Roberta Angelilli to the CommissionSubject: Possibility of funding for the health authority of Fiumicino — Rome XIII | 266 |
| 2004/C 078E/7 | E-3342/03 by Mogens Camre to the CommissionSubject: Financial aid to Danish immigrant associations | 267 |
| 2004/C 078E/8 | E-3348/03 by Johanna Boogerd-Quaak to the CommissionSubject: Project Gutenberg — making digital copies of books whose copyright has expired | 268 |
| 2004/C 078E/9 | E-3351/03 by Christoph Konrad to the CommissionSubject: Obstacles to the free movement of workers in the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg | 269 |
| 2004/C 078E/0 | E-3352/03 by Roger Helmer to the CommissionSubject: Single Market rules | 270 |
| 2004/C 078E/1 | E-3353/03 by Hiltrud Breyer to the CommissionSubject: Equal treatment of men and women in sport | 271 |
| 2004/C 078E/2 | E-3360/03 by Jean-Maurice Dehousse to the CommissionSubject: Free movement of persons | 271 |
| 2004/C 078E/3 | E-3362/03 by Koenraad Dillen to the CommissionSubject: Development of new nuclear power stations | 272 |
| 2004/C 078E/4 | E-3372/03 by Mogens Camre to the CommissionSubject: Denmark's prospects of renegotiating Protocol 16 | 273 |
| 2004/C 078E/5 | E-3378/03 by Marianne Thyssen to the CommissionSubject: European financial assistance to European contact points | 274 |
| 2004/C 078E/6 | E-3381/03 by David Martin to the CommissionSubject: Transportation of horses from Romania to Italy | 275 |
| 2004/C 078E/7 | E-3385/03 by Karin Junker to the CommissionSubject: Use of metal detectors in archaeology | 275 |
| 2004/C 078E/8 | E-3388/03 by Erik Meijer to the CommissionSubject: The gradual downgrading of the role played by national central banks following the establishment of the ECB and the implications for the prevention of the production and distribution of counterfeit money | 276 |
| 2004/C 078E/9 | E-3395/03 by Olivier Dupuis to the CommissionSubject: Freedom of movement for Kosovo citizens in the EU and the final status of Kosovo | 278 |
| 2004/C 078E/0 | E-3397/03 by Cristiana Muscardini to the CommissionSubject: Dental instruments and risk of infections | 279 |
| 2004/C 078E/1 | E-3406/03 by Antonios Trakatellis to the CommissionSubject: Installation and operation of mobile telephone antennae in Chortiatis | 280 |
| 2004/C 078E/2 | E-3412/03 by Olivier Dupuis to the CommissionSubject: EU funding of independent NGO projects in Tunisia | 282 |
| 2004/C 078E/3 | E-3434/03 by Stavros Xarchakos to the CommissionSubject: Protection of the Bauhaus style of architecture | 283 |
| 2004/C 078E/4 | E-3438/03 by Koenraad Dillen to the CommissionSubject: Renovation of the Berlaymont building | 284 |
| 2004/C 078E/5 | E-3445/03 by Ilda Figueiredo to the CommissionSubject: Support for non-autonomous handicapped people | 285 |
| 2004/C 078E/6 | E-3450/03 by Ilda Figueiredo to the CommissionSubject: Criteria for fisheries sector structural actions | 286 |
| 2004/C 078E/7 | E-3458/03 by Erik Meijer to the CommissionSubject: The final destruction of tropical rainforests and measures to prevent overlogging and imports of timber without an ecolabel | 287 |
| 2004/C 078E/8 | E-3461/03 by Peder Wachtmeister to the CommissionSubject: Corruption scandal within the Swedish retail monopoly undertaking Systembolaget AB | 288 |
| 2004/C 078E/9 | E-3469/03 by Bart Staes, Phillip Whitehead, Catherine Stihler and Margrietus van den Berg to the CommissionSubject: Post-polio syndrome | 289 |
| 2004/C 078E/0 | E-3480/03 by Catherine Stihler to the CommissionSubject: Civil rights of disabled people | 290 |
| 2004/C 078E/1 | E-3483/03 by Richard Corbett to the CommissionSubject: Use of documents as evidence of criminal activity | 291 |
| 2004/C 078E/2 | E-3489/03 by Ilda Figueiredo to the CommissionSubject: Stepping up supplies to the Sinaga's sugar production units — Azores Autonomous Region | 292 |
| 2004/C 078E/3 | P-3492/03 by José Ribeiro e Castro to the CommissionSubject: Romano Prodi — Manifesto | 292 |
| 2004/C 078E/4 | E-3498/03 by José Ribeiro e Castro to the CommissionSubject: Iran — nuclear energy | 293 |
| 2004/C 078E/5 | E-3503/03 by Emmanouil Bakopoulos to the CommissionSubject: Stray dogs and the Olympic Games | 294 |
| 2004/C 078E/6 | P-3509/03 by Helmuth Markov to the CommissionSubject: Interreg IIIA: Future funding of Euroregion offices | 294 |
| 2004/C 078E/7 | E-3530/03 by Claude Moraes to the CommissionSubject: Health and safety for the elderly and disabled | 295 |
| 2004/C 078E/8 | E-3534/03 by José Ribeiro e Castro to the CommissionSubject: Portuguese workers abroad | 296 |
| 2004/C 078E/9 | E-3535/03 by José Ribeiro e Castro to the CommissionSubject: Humana Milchunion — infant health | 297 |
| 2004/C 078E/0 | E-3545/03 by Alexander de Roo, Karl-Heinz Florenz and Chris Davies to the CommissionSubject: Transposition of the directive on waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE) in France | 298 |
| 2004/C 078E/1 | E-3556/03 by Rosa Miguélez Ramos to the CommissionSubject: Projects co-funded by the ERDF in Lobios in Ourense, Spain | 299 |
| 2004/C 078E/2 | E-3588/03 by José Ribeiro e Castro to the CommissionSubject: Mozambique — elections | 300 |
| 2004/C 078E/3 | P-3595/03 by Claude Moraes to the CommissionSubject: Disability | 301 |
| 2004/C 078E/4 | E-3610/03 by Jan Mulder to the CommissionSubject: Circumvention of sugar import tariffs | 302 |
| 2004/C 078E/5 | P-3618/03 by Stavros Xarchakos to the CommissionSubject: Building cooperatives in Greece | 303 |
| 2004/C 078E/6 | E-3637/03 by Torben Lund to the CommissionSubject: Working environment for employees handling preservatives | 304 |
| 2004/C 078E/7 | E-3639/03 by Michl Ebner to the CommissionSubject: Pollution in Wipp and Eisack valleys (Austria and Italy) | 305 |
| 2004/C 078E/8 | E-3642/03 by Baroness Sarah Ludford to the CommissionSubject: Eurobarometer poll | 306 |
| 2004/C 078E/9 | E-3658/03 by Glyn Ford to the CommissionSubject: Ban Bullying Day — future action | 307 |
| 2004/C 078E/0 | E-3659/03 by Glyn Ford to the CommissionSubject: Free movement of goods and services | 308 |
| 2004/C 078E/1 | E-3662/03 by Glyn Ford to the CommissionSubject: Botswanan beef, wildlife and sustainable development | 309 |
| 2004/C 078E/2 | E-3664/03 by Glenys Kinnock to the CommissionSubject: Women's reproductive health | 310 |
| 2004/C 078E/3 | P-3666/03 by Mario Mantovani to the CommissionSubject: Health services and free movement of patients | 311 |
| 2004/C 078E/4 | P-3693/03 by Armin Laschet to the CommissionSubject: Unpublished study on anti-Semitism drawn up by the EUMC | 313 |
| 2004/C 078E/5 | P-3696/03 by Anna Karamanou to the CommissionSubject: Balanced participation of women and men in the decision-making process | 314 |
| 2004/C 078E/6 | P-3761/03 by Astrid Thors to the CommissionSubject: Obligation to destroy horses where nandrolon has been used | 315 |
| 2004/C 078E/7 | E-3764/03 by Alexander de Roo to the CommissionSubject: Spanish Hydrological Plan: cost of water transferred, and the recovery of funding | 316 |
| 2004/C 078E/8 | E-3765/03 by Roberta Angelilli to the CommissionSubject: Update on the use of funds from the Leonardo programme for the Carrara municipality | 317 |
| 2004/C 078E/9 | E-3766/03 by Roberta Angelilli to the CommissionSubject: Update on the use of funds from the Leonardo programme for the Florence municipality | 317 |
| 2004/C 078E/0 | E-3767/03 by Roberta Angelilli to the CommissionSubject: Update on the use of funds from the Leonardo programme for the Livorno municipality | 318 |
| 2004/C 078E/1 | E-3768/03 by Roberta Angelilli to the CommissionSubject: Update on the use of funds from the Leonardo programme for the Macerata municipality | 318 |
| 2004/C 078E/2 | E-3769/03 by Roberta Angelilli to the CommissionSubject: Update on the use of funds from the Leonardo programme for the Massa municipality | 318 |
| 2004/C 078E/3 | E-3770/03 by Roberta Angelilli to the CommissionSubject: Update on the use of funds from the Leonardo programme for the Perugia municipality | 319 |
| 2004/C 078E/4 | E-3771/03 by Roberta Angelilli to the CommissionSubject: Update on the use of funds from the Leonardo programme for the Pistoia municipality | 319 |
| 2004/C 078E/5 | E-3772/03 by Roberta Angelilli to the CommissionSubject: Update on the use of funds from the Leonardo programme for the Prato municipality | 319 |
| 2004/C 078E/6 | E-3773/03 by Roberta Angelilli to the CommissionSubject: Update on the use of funds from the Leonardo programme for the Siena municipality | 320 |
| 2004/C 078E/7 | E-3774/03 by Roberta Angelilli to the CommissionSubject: Update on the use of funds from the Leonardo programme for the Terni municipality | 320 |
| 2004/C 078E/8 | E-3775/03 by Roberta Angelilli to the CommissionSubject: Update on the use of funds from the Leonardo programme for the Ancona municipality | 320 |
| 2004/C 078E/9 | E-3793/03 by Roberta Angelilli to the CommissionSubject: Update on funding for the city of Pisa under the Leonardo programme | 321 |
| Joint answer to Written Questions E-3765/03, E-3766/03, E-3767/03, E-3768/03, E-3769/03, E-3770/03, E-3771/03, E-3772/03, E-3773/03, E-3774/03, E-3775/03 and E-3793/03 |
| 2004/C 078E/0 | E-3794/03 by Chris Davies to the CommissionSubject: Fisheries certification | 321 |
| 2004/C 078E/1 | E-3798/03 by Roberta Angelilli to the CommissionSubject: Update on use of funding from the Culture 2000 programme by the municipality of Ancona | 322 |
| 2004/C 078E/2 | E-3799/03 by Roberta Angelilli to the CommissionSubject: Update on use of funding from the Culture 2000 programme by the municipality of Pisa | 322 |
| 2004/C 078E/3 | E-3800/03 by Roberta Angelilli to the CommissionSubject: Update on use of funding from the Culture 2000 programme by the municipality of Pistoia | 322 |
| 2004/C 078E/4 | E-3801/03 by Roberta Angelilli to the CommissionSubject: Update on use of funding from the Culture 2000 programme by the municipality of Prato | 323 |
| 2004/C 078E/5 | E-3802/03 by Roberta Angelilli to the CommissionSubject: Update on use of funding from the Culture 2000 programme by the municipality of Siena | 323 |
| 2004/C 078E/6 | E-3803/03 by Roberta Angelilli to the CommissionSubject: Update on use of funding from the Culture 2000 programme by the municipality of Terni | 323 |
| 2004/C 078E/7 | E-3804/03 by Roberta Angelilli to the CommissionSubject: Update on use of funding from the Culture 2000 programme by the municipality of Perugia | 323 |
| 2004/C 078E/8 | E-3805/03 by Roberta Angelilli to the CommissionSubject: Update on use of funding from the Culture 2000 programme by the municipality of Carrara | 324 |
| 2004/C 078E/9 | E-3806/03 by Roberta Angelilli to the CommissionSubject: Update on use of funding from the Culture 2000 programme by the municipality of Florence | 324 |
| 2004/C 078E/0 | E-3807/03 by Roberta Angelilli to the CommissionSubject: Update on use of funding from the Culture 2000 programme by the municipality of Livorno | 324 |
| 2004/C 078E/1 | E-3808/03 by Roberta Angelilli to the CommissionSubject: Update on use of funding from the Culture 2000 programme by the municipality of Macerata | 324 |
| 2004/C 078E/2 | E-3809/03 by Roberta Angelilli to the CommissionSubject: Update on use of funding from the Culture 2000 programme by the municipality of Massa | 325 |
| Joint answer to Written Questions E-3798/03, E-3799/03, E-3800/03, E-3801/03, E-3802/03, E-3803/03, E-3804/03, E-3805/03, E-3806/03, E-3807/03, E-3808/03 and E-3809/03 |
| 2004/C 078E/3 | P-3810/03 by Mogens Camre to the CommissionSubject: EU rules on discarding healthy fish | 325 |
| 2004/C 078E/4 | P-3835/03 by Mihail Papayannakis to the CommissionSubject: Implementation of Directive 89/48/EEC | 327 |
| 2004/C 078E/5 | E-3838/03 by Emmanouil Bakopoulos to the CommissionSubject: Stray animals in Greece | 328 |
| 2004/C 078E/6 | E-3867/03 by Richard Corbett to the CommissionSubject: Timeshare and holiday club study | 328 |
| 2004/C 078E/7 | E-3883/03 by Roberta Angelilli to the CommissionSubject: Alcatel Italia: Community funding for telecommunications | 330 |
| 2004/C 078E/8 | E-3884/03 by Roberta Angelilli to the CommissionSubject: Alcatel Italia: suspected infringement of rules on funding granted by the EU | 331 |
| 2004/C 078E/9 | E-3885/03 by Roberta Angelilli to the CommissionSubject: Alcatel Italia: possible checks on funding granted by the EU | 331 |
| 2004/C 078E/0 | P-3890/03 by Stavros Xarchakos to the CommissionSubject: Recognition in Greece of diplomas of Community universities | 332 |
| 2004/C 078E/1 | P-3892/03 by Nicole Thomas-Mauro to the CommissionSubject: Opinion of AFSSA | 333 |
| 2004/C 078E/2 | E-3901/03 by Roberta Angelilli to the CommissionSubject: President Prodi's involvement in Italian politics | 334 |
| 2004/C 078E/3 | P-3911/03 by María Valenciano Martínez-Orozco to the CommissionSubject: Discrimination against minors with regard to access to sporting federations in Spain | 335 |
| 2004/C 078E/4 | P-3925/03 by Raina Echerer to the CommissionSubject: Cat and dog furs — internal market | 336 |
| 2004/C 078E/5 | P-4008/03 by Fernando Fernández Martín to the CommissionSubject: Powerline Communications Systems | 337 |
| 2004/C 078E/6 | P-0001/04 by Maurizio Turco to the CommissionSubject: Refunds for exports to the Vatican City State | 338 |
| | WRITTEN QUESTIONS WITH ANSWER (Part 2) |
| 2004/C 078E/7 | E-1653/01 by Professor Sir Neil MacCormick to the CommissionSubject: Restitution of property in the applicant countries | 340 |
| 2004/C 078E/8 | P-1721/01 by Ilda Figueiredo to the CommissionSubject: Net budget transfers | 340 |
| 2004/C 078E/9 | E-1746/01 by Alexandros Alavanos to the CommissionSubject: Completion of construction of hospitals at Katerini, Pyrgos and Corfu | 341 |
| 2004/C 078E/0 | E-1897/01 by Charles Tannock to the CommissionSubject: The legal basis for the Commission's proposals on the setting-up and funding of pan-European political parties | 342 |
| 2004/C 078E/1 | P-2120/01 by Hans Modrow to the CommissionSubject: Extradition of Milosevic to the Hague tribunal | 343 |
| 2004/C 078E/2 | E-3711/01 by Jonas Sjöstedt to the CommissionSubject: New trade agreement with the USA | 343 |
| 2004/C 078E/3 | E-0684/02 by Erik Meijer to the CommissionSubject: Moldova — the poorest country in Europe — and the striking difference in its treatment by the EU in comparison with the Baltic States | 344 |
| 2004/C 078E/4 | E-0685/02 by Erik Meijer to the CommissionSubject: Adverse impact on the EU Member States of constant discrimination against Moldova and its exceptional status | 345 |
| Joint answer to Written Questions E-0684/02 and E-0685/02 |
| 2004/C 078E/5 | E-3467/02 by Graham Watson to the CommissionSubject: Effective treatment of tuberculosis — progress | 346 |
| 2004/C 078E/6 | E-3561/02 by Chris Davies to the CommissionSubject: Bush meat | 348 |
| 2004/C 078E/7 | E-3630/02 by Bill Newton Dunn to the CommissionSubject: Limit to the number of cigarettes one may take out of Spain | 350 |
| 2004/C 078E/8 | E-3647/02 by Hanja Maij-Weggen to the CommissionSubject: UPDF prisoners in Uganda | 350 |
| 2004/C 078E/9 | P-3769/02 by Caroline Lucas to the CommissionSubject: GATS | 351 |
| 2004/C 078E/0 | E-3863/02 by Graham Watson to the CommissionSubject: North Korean refugees | 352 |
| 2004/C 078E/1 | E-3882/02 by Helle Thorning-Schmidt to the CommissionSubject: Mexico's free-trade agreement and violation of human rights | 353 |
| 2004/C 078E/2 | E-3900/02 by Lennart Sacrédeus to the CommissionSubject: Treatment and life situation of girls and women in Afghanistan | 354 |
| 2004/C 078E/3 | P-0327/03 by Helena Torres Marques to the CommissionSubject: Implementation of Regulation (EC) No 2560/2001 on crossborder payments in euro | 354 |
| 2004/C 078E/4 | E-0426/03 by Anna Karamanou to the CommissionSubject: Violation of human rights in Chechnya | 355 |
| 2004/C 078E/5 | E-0521/03 by Miet Smet to the CommissionSubject: Women's rights in Pakistan | 356 |
| 2004/C 078E/6 | E-0586/03 by Stavros Xarchakos to the CommissionSubject: Reduction of VAT on CDs | 358 |
| 2004/C 078E/7 | E-0819/03 by Ole Krarup to the CommissionSubject: GM crops and liability | 358 |
| 2004/C 078E/8 | E-0906/03 by José Ribeiro e Castro to the CommissionSubject: Cuba; Cotonou Agreement; Human rights | 359 |
| 2004/C 078E/9 | E-1141/03 by Stavros Xarchakos to the CommissionSubject: Infrastructural damage caused by landslides in Greece | 360 |
| 2004/C 078E/0 | E-1143/03 by Christopher Huhne to the CommissionSubject: Accessibility of digital services for the visually impaired | 361 |
| 2004/C 078E/1 | E-1230/03 by Freddy Blak to the CommissionSubject: Enhanced legal cooperation | 362 |
| 2004/C 078E/2 | E-1232/03 by Nicholas Clegg to the CommissionSubject: Member States' policies on airport expansion | 363 |
| 2004/C 078E/3 | E-1272/03 by Hanja Maij-Weggen to the CommissionSubject: Discrimination in the treatment of citizens of EU Member States by the Turkish government | 363 |
| 2004/C 078E/4 | E-1278/03 by Dana Scallon to the CommissionSubject: Uniates in Romania | 364 |
| 2004/C 078E/5 | E-1322/03 by José Ribeiro e Castro to the CommissionSubject: Zimbabwe: land, violence and nepotism | 365 |
| 2004/C 078E/6 | E-1364/03 by Maurizio Turco to the CommissionSubject: Exploitation of Community citizens by the Vatican City State | 367 |
| 2004/C 078E/7 | E-1416/03 by Erik Meijer to the CommissionSubject: Bank sentenced to pay compensation to clients for having provided information to the tax authorities of their Member State | 367 |
| 2004/C 078E/8 | E-1418/03 by Maria Carrilho to the CommissionSubject: Revision of the Europe-Asia strategic framework | 368 |
| 2004/C 078E/9 | E-1451/03 by Hiltrud Breyer to the CommissionSubject: Cooperation with the Slovak Institute of Metrology | 369 |
| 2004/C 078E/0 | E-1517/03 by Glenys Kinnock to the CommissionSubject: Economic Partnership Agreements | 370 |
| 2004/C 078E/1 | E-1526/03 by Erik Meijer to the CommissionSubject: Failure to remove blue and brown asbestos from contaminated flats, workshops and other buildings in EU accession State Hungary | 371 |
| 2004/C 078E/2 | E-1540/03 by Proinsias De Rossa to the CommissionSubject: Trade in equipment which could be used for torture or capital punishment | 372 |
| 2004/C 078E/3 | E-1541/03 by Proinsias De Rossa to the CommissionSubject: Outlawing the production of equipment for capital punishment and torture | 373 |
| 2004/C 078E/4 | E-1542/03 by Proinsias De Rossa to the CommissionSubject: Control of trade in products that may be used to inflict torture | 373 |
| 2004/C 078E/5 | E-1543/03 by Proinsias De Rossa to the CommissionSubject: Production of equipment and products for capital punishment or torture | 373 |
| Joint answer to Written Questions E-1540/03, E-1541/03, E-1542/03 and E-1543/03 |
| 2004/C 078E/6 | P-1594/03 by Emilio Menéndez del Valle to the CommissionSubject: EC-Israel trade agreement | 374 |
| 2004/C 078E/7 | P-1595/03 by Helena Torres Marques to the CommissionSubject: Cross-border payments in euro | 375 |
| 2004/C 078E/8 | P-1632/03 by Renato Brunetta to the CommissionSubject: Sale of the Vittoriosa Gaming company by the Casinò Municipale di Venezia | 375 |
| 2004/C 078E/9 | E-1636/03 by Bartho Pronk to the CommissionSubject: Sixth VAT Directive | 376 |
| 2004/C 078E/0 | E-1647/03 by Erik Meijer to the CommissionSubject: Way in which EU funds for integrating Roma in Bulgaria and improving their living conditions are used and managed | 378 |
| 2004/C 078E/1 | P-1653/03 by Joost Lagendijk to the CommissionSubject: European Civil Peace Corps — current developments — mainstreaming of conflict prevention in external EU policies | 379 |
| 2004/C 078E/2 | P-1661/03 by Luigi Vinci to the CommissionSubject: Trial of Leyla Zana | 380 |
| 2004/C 078E/3 | E-1668/03 by Charles Tannock to the CommissionSubject: Human rights abuses in the Western Sahara | 381 |
| 2004/C 078E/4 | E-1669/03 by Jean Lambert to the CommissionSubject: Baku-Ceyhun oil pipeline | 382 |
| 2004/C 078E/5 | E-1689/03 by Anders Wijkman to the CommissionSubject: Bushmeat | 383 |
| 2004/C 078E/6 | E-1739/03 by Salvador Garriga Polledo to the CommissionSubject: European Union unit to work for the release of kidnapped European tourists | 384 |
| 2004/C 078E/7 | E-1763/03 by Torben Lund to the CommissionSubject: Legislation in the EU, the Member States and the applicant countries concerning horse-keeping | 385 |
| 2004/C 078E/8 | E-1777/03 by Claude Moraes to the CommissionSubject: Veria Justice and Home Affairs Council | 386 |
| 2004/C 078E/9 | E-1827/03 by Alexandros Alavanos to the CommissionSubject: Reduced VAT on the rent or purchase of video cassettes and DVDs | 386 |
| 2004/C 078E/0 | E-1832/03 by Konstantinos Hatzidakis to the CommissionSubject: Substandard workmanship in Greece | 387 |
| 2004/C 078E/1 | E-1838/03 by Roger Helmer, Charles Tannock, Sir Robert Atkins, Giles Chichester, Hartmut Nassauer and Jules Maaten to the CommissionSubject: Free Trade Agreement between Singapore and the EU | 388 |
| 2004/C 078E/2 | P-1839/03 by Ilka Schröder to the CommissionSubject: EU relations with Syria and association agreement | 389 |
| 2004/C 078E/3 | E-1854/03 by Stavros Xarchakos to the CommissionSubject: Landslides in Greece and infrastructural damage | 390 |
| 2004/C 078E/4 | E-1869/03 by Christopher Huhne to the CommissionSubject: Pension losses | 391 |
| 2004/C 078E/5 | E-1873/03 by Christopher Huhne to the CommissionSubject: Listing requirements | 392 |
| 2004/C 078E/6 | E-1882/03 by Christopher Huhne to the CommissionSubject: Trade impact of euro | 393 |
| 2004/C 078E/7 | P-1979/03 by Ian Hudghton to the CommissionSubject: Synthetic progestins in contraceptive pills and Hormone Replacement Therapy | 394 |
| 2004/C 078E/8 | E-2121/03 by Isabelle Caullery to the CommissionSubject: Developing infrastructure and promoting employment in Madagascar | 395 |
| 2004/C 078E/9 | E-2123/03 by Isabelle Caullery to the CommissionSubject: Promotion of renewable energy sources and waste processing in Mauritius | 396 |
| 2004/C 078E/0 | E-2143/03 by Gabriele Stauner to the CommissionSubject: Commission contracts with the Planistat Group | 397 |
| 2004/C 078E/1 | E-2173/03 by Paulo Casaca to the CommissionSubject: Compliance with EU legislation on asbestos (Supplementary Answer) | 399 |
| 2004/C 078E/2 | E-2211/03 by Claude Moraes to the CommissionSubject: Progress on asylum at Thessaloniki | 400 |
| 2004/C 078E/3 | E-2212/03 by Piia-Noora Kauppi to the CommissionSubject: Increasing EU citizens' opportunities for influence and participation through interactive information technology | 401 |
| 2004/C 078E/4 | E-2293/03 by Erik Meijer to the CommissionSubject: Discontinuation of cross-border night-trains within the EU, in response to free market pressures, leading to high ticket prices for journeys using the rail networks of other Member States | 402 |
| 2004/C 078E/5 | E-2405/03 by Bart Staes to the CommissionSubject: Motor-vehicle insurance | 403 |
| 2004/C 078E/6 | E-2406/03 by Bart Staes to the CommissionSubject: Motor-vehicle insurance | 404 |
| 2004/C 078E/7 | E-2407/03 by Bart Staes to the CommissionSubject: Motor-vehicle insurance | 405 |
| Joint answer to Written Questions E-2405/03, E-2406/03 and E-2407/03 |
| 2004/C 078E/8 | P-2460/03 by Patricia McKenna to the CommissionSubject: Anti-competitive actions of the Irish State in the electricity market | 407 |
| 2004/C 078E/9 | E-2537/03 by Ilda Figueiredo to the CommissionSubject: Net contribution to the common agricultural policy (Supplementary Answer) | 407 |
| 2004/C 078E/0 | E-2580/03 by Erik Meijer to the CommissionSubject: Expectations of an increase in the production of counterfeit euro bank notes in thinly-populated countries where the euro is important as a parallel currency (Supplementary Answer) | 408 |
| 2004/C 078E/1 | E-2601/03 by Roberta Angelilli to the CommissionSubject: Refurbishment of the historic town centre of Rieti | 410 |
| 2004/C 078E/2 | E-2649/03 by Paul Rübig to the CommissionSubject: Comparison of electricity network tariffs in the Commission's second benchmarking report | 411 |
| 2004/C 078E/3 | E-2650/03 by Theresa Villiers to the CommissionSubject: Working Time Directive | 412 |
| 2004/C 078E/4 | E-2662/03 by Ian Hudghton to the CommissionSubject: Ozone-depleting substances | 413 |
| 2004/C 078E/5 | E-2666/03 by Jean Lambert to the CommissionSubject: Recycling print catridges | 413 |
| 2004/C 078E/6 | E-2670/03 by Giovanni Pittella to the CommissionSubject: Ban on simultaneous enrolment at several institutes of higher education | 415 |
| 2004/C 078E/7 | P-2672/03 by Chris Davies to the CommissionSubject: Allocation of slots at airports | 416 |
| 2004/C 078E/8 | E-2689/03 by Toine Manders to the CommissionSubject: GSM roaming tariffs | 416 |
| 2004/C 078E/9 | E-2711/03 by Kathleen Van Brempt to the CommissionSubject: Free-base nicotine | 418 |
| 2004/C 078E/0 | E-2716/03 by Kathleen Van Brempt to the CommissionSubject: Radar detectors (Supplementary Answer) | 419 |
| 2004/C 078E/1 | P-2722/03 by Joan Colom i Naval to the CommissionSubject: Application of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2158 on protection of the Community's forests against fire | 420 |
| 2004/C 078E/2 | P-2746/03 by Luigi Vinci to the CommissionSubject: Infringements of European legislation on special conservation areas and sites of Community importance and the use of European funding for the reforestation of the Alta Murgia (Bari) | 421 |
| 2004/C 078E/3 | E-2771/03 by Glyn Ford to the CommissionSubject: European Project Funding for Enable project | 423 |
| 2004/C 078E/4 | E-2772/03 by Glyn Ford to the CommissionSubject: Levels of professional indemnity cover for small insurance firms | 424 |
| 2004/C 078E/5 | E-2779/03 by Erik Meijer to the CommissionSubject: Increase in the volume of mail and freight transported by rail in Germany and measures to promote a similar increase in other Member States | 425 |
| 2004/C 078E/6 | P-2780/03 by António Campos to the CommissionSubject: Forest fires in the Union | 426 |
| 2004/C 078E/7 | E-2789/03 by Eija-Riitta Korhola to the CommissionSubject: Banking rules in EU emissions trading: Member States' right to bank emission allowances | 428 |
| 2004/C 078E/8 | E-2790/03 by Eija-Riitta Korhola to the CommissionSubject: Banking rules in EU emissions trading: invariability of AAU (BSA) amounts | 429 |
| 2004/C 078E/9 | E-2791/03 by Eija-Riitta Korhola to the CommissionSubject: Problem of double accounting in emissions trading | 429 |
| 2004/C 078E/0 | E-2792/03 by Eija-Riitta Korhola to the CommissionSubject: Opportunities for aggressive speculation in emissions trading | 430 |
| 2004/C 078E/1 | E-2793/03 by Eija-Riitta Korhola to the CommissionSubject: Definition of hot air and ban under the Kyoto Protocol | 430 |
| 2004/C 078E/2 | E-2794/03 by Eija-Riitta Korhola to the CommissionSubject: Publication of the EU's Kyoto target as a five-year moving average | 431 |
| 2004/C 078E/3 | E-2795/03 by Eija-Riitta Korhola to the CommissionSubject: Emissions trading: problem of period-based allocation | 431 |
| Joint answer to Written Questions E-2789/03, E-2790/03, E-2791/03, E-2792/03, E-2793/03, E-2794/03 and E-2795/03 |
| 2004/C 078E/4 | P-2799/03 by Domenico Mennitti to the CommissionSubject: Development of Pan-European corridors | 433 |
| 2004/C 078E/5 | E-2819/03 by Proinsias De Rossa to the CommissionSubject: Environmental impact assessments in Ireland | 434 |
| 2004/C 078E/6 | E-2826/03 by Kathleen Van Brempt to the CommissionSubject: Eco-driving | 434 |
| 2004/C 078E/7 | E-2827/03 by Kathleen Van Brempt to the CommissionSubject: Isolation units in hospitals | 435 |
| 2004/C 078E/8 | E-2832/03 by Camilo Nogueira Román to the CommissionSubject: Compliance with of the Stability and Growth Pact | 436 |
| 2004/C 078E/9 | E-2851/03 by Monica Frassoni to the CommissionSubject: Building of a road without an environmental impact assessment in the proposed site of Community interest — the Triassic chalk outcrops in the Tuscan and Emilian Apennines (Villa Minozzo, RE, Italy) | 438 |
| 2004/C 078E/0 | E-2853/03 by Richard Corbett to the CommissionSubject: Port Services Directive: attacks on Parliament by Commission official | 439 |
| 2004/C 078E/1 | E-2877/03 by Jan Dhaene to the CommissionSubject: The Sentiers de l'Europe international architecture competition and Place Jean Rey | 440 |
| 2004/C 078E/2 | E-2895/03 by Dana Scallon to the CommissionSubject: Irish sheep farmers | 440 |
| 2004/C 078E/3 | E-2903/03 by Miet Smet to the CommissionSubject: Suspension of cooperation agreements and postponement of their signature | 441 |
| 2004/C 078E/4 | P-2916/03 by Marianne Thyssen to the CommissionSubject: Community financial assistance for transnational producer organisations | 442 |
| 2004/C 078E/5 | E-2959/03 by Armando Cossutta to the CommissionSubject: Risks of electricity blackouts | 443 |
| 2004/C 078E/6 | E-2966/03 by Brian Simpson to the CommissionSubject: Spanish National Hydrological Plan: the impact of the La Brena dam project on the Iberian lynx and protected raptors | 444 |
| 2004/C 078E/7 | P-2975/03 by Freddy Blak to the CommissionSubject: Contracts with CESD | 445 |
| 2004/C 078E/8 | E-2994/03 by Bernhard Rapkay to the CommissionSubject: EU funding for Nordrhein-Westfalen for the years 2001 and 2002 (Supplementary Answer) | 447 |
| 2004/C 078E/9 | E-2996/03 by Christopher Huhne to the CommissionSubject: Standardisation of computer dates | 447 |
| 2004/C 078E/0 | E-3007/03 by Giacomo Santini to the CommissionSubject: Role of the European Rural Carrefours in CAP information campaigns | 448 |
| 2004/C 078E/1 | P-3068/03 by Hugues Martin to the CommissionSubject: Funding of bodies which play host to an Info-Point Europe | 448 |
| 2004/C 078E/2 | E-3112/03 by Giacomo Santini, Elena Paciotti, Luciana Sbarbati, Giovanni Pittella, Generoso Andria, Enrico Ferri, Carlo Fatuzzo, Gianfranco Dell'Alba, Roberta Angelilli, Stefano Zappalà, Paolo Pastorelli, Antonio Di Pietro, Mauro Nobilia, Sebastiano Musumeci, Michl Ebner, Roberto Bigliardo, Catherine Guy-Quint, Adriana Poli Bortone, Fiorella Ghilardotti, Monica Frassoni, Franz Turchi, Massimo Carraro, Guido Bodrato, Francesco Musotto, Vincenzo Lavarra, Vitaliano Gemelli and Giovanni Fava to the CommissionSubject: EU information policy — legal basis for the European Carrefours ruraux and Info-Points Europe — urgent need for operational subsidy for 2004 | 449 |
| 2004/C 078E/3 | P-3153/03 by Evelyne Gebhardt to the CommissionSubject: EU Info-Points | 450 |
| 2004/C 078E/4 | E-3240/03 by Thierry Cornillet to the CommissionSubject: Abolition of operating grants for Europe Info-Points | 450 |
| 2004/C 078E/5 | P-3265/03 by Maria Sanders-ten Holte to the CommissionSubject: Info-Points and Carrefours | 451 |
| 2004/C 078E/6 | E-3287/03 by Brice Hortefeux to the CommissionSubject: Europe Houses | 451 |
| 2004/C 078E/7 | E-3301/03 by Nicole Thomas-Mauro to the CommissionSubject: Info-points Europe | 452 |
| 2004/C 078E/8 | Ρ-3389/03 by John Hume to the CommissionSubject: European Carrefours | 452 |
| 2004/C 078E/9 | P-3403/03 by John Cushnahan to the CommissionSubject: Funding for European Carrefour | 452 |
| Supplementary joint answer to Written Questions E-3007/03, P-3068/03, E-3112/03, P-3153/03, E-3240/03, P-3265/03, E-3287/03, E-3301/03, P-3389/03 and P-3403/03 |
| 2004/C 078E/0 | E-3012/03 by Jaime Valdivielso de Cué to the CommissionSubject: Wine | 454 |
| 2004/C 078E/1 | E-3030/03 by Ilda Figueiredo to the CommissionSubject: Use of hydraulic dredges in the EU | 454 |
| 2004/C 078E/2 | P-3037/03 by Hiltrud Breyer to the CommissionSubject: Breach of EU environmental legislation in the expansion of Frankfurt airport | 455 |
| 2004/C 078E/3 | E-3059/03 by Avril Doyle to the CommissionSubject: EU funding for marine conservation | 456 |
| 2004/C 078E/4 | E-3062/03 by Cristiana Muscardini to the CommissionSubject: Improving water networks | 457 |
| 2004/C 078E/5 | P-3069/03 by Luciana Sbarbati to the CommissionSubject: Adriatic Corridor | 459 |
| 2004/C 078E/6 | P-3077/03 by Torben Lund to the CommissionSubject: Failure to implement Directive 2000/53/EC on end-of-life vehicles | 460 |
| 2004/C 078E/7 | E-3086/03 by Bruno Gollnisch to the CommissionSubject: Tobacco trade/France | 461 |
| 2004/C 078E/8 | E-3087/03 by Bruno Gollnisch to the CommissionSubject: Commission criteria on concentrations | 462 |
| 2004/C 078E/9 | E-3099/03 by Jonas Sjöstedt to the CommissionSubject: Aid for the farming of mussels | 464 |
| 2004/C 078E/0 | E-3106/03 by María Bergaz Conesa to the CommissionSubject: The Júcar-Vinalopó water diversion project | 465 |
| 2004/C 078E/1 | E-3128/03 by Jaime Valdivielso de Cué to the CommissionSubject: Trade | 467 |
| 2004/C 078E/2 | E-3131/03 by José Ribeiro e Castro to the CommissionSubject: Sorraia horses | 467 |
| 2004/C 078E/3 | P-3135/03 by Patricia McKenna to the CommissionSubject: Disposal of toxic ships | 469 |
| 2004/C 078E/4 | E-3138/03 by Mihail Papayannakis to the CommissionSubject: Atmospheric pollution in Thessaloniki | 470 |
| 2004/C 078E/5 | E-3140/03 by Koenraad Dillen to the CommissionSubject: Death-penalty-related projects | 471 |
| 2004/C 078E/6 | E-3141/03 by Koenraad Dillen to the CommissionSubject: European week against cancer — scientific research | 472 |
| 2004/C 078E/7 | E-3144/03 by Christopher Heaton-Harris to the CommissionSubject: EU funding for the Spanish National Hydrological Plan | 473 |
| 2004/C 078E/8 | P-3145/03 by W.G. van Velzen to the CommissionSubject: Batteries in exploding mobile phones | 474 |
| 2004/C 078E/9 | P-3152/03 by Elly Plooij-van Gorsel to the CommissionSubject: Exploding Nokia telephones | 476 |
| 2004/C 078E/0 | E-3156/03 by María Sornosa Martínez to the CommissionSubject: Residential building in the Serra de la Renegà and the Oropesa-Benicàssim SCI (Castellón, Spain) | 477 |
| 2004/C 078E/1 | E-3157/03 by Monica Frassoni to the CommissionSubject: Enlargement of a military base in the Natura 2000 site of La Maddalena, Sardinia | 478 |
| 2004/C 078E/2 | E-3173/03 by Koenraad Dillen to the CommissionSubject: Voting rights for immigrants | 480 |
| 2004/C 078E/3 | E-3182/03 by Paulo Casaca to the CommissionSubject: The air transport company SATA's failure to comply with Community legislation | 481 |
| 2004/C 078E/4 | E-3183/03 by Paulo Casaca to the CommissionSubject: Calculating the additional levy in the Azores Autonomous Region | 482 |
| 2004/C 078E/5 | E-3186/03 by Geoffrey Van Orden to the CommissionSubject: Cross-border consumer goods transactions | 483 |
| 2004/C 078E/6 | E-3189/03 by Mario Borghezio to the CommissionSubject: Explosion of Nokia mobile phone batteries | 484 |
| 2004/C 078E/7 | E-3193/03 by Roberta Angelilli to the CommissionSubject: Information on the former Director-General of Eurostat | 485 |
| 2004/C 078E/8 | E-3200/03 by Erik Meijer to the CommissionSubject: Racial appearance as a criterion for police or customs checks on individuals crossing an internal EU border | 487 |
| 2004/C 078E/9 | E-3204/03 by Alexandros Alavanos to the CommissionSubject: Commercial exploitation of protected wildlife species in Greece | 487 |
| 2004/C 078E/0 | E-3207/03 by Alexander de Roo to the CommissionSubject: Peroxide in toothpaste | 488 |
| 2004/C 078E/1 | E-3212/03 by Stavros Xarchakos to the CommissionSubject: British newspaper allegations regarding irregularities in connection with Commission funding | 489 |
| 2004/C 078E/2 | E-3216/03 by Antonios Trakatellis to the CommissionSubject: Disposal of hazardous waste in Greece and infringement of environmental legislation | 490 |
| 2004/C 078E/3 | E-3218/03 by John Bowis to the CommissionSubject: Rare diseases: Evans syndrome | 492 |
| 2004/C 078E/4 | E-3222/03 by Proinsias De Rossa to the CommissionSubject: Missing persons | 493 |
| 2004/C 078E/5 | E-3226/03 by Felipe Camisón Asensio to the CommissionSubject: Reform of the tobacco sector | 494 |
| 2004/C 078E/6 | E-3227/03 by John Bowis to the CommissionSubject: Indonesia | 495 |
| 2004/C 078E/7 | E-3230/03 by Dorette Corbey to the CommissionSubject: Allocation of subsidies under the Interreg and Urban programmes | 496 |
| 2004/C 078E/8 | P-3232/03 by Joan Colom i Naval to the CommissionSubject: Updated budget figures (Supplementary Answer) | 498 |
| 2004/C 078E/9 | E-3236/03 by Konstantinos Hatzidakis to the CommissionSubject: Training for public servants in new technologies | 498 |
| 2004/C 078E/0 | E-3237/03 by Konstantinos Hatzidakis to the CommissionSubject: Access to Internet for Greek households | 499 |
| 2004/C 078E/1 | E-3239/03 by Martin Callanan to the CommissionSubject: Bird killing in Malta | 500 |
| 2004/C 078E/2 | E-3243/03 by Jan Wiersma to the CommissionSubject: The Buy American Act in the American defence budget | 500 |
| 2004/C 078E/3 | E-3250/03 by Ruth Hieronymi, Christa Prets, Karin Junker, Raina Echerer and Maria Sanders-ten Holte to the CommissionSubject: Assistance by the European Commission to Member States in encouraging the migration to an open interoperable standard in digital television | 502 |
| 2004/C 078E/4 | E-3259/03 by Mihail Papayannakis to the CommissionSubject: Unpleasant odours from waste disposal site in Ano Liosia | 504 |
| 2004/C 078E/5 | E-3274/03 by Inger Schörling to the CommissionSubject: Impact of the laying of artificial beaches in Caleta de la Guirra in the municipality of Antigua (Fuerteventura, Spain) | 505 |
| 2004/C 078E/6 | E-3275/03 by Caroline Jackson to the CommissionSubject: Destruction of Russian forests | 506 |
| 2004/C 078E/7 | E-3276/03 by Brian Simpson to the CommissionSubject: Restrictions imposed on flights into Zurich airport | 507 |
| 2004/C 078E/8 | E-3284/03 by Lord Inglewood to the CommissionSubject: Overbooking on Air France's flights | 507 |
| 2004/C 078E/9 | E-3285/03 by Pierre Jonckheer to the CommissionSubject: Feixolín open-cast coal mine (Valle de Laciana district, Spain) | 508 |
| 2004/C 078E/0 | E-3286/03 by Anne André-Léonard to the CommissionSubject: Harmonisation of European legislation in respect of boatmasters' certificates for recreational craft | 510 |
| 2004/C 078E/1 | E-3288/03 by Margrietus van den Berg to the CommissionSubject: Establishment of businesses in the municipality of Losser | 510 |
| 2004/C 078E/2 | E-3289/03 by Ilda Figueiredo to the CommissionSubject: Portuguese workers without rights in the North Sea | 511 |
| 2004/C 078E/3 | P-3291/03 by Helena Torres Marques to the CommissionSubject: Enforcement of Community decisions in Portugal | 512 |
| 2004/C 078E/4 | E-3294/03 by Claude Moraes to the CommissionSubject: The European Commission's 5th Framework Project | 513 |
| 2004/C 078E/5 | E-3296/03 by Ria Oomen-Ruijten to the CommissionSubject: Fees for residence permits | 514 |
| 2004/C 078E/6 | E-3300/03 by Robert Sturdy to the CommissionSubject: Scam e-mails requesting bank details from Africa, etc | 515 |
| 2004/C 078E/7 | E-3302/03 by Hiltrud Breyer to the CommissionSubject: Noise abatement plans (Directive 2002/49/EC) | 517 |
| 2004/C 078E/8 | E-3306/03 by Gary Titley to the CommissionSubject: Fluoride in drinking water | 518 |
| 2004/C 078E/9 | E-3309/03 by Philip Claeys to the CommissionSubject: Responsible shopping week in the Commission's buildings | 518 |
| 2004/C 078E/0 | E-3321/03 by Anna Karamanou to the CommissionSubject: Malta's temporary landfills | 519 |
| 2004/C 078E/1 | P-3322/03 by Gabriele Stauner to the CommissionSubject: Vice-President Kinnock and indications of irregularities at Eurostat | 520 |
| 2004/C 078E/2 | E-3326/03 by Christopher Huhne to the CommissionSubject: Emoluments of Commissioners | 521 |
| 2004/C 078E/3 | E-3328/03 by Erik Meijer to the CommissionSubject: Wilful neglect, to the point of destruction, of the former prison camp Stammlager Χ Β Sandbostel, an important memorial to the shared history of Europe | 522 |
| 2004/C 078E/4 | E-3329/03 by Antonio Tajani to the CommissionSubject: Eurobarometer poll according to which Israel is the greatest threat to world peace | 523 |
| 2004/C 078E/5 | E-3340/03 by Roberta Angelilli to the CommissionSubject: Request for verification of information concerning President Prodi | 524 |
| 2004/C 078E/6 | E-3341/03 by Adriana Poli Bortone to the CommissionSubject: Albania | 525 |
| 2004/C 078E/7 | E-3343/03 by Mogens Camre to the CommissionSubject: European Convention on Human Rights in relation to third countries | 526 |
| 2004/C 078E/8 | E-3345/03 by John Bowis to the CommissionSubject: Villas of Palladio | 527 |
| 2004/C 078E/9 | P-3350/03 by Patricia McKenna to the CommissionSubject: Derrybrien wind-farm bog-slide | 528 |
| 2004/C 078E/0 | E-3361/03 by Koenraad Dillen to the CommissionSubject: Ijzeren Rijn railway line | 529 |
| 2004/C 078E/1 | E-3367/03 by Avril Doyle to the CommissionSubject: Laser technology and radiation emissions | 530 |
| 2004/C 078E/2 | E-3368/03 by Koenraad Dillen to the CommissionSubject: Eurobarometer opinion poll on Iraq and world peace | 530 |
| 2004/C 078E/3 | E-3370/03 by Jonas Sjöstedt to the CommissionSubject: Mr Prodi's comments on the outcome of the Swedish referendum on EMU | 531 |
| 2004/C 078E/4 | E-3371/03 by Mogens Camre to the CommissionSubject: Legal implications of ratification of EU draft Constitution | 532 |
| 2004/C 078E/5 | P-3376/03 by Christine De Veyrac to the CommissionSubject: Reduced rates of VAT — hairdressing | 533 |
| 2004/C 078E/6 | E-3379/03 by Mihail Papayannakis to the CommissionSubject: Expansion of petroleum installations in the Ambracian Gulf | 534 |
| 2004/C 078E/7 | E-3384/03 by Gianfranco Dell'Alba, Emma Bonino, Marco Cappato, Benedetto Della Vedova, Olivier Dupuis, Marco Pannella and Maurizio Turco to the CommissionSubject: Corridor 5 | 535 |
| 2004/C 078E/8 | P-3390/03 by Mihail Papayannakis to the CommissionSubject: VAT on tailoring | 536 |
| 2004/C 078E/9 | E-3393/03 by Jean Lambert to the CommissionSubject: Moped type-approval | 537 |
| 2004/C 078E/0 | E-3404/03 by Patricia McKenna to the CommissionSubject: Ireland and infringement cases for bad application of EU environmental legislation | 538 |
| 2004/C 078E/1 | E-3405/03 by Concepció Ferrer to the CommissionSubject: Management of the Structural Funds (Supplementary Answer) | 539 |
| 2004/C 078E/2 | E-3407/03 by José Ribeiro e Castro to the CommissionSubject: Cabinda — report on human rights | 541 |
| 2004/C 078E/3 | E-3413/03 by Olivier Duhamel to the CommissionSubject: Eurobarometer | 542 |
| 2004/C 078E/4 | E-3416/03 by Mario Borghezio to the CommissionSubject: Eurostat scandal — unanswered questions | 543 |
| 2004/C 078E/5 | E-3417/03 by Mario Borghezio to the CommissionSubject: Eurostat scandal — unanswered questions | 543 |
| 2004/C 078E/6 | E-3418/03 by Mario Borghezio to the CommissionSubject: Eurostat scandal — unanswered questions | 543 |
| 2004/C 078E/7 | E-3419/03 by Mario Borghezio to the CommissionSubject: Eurostat scandal — unanswered questions | 543 |
| 2004/C 078E/8 | E-3420/03 by Mario Borghezio to the CommissionSubject: Eurostat scandal — unanswered questions | 544 |
| 2004/C 078E/9 | E-3421/03 by Mario Borghezio to the CommissionSubject: Eurostat scandal — unanswered questions | 544 |
| 2004/C 078E/0 | E-3422/03 by Mario Borghezio to the CommissionSubject: Eurostat scandal — unanswered questions | 544 |
| 2004/C 078E/1 | E-3423/03 by Mario Borghezio to the CommissionSubject: Eurostat scandal — unanswered questions | 544 |
| 2004/C 078E/2 | E-3424/03 by Mario Borghezio to the CommissionSubject: Eurostat scandal — unanswered questions | 544 |
| 2004/C 078E/3 | E-3425/03 by Mario Borghezio to the CommissionSubject: Eurostat scandal — unanswered questions | 545 |
| 2004/C 078E/4 | E-3426/03 by Mario Borghezio to the CommissionSubject: Eurostat scandal — unanswered questions | 545 |
| 2004/C 078E/5 | E-3427/03 by Mario Borghezio to the CommissionSubject: Eurostat scandal — unanswered questions | 545 |
| 2004/C 078E/6 | E-3428/03 by Mario Borghezio to the CommissionSubject: Eurostat scandal — unanswered questions | 545 |
| 2004/C 078E/7 | E-3429/03 by Mario Borghezio to the CommissionSubject: Eurostat scandal — unanswered questions | 546 |
| 2004/C 078E/8 | E-3430/03 by Mario Borghezio to the CommissionSubject: Eurostat scandal — unanswered questions | 546 |
| 2004/C 078E/9 | E-3431/03 by Mario Borghezio to the CommissionSubject: Eurostat scandal — unanswered questions | 546 |
| 2004/C 078E/0 | E-3432/03 by Mario Borghezio to the CommissionSubject: Eurostat scandal — unanswered questions | 546 |
| 2004/C 078E/1 | E-3433/03 by Mario Borghezio to the CommissionSubject: Eurostat scandal — unanswered questions | 547 |
| Joint answer to Written Questions E-3416/03, E-3417/03, E-3418/03, E-3419/03, E-3420/03, E-3421/03, E-3422/03, E-3423/03, E-3424/03, E-3425/03, E-3426/03, E-3427/03, E-3428/03, E-3429/03, E-3430/03, E-3431/03, E-3432/03 and E-3433/03 |
| 2004/C 078E/2 | E-3437/03 by Philip Claeys to the CommissionSubject: Anti-Semitism among North African and other Islamic immigrants in Europe | 547 |
| 2004/C 078E/3 | E-3442/03 by Ilda Figueiredo to the CommissionSubject: Discrimination amongst athletes | 548 |
| 2004/C 078E/4 | P-3446/03 by Sebastiano Musumeci to the CommissionSubject: Authorisation for aid in connection with a biological rest period in Sicily in 2002 | 549 |
| 2004/C 078E/5 | E-3447/03 by Ilda Figueiredo to the CommissionSubject: Marketing problems and imports in the wine sector | 550 |
| 2004/C 078E/6 | E-3453/03 by Philip Claeys to the CommissionSubject: Political position adopted by EU officials' trade union TAO-AFI on night flights over outlying districts of Brussels | 551 |
| 2004/C 078E/7 | E-3455/03 by Elspeth Attwooll to the CommissionSubject: Community Action Plan to protect seabirds from longline fishing | 552 |
| 2004/C 078E/8 | E-3456/03 by Adriana Poli Bortone to the CommissionSubject: Cofinancing of NGOs | 553 |
| 2004/C 078E/9 | E-3457/03 by Ilda Figueiredo to the CommissionSubject: Reform of the olive oil sector | 554 |
| 2004/C 078E/0 | E-3459/03 by Erik Meijer to the CommissionSubject: Measures to prevent the breaking-up in Europe of old US warships contaminated with chemicals, asbestos and diesel | 554 |
| 2004/C 078E/1 | E-3460/03 by Erik Meijer to the CommissionSubject: Foot-dragging by the future Member State Czech Republic in connection with efforts to stamp out child prostitution in areas close to its border with Germany | 556 |
| 2004/C 078E/2 | E-3466/03 by Theresa Villiers to the CommissionSubject: Animal welfare at abattoirs in Greece | 557 |
| 2004/C 078E/3 | E-3472/03 by Christoph Konrad to the CommissionSubject: Conversion of the Landesbank Nordrhein-Westfalen into an investment bank | 558 |
| 2004/C 078E/4 | E-3474/03 by Herbert Bösch to the CommissionSubject: Contracts with management consultants in Commission offices | 559 |
| 2004/C 078E/5 | E-3477/03 by Baroness Sarah Ludford to the CommissionSubject: Women in prison | 560 |
| 2004/C 078E/6 | E-3479/03 by Christine De Veyrac to the CommissionSubject: Transposition of Directive 2002/46/EC seeking to harmonise Member State legislation on food supplements | 561 |
| 2004/C 078E/7 | E-3482/03 by Richard Corbett to the CommissionSubject: Legal privilege of documents between companies and their law firms | 562 |
| 2004/C 078E/8 | E-3486/03 by Karl von Wogau to the CommissionSubject: Charges for bank transfers within the eurozone | 563 |
| 2004/C 078E/9 | E-3490/03 by Ilda Figueiredo to the CommissionSubject: Regulating the market and olive growers' incomes under the reform of the COM in olive oil | 564 |
| 2004/C 078E/0 | E-3494/03 by José Ribeiro e Castro to the CommissionSubject: Cuba — political prisoners | 565 |
| 2004/C 078E/1 | E-3502/03 by Michl Ebner to the CommissionSubject: Air quality standards in areas of heavy traffic | 566 |
| 2004/C 078E/2 | E-3506/03 by Jorge Hernández Mollar to the CommissionSubject: Community legislation on DNA | 567 |
| 2004/C 078E/3 | P-3510/03 by Rodi Kratsa-Tsagaropoulou to the CommissionSubject: Driving licences in the European Union | 568 |
| 2004/C 078E/4 | E-3516/03 by Baroness Sarah Ludford to the CommissionSubject: Commission staffing | 569 |
| 2004/C 078E/5 | P-3519/03 by Maurizio Turco to the CommissionSubject: Sudden unilateral decision by the Italian Council of Ministers to locate a national radioactive waste storage facility in the municipality of Scanzano Jonico | 570 |
| 2004/C 078E/6 | E-3520/03 by Rijk van Dam to the CommissionSubject: Court of Auditors Special Report No 4/2003 concerning rural development: support for less-favoured areas | 572 |
| 2004/C 078E/7 | P-3522/03 by Elly Plooij-van Gorsel to the CommissionSubject: Specific import tariffs on photographic products for the People's Republic of China | 573 |
| 2004/C 078E/8 | E-3523/03 by Struan Stevenson to the CommissionSubject: Proposed new livestock transport regulations | 574 |
| 2004/C 078E/9 | P-3527/03 by Rijk van Dam to the CommissionSubject: Court of Auditors Special Report No 4/2003 on rural development: support for less-favoured areas | 576 |
| 2004/C 078E/0 | E-3529/03 by Claude Moraes to the CommissionSubject: Amnesty International and Oxfam report on arms control | 578 |
| 2004/C 078E/1 | E-3536/03 by Ilda Figueiredo to the CommissionSubject: Problems with the recognition of educational and professional qualifications in France | 578 |
| 2004/C 078E/2 | E-3542/03 by Caroline Lucas to the CommissionSubject: GMOs | 579 |
| 2004/C 078E/3 | E-3543/03 by Claude Moraes to the CommissionSubject: Free movement of Bulgarians | 580 |
| 2004/C 078E/4 | E-3544/03 by Roberta Angelilli to the CommissionSubject: Eurobarometer survey on threats to peace | 580 |
| 2004/C 078E/5 | E-3546/03 by Miet Smet to the CommissionSubject: Using intelligent speed adaptation in road vehicles | 581 |
| 2004/C 078E/6 | P-3547/03 by Paulo Casaca to the CommissionSubject: Scot-free permanent oil slick along the Portuguese coast | 582 |
| 2004/C 078E/7 | E-3549/03 by José Ribeiro e Castro to the CommissionSubject: Cohesion Fund — Portugal | 583 |
| 2004/C 078E/8 | E-3552/03 by Gabriele Stauner to the CommissionSubject: EU funding for research programmes in Ukraine | 584 |
| 2004/C 078E/9 | E-3553/03 by Claude Moraes to the CommissionSubject: Missing Cypriots | 585 |
| 2004/C 078E/0 | E-3554/03 by Erik Meijer to the CommissionSubject: Development of artificial viruses and bacteria in America and possible resultant neglect of environmental protection in Europe | 586 |
| 2004/C 078E/1 | E-3555/03 by Erik Meijer to the CommissionSubject: Development of artificial viruses and bacteria in America and its impact on biodiversity and biological warfare in Europe | 587 |
| 2004/C 078E/2 | E-3559/03 by Margrietus van den Berg and Jan Wiersma to the CommissionSubject: Groningen Rail Service Centre and non-use of cross-border railway line near Nieuweschans to Northern Germany | 589 |
| 2004/C 078E/3 | E-3561/03 by Jan Andersson to the CommissionSubject: Parasubordinated workers and social dumping | 590 |
| 2004/C 078E/4 | E-3562/03 by Giacomo Santini to the CommissionSubject: Automatic renewal of concession for the Brenner motorway | 591 |
| 2004/C 078E/5 | E-3564/03 by Torben Lund to the CommissionSubject: International telecommunication services and competition | 591 |
| 2004/C 078E/6 | E-3566/03 by Alexandros Alavanos to the CommissionSubject: Refund of budgetary resources | 593 |
| 2004/C 078E/7 | P-3568/03 by Herman Schmid to the CommissionSubject: Draft Constitution no solution to the EU's lack of democratic legitimacy | 593 |
| 2004/C 078E/8 | E-3571/03 by Gerhard Schmid to the CommissionSubject: Threat to a water protection zone in one member State by a project in another | 594 |
| 2004/C 078E/9 | E-3576/03 by Michl Ebner to the CommissionSubject: EU Identity document for the disabled | 595 |
| 2004/C 078E/0 | E-3580/03 by Proinsias De Rossa to the CommissionSubject: EU working time legislation | 596 |
| 2004/C 078E/1 | E-3582/03 by Yasmine Boudjenah to the CommissionSubject: Role of multinational corporations in conflict regions in Africa | 597 |
| 2004/C 078E/2 | E-3584/03 by Ria Oomen-Ruijten to the CommissionSubject: Receipt of supplementary reply | 599 |
| 2004/C 078E/3 | E-3585/03 by Mogens Camre to the CommissionSubject: The EUMC's shelved report on Muslim anti-Semitism | 599 |
| 2004/C 078E/4 | E-3587/03 by Koenraad Dillen to the CommissionSubject: Report on anti-Semitism by the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia | 600 |
| 2004/C 078E/5 | E-3607/03 by Olivier Duhamel to the CommissionSubject: Vienna Observatory | 600 |
| 2004/C 078E/6 | E-3700/03 by Marco Pannella, Maurizio Turco, Marco Cappato, Gianfranco Dell'Alba, Benedetto Della Vedova and Olivier Dupuis to the CommissionSubject: Withholding of a study on anti-Semitism in Europe by the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia (EUMC) | 601 |
| Joint answer to Written Questions E-3585/03, E-3587/03, E-3607/03 and E-3700/03 |
| 2004/C 078E/7 | E-3590/03 by José Ribeiro e Castro to the CommissionSubject: Ibero-American Summit — conclusions and prospects | 602 |
| 2004/C 078E/8 | E-3596/03 by Brigitte Langenhagen to the CommissionSubject: EU border controls | 603 |
| 2004/C 078E/9 | E-3601/03 by Elly Plooij-van Gorsel to the CommissionSubject: Buy American Act | 605 |
| 2004/C 078E/0 | E-3602/03 by Anne Van Lancker to the CommissionSubject: Article 51 of the European Constitution | 606 |
| 2004/C 078E/1 | E-3665/03 by Nelly Maes to the CommissionSubject: Non-confessional organisations | 606 |
| Joint answer to Written Questions E-3602/03 and E-3665/03 |
| 2004/C 078E/2 | E-3603/03 by José Ribeiro e Castro to the CommissionSubject: Portuguese Overseas War veterans — disabilities | 607 |
| 2004/C 078E/3 | E-3604/03 by José Ribeiro e Castro to the CommissionSubject: East Timor — Emergency aid | 608 |
| 2004/C 078E/4 | E-3608/03 by Marco Pannella, Maurizio Turco, Marco Cappato, Gianfranco Dell'Alba, Benedetto Della Vedova and Olivier Dupuis to the CommissionSubject: Violation of the rights of the Çam minority | 610 |
| 2004/C 078E/5 | E-3611/03 by Camilo Nogueira Román to the CommissionSubject: Legalising immigration | 611 |
| 2004/C 078E/6 | E-3620/03 by Antonios Trakatellis to the CommissionSubject: Use of a mathematical formula in awarding public contracts | 612 |
| 2004/C 078E/7 | E-3621/03 by Antonios Trakatellis to the CommissionSubject: Presence of chlophen in food produced in various regions of Greece | 613 |
| 2004/C 078E/8 | E-3622/03 by Stavros Xarchakos to the CommissionSubject: Cost of free education in Greece | 614 |
| 2004/C 078E/9 | E-3626/03 by Marianne Thyssen to the CommissionSubject: Opening up the labour markets in the Member States | 615 |
| 2004/C 078E/0 | E-3627/03 by Marianne Thyssen to the CommissionSubject: Access to the labour market for new EU citizens and non-EU citizens | 616 |
| 2004/C 078E/1 | E-3631/03 by Proinsias De Rossa to the CommissionSubject: Consultation with charities with regard to the proposal relating to the imposition of VAT on postal services | 617 |
| 2004/C 078E/2 | E-3632/03 by Camilo Nogueira Román to the CommissionSubject: Statements by André Sapir (adviser to the Commission President, Romano Prodi) concerning EU cohesion policy | 617 |
| 2004/C 078E/3 | E-3645/03 by Salvador Jové Peres and Pedro Marset Campos to the CommissionSubject: European Union/Morocco agreement | 618 |
| 2004/C 078E/4 | E-3646/03 by Salvador Jové Peres and Pedro Marset Campos to the CommissionSubject: European Union/Morocco agreement | 618 |
| Joint answer to Written Questions E-3645/03 and E-3646/03 |
| 2004/C 078E/5 | E-3647/03 by Erik Meijer to the CommissionSubject: Delay in deepening and widening the River Maas north of Maastricht due to objections to gravel quarrying under negotiated contracts | 619 |
| 2004/C 078E/6 | E-3648/03 by Erik Meijer to the CommissionSubject: Desire of international rail freight operators to replace national rail safety systems with the European standard ECTS | 620 |
| 2004/C 078E/7 | E-3650/03 by Erik Meijer to the CommissionSubject: Extinction of the Iberian lynx in the Sierra Morena nature reserve in Andalusia due to the construction of a large reservoir and lack of compensatory habitat | 622 |
| 2004/C 078E/8 | E-3651/03 by Cees Bremmer and Bartho Pronk to the CommissionSubject: Poor working conditions for au pairs in the Netherlands | 623 |
| 2004/C 078E/9 | P-3660/03 by Olivier Dupuis to the CommissionSubject: Tragic state of health of children in Chechnya | 624 |
| 2004/C 078E/0 | E-3671/03 by Joost Lagendijk and Arie Oostlander to the CommissionSubject: Further cooperation in the fight against terrorism | 625 |
| 2004/C 078E/1 | E-3672/03 by Ilda Figueiredo to the CommissionSubject: Situation at the Sorefame company | 626 |
| 2004/C 078E/2 | E-3675/03 by Ilda Figueiredo to the CommissionSubject: Situation of micro-enterprises and SMEs in Portugal | 627 |
| 2004/C 078E/3 | E-3690/03 by Roberta Angelilli to the CommissionSubject: Update on use of funding from the Daphne programme by the municipality of Florence | 629 |
| 2004/C 078E/4 | E-3691/03 by Roberta Angelilli to the CommissionSubject: Update on use of funding from the Daphne programme by the municipality of Pesaro-Urbino | 629 |
| 2004/C 078E/5 | E-3692/03 by Roberta Angelilli to the CommissionSubject: Update on use of funding from the Daphne programme by the municipality of Siena | 629 |
| Joint answer to Written Questions E-3690/03, E-3691/03 and E-3692/03 |
| 2004/C 078E/6 | P-3697/03 by Luigi Vinci to the CommissionSubject: Return to Turkey of refugees of Turkish origin | 630 |
| 2004/C 078E/7 | E-3699/03 by Dana Scallon to the CommissionSubject: Objective 1 areas in Connacht/Ulster (Ireland) | 631 |
| 2004/C 078E/8 | E-3702/03 by José Ribeiro e Castro to the CommissionSubject: EC-Macau Joint Committee — tenth meeting | 631 |
| 2004/C 078E/9 | P-3703/03 by Ulla Sandbæk to the CommissionSubject: HIV and Commission support for development of affordable microbicide | 632 |
| 2004/C 078E/0 | E-3718/03 by Paul Rübig to the CommissionSubject: Eco-design requirements for energy-using products | 633 |
| 2004/C 078E/1 | E-3720/03 by Cristiana Muscardini to the CommissionSubject: Adapting Directive 97/24/EC to technical progress | 635 |
| 2004/C 078E/2 | P-3732/03 by Olivier Dupuis to the CommissionSubject: Vietnam | 637 |
| 2004/C 078E/3 | E-3733/03 by Constanze Krehl to the CommissionSubject: Social partnerships for regional structural development in Saxony | 638 |
| 2004/C 078E/4 | E-3751/03 by Roberta Angelilli to the CommissionSubject: Update on use of funding from the 2000 City Twinning Programme by the municipality of Terni | 639 |
| 2004/C 078E/5 | E-3752/03 by Roberta Angelilli to the CommissionSubject: Update on use of funding from the 2000 City Twinning Programme by the municipality of Ancona | 640 |
| 2004/C 078E/6 | E-3753/03 by Roberta Angelilli to the CommissionSubject: Update on use of funding from the 2000 City Twinning Programme by the municipality of Florence | 640 |
| 2004/C 078E/7 | E-3754/03 by Roberta Angelilli to the CommissionSubject: Update on use of funding from the 2000 City Twinning Programme by the municipality of Livorno | 640 |
| 2004/C 078E/8 | E-3755/03 by Roberta Angelilli to the CommissionSubject: Update on use of funding from the 2000 City Twinning Programme by the municipality of Macerata | 641 |
| 2004/C 078E/9 | E-3756/03 by Roberta Angelilli to the CommissionSubject: Update on use of funding from the 2000 City Twinning Programme by the municipality of Perugia | 641 |
| 2004/C 078E/0 | E-3757/03 by Roberta Angelilli to the CommissionSubject: Update on use of funding from the 2000 City Twinning Programme by the municipality of Pesaro | 641 |
| 2004/C 078E/1 | E-3758/03 by Roberta Angelilli to the CommissionSubject: Update on use of funding from the 2000 City Twinning Programme by the municipality of Pisa | 642 |
| 2004/C 078E/2 | E-3759/03 by Roberta Angelilli to the CommissionSubject: Update on use of funding from the 2000 City Twinning Programme by the municipality of Pistoia | 642 |
| 2004/C 078E/3 | E-3760/03 by Roberta Angelilli to the CommissionSubject: Update on use of funding from the 2000 City Twinning Programme by the municipality of Siena | 642 |
| Joint answer to Written Questions E-3751/03, E-3752/03, E-3753/03, E-3754/03, E-3755/03, E-3756/03, E-3757/03, E-3758/03, E-3759/03 and E-3760/03 |
| 2004/C 078E/4 | E-3763/03 by Christopher Huhne to the CommissionSubject: Clinical trials | 644 |
| 2004/C 078E/5 | E-3792/03 by Roberta Angelilli to the CommissionSubject: Update on funding for the municipality of Pesaro-Urbino under the Tempus III programme | 645 |
| 2004/C 078E/6 | E-3811/03 by Cristiana Muscardini to the CommissionSubject: The spread of androgenetic alopecia | 645 |
| 2004/C 078E/7 | E-3813/03 by Maurizio Turco to the CommissionSubject: Judicial inquiry by the Venice Prosecutor's Office into use of Community funds for the agricultural sector | 647 |
| 2004/C 078E/8 | E-3814/03 by Maurizio Turco to the CommissionSubject: Judicial inquiry by the Palermo Prosecutor's Office into EUR 6,5 million fraud against the European Union | 647 |
| 2004/C 078E/9 | E-3815/03 by Maurizio Turco to the CommissionSubject: Judicial inquiry by the Salerno Prosecutor's Office into EUR 30 million fraud against the European Union | 648 |
| 2004/C 078E/0 | E-3816/03 by Maurizio Turco to the CommissionSubject: Judicial inquiry by the Lecce Prosecutor's Office into EUR 6 million fraud against the European Union | 649 |
| 2004/C 078E/1 | E-3818/03 by Stavros Xarchakos to the CommissionSubject: Conditions for awarding pensions in Greece | 650 |
| 2004/C 078E/2 | E-3820/03 by Elspeth Attwooll to the CommissionSubject: Connection to electricity and water supplies | 651 |
| 2004/C 078E/3 | E-3827/03 by Ilda Figueiredo to the CommissionSubject: Funding for the network of Carrefours and Info-Points | 651 |
| 2004/C 078E/4 | P-3830/03 by Juan Ferrández Lezaun to the CommissionSubject: Spanish NHP infrastructure tendering | 652 |
| 2004/C 078E/5 | E-3833/03 by Roberto Bigliardo to the CommissionSubject: Provincial authorities' involvement in the management of EU Structural Funds | 653 |
| 2004/C 078E/6 | E-3834/03 by Ilda Figueiredo to the CommissionSubject: Discrimination against Portuguese workers abroad | 654 |
| 2004/C 078E/7 | P-3836/03 by Emmanouil Bakopoulos to the CommissionSubject: VAT for transport service providers | 655 |
| 2004/C 078E/8 | E-3839/03 by Monica Frassoni and Daniel Cohn-Bendit to the CommissionSubject: Marmara Earthquake Rehabilitation Programme (MERP): An Integrated Intervention for the Rehabilitation of Düzce — Turkey | 656 |
| 2004/C 078E/9 | E-3843/03 by Maurizio Turco, Marco Pannella, Marco Cappato, Gianfranco Dell'Alba, Benedetto Della Vedova and Olivier Dupuis to the CommissionSubject: Censorship practised at the request of the Russian Consulate in Milan by the city authorities in connection with the Romano Cagnoni photography exhibition | 657 |
| 2004/C 078E/0 | E-3846/03 by Maj Theorin to the CommissionSubject: Women and conflict | 658 |
| 2004/C 078E/1 | E-3849/03 by Proinsias De Rossa to the CommissionSubject: Compilation of information on organ transplants in Europe | 658 |
| 2004/C 078E/2 | E-3850/03 by Jan Andersson to the CommissionSubject: Harmful isocyanates and the protection of workers | 659 |
| 2004/C 078E/3 | P-3853/03 by Joan Colom i Naval to the CommissionSubject: Funding for Spain's National Water Plan | 660 |
| 2004/C 078E/4 | P-3861/03 by Heide Rühle to the CommissionSubject: Export guarantee by the German Federal Government for Finnish nuclear reactor | 661 |
| 2004/C 078E/5 | P-3862/03 by Sebastiano Musumeci to the CommissionSubject: Community funding for the bridge over the Straits of Messina | 661 |
| 2004/C 078E/6 | E-3872/03 by Alexander de Roo to the CommissionSubject: Impact of EU investment in the Júcar-Vinalopó water transfer | 662 |
| 2004/C 078E/7 | E-3874/03 by Francesco Fiori to the CommissionSubject: Imports into the EU of uncertified active pharmaceutical ingredients | 663 |
| 2004/C 078E/8 | E-3877/03 by Francesco Fiori to the CommissionSubject: Breach of Community principles — Article 24 of Law 289/2002 | 664 |
| 2004/C 078E/9 | E-3878/03 by Johannes Blokland to the CommissionSubject: Research into the effects of medicinal products on children | 666 |
| 2004/C 078E/0 | E-3882/03 by Cristina Gutiérrez-Cortines, Bernd Lange, Karl-Heinz Florenz and Ria Oomen-Ruijten to the CommissionSubject: Inspire initiative | 667 |
| 2004/C 078E/1 | P-3893/03 by Chris Davies to the CommissionSubject: Health warnings on cigarette packs | 669 |
| 2004/C 078E/2 | P-3894/03 by Ian Hudghton to the CommissionSubject: Objective One status — Highlands and Islands of Scotland | 669 |
| 2004/C 078E/3 | E-3899/03 by Olivier Dupuis to the CommissionSubject: Meeting of EU-Lao PDR Joint Committee | 670 |
| 2004/C 078E/4 | E-3903/03 by Roberta Angelilli to the CommissionSubject: Disparities in the treatment of debts by banks in connection with Democratici di Sinistra's unpaid debts | 671 |
| 2004/C 078E/5 | P-3910/03 by Amalia Sartori to the CommissionSubject: Domestic accidents and workplaces | 671 |
| 2004/C 078E/6 | E-3913/03 by Ole Krarup to the CommissionSubject: Oil extraction agreement: granting of authorisations | 673 |
| 2004/C 078E/7 | E-3915/03 by Marco Pannella, Maurizio Turco, Marco Cappato, Gianfranco Dell'Alba, Benedetto Della Vedova and Olivier Dupuis to the CommissionSubject: Forced repatriation to Vietnam of Montagnard refugees by the Cambodian government and the repeated violation of the UN Convention on Refugees | 673 |
| 2004/C 078E/8 | P-3918/03 by Georges Berthu to the CommissionSubject: Reduced rates of VAT | 675 |
| 2004/C 078E/9 | E-3922/03 by María Bergaz Conesa to the CommissionSubject: Projects co-funded by the Commission as part of the National Hydrological Plan | 676 |
| 2004/C 078E/0 | E-3943/03 by Daniel Cohn-Bendit to the CommissionSubject: Temporary Nationality and Entry into Israel law | 676 |
| 2004/C 078E/1 | E-3951/03 by Alexander de Roo to the CommissionSubject: Genetically modified GloFish | 677 |
| 2004/C 078E/2 | E-3953/03 by Catherine Stihler to the CommissionSubject: Wheelchair design specifications | 678 |
| 2004/C 078E/3 | E-3960/03 by José Ribeiro e Castro to the CommissionSubject: Angola — reintegration of ex-combatants and disarmament of civilians | 678 |
| 2004/C 078E/4 | P-3998/03 by Konstantinos Hatzidakis to the CommissionSubject: Use of CSF funds to finance an advertising campaign in Greece | 680 |
| 2004/C 078E/5 | E-4001/03 by Stavros Xarchakos to the CommissionSubject: Transfers of students | 681 |
| 2004/C 078E/6 | E-4031/03 by Michl Ebner to the CommissionSubject: Language programme for minority languages | 681 |
| 2004/C 078E/7 | P-4059/03 by José Ribeiro e Castro to the CommissionSubject: Large families | 682 |
| 2004/C 078E/8 | P-4072/03 by John Cushnahan to the CommissionSubject: Application of the EC-Israel Association Agreement | 683 |
| 2004/C 078E/9 | P-4074/03 by Marianne Thyssen to the CommissionSubject: Problems relating to the transposition into national law of Directive 2002/2/EC | 684 |
| 2004/C 078E/0 | P-0037/04 by Charles Tannock to the CommissionSubject: Provisions made by acceeding 10 new EU member states following 1 May 2004 for freedom of movement and establishment of other EU member state nationals | 685 |
| 2004/C 078E/1 | E-0151/04 by Alexandros Alavanos to the CommissionSubject: Shortage of intensive care units in Greece | 686 |
| 2004/C 078E/2 | P-0230/04 by Konstantinos Hatzidakis to the CommissionSubject: Utilisation of Community appropriations in the Member States at the close of 2003 | 686 |
| 2004/C 078E/3 | P-0417/04 by Ilda Figueiredo to the CommissionSubject: Sackings from the Finex Group factory | 687 |
| | WRITTEN QUESTIONS WITH ANSWER (Part 3) |
| 2004/C 078E/4 | E-1287/02 by Graham Watson to the CommissionSubject: The planting of oilseed rape | 688 |
| 2004/C 078E/5 | E-2931/02 by María Sornosa Martínez to the CommissionSubject: Priority for EU funding for high-speed rail links in Spain that promote regional balance and economic and social cohesion | 688 |
| 2004/C 078E/6 | E-3340/02 by Astrid Thors to the CommissionSubject: Certification of organic cereals exported on the internal market | 690 |
| 2004/C 078E/7 | P-3636/02 by Niall Andrews to the CommissionSubject: Humanitarian aid and immigration controls | 691 |
| 2004/C 078E/8 | P-3857/02 by Mark Watts to the CommissionSubject: Slaughter of baby seal pups on the White Sea, Russia | 691 |
| 2004/C 078E/9 | E-3878/02 by Salvador Garriga Polledo to the CommissionSubject: Community-wide harmonisation of time limits for the writing-off of tax arrears | 692 |
| 2004/C 078E/0 | E-3908/02 by Caroline Lucas to the CommissionSubject: Malta | 693 |
| 2004/C 078E/1 | E-0064/03 by Hanja Maij-Weggen to the CommissionSubject: European assistance for the raising of the Le Joola ferry which sank off the coast of Senegal | 693 |
| 2004/C 078E/2 | E-0075/03 by Erik Meijer to the CommissionSubject: Regular rail transport in cities becoming unviable due to competition from minibuses offering expensive, unsafe and obscure services | 694 |
| 2004/C 078E/3 | E-0115/03 by Catherine Stihler to the CommissionSubject: Malta's accession to the EU: Wild Birds Directive (79/409/EEC) | 695 |
| 2004/C 078E/4 | E-0118/03 by Salvador Garriga Polledo to the CommissionSubject: Delineation of the European Union's final borders | 696 |
| 2004/C 078E/5 | E-0120/03 by Jorge Hernández Mollar to the CommissionSubject: Border fishing dispute at the mouth of the Guadiana | 697 |
| 2004/C 078E/6 | E-0192/03 by Lennart Sacrédeus to the CommissionSubject: Indian priest imprisoned without charge in Qatar | 697 |
| 2004/C 078E/7 | P-0281/03 by Ulpu Iivari to the CommissionSubject: Reform of the common fisheries policy and restoration of wild salmon stocks | 698 |
| 2004/C 078E/8 | E-0320/03 by Massimo Carraro and Vincenzo Lavarra to the CommissionSubject: Poultrymeat imports | 700 |
| 2004/C 078E/9 | E-0450/03 by Cristiana Muscardini to the CommissionSubject: Reception centres and human traffickers | 701 |
| 2004/C 078E/0 | P-0557/03 by Anne Van Lancker to the CommissionSubject: Regulations governing milk quotas in cross-border farms | 703 |
| 2004/C 078E/1 | E-0736/03 by Ilda Figueiredo to the CommissionSubject: Building of controlled tips | 704 |
| 2004/C 078E/2 | E-0751/03 by Mary Banotti to the CommissionSubject: National Irish Development Plan 2000-2006 | 704 |
| 2004/C 078E/3 | E-0790/03 by Christopher Huhne to the CommissionSubject: Legislation on waste incineration | 705 |
| 2004/C 078E/4 | E-0816/03 by Paulo Casaca to the CommissionSubject: Independent study on the use of inter-specific wine varieties | 706 |
| 2004/C 078E/5 | E-0926/03 by Peter Skinner to the CommissionSubject: Relocation of workforce from Eastleigh, United Kingdom to Battipaglia, Southern Italy by Pirelli | 707 |
| 2004/C 078E/6 | P-1237/03 by Diana Wallis to the CommissionSubject: EEA Agreement on enlargement of the EU | 707 |
| 2004/C 078E/7 | P-1266/03 by Caroline Lucas to the CommissionSubject: TRIPs, UPOV and Farmers' Rights | 708 |
| 2004/C 078E/8 | E-1280/03 by María Sornosa Martínez to the CommissionSubject: Incorrect transposition into national law of Directive 2002/49/EC | 709 |
| 2004/C 078E/9 | E-1285/03 by Mario Borghezio to the CommissionSubject: European Union action to ensure civil and respectful treatment for prisoners of war in Iraq | 710 |
| 2004/C 078E/0 | E-1318/03 by Erik Meijer to the CommissionSubject: Concern about maintaining non-commercial services outside Europe following the EU's requests in the WTO GATS 2 negotiations | 711 |
| 2004/C 078E/1 | E-1330/03 by Sérgio Marques to the CommissionSubject: Prestige: Community aid | 713 |
| 2004/C 078E/2 | E-1340/03 by Marjo Matikainen-Kallström to the CommissionSubject: Funding of research into prion diseases in the 6th Research Framework Programme | 714 |
| 2004/C 078E/3 | E-1441/03 by Caroline Jackson to the CommissionSubject: Tyres: application of the Landfill Directive 1999/31/EC | 715 |
| 2004/C 078E/4 | P-1450/03 by María Sornosa Martínez to the CommissionSubject: Need for urgent intervention — plan to extend the port of Altea (Spain) | 716 |
| 2004/C 078E/5 | E-1504/03 by Elly Plooij-van Gorsel to the CommissionSubject: Measurability of GMO material in food products | 717 |
| 2004/C 078E/6 | P-1531/03 by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna to the CommissionSubject: Importation of canned tuna from Thailand and the Philippines | 718 |
| 2004/C 078E/7 | E-1586/03 by Nuala Ahern to the CommissionSubject: Radioactive contamination from Sellafield | 719 |
| 2004/C 078E/8 | E-1587/03 by Nuala Ahern to the CommissionSubject: Basic nuclear safety standards | 719 |
| 2004/C 078E/9 | E-1588/03 by Nuala Ahern to the CommissionSubject: Precautionary principle | 720 |
| Joint answer to Written Questions E-1586/03, E-1587/03 and E-1588/03 |
| 2004/C 078E/0 | E-1650/03 by Hanja Maij-Weggen to the CommissionSubject: Detention of Oscar E. Biscet in Cuba | 720 |
| 2004/C 078E/1 | E-1667/03 by Proinsias De Rossa to the CommissionSubject: VAT on postal services | 721 |
| 2004/C 078E/2 | E-1720/03 by Erik Meijer to the CommissionSubject: Joint EU and US bloc vis-à-vis the rest of the world by widening the remit of the TABD | 722 |
| 2004/C 078E/3 | E-1747/03 by Anna Karamanou to the CommissionSubject: Israel — removal of restriction on movement from and to the occupied territories | 723 |
| 2004/C 078E/4 | E-1764/03 by Torben Lund to the CommissionSubject: Arms transport and export bans | 724 |
| 2004/C 078E/5 | E-1795/03 by Terence Wynn to the CommissionSubject: Manufactured products from third countries | 725 |
| 2004/C 078E/6 | E-1815/03 by Gabriele Stauner to the CommissionSubject: Information from Mrs Schreyer in connection with fraudulent financial dealings at Eurostat | 726 |
| 2004/C 078E/7 | P-1826/03 by Monica Frassoni to the CommissionSubject: High-speed Italian transverse rail route: internal market, environmental impact and productivity of investment | 727 |
| 2004/C 078E/8 | P-1841/03 by Charles Tannock to the CommissionSubject: The Commission's view that terrorism is not a human rights abuse | 729 |
| 2004/C 078E/9 | E-1855/03 by Anna Karamanou to the CommissionSubject: Human rights in the EU — absence of common procedures for the reporting by Member States of human rights violations | 730 |
| 2004/C 078E/0 | E-1945/03 by Elly Plooij-van Gorsel to the CommissionSubject: Amendment of the Dutch Media Act | 731 |
| 2004/C 078E/1 | P-2154/03 by Herbert Bösch to the CommissionSubject: Delays in the disbursement of funding for SMU projects | 732 |
| 2004/C 078E/2 | E-2160/03 by Antonios Trakatellis to the CommissionSubject: Broadcasting licences, rules governing State aid for broadcasting and media advertising in Greece | 733 |
| 2004/C 078E/3 | E-2218/03 by Monica Frassoni to the CommissionSubject: High-speed rail link between Milan and Genoa and Milan and Verona | 735 |
| 2004/C 078E/4 | E-2265/03 by Erik Meijer to the CommissionSubject: Deployment of a fund and provision of misleading information in order to dissuade authorities and other large users from using cheaper software available from a competitor | 736 |
| 2004/C 078E/5 | E-2328/03 by Glyn Ford to the CommissionSubject: Helicopter services to the Isles of Scilly | 737 |
| 2004/C 078E/6 | E-2428/03 by Niels Busk to the CouncilSubject: State aid to Italian milk producers | 738 |
| 2004/C 078E/7 | E-2429/03 by Niels Busk to the CouncilSubject: State aid to Italian farmers | 738 |
| Joint answer to Written Questions E-2428/03 and E-2429/03 |
| 2004/C 078E/8 | E-2447/03 by Marie-Arlette Carlotti to the CommissionSubject: Detailed rules for the implementation of technical and financial assistance measures for traditional ACP suppliers of bananas | 739 |
| 2004/C 078E/9 | E-2452/03 by Erik Meijer to the CouncilSubject: Growing American pressure on future EU Member States to permanently cease their cooperation with the International Criminal Court | 740 |
| 2004/C 078E/0 | E-2464/03 by Piia-Noora Kauppi to the CommissionSubject: Pricing of basic postal services | 741 |
| 2004/C 078E/1 | E-2485/03 by Ria Oomen-Ruijten to the CommissionSubject: Double taxation conventions and Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 | 743 |
| 2004/C 078E/2 | E-2494/03 by Christopher Huhne to the CommissionSubject: Pensions | 744 |
| 2004/C 078E/3 | E-2553/03 by Marco Cappato to the CouncilSubject: The Tunisian journalist Abdallah Zouari | 745 |
| 2004/C 078E/4 | E-2584/03 by Graham Watson to the CouncilSubject: Import of timber from Indonesia | 747 |
| 2004/C 078E/5 | E-2614/03 by Albert Maat to the CommissionSubject: Planting of vineyards with the help of EU funds | 747 |
| 2004/C 078E/6 | P-2616/03 by Alexandros Alavanos to the CommissionSubject: Exclusion of feta cheese, ouzo and Kalamata olives from the list of products with geographical indications of origin to be negotiated at the WTO | 748 |
| 2004/C 078E/7 | E-2627/03 by Maurizio Turco to the CouncilSubject: Follow-up on the Resolution on sexual violence against women, particularly Catholic nuns adopted by the European Parliament on 5 April 2001 | 749 |
| 2004/C 078E/8 | E-2652/03 by Emma Bonino, Marco Cappato, Benedetto Della Vedova, Gianfranco Dell'Alba, Olivier Dupuis, Marco Pannella and Maurizio Turco to the CouncilSubject: Infringements of legality in Lebanon | 750 |
| 2004/C 078E/9 | E-2706/03 by Raffaele Costa to the CommissionSubject: Daphne Programme | 752 |
| 2004/C 078E/0 | E-2737/03 by Glyn Ford to the CommissionSubject: Human rights in Vietnam | 752 |
| 2004/C 078E/1 | P-2751/03 by Gabriele Stauner to the CommissionSubject: Criminal practices involved in the award of a contract to CESD-Roma | 753 |
| 2004/C 078E/2 | E-2753/03 by Elly Plooij-van Gorsel to the CommissionSubject: Amendment of the Dutch Media Act | 755 |
| 2004/C 078E/3 | P-2767/03 by Dana Scallon to the CommissionSubject: NGO funding | 756 |
| 2004/C 078E/4 | E-2797/03 by Ria Oomen-Ruijten to the CommissionSubject: Combating legionnaires' disease | 756 |
| 2004/C 078E/5 | E-2801/03 by Pedro Marset Campos to the CouncilSubject: Special tolls in France and Germany for the transport of goods by road | 757 |
| 2004/C 078E/6 | E-2807/03 by Erik Meijer to the CommissionSubject: The Vatican's crusade against homosexual marriages within the EU and the Vatican's right to acquire revenue by issuing euro coins | 758 |
| 2004/C 078E/7 | E-2839/03 by Alexandros Alavanos to the CouncilSubject: Place of Iraq in the UN and position of the EU | 760 |
| 2004/C 078E/8 | P-2875/03 by Hélène Flautre to the CouncilSubject: Situation of migrants and asylum-seekers in Malta | 760 |
| 2004/C 078E/9 | E-2878/03 by Jan Dhaene to the CouncilSubject: Technical inspection of the systems for indirect vision used on commercial vehicles | 761 |
| 2004/C 078E/0 | E-2880/03 by Jan Dhaene to the CouncilSubject: Bicycle theft | 762 |
| 2004/C 078E/1 | E-2885/03 by Charles Tannock to the CommissionSubject: Application of the EU/Israel Association Agreement | 763 |
| 2004/C 078E/2 | E-2900/03 by Antonio Tajani to the CouncilSubject: Safeguarding jobs at the Alcatel plant in Rieti | 763 |
| 2004/C 078E/3 | E-2911/03 by Glenys Kinnock to the CouncilSubject: Football-related violence | 764 |
| 2004/C 078E/4 | E-2917/03 by Gabriele Stauner to the CommissionSubject: 2 SDA, Camire, Marcom, World Systems, Ariane II Group and Sema Belgium | 765 |
| 2004/C 078E/5 | E-2918/03 by Marco Cappato and Maurizio Turco to the CouncilSubject: Case of Italian citizen Maurizio Trotta, imprisoned in Romania | 766 |
| 2004/C 078E/6 | E-2926/03 by Michl Ebner to the CouncilSubject: Urgent need to expand voluntary fire services | 766 |
| 2004/C 078E/7 | E-2929/03 by Olivier Dupuis to the CommissionSubject: Situation of Thich Tri Luc, a Vietnamese citizen enjoying HCR refugee status, kidnapped in Cambodia and awaiting trial in Vietnam | 767 |
| 2004/C 078E/8 | E-2940/03 by Rosa Miguélez Ramos to the CouncilSubject: Allocations from the Solidarity Fund | 768 |
| 2004/C 078E/9 | E-2944/03 by Erik Meijer to the CommissionSubject: Cancellation of the special train carrying large numbers of officials and political group staff between the European Parliament's two meeting places | 769 |
| 2004/C 078E/0 | E-2960/03 by Armando Cossutta to the CouncilSubject: Middle East peace process | 770 |
| 2004/C 078E/1 | E-2962/03 by Alexandros Alavanos to the CommissionSubject: Damage to valuable works contained in the temple of St Sofia | 771 |
| 2004/C 078E/2 | P-3008/03 by Karin Riis-Jørgensen to the CommissionSubject: Unequal conditions of competition for the fish processing industry in the EU Member States | 772 |
| 2004/C 078E/3 | E-3061/03 by Elisabeth Schroedter to the CommissionSubject: Threat to the FFH protected area Falkenseer Kuhlaake (No 537) from a road-building project to be carried out with assistance from the European Structural Funds | 773 |
| 2004/C 078E/4 | P-3066/03 by Alain Esclopé to the CommissionSubject: Breaking-up of decommissioned US warships | 774 |
| 2004/C 078E/5 | E-3088/03 by Bruno Gollnisch to the CommissionSubject: Pechiney-Alcan merger | 775 |
| 2004/C 078E/6 | E-3089/03 by Bruno Gollnisch to the CouncilSubject: Alstom | 777 |
| 2004/C 078E/7 | P-3090/03 by Antonios Trakatellis to the CommissionSubject: Declassification of forest land and forests and redefinition of the term forest under new legislation proposed by the Greek Government | 777 |
| 2004/C 078E/8 | E-3098/03 by Jonas Sjöstedt to the CommissionSubject: Margot Wallström and the EMU campaign | 779 |
| 2004/C 078E/9 | E-3100/03 by Jonas Sjöstedt to the CommissionSubject: Commission's involvement in national campaigns | 779 |
| Joint answer to Written Questions E-3098/03 and E-3100/03 |
| 2004/C 078E/0 | E-3101/03 by Jonas Sjöstedt to the CouncilSubject: EMU referendum and location of agencies | 780 |
| 2004/C 078E/1 | P-3102/03 by Lissy Gröner to the CommissionSubject: Discrimination against women in the Commission's new assessment system | 780 |
| 2004/C 078E/2 | E-3120/03 by Christopher Huhne to the CommissionSubject: Noise pollution | 782 |
| 2004/C 078E/3 | E-3137/03 by Mihail Papayannakis to the CouncilSubject: Right to apply for asylum | 783 |
| 2004/C 078E/4 | P-3167/03 by Roger Helmer to the CommissionSubject: Working and health care in the accession countries | 783 |
| 2004/C 078E/5 | E-3168/03 by Michl Ebner to the CouncilSubject: Ban on dangerous dog breeds | 784 |
| 2004/C 078E/6 | P-3180/03 by Mario Borghezio to the CommissionSubject: Protection by the EU of its floriculture sector | 785 |
| 2004/C 078E/7 | E-3188/03 by Adeline Hazan to the CommissionSubject: Harmonisation of civil status records in Europe | 787 |
| 2004/C 078E/8 | E-3195/03 by Ursula Stenzel to the CommissionSubject: Recognition of the profession of (clinical) optometrist | 788 |
| 2004/C 078E/9 | E-3196/03 by Stavros Xarchakos to the CommissionSubject: Problems with construction activity, the protection of forests and building cooperatives in Greece | 788 |
| 2004/C 078E/0 | E-3203/03 by Alexandros Alavanos to the CommissionSubject: Treatment of hospital waste in Attica | 789 |
| 2004/C 078E/1 | E-3213/03 by Stavros Xarchakos to the CommissionSubject: Take-up of Community funding in the cultural sector in Greece | 790 |
| 2004/C 078E/2 | E-3217/03 by Antonios Trakatellis to the CommissionSubject: Monitoring of atmospheric pollution in Greece | 791 |
| 2004/C 078E/3 | E-3224/03 by Glyn Ford to the CommissionSubject: EC Commission proposal to replace Council Regulation (EEC) No 3820/85 on Drivers' Hours | 793 |
| 2004/C 078E/4 | E-3229/03 by Raffaele Costa and Jas Gawronski to the CommissionSubject: Funding for the Turin-Lyon rail link | 794 |
| 2004/C 078E/5 | E-3238/03 by Konstantinos Hatzidakis to the CommissionSubject: New arrangements regarding maritime cabotage in Greece | 795 |
| 2004/C 078E/6 | E-3254/03 by José Ribeiro e Castro to the CommissionSubject: List of priority projects — European Commission | 796 |
| 2004/C 078E/7 | E-3266/03 by Torben Lund to the CommissionSubject: Impact of genetically modified crops on nature | 797 |
| 2004/C 078E/8 | P-3298/03 by Ian Hudghton to the CommissionSubject: Effect of climatic change on cod stocks | 799 |
| 2004/C 078E/9 | E-3299/03 by Horst Schnellhardt to the CommissionSubject: Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (Flora, Fauna and Habitats Directive) | 800 |
| 2004/C 078E/0 | E-3316/03 by Konstantinos Hatzidakis to the CommissionSubject: EAGGF corrections | 801 |
| 2004/C 078E/1 | E-3318/03 by Alexandros Alavanos to the CommissionSubject: Issuing of EUR 1 banknotes | 802 |
| 2004/C 078E/2 | E-3338/03 by Roberta Angelilli to the CommissionSubject: Environmental protection for the Peschiera springs | 802 |
| 2004/C 078E/3 | E-3346/03 by Miquel Mayol i Raynal to the CommissionSubject: Amendments to the Majorca highway-planning programme | 804 |
| 2004/C 078E/4 | P-3364/03 by Christos Folias to the CommissionSubject: New regulatory framework for telecommunications | 805 |
| 2004/C 078E/5 | E-3365/03 by Mihail Papayannakis to the CommissionSubject: Regeneration of the Psyrri district | 806 |
| 2004/C 078E/6 | E-3373/03 by Alexander de Roo to the CommissionSubject: September floods in Malta and town of Qormi | 807 |
| 2004/C 078E/7 | E-3392/03 by Christopher Huhne to the CommissionSubject: Economic monitoring | 808 |
| 2004/C 078E/8 | E-3398/03 by Stefano Zappalà to the CommissionSubject: Dumping by China on the world copper market | 809 |
| 2004/C 078E/9 | E-3408/03 by José Ribeiro e Castro to the CommissionSubject: Illegal immigration — German Consular Services | 810 |
| 2004/C 078E/0 | E-3410/03 by Joan Vallvé to the CommissionSubject: The NHP subsidies and environmental impact | 811 |
| 2004/C 078E/1 | E-3411/03 by Joan Vallvé to the CommissionSubject: Granting subsidies to the NHP and the Ródano water transfer | 812 |
| Joint answer to Written Questions E-3410/03 and E-3411/03 |
| 2004/C 078E/2 | E-3436/03 by Antonio Di Pietro to the CommissionSubject: Harmonisation of the European energy market | 813 |
| 2004/C 078E/3 | E-3444/03 by Ilda Figueiredo to the CommissionSubject: Teaching Portuguese language and culture in the Netherlands | 814 |
| 2004/C 078E/4 | E-3452/03 by Mihail Papayannakis to the CommissionSubject: Exclusion of environmental NGOs from environmental education | 814 |
| 2004/C 078E/5 | E-3463/03 by Christos Folias to the CommissionSubject: Fixing maximum profit margins for sales of fresh produce | 815 |
| 2004/C 078E/6 | E-3465/03 by Caroline Jackson to the CommissionSubject: Dichlofluanid | 816 |
| 2004/C 078E/7 | E-3475/03 by Mihail Papayannakis to the CommissionSubject: Protection of the Caretta caretta turtle | 817 |
| 2004/C 078E/8 | E-3507/03 by Paul Lannoye to the CommissionSubject: Protection of loggerhead turtles in Greece | 817 |
| 2004/C 078E/9 | E-3528/03 by John Bowis to the CommissionSubject: Protection of the caretta — caretta turtle | 817 |
| 2004/C 078E/0 | E-3532/03 by María Bergaz Conesa to the CommissionSubject: Protection of the Caretta caretta tortoise | 818 |
| Joint answer to Written Questions E-3475/03, E-3507/03, E-3528/03 and E-3532/03 |
| 2004/C 078E/1 | E-3481/03 by Richard Corbett to the CommissionSubject: Valdastico Sud motorway | 819 |
| 2004/C 078E/2 | E-3488/03 by Albert Maat to the CommissionSubject: Statements by individual Commissioners against Commission policy | 820 |
| 2004/C 078E/3 | E-3505/03 by Hiltrud Breyer to the CommissionSubject: Information on the level of EU funding granted to Saarland between January 1997 and December 2002 (Supplementary Answer) | 820 |
| 2004/C 078E/4 | E-3513/03 by Adriana Poli Bortone and Cristiana Muscardini to the CommissionSubject: Water | 821 |
| 2004/C 078E/5 | E-3518/03 by Christopher Huhne to the CommissionSubject: Bioptic driving | 822 |
| 2004/C 078E/6 | E-3541/03 by Chris Davies to the CommissionSubject: US ghost ships moored in the UK | 822 |
| 2004/C 078E/7 | E-3548/03 by Antonios Trakatellis to the CommissionSubject: Public works in Greece: shortcomings and defects regarding the Port of Igoumenitsa and the Egnatia highway | 824 |
| 2004/C 078E/8 | E-3551/03 by Paulo Casaca to the CommissionSubject: Goatmeat subsidies — Application of Regulation 2550/2001 of 21 December 2001 to the Azores | 825 |
| 2004/C 078E/9 | E-3557/03 by Roberta Angelilli to the CommissionSubject: Irregularities in DG Agriculture highlighted by the Court of Auditors | 826 |
| 2004/C 078E/0 | E-3558/03 by Roberta Angelilli to the CommissionSubject: Right to vote for immigrants in EU Member States | 827 |
| 2004/C 078E/1 | E-3578/03 by Michl Ebner to the CommissionSubject: Environmentally friendly diesel fuel | 828 |
| 2004/C 078E/2 | E-3579/03 by Christoph Konrad to the CommissionSubject: Hunting season for carrion crows in the EU | 829 |
| 2004/C 078E/3 | E-3581/03 by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna to the CommissionSubject: Shrimp fishing in Svalbard | 830 |
| 2004/C 078E/4 | E-3592/03 by Karl-Heinz Florenz to the CommissionSubject: Deposits on disposable drinks packaging in Germany from an environmental point of view | 831 |
| 2004/C 078E/5 | E-3593/03 by Baroness Sarah Ludford to the CommissionSubject: Cost of passports across the European Union Member States | 832 |
| 2004/C 078E/6 | E-3600/03 by Roberto Bigliardo to the CommissionSubject: Overflying Brussels — extension of Zaventem airport | 832 |
| 2004/C 078E/7 | E-3606/03 by Michl Ebner to the CommissionSubject: Special conditions for transport by heavy goods vehicles | 833 |
| 2004/C 078E/8 | E-3614/03 by Esko Seppänen to the CommissionSubject: Cultivation of sweet rowanberries | 835 |
| 2004/C 078E/9 | E-3615/03 by Esko Seppänen to the CommissionSubject: Fishing for migratory salmon | 835 |
| 2004/C 078E/0 | E-3616/03 by Esko Seppänen to the CommissionSubject: Setting fishing quotas for the new Member States | 836 |
| 2004/C 078E/1 | E-3630/03 by Carles-Alfred Gasòliba i Böhm to the CommissionSubject: Unspent Structural Fund resources | 837 |
| 2004/C 078E/2 | P-3636/03 by Salvador Jové Peres to the CommissionSubject: Reform of the CMO in olive oil | 838 |
| 2004/C 078E/3 | E-3640/03 by Herbert Bösch and Johannes Swoboda to the CommissionSubject: Withdrawal of direct cross-border rail connections | 839 |
| 2004/C 078E/4 | E-3641/03 by Antonios Trakatellis to the CommissionSubject: Definition of forest: divergence between the definition in a Greek bill and in the Forest Focus regulation | 840 |
| 2004/C 078E/5 | E-3644/03 by Salvador Jové Peres to the CommissionSubject: Reform of the COM in olive oil | 842 |
| 2004/C 078E/6 | E-3649/03 by Erik Meijer to the CommissionSubject: Serious delays in payments by the International Organisation for Migration in Geneva relating to the German forced labour compensation programme | 843 |
| 2004/C 078E/7 | E-3971/03 by Mario Borghezio to the CommissionSubject: Failure by Germany to compensate former Italian military internees (IMIs) | 843 |
| Joint answer to Written Questions E-3649/03 and E-3971/03 |
| 2004/C 078E/8 | P-3652/03 by Dana Scallon to the CommissionSubject: Stem cells and stem-cell lines | 844 |
| 2004/C 078E/9 | E-3656/03 by Salvador Jové Peres to the CommissionSubject: High quality code NC 100300 barley imports | 845 |
| 2004/C 078E/0 | P-3657/03 by Giovanni Procacci to the CommissionSubject: Storage of nuclear waste | 846 |
| 2004/C 078E/1 | E-3663/03 by Paulo Casaca to the CommissionSubject: Undisclosed research on organic farming | 847 |
| 2004/C 078E/2 | P-3667/03 by Ilda Figueiredo to the CommissionSubject: Building of a dam in the lower Sabor | 849 |
| 2004/C 078E/3 | E-3698/03 by Torben Lund to the CommissionSubject: Contravention of ban on fishing with drift nets and of the habitats directive | 850 |
| 2004/C 078E/4 | E-3701/03 by Marco Pannella, Maurizio Turco, Marco Cappato, Gianfranco Dell'Alba, Benedetto Della Vedova and Olivier Dupuis to the CommissionSubject: Misappropriation of Community funds intended for the Palestinian National Authority | 851 |
| 2004/C 078E/5 | E-3734/03 by Johanna Boogerd-Quaak to the CommissionSubject: High fees for residence cards | 853 |
| 2004/C 078E/6 | E-3749/03 by Roberta Angelilli to the CommissionSubject: Update on use of funding from the LIFE III programme by the municipality of Massa | 854 |
| 2004/C 078E/7 | E-3750/03 by Roberta Angelilli to the CommissionSubject: Update on use of funding from the LIFE III programme by the municipality of Florence | 854 |
| 2004/C 078E/8 | E-3762/03 by Konstantinos Hatzidakis to the CommissionSubject: Commission proceedings against Greece for infringing Community legislation in the telecommunications sector | 855 |
| 2004/C 078E/9 | Ρ-3776/03 by Christopher Huhne to the CommissionSubject: US GAAP | 856 |
| 2004/C 078E/0 | E-3795/03 by Chris Davies to the CommissionSubject: Meeting UN sustainable fishing targets | 857 |
| 2004/C 078E/1 | E-3796/03 by Chris Davies to the CommissionSubject: Maríne Stewardship Council | 858 |
| 2004/C 078E/2 | E-3797/03 by Chris Davies to the CommissionSubject: Sustainable fisheries | 859 |
| 2004/C 078E/3 | E-3821/03 by Joan Vallvé to the CommissionSubject: Environmental impact of the extension of the Eivissa Airport | 859 |
| 2004/C 078E/4 | E-3825/03 by Ilda Figueiredo to the CommissionSubject: Abandoned mines | 860 |
| 2004/C 078E/5 | E-3826/03 by Ilda Figueiredo to the CommissionSubject: Environmental problems caused by small and medium-sized dairy farms | 861 |
| 2004/C 078E/6 | E-3837/03 by Emmanouil Bakopoulos to the CommissionSubject: Privatisation of the Post Office Savings Bank | 862 |
| 2004/C 078E/7 | E-3841/03 by Proinsias De Rossa to the CommissionSubject: Protection of the consumer interest under the new EU regulatory framework for electronic communications (Directives 2002/20/EC, 2002/21/EC) | 863 |
| 2004/C 078E/8 | P-3860/03 by Reimer Böge to the CommissionSubject: Designation of bird protection zones in Schleswig-Holstein | 864 |
| 2004/C 078E/9 | P-3863/03 by Mario Borghezio to the CommissionSubject: European Evidence Warrant — a proposal threatening individual freedom? | 866 |
| 2004/C 078E/0 | E-3871/03 by Alexander de Roo to the CommissionSubject: Connection between the Ebro water transfer and the Júcar-Vinalopó water transfer | 866 |
| 2004/C 078E/1 | E-3873/03 by Luigi Vinci to the CommissionSubject: Motorway and high-speed rail routes — Corridor 5 and Friuli-Venezia Giulia region | 867 |
| 2004/C 078E/2 | E-3875/03 by Francesco Fiori to the CommissionSubject: Reform of the COM in tobacco | 869 |
| 2004/C 078E/3 | E-3879/03 by Olle Schmidt to the CommissionSubject: Rules governing eel fishing | 870 |
| 2004/C 078E/4 | E-3886/03 by Roberta Angelilli to the CommissionSubject: Alcatel Italia and the seat of the European Satellite Agency | 871 |
| 2004/C 078E/5 | E-3888/03 by Jan Mulder to the CommissionSubject: Winding-up of contracts in the Eurostat affair | 872 |
| 2004/C 078E/6 | P-3891/03 by Patricia McKenna to the CommissionSubject: Renewable energy in Ireland | 873 |
| 2004/C 078E/7 | E-3908/03 by Olle Schmidt to the CommissionSubject: Freedom of movement in the EU and risk of abuse of welfare systems | 874 |
| 2004/C 078E/8 | E-3916/03 by Maurizio Turco, Marco Pannella, Marco Cappato, Gianfranco Dell'Alba, Benedetto Della Vedova and Olivier Dupuis to the CommissionSubject: Unsatisfactory standards in Italy for checking that medical staff have the necessary professional qualifications | 875 |
| 2004/C 078E/9 | E-3917/03 by Nelly Maes to the CommissionSubject: European approval of government support for the livestock market in Leeuwarden | 876 |
| 2004/C 078E/0 | P-3926/03 by Jacqueline Foster to the CommissionSubject: Distortion of competition in the diamond industry | 877 |
| 2004/C 078E/1 | E-3927/03 by Freddy Blak to the CommissionSubject: Modular road trains on European roads | 878 |
| 2004/C 078E/2 | E-3929/03 by Stavros Xarchakos to the CommissionSubject: Increase in inflation in Greece | 879 |
| 2004/C 078E/3 | E-3932/03 by Rodi Kratsa-Tsagaropoulou to the CommissionSubject: Sexual exploitation of children | 881 |
| 2004/C 078E/4 | E-3933/03 by Samuli Pohjamo and Mikko Pesälä to the CommissionSubject: Recognition of the ergonomic saddle chair in the EU's chair classifications | 882 |
| 2004/C 078E/5 | E-3935/03 by Bert Doorn to the CommissionSubject: Court with jurisdiction in international civil and commercial matters under Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 | 883 |
| 2004/C 078E/6 | P-3937/03 by Elisabeth Jeggle to the CommissionSubject: European Regulation on yogurt | 885 |
| 2004/C 078E/7 | E-3950/03 by Erik Meijer to the CommissionSubject: Incentives to halt the continuing cancellation of rapid and direct long-distance international train services | 886 |
| 2004/C 078E/8 | P-3954/03 by Gian Gobbo to the CommissionSubject: Issue of one-euro banknotes | 887 |
| 2004/C 078E/9 | E-3982/03 by Miquel Mayol i Raynal to the CommissionSubject: Political rights of the Macedonian minority in Greece | 888 |
| 2004/C 078E/0 | E-3997/03 by Raffaele Costa to the CommissionSubject: Prince/Euro programme | 888 |
| 2004/C 078E/1 | E-4000/03 by Herbert Bösch to the CommissionSubject: Reforms at Eurostat | 890 |
| 2004/C 078E/2 | E-4005/03 by Anna Terrón i Cusí to the CommissionSubject: Discrimination against Community children as regards access to sports federations in Spain | 891 |
| 2004/C 078E/3 | P-4009/03 by Antonio Di Pietro to the CommissionSubject: Reform of the tobacco CMO | 892 |
| 2004/C 078E/4 | E-4016/03 by Salvador Garriga Polledo to the CommissionSubject: Free movement of pharmaceutical products in the EU | 893 |
| 2004/C 078E/5 | P-4022/03 by Christos Folias to the CommissionSubject: Comparative data in the olive oil sector | 894 |
| 2004/C 078E/6 | P-4023/03 by Jean-Louis Bernié to the CommissionSubject: Natura 2000 | 895 |
| 2004/C 078E/7 | E-4024/03 by Christopher Huhne to the CommissionSubject: Free-standing ovens | 896 |
| 2004/C 078E/8 | E-4025/03 by Claude Moraes to the CommissionSubject: UN investigation in East Timor | 897 |
| 2004/C 078E/9 | E-4030/03 by Juan Naranjo Escobar to the CommissionSubject: Under-utilisation of payment appropriations | 898 |
| 2004/C 078E/0 | E-4039/03 by Christos Folias to the CommissionSubject: Optometry in Greece | 899 |
| 2004/C 078E/1 | E-4040/03 by Glyn Ford, Kathalijne Buitenweg, Claude Moraes and Anna Terrón i Cusí to the CommissionSubject: MEDEA Programme and Article 13 of the Treaty | 900 |
| 2004/C 078E/2 | E-4041/03 by John Bowis and Ria Oomen-Ruijten to the CommissionSubject: The implementation of worker safety directives and protection of healthcare workers and their patients | 901 |
| 2004/C 078E/3 | E-4042/03 by Kathalijne Buitenweg to the CommissionSubject: Bullying at school | 902 |
| 2004/C 078E/4 | E-4044/03 by Theresa Villiers to the CommissionSubject: Free passes for local residents to the grounds of heritage and tourist sites | 903 |
| 2004/C 078E/5 | P-4049/03 by Francesco Speroni to the CommissionSubject: GM products | 904 |
| 2004/C 078E/6 | P-4050/03 by Theresa Villiers to the CommissionSubject: Proposal for a directive concerning credit for consumers | 904 |
| 2004/C 078E/7 | E-4052/03 by Christos Folias to the CommissionSubject: Support for the various Churches | 906 |
| 2004/C 078E/8 | P-4060/03 by Roberta Angelilli to the CommissionSubject: European citizenship | 906 |
| 2004/C 078E/9 | E-4062/03 by Alexandros Alavanos to the CommissionSubject: Health and safety of workers - complaint 00/4404, SG(2000) A/3828/2 | 907 |
| 2004/C 078E/0 | E-4063/03 by Alexandros Alavanos to the CommissionSubject: Workers on one-day contracts | 908 |
| 2004/C 078E/1 | P-4073/03 by Giovanni Fava to the CommissionSubject: Waste-to-energy plant | 909 |
| 2004/C 078E/2 | E-4080/03 by Chris Davies to the CommissionSubject: Pets' passports | 910 |
| 2004/C 078E/3 | E-4086/03 by Olle Schmidt to the CommissionSubject: Company-specific aid to Eftec in connection with relocation from Hässleholm in Sweden to Wales | 911 |
| 2004/C 078E/4 | E-4087/03 by Chris Davies to the CommissionSubject: Data Protection Supervisor | 912 |
| 2004/C 078E/5 | E-0005/04 by Olivier Dupuis to the CommissionSubject: Persecution of Uighur Organisations based in the European Union | 912 |
| 2004/C 078E/6 | P-0014/04 by Johanna Boogerd-Quaak to the CommissionSubject: Relationship between cancelled flights and PNR | 914 |
| 2004/C 078E/7 | E-0024/04 by Avril Doyle to the CommissionSubject: Financial support for an organisation facilitating the independence of people with disabilities | 915 |
| 2004/C 078E/8 | E-0025/04 by Avril Doyle to the CommissionSubject: Possibility of BSE (OSE?) in sheep | 916 |
| 2004/C 078E/9 | P-0028/04 by Philip Bushill-Matthews to the CommissionSubject: Age discrimination | 917 |
| 2004/C 078E/0 | P-0029/04 by Heinz Kindermann to the CommissionSubject: Closure of veterinary border control point at Pomellen, Germany | 917 |
| 2004/C 078E/1 | E-0036/04 by Jules Maaten to the CommissionSubject: SARS outbreak in China and the Philippines | 919 |
| 2004/C 078E/2 | E-0040/04 by Elspeth Attwooll to the CommissionSubject: Size of the Commission | 920 |
| 2004/C 078E/3 | E-0041/04 by Elspeth Attwooll to the CommissionSubject: Trade between Scotland and the rest of the European Union | 920 |
| 2004/C 078E/4 | E-0057/04 by Camilo Nogueira Román to the CommissionSubject: Welfare expenditure in the Spanish state and the situation in the EU | 921 |
| 2004/C 078E/5 | P-0058/04 by Giuseppe Di Lello Finuoli to the CommissionSubject: Funding by the Italian State and the Region of Campania for the programme contract submitted by Agrifuturo S.c.a.r.l | 922 |
| 2004/C 078E/6 | E-0060/04 by Hiltrud Breyer to the CommissionSubject: Chromium (VI) in leather | 923 |
| 2004/C 078E/7 | E-0064/04 by Camilo Nogueira Román to the CommissionSubject: Alarming rise in unemployment in Galicia: 7465 newly unemployed people in December 2003 out of a total of 23419 for Spain as a whole, bringing the rate of unemployment in Galicia to 12,36 % | 924 |
| 2004/C 078E/8 | P-0065/04 by Bill Newton Dunn to the CommissionSubject: Post-60 flying in Europe | 925 |
| 2004/C 078E/9 | E-0067/04 by Bill Newton Dunn to the CommissionSubject: Retirement benefits | 926 |
| 2004/C 078E/0 | E-0069/04 by Ilda Figueiredo to the CommissionSubject: Support for cleaning lakes in the Cantanhede municipal district | 926 |
| 2004/C 078E/1 | E-0076/04 by Proinsias De Rossa to the CommissionSubject: Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 and blind and partially sighted registration | 927 |
| 2004/C 078E/2 | P-0083/04 by Dirk Sterckx to the CommissionSubject: Restrictions on freedom of movement for Flemish travel guides on trips abroad | 928 |
| 2004/C 078E/3 | E-0087/04 by Erik Meijer to the CommissionSubject: Use by casinos of EU rules in support of their fight against the Netherlands government policy aimed at limiting compulsive gambling | 929 |
| 2004/C 078E/4 | E-0095/04 by Mihail Papayannakis to the CommissionSubject: Public hospital INMI L. Spallanzani in Italy | 930 |
| 2004/C 078E/5 | E-0106/04 by Erik Meijer to the CommissionSubject: Use in shops of escalators which meet European safety standards but are apparently unsafe for children | 931 |
| 2004/C 078E/6 | E-0108/04 by Charles Tannock to the CommissionSubject: Fiat in Italy acting in a joint venture in China providing vans to the People's Republic of China for the purposes of mobile exectution | 932 |
| 2004/C 078E/7 | P-0109/04 by Claude Moraes to the CommissionSubject: Sikhs and the banning of religious articles of faith | 933 |
| 2004/C 078E/8 | P-0126/04 by Jean Lambert to the CommissionSubject: Permits for capture, breeding and trading of protected species in Greece in violation of EU legislation | 933 |
| 2004/C 078E/9 | P-0147/04 by Bart Staes to the CommissionSubject: Combating the use of drugs in sport | 934 |
| 2004/C 078E/0 | P-0157/04 by Catherine Guy-Quint to the CommissionSubject: Twinnings with Bulgaria and Romania | 936 |
| 2004/C 078E/1 | P-0158/04 by Brice Hortefeux to the CommissionSubject: Aviation safety | 937 |
| 2004/C 078E/2 | E-0178/04 by Alexandros Alavanos to the CommissionSubject: Funding from the Culture 2000 programme for the conservation of valuable cultural works stored in Aghia Sofia | 938 |
| 2004/C 078E/3 | P-0193/04 by Ward Beysen to the CommissionSubject: Parallel trade | 939 |
| 2004/C 078E/4 | P-0206/04 by Renato Brunetta to the CommissionSubject: Unlawful imposition of identification marks for sports craft in the Venice lagoon | 940 |
| 2004/C 078E/5 | P-0207/04 by Harald Ettl to the CommissionSubject: Further action by the Commission on the portability of supplementary pension rights | 941 |
| 2004/C 078E/6 | P-0208/04 by Ioannis Averoff to the CommissionSubject: Practical problems with town-twinning scheme | 942 |
| 2004/C 078E/7 | E-0223/04 by Alexandros Alavanos to the CommissionSubject: Unemployment rate in Greece | 943 |
| 2004/C 078E/8 | E-0224/04 by Roberta Angelilli to the CommissionSubject: Militaria e Dintorni in Europa (Militaria Fair) | 943 |
| 2004/C 078E/9 | P-0231/04 by Alexander de Roo to the CommissionSubject: EIB loan to Schiphol Airport | 944 |
| 2004/C 078E/00 | E-0243/04 by Ilda Figueiredo to the CommissionSubject: Relocation and unemployment | 945 |
| 2004/C 078E/01 | E-0249/04 by Christopher Heaton-Harris to the CommissionSubject: Private Eye | 946 |
| 2004/C 078E/02 | P-0253/04 by Geoffrey Van Orden to the CommissionSubject: The Construction Products Directive | 947 |
| 2004/C 078E/03 | E-0284/04 by Joachim Wuermeling to the CommissionSubject: BEUC | 948 |
| 2004/C 078E/04 | E-0300/04 by Roberto Bigliardo to the CommissionSubject: Financing for the new Athens airport | 949 |
| 2004/C 078E/05 | E-0310/04 by Erik Meijer to the CommissionSubject: Further reduction of educational facilities for the long-established Sorbian-speaking community in Lausitz, eastern Germany | 950 |
| 2004/C 078E/06 | P-0314/04 by Ulpu Iivari to the CommissionSubject: Effect of EU support on the shift of jobs within the EU | 951 |
| 2004/C 078E/07 | E-0330/04 by Luigi Vinci to the CommissionSubject: Hospitals for national defence in Italy | 953 |
| 2004/C 078E/08 | P-0454/04 by Ioannis Marínos to the CommissionSubject: Unemployment benefits in Greece | 953 |
| 2004/C 078E/09 | P-0523/04 by Emmanouil Mastorakis to the CommissionSubject: Second and Third Community Support Frameworks | 954 |
| 2004/C 078E/10 | E-0542/04 by Erik Meijer to the CommissionSubject: Active publication of information about subsidies and ratios between payments to large and small farms under the CAP | 954 |
| 2004/C 078E/11 | 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 | 955 |
| 2004/C 078E/12 | 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 | 956 |
| 2004/C 078E/13 | E-0545/04 by Erik Meijer to the CommissionSubject: CAP: consequences of the distribution of the reduction in income in agriculture and financing of techniques which promote animal welfare or are environmentally sound for use on small farms | 956 |
| 2004/C 078E/14 | E-0616/04 by Klaus Hänsch to the CommissionSubject: Allocation of EU resources | 957 |

Notice No

Contents

page

I   (Information)

EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT

WRITTEN QUESTIONS WITH ANSWER (Part 1)

2004/C 078E/1

E-0465/01 by Antonios Trakatellis and Rodi Kratsa-Tsagaropoulou to the CommissionSubject: Violation of Community environmental legislation and measures to protect the Loggerhead (Caretta Caretta) sea turtle

1

2004/C 078E/2

E-2369/02 by Chris Davies to the CommissionSubject: Directive 1999/74/EC on the protection of laying hens

2

2004/C 078E/3

E-3463/02 by Christopher Huhne to the CommissionSubject: Economic integration

3

2004/C 078E/4

E-3509/02 by Erik Meijer to the CommissionSubject: Abolition of the arrangement whereby small-scale, occasional trading can be carried out on a cross-border basis using the cash-on-delivery system

3

2004/C 078E/5

E-3522/02 by Bart Staes to the CommissionSubject: Television rights relating to Champions League matches — dispute as to what constitutes news gathering and what is covered by copyright

5

2004/C 078E/6

E-3574/02 by Ilda Figueiredo to the CommissionSubject: Outermost regions and enlargement

7

2004/C 078E/7

E-3644/02 by Hanja Maij-Weggen to the CommissionSubject: Incarceration of Shaiboub

8

2004/C 078E/8

E-3645/02 by Hanja Maij-Weggen to the CommissionSubject: Imprisonment of Shakir

8

2004/C 078E/9

E-3652/02 by Hanja Maij-Weggen to the CommissionSubject: El Kosheh retrial

9

Joint answer to Written Questions E-3644/02, E-3645/02 and E-3652/02

2004/C 078E/0

E-3675/02 by Cristiana Muscardini to the CommissionSubject: Europe and Palestinian terrorism

10

2004/C 078E/1

P-3803/02 by Joan Colom i Naval to the CommissionSubject: Catalan television broadcast on fraud against the ESF in Spain

10

2004/C 078E/2

E-3829/02 by Torben Lund to the CommissionSubject: Trade agreements between the EU and Mexico and safeguarding human rights

11

2004/C 078E/3

E-0072/03 by Erik Meijer to the CommissionSubject: The dangers of selling thawed deep-frozen meat as fresh meat and a requirement to warn consumers against refreezing it

12

2004/C 078E/4

E-0201/03 by Emilio Menéndez del Valle to the CommissionSubject: Gibraltarian police violence (Supplementary Answer)

13

2004/C 078E/5

E-0219/03 by Alexandros Baltas to the CommissionSubject: Countries which have set in place essential elements of the Integrated Administration and Control System for certain Community aid schemes (IACS)

14

2004/C 078E/6

E-0293/03 by Struan Stevenson to the CommissionSubject: Animal welfare in Greek slaughterhouses

16

2004/C 078E/7

P-0439/03 by Elly Plooij-van Gorsel to the CommissionSubject: European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) draft proposal for an Independent Recourse Mechanism

17

2004/C 078E/8

P-0487/03 by Hanja Maij-Weggen to the CommissionSubject: El Khosheh judgment

18

2004/C 078E/9

E-0559/03 by Christopher Huhne to the CommissionSubject: Horse identification documents

19

2004/C 078E/0

E-0622/03 by Brice Hortefeux to the CommissionSubject: Combating cartels

20

2004/C 078E/1

E-0682/03 by María Sornosa Martínez to the CommissionSubject: Dam building project in Rivas de Tereso (La Rioja-Spain)

20

2004/C 078E/2

P-0733/03 by Sebastiano Musumeci to the CommissionSubject: Air transport safety and use of passengers' mother tongue

22

2004/C 078E/3

E-0883/03 by Roberta Angelilli to the CommissionSubject: Use of funds from the Customs 2002 programme by the municipality of Fiumicino

22

2004/C 078E/4

E-1061/03 by Roberta Angelilli to the CommissionSubject: Use of funds from the Customs 2002 programme by the municipality of Ancona

23

Joint answer to Written Questions E-0883/03 and E-1061/03

2004/C 078E/5

P-0895/03 by Glenys Kinnock to the CommissionSubject: Agro-business Bank of Georgia

24

2004/C 078E/6

E-0912/03 by Claude Moraes to the CommissionSubject: Racism and racial attacks in candidate countries

24

2004/C 078E/7

E-0922/03 by José Ribeiro e Castro to the CommissionSubject: Serbia; assassination of the Prime Minister; instability

25

2004/C 078E/8

E-1033/03 by Cristiana Muscardini to the CommissionSubject: Famine in Africa

26

2004/C 078E/9

E-1289/03 by Elly Plooij-van Gorsel to the CommissionSubject: Disruption of market access to the People's Republic of China for photographic products: specific import tariffs not complying with WTO agreements

27

2004/C 078E/0

E-1309/03 by Bill Newton Dunn to the CommissionSubject: Human rights abuses in Laos

28

2004/C 078E/1

P-1409/03 by Othmar Karas to the CommissionSubject: Reform of European corporate taxation policy

29

2004/C 078E/2

E-1431/03 by Pierre Jonckheer to the CommissionSubject: Open-cast coal mine in northern Leon (Valle de Laciana, Spain)

32

2004/C 078E/3

E-1432/03 by Pierre Jonckheer to the CommissionSubject: Open-cast coal mine in northern Leon (Valle de Laciana, Spain)

32

Joint answer to Written Questions E-1431/03 and E-1432/03

2004/C 078E/4

E-1435/03 by Erik Meijer to the CommissionSubject: Increasing Third World dependence on emigration to work in rich countries and earnings transfers from rich countries

34

2004/C 078E/5

P-1483/03 by Johanna Boogerd-Quaak to the CommissionSubject: Protection of information concerning air passengers — Joint Declaration of 4 March 2003

35

2004/C 078E/6

E-1550/03 by Erik Meijer to the CommissionSubject: Uncontrolled flows of funds on the transfer of media ownership in Poland and possible preferential treatment for Poland as a new EU Member State

36

2004/C 078E/7

E-1551/03 by Paulo Casaca to the CommissionSubject: Labelling of products containing asbestos

37

2004/C 078E/8

E-1568/03 by Erik Meijer to the CommissionSubject: Sharp cuts in passenger services on the Slovakian rail network as a result of secret conditions in a loan granted by the EIB in 1999

38

2004/C 078E/9

P-1596/03 by Regina Bastos to the CommissionSubject: Closure of Schuh-Union located in Ponte de Lima, Portugal (Supplementary Answer)

40

2004/C 078E/0

E-1670/03 by María Sornosa Martínez to the CommissionSubject: Authorisation by the Commission of projects harmful to the Natura 2000 network

41

2004/C 078E/1

E-1687/03 by Inger Schörling to the CommissionSubject: Botniabanan — Umea river delta, Sweden

43

2004/C 078E/2

E-1688/03 by Anders Wijkman to the CommissionSubject: The construction of the Ladia Galaska road in the province of Aceh, Indonesia

44

2004/C 078E/3

E-1726/03 by Mikko Pesälä to the CommissionSubject: Shooting noise abatement

45

2004/C 078E/4

E-1781/03 by Claude Moraes to the CommissionSubject: The EQUAL funding programme post-enlargement

46

2004/C 078E/5

E-1817/03 by Christopher Huhne to the CommissionSubject: Air pollution

47

2004/C 078E/6

E-1820/03 by Christopher Huhne to the CommissionSubject: Sausage meat

48

2004/C 078E/7

E-1831/03 by Stavros Xarchakos to the CommissionSubject: Statistics concerning poverty and unemployment in Greece

49

2004/C 078E/8

E-1836/03 by Christopher Huhne to the CommissionSubject: Particulates

50

2004/C 078E/9

E-1867/03 by Christopher Huhne to the CommissionSubject: Average cost of capital in the euro area

51

2004/C 078E/0

E-1868/03 by Christopher Huhne to the CommissionSubject: Equity culture

52

2004/C 078E/1

E-1900/03 by María Sornosa Martínez to the CommissionSubject: Nitrate pollution in the Valencia region

53

2004/C 078E/2

E-1906/03 by Stavros Xarchakos to the CommissionSubject: Credibility of televoting and its cost to the European public

54

2004/C 078E/3

E-1910/03 by Margrietus van den Berg to the CommissionSubject: Underground storage of nuclear waste

55

2004/C 078E/4

E-1927/03 by Jules Maaten to the CommissionSubject: Bovine and porcine protein in chicken

56

2004/C 078E/5

E-1955/03 by Baroness Sarah Ludford to the CommissionSubject: Processing of chicken intended for human consumption

56

Joint answer to Written Questions E-1927/03 and E-1955/03

2004/C 078E/6

E-1937/03 by Mihail Papayannakis to the CommissionSubject: Corinth-Patras railway link

57

2004/C 078E/7

E-1946/03 by Camilo Nogueira Román to the CommissionSubject: Investigations into subsidies paid by Spain to the Izar company and resumption of construction work on merchant vessels at the Izar-Fene shipyards in Galicia

58

2004/C 078E/8

P-1951/03 by Giacomo Santini to the CommissionSubject: Provisions banning traffic in Austria

58

2004/C 078E/9

E-1953/03 by Lissy Gröner to the CommissionSubject: Unused EU funding in Bavaria totalling EUR 17 million for 2002

59

2004/C 078E/0

P-1961/03 by Alexander de Roo to the CommissionSubject: Ispra meeting to discuss the Spanish National Hydrological Plan

60

2004/C 078E/1

E-1970/03 by Proinsias De Rossa to the CommissionSubject: Recycling charges for household goods

61

2004/C 078E/2

E-1971/03 by Cristiana Muscardini to the CommissionSubject: Flying ultralight aircraft

61

2004/C 078E/3

E-1986/03 by Konstantinos Hatzidakis to the CommissionSubject: Atmospheric pollution in Athens and Thessaloniki

62

2004/C 078E/4

E-1987/03 by Piia-Noora Kauppi and Per-Arne Arvidsson to the CommissionSubject: Nuclear safety principles applied to the EU accession countries

63

2004/C 078E/5

E-1991/03 by Erik Meijer to the CommissionSubject: Shedding of light on the circumstances relating to the organisation of the Commission that contributed to the death of Commission official Quatraro in 1993, and the secrecy surrounding the events

65

2004/C 078E/6

E-2001/03 by Jan Dhaene and Patricia McKenna to the CommissionSubject: Radioactive discharges from Sellafield

66

2004/C 078E/7

P-2031/03 by Antonios Trakatellis to the CommissionSubject: Implementation of Community legislation on solid waste and the landfill of waste in Greece

67

2004/C 078E/8

E-2043/03 by Maurizio Turco, Emma Bonino, Marco Pannella, Marco Cappato, Benedetto Della Vedova, Gianfranco Dell'Alba and Olivier Dupuis to the CommissionSubject: Means of putting an end to violations of religious freedom

69

2004/C 078E/9

E-2045/03 by Maurizio Turco, Marco Pannella, Emma Bonino, Marco Cappato, Benedetto Della Vedova, Gianfranco Dell'Alba and Olivier Dupuis to the CommissionSubject: Serious and persistent violations of the fundamental human rights of the Uighur minority in the Chinese province of Xinjiang (eastern Turkestan)

70

2004/C 078E/0

E-2051/03 by Caroline Jackson to the CommissionSubject: Essential oils and consumer protection

71

2004/C 078E/1

E-2056/03 by Kathleen Van Brempt to the CommissionSubject: Ethylene

72

2004/C 078E/2

E-2059/03 by Camilo Nogueira Román to the CommissionSubject: One-year delay by the Spanish government in extracting fuel oil from the wreck of the Prestige off the Galician coast

73

2004/C 078E/3

P-2080/03 by Jonas Sjöstedt to the CommissionSubject: Summary of subsidies to undertakings

74

2004/C 078E/4

E-2084/03 by Graham Watson to the CommissionSubject: 1970 Unesco Convention

75

2004/C 078E/5

E-2087/03 by Marjo Matikainen-Kallström to the CommissionSubject: Recognition of Finnish engineering qualifications in certain Mediterranean countries

76

2004/C 078E/6

E-2101/03 by José Ribeiro e Castro to the CommissionSubject: Common agricultural policy reform — capping

78

2004/C 078E/7

E-2111/03 by Proinsias De Rossa to the CommissionSubject: Comparative study of special needs teaching

78

2004/C 078E/8

E-2120/03 by Isabelle Caullery to the CommissionSubject: Development of renewable energy sources in Moldova

79

2004/C 078E/9

E-2127/03 by Bart Staes to the CommissionSubject: Guarantees as to the correctness of businesses' financial information

80

2004/C 078E/0

E-2166/03 by Giuseppe Di Lello Finuoli to the CommissionSubject: Update regarding of the Italian State and Campania Regional Government funding of the programme contract presented by Agrifuturo

82

2004/C 078E/1

E-2173/03 by Paulo Casaca to the CommissionSubject: Compliance with EU legislation on asbestos

82

2004/C 078E/2

E-2176/03 by Christopher Huhne to the CommissionSubject: Procurement

83

2004/C 078E/3

E-2180/03 by Samuli Pohjamo and Mikko Pesälä to the CommissionSubject: Damage caused by predators in the Finnish reindeer range

84

2004/C 078E/4

E-2186/03 by Erik Meijer to the CommissionSubject: Need for better consumer protection against malicious or negligent practices in international e-commerce

85

2004/C 078E/5

E-2187/03 by Sérgio Marques to the CommissionSubject: Participation by the outermost regions in the RTD framework programmes

87

2004/C 078E/6

E-2191/03 by José Ribeiro e Castro to the CommissionSubject: Funding for the IRENE organisation

88

2004/C 078E/7

P-2194/03 by Michael Cashman to the CommissionSubject: Counterfeiting and piracy

89

2004/C 078E/8

E-2196/03 by Geoffrey Van Orden to the CommissionSubject: Civil protection

90

2004/C 078E/9

E-2197/03 by Bart Staes to the CommissionSubject: Cattle transport — CATRA findings

90

2004/C 078E/0

E-2206/03 by Gerhard Schmid to the CommissionSubject: Action to confine marketing of specified products to the Czech Republic

91

2004/C 078E/1

E-2207/03 by Charles Tannock to the CommissionSubject: Labelling of animal, including poultry, products and problems posed for members of religious minorities eating these products

92

2004/C 078E/2

P-2440/03 by Diana Wallis to the CommissionSubject: Addition of water and protein to chicken meat

92

Joint answer to Written Questions E-2207/03 and P-2440/03

2004/C 078E/3

E-2216/03 by Marco Pannella, Maurizio Turco, Marco Cappato, Benedetto Della Vedova, Gianfranco Dell'Alba and Olivier Dupuis to the CommissionSubject: Arrest of twelve members of an evangelical church in China

93

2004/C 078E/4

E-2221/03 by Alexander de Roo to the CommissionSubject: Situation of the High Flux Reactor in Petten

94

2004/C 078E/5

E-2236/03 by Stavros Xarchakos to the CommissionSubject: Disastrous environmental situation in Greece

95

2004/C 078E/6

E-2240/03 by Bartho Pronk to the CommissionSubject: Follow-up to an application for a driving licence in another EU Member State

96

2004/C 078E/7

E-2241/03 by Kathalijne Buitenweg and Jean Lambert to the CommissionSubject: Funding of enforced return measures

97

2004/C 078E/8

E-2250/03 by Maurizio Turco, Marco Pannella, Marco Cappato, Benedetto Della Vedova, Gianfranco Dell'Alba and Olivier Dupuis to the CommissionSubject: Violation of religious freedom in China. Arrest of Father Lu Xiaozhou of the clandestine Catholic church

99

2004/C 078E/9

E-2251/03 by Joaquim Miranda to the CommissionSubject: Charter for Children in Hospital

99

2004/C 078E/0

E-2277/03 by Mihail Papayannakis to the CommissionSubject: Construction faults on the Ionian highway

100

2004/C 078E/1

E-2291/03 by Marjo Matikainen-Kallström to the CommissionSubject: Equal treatment of Member States in recruiting EU officials

101

2004/C 078E/2

P-2301/03 by Alexandros Alavanos to the CommissionSubject: Implementation of Directive 1999/70/EC

102

2004/C 078E/3

E-2320/03 by Christoph Konrad to the CommissionSubject: First aid at the scene of an accident

103

2004/C 078E/4

P-2340/03 by Giovanni Fava to the CommissionSubject: National site for radioactive waste in Sardinia

104

2004/C 078E/5

E-2348/03 by Camilo Nogueira Román to the CommissionSubject: Measures to be taken in response to evidence that oil from the Prestige is continuing to reach the coasts of Galicia and the Bay of Biscay

105

2004/C 078E/6

E-2349/03 by Camilo Nogueira Román to the CommissionSubject: Galicia and CAP reform

105

2004/C 078E/7

E-2356/03 by Ria Oomen-Ruijten, Caroline Jackson, Johannes Blokland, Alexander de Roo and Karl-Heinz Florenz to the CommissionSubject: Interpretation of the RoHS Directive (2002/95/EC)

106

2004/C 078E/8

E-2380/03 by Christopher Huhne to the CommissionSubject: New business formation

108

2004/C 078E/9

E-2381/03 by Christopher Huhne to the CommissionSubject: Single market

109

2004/C 078E/0

E-2382/03 by Christopher Huhne to the CommissionSubject: Single market

109

Joint answer to Written Questions E-2381/03 and E-2382/03

2004/C 078E/1

E-2391/03 by Elisabeth Jeggle to the CommissionSubject: Numbers of pigs and cattle in the EU 15 and the 10 accession countries

110

2004/C 078E/2

E-2408/03 by Bart Staes to the CommissionSubject: Watching an LCD screen whilst driving a motor vehicle

111

2004/C 078E/3

E-2422/03 by Kathleen Van Brempt to the CommissionSubject: In-car LCD screens

111

Joint answer to Written Questions E-2408/03 and E-2422/03

2004/C 078E/4

E-2436/03 by Ilda Figueiredo to the CommissionSubject: Support for fishermen unable to fish for biological reasons

113

2004/C 078E/5

E-2448/03 by Georges Berthu to the CommissionSubject: Inappropriate incentive to destroy hedgerows

114

2004/C 078E/6

E-2450/03 by Marco Cappato to the CommissionSubject: Infringement by the Salerno Chamber of Commerce of legislation on fixed term employment contracts

114

2004/C 078E/7

E-2466/03 by Erik Meijer to the CommissionSubject: Systematic provision of information to police forces, businessmen and holidaymakers with a view to ensuring that foreign tourists are not punished when they unwittingly break the law

115

2004/C 078E/8

E-2481/03 by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna to the CommissionSubject: Transferable fishing quotas

117

2004/C 078E/9

E-2484/03 by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna to the CommissionSubject: Galicia and CAP reform

118

2004/C 078E/0

E-2495/03 by Christopher Huhne to the CommissionSubject: Common agriculture policy

119

2004/C 078E/1

E-2497/03 by Christopher Huhne to the CommissionSubject: Foreign direct investment

120

2004/C 078E/2

E-2521/03 by Carles-Alfred Gasòliba i Böhm to the CommissionSubject: Linguistic plurality of Spain with regard to passports

121

2004/C 078E/3

E-2548/03 by Joan Vallvé to the CommissionSubject: Linguistic coexistence as reflected in Spanish passports

121

Joint answer to Written Questions E-2521/03 and E-2548/03

2004/C 078E/4

E-2535/03 by Ilda Figueiredo to the CommissionSubject: Farm incomes in Portugal

122

2004/C 078E/5

E-2540/03 by Maurizio Turco to the CommissionSubject: Agreements between the Spanish State and the Vatican State which violate fundamental rights

123

2004/C 078E/6

E-2541/03 by Maurizio Turco to the CommissionSubject: The Gescartera case and agreements between the Spanish State and the Holy See

124

2004/C 078E/7

E-2546/03 by Jules Maaten to the CommissionSubject: Evaluation of tobacco products

125

2004/C 078E/8

E-2556/03 by Robert Evans to the CommissionSubject: Voting in Mallorcan elections

126

2004/C 078E/9

E-2565/03 by Hiltrud Breyer to the CommissionSubject: Residues of hormones, antibiotics and phthalic acid esters in drinking water

127

2004/C 078E/0

E-2566/03 by Markus Ferber to the CommissionSubject: EU aid for construction projects in Italy

128

2004/C 078E/1

E-2569/03 by Christopher Huhne to the CommissionSubject: Bioptic driving

129

2004/C 078E/2

E-2586/03 by Maurizio Turco to the CommissionSubject: New information concerning the refunds for agricultural products exported from the Member States to the Vatican City State

129

2004/C 078E/3

P-2591/03 by Roberta Angelilli to the CommissionSubject: State of emergency due to the drought in the Region of Lazio

131

2004/C 078E/4

E-2597/03 by Roberta Angelilli to the CommissionSubject: Natural disaster alert in Italy

132

2004/C 078E/5

E-2605/03 by Elizabeth Lynne to the CommissionSubject: Recognition of qualifications for language teachers (Supplementary Answer)

133

2004/C 078E/6

P-2606/03 by Armin Laschet to the CommissionSubject: Discontinuation of the infringement proceedings against the Federal Republic of Germany in connection with the Avantis cross-border business park

134

2004/C 078E/7

E-2610/03 by Proinsias De Rossa to the CommissionSubject: Charging consumers for returning waste household electrical equipment

135

2004/C 078E/8

E-2631/03 by Maurizio Turco to the CommissionSubject: Refunds on exports from Member States to the Vatican City State of fresh and frozen beef (code 0201) for 1998. Inconsistencies between CATS and OECD data

136

2004/C 078E/9

E-2632/03 by Maurizio Turco to the CommissionSubject: Refunds on exports from Member States to the Vatican City State of fresh and frozen beef (code 0201) for 1999. Inconsistencies between CATS and OECD data

136

2004/C 078E/0

E-2633/03 by Maurizio Turco to the CommissionSubject: Refunds on exports from Member States to the Vatican City State of fresh and frozen beef (code 0201) for 2000. Inconsistencies between CATS and OECD data

137

2004/C 078E/1

E-2634/03 by Maurizio Turco to the CommissionSubject: Refunds on exports from Member States to the Vatican City State of fresh and frozen beef (code 0201) for 2001. Inconsistencies between CATS and OECD data

138

2004/C 078E/2

E-2635/03 by Maurizio Turco to the CommissionSubject: Refunds on exports from Member States to the Vatican City State of butter and other fats and oils derived from milk, milk products (code 0405) for 1998

139

2004/C 078E/3

E-2636/03 by Maurizio Turco to the CommissionSubject: Refunds on exports from Member States to the Vatican City State of butter and other fats and oils derived from milk, milk products (code 0405) for 1999

139

2004/C 078E/4

E-2637/03 by Maurizio Turco to the CommissionSubject: Refunds on exports from Member States to the Vatican City State of butter and other fats and oils derived from milk, milk products (code 0405) for 2000

140

2004/C 078E/5

E-2638/03 by Maurizio Turco to the CommissionSubject: Refunds on exports from Member States to the Vatican City State of butter and other fats and oils derived from milk, milk products (code 0405) for 2001

141

2004/C 078E/6

E-2639/03 by Maurizio Turco to the CommissionSubject: Refunds on exports from Member States to the Vatican City State of beet and cane sugar and chemically pure sucrose in solid form (code 1701) for 1998

142

2004/C 078E/7

E-2640/03 by Maurizio Turco to the CommissionSubject: Refunds on exports from Member States to the Vatican City State of beet and cane sugar and chemically pure sucrose in solid form (code 1701) for 1999

142

2004/C 078E/8

E-2641/03 by Maurizio Turco to the CommissionSubject: Refunds on exports from Member States to the Vatican City State of beet and cane sugar and chemically pure sucrose in solid form (code 1701) for 2000

143

2004/C 078E/9

E-2642/03 by Maurizio Turco to the CommissionSubject: Refunds on exports from Member States to the Vatican City State of beet and cane sugar and chemically pure sucrose in solid form (code 1701) for 2001

144

Joint answer to Written Questions E-2631/03, E-2632/03, E-2633/03, E-2634/03, E-2635/03, E-2636/03, E-2637/03, E-2638/03, E-2639/03, E-2640/03, E-2641/03 and E-2642/03

2004/C 078E/0

E-2645/03 by Eija-Riitta Korhola to the CommissionSubject: Amendment of Article 25(1) of the Kyoto Protocol regarding entry into force

145

2004/C 078E/1

P-2647/03 by Bart Staes to the CommissionSubject: Use of synthetic prohormones for livestock fattening

146

2004/C 078E/2

E-2651/03 by Phillip Whitehead to the CommissionSubject: Consumer involvement in the common implementation strategy for the Water Framework Directive 2000/60/EC

147

2004/C 078E/3

E-2663/03 by Ian Hudghton to the CommissionSubject: Illegal trade in ozone-depleting substances

148

2004/C 078E/4

E-2669/03 by Cristiana Muscardini to the CommissionSubject: ELSA laboratory — transport safety (JRC Ispra)

149

2004/C 078E/5

E-2678/03 by Caroline Jackson to the CommissionSubject: 1991 Nitrates Directive

150

2004/C 078E/6

P-2691/03 by Herbert Bösch to the CommissionSubject: EURES expenditure

151

2004/C 078E/7

P-2693/03 by Caroline Lucas to the CommissionSubject: GMOs

152

2004/C 078E/8

P-2695/03 by Raffaele Costa to the CommissionSubject: Implementation of the Promise programme

154

2004/C 078E/9

E-2702/03 by Bill Miller to the CommissionSubject: Illegally-sourced timber

155

2004/C 078E/0

E-2705/03 by Raffaele Costa to the CommissionSubject: Renewable energies

156

2004/C 078E/1

E-2708/03 by Raffaele Costa to the CommissionSubject: City-Res Network project

157

2004/C 078E/2

E-2732/03 by Herbert Bösch to the CommissionSubject: Possible conflict of interests at the Directorate-General for Competition

158

2004/C 078E/3

E-2736/03 by Glyn Ford to the CommissionSubject: Monkfish quotas

159

2004/C 078E/4

E-2739/03 by Bernd Lange to the CommissionSubject: Leader+: pre-financing by promoters

160

2004/C 078E/5

E-2745/03 by Joan Vallvé to the CommissionSubject: Environmental impact of the enlargement of Eivissa airport

161

2004/C 078E/6

E-2755/03 by Glyn Ford to the CommissionSubject: Requirement for nationality to be listed on driving licences

162

2004/C 078E/7

E-2765/03 by Raffaele Lombardo and Francesco Musotto to the CommissionSubject: Amending Regulation (EC) No 1623/2000 for the use of concentrated musts and rectified concentrated musts

162

2004/C 078E/8

E-2769/03 by Christopher Huhne to the CommissionSubject: Dangerous Goods Safety Advisor examinations

163

2004/C 078E/9

E-2770/03 by Robert Evans to the CommissionSubject: Personal injury awards

164

2004/C 078E/0

P-2776/03 by Hans Kronberger to the CommissionSubject: Conflict between the objectives of Directive 2001/77/EC on renewable energy and the implementation of the EU Water Framework Directive in Austria

165

2004/C 078E/1

P-2782/03 by Torben Lund to the CommissionSubject: EIA report and the Habitats Directive

167

2004/C 078E/2

E-2788/03 by Chris Davies to the CommissionSubject: Use of peat for electricity generation

168

2004/C 078E/3

E-2802/03 by Pedro Marset Campos to the CommissionSubject: Special tolls in France and Germany for the transport of goods by road

169

2004/C 078E/4

E-2805/03 by Avril Doyle to the CommissionSubject: Solar energy

170

2004/C 078E/5

E-2809/03 by Paulo Casaca to the CommissionSubject: Innovative actions in the fisheries sector, 2003/C 115/08

171

2004/C 078E/6

P-2810/03 by Ari Vatanen to the CommissionSubject: Allowing longer truck combinations in Europe

171

2004/C 078E/7

P-2811/03 by Rosa Miguélez Ramos to the CommissionSubject: Situation of the Mauritanian fishing ground

172

2004/C 078E/8

E-2812/03 by Bernd Lange to the CommissionSubject: Revision of the Directive on driving licences — driving licences for light motorcycles

174

2004/C 078E/9

E-2813/03 by Bernd Lange to the CommissionSubject: Revision of the Directive on driving licences — eyesight requirements

174

2004/C 078E/0

P-2823/03 by Françoise Grossetête to the CommissionSubject: Annex to Directive 90/435/EEC

175

2004/C 078E/1

E-2845/03 by Isabelle Caullery to the CommissionSubject: EU enlargement and air transport

176

2004/C 078E/2

E-2846/03 by Isabelle Caullery to the CommissionSubject: European directive on transport infrastructure charging

176

2004/C 078E/3

P-2847/03 by Miquel Mayol i Raynal to the CommissionSubject: Plans to develop Salobrar de Campos — Es trenc

177

2004/C 078E/4

E-2849/03 by Stavros Xarchakos to the CommissionSubject: Complaints or infringements regarding the implementation of Greece of Community environmental legislation

178

2004/C 078E/5

E-2850/03 by Stavros Xarchakos to the CommissionSubject: Unsatisfactory performance by building and holiday home cooperatives in Greece

179

2004/C 078E/6

P-2855/03 by Christopher Huhne to the CommissionSubject: Biocidal Products Directive

179

2004/C 078E/7

E-2858/03 by Pierre Jonckheer to the CommissionSubject: Opencast mining in the north of León (Valle de Laciana district, Spain)

180

2004/C 078E/8

P-2864/03 by Maurizio Turco to the CommissionSubject: Data and sources indicating the role currently played by the Vatican's financial system in the payment of interest to natural persons

182

2004/C 078E/9

E-2865/03 by Elisabeth Schroedter and Inger Schörling to the CommissionSubject: Destruction of unique parts of the European natural heritage in Brandenburg, Federal Republic of Germany

182

2004/C 078E/0

E-2868/03 by Brice Hortefeux to the CommissionSubject: European electricity market

184

2004/C 078E/1

E-2886/03 by Charles Tannock to the CommissionSubject: Difficulties encountered in the liberalisation of the European rail freight sector

185

2004/C 078E/2

E-2887/03 by Bill Miller to the CommissionSubject: Animal by-products

186

2004/C 078E/3

E-2907/03 by Antonios Trakatellis to the CommissionSubject: Expenditure on and structural indicators for research and innovation in the EU and Greece

186

2004/C 078E/4

P-2909/03 by Olivier Dupuis to the CommissionSubject: Future status of Tibet

187

2004/C 078E/5

E-2921/03 by Glyn Ford to the CommissionSubject: Cotton subsidies

188

2004/C 078E/6

E-2924/03 by Salvador Garriga Polledo to the CommissionSubject: European Council to guarantee energy supplies

190

2004/C 078E/7

E-2927/03 by Michl Ebner to the CommissionSubject: Urgent need to expand voluntary fire services

190

2004/C 078E/8

E-2935/03 by Monica Frassoni and Guido Sacconi to the CommissionSubject: Inclusion of waste among the energy sources coming under the arrangements applying to renewable energy sources

191

2004/C 078E/9

E-2943/03 by Erik Meijer to the CommissionSubject: European taxpayers' contribution to promoting and maintaining bullfighting and other local traditions involving cruelty to animals

193

2004/C 078E/0

E-2946/03 by Dana Scallon to the CommissionSubject: Specific programme for research

195

2004/C 078E/1

P-2947/03 by Peter Liese to the CommissionSubject: Trupbach industrial estate

195

2004/C 078E/2

P-2948/03 by Christopher Heaton-Harris to the CommissionSubject: Whistleblowing provisions

197

2004/C 078E/3

P-2964/03 by Brigitte Langenhagen to the CommissionSubject: Digital recording equipment

197

2004/C 078E/4

E-2965/03 by Graham Watson to the CommissionSubject: Endometriosis research funding

199

2004/C 078E/5

E-2969/03 by Roberto Bigliardo to the CommissionSubject: Management of EUR 150000 of Community funds — involvement of a Romanian government minister

199

2004/C 078E/6

P-2971/03 by Alexander de Roo to the CommissionSubject: Toxic ships

200

2004/C 078E/7

P-2973/03 by Jean-Louis Bernié to the CommissionSubject: Marais Breton site — September 2003

203

2004/C 078E/8

E-2980/03 by Konstantinos Hatzidakis to the CommissionSubject: Suspension of funding for public works studies in Greece from the Community budget

204

2004/C 078E/9

E-2982/03 by Mihail Papayannakis to the CommissionSubject: Stability pact

205

2004/C 078E/0

E-2983/03 by Mihail Papayannakis to the CommissionSubject: Instances of infringements of Community legislation on the environment

206

2004/C 078E/1

E-2984/03 by Christopher Huhne to the CommissionSubject: Building on seafronts

207

2004/C 078E/2

P-3010/03 by Adriana Poli Bortone to the CommissionSubject: Blackout in Italy

208

2004/C 078E/3

P-3011/03 by Elspeth Attwooll to the CommissionSubject: Fisheries: national boundaries within the EU's EEZ

209

2004/C 078E/4

E-3018/03 by Ilda Figueiredo to the CommissionSubject: Promotions within the Commission

209

2004/C 078E/5

E-3039/03 by Herbert Bösch to the CommissionSubject: Allegations of bribery made against journalists without any basis in fact

210

2004/C 078E/6

E-3044/03 by Graham Watson to the CommissionSubject: Τ Pods

211

2004/C 078E/7

E-3048/03 by Cristiana Muscardini to the CommissionSubject: Coordinating the fight against paedophilia

211

2004/C 078E/8

P-3052/03 by Alexandros Alavanos to the CommissionSubject: Suspension of the payment of Community appropriations for public works studies in Greece

213

2004/C 078E/9

E-3054/03 by Konstantinos Hatzidakis to the CommissionSubject: Replacement of the illegal waste dump at Kouroupitos

214

2004/C 078E/0

E-3055/03 by Margrietus van den Berg to the CommissionSubject: Accounting scandals and corporate governance

215

2004/C 078E/1

E-3058/03 by Gabriele Stauner to the CommissionSubject: Contradictions and inconsistencies in Commission and OLAF statements about the Datashop case

216

2004/C 078E/2

E-3070/03 by Christoph Konrad to the CommissionSubject: Distortions of competition caused by the German Foreign Trade Act

217

2004/C 078E/3

E-3072/03 by Konstantinos Hatzidakis to the CommissionSubject: Provision of the ADSL service in Greece

218

2004/C 078E/4

E-3073/03 by Ioannis Marínos to the CommissionSubject: Cost of bank transactions in Greece

219

2004/C 078E/5

E-3074/03 by Proinsias De Rossa to the CommissionSubject: Avermectin

220

2004/C 078E/6

E-3096/03 by Erik Meijer to the CommissionSubject: Protection of monopolies and high fares by means of aviation agreements with third countries and attempts by potential competitors to break such monopolies

222

2004/C 078E/7

E-3113/03 by Maurizio Turco to the CommissionSubject: Classification of the codes for the units of measurement of quantities exported shown on the Commission's database CATS (Clearance Audit Trail System)

223

2004/C 078E/8

E-3124/03 by Cristiana Muscardini to the CommissionSubject: Working languages

224

2004/C 078E/9

E-3126/03 by Astrid Thors to the CommissionSubject: The cross-border provision of gaming services for humanitarian causes

225

2004/C 078E/0

E-3130/03 by José Ribeiro e Castro to the CommissionSubject: Fisheries — OASIS — Oceanic Seamounts

226

2004/C 078E/1

E-3134/03 by José Ribeiro e Castro to the CommissionSubject: Holland — Ecstasy

227

2004/C 078E/2

E-3151/03 by Herman Schmid to the CommissionSubject: The perception of quality of life in the EU

229

2004/C 078E/3

E-3155/03 by Mogens Camre to the CommissionSubject: Competition-distorting customs duties on fish imported from Norway to Denmark

230

2004/C 078E/4

P-3160/03 by Ioannis Averoff to the CommissionSubject: Authorisation for the construction of a landfill site in the prefecture of Ioannina

231

2004/C 078E/5

P-3165/03 by Chris Davies to the CommissionSubject: Spanish Hydrological Plan (Pyrenees)

233

2004/C 078E/6

E-3169/03 by Michl Ebner to the CommissionSubject: Ban on dangerous dog breeds

234

2004/C 078E/7

E-3174/03 by Charles Tannock to the CommissionSubject: European film-making

234

2004/C 078E/8

P-3178/03 by Rosa Miguélez Ramos to the CommissionSubject: Damage caused by the Prestige: fresh evaluation and the Solidarity Fund

236

2004/C 078E/9

E-3187/03 by Geoffrey Van Orden to the CommissionSubject: Free movement of bankrupt persons in the EU

237

2004/C 078E/0

E-3192/03 by Roberta Angelilli to the CommissionSubject: Eurostat: clarification of President Prodi's powers of intervention

237

2004/C 078E/1

E-3198/03 by Olivier Dupuis to the CommissionSubject: Further camp closures and expulsions of refugees in Ingushetia

239

2004/C 078E/2

P-3201/03 by Antonio Tajani to the CommissionSubject: Search at the Ί1 Giornale' head office in Rome: violation of freedom of the press in Italy

240

2004/C 078E/3

E-3219/03 by Christopher Heaton-Harris to the CommissionSubject: Recognition of fire regulations in the EU

240

2004/C 078E/4

E-3231/03 by Dorette Corbey to the CommissionSubject: Allocation of subsidies under the fifth and sixth framework programmes

241

2004/C 078E/5

E-3255/03 by Marie Isler Béguin and Yves Piétrasanta to the CommissionSubject: Respect for rights and justice following the Bhopal tragedy in India

243

2004/C 078E/6

P-3258/03 by María Ayuso González to the CommissionSubject: Garlic import scheme

244

2004/C 078E/7

E-3260/03 by Michel Hansenne to the CommissionSubject: Approving the setting up of a driving school

244

2004/C 078E/8

E-3262/03 by Erik Meijer to the CommissionSubject: Exclusion of persons who are nationals of another Member State from the right to purchase soft drugs or to be members of a users' association

245

2004/C 078E/9

E-3268/03 by Christopher Huhne to the CommissionSubject: Commission employees

246

2004/C 078E/0

E-3273/03 by Bart Staes to the CommissionSubject: Emissions of refrigerant gases from (Dutch) ships

246

2004/C 078E/1

E-3278/03 by José Ribeiro e Castro to the CommissionSubject: Macao — Forum for Economic and Trade Cooperation

248

2004/C 078E/2

P-3279/03 by Maurizio Turco to the CommissionSubject: Quality checks by the Commission on the Clearance Audit Trail System (CATS) database

249

2004/C 078E/3

E-3280/03 by Maurizio Turco to the CommissionSubject: Lack of specific monitoring of product quantities exported from Member States to the Vatican City State under the export refund system

252

2004/C 078E/4

E-3281/03 by Bartho Pronk, Maria Martens and Albert Maat to the CommissionSubject: Follow-up to question E-1740/02 on the free movement of captains

253

2004/C 078E/5

P-3283/03 by Francesco Speroni to the CommissionSubject: Bananas

255

2004/C 078E/6

E-3293/03 by Claude Moraes to the CommissionSubject: Structural Funds

255

2004/C 078E/7

E-3304/03 by Claude Moraes to the CommissionSubject: Monitoring racial and ethnic discrimination at border controls

256

2004/C 078E/8

E-3317/03 by Íñigo Méndez de Vigo to the CommissionSubject: Cross-border payments

257

2004/C 078E/9

E-3320/03 by Glyn Ford to the CommissionSubject: Transit visas in the EU

258

2004/C 078E/0

P-3323/03 by Roberta Angelilli to the CommissionSubject: Suspected infringement of the rules on public contracts by ATAC in Rome

259

2004/C 078E/1

E-3327/03 by Albert Maat and Jan Mulder to the CommissionSubject: Histomoniasis (blackhead)

260

2004/C 078E/2

P-3332/03 by Herbert Bösch to the CommissionSubject: Export refunds for live cattle

262

2004/C 078E/3

P-3334/03 by Cristiana Muscardini to the CommissionSubject: Politically absurd opinion polls

263

2004/C 078E/4

E-3335/03 by Roberta Angelilli to the CommissionSubject: Editorial offices of the daily newspaper Ί1 Giornale' searched

264

2004/C 078E/5

E-3336/03 by Roberta Angelilli to the CommissionSubject: Suspected violation of the rights of the employees of Alcatel Italia S.p.A

265

2004/C 078E/6

E-3339/03 by Roberta Angelilli to the CommissionSubject: Possibility of funding for the health authority of Fiumicino — Rome XIII

266

2004/C 078E/7

E-3342/03 by Mogens Camre to the CommissionSubject: Financial aid to Danish immigrant associations

267

2004/C 078E/8

E-3348/03 by Johanna Boogerd-Quaak to the CommissionSubject: Project Gutenberg — making digital copies of books whose copyright has expired

268

2004/C 078E/9

E-3351/03 by Christoph Konrad to the CommissionSubject: Obstacles to the free movement of workers in the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

269

2004/C 078E/0

E-3352/03 by Roger Helmer to the CommissionSubject: Single Market rules

270

2004/C 078E/1

E-3353/03 by Hiltrud Breyer to the CommissionSubject: Equal treatment of men and women in sport

271

2004/C 078E/2

E-3360/03 by Jean-Maurice Dehousse to the CommissionSubject: Free movement of persons

271

2004/C 078E/3

E-3362/03 by Koenraad Dillen to the CommissionSubject: Development of new nuclear power stations

272

2004/C 078E/4

E-3372/03 by Mogens Camre to the CommissionSubject: Denmark's prospects of renegotiating Protocol 16

273

2004/C 078E/5

E-3378/03 by Marianne Thyssen to the CommissionSubject: European financial assistance to European contact points

274

2004/C 078E/6

E-3381/03 by David Martin to the CommissionSubject: Transportation of horses from Romania to Italy

275

2004/C 078E/7

E-3385/03 by Karin Junker to the CommissionSubject: Use of metal detectors in archaeology

275

2004/C 078E/8

E-3388/03 by Erik Meijer to the CommissionSubject: The gradual downgrading of the role played by national central banks following the establishment of the ECB and the implications for the prevention of the production and distribution of counterfeit money

276

2004/C 078E/9

E-3395/03 by Olivier Dupuis to the CommissionSubject: Freedom of movement for Kosovo citizens in the EU and the final status of Kosovo

278

2004/C 078E/0

E-3397/03 by Cristiana Muscardini to the CommissionSubject: Dental instruments and risk of infections

279

2004/C 078E/1

E-3406/03 by Antonios Trakatellis to the CommissionSubject: Installation and operation of mobile telephone antennae in Chortiatis

280

2004/C 078E/2

E-3412/03 by Olivier Dupuis to the CommissionSubject: EU funding of independent NGO projects in Tunisia

282

2004/C 078E/3

E-3434/03 by Stavros Xarchakos to the CommissionSubject: Protection of the Bauhaus style of architecture

283

2004/C 078E/4

E-3438/03 by Koenraad Dillen to the CommissionSubject: Renovation of the Berlaymont building

284

2004/C 078E/5

E-3445/03 by Ilda Figueiredo to the CommissionSubject: Support for non-autonomous handicapped people

285

2004/C 078E/6

E-3450/03 by Ilda Figueiredo to the CommissionSubject: Criteria for fisheries sector structural actions

286

2004/C 078E/7

E-3458/03 by Erik Meijer to the CommissionSubject: The final destruction of tropical rainforests and measures to prevent overlogging and imports of timber without an ecolabel

287

2004/C 078E/8

E-3461/03 by Peder Wachtmeister to the CommissionSubject: Corruption scandal within the Swedish retail monopoly undertaking Systembolaget AB

288

2004/C 078E/9

E-3469/03 by Bart Staes, Phillip Whitehead, Catherine Stihler and Margrietus van den Berg to the CommissionSubject: Post-polio syndrome

289

2004/C 078E/0

E-3480/03 by Catherine Stihler to the CommissionSubject: Civil rights of disabled people

290

2004/C 078E/1

E-3483/03 by Richard Corbett to the CommissionSubject: Use of documents as evidence of criminal activity

291

2004/C 078E/2

E-3489/03 by Ilda Figueiredo to the CommissionSubject: Stepping up supplies to the Sinaga's sugar production units — Azores Autonomous Region

292

2004/C 078E/3

P-3492/03 by José Ribeiro e Castro to the CommissionSubject: Romano Prodi — Manifesto

292

2004/C 078E/4

E-3498/03 by José Ribeiro e Castro to the CommissionSubject: Iran — nuclear energy

293

2004/C 078E/5

E-3503/03 by Emmanouil Bakopoulos to the CommissionSubject: Stray dogs and the Olympic Games

294

2004/C 078E/6

P-3509/03 by Helmuth Markov to the CommissionSubject: Interreg IIIA: Future funding of Euroregion offices

294

2004/C 078E/7

E-3530/03 by Claude Moraes to the CommissionSubject: Health and safety for the elderly and disabled

295

2004/C 078E/8

E-3534/03 by José Ribeiro e Castro to the CommissionSubject: Portuguese workers abroad

296

2004/C 078E/9

E-3535/03 by José Ribeiro e Castro to the CommissionSubject: Humana Milchunion — infant health

297

2004/C 078E/0

E-3545/03 by Alexander de Roo, Karl-Heinz Florenz and Chris Davies to the CommissionSubject: Transposition of the directive on waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE) in France

298

2004/C 078E/1

E-3556/03 by Rosa Miguélez Ramos to the CommissionSubject: Projects co-funded by the ERDF in Lobios in Ourense, Spain

299

2004/C 078E/2

E-3588/03 by José Ribeiro e Castro to the CommissionSubject: Mozambique — elections

300

2004/C 078E/3

P-3595/03 by Claude Moraes to the CommissionSubject: Disability

301

2004/C 078E/4

E-3610/03 by Jan Mulder to the CommissionSubject: Circumvention of sugar import tariffs

302

2004/C 078E/5

P-3618/03 by Stavros Xarchakos to the CommissionSubject: Building cooperatives in Greece

303

2004/C 078E/6

E-3637/03 by Torben Lund to the CommissionSubject: Working environment for employees handling preservatives

304

2004/C 078E/7

E-3639/03 by Michl Ebner to the CommissionSubject: Pollution in Wipp and Eisack valleys (Austria and Italy)

305

2004/C 078E/8

E-3642/03 by Baroness Sarah Ludford to the CommissionSubject: Eurobarometer poll

306

2004/C 078E/9

E-3658/03 by Glyn Ford to the CommissionSubject: Ban Bullying Day — future action

307

2004/C 078E/0

E-3659/03 by Glyn Ford to the CommissionSubject: Free movement of goods and services

308

2004/C 078E/1

E-3662/03 by Glyn Ford to the CommissionSubject: Botswanan beef, wildlife and sustainable development

309

2004/C 078E/2

E-3664/03 by Glenys Kinnock to the CommissionSubject: Women's reproductive health

310

2004/C 078E/3

P-3666/03 by Mario Mantovani to the CommissionSubject: Health services and free movement of patients

311

2004/C 078E/4

P-3693/03 by Armin Laschet to the CommissionSubject: Unpublished study on anti-Semitism drawn up by the EUMC

313

2004/C 078E/5

P-3696/03 by Anna Karamanou to the CommissionSubject: Balanced participation of women and men in the decision-making process

314

2004/C 078E/6

P-3761/03 by Astrid Thors to the CommissionSubject: Obligation to destroy horses where nandrolon has been used

315

2004/C 078E/7

E-3764/03 by Alexander de Roo to the CommissionSubject: Spanish Hydrological Plan: cost of water transferred, and the recovery of funding

316

2004/C 078E/8

E-3765/03 by Roberta Angelilli to the CommissionSubject: Update on the use of funds from the Leonardo programme for the Carrara municipality

317

2004/C 078E/9

E-3766/03 by Roberta Angelilli to the CommissionSubject: Update on the use of funds from the Leonardo programme for the Florence municipality

317

2004/C 078E/0

E-3767/03 by Roberta Angelilli to the CommissionSubject: Update on the use of funds from the Leonardo programme for the Livorno municipality

318

2004/C 078E/1

E-3768/03 by Roberta Angelilli to the CommissionSubject: Update on the use of funds from the Leonardo programme for the Macerata municipality

318

2004/C 078E/2

E-3769/03 by Roberta Angelilli to the CommissionSubject: Update on the use of funds from the Leonardo programme for the Massa municipality

318

2004/C 078E/3

E-3770/03 by Roberta Angelilli to the CommissionSubject: Update on the use of funds from the Leonardo programme for the Perugia municipality

319

2004/C 078E/4

E-3771/03 by Roberta Angelilli to the CommissionSubject: Update on the use of funds from the Leonardo programme for the Pistoia municipality

319

2004/C 078E/5

E-3772/03 by Roberta Angelilli to the CommissionSubject: Update on the use of funds from the Leonardo programme for the Prato municipality

319

2004/C 078E/6

E-3773/03 by Roberta Angelilli to the CommissionSubject: Update on the use of funds from the Leonardo programme for the Siena municipality

320

2004/C 078E/7

E-3774/03 by Roberta Angelilli to the CommissionSubject: Update on the use of funds from the Leonardo programme for the Terni municipality

320

2004/C 078E/8

E-3775/03 by Roberta Angelilli to the CommissionSubject: Update on the use of funds from the Leonardo programme for the Ancona municipality

320

2004/C 078E/9

E-3793/03 by Roberta Angelilli to the CommissionSubject: Update on funding for the city of Pisa under the Leonardo programme

321

Joint answer to Written Questions E-3765/03, E-3766/03, E-3767/03, E-3768/03, E-3769/03, E-3770/03, E-3771/03, E-3772/03, E-3773/03, E-3774/03, E-3775/03 and E-3793/03

2004/C 078E/0

E-3794/03 by Chris Davies to the CommissionSubject: Fisheries certification

321

2004/C 078E/1

E-3798/03 by Roberta Angelilli to the CommissionSubject: Update on use of funding from the Culture 2000 programme by the municipality of Ancona

322

2004/C 078E/2

E-3799/03 by Roberta Angelilli to the CommissionSubject: Update on use of funding from the Culture 2000 programme by the municipality of Pisa

322

2004/C 078E/3

E-3800/03 by Roberta Angelilli to the CommissionSubject: Update on use of funding from the Culture 2000 programme by the municipality of Pistoia

322

2004/C 078E/4

E-3801/03 by Roberta Angelilli to the CommissionSubject: Update on use of funding from the Culture 2000 programme by the municipality of Prato

323

2004/C 078E/5

E-3802/03 by Roberta Angelilli to the CommissionSubject: Update on use of funding from the Culture 2000 programme by the municipality of Siena

323

2004/C 078E/6

E-3803/03 by Roberta Angelilli to the CommissionSubject: Update on use of funding from the Culture 2000 programme by the municipality of Terni

323

2004/C 078E/7

E-3804/03 by Roberta Angelilli to the CommissionSubject: Update on use of funding from the Culture 2000 programme by the municipality of Perugia

323

2004/C 078E/8

E-3805/03 by Roberta Angelilli to the CommissionSubject: Update on use of funding from the Culture 2000 programme by the municipality of Carrara

324

2004/C 078E/9

E-3806/03 by Roberta Angelilli to the CommissionSubject: Update on use of funding from the Culture 2000 programme by the municipality of Florence

324

2004/C 078E/0

E-3807/03 by Roberta Angelilli to the CommissionSubject: Update on use of funding from the Culture 2000 programme by the municipality of Livorno

324

2004/C 078E/1

E-3808/03 by Roberta Angelilli to the CommissionSubject: Update on use of funding from the Culture 2000 programme by the municipality of Macerata

324

2004/C 078E/2

E-3809/03 by Roberta Angelilli to the CommissionSubject: Update on use of funding from the Culture 2000 programme by the municipality of Massa

325

Joint answer to Written Questions E-3798/03, E-3799/03, E-3800/03, E-3801/03, E-3802/03, E-3803/03, E-3804/03, E-3805/03, E-3806/03, E-3807/03, E-3808/03 and E-3809/03

2004/C 078E/3

P-3810/03 by Mogens Camre to the CommissionSubject: EU rules on discarding healthy fish

325

2004/C 078E/4

P-3835/03 by Mihail Papayannakis to the CommissionSubject: Implementation of Directive 89/48/EEC

327

2004/C 078E/5

E-3838/03 by Emmanouil Bakopoulos to the CommissionSubject: Stray animals in Greece

328

2004/C 078E/6

E-3867/03 by Richard Corbett to the CommissionSubject: Timeshare and holiday club study

328

2004/C 078E/7

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

330

2004/C 078E/8

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

331

2004/C 078E/9

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

331

2004/C 078E/0

P-3890/03 by Stavros Xarchakos to the CommissionSubject: Recognition in Greece of diplomas of Community universities

332

2004/C 078E/1

P-3892/03 by Nicole Thomas-Mauro to the CommissionSubject: Opinion of AFSSA

333

2004/C 078E/2

E-3901/03 by Roberta Angelilli to the CommissionSubject: President Prodi's involvement in Italian politics

334

2004/C 078E/3

P-3911/03 by María Valenciano Martínez-Orozco to the CommissionSubject: Discrimination against minors with regard to access to sporting federations in Spain

335

2004/C 078E/4

P-3925/03 by Raina Echerer to the CommissionSubject: Cat and dog furs — internal market

336

2004/C 078E/5

P-4008/03 by Fernando Fernández Martín to the CommissionSubject: Powerline Communications Systems

337

2004/C 078E/6

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

338

WRITTEN QUESTIONS WITH ANSWER (Part 2)

2004/C 078E/7

E-1653/01 by Professor Sir Neil MacCormick to the CommissionSubject: Restitution of property in the applicant countries

340

2004/C 078E/8

P-1721/01 by Ilda Figueiredo to the CommissionSubject: Net budget transfers

340

2004/C 078E/9

E-1746/01 by Alexandros Alavanos to the CommissionSubject: Completion of construction of hospitals at Katerini, Pyrgos and Corfu

341

2004/C 078E/0

E-1897/01 by Charles Tannock to the CommissionSubject: The legal basis for the Commission's proposals on the setting-up and funding of pan-European political parties

342

2004/C 078E/1

P-2120/01 by Hans Modrow to the CommissionSubject: Extradition of Milosevic to the Hague tribunal

343

2004/C 078E/2

E-3711/01 by Jonas Sjöstedt to the CommissionSubject: New trade agreement with the USA

343

2004/C 078E/3

E-0684/02 by Erik Meijer to the CommissionSubject: Moldova — the poorest country in Europe — and the striking difference in its treatment by the EU in comparison with the Baltic States

344

2004/C 078E/4

E-0685/02 by Erik Meijer to the CommissionSubject: Adverse impact on the EU Member States of constant discrimination against Moldova and its exceptional status

345

Joint answer to Written Questions E-0684/02 and E-0685/02

2004/C 078E/5

E-3467/02 by Graham Watson to the CommissionSubject: Effective treatment of tuberculosis — progress

346

2004/C 078E/6

E-3561/02 by Chris Davies to the CommissionSubject: Bush meat

348

2004/C 078E/7

E-3630/02 by Bill Newton Dunn to the CommissionSubject: Limit to the number of cigarettes one may take out of Spain

350

2004/C 078E/8

E-3647/02 by Hanja Maij-Weggen to the CommissionSubject: UPDF prisoners in Uganda

350

2004/C 078E/9

P-3769/02 by Caroline Lucas to the CommissionSubject: GATS

351

2004/C 078E/0

E-3863/02 by Graham Watson to the CommissionSubject: North Korean refugees

352

2004/C 078E/1

E-3882/02 by Helle Thorning-Schmidt to the CommissionSubject: Mexico's free-trade agreement and violation of human rights

353

2004/C 078E/2

E-3900/02 by Lennart Sacrédeus to the CommissionSubject: Treatment and life situation of girls and women in Afghanistan

354

2004/C 078E/3

P-0327/03 by Helena Torres Marques to the CommissionSubject: Implementation of Regulation (EC) No 2560/2001 on crossborder payments in euro

354

2004/C 078E/4

E-0426/03 by Anna Karamanou to the CommissionSubject: Violation of human rights in Chechnya

355

2004/C 078E/5

E-0521/03 by Miet Smet to the CommissionSubject: Women's rights in Pakistan

356

2004/C 078E/6

E-0586/03 by Stavros Xarchakos to the CommissionSubject: Reduction of VAT on CDs

358

2004/C 078E/7

E-0819/03 by Ole Krarup to the CommissionSubject: GM crops and liability

358

2004/C 078E/8

E-0906/03 by José Ribeiro e Castro to the CommissionSubject: Cuba; Cotonou Agreement; Human rights

359

2004/C 078E/9

E-1141/03 by Stavros Xarchakos to the CommissionSubject: Infrastructural damage caused by landslides in Greece

360

2004/C 078E/0

E-1143/03 by Christopher Huhne to the CommissionSubject: Accessibility of digital services for the visually impaired

361

2004/C 078E/1

E-1230/03 by Freddy Blak to the CommissionSubject: Enhanced legal cooperation

362

2004/C 078E/2

E-1232/03 by Nicholas Clegg to the CommissionSubject: Member States' policies on airport expansion

363

2004/C 078E/3

E-1272/03 by Hanja Maij-Weggen to the CommissionSubject: Discrimination in the treatment of citizens of EU Member States by the Turkish government

363

2004/C 078E/4

E-1278/03 by Dana Scallon to the CommissionSubject: Uniates in Romania

364

2004/C 078E/5

E-1322/03 by José Ribeiro e Castro to the CommissionSubject: Zimbabwe: land, violence and nepotism

365

2004/C 078E/6

E-1364/03 by Maurizio Turco to the CommissionSubject: Exploitation of Community citizens by the Vatican City State

367

2004/C 078E/7

E-1416/03 by Erik Meijer to the CommissionSubject: Bank sentenced to pay compensation to clients for having provided information to the tax authorities of their Member State

367

2004/C 078E/8

E-1418/03 by Maria Carrilho to the CommissionSubject: Revision of the Europe-Asia strategic framework

368

2004/C 078E/9

E-1451/03 by Hiltrud Breyer to the CommissionSubject: Cooperation with the Slovak Institute of Metrology

369

2004/C 078E/0

E-1517/03 by Glenys Kinnock to the CommissionSubject: Economic Partnership Agreements

370

2004/C 078E/1

E-1526/03 by Erik Meijer to the CommissionSubject: Failure to remove blue and brown asbestos from contaminated flats, workshops and other buildings in EU accession State Hungary

371

2004/C 078E/2

E-1540/03 by Proinsias De Rossa to the CommissionSubject: Trade in equipment which could be used for torture or capital punishment

372

2004/C 078E/3

E-1541/03 by Proinsias De Rossa to the CommissionSubject: Outlawing the production of equipment for capital punishment and torture

373

2004/C 078E/4

E-1542/03 by Proinsias De Rossa to the CommissionSubject: Control of trade in products that may be used to inflict torture

373

2004/C 078E/5

E-1543/03 by Proinsias De Rossa to the CommissionSubject: Production of equipment and products for capital punishment or torture

373

Joint answer to Written Questions E-1540/03, E-1541/03, E-1542/03 and E-1543/03

2004/C 078E/6

P-1594/03 by Emilio Menéndez del Valle to the CommissionSubject: EC-Israel trade agreement

374

2004/C 078E/7

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

375

2004/C 078E/8

P-1632/03 by Renato Brunetta to the CommissionSubject: Sale of the Vittoriosa Gaming company by the Casinò Municipale di Venezia

375

2004/C 078E/9

E-1636/03 by Bartho Pronk to the CommissionSubject: Sixth VAT Directive

376

2004/C 078E/0

E-1647/03 by Erik Meijer to the CommissionSubject: Way in which EU funds for integrating Roma in Bulgaria and improving their living conditions are used and managed

378

2004/C 078E/1

P-1653/03 by Joost Lagendijk to the CommissionSubject: European Civil Peace Corps — current developments — mainstreaming of conflict prevention in external EU policies

379

2004/C 078E/2

P-1661/03 by Luigi Vinci to the CommissionSubject: Trial of Leyla Zana

380

2004/C 078E/3

E-1668/03 by Charles Tannock to the CommissionSubject: Human rights abuses in the Western Sahara

381

2004/C 078E/4

E-1669/03 by Jean Lambert to the CommissionSubject: Baku-Ceyhun oil pipeline

382

2004/C 078E/5

E-1689/03 by Anders Wijkman to the CommissionSubject: Bushmeat

383

2004/C 078E/6

E-1739/03 by Salvador Garriga Polledo to the CommissionSubject: European Union unit to work for the release of kidnapped European tourists

384

2004/C 078E/7

E-1763/03 by Torben Lund to the CommissionSubject: Legislation in the EU, the Member States and the applicant countries concerning horse-keeping

385

2004/C 078E/8

E-1777/03 by Claude Moraes to the CommissionSubject: Veria Justice and Home Affairs Council

386

2004/C 078E/9

E-1827/03 by Alexandros Alavanos to the CommissionSubject: Reduced VAT on the rent or purchase of video cassettes and DVDs

386

2004/C 078E/0

E-1832/03 by Konstantinos Hatzidakis to the CommissionSubject: Substandard workmanship in Greece

387

2004/C 078E/1

E-1838/03 by Roger Helmer, Charles Tannock, Sir Robert Atkins, Giles Chichester, Hartmut Nassauer and Jules Maaten to the CommissionSubject: Free Trade Agreement between Singapore and the EU

388

2004/C 078E/2

P-1839/03 by Ilka Schröder to the CommissionSubject: EU relations with Syria and association agreement

389

2004/C 078E/3

E-1854/03 by Stavros Xarchakos to the CommissionSubject: Landslides in Greece and infrastructural damage

390

2004/C 078E/4

E-1869/03 by Christopher Huhne to the CommissionSubject: Pension losses

391

2004/C 078E/5

E-1873/03 by Christopher Huhne to the CommissionSubject: Listing requirements

392

2004/C 078E/6

E-1882/03 by Christopher Huhne to the CommissionSubject: Trade impact of euro

393

2004/C 078E/7

P-1979/03 by Ian Hudghton to the CommissionSubject: Synthetic progestins in contraceptive pills and Hormone Replacement Therapy

394

2004/C 078E/8

E-2121/03 by Isabelle Caullery to the CommissionSubject: Developing infrastructure and promoting employment in Madagascar

395

2004/C 078E/9

E-2123/03 by Isabelle Caullery to the CommissionSubject: Promotion of renewable energy sources and waste processing in Mauritius

396

2004/C 078E/0

E-2143/03 by Gabriele Stauner to the CommissionSubject: Commission contracts with the Planistat Group

397

2004/C 078E/1

E-2173/03 by Paulo Casaca to the CommissionSubject: Compliance with EU legislation on asbestos (Supplementary Answer)

399

2004/C 078E/2

E-2211/03 by Claude Moraes to the CommissionSubject: Progress on asylum at Thessaloniki

400

2004/C 078E/3

E-2212/03 by Piia-Noora Kauppi to the CommissionSubject: Increasing EU citizens' opportunities for influence and participation through interactive information technology

401

2004/C 078E/4

E-2293/03 by Erik Meijer to the CommissionSubject: Discontinuation of cross-border night-trains within the EU, in response to free market pressures, leading to high ticket prices for journeys using the rail networks of other Member States

402

2004/C 078E/5

E-2405/03 by Bart Staes to the CommissionSubject: Motor-vehicle insurance

403

2004/C 078E/6

E-2406/03 by Bart Staes to the CommissionSubject: Motor-vehicle insurance

404

2004/C 078E/7

E-2407/03 by Bart Staes to the CommissionSubject: Motor-vehicle insurance

405

Joint answer to Written Questions E-2405/03, E-2406/03 and E-2407/03

2004/C 078E/8

P-2460/03 by Patricia McKenna to the CommissionSubject: Anti-competitive actions of the Irish State in the electricity market

407

2004/C 078E/9

E-2537/03 by Ilda Figueiredo to the CommissionSubject: Net contribution to the common agricultural policy (Supplementary Answer)

407

2004/C 078E/0

E-2580/03 by Erik Meijer to the CommissionSubject: Expectations of an increase in the production of counterfeit euro bank notes in thinly-populated countries where the euro is important as a parallel currency (Supplementary Answer)

408

2004/C 078E/1

E-2601/03 by Roberta Angelilli to the CommissionSubject: Refurbishment of the historic town centre of Rieti

410

2004/C 078E/2

E-2649/03 by Paul Rübig to the CommissionSubject: Comparison of electricity network tariffs in the Commission's second benchmarking report

411

2004/C 078E/3

E-2650/03 by Theresa Villiers to the CommissionSubject: Working Time Directive

412

2004/C 078E/4

E-2662/03 by Ian Hudghton to the CommissionSubject: Ozone-depleting substances

413

2004/C 078E/5

E-2666/03 by Jean Lambert to the CommissionSubject: Recycling print catridges

413

2004/C 078E/6

E-2670/03 by Giovanni Pittella to the CommissionSubject: Ban on simultaneous enrolment at several institutes of higher education

415

2004/C 078E/7

P-2672/03 by Chris Davies to the CommissionSubject: Allocation of slots at airports

416

2004/C 078E/8

E-2689/03 by Toine Manders to the CommissionSubject: GSM roaming tariffs

416

2004/C 078E/9

E-2711/03 by Kathleen Van Brempt to the CommissionSubject: Free-base nicotine

418

2004/C 078E/0

E-2716/03 by Kathleen Van Brempt to the CommissionSubject: Radar detectors (Supplementary Answer)

419

2004/C 078E/1

P-2722/03 by Joan Colom i Naval to the CommissionSubject: Application of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2158 on protection of the Community's forests against fire

420

2004/C 078E/2

P-2746/03 by Luigi Vinci to the CommissionSubject: Infringements of European legislation on special conservation areas and sites of Community importance and the use of European funding for the reforestation of the Alta Murgia (Bari)

421

2004/C 078E/3

E-2771/03 by Glyn Ford to the CommissionSubject: European Project Funding for Enable project

423

2004/C 078E/4

E-2772/03 by Glyn Ford to the CommissionSubject: Levels of professional indemnity cover for small insurance firms

424

2004/C 078E/5

E-2779/03 by Erik Meijer to the CommissionSubject: Increase in the volume of mail and freight transported by rail in Germany and measures to promote a similar increase in other Member States

425

2004/C 078E/6

P-2780/03 by António Campos to the CommissionSubject: Forest fires in the Union

426

2004/C 078E/7

E-2789/03 by Eija-Riitta Korhola to the CommissionSubject: Banking rules in EU emissions trading: Member States' right to bank emission allowances

428

2004/C 078E/8

E-2790/03 by Eija-Riitta Korhola to the CommissionSubject: Banking rules in EU emissions trading: invariability of AAU (BSA) amounts

429

2004/C 078E/9

E-2791/03 by Eija-Riitta Korhola to the CommissionSubject: Problem of double accounting in emissions trading

429

2004/C 078E/0

E-2792/03 by Eija-Riitta Korhola to the CommissionSubject: Opportunities for aggressive speculation in emissions trading

430

2004/C 078E/1

E-2793/03 by Eija-Riitta Korhola to the CommissionSubject: Definition of hot air and ban under the Kyoto Protocol

430

2004/C 078E/2

E-2794/03 by Eija-Riitta Korhola to the CommissionSubject: Publication of the EU's Kyoto target as a five-year moving average

431

2004/C 078E/3

E-2795/03 by Eija-Riitta Korhola to the CommissionSubject: Emissions trading: problem of period-based allocation

431

Joint answer to Written Questions E-2789/03, E-2790/03, E-2791/03, E-2792/03, E-2793/03, E-2794/03 and E-2795/03

2004/C 078E/4

P-2799/03 by Domenico Mennitti to the CommissionSubject: Development of Pan-European corridors

433

2004/C 078E/5

E-2819/03 by Proinsias De Rossa to the CommissionSubject: Environmental impact assessments in Ireland

434

2004/C 078E/6

E-2826/03 by Kathleen Van Brempt to the CommissionSubject: Eco-driving

434

2004/C 078E/7

E-2827/03 by Kathleen Van Brempt to the CommissionSubject: Isolation units in hospitals

435

2004/C 078E/8

E-2832/03 by Camilo Nogueira Román to the CommissionSubject: Compliance with of the Stability and Growth Pact

436

2004/C 078E/9

E-2851/03 by Monica Frassoni to the CommissionSubject: Building of a road without an environmental impact assessment in the proposed site of Community interest — the Triassic chalk outcrops in the Tuscan and Emilian Apennines (Villa Minozzo, RE, Italy)

438

2004/C 078E/0

E-2853/03 by Richard Corbett to the CommissionSubject: Port Services Directive: attacks on Parliament by Commission official

439

2004/C 078E/1

E-2877/03 by Jan Dhaene to the CommissionSubject: The Sentiers de l'Europe international architecture competition and Place Jean Rey

440

2004/C 078E/2

E-2895/03 by Dana Scallon to the CommissionSubject: Irish sheep farmers

440

2004/C 078E/3

E-2903/03 by Miet Smet to the CommissionSubject: Suspension of cooperation agreements and postponement of their signature

441

2004/C 078E/4

P-2916/03 by Marianne Thyssen to the CommissionSubject: Community financial assistance for transnational producer organisations

442

2004/C 078E/5

E-2959/03 by Armando Cossutta to the CommissionSubject: Risks of electricity blackouts

443

2004/C 078E/6

E-2966/03 by Brian Simpson to the CommissionSubject: Spanish National Hydrological Plan: the impact of the La Brena dam project on the Iberian lynx and protected raptors

444

2004/C 078E/7

P-2975/03 by Freddy Blak to the CommissionSubject: Contracts with CESD

445

2004/C 078E/8

E-2994/03 by Bernhard Rapkay to the CommissionSubject: EU funding for Nordrhein-Westfalen for the years 2001 and 2002 (Supplementary Answer)

447

2004/C 078E/9

E-2996/03 by Christopher Huhne to the CommissionSubject: Standardisation of computer dates

447

2004/C 078E/0

E-3007/03 by Giacomo Santini to the CommissionSubject: Role of the European Rural Carrefours in CAP information campaigns

448

2004/C 078E/1

P-3068/03 by Hugues Martin to the CommissionSubject: Funding of bodies which play host to an Info-Point Europe

448

2004/C 078E/2

E-3112/03 by Giacomo Santini, Elena Paciotti, Luciana Sbarbati, Giovanni Pittella, Generoso Andria, Enrico Ferri, Carlo Fatuzzo, Gianfranco Dell'Alba, Roberta Angelilli, Stefano Zappalà, Paolo Pastorelli, Antonio Di Pietro, Mauro Nobilia, Sebastiano Musumeci, Michl Ebner, Roberto Bigliardo, Catherine Guy-Quint, Adriana Poli Bortone, Fiorella Ghilardotti, Monica Frassoni, Franz Turchi, Massimo Carraro, Guido Bodrato, Francesco Musotto, Vincenzo Lavarra, Vitaliano Gemelli and Giovanni Fava to the CommissionSubject: EU information policy — legal basis for the European Carrefours ruraux and Info-Points Europe — urgent need for operational subsidy for 2004

449

2004/C 078E/3

P-3153/03 by Evelyne Gebhardt to the CommissionSubject: EU Info-Points

450

2004/C 078E/4

E-3240/03 by Thierry Cornillet to the CommissionSubject: Abolition of operating grants for Europe Info-Points

450

2004/C 078E/5

P-3265/03 by Maria Sanders-ten Holte to the CommissionSubject: Info-Points and Carrefours

451

2004/C 078E/6

E-3287/03 by Brice Hortefeux to the CommissionSubject: Europe Houses

451

2004/C 078E/7

E-3301/03 by Nicole Thomas-Mauro to the CommissionSubject: Info-points Europe

452

2004/C 078E/8

Ρ-3389/03 by John Hume to the CommissionSubject: European Carrefours

452

2004/C 078E/9

P-3403/03 by John Cushnahan to the CommissionSubject: Funding for European Carrefour

452

Supplementary joint answer to Written Questions E-3007/03, P-3068/03, E-3112/03, P-3153/03, E-3240/03, P-3265/03, E-3287/03, E-3301/03, P-3389/03 and P-3403/03

2004/C 078E/0

E-3012/03 by Jaime Valdivielso de Cué to the CommissionSubject: Wine

454

2004/C 078E/1

E-3030/03 by Ilda Figueiredo to the CommissionSubject: Use of hydraulic dredges in the EU

454

2004/C 078E/2

P-3037/03 by Hiltrud Breyer to the CommissionSubject: Breach of EU environmental legislation in the expansion of Frankfurt airport

455

2004/C 078E/3

E-3059/03 by Avril Doyle to the CommissionSubject: EU funding for marine conservation

456

2004/C 078E/4

E-3062/03 by Cristiana Muscardini to the CommissionSubject: Improving water networks

457

2004/C 078E/5

P-3069/03 by Luciana Sbarbati to the CommissionSubject: Adriatic Corridor

459

2004/C 078E/6

P-3077/03 by Torben Lund to the CommissionSubject: Failure to implement Directive 2000/53/EC on end-of-life vehicles

460

2004/C 078E/7

E-3086/03 by Bruno Gollnisch to the CommissionSubject: Tobacco trade/France

461

2004/C 078E/8

E-3087/03 by Bruno Gollnisch to the CommissionSubject: Commission criteria on concentrations

462

2004/C 078E/9

E-3099/03 by Jonas Sjöstedt to the CommissionSubject: Aid for the farming of mussels

464

2004/C 078E/0

E-3106/03 by María Bergaz Conesa to the CommissionSubject: The Júcar-Vinalopó water diversion project

465

2004/C 078E/1

E-3128/03 by Jaime Valdivielso de Cué to the CommissionSubject: Trade

467

2004/C 078E/2

E-3131/03 by José Ribeiro e Castro to the CommissionSubject: Sorraia horses

467

2004/C 078E/3

P-3135/03 by Patricia McKenna to the CommissionSubject: Disposal of toxic ships

469

2004/C 078E/4

E-3138/03 by Mihail Papayannakis to the CommissionSubject: Atmospheric pollution in Thessaloniki

470

2004/C 078E/5

E-3140/03 by Koenraad Dillen to the CommissionSubject: Death-penalty-related projects

471

2004/C 078E/6

E-3141/03 by Koenraad Dillen to the CommissionSubject: European week against cancer — scientific research

472

2004/C 078E/7

E-3144/03 by Christopher Heaton-Harris to the CommissionSubject: EU funding for the Spanish National Hydrological Plan

473

2004/C 078E/8

P-3145/03 by W.G. van Velzen to the CommissionSubject: Batteries in exploding mobile phones

474

2004/C 078E/9

P-3152/03 by Elly Plooij-van Gorsel to the CommissionSubject: Exploding Nokia telephones

476

2004/C 078E/0

E-3156/03 by María Sornosa Martínez to the CommissionSubject: Residential building in the Serra de la Renegà and the Oropesa-Benicàssim SCI (Castellón, Spain)

477

2004/C 078E/1

E-3157/03 by Monica Frassoni to the CommissionSubject: Enlargement of a military base in the Natura 2000 site of La Maddalena, Sardinia

478

2004/C 078E/2

E-3173/03 by Koenraad Dillen to the CommissionSubject: Voting rights for immigrants

480

2004/C 078E/3

E-3182/03 by Paulo Casaca to the CommissionSubject: The air transport company SATA's failure to comply with Community legislation

481

2004/C 078E/4

E-3183/03 by Paulo Casaca to the CommissionSubject: Calculating the additional levy in the Azores Autonomous Region

482

2004/C 078E/5

E-3186/03 by Geoffrey Van Orden to the CommissionSubject: Cross-border consumer goods transactions

483

2004/C 078E/6

E-3189/03 by Mario Borghezio to the CommissionSubject: Explosion of Nokia mobile phone batteries

484

2004/C 078E/7

E-3193/03 by Roberta Angelilli to the CommissionSubject: Information on the former Director-General of Eurostat

485

2004/C 078E/8

E-3200/03 by Erik Meijer to the CommissionSubject: Racial appearance as a criterion for police or customs checks on individuals crossing an internal EU border

487

2004/C 078E/9

E-3204/03 by Alexandros Alavanos to the CommissionSubject: Commercial exploitation of protected wildlife species in Greece

487

2004/C 078E/0

E-3207/03 by Alexander de Roo to the CommissionSubject: Peroxide in toothpaste

488

2004/C 078E/1

E-3212/03 by Stavros Xarchakos to the CommissionSubject: British newspaper allegations regarding irregularities in connection with Commission funding

489

2004/C 078E/2

E-3216/03 by Antonios Trakatellis to the CommissionSubject: Disposal of hazardous waste in Greece and infringement of environmental legislation

490

2004/C 078E/3

E-3218/03 by John Bowis to the CommissionSubject: Rare diseases: Evans syndrome

492

2004/C 078E/4

E-3222/03 by Proinsias De Rossa to the CommissionSubject: Missing persons

493

2004/C 078E/5

E-3226/03 by Felipe Camisón Asensio to the CommissionSubject: Reform of the tobacco sector

494

2004/C 078E/6

E-3227/03 by John Bowis to the CommissionSubject: Indonesia

495

2004/C 078E/7

E-3230/03 by Dorette Corbey to the CommissionSubject: Allocation of subsidies under the Interreg and Urban programmes

496

2004/C 078E/8

P-3232/03 by Joan Colom i Naval to the CommissionSubject: Updated budget figures (Supplementary Answer)

498

2004/C 078E/9

E-3236/03 by Konstantinos Hatzidakis to the CommissionSubject: Training for public servants in new technologies

498

2004/C 078E/0

E-3237/03 by Konstantinos Hatzidakis to the CommissionSubject: Access to Internet for Greek households

499

2004/C 078E/1

E-3239/03 by Martin Callanan to the CommissionSubject: Bird killing in Malta

500

2004/C 078E/2

E-3243/03 by Jan Wiersma to the CommissionSubject: The Buy American Act in the American defence budget

500

2004/C 078E/3

E-3250/03 by Ruth Hieronymi, Christa Prets, Karin Junker, Raina Echerer and Maria Sanders-ten Holte to the CommissionSubject: Assistance by the European Commission to Member States in encouraging the migration to an open interoperable standard in digital television

502

2004/C 078E/4

E-3259/03 by Mihail Papayannakis to the CommissionSubject: Unpleasant odours from waste disposal site in Ano Liosia

504

2004/C 078E/5

E-3274/03 by Inger Schörling to the CommissionSubject: Impact of the laying of artificial beaches in Caleta de la Guirra in the municipality of Antigua (Fuerteventura, Spain)

505

2004/C 078E/6

E-3275/03 by Caroline Jackson to the CommissionSubject: Destruction of Russian forests

506

2004/C 078E/7

E-3276/03 by Brian Simpson to the CommissionSubject: Restrictions imposed on flights into Zurich airport

507

2004/C 078E/8

E-3284/03 by Lord Inglewood to the CommissionSubject: Overbooking on Air France's flights

507

2004/C 078E/9

E-3285/03 by Pierre Jonckheer to the CommissionSubject: Feixolín open-cast coal mine (Valle de Laciana district, Spain)

508

2004/C 078E/0

E-3286/03 by Anne André-Léonard to the CommissionSubject: Harmonisation of European legislation in respect of boatmasters' certificates for recreational craft

510

2004/C 078E/1

E-3288/03 by Margrietus van den Berg to the CommissionSubject: Establishment of businesses in the municipality of Losser

510

2004/C 078E/2

E-3289/03 by Ilda Figueiredo to the CommissionSubject: Portuguese workers without rights in the North Sea

511

2004/C 078E/3

P-3291/03 by Helena Torres Marques to the CommissionSubject: Enforcement of Community decisions in Portugal

512

2004/C 078E/4

E-3294/03 by Claude Moraes to the CommissionSubject: The European Commission's 5th Framework Project

513

2004/C 078E/5

E-3296/03 by Ria Oomen-Ruijten to the CommissionSubject: Fees for residence permits

514

2004/C 078E/6

E-3300/03 by Robert Sturdy to the CommissionSubject: Scam e-mails requesting bank details from Africa, etc

515

2004/C 078E/7

E-3302/03 by Hiltrud Breyer to the CommissionSubject: Noise abatement plans (Directive 2002/49/EC)

517

2004/C 078E/8

E-3306/03 by Gary Titley to the CommissionSubject: Fluoride in drinking water

518

2004/C 078E/9

E-3309/03 by Philip Claeys to the CommissionSubject: Responsible shopping week in the Commission's buildings

518

2004/C 078E/0

E-3321/03 by Anna Karamanou to the CommissionSubject: Malta's temporary landfills

519

2004/C 078E/1

P-3322/03 by Gabriele Stauner to the CommissionSubject: Vice-President Kinnock and indications of irregularities at Eurostat

520

2004/C 078E/2

E-3326/03 by Christopher Huhne to the CommissionSubject: Emoluments of Commissioners

521

2004/C 078E/3

E-3328/03 by Erik Meijer to the CommissionSubject: Wilful neglect, to the point of destruction, of the former prison camp Stammlager Χ Β Sandbostel, an important memorial to the shared history of Europe

522

2004/C 078E/4

E-3329/03 by Antonio Tajani to the CommissionSubject: Eurobarometer poll according to which Israel is the greatest threat to world peace

523

2004/C 078E/5

E-3340/03 by Roberta Angelilli to the CommissionSubject: Request for verification of information concerning President Prodi

524

2004/C 078E/6

E-3341/03 by Adriana Poli Bortone to the CommissionSubject: Albania

525

2004/C 078E/7

E-3343/03 by Mogens Camre to the CommissionSubject: European Convention on Human Rights in relation to third countries

526

2004/C 078E/8

E-3345/03 by John Bowis to the CommissionSubject: Villas of Palladio

527

2004/C 078E/9

P-3350/03 by Patricia McKenna to the CommissionSubject: Derrybrien wind-farm bog-slide

528

2004/C 078E/0

E-3361/03 by Koenraad Dillen to the CommissionSubject: Ijzeren Rijn railway line

529

2004/C 078E/1

E-3367/03 by Avril Doyle to the CommissionSubject: Laser technology and radiation emissions

530

2004/C 078E/2

E-3368/03 by Koenraad Dillen to the CommissionSubject: Eurobarometer opinion poll on Iraq and world peace

530

2004/C 078E/3

E-3370/03 by Jonas Sjöstedt to the CommissionSubject: Mr Prodi's comments on the outcome of the Swedish referendum on EMU

531

2004/C 078E/4

E-3371/03 by Mogens Camre to the CommissionSubject: Legal implications of ratification of EU draft Constitution

532

2004/C 078E/5

P-3376/03 by Christine De Veyrac to the CommissionSubject: Reduced rates of VAT — hairdressing

533

2004/C 078E/6

E-3379/03 by Mihail Papayannakis to the CommissionSubject: Expansion of petroleum installations in the Ambracian Gulf

534

2004/C 078E/7

E-3384/03 by Gianfranco Dell'Alba, Emma Bonino, Marco Cappato, Benedetto Della Vedova, Olivier Dupuis, Marco Pannella and Maurizio Turco to the CommissionSubject: Corridor 5

535

2004/C 078E/8

P-3390/03 by Mihail Papayannakis to the CommissionSubject: VAT on tailoring

536

2004/C 078E/9

E-3393/03 by Jean Lambert to the CommissionSubject: Moped type-approval

537

2004/C 078E/0

E-3404/03 by Patricia McKenna to the CommissionSubject: Ireland and infringement cases for bad application of EU environmental legislation

538

2004/C 078E/1

E-3405/03 by Concepció Ferrer to the CommissionSubject: Management of the Structural Funds (Supplementary Answer)

539

2004/C 078E/2

E-3407/03 by José Ribeiro e Castro to the CommissionSubject: Cabinda — report on human rights

541

2004/C 078E/3

E-3413/03 by Olivier Duhamel to the CommissionSubject: Eurobarometer

542

2004/C 078E/4

E-3416/03 by Mario Borghezio to the CommissionSubject: Eurostat scandal — unanswered questions

543

2004/C 078E/5

E-3417/03 by Mario Borghezio to the CommissionSubject: Eurostat scandal — unanswered questions

543

2004/C 078E/6

E-3418/03 by Mario Borghezio to the CommissionSubject: Eurostat scandal — unanswered questions

543

2004/C 078E/7

E-3419/03 by Mario Borghezio to the CommissionSubject: Eurostat scandal — unanswered questions

543

2004/C 078E/8

E-3420/03 by Mario Borghezio to the CommissionSubject: Eurostat scandal — unanswered questions

544

2004/C 078E/9

E-3421/03 by Mario Borghezio to the CommissionSubject: Eurostat scandal — unanswered questions

544

2004/C 078E/0

E-3422/03 by Mario Borghezio to the CommissionSubject: Eurostat scandal — unanswered questions

544

2004/C 078E/1

E-3423/03 by Mario Borghezio to the CommissionSubject: Eurostat scandal — unanswered questions

544

2004/C 078E/2

E-3424/03 by Mario Borghezio to the CommissionSubject: Eurostat scandal — unanswered questions

544

2004/C 078E/3

E-3425/03 by Mario Borghezio to the CommissionSubject: Eurostat scandal — unanswered questions

545

2004/C 078E/4

E-3426/03 by Mario Borghezio to the CommissionSubject: Eurostat scandal — unanswered questions

545

2004/C 078E/5

E-3427/03 by Mario Borghezio to the CommissionSubject: Eurostat scandal — unanswered questions

545

2004/C 078E/6

E-3428/03 by Mario Borghezio to the CommissionSubject: Eurostat scandal — unanswered questions

545

2004/C 078E/7

E-3429/03 by Mario Borghezio to the CommissionSubject: Eurostat scandal — unanswered questions

546

2004/C 078E/8

E-3430/03 by Mario Borghezio to the CommissionSubject: Eurostat scandal — unanswered questions

546

2004/C 078E/9

E-3431/03 by Mario Borghezio to the CommissionSubject: Eurostat scandal — unanswered questions

546

2004/C 078E/0

E-3432/03 by Mario Borghezio to the CommissionSubject: Eurostat scandal — unanswered questions

546

2004/C 078E/1

E-3433/03 by Mario Borghezio to the CommissionSubject: Eurostat scandal — unanswered questions

547

Joint answer to Written Questions E-3416/03, E-3417/03, E-3418/03, E-3419/03, E-3420/03, E-3421/03, E-3422/03, E-3423/03, E-3424/03, E-3425/03, E-3426/03, E-3427/03, E-3428/03, E-3429/03, E-3430/03, E-3431/03, E-3432/03 and E-3433/03

2004/C 078E/2

E-3437/03 by Philip Claeys to the CommissionSubject: Anti-Semitism among North African and other Islamic immigrants in Europe

547

2004/C 078E/3

E-3442/03 by Ilda Figueiredo to the CommissionSubject: Discrimination amongst athletes

548

2004/C 078E/4

P-3446/03 by Sebastiano Musumeci to the CommissionSubject: Authorisation for aid in connection with a biological rest period in Sicily in 2002

549

2004/C 078E/5

E-3447/03 by Ilda Figueiredo to the CommissionSubject: Marketing problems and imports in the wine sector

550

2004/C 078E/6

E-3453/03 by Philip Claeys to the CommissionSubject: Political position adopted by EU officials' trade union TAO-AFI on night flights over outlying districts of Brussels

551

2004/C 078E/7

E-3455/03 by Elspeth Attwooll to the CommissionSubject: Community Action Plan to protect seabirds from longline fishing

552

2004/C 078E/8

E-3456/03 by Adriana Poli Bortone to the CommissionSubject: Cofinancing of NGOs

553

2004/C 078E/9

E-3457/03 by Ilda Figueiredo to the CommissionSubject: Reform of the olive oil sector

554

2004/C 078E/0

E-3459/03 by Erik Meijer to the CommissionSubject: Measures to prevent the breaking-up in Europe of old US warships contaminated with chemicals, asbestos and diesel

554

2004/C 078E/1

E-3460/03 by Erik Meijer to the CommissionSubject: Foot-dragging by the future Member State Czech Republic in connection with efforts to stamp out child prostitution in areas close to its border with Germany

556

2004/C 078E/2

E-3466/03 by Theresa Villiers to the CommissionSubject: Animal welfare at abattoirs in Greece

557

2004/C 078E/3

E-3472/03 by Christoph Konrad to the CommissionSubject: Conversion of the Landesbank Nordrhein-Westfalen into an investment bank

558

2004/C 078E/4

E-3474/03 by Herbert Bösch to the CommissionSubject: Contracts with management consultants in Commission offices

559

2004/C 078E/5

E-3477/03 by Baroness Sarah Ludford to the CommissionSubject: Women in prison

560

2004/C 078E/6

E-3479/03 by Christine De Veyrac to the CommissionSubject: Transposition of Directive 2002/46/EC seeking to harmonise Member State legislation on food supplements

561

2004/C 078E/7

E-3482/03 by Richard Corbett to the CommissionSubject: Legal privilege of documents between companies and their law firms

562

2004/C 078E/8

E-3486/03 by Karl von Wogau to the CommissionSubject: Charges for bank transfers within the eurozone

563

2004/C 078E/9

E-3490/03 by Ilda Figueiredo to the CommissionSubject: Regulating the market and olive growers' incomes under the reform of the COM in olive oil

564

2004/C 078E/0

E-3494/03 by José Ribeiro e Castro to the CommissionSubject: Cuba — political prisoners

565

2004/C 078E/1

E-3502/03 by Michl Ebner to the CommissionSubject: Air quality standards in areas of heavy traffic

566

2004/C 078E/2

E-3506/03 by Jorge Hernández Mollar to the CommissionSubject: Community legislation on DNA

567

2004/C 078E/3

P-3510/03 by Rodi Kratsa-Tsagaropoulou to the CommissionSubject: Driving licences in the European Union

568

2004/C 078E/4

E-3516/03 by Baroness Sarah Ludford to the CommissionSubject: Commission staffing

569

2004/C 078E/5

P-3519/03 by Maurizio Turco to the CommissionSubject: Sudden unilateral decision by the Italian Council of Ministers to locate a national radioactive waste storage facility in the municipality of Scanzano Jonico

570

2004/C 078E/6

E-3520/03 by Rijk van Dam to the CommissionSubject: Court of Auditors Special Report No 4/2003 concerning rural development: support for less-favoured areas

572

2004/C 078E/7

P-3522/03 by Elly Plooij-van Gorsel to the CommissionSubject: Specific import tariffs on photographic products for the People's Republic of China

573

2004/C 078E/8

E-3523/03 by Struan Stevenson to the CommissionSubject: Proposed new livestock transport regulations

574

2004/C 078E/9

P-3527/03 by Rijk van Dam to the CommissionSubject: Court of Auditors Special Report No 4/2003 on rural development: support for less-favoured areas

576

2004/C 078E/0

E-3529/03 by Claude Moraes to the CommissionSubject: Amnesty International and Oxfam report on arms control

578

2004/C 078E/1

E-3536/03 by Ilda Figueiredo to the CommissionSubject: Problems with the recognition of educational and professional qualifications in France

578

2004/C 078E/2

E-3542/03 by Caroline Lucas to the CommissionSubject: GMOs

579

2004/C 078E/3

E-3543/03 by Claude Moraes to the CommissionSubject: Free movement of Bulgarians

580

2004/C 078E/4

E-3544/03 by Roberta Angelilli to the CommissionSubject: Eurobarometer survey on threats to peace

580

2004/C 078E/5

E-3546/03 by Miet Smet to the CommissionSubject: Using intelligent speed adaptation in road vehicles

581

2004/C 078E/6

P-3547/03 by Paulo Casaca to the CommissionSubject: Scot-free permanent oil slick along the Portuguese coast

582

2004/C 078E/7

E-3549/03 by José Ribeiro e Castro to the CommissionSubject: Cohesion Fund — Portugal

583

2004/C 078E/8

E-3552/03 by Gabriele Stauner to the CommissionSubject: EU funding for research programmes in Ukraine

584

2004/C 078E/9

E-3553/03 by Claude Moraes to the CommissionSubject: Missing Cypriots

585

2004/C 078E/0

E-3554/03 by Erik Meijer to the CommissionSubject: Development of artificial viruses and bacteria in America and possible resultant neglect of environmental protection in Europe

586

2004/C 078E/1

E-3555/03 by Erik Meijer to the CommissionSubject: Development of artificial viruses and bacteria in America and its impact on biodiversity and biological warfare in Europe

587

2004/C 078E/2

E-3559/03 by Margrietus van den Berg and Jan Wiersma to the CommissionSubject: Groningen Rail Service Centre and non-use of cross-border railway line near Nieuweschans to Northern Germany

589

2004/C 078E/3

E-3561/03 by Jan Andersson to the CommissionSubject: Parasubordinated workers and social dumping

590

2004/C 078E/4

E-3562/03 by Giacomo Santini to the CommissionSubject: Automatic renewal of concession for the Brenner motorway

591

2004/C 078E/5

E-3564/03 by Torben Lund to the CommissionSubject: International telecommunication services and competition

591

2004/C 078E/6

E-3566/03 by Alexandros Alavanos to the CommissionSubject: Refund of budgetary resources

593

2004/C 078E/7

P-3568/03 by Herman Schmid to the CommissionSubject: Draft Constitution no solution to the EU's lack of democratic legitimacy

593

2004/C 078E/8

E-3571/03 by Gerhard Schmid to the CommissionSubject: Threat to a water protection zone in one member State by a project in another

594

2004/C 078E/9

E-3576/03 by Michl Ebner to the CommissionSubject: EU Identity document for the disabled

595

2004/C 078E/0

E-3580/03 by Proinsias De Rossa to the CommissionSubject: EU working time legislation

596

2004/C 078E/1

E-3582/03 by Yasmine Boudjenah to the CommissionSubject: Role of multinational corporations in conflict regions in Africa

597

2004/C 078E/2

E-3584/03 by Ria Oomen-Ruijten to the CommissionSubject: Receipt of supplementary reply

599

2004/C 078E/3

E-3585/03 by Mogens Camre to the CommissionSubject: The EUMC's shelved report on Muslim anti-Semitism

599

2004/C 078E/4

E-3587/03 by Koenraad Dillen to the CommissionSubject: Report on anti-Semitism by the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia

600

2004/C 078E/5

E-3607/03 by Olivier Duhamel to the CommissionSubject: Vienna Observatory

600

2004/C 078E/6

E-3700/03 by Marco Pannella, Maurizio Turco, Marco Cappato, Gianfranco Dell'Alba, Benedetto Della Vedova and Olivier Dupuis to the CommissionSubject: Withholding of a study on anti-Semitism in Europe by the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia (EUMC)

601

Joint answer to Written Questions E-3585/03, E-3587/03, E-3607/03 and E-3700/03

2004/C 078E/7

E-3590/03 by José Ribeiro e Castro to the CommissionSubject: Ibero-American Summit — conclusions and prospects

602

2004/C 078E/8

E-3596/03 by Brigitte Langenhagen to the CommissionSubject: EU border controls

603

2004/C 078E/9

E-3601/03 by Elly Plooij-van Gorsel to the CommissionSubject: Buy American Act

605

2004/C 078E/0

E-3602/03 by Anne Van Lancker to the CommissionSubject: Article 51 of the European Constitution

606

2004/C 078E/1

E-3665/03 by Nelly Maes to the CommissionSubject: Non-confessional organisations

606

Joint answer to Written Questions E-3602/03 and E-3665/03

2004/C 078E/2

E-3603/03 by José Ribeiro e Castro to the CommissionSubject: Portuguese Overseas War veterans — disabilities

607

2004/C 078E/3

E-3604/03 by José Ribeiro e Castro to the CommissionSubject: East Timor — Emergency aid

608

2004/C 078E/4

E-3608/03 by Marco Pannella, Maurizio Turco, Marco Cappato, Gianfranco Dell'Alba, Benedetto Della Vedova and Olivier Dupuis to the CommissionSubject: Violation of the rights of the Çam minority

610

2004/C 078E/5

E-3611/03 by Camilo Nogueira Román to the CommissionSubject: Legalising immigration

611

2004/C 078E/6

E-3620/03 by Antonios Trakatellis to the CommissionSubject: Use of a mathematical formula in awarding public contracts

612

2004/C 078E/7

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

613

2004/C 078E/8

E-3622/03 by Stavros Xarchakos to the CommissionSubject: Cost of free education in Greece

614

2004/C 078E/9

E-3626/03 by Marianne Thyssen to the CommissionSubject: Opening up the labour markets in the Member States

615

2004/C 078E/0

E-3627/03 by Marianne Thyssen to the CommissionSubject: Access to the labour market for new EU citizens and non-EU citizens

616

2004/C 078E/1

E-3631/03 by Proinsias De Rossa to the CommissionSubject: Consultation with charities with regard to the proposal relating to the imposition of VAT on postal services

617

2004/C 078E/2

E-3632/03 by Camilo Nogueira Román to the CommissionSubject: Statements by André Sapir (adviser to the Commission President, Romano Prodi) concerning EU cohesion policy

617

2004/C 078E/3

E-3645/03 by Salvador Jové Peres and Pedro Marset Campos to the CommissionSubject: European Union/Morocco agreement

618

2004/C 078E/4

E-3646/03 by Salvador Jové Peres and Pedro Marset Campos to the CommissionSubject: European Union/Morocco agreement

618

Joint answer to Written Questions E-3645/03 and E-3646/03

2004/C 078E/5

E-3647/03 by Erik Meijer to the CommissionSubject: Delay in deepening and widening the River Maas north of Maastricht due to objections to gravel quarrying under negotiated contracts

619

2004/C 078E/6

E-3648/03 by Erik Meijer to the CommissionSubject: Desire of international rail freight operators to replace national rail safety systems with the European standard ECTS

620

2004/C 078E/7

E-3650/03 by Erik Meijer to the CommissionSubject: Extinction of the Iberian lynx in the Sierra Morena nature reserve in Andalusia due to the construction of a large reservoir and lack of compensatory habitat

622

2004/C 078E/8

E-3651/03 by Cees Bremmer and Bartho Pronk to the CommissionSubject: Poor working conditions for au pairs in the Netherlands

623

2004/C 078E/9

P-3660/03 by Olivier Dupuis to the CommissionSubject: Tragic state of health of children in Chechnya

624

2004/C 078E/0

E-3671/03 by Joost Lagendijk and Arie Oostlander to the CommissionSubject: Further cooperation in the fight against terrorism

625

2004/C 078E/1

E-3672/03 by Ilda Figueiredo to the CommissionSubject: Situation at the Sorefame company

626

2004/C 078E/2

E-3675/03 by Ilda Figueiredo to the CommissionSubject: Situation of micro-enterprises and SMEs in Portugal

627

2004/C 078E/3

E-3690/03 by Roberta Angelilli to the CommissionSubject: Update on use of funding from the Daphne programme by the municipality of Florence

629

2004/C 078E/4

E-3691/03 by Roberta Angelilli to the CommissionSubject: Update on use of funding from the Daphne programme by the municipality of Pesaro-Urbino

629

2004/C 078E/5

E-3692/03 by Roberta Angelilli to the CommissionSubject: Update on use of funding from the Daphne programme by the municipality of Siena

629

Joint answer to Written Questions E-3690/03, E-3691/03 and E-3692/03

2004/C 078E/6

P-3697/03 by Luigi Vinci to the CommissionSubject: Return to Turkey of refugees of Turkish origin

630

2004/C 078E/7

E-3699/03 by Dana Scallon to the CommissionSubject: Objective 1 areas in Connacht/Ulster (Ireland)

631

2004/C 078E/8

E-3702/03 by José Ribeiro e Castro to the CommissionSubject: EC-Macau Joint Committee — tenth meeting

631

2004/C 078E/9

P-3703/03 by Ulla Sandbæk to the CommissionSubject: HIV and Commission support for development of affordable microbicide

632

2004/C 078E/0

E-3718/03 by Paul Rübig to the CommissionSubject: Eco-design requirements for energy-using products

633

2004/C 078E/1

E-3720/03 by Cristiana Muscardini to the CommissionSubject: Adapting Directive 97/24/EC to technical progress

635

2004/C 078E/2

P-3732/03 by Olivier Dupuis to the CommissionSubject: Vietnam

637

2004/C 078E/3

E-3733/03 by Constanze Krehl to the CommissionSubject: Social partnerships for regional structural development in Saxony

638

2004/C 078E/4

E-3751/03 by Roberta Angelilli to the CommissionSubject: Update on use of funding from the 2000 City Twinning Programme by the municipality of Terni

639

2004/C 078E/5

E-3752/03 by Roberta Angelilli to the CommissionSubject: Update on use of funding from the 2000 City Twinning Programme by the municipality of Ancona

640

2004/C 078E/6

E-3753/03 by Roberta Angelilli to the CommissionSubject: Update on use of funding from the 2000 City Twinning Programme by the municipality of Florence

640

2004/C 078E/7

E-3754/03 by Roberta Angelilli to the CommissionSubject: Update on use of funding from the 2000 City Twinning Programme by the municipality of Livorno

640

2004/C 078E/8

E-3755/03 by Roberta Angelilli to the CommissionSubject: Update on use of funding from the 2000 City Twinning Programme by the municipality of Macerata

641

2004/C 078E/9

E-3756/03 by Roberta Angelilli to the CommissionSubject: Update on use of funding from the 2000 City Twinning Programme by the municipality of Perugia

641

2004/C 078E/0

E-3757/03 by Roberta Angelilli to the CommissionSubject: Update on use of funding from the 2000 City Twinning Programme by the municipality of Pesaro

641

2004/C 078E/1

E-3758/03 by Roberta Angelilli to the CommissionSubject: Update on use of funding from the 2000 City Twinning Programme by the municipality of Pisa

642

2004/C 078E/2

E-3759/03 by Roberta Angelilli to the CommissionSubject: Update on use of funding from the 2000 City Twinning Programme by the municipality of Pistoia

642

2004/C 078E/3

E-3760/03 by Roberta Angelilli to the CommissionSubject: Update on use of funding from the 2000 City Twinning Programme by the municipality of Siena

642

Joint answer to Written Questions E-3751/03, E-3752/03, E-3753/03, E-3754/03, E-3755/03, E-3756/03, E-3757/03, E-3758/03, E-3759/03 and E-3760/03

2004/C 078E/4

E-3763/03 by Christopher Huhne to the CommissionSubject: Clinical trials

644

2004/C 078E/5

E-3792/03 by Roberta Angelilli to the CommissionSubject: Update on funding for the municipality of Pesaro-Urbino under the Tempus III programme

645

2004/C 078E/6

E-3811/03 by Cristiana Muscardini to the CommissionSubject: The spread of androgenetic alopecia

645

2004/C 078E/7

E-3813/03 by Maurizio Turco to the CommissionSubject: Judicial inquiry by the Venice Prosecutor's Office into use of Community funds for the agricultural sector

647

2004/C 078E/8

E-3814/03 by Maurizio Turco to the CommissionSubject: Judicial inquiry by the Palermo Prosecutor's Office into EUR 6,5 million fraud against the European Union

647

2004/C 078E/9

E-3815/03 by Maurizio Turco to the CommissionSubject: Judicial inquiry by the Salerno Prosecutor's Office into EUR 30 million fraud against the European Union

648

2004/C 078E/0

E-3816/03 by Maurizio Turco to the CommissionSubject: Judicial inquiry by the Lecce Prosecutor's Office into EUR 6 million fraud against the European Union

649

2004/C 078E/1

E-3818/03 by Stavros Xarchakos to the CommissionSubject: Conditions for awarding pensions in Greece

650

2004/C 078E/2

E-3820/03 by Elspeth Attwooll to the CommissionSubject: Connection to electricity and water supplies

651

2004/C 078E/3

E-3827/03 by Ilda Figueiredo to the CommissionSubject: Funding for the network of Carrefours and Info-Points

651

2004/C 078E/4

P-3830/03 by Juan Ferrández Lezaun to the CommissionSubject: Spanish NHP infrastructure tendering

652

2004/C 078E/5

E-3833/03 by Roberto Bigliardo to the CommissionSubject: Provincial authorities' involvement in the management of EU Structural Funds

653

2004/C 078E/6

E-3834/03 by Ilda Figueiredo to the CommissionSubject: Discrimination against Portuguese workers abroad

654

2004/C 078E/7

P-3836/03 by Emmanouil Bakopoulos to the CommissionSubject: VAT for transport service providers

655

2004/C 078E/8

E-3839/03 by Monica Frassoni and Daniel Cohn-Bendit to the CommissionSubject: Marmara Earthquake Rehabilitation Programme (MERP): An Integrated Intervention for the Rehabilitation of Düzce — Turkey

656

2004/C 078E/9

E-3843/03 by Maurizio Turco, Marco Pannella, Marco Cappato, Gianfranco Dell'Alba, Benedetto Della Vedova and Olivier Dupuis to the CommissionSubject: Censorship practised at the request of the Russian Consulate in Milan by the city authorities in connection with the Romano Cagnoni photography exhibition

657

2004/C 078E/0

E-3846/03 by Maj Theorin to the CommissionSubject: Women and conflict

658

2004/C 078E/1

E-3849/03 by Proinsias De Rossa to the CommissionSubject: Compilation of information on organ transplants in Europe

658

2004/C 078E/2

E-3850/03 by Jan Andersson to the CommissionSubject: Harmful isocyanates and the protection of workers

659

2004/C 078E/3

P-3853/03 by Joan Colom i Naval to the CommissionSubject: Funding for Spain's National Water Plan

660

2004/C 078E/4

P-3861/03 by Heide Rühle to the CommissionSubject: Export guarantee by the German Federal Government for Finnish nuclear reactor

661

2004/C 078E/5

P-3862/03 by Sebastiano Musumeci to the CommissionSubject: Community funding for the bridge over the Straits of Messina

661

2004/C 078E/6

E-3872/03 by Alexander de Roo to the CommissionSubject: Impact of EU investment in the Júcar-Vinalopó water transfer

662

2004/C 078E/7

E-3874/03 by Francesco Fiori to the CommissionSubject: Imports into the EU of uncertified active pharmaceutical ingredients

663

2004/C 078E/8

E-3877/03 by Francesco Fiori to the CommissionSubject: Breach of Community principles — Article 24 of Law 289/2002

664

2004/C 078E/9

E-3878/03 by Johannes Blokland to the CommissionSubject: Research into the effects of medicinal products on children

666

2004/C 078E/0

E-3882/03 by Cristina Gutiérrez-Cortines, Bernd Lange, Karl-Heinz Florenz and Ria Oomen-Ruijten to the CommissionSubject: Inspire initiative

667

2004/C 078E/1

P-3893/03 by Chris Davies to the CommissionSubject: Health warnings on cigarette packs

669

2004/C 078E/2

P-3894/03 by Ian Hudghton to the CommissionSubject: Objective One status — Highlands and Islands of Scotland

669

2004/C 078E/3

E-3899/03 by Olivier Dupuis to the CommissionSubject: Meeting of EU-Lao PDR Joint Committee

670

2004/C 078E/4

E-3903/03 by Roberta Angelilli to the CommissionSubject: Disparities in the treatment of debts by banks in connection with Democratici di Sinistra's unpaid debts

671

2004/C 078E/5

P-3910/03 by Amalia Sartori to the CommissionSubject: Domestic accidents and workplaces

671

2004/C 078E/6

E-3913/03 by Ole Krarup to the CommissionSubject: Oil extraction agreement: granting of authorisations

673

2004/C 078E/7

E-3915/03 by Marco Pannella, Maurizio Turco, Marco Cappato, Gianfranco Dell'Alba, Benedetto Della Vedova and Olivier Dupuis to the CommissionSubject: Forced repatriation to Vietnam of Montagnard refugees by the Cambodian government and the repeated violation of the UN Convention on Refugees

673

2004/C 078E/8

P-3918/03 by Georges Berthu to the CommissionSubject: Reduced rates of VAT

675

2004/C 078E/9

E-3922/03 by María Bergaz Conesa to the CommissionSubject: Projects co-funded by the Commission as part of the National Hydrological Plan

676

2004/C 078E/0

E-3943/03 by Daniel Cohn-Bendit to the CommissionSubject: Temporary Nationality and Entry into Israel law

676

2004/C 078E/1

E-3951/03 by Alexander de Roo to the CommissionSubject: Genetically modified GloFish

677

2004/C 078E/2

E-3953/03 by Catherine Stihler to the CommissionSubject: Wheelchair design specifications

678

2004/C 078E/3

E-3960/03 by José Ribeiro e Castro to the CommissionSubject: Angola — reintegration of ex-combatants and disarmament of civilians

678

2004/C 078E/4

P-3998/03 by Konstantinos Hatzidakis to the CommissionSubject: Use of CSF funds to finance an advertising campaign in Greece

680

2004/C 078E/5

E-4001/03 by Stavros Xarchakos to the CommissionSubject: Transfers of students

681

2004/C 078E/6

E-4031/03 by Michl Ebner to the CommissionSubject: Language programme for minority languages

681

2004/C 078E/7

P-4059/03 by José Ribeiro e Castro to the CommissionSubject: Large families

682

2004/C 078E/8

P-4072/03 by John Cushnahan to the CommissionSubject: Application of the EC-Israel Association Agreement

683

2004/C 078E/9

P-4074/03 by Marianne Thyssen to the CommissionSubject: Problems relating to the transposition into national law of Directive 2002/2/EC

684

2004/C 078E/0

P-0037/04 by Charles Tannock to the CommissionSubject: Provisions made by acceeding 10 new EU member states following 1 May 2004 for freedom of movement and establishment of other EU member state nationals

685

2004/C 078E/1

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

686

2004/C 078E/2

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

686

2004/C 078E/3

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

687

WRITTEN QUESTIONS WITH ANSWER (Part 3)

2004/C 078E/4

E-1287/02 by Graham Watson to the CommissionSubject: The planting of oilseed rape

688

2004/C 078E/5

E-2931/02 by María Sornosa Martínez to the CommissionSubject: Priority for EU funding for high-speed rail links in Spain that promote regional balance and economic and social cohesion

688

2004/C 078E/6

E-3340/02 by Astrid Thors to the CommissionSubject: Certification of organic cereals exported on the internal market

690

2004/C 078E/7

P-3636/02 by Niall Andrews to the CommissionSubject: Humanitarian aid and immigration controls

691

2004/C 078E/8

P-3857/02 by Mark Watts to the CommissionSubject: Slaughter of baby seal pups on the White Sea, Russia

691

2004/C 078E/9

E-3878/02 by Salvador Garriga Polledo to the CommissionSubject: Community-wide harmonisation of time limits for the writing-off of tax arrears

692

2004/C 078E/0

E-3908/02 by Caroline Lucas to the CommissionSubject: Malta

693

2004/C 078E/1

E-0064/03 by Hanja Maij-Weggen to the CommissionSubject: European assistance for the raising of the Le Joola ferry which sank off the coast of Senegal

693

2004/C 078E/2

E-0075/03 by Erik Meijer to the CommissionSubject: Regular rail transport in cities becoming unviable due to competition from minibuses offering expensive, unsafe and obscure services

694

2004/C 078E/3

E-0115/03 by Catherine Stihler to the CommissionSubject: Malta's accession to the EU: Wild Birds Directive (79/409/EEC)

695

2004/C 078E/4

E-0118/03 by Salvador Garriga Polledo to the CommissionSubject: Delineation of the European Union's final borders

696

2004/C 078E/5

E-0120/03 by Jorge Hernández Mollar to the CommissionSubject: Border fishing dispute at the mouth of the Guadiana

697

2004/C 078E/6

E-0192/03 by Lennart Sacrédeus to the CommissionSubject: Indian priest imprisoned without charge in Qatar

697

2004/C 078E/7

P-0281/03 by Ulpu Iivari to the CommissionSubject: Reform of the common fisheries policy and restoration of wild salmon stocks

698

2004/C 078E/8

E-0320/03 by Massimo Carraro and Vincenzo Lavarra to the CommissionSubject: Poultrymeat imports

700

2004/C 078E/9

E-0450/03 by Cristiana Muscardini to the CommissionSubject: Reception centres and human traffickers

701

2004/C 078E/0

P-0557/03 by Anne Van Lancker to the CommissionSubject: Regulations governing milk quotas in cross-border farms

703

2004/C 078E/1

E-0736/03 by Ilda Figueiredo to the CommissionSubject: Building of controlled tips

704

2004/C 078E/2

E-0751/03 by Mary Banotti to the CommissionSubject: National Irish Development Plan 2000-2006

704

2004/C 078E/3

E-0790/03 by Christopher Huhne to the CommissionSubject: Legislation on waste incineration

705

2004/C 078E/4

E-0816/03 by Paulo Casaca to the CommissionSubject: Independent study on the use of inter-specific wine varieties

706

2004/C 078E/5

E-0926/03 by Peter Skinner to the CommissionSubject: Relocation of workforce from Eastleigh, United Kingdom to Battipaglia, Southern Italy by Pirelli

707

2004/C 078E/6

P-1237/03 by Diana Wallis to the CommissionSubject: EEA Agreement on enlargement of the EU

707

2004/C 078E/7

P-1266/03 by Caroline Lucas to the CommissionSubject: TRIPs, UPOV and Farmers' Rights

708

2004/C 078E/8

E-1280/03 by María Sornosa Martínez to the CommissionSubject: Incorrect transposition into national law of Directive 2002/49/EC

709

2004/C 078E/9

E-1285/03 by Mario Borghezio to the CommissionSubject: European Union action to ensure civil and respectful treatment for prisoners of war in Iraq

710

2004/C 078E/0

E-1318/03 by Erik Meijer to the CommissionSubject: Concern about maintaining non-commercial services outside Europe following the EU's requests in the WTO GATS 2 negotiations

711

2004/C 078E/1

E-1330/03 by Sérgio Marques to the CommissionSubject: Prestige: Community aid

713

2004/C 078E/2

E-1340/03 by Marjo Matikainen-Kallström to the CommissionSubject: Funding of research into prion diseases in the 6th Research Framework Programme

714

2004/C 078E/3

E-1441/03 by Caroline Jackson to the CommissionSubject: Tyres: application of the Landfill Directive 1999/31/EC

715

2004/C 078E/4

P-1450/03 by María Sornosa Martínez to the CommissionSubject: Need for urgent intervention — plan to extend the port of Altea (Spain)

716

2004/C 078E/5

E-1504/03 by Elly Plooij-van Gorsel to the CommissionSubject: Measurability of GMO material in food products

717

2004/C 078E/6

P-1531/03 by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna to the CommissionSubject: Importation of canned tuna from Thailand and the Philippines

718

2004/C 078E/7

E-1586/03 by Nuala Ahern to the CommissionSubject: Radioactive contamination from Sellafield

719

2004/C 078E/8

E-1587/03 by Nuala Ahern to the CommissionSubject: Basic nuclear safety standards

719

2004/C 078E/9

E-1588/03 by Nuala Ahern to the CommissionSubject: Precautionary principle

720

Joint answer to Written Questions E-1586/03, E-1587/03 and E-1588/03

2004/C 078E/0

E-1650/03 by Hanja Maij-Weggen to the CommissionSubject: Detention of Oscar E. Biscet in Cuba

720

2004/C 078E/1

E-1667/03 by Proinsias De Rossa to the CommissionSubject: VAT on postal services

721

2004/C 078E/2

E-1720/03 by Erik Meijer to the CommissionSubject: Joint EU and US bloc vis-à-vis the rest of the world by widening the remit of the TABD

722

2004/C 078E/3

E-1747/03 by Anna Karamanou to the CommissionSubject: Israel — removal of restriction on movement from and to the occupied territories

723

2004/C 078E/4

E-1764/03 by Torben Lund to the CommissionSubject: Arms transport and export bans

724

2004/C 078E/5

E-1795/03 by Terence Wynn to the CommissionSubject: Manufactured products from third countries

725

2004/C 078E/6

E-1815/03 by Gabriele Stauner to the CommissionSubject: Information from Mrs Schreyer in connection with fraudulent financial dealings at Eurostat

726

2004/C 078E/7

P-1826/03 by Monica Frassoni to the CommissionSubject: High-speed Italian transverse rail route: internal market, environmental impact and productivity of investment

727

2004/C 078E/8

P-1841/03 by Charles Tannock to the CommissionSubject: The Commission's view that terrorism is not a human rights abuse

729

2004/C 078E/9

E-1855/03 by Anna Karamanou to the CommissionSubject: Human rights in the EU — absence of common procedures for the reporting by Member States of human rights violations

730

2004/C 078E/0

E-1945/03 by Elly Plooij-van Gorsel to the CommissionSubject: Amendment of the Dutch Media Act

731

2004/C 078E/1

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

732

2004/C 078E/2

E-2160/03 by Antonios Trakatellis to the CommissionSubject: Broadcasting licences, rules governing State aid for broadcasting and media advertising in Greece

733

2004/C 078E/3

E-2218/03 by Monica Frassoni to the CommissionSubject: High-speed rail link between Milan and Genoa and Milan and Verona

735

2004/C 078E/4

E-2265/03 by Erik Meijer to the CommissionSubject: Deployment of a fund and provision of misleading information in order to dissuade authorities and other large users from using cheaper software available from a competitor

736

2004/C 078E/5

E-2328/03 by Glyn Ford to the CommissionSubject: Helicopter services to the Isles of Scilly

737

2004/C 078E/6

E-2428/03 by Niels Busk to the CouncilSubject: State aid to Italian milk producers

738

2004/C 078E/7

E-2429/03 by Niels Busk to the CouncilSubject: State aid to Italian farmers

738

Joint answer to Written Questions E-2428/03 and E-2429/03

2004/C 078E/8

E-2447/03 by Marie-Arlette Carlotti to the CommissionSubject: Detailed rules for the implementation of technical and financial assistance measures for traditional ACP suppliers of bananas

739

2004/C 078E/9

E-2452/03 by Erik Meijer to the CouncilSubject: Growing American pressure on future EU Member States to permanently cease their cooperation with the International Criminal Court

740

2004/C 078E/0

E-2464/03 by Piia-Noora Kauppi to the CommissionSubject: Pricing of basic postal services

741

2004/C 078E/1

E-2485/03 by Ria Oomen-Ruijten to the CommissionSubject: Double taxation conventions and Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71

743

2004/C 078E/2

E-2494/03 by Christopher Huhne to the CommissionSubject: Pensions

744

2004/C 078E/3

E-2553/03 by Marco Cappato to the CouncilSubject: The Tunisian journalist Abdallah Zouari

745

2004/C 078E/4

E-2584/03 by Graham Watson to the CouncilSubject: Import of timber from Indonesia

747

2004/C 078E/5

E-2614/03 by Albert Maat to the CommissionSubject: Planting of vineyards with the help of EU funds

747

2004/C 078E/6

P-2616/03 by Alexandros Alavanos to the CommissionSubject: Exclusion of feta cheese, ouzo and Kalamata olives from the list of products with geographical indications of origin to be negotiated at the WTO

748

2004/C 078E/7

E-2627/03 by Maurizio Turco to the CouncilSubject: Follow-up on the Resolution on sexual violence against women, particularly Catholic nuns adopted by the European Parliament on 5 April 2001

749

2004/C 078E/8

E-2652/03 by Emma Bonino, Marco Cappato, Benedetto Della Vedova, Gianfranco Dell'Alba, Olivier Dupuis, Marco Pannella and Maurizio Turco to the CouncilSubject: Infringements of legality in Lebanon

750

2004/C 078E/9

E-2706/03 by Raffaele Costa to the CommissionSubject: Daphne Programme

752

2004/C 078E/0

E-2737/03 by Glyn Ford to the CommissionSubject: Human rights in Vietnam

752

2004/C 078E/1

P-2751/03 by Gabriele Stauner to the CommissionSubject: Criminal practices involved in the award of a contract to CESD-Roma

753

2004/C 078E/2

E-2753/03 by Elly Plooij-van Gorsel to the CommissionSubject: Amendment of the Dutch Media Act

755

2004/C 078E/3

P-2767/03 by Dana Scallon to the CommissionSubject: NGO funding

756

2004/C 078E/4

E-2797/03 by Ria Oomen-Ruijten to the CommissionSubject: Combating legionnaires' disease

756

2004/C 078E/5

E-2801/03 by Pedro Marset Campos to the CouncilSubject: Special tolls in France and Germany for the transport of goods by road

757

2004/C 078E/6

E-2807/03 by Erik Meijer to the CommissionSubject: The Vatican's crusade against homosexual marriages within the EU and the Vatican's right to acquire revenue by issuing euro coins

758

2004/C 078E/7

E-2839/03 by Alexandros Alavanos to the CouncilSubject: Place of Iraq in the UN and position of the EU

760

2004/C 078E/8

P-2875/03 by Hélène Flautre to the CouncilSubject: Situation of migrants and asylum-seekers in Malta

760

2004/C 078E/9

E-2878/03 by Jan Dhaene to the CouncilSubject: Technical inspection of the systems for indirect vision used on commercial vehicles

761

2004/C 078E/0

E-2880/03 by Jan Dhaene to the CouncilSubject: Bicycle theft

762

2004/C 078E/1

E-2885/03 by Charles Tannock to the CommissionSubject: Application of the EU/Israel Association Agreement

763

2004/C 078E/2

E-2900/03 by Antonio Tajani to the CouncilSubject: Safeguarding jobs at the Alcatel plant in Rieti

763

2004/C 078E/3

E-2911/03 by Glenys Kinnock to the CouncilSubject: Football-related violence

764

2004/C 078E/4

E-2917/03 by Gabriele Stauner to the CommissionSubject: 2 SDA, Camire, Marcom, World Systems, Ariane II Group and Sema Belgium

765

2004/C 078E/5

E-2918/03 by Marco Cappato and Maurizio Turco to the CouncilSubject: Case of Italian citizen Maurizio Trotta, imprisoned in Romania

766

2004/C 078E/6

E-2926/03 by Michl Ebner to the CouncilSubject: Urgent need to expand voluntary fire services

766

2004/C 078E/7

E-2929/03 by Olivier Dupuis to the CommissionSubject: Situation of Thich Tri Luc, a Vietnamese citizen enjoying HCR refugee status, kidnapped in Cambodia and awaiting trial in Vietnam

767

2004/C 078E/8

E-2940/03 by Rosa Miguélez Ramos to the CouncilSubject: Allocations from the Solidarity Fund

768

2004/C 078E/9

E-2944/03 by Erik Meijer to the CommissionSubject: Cancellation of the special train carrying large numbers of officials and political group staff between the European Parliament's two meeting places

769

2004/C 078E/0

E-2960/03 by Armando Cossutta to the CouncilSubject: Middle East peace process

770

2004/C 078E/1

E-2962/03 by Alexandros Alavanos to the CommissionSubject: Damage to valuable works contained in the temple of St Sofia

771

2004/C 078E/2

P-3008/03 by Karin Riis-Jørgensen to the CommissionSubject: Unequal conditions of competition for the fish processing industry in the EU Member States

772

2004/C 078E/3

E-3061/03 by Elisabeth Schroedter to the CommissionSubject: Threat to the FFH protected area Falkenseer Kuhlaake (No 537) from a road-building project to be carried out with assistance from the European Structural Funds

773

2004/C 078E/4

P-3066/03 by Alain Esclopé to the CommissionSubject: Breaking-up of decommissioned US warships

774

2004/C 078E/5

E-3088/03 by Bruno Gollnisch to the CommissionSubject: Pechiney-Alcan merger

775

2004/C 078E/6

E-3089/03 by Bruno Gollnisch to the CouncilSubject: Alstom

777

2004/C 078E/7

P-3090/03 by Antonios Trakatellis to the CommissionSubject: Declassification of forest land and forests and redefinition of the term forest under new legislation proposed by the Greek Government

777

2004/C 078E/8

E-3098/03 by Jonas Sjöstedt to the CommissionSubject: Margot Wallström and the EMU campaign

779

2004/C 078E/9

E-3100/03 by Jonas Sjöstedt to the CommissionSubject: Commission's involvement in national campaigns

779

Joint answer to Written Questions E-3098/03 and E-3100/03

2004/C 078E/0

E-3101/03 by Jonas Sjöstedt to the CouncilSubject: EMU referendum and location of agencies

780

2004/C 078E/1

P-3102/03 by Lissy Gröner to the CommissionSubject: Discrimination against women in the Commission's new assessment system

780

2004/C 078E/2

E-3120/03 by Christopher Huhne to the CommissionSubject: Noise pollution

782

2004/C 078E/3

E-3137/03 by Mihail Papayannakis to the CouncilSubject: Right to apply for asylum

783

2004/C 078E/4

P-3167/03 by Roger Helmer to the CommissionSubject: Working and health care in the accession countries

783

2004/C 078E/5

E-3168/03 by Michl Ebner to the CouncilSubject: Ban on dangerous dog breeds

784

2004/C 078E/6

P-3180/03 by Mario Borghezio to the CommissionSubject: Protection by the EU of its floriculture sector

785

2004/C 078E/7

E-3188/03 by Adeline Hazan to the CommissionSubject: Harmonisation of civil status records in Europe

787

2004/C 078E/8

E-3195/03 by Ursula Stenzel to the CommissionSubject: Recognition of the profession of (clinical) optometrist

788

2004/C 078E/9

E-3196/03 by Stavros Xarchakos to the CommissionSubject: Problems with construction activity, the protection of forests and building cooperatives in Greece

788

2004/C 078E/0

E-3203/03 by Alexandros Alavanos to the CommissionSubject: Treatment of hospital waste in Attica

789

2004/C 078E/1

E-3213/03 by Stavros Xarchakos to the CommissionSubject: Take-up of Community funding in the cultural sector in Greece

790

2004/C 078E/2

E-3217/03 by Antonios Trakatellis to the CommissionSubject: Monitoring of atmospheric pollution in Greece

791

2004/C 078E/3

E-3224/03 by Glyn Ford to the CommissionSubject: EC Commission proposal to replace Council Regulation (EEC) No 3820/85 on Drivers' Hours

793

2004/C 078E/4

E-3229/03 by Raffaele Costa and Jas Gawronski to the CommissionSubject: Funding for the Turin-Lyon rail link

794

2004/C 078E/5

E-3238/03 by Konstantinos Hatzidakis to the CommissionSubject: New arrangements regarding maritime cabotage in Greece

795

2004/C 078E/6

E-3254/03 by José Ribeiro e Castro to the CommissionSubject: List of priority projects — European Commission

796

2004/C 078E/7

E-3266/03 by Torben Lund to the CommissionSubject: Impact of genetically modified crops on nature

797

2004/C 078E/8

P-3298/03 by Ian Hudghton to the CommissionSubject: Effect of climatic change on cod stocks

799

2004/C 078E/9

E-3299/03 by Horst Schnellhardt to the CommissionSubject: Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (Flora, Fauna and Habitats Directive)

800

2004/C 078E/0

E-3316/03 by Konstantinos Hatzidakis to the CommissionSubject: EAGGF corrections

801

2004/C 078E/1

E-3318/03 by Alexandros Alavanos to the CommissionSubject: Issuing of EUR 1 banknotes

802

2004/C 078E/2

E-3338/03 by Roberta Angelilli to the CommissionSubject: Environmental protection for the Peschiera springs

802

2004/C 078E/3

E-3346/03 by Miquel Mayol i Raynal to the CommissionSubject: Amendments to the Majorca highway-planning programme

804

2004/C 078E/4

P-3364/03 by Christos Folias to the CommissionSubject: New regulatory framework for telecommunications

805

2004/C 078E/5

E-3365/03 by Mihail Papayannakis to the CommissionSubject: Regeneration of the Psyrri district

806

2004/C 078E/6

E-3373/03 by Alexander de Roo to the CommissionSubject: September floods in Malta and town of Qormi

807

2004/C 078E/7

E-3392/03 by Christopher Huhne to the CommissionSubject: Economic monitoring

808

2004/C 078E/8

E-3398/03 by Stefano Zappalà to the CommissionSubject: Dumping by China on the world copper market

809

2004/C 078E/9

E-3408/03 by José Ribeiro e Castro to the CommissionSubject: Illegal immigration — German Consular Services

810

2004/C 078E/0

E-3410/03 by Joan Vallvé to the CommissionSubject: The NHP subsidies and environmental impact

811

2004/C 078E/1

E-3411/03 by Joan Vallvé to the CommissionSubject: Granting subsidies to the NHP and the Ródano water transfer

812

Joint answer to Written Questions E-3410/03 and E-3411/03

2004/C 078E/2

E-3436/03 by Antonio Di Pietro to the CommissionSubject: Harmonisation of the European energy market

813

2004/C 078E/3

E-3444/03 by Ilda Figueiredo to the CommissionSubject: Teaching Portuguese language and culture in the Netherlands

814

2004/C 078E/4

E-3452/03 by Mihail Papayannakis to the CommissionSubject: Exclusion of environmental NGOs from environmental education

814

2004/C 078E/5

E-3463/03 by Christos Folias to the CommissionSubject: Fixing maximum profit margins for sales of fresh produce

815

2004/C 078E/6

E-3465/03 by Caroline Jackson to the CommissionSubject: Dichlofluanid

816

2004/C 078E/7

E-3475/03 by Mihail Papayannakis to the CommissionSubject: Protection of the Caretta caretta turtle

817

2004/C 078E/8

E-3507/03 by Paul Lannoye to the CommissionSubject: Protection of loggerhead turtles in Greece

817

2004/C 078E/9

E-3528/03 by John Bowis to the CommissionSubject: Protection of the caretta — caretta turtle

817

2004/C 078E/0

E-3532/03 by María Bergaz Conesa to the CommissionSubject: Protection of the Caretta caretta tortoise

818

Joint answer to Written Questions E-3475/03, E-3507/03, E-3528/03 and E-3532/03

2004/C 078E/1

E-3481/03 by Richard Corbett to the CommissionSubject: Valdastico Sud motorway

819

2004/C 078E/2

E-3488/03 by Albert Maat to the CommissionSubject: Statements by individual Commissioners against Commission policy

820

2004/C 078E/3

E-3505/03 by Hiltrud Breyer to the CommissionSubject: Information on the level of EU funding granted to Saarland between January 1997 and December 2002 (Supplementary Answer)

820

2004/C 078E/4

E-3513/03 by Adriana Poli Bortone and Cristiana Muscardini to the CommissionSubject: Water

821

2004/C 078E/5

E-3518/03 by Christopher Huhne to the CommissionSubject: Bioptic driving

822

2004/C 078E/6

E-3541/03 by Chris Davies to the CommissionSubject: US ghost ships moored in the UK

822

2004/C 078E/7

E-3548/03 by Antonios Trakatellis to the CommissionSubject: Public works in Greece: shortcomings and defects regarding the Port of Igoumenitsa and the Egnatia highway

824

2004/C 078E/8

E-3551/03 by Paulo Casaca to the CommissionSubject: Goatmeat subsidies — Application of Regulation 2550/2001 of 21 December 2001 to the Azores

825

2004/C 078E/9

E-3557/03 by Roberta Angelilli to the CommissionSubject: Irregularities in DG Agriculture highlighted by the Court of Auditors

826

2004/C 078E/0

E-3558/03 by Roberta Angelilli to the CommissionSubject: Right to vote for immigrants in EU Member States

827

2004/C 078E/1

E-3578/03 by Michl Ebner to the CommissionSubject: Environmentally friendly diesel fuel

828

2004/C 078E/2

E-3579/03 by Christoph Konrad to the CommissionSubject: Hunting season for carrion crows in the EU

829

2004/C 078E/3

E-3581/03 by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna to the CommissionSubject: Shrimp fishing in Svalbard

830

2004/C 078E/4

E-3592/03 by Karl-Heinz Florenz to the CommissionSubject: Deposits on disposable drinks packaging in Germany from an environmental point of view

831

2004/C 078E/5

E-3593/03 by Baroness Sarah Ludford to the CommissionSubject: Cost of passports across the European Union Member States

832

2004/C 078E/6

E-3600/03 by Roberto Bigliardo to the CommissionSubject: Overflying Brussels — extension of Zaventem airport

832

2004/C 078E/7

E-3606/03 by Michl Ebner to the CommissionSubject: Special conditions for transport by heavy goods vehicles

833

2004/C 078E/8

E-3614/03 by Esko Seppänen to the CommissionSubject: Cultivation of sweet rowanberries

835

2004/C 078E/9

E-3615/03 by Esko Seppänen to the CommissionSubject: Fishing for migratory salmon

835

2004/C 078E/0

E-3616/03 by Esko Seppänen to the CommissionSubject: Setting fishing quotas for the new Member States

836

2004/C 078E/1

E-3630/03 by Carles-Alfred Gasòliba i Böhm to the CommissionSubject: Unspent Structural Fund resources

837

2004/C 078E/2

P-3636/03 by Salvador Jové Peres to the CommissionSubject: Reform of the CMO in olive oil

838

2004/C 078E/3

E-3640/03 by Herbert Bösch and Johannes Swoboda to the CommissionSubject: Withdrawal of direct cross-border rail connections

839

2004/C 078E/4

E-3641/03 by Antonios Trakatellis to the CommissionSubject: Definition of forest: divergence between the definition in a Greek bill and in the Forest Focus regulation

840

2004/C 078E/5

E-3644/03 by Salvador Jové Peres to the CommissionSubject: Reform of the COM in olive oil

842

2004/C 078E/6

E-3649/03 by Erik Meijer to the CommissionSubject: Serious delays in payments by the International Organisation for Migration in Geneva relating to the German forced labour compensation programme

843

2004/C 078E/7

E-3971/03 by Mario Borghezio to the CommissionSubject: Failure by Germany to compensate former Italian military internees (IMIs)

843

Joint answer to Written Questions E-3649/03 and E-3971/03

2004/C 078E/8

P-3652/03 by Dana Scallon to the CommissionSubject: Stem cells and stem-cell lines

844

2004/C 078E/9

E-3656/03 by Salvador Jové Peres to the CommissionSubject: High quality code NC 100300 barley imports

845

2004/C 078E/0

P-3657/03 by Giovanni Procacci to the CommissionSubject: Storage of nuclear waste

846

2004/C 078E/1

E-3663/03 by Paulo Casaca to the CommissionSubject: Undisclosed research on organic farming

847

2004/C 078E/2

P-3667/03 by Ilda Figueiredo to the CommissionSubject: Building of a dam in the lower Sabor

849

2004/C 078E/3

E-3698/03 by Torben Lund to the CommissionSubject: Contravention of ban on fishing with drift nets and of the habitats directive

850

2004/C 078E/4

E-3701/03 by Marco Pannella, Maurizio Turco, Marco Cappato, Gianfranco Dell'Alba, Benedetto Della Vedova and Olivier Dupuis to the CommissionSubject: Misappropriation of Community funds intended for the Palestinian National Authority

851

2004/C 078E/5

E-3734/03 by Johanna Boogerd-Quaak to the CommissionSubject: High fees for residence cards

853

2004/C 078E/6

E-3749/03 by Roberta Angelilli to the CommissionSubject: Update on use of funding from the LIFE III programme by the municipality of Massa

854

2004/C 078E/7

E-3750/03 by Roberta Angelilli to the CommissionSubject: Update on use of funding from the LIFE III programme by the municipality of Florence

854

2004/C 078E/8

E-3762/03 by Konstantinos Hatzidakis to the CommissionSubject: Commission proceedings against Greece for infringing Community legislation in the telecommunications sector

855

2004/C 078E/9

Ρ-3776/03 by Christopher Huhne to the CommissionSubject: US GAAP

856

2004/C 078E/0

E-3795/03 by Chris Davies to the CommissionSubject: Meeting UN sustainable fishing targets

857

2004/C 078E/1

E-3796/03 by Chris Davies to the CommissionSubject: Maríne Stewardship Council

858

2004/C 078E/2

E-3797/03 by Chris Davies to the CommissionSubject: Sustainable fisheries

859

2004/C 078E/3

E-3821/03 by Joan Vallvé to the CommissionSubject: Environmental impact of the extension of the Eivissa Airport

859

2004/C 078E/4

E-3825/03 by Ilda Figueiredo to the CommissionSubject: Abandoned mines

860

2004/C 078E/5

E-3826/03 by Ilda Figueiredo to the CommissionSubject: Environmental problems caused by small and medium-sized dairy farms

861

2004/C 078E/6

E-3837/03 by Emmanouil Bakopoulos to the CommissionSubject: Privatisation of the Post Office Savings Bank

862

2004/C 078E/7

E-3841/03 by Proinsias De Rossa to the CommissionSubject: Protection of the consumer interest under the new EU regulatory framework for electronic communications (Directives 2002/20/EC, 2002/21/EC)

863

2004/C 078E/8

P-3860/03 by Reimer Böge to the CommissionSubject: Designation of bird protection zones in Schleswig-Holstein

864

2004/C 078E/9

P-3863/03 by Mario Borghezio to the CommissionSubject: European Evidence Warrant — a proposal threatening individual freedom?

866

2004/C 078E/0

E-3871/03 by Alexander de Roo to the CommissionSubject: Connection between the Ebro water transfer and the Júcar-Vinalopó water transfer

866

2004/C 078E/1

E-3873/03 by Luigi Vinci to the CommissionSubject: Motorway and high-speed rail routes — Corridor 5 and Friuli-Venezia Giulia region

867

2004/C 078E/2

E-3875/03 by Francesco Fiori to the CommissionSubject: Reform of the COM in tobacco

869

2004/C 078E/3

E-3879/03 by Olle Schmidt to the CommissionSubject: Rules governing eel fishing

870

2004/C 078E/4

E-3886/03 by Roberta Angelilli to the CommissionSubject: Alcatel Italia and the seat of the European Satellite Agency

871

2004/C 078E/5

E-3888/03 by Jan Mulder to the CommissionSubject: Winding-up of contracts in the Eurostat affair

872

2004/C 078E/6

P-3891/03 by Patricia McKenna to the CommissionSubject: Renewable energy in Ireland

873

2004/C 078E/7

E-3908/03 by Olle Schmidt to the CommissionSubject: Freedom of movement in the EU and risk of abuse of welfare systems

874

2004/C 078E/8

E-3916/03 by Maurizio Turco, Marco Pannella, Marco Cappato, Gianfranco Dell'Alba, Benedetto Della Vedova and Olivier Dupuis to the CommissionSubject: Unsatisfactory standards in Italy for checking that medical staff have the necessary professional qualifications

875

2004/C 078E/9

E-3917/03 by Nelly Maes to the CommissionSubject: European approval of government support for the livestock market in Leeuwarden

876

2004/C 078E/0

P-3926/03 by Jacqueline Foster to the CommissionSubject: Distortion of competition in the diamond industry

877

2004/C 078E/1

E-3927/03 by Freddy Blak to the CommissionSubject: Modular road trains on European roads

878

2004/C 078E/2

E-3929/03 by Stavros Xarchakos to the CommissionSubject: Increase in inflation in Greece

879

2004/C 078E/3

E-3932/03 by Rodi Kratsa-Tsagaropoulou to the CommissionSubject: Sexual exploitation of children

881

2004/C 078E/4

E-3933/03 by Samuli Pohjamo and Mikko Pesälä to the CommissionSubject: Recognition of the ergonomic saddle chair in the EU's chair classifications

882

2004/C 078E/5

E-3935/03 by Bert Doorn to the CommissionSubject: Court with jurisdiction in international civil and commercial matters under Regulation (EC) No 44/2001

883

2004/C 078E/6

P-3937/03 by Elisabeth Jeggle to the CommissionSubject: European Regulation on yogurt

885

2004/C 078E/7

E-3950/03 by Erik Meijer to the CommissionSubject: Incentives to halt the continuing cancellation of rapid and direct long-distance international train services

886

2004/C 078E/8

P-3954/03 by Gian Gobbo to the CommissionSubject: Issue of one-euro banknotes

887

2004/C 078E/9

E-3982/03 by Miquel Mayol i Raynal to the CommissionSubject: Political rights of the Macedonian minority in Greece

888

2004/C 078E/0

E-3997/03 by Raffaele Costa to the CommissionSubject: Prince/Euro programme

888

2004/C 078E/1

E-4000/03 by Herbert Bösch to the CommissionSubject: Reforms at Eurostat

890

2004/C 078E/2

E-4005/03 by Anna Terrón i Cusí to the CommissionSubject: Discrimination against Community children as regards access to sports federations in Spain

891

2004/C 078E/3

P-4009/03 by Antonio Di Pietro to the CommissionSubject: Reform of the tobacco CMO

892

2004/C 078E/4

E-4016/03 by Salvador Garriga Polledo to the CommissionSubject: Free movement of pharmaceutical products in the EU

893

2004/C 078E/5

P-4022/03 by Christos Folias to the CommissionSubject: Comparative data in the olive oil sector

894

2004/C 078E/6

P-4023/03 by Jean-Louis Bernié to the CommissionSubject: Natura 2000

895

2004/C 078E/7

E-4024/03 by Christopher Huhne to the CommissionSubject: Free-standing ovens

896

2004/C 078E/8

E-4025/03 by Claude Moraes to the CommissionSubject: UN investigation in East Timor

897

2004/C 078E/9

E-4030/03 by Juan Naranjo Escobar to the CommissionSubject: Under-utilisation of payment appropriations

898

2004/C 078E/0

E-4039/03 by Christos Folias to the CommissionSubject: Optometry in Greece

899

2004/C 078E/1

E-4040/03 by Glyn Ford, Kathalijne Buitenweg, Claude Moraes and Anna Terrón i Cusí to the CommissionSubject: MEDEA Programme and Article 13 of the Treaty

900

2004/C 078E/2

E-4041/03 by John Bowis and Ria Oomen-Ruijten to the CommissionSubject: The implementation of worker safety directives and protection of healthcare workers and their patients

901

2004/C 078E/3

E-4042/03 by Kathalijne Buitenweg to the CommissionSubject: Bullying at school

902

2004/C 078E/4

E-4044/03 by Theresa Villiers to the CommissionSubject: Free passes for local residents to the grounds of heritage and tourist sites

903

2004/C 078E/5

P-4049/03 by Francesco Speroni to the CommissionSubject: GM products

904

2004/C 078E/6

P-4050/03 by Theresa Villiers to the CommissionSubject: Proposal for a directive concerning credit for consumers

904

2004/C 078E/7

E-4052/03 by Christos Folias to the CommissionSubject: Support for the various Churches

906

2004/C 078E/8

P-4060/03 by Roberta Angelilli to the CommissionSubject: European citizenship

906

2004/C 078E/9

E-4062/03 by Alexandros Alavanos to the CommissionSubject: Health and safety of workers - complaint 00/4404, SG(2000) A/3828/2

907

2004/C 078E/0

E-4063/03 by Alexandros Alavanos to the CommissionSubject: Workers on one-day contracts

908

2004/C 078E/1

P-4073/03 by Giovanni Fava to the CommissionSubject: Waste-to-energy plant

909

2004/C 078E/2

E-4080/03 by Chris Davies to the CommissionSubject: Pets' passports

910

2004/C 078E/3

E-4086/03 by Olle Schmidt to the CommissionSubject: Company-specific aid to Eftec in connection with relocation from Hässleholm in Sweden to Wales

911

2004/C 078E/4

E-4087/03 by Chris Davies to the CommissionSubject: Data Protection Supervisor

912

2004/C 078E/5

E-0005/04 by Olivier Dupuis to the CommissionSubject: Persecution of Uighur Organisations based in the European Union

912

2004/C 078E/6

P-0014/04 by Johanna Boogerd-Quaak to the CommissionSubject: Relationship between cancelled flights and PNR

914

2004/C 078E/7

E-0024/04 by Avril Doyle to the CommissionSubject: Financial support for an organisation facilitating the independence of people with disabilities

915

2004/C 078E/8

E-0025/04 by Avril Doyle to the CommissionSubject: Possibility of BSE (OSE?) in sheep

916

2004/C 078E/9

P-0028/04 by Philip Bushill-Matthews to the CommissionSubject: Age discrimination

917

2004/C 078E/0

P-0029/04 by Heinz Kindermann to the CommissionSubject: Closure of veterinary border control point at Pomellen, Germany

917

2004/C 078E/1

E-0036/04 by Jules Maaten to the CommissionSubject: SARS outbreak in China and the Philippines

919

2004/C 078E/2

E-0040/04 by Elspeth Attwooll to the CommissionSubject: Size of the Commission

920

2004/C 078E/3

E-0041/04 by Elspeth Attwooll to the CommissionSubject: Trade between Scotland and the rest of the European Union

920

2004/C 078E/4

E-0057/04 by Camilo Nogueira Román to the CommissionSubject: Welfare expenditure in the Spanish state and the situation in the EU

921

2004/C 078E/5

P-0058/04 by Giuseppe Di Lello Finuoli to the CommissionSubject: Funding by the Italian State and the Region of Campania for the programme contract submitted by Agrifuturo S.c.a.r.l

922

2004/C 078E/6

E-0060/04 by Hiltrud Breyer to the CommissionSubject: Chromium (VI) in leather

923

2004/C 078E/7

E-0064/04 by Camilo Nogueira Román to the CommissionSubject: Alarming rise in unemployment in Galicia: 7465 newly unemployed people in December 2003 out of a total of 23419 for Spain as a whole, bringing the rate of unemployment in Galicia to 12,36 %

924

2004/C 078E/8

P-0065/04 by Bill Newton Dunn to the CommissionSubject: Post-60 flying in Europe

925

2004/C 078E/9

E-0067/04 by Bill Newton Dunn to the CommissionSubject: Retirement benefits

926

2004/C 078E/0

E-0069/04 by Ilda Figueiredo to the CommissionSubject: Support for cleaning lakes in the Cantanhede municipal district

926

2004/C 078E/1

E-0076/04 by Proinsias De Rossa to the CommissionSubject: Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 and blind and partially sighted registration

o

927

2004/C 078E/2

P-0083/04 by Dirk Sterckx to the CommissionSubject: Restrictions on freedom of movement for Flemish travel guides on trips abroad

928

2004/C 078E/3

E-0087/04 by Erik Meijer to the CommissionSubject: Use by casinos of EU rules in support of their fight against the Netherlands government policy aimed at limiting compulsive gambling

929

2004/C 078E/4

E-0095/04 by Mihail Papayannakis to the CommissionSubject: Public hospital INMI L. Spallanzani in Italy

930

2004/C 078E/5

E-0106/04 by Erik Meijer to the CommissionSubject: Use in shops of escalators which meet European safety standards but are apparently unsafe for children

931

2004/C 078E/6

E-0108/04 by Charles Tannock to the CommissionSubject: Fiat in Italy acting in a joint venture in China providing vans to the People's Republic of China for the purposes of mobile exectution

932

2004/C 078E/7

P-0109/04 by Claude Moraes to the CommissionSubject: Sikhs and the banning of religious articles of faith

933

2004/C 078E/8

P-0126/04 by Jean Lambert to the CommissionSubject: Permits for capture, breeding and trading of protected species in Greece in violation of EU legislation

933

2004/C 078E/9

P-0147/04 by Bart Staes to the CommissionSubject: Combating the use of drugs in sport

934

2004/C 078E/0

P-0157/04 by Catherine Guy-Quint to the CommissionSubject: Twinnings with Bulgaria and Romania

936

2004/C 078E/1

P-0158/04 by Brice Hortefeux to the CommissionSubject: Aviation safety

937

2004/C 078E/2

E-0178/04 by Alexandros Alavanos to the CommissionSubject: Funding from the Culture 2000 programme for the conservation of valuable cultural works stored in Aghia Sofia

938

2004/C 078E/3

P-0193/04 by Ward Beysen to the CommissionSubject: Parallel trade

939

2004/C 078E/4

P-0206/04 by Renato Brunetta to the CommissionSubject: Unlawful imposition of identification marks for sports craft in the Venice lagoon

940

2004/C 078E/5

P-0207/04 by Harald Ettl to the CommissionSubject: Further action by the Commission on the portability of supplementary pension rights

941

2004/C 078E/6

P-0208/04 by Ioannis Averoff to the CommissionSubject: Practical problems with town-twinning scheme

942

2004/C 078E/7

E-0223/04 by Alexandros Alavanos to the CommissionSubject: Unemployment rate in Greece

943

2004/C 078E/8

E-0224/04 by Roberta Angelilli to the CommissionSubject: Militaria e Dintorni in Europa (Militaria Fair)

943

2004/C 078E/9

P-0231/04 by Alexander de Roo to the CommissionSubject: EIB loan to Schiphol Airport

944

2004/C 078E/00

E-0243/04 by Ilda Figueiredo to the CommissionSubject: Relocation and unemployment

945

2004/C 078E/01

E-0249/04 by Christopher Heaton-Harris to the CommissionSubject: Private Eye

946

2004/C 078E/02

P-0253/04 by Geoffrey Van Orden to the CommissionSubject: The Construction Products Directive

947

2004/C 078E/03

E-0284/04 by Joachim Wuermeling to the CommissionSubject: BEUC

948

2004/C 078E/04

E-0300/04 by Roberto Bigliardo to the CommissionSubject: Financing for the new Athens airport

949

2004/C 078E/05

E-0310/04 by Erik Meijer to the CommissionSubject: Further reduction of educational facilities for the long-established Sorbian-speaking community in Lausitz, eastern Germany

950

2004/C 078E/06

P-0314/04 by Ulpu Iivari to the CommissionSubject: Effect of EU support on the shift of jobs within the EU

951

2004/C 078E/07

E-0330/04 by Luigi Vinci to the CommissionSubject: Hospitals for national defence in Italy

953

2004/C 078E/08

P-0454/04 by Ioannis Marínos to the CommissionSubject: Unemployment benefits in Greece

953

2004/C 078E/09

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

954

2004/C 078E/10

E-0542/04 by Erik Meijer to the CommissionSubject: Active publication of information about subsidies and ratios between payments to large and small farms under the CAP

954

2004/C 078E/11

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

955

2004/C 078E/12

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

956

2004/C 078E/13

E-0545/04 by Erik Meijer to the CommissionSubject: CAP: consequences of the distribution of the reduction in income in agriculture and financing of techniques which promote animal welfare or are environmentally sound for use on small farms

956

2004/C 078E/14

E-0616/04 by Klaus Hänsch to the CommissionSubject: Allocation of EU resources

957

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN

---

I (Information)

EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT

WRITTEN QUESTIONS WITH ANSWER (Part 1)

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/1

---

(2004/C 78 E/0001)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0465/01

by Antonios Trakatellis (PPE-DE) and Rodi Kratsa-Tsagaropoulou (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(20 February 2001)

Subject:   Violation of Community environmental legislation and measures to protect the Loggerhead (Caretta Caretta) sea turtle

In its answer to a previous question about the implementation of environmental legislation (P-3912/00 (1)), the Commission states that, in view of Greece's failure to take the necessary measures to ensure the protection of the marine turtle Caretta Caretta in breach of Article 12 of Directive 92/43/EEC (2), it initiated legal proceedings before the Court of Justice on 17 March 2000 (Case C-2000/103).

This turtle is a rare species in danger of extinction and 30-50 % of the remaining stock of these turtles in the Mediterranean have found refuge in the Gulf of Lagana on the island of Zakinthos; the shores of this area are considered the most important nesting places in the entire Mediterranean. Moreover, the Commission has decided to suspend the funding of projects, such as the Lagana biological purification plant, owing to the violation of environmental legislation. In view of the above, will the Commission say:

| 1. | What measures does it consider adequate to put an end to the violation of Community environmental legislation in Zakinthos, and notably in region GR2210002 of the Natura 2000 network, so as to ensure the comprehensive protection of the biological diversity and maintain natural biotopes and wild fauna and flora in this regard? |
| --- | --- |

1.

What measures does it consider adequate to put an end to the violation of Community environmental legislation in Zakinthos, and notably in region GR2210002 of the Natura 2000 network, so as to ensure the comprehensive protection of the biological diversity and maintain natural biotopes and wild fauna and flora in this regard?

| 2. | In implementing measures to ensure the effective protection of the species in question can the Greek Government include measures to exchange land, compensation and the expropriation of land at a reasonable price so as to strike a balance between environmental protection and the tourist development of the island and protect the rights of property owners? |
| --- | --- |

2.

In implementing measures to ensure the effective protection of the species in question can the Greek Government include measures to exchange land, compensation and the expropriation of land at a reasonable price so as to strike a balance between environmental protection and the tourist development of the island and protect the rights of property owners?

| 3. | Can the plans co-funded by the Community cover the cost of compensatory measures and costs relating to the exchange and expropriation of land? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Can the plans co-funded by the Community cover the cost of compensatory measures and costs relating to the exchange and expropriation of land?

| 4. | The Presidential Decree concerning the establishment of a body for managing the marine park of Zakyithos is flawed, because the local community, the social partners and social organisations are not represented and it does not contain the necessary measures to establish a system of strict protection, as required by Article 12 of Directive 92/43/EEC. Can the Commission really go ahead with the co-funding of flawed management schemes? |
| --- | --- |

4.

The Presidential Decree concerning the establishment of a body for managing the marine park of Zakyithos is flawed, because the local community, the social partners and social organisations are not represented and it does not contain the necessary measures to establish a system of strict protection, as required by Article 12 of Directive 92/43/EEC. Can the Commission really go ahead with the co-funding of flawed management schemes?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(24 April 2001)

Article 12 of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (3) states that Member States shall take the requisite measures to establish a system of strict protection for the animal species listed in Annex IV(a), prohibiting deliberate disturbance of these species, particularly during the period of breeding, rearing, hibernation and migration as well as deterioration or destruction of breeding sites or resting places.

The Commission initiated legal proceedings before the Court of Justice on 17 March 2000 in view of the Greek authorities' failure to take the measures they had declared necessary in order to protect the Loggerhead Sea Turtle Caretta caretta, namely the adoption of two Presidential Decrees on, firstly, the establishment of the Zakinthos marine park and, secondly, compensatory measures. The Greek authorities adopted the Presidential Decree establishing the marine park in December 1999.

The Commission considers that, in addition to adopting the second Presidential Decree on compensatory measures, the Greek authorities should take the measures needed to ensure the smooth running of the marine park and should make provision for the long-term implementation of a package of practical measures to protect the Lagana beaches which are nesting sites for the species.

Directive 92/43/EEC leaves it to Member State to specify the measures needed to establish a system of strict protection for the animal species concerned. The Greek authorities must therefore define the practical measures needed to ensure the protection of Caretta caretta on Zakinthos.

The projects co-funded by both the European Regional Development Fund and the Cohesion Fund cover the cost of the projects plus, where necessary and within certain limits, the cost of related expropriations. The cost of any compensatory measures and costs relating to the exchange of land, etc., must normally be covered by national funding without any Community contribution.

The type of project to which the Honourable Members refer (a biotope management plan) may be eligible under the future ‘Environment’ Operational Programme (OP) for Greece for the programming period 2000-2006.

In order to be eligible, a project must comply with the objective and transparent selection criteria authorised in advance by the authority responsible for managing each OP. These criteria are listed in the Community support framework for the abovementioned period and, amongst other considerations, stipulate that the project must be operational and that the project promoters must be capable of completing it successfully. It is however the task of the Monitoring Committee for each OP to determine the details of the specific criteria adopted and subsequently to check that they are properly implemented by the relevant authority.

---

(1)  OJ C 174 E, 19.6.2001, p. 182.

(2)  OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7.

(3)  OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/2

---

(2004/C 78 E/0002)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2369/02

by Chris Davies (ELDR) to the Commission

(2 August 2002)

Subject:   Directive 1999/74/EC on the protection of laying hens

What is the estimated cost to business of compliance with Directive 1999/74/EC (1) laying down minimum standards for the protection of laying hens?

How many keepers are there in the EU who hold less than 350 hens?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(1 October 2002)

The Commission has currently no available figures to estimate this cost. When making its proposal for the Directive in question laying down minimum standards for the protection of laying hens, it took account of the economic estimations presented in its Communication of 11 March 1998 on the protection of laying hens kept in various systems of rearing (2). However, the provisions of Council Directive 1999/74/EC of 19 July 1999, as finally adopted by the Council, include new technical elements which were not fully considered in the economic analysis of the Commission. For this reason article 10 of Directive 1999/74/EC includes the requirement for a report, to be presented by the Commission not later than 1 January 2005. An obligation for a further evaluation of the socio-economic implications of the various systems is also foreseen in the Directive. The cost to producers of implementation will play a key role in the socio-economic chapter of the report.

There are presently no recent statistics available to the Commission concerning the number of producers having less than 350 hens. However, in 1997 (3) there were 542 500 farms with less than 100 hens and 2 200 farms with between 100 and 499 hens, out of a total number of 549 250 laying hen farms accounted for in the whole EU.

---

(1)  OJ L 203, 3.8.1999, p. 53.

(2)  OJ C 123, 22.4.1998.

(3)  Eurostat: Results of the farm structure survey 1997.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/3

---

(2004/C 78 E/0003)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3463/02

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(6 December 2002)

Subject:   Economic integration

Will the Commission state the value of profits and dividends paid to non-residents in each Member State for each year of the last five years, and will it further express that figure as a percentage of total business profits in each Member State, excluding profits remitted outside the Member State?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(27 January 2003)

The Commission has calculated the value of profits and dividends paid to non-residents for the years/Member States that enough information was available to perform such calculations.

The Commission has also calculated, when feasible, the percentage they represent in total business profits, excluding profits remitted outside the Member States.

All data available are given in the table sent direct to the Honourable Member and to the Parliament's secretariat.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/3

---

(2004/C 78 E/0004)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3509/02

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(10 December 2002)

Subject:   Abolition of the arrangement whereby small-scale, occasional trading can be carried out on a cross-border basis using the cash-on-delivery system

| 1. | Is the Commission aware that the cash-on-delivery system, under which packages are sent through the post to a firm or individual who must pay the cost of the items concerned on receipt of the package, with the sum in question being transferred to the sender by means of a postal order, has hitherto been available on a cross-border basis, but that the Netherlands firm Koninkliijke TPG Post BV (Netherlands Post Office) is abolishing cross-border dispatches as from 1 January 2003? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is the Commission aware that the cash-on-delivery system, under which packages are sent through the post to a firm or individual who must pay the cost of the items concerned on receipt of the package, with the sum in question being transferred to the sender by means of a postal order, has hitherto been available on a cross-border basis, but that the Netherlands firm Koninkliijke TPG Post BV (Netherlands Post Office) is abolishing cross-border dispatches as from 1 January 2003?

| 2. | From now on, will small-scale occasional trading through the post across the EU's internal borders be available only to those who can use electronic payment systems or a credit card? Or does the Commission perhaps see universally available alternative for international transactions within the EU? |
| --- | --- |

2.

From now on, will small-scale occasional trading through the post across the EU's internal borders be available only to those who can use electronic payment systems or a credit card? Or does the Commission perhaps see universally available alternative for international transactions within the EU?

| 3. | Is this abolition of the arrangement whereby many people carry out small-scale, cross-border trading on the basis of the ‘fair exchange’ principle consistent with the efforts to achieve European integration? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Is this abolition of the arrangement whereby many people carry out small-scale, cross-border trading on the basis of the ‘fair exchange’ principle consistent with the efforts to achieve European integration?

| 4. | How does this arrangement differ from the national cash-on-delivery system, which is not to be abolished? |
| --- | --- |

4.

How does this arrangement differ from the national cash-on-delivery system, which is not to be abolished?

| 5. | In the Commission's view, do the arguments in favour of abolition, such as the labour-intensive nature of the procedure and extra costs for customers, outweigh the drawbacks, in particular for collectors and second-hand goods traders? |
| --- | --- |

5.

In the Commission's view, do the arguments in favour of abolition, such as the labour-intensive nature of the procedure and extra costs for customers, outweigh the drawbacks, in particular for collectors and second-hand goods traders?

| 6. | In addition to the Netherlands, are there other EU Member States from which, in 2003, it will likewise no longer be possible to dispatch packages to other countries on a cash-on-delivery basis? |
| --- | --- |

6.

In addition to the Netherlands, are there other EU Member States from which, in 2003, it will likewise no longer be possible to dispatch packages to other countries on a cash-on-delivery basis?

| 7. | What measures can the Commission take to ensure that this arrangement continues to be available in the EU Member States in coming years? Does it plan to implement those measures? |
| --- | --- |

7.

What measures can the Commission take to ensure that this arrangement continues to be available in the EU Member States in coming years? Does it plan to implement those measures?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(30 January 2003)

One of the main objectives of the Directive 97/67/EC (1) is the harmonisation of the European universal postal service.

In the Postal Directive, the Parliament and the Council have defined the number of services, and the minimum requirements, that must be ensured by all Member States. The universal postal service according to this Directive includes letters up to two kilos, parcels up to 10 or 20 kilos, services for registered and insured items, etc, but does not include cash-on-delivery services specifically.

The Postal Directive is a framework Directive and gives Member States the opportunity to include additional services as part of the national universal service. However, it is our understanding that the Netherlands has not extended the scope of the universal service to include cash-on-delivery services. The same decision has been made by some other Member States, whilst others have included this service as part of the national universal service.

Furthermore, according to the Universal Postal Union (UPU), Convention and Agreements, cash-on-delivery services can be introduced by the members of the UPU on a voluntary basis. The Netherlands, therefore, is not under an international law obligation to ensure this service is provided.

In light of the above, the Commission does not see any legal basis that could permit the Commission, as of today, to request that the Dutch universal service provider continues to provide a cross-border cash-on-delivery service.

Finally, the Commission would not consider that there is a need to redefine the universal services included in the Postal Directive to include cash-on-delivery services, based on the experience in this respect in Member States and on the development of alternative payment solutions in recent years.

---

(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.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/5

---

(2004/C 78 E/0005)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3522/02

by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(10 December 2002)

Subject:   Television rights relating to Champions League matches — dispute as to what constitutes news gathering and what is covered by copyright

The European Commission recently decided that the manner in which UEFA sold its television rights to football matches to just one national broadcaster was unlawful. While matches might be broadcast by several TV stations, broadcasting rights for each country were actually held by just one TV station.

Belgium was recently faced by a variation on this theme. The regional TV station — TV Limburg — wanted to film not the action on the pitch but what was going on in the stadium before, during and after Racing Genk FC's home matches in the Champions League. However, the Flemish public TV station VRT and UEFA officials refused TV Limburg access to the stadium. TV Limburg immediately applied to the courts and won at first instance.

That ruling would appear to undermine all the agreements that UEFA has concluded with TV stations for all Champions League matches and may well set a precedent. Since TV Limburg regularly broadcasts news about what is happening on and off the field at Racing Genk, it did not take the action any further. The ultimate result was a kind of ‘code of practice’, but that is not enforceable in law.

| 1. | Can the Commission indicate whether, by claiming the right to free news gathering, regional TV stations are actually at liberty to do this, despite the fact that the event may be protected by copyright? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Can the Commission indicate whether, by claiming the right to free news gathering, regional TV stations are actually at liberty to do this, despite the fact that the event may be protected by copyright?

| 2. | Should a local court act in accordance with European law whenever the settlement of this dispute is involved? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Should a local court act in accordance with European law whenever the settlement of this dispute is involved?

| 3. | Does the Commission share my view that copyright as administered by UEFA is being exploited in a monopolistic manner? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Does the Commission share my view that copyright as administered by UEFA is being exploited in a monopolistic manner?

| 4. | Does the Commission deem it desirable that this sport, which is so popular with the masses, should actually belong completely to a private interest group such as UEFA? |
| --- | --- |

4.

Does the Commission deem it desirable that this sport, which is so popular with the masses, should actually belong completely to a private interest group such as UEFA?

| 5. | Does the Commission agree that the events surrounding a football match unprecedented in this region are of great importance for society and that the attitude of UEFA and of VRT is in breach of Directive 97/36/EC (1) which seeks to ensure that the public may have access to such events? In other words, does it agree that the unique nature and the scale of this event are such that what is involved here is news, all the more so since the TV station in question regularly reports about the activities of the people concerned? |
| --- | --- |

5.

Does the Commission agree that the events surrounding a football match unprecedented in this region are of great importance for society and that the attitude of UEFA and of VRT is in breach of Directive 97/36/EC (1) which seeks to ensure that the public may have access to such events? In other words, does it agree that the unique nature and the scale of this event are such that what is involved here is news, all the more so since the TV station in question regularly reports about the activities of the people concerned?

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(29 January 2003)

| 1. | The Commission has not been a party to the Court proceedings mentioned by the Honourable Member and has no grounds to take a formal position on this decision.
  The Commission has no grounds either to predict the possible outcome of litigation before higher or European courts.
  At this stage of development of Community law, it is up to the Member States to regulate the access to news, taking into account the relevant Community law instruments on intellectual property (which in turn take into account the fundamental right of freedom of expression as laid down by Art. 11 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights) (2).
  In the Work Program annexed to the Commission's Fourth Application Report on the Directive ‘Television without Frontiers’ (3), the Commission has announced its intention to reflect on the question of whether there are grounds for introducing, in future, provisions on access to short extracts of events subject to exclusive rights.
  Bearing in mind the interests at stake (event organisers, rights holders, agencies, television broadcasting bodies, the public) and taking into account the fact that some Member States have already adopted specific provisions on the subject, this question will be adressed with a view to analysing whether the absence of Community provisions creates obstacles to the internal market. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The Commission has not been a party to the Court proceedings mentioned by the Honourable Member and has no grounds to take a formal position on this decision.

The Commission has no grounds either to predict the possible outcome of litigation before higher or European courts.

At this stage of development of Community law, it is up to the Member States to regulate the access to news, taking into account the relevant Community law instruments on intellectual property (which in turn take into account the fundamental right of freedom of expression as laid down by Art. 11 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights) (2).

In the Work Program annexed to the Commission's Fourth Application Report on the Directive ‘Television without Frontiers’ (3), the Commission has announced its intention to reflect on the question of whether there are grounds for introducing, in future, provisions on access to short extracts of events subject to exclusive rights.

Bearing in mind the interests at stake (event organisers, rights holders, agencies, television broadcasting bodies, the public) and taking into account the fact that some Member States have already adopted specific provisions on the subject, this question will be adressed with a view to analysing whether the absence of Community provisions creates obstacles to the internal market.

| 2. | Yes, where applicable. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Yes, where applicable.

| 3. | The Commission opened proceedings under Regulation No 17 in order to investigate to what extent Union of European Football Associations (UEFA) arrangements for the joint selling of the TV rights to the UEFA Champions League (4) entail a restriction of competition within the meaning of Article 81 (2) of the EC Treaty and may benefit from an exemption under Article 81(3) of the EC Treaty.
  The Court of Justice has ruled on several occasions that sport, in its economic aspect is, subject to Community law, but at the same time recognised certain special characteristics of the sector. The declaration on the specificity of sport adopted by the European Council in Nice (7 to 9 December 2000) stresses the need to take account, in all action by the Community, of ‘the social, educational and cultural functions inherent in sport and making it special, in order that the code of ethics and the solidarity essential to the preservation of its social role may be respected and nurtured’.
  The Commission found UEFA's standard broadcasting rights agreement for the UEFA Champions League, because of its duration and its scope, to be a restriction of competition and could not benefit from an exemption in its initial form.
  This made UEFA change its policy. As from the 2003/2004 football season, UEFA will sell the rights in several packages for shorter periods of time, and individual football clubs will also be able to exploit some of the rights with their fan base. This settlement proposal does not, however, contain specific arrangements for news access, since this specific issue is in most cases regulated by national rules on free news gathering mentioned above.
  In the light of this settlement proposal, the Commission published a Notice pursuant to article 19(3) of Regulation No 17 inviting third parties to submit their comments and indicating the Commission's intention to give its approval to the modified arrangements. The comments received from third parties are currently being investigated by the Commission. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The Commission opened proceedings under Regulation No 17 in order to investigate to what extent Union of European Football Associations (UEFA) arrangements for the joint selling of the TV rights to the UEFA Champions League (4) entail a restriction of competition within the meaning of Article 81 (2) of the EC Treaty and may benefit from an exemption under Article 81(3) of the EC Treaty.

The Court of Justice has ruled on several occasions that sport, in its economic aspect is, subject to Community law, but at the same time recognised certain special characteristics of the sector. The declaration on the specificity of sport adopted by the European Council in Nice (7 to 9 December 2000) stresses the need to take account, in all action by the Community, of ‘the social, educational and cultural functions inherent in sport and making it special, in order that the code of ethics and the solidarity essential to the preservation of its social role may be respected and nurtured’.

The Commission found UEFA's standard broadcasting rights agreement for the UEFA Champions League, because of its duration and its scope, to be a restriction of competition and could not benefit from an exemption in its initial form.

This made UEFA change its policy. As from the 2003/2004 football season, UEFA will sell the rights in several packages for shorter periods of time, and individual football clubs will also be able to exploit some of the rights with their fan base. This settlement proposal does not, however, contain specific arrangements for news access, since this specific issue is in most cases regulated by national rules on free news gathering mentioned above.

In the light of this settlement proposal, the Commission published a Notice pursuant to article 19(3) of Regulation No 17 inviting third parties to submit their comments and indicating the Commission's intention to give its approval to the modified arrangements. The comments received from third parties are currently being investigated by the Commission.

| 4. | The EC Treaty does not in any way prejudice the rules in Member States governing the system of property ownership (Article 295 of the EC Treaty). Matches subject to exclusive rights may have different right holders according to the respective national law and depending on the circumstances (UEFA, International Organisation of Football Associations (FIFA), national organisations/the participating clubs, etc.). Article 3a of Directive 97/36/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 30 June 1997 amending Council Directive 89/552/EEC on the coordination of certain provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in Member States concerning the pursuit of television broadcasting activities, hereafter the Television without Frontiers Directive (TVWF), aims at ensuring a balance between the interests of the rightsholders and those of the public in general, taking into account the particular importance for society of such matches. |
| --- | --- |

4.

The EC Treaty does not in any way prejudice the rules in Member States governing the system of property ownership (Article 295 of the EC Treaty). Matches subject to exclusive rights may have different right holders according to the respective national law and depending on the circumstances (UEFA, International Organisation of Football Associations (FIFA), national organisations/the participating clubs, etc.). Article 3a of Directive 97/36/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 30 June 1997 amending Council Directive 89/552/EEC on the coordination of certain provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in Member States concerning the pursuit of television broadcasting activities, hereafter the Television without Frontiers Directive (TVWF), aims at ensuring a balance between the interests of the rightsholders and those of the public in general, taking into account the particular importance for society of such matches.

| 5. | According to Article 3a of the Television without Frontiers Directive, Member States may take measures (in accordance with Community law) to ensure that broadcasters under their jurisdiction do not broadcast on an exclusive basis events which are regarded as being of major importance for society in such a way as to deprive a substantial proportion of the public of the possibility of following such events via life or deferred coverage on free television. If it does so, the Member State concerned shall draw up a list of designated events which it considers to be of major importance for society. No such list is in force for Belgium. Therefore, it is not possible to breach any Belgian national legislation based on Article 3a of the Directive. An assessment of possible measures to be proposed by Belgium according to Article 3a of the Directive can only be made pursuant to the procedure foreseen in that Article.
  Moreover, the Commission points out that Art. 3a of the Directive cannot be interpreted in a way that would remove the possibility of exclusive selling of the rights to a designated event.
  Art. 3a is aimed at ensuring that the public can follow the designated event through at least one free television broadcaster, but it is not aimed at ensuring that the public can follow the designated event through every free television broadcaster possibly interested in its transmission. |
| --- | --- |

5.

According to Article 3a of the Television without Frontiers Directive, Member States may take measures (in accordance with Community law) to ensure that broadcasters under their jurisdiction do not broadcast on an exclusive basis events which are regarded as being of major importance for society in such a way as to deprive a substantial proportion of the public of the possibility of following such events via life or deferred coverage on free television. If it does so, the Member State concerned shall draw up a list of designated events which it considers to be of major importance for society. No such list is in force for Belgium. Therefore, it is not possible to breach any Belgian national legislation based on Article 3a of the Directive. An assessment of possible measures to be proposed by Belgium according to Article 3a of the Directive can only be made pursuant to the procedure foreseen in that Article.

Moreover, the Commission points out that Art. 3a of the Directive cannot be interpreted in a way that would remove the possibility of exclusive selling of the rights to a designated event.

Art. 3a is aimed at ensuring that the public can follow the designated event through at least one free television broadcaster, but it is not aimed at ensuring that the public can follow the designated event through every free television broadcaster possibly interested in its transmission.

---

(1)  OJ L 202, 30.7.1997, p. 60.

Article 11 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights reads as follows:

1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers.

2. The freedom and pluralism of the media shall be respected.

(3)  Fourth Report on the Application of Directive 89/552/EEC Television without Frontiers', COM(2002) 778 final, http://europa.eu.int/comm/avpolicy/regul/twf/applica/comm2002_778final_en.pdf.

(4)  OJ C 196, 17.8.2002.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/7

---

(2004/C 78 E/0006)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3574/02

by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(13 December 2002)

Subject:   Outermost regions and enlargement

In the European Parliament's resolution of 25 October 2000 on the outermost regions (1) it is expressly stated that, on the basis of Article 299(2) of the Treaty, all acts which are general in scope should be accompanied by a simplified sheet drawn up by the Interdepartmental Group and outlining their possible impact on the outermost regions and the remedial measures required should that impact prove adverse. Particular attention is also drawn to the financial implications of enlargement.

In view of the above, would the Commission provide the following information?

| — | What studies and simplified sheets are currently available concerning the impact which acts general in scope may have on the outermost regions, in particular Madeira and the Azores? |
| --- | --- |

—

What studies and simplified sheets are currently available concerning the impact which acts general in scope may have on the outermost regions, in particular Madeira and the Azores?

| — | What studies are currently available concerning the possible financial impact of enlargement on the outermost regions (in particular Madeira and the Azores) and what measures are being envisaged in order to counter any detrimental effect? |
| --- | --- |

—

What studies are currently available concerning the possible financial impact of enlargement on the outermost regions (in particular Madeira and the Azores) and what measures are being envisaged in order to counter any detrimental effect?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(10 February 2003)

The Commission generally pursues a comprehensive strategy for the outermost regions, in particular by coordinating and driving measures with an impact on such regions. It regularly reports on the objectives and measures taken or to be taken under common and Community policies, including an overall evaluation of such measures and a timetable.

The latest report was adopted by the Commission on 19 December 2002 (2) and has been sent to Parliament. Generally speaking, it shows that the sustainable development of the outermost regions calls for tailored solutions drawing on a number of Community policies and confirms the Commission's intention to pursue its comprehensive strategy for the regions. The Commission is planning a report on the subject for adoption in the third quarter of 2003, at the same time as the third report on the economic and social cohesion policy.

As for enlargement's impact on economic and social cohesion policy, there will clearly be changes. An EU with 25 Member States will see its territory increase by 23 % and its population by 20 %, but its wealth by only 4 %. Enlargement will reduce the Community's average GDP.

Enlargement has to be viewed in a wider context. According to Eurostat, 10 million people live on 286 minor European islands, 95 % of them in the Mediterranean region. In 2000, per capita GDP on these islands was 72 % of the EU average, and 87 % of islanders lived in regions eligible for Objective 1 of the Structural Funds.

In the Madeira region the period 1995-1999 saw per capita GDP rise from 63 % to 71 % of the Community average (EUR=15), while in the Azores it rose from 50 % to 53 %. There is therefore a risk that enlargement, by lowering the overall average GDP, will affect the eligibility of some of today's Objective 1 regions.

Among the studies underway is one concerning island regions, which includes a section on the outermost regions. It is nearing finalisation but is not yet available.

The Commission is looking at a number of options for the status of outermost regions in future economic and social cohesion policy. Discussions are still underway, and no decision has yet been taken. However, the outermost regions, like other areas with severe geographical or natural handicaps, will continue to be a cohesion policy priority in the future, and the options chosen will have to provide objective and even-handed solutions which reflect the outermost regions' specific needs.

---

(1)  OJ C 197, 12.7.2001, p. 197.

(2)  COM(2002) 723 final.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/8

---

(2004/C 78 E/0007)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3644/02

by Hanja Maij-Weggen (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(17 December 2002)

Subject:   Incarceration of Shaiboub

Is the Commission aware of the case of Coptic Christian Shaiboub William Arsal who has been incarcerated since September 1998 in connection with the murders of two Christians in his village of El Kosheh? Is the Commission aware that the appeal lodged against this verdict has been pending for over two and a half years and that Shaiboub remains in prison to this date? And is it the Commission's opinion that this situation is in accordance with Article 2 of the Egypt-EU Association Agreement?

Can the Commission comment on any action it has taken on the case of Shaiboub William Arsal? Will the Commission use its influence to ensure that Shaiboub's appeal is heard swiftly and that all relevant evidence is made available to be thoroughly examined to ensure a just verdict?

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/8

---

(2004/C 78 E/0008)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3645/02

by Hanja Maij-Weggen (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(17 December 2002)

Subject:   Imprisonment of Shakir

Is the Commission aware of the case of Adly Shakir, a Coptic Christian from Beni Suef Egypt, who according to human rights organisations is currently serving a 25-year prison sentence after being falsely convicted of the murders of most of his immediate family in a 1997 case? Is it the Commission's opinion that the way Shakir's case has been handled is in accordance with Article 2 of the Egypt-EU Association Agreement?

What representations does it intend to make on Shakir's behalf to the Egyptian authorities?

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/9

---

(2004/C 78 E/0009)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3652/02

by Hanja Maij-Weggen (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(18 December 2002)

Subject:   El Kosheh retrial

Is the Commission aware that the final hearing of the retrial concerning the violence in El Kosheh which took place in January 2000 is due to be heard in January 2003? What efforts has the Commission made since this violent episode in its relations with the Egyptian authorities to encourage increased religious tolerance and communal peace?

Will the Commission urge the Egyptian authorities to ensure that all the available evidence is thoroughly examined and that a just verdict is delivered?

Joint answer

to Written Questions E-3644/02, E-3645/02 and E-3652/02

given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(17 January 2003)

The Commission has closely followed events in the largely Christian village of El Khosheh since August 1998 when there were widespread allegations of police brutality in the questioning of witnesses and suspects following the murder of two Coptic Christians. The Commission is also aware of the controversy surrounding the subsequent arrest in September 1998 of William Shaiboub Arsal, the cousin of one of the victims. Following his imprisonment in June 2000, his lawyers immediately appealed against the sentence but warned that it could take several years for the appeal to be heard. The Commission is concerned at the lengthy delays between his arrest and original trial and between the trial and the appeal hearing (for which no date has yet been given). Although such delays are common, the Commission will consider raising them with the Egyptian authorities should they persist.

The Commission has also monitored the follow-up of the violent events of early January 2000 when 21 Coptic Christians were killed. In its statement to the Parliament (Emergency debate 20 January 2000), the Commission indicated that it was encouraged by the initial measures taken by the Egyptian authorities to restore calm to the area and bring those responsible to justice. However, the Commission also noted the widespread concern at the outcome of the subsequent trial which resulted in the acquittal of nearly all the defendants and very light sentencing for the remaining four. The Commission was therefore encouraged by the decision of the Court of Appeal to order a retrial at the request of the prosecution. This retrial is currently underway and it is being closely followed by the Commission Delegation and Member State embassies in Cairo.

The Commission is aware that Adly Shakir was sentenced to death for murdering four family members and that the Court of Cassation rescinded the verdict. At his retrial in March 2001, he was sentenced to life imprisonment with hard labour.

The Commission cannot comment on the Adly Shakir case but it can be noted that the judicial process with respect to William Shaiboub Arsal is by no means exhausted, despite the delays to which Written Question E-3644/02 refers. With respect to whether the trials of William Shaiboub Arsal and Adly Shakir have been handled in accordance with Article 2 of the Association Agreement, it should be noted that the Association Agreement has been signed but is not yet in force. The Association Agreement, when ratified by all parties, will give rise to an important new forum in which important political issues and principles, including human rights, will be discussed constructively and in depth.

The Parliament can be assured that the Commission will continue to raise individual human rights cases with the Egyptian authorities whenever it is appropriate to do so.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/10

---

(2004/C 78 E/0010)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3675/02

by Cristiana Muscardini (UEN) to the Commission

(18 December 2002)

Subject:   Europe and Palestinian terrorism

Terrorist attacks against Israeli civilians are occurring with tragic regularity. Only the method changes: sometimes a suicide bomber on a bus, in a pizzeria or a discotheque, snipers shooting at random, or breaking into a kibbutz and killing a mother in front of her two children. It is a war of attrition, which spreads terror using a variety of atrocities. Every now and then a politician or non-aligned intellectual or, occasionally, a newspaper denounces this barbarity, recognising that it is an expression of opposition to the resumption of dialogue and a savage fight against the only democracy in that part of the world. Europe, on the other hand, remains silent and seems to be demonstrating its inability to play a proper role in trying to establish equilibrium for the future of the Middle East. This inability obviously means that other powers will help to determine that future.

Does the Commission not consider that true equilibrium is to be found in condemning these atrocities and recognising that they are inappropriate for the achievement of peace? Since the EU funds the Palestinian Authority, does it not consider it appropriate to exert strong political pressure on the Authority itself to make it publicly condemn terrorist action and urge it to take steps to put a stop to the appalling cycle of terrorist acts? Does the Commission not consider that it is precisely in Europe's interests to make its position as an agent of equilibrium credible, in order to bring about peace and safeguard Israel as a democracy in the Middle East?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(23 January 2003)

The Commission has condemned, in the clearest terms, all acts of violence and terrorism, which have led to such tragic loss of life for Israelis and Palestinians alike.

Regarding terror and violence the Union has pointed out the Palestinian Authority's (PA) 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, to do everything possible to put an end to terrorism and the armed intifadah, bring to justice perpetrators of criminal acts and dismantle all terrorist networks. On 20 December 2002, together with its partners in the international Quartet, the Union condemned the brutal terror attacks carried out by Palestinian extremist organisations. The international Quartet has called on Arab states to cut off public and private funding and all other forms of support for groups supporting and engaging in violence and terror.

At the same time, efforts are under way to arrive at a cease-fire that would end all acts of terror against Israelis, in all locations. It is surely worthwhile to pursue all channels of negotiation to end these horrendous attacks.

As the European Council has declared on many occasions, a peaceful settlement of the Middle East conflict requires full recognition of the right of Israel to live in peace and safely inside internationally recognised borders, as well as the creation of a viable, independent and democratic Palestinian state and the end of the occupation of Palestinian territories.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/10

---

(2004/C 78 E/0011)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3803/02

by Joan Colom i Naval (PSE) to the Commission

(18 December 2002)

Subject:   Catalan television broadcast on fraud against the ESF in Spain

On Sunday, 1 December 2002 at 9.30 p.m., the Catalan television channel TV3 (which belongs to the regional government of Catalonia) broadcast a programme (Catalan title: '30 minuts') on the subject of fraud in Spain involving public funds intended for such areas as professional training and retraining programmes.

This broadcast used hidden cameras to film conversations involving business persons, trade unionists, teachers, workers and fictitious ‘trainees’, discussing various types of fraud. The images were located mostly, but not exclusively, in the Madrid and Catalonia regions of Spain.

The conversations made express mention of European Social Fund programmes, and some of the speakers suggested means of submitting proposals with a view to obtaining irregular benefits, stating that the controls in place could be easily circumvented. Reference was even made to OLAF's vulnerability in this area.

Is the Commission aware of this television broadcast?

Has it verified the allegations made?

Has it taken, or does it intend to take, any action?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(28 January 2003)

The Commission was not aware of the programme mentioned by the Honourable Member which was broadcast by the Catalan television channel TV3 on fraud in the use of European Social Fund (ESF) assistance in Spain.

The Commission is therefore going to ask the Spanish authorities (UAFSE) for their comments and for any other information which will help to properly evaluate the content of this programme.

Once this information has been received, the Commission will examine the potential impact on the ESF operational programmes.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/11

---

(2004/C 78 E/0012)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3829/02

by Torben Lund (PSE) to the Commission

(9 January 2003)

Subject:   Trade agreements between the EU and Mexico and safeguarding human rights

In recent years, there have been numerous political attacks on or kidnappings of individuals in Mexico. Several of the kidnappings have allegedly been carried out by military personnel. Nevertheless, in ratifying the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearances of Persons in June 2001, Mexico expressed reservations about Article IX of that Convention which stresses that military personnel who have been involved in or have carried out kidnappings must be tried in a civilian court, without enjoying any form of privilege.

Will the Commission therefore say what bearing compliance with human rights and the above convention have on trade agreements between the EU and Mexico? How will the Commission ensure that Mexico complies with various human rights agreements and conventions and implements them at federal, regional and local level?

The EU should exert pressure on Mexico to remove any mechanism which guarantees impunity to anyone who violates any other person's fundamental rights!

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(4 February 2003)

The commitment of the Commission to the promotion of human rights forms a central part to all bilateral agreements. The process of safeguarding and ensuring human rights is institutionalised under the ‘democratic clause’ which forms a central part of the Union-Mexico relations governed by the Agreement on Economic Partnership, Political Co-ordination and Co-operation (Global Agreement), which came into force on 1 October 2000 and which is founded on three pillars: political, cooperation and trade.

Following article 1 of the Agreement, ‘respect for democratic principles and fundamental human rights ... underpins the domestic and external policies or both parties and constitutes an essential element of this Agreement’. It also contains a ‘fulfilment of obligations’ clause which enables the Commission to take into account the evolution of human rights in Mexico and the Member States as an essential part of their relations, and establishes a mechanism for the Parties to react in case of failure to comply with the objectives laid down in the Agreement.

The institutional framework established in the Agreement is, at present, the forum where an open and productive political dialogue takes place at all levels: presidential, ministerial and high ranking civil servants. This allows the Union to exchange points of view concerning, among other bilateral and multilateral issues, the evolution of human rights in both parties. The Commission considers that this arrangement is satisfactory and is not pursuing, at this stage, the adoption of additional measures in this area.

In September 2002 Mexico ratified the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons. While the Commission commends Mexico's ratification of this Convention, as it was drawn up by the Organisation of American States, the Commission has no direct power of enforcement. However, it uses the existing mechanisms to exchange views, and when necessary, to encourage its partners to respect and implement at all levels the different human rights related agreements and conventions.

While the Commission is aware of certain levels of impunity and the continuation of some human rights violations, it is hoped that greater political dialogue and focussed co-operation in this area will ensure that Mexico's ongoing struggle to reform is successful.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/12

---

(2004/C 78 E/0013)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0072/03

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(23 January 2003)

Subject:   The dangers of selling thawed deep-frozen meat as fresh meat and a requirement to warn consumers against refreezing it

| 1. | Is the Commission aware that deep-frozen meat imported into the EU is thawed and sold as fresh, as was the case with the rabbit meat imported into the Netherlands from China at the beginning of 2002 and sold in supermarkets around Christmas 2002 which then proved to have decayed? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is the Commission aware that deep-frozen meat imported into the EU is thawed and sold as fresh, as was the case with the rabbit meat imported into the Netherlands from China at the beginning of 2002 and sold in supermarkets around Christmas 2002 which then proved to have decayed?

| 2. | Is the Dutch Food Inspection Service right to say that it is quite common to import deep-frozen meat and sell it as fresh without informing buyers of the fact? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Is the Dutch Food Inspection Service right to say that it is quite common to import deep-frozen meat and sell it as fresh without informing buyers of the fact?

| 3. | Is the Commission aware that the same is true of meat from wild animals which hunters shoot throughout the year and which is then sold as fresh during the holiday period at the end of the year after having been frozen for a long period? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Is the Commission aware that the same is true of meat from wild animals which hunters shoot throughout the year and which is then sold as fresh during the holiday period at the end of the year after having been frozen for a long period?

| 4. | Can the Commission confirm that this procedure particularly causes problems if the buyer refreezes the thawed meat at home with the intention of eating it later, which causes a rapid deterioration in its quality? |
| --- | --- |

4.

Can the Commission confirm that this procedure particularly causes problems if the buyer refreezes the thawed meat at home with the intention of eating it later, which causes a rapid deterioration in its quality?

| 5. | Are there EU Member States where it is now compulsory to indicate on packaging that meat has already been frozen? If so, which? |
| --- | --- |

5.

Are there EU Member States where it is now compulsory to indicate on packaging that meat has already been frozen? If so, which?

| 6. | Will the Commission take measures to ensure that a requirement exists throughout the EU for vendors of packaged meat to distinguish clearly between meat which has already been stored in a deepfreeze and meat from freshly slaughtered animals, and to warn buyers against refreezing meat which has already been frozen? |
| --- | --- |

6.

Will the Commission take measures to ensure that a requirement exists throughout the EU for vendors of packaged meat to distinguish clearly between meat which has already been stored in a deepfreeze and meat from freshly slaughtered animals, and to warn buyers against refreezing meat which has already been frozen?

Source: ‘Rotterdams Dagblad’, 28 December 2002.

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(17 March 2003)

| 1. | The Commission is not aware of any complaints or reports concerning the marketing of decayed rabbit meat imported from China. If such marketing took place, it is assumed that the competent authorities of the Netherlands took the appropriate protective measures. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The Commission is not aware of any complaints or reports concerning the marketing of decayed rabbit meat imported from China. If such marketing took place, it is assumed that the competent authorities of the Netherlands took the appropriate protective measures.

| 2. | The Commission is enquiring from the competent authorities of the Netherlands about the allegation made in question 2 and will write to the Honourable Member with the results of this enquiry. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The Commission is enquiring from the competent authorities of the Netherlands about the allegation made in question 2 and will write to the Honourable Member with the results of this enquiry.

| 3. | The Commission has no information on the alleged practices in Member States concerning meat of domestic animals, rabbit meat or wild game meat.
  Directive 2000/13/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 20 March 2000 concerns the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the labelling, presentation and advertising of foodstuffs (1). Article 2(1) requires that labelling used must not mislead the purchaser as to the characteristics of the foodstuff or attribute to the foodstuff effects or properties, which it does not possess. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The Commission has no information on the alleged practices in Member States concerning meat of domestic animals, rabbit meat or wild game meat.

Directive 2000/13/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 20 March 2000 concerns the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the labelling, presentation and advertising of foodstuffs (1). Article 2(1) requires that labelling used must not mislead the purchaser as to the characteristics of the foodstuff or attribute to the foodstuff effects or properties, which it does not possess.

| 4. | Freezing meat may affect its organoleptic qualities of appearance, odour and taste. Thawing frozen meat causes fluid formation. Such fluid is a good medium for the growth of bacteria and might enhance microbiological spoilage and growth of pathogenic bacteria. Re-freezing and subsequent re-thawing of meat may accelerate the phenomenon. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Freezing meat may affect its organoleptic qualities of appearance, odour and taste. Thawing frozen meat causes fluid formation. Such fluid is a good medium for the growth of bacteria and might enhance microbiological spoilage and growth of pathogenic bacteria. Re-freezing and subsequent re-thawing of meat may accelerate the phenomenon.

| 5. and 6. | Council Directive 89/108/EEC of 21 December 1988 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to quick-frozen foodstuffs for human consumption (2) requires that such foodstuffs in consumer packs must bear a clear message of the type ‘do not refreeze after defrosting’. Furthermore, in relation to poultrymeat, Council Regulation (EEC) No. 1906/90 of 26 June 1990 on certain marketing standards for poultrymeat (3) provides that poultrymeat sold under the presentations ‘fresh’, ‘frozen’ or ‘quick-frozen’ must have always been kept in the respective state. |
| --- | --- |

5. and 6.

Council Directive 89/108/EEC of 21 December 1988 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to quick-frozen foodstuffs for human consumption (2) requires that such foodstuffs in consumer packs must bear a clear message of the type ‘do not refreeze after defrosting’. Furthermore, in relation to poultrymeat, Council Regulation (EEC) No. 1906/90 of 26 June 1990 on certain marketing standards for poultrymeat (3) provides that poultrymeat sold under the presentations ‘fresh’, ‘frozen’ or ‘quick-frozen’ must have always been kept in the respective state.

---

(1)  OJ L 109, 6.5.2000.

(2)  OJ L 40, 11.2.1989.

(3)  OJ L 173, 6.7.1990.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/13

---

(2004/C 78 E/0014)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0201/03

by Emilio Menéndez del Valle (PSE) to the Commission

(3 February 2003)

Subject:   Gibraltarian police violence

On 20 January 2003, in the bay of Algeciras, whose waters Spain considers Spanish, Greenpeace activists carried out a peaceful demonstration against the single-hulled Maltese-registered oil tanker ‘Vemamagna’.

Public opinion in Spain and various other European countries is extremely sensitive to issues like this, thanks to the ‘Prestige’ disaster, and all the more so now, thanks to the sinking of a barge carrying over a thousand tonnes of fuel in the very waters of the bay of Algeciras on 21 January 2003.

There was considerable media coverage of the Greenpeace demonstration. Reporters from El País, El Mundo, Tele-5, Antena 3, RTVE, Canal Sur and Associated Press were, in the course of their professional duties, violently harassed by the Gibraltarian police and arrested (in waters which are, to say the very least, the object of international legal dispute), and the Tele 5 reporter was punched by the Gilbraltarian policeman, as highlighted on the front page of El Mundo (21.1.2003).

Quite apart from the fact that the Member State of which Gibraltar is a dependency is unwilling to persuade Gibraltar that it has to apply Community directives on single-hulled tankers, it is rather surprising that one of the principles or values which distinguishes us as Europeans, namely respect for the freedom of expression enjoyed by those working in the media, should have been so fragrantly violated in Gibraltar.

Does the Commission intend to approach the Council, — with enlargement under way, the moment could not be more opportune — with a view to encouraging the Council to suggest to the Member State whose colony Gibraltar is that, for the sake of the Union's good name, that Member State's government should both respect this principle and ensure that it is respected?

Supplementary answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(9 January 2004)

Further to its holding reply to the Honourable Member's written question of 27 March 2003, the Commission is now in a position to give more information on the subject raised as it has received the British authorities' response.

The British authorities report that of the twenty people arrested, only six are to be charged and these cases came before Court on 22 September 2003.

Furthermore, the response points out that decisions on arrests and on prosecution are taken pursuant to the principle of law and in light of detailed legislation. The right of appeal against action of the police is also foreseen.

In view of this response, although it deplores the use of force against media, the Commission proposes to close its inquiry into this matter unless there are any issues on which the Honourable Member requires further clarification.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/14

---

(2004/C 78 E/0015)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0219/03

by Alexandros Baltas (PSE) to the Commission

(3 February 2003)

Subject:   Countries which have set in place essential elements of the Integrated Administration and Control System for certain Community aid schemes (IACS)

In order to establish the precise situation in the Member States and the willingness of each one to fully comply with the provisions regarding controls on Community aid, will the Commission say:

| 1. | To what extent has the IACS been set up in the EU Member States? Which countries have not yet completed implementation, and what are the prospects for implementation in future? |
| --- | --- |

1.

To what extent has the IACS been set up in the EU Member States? Which countries have not yet completed implementation, and what are the prospects for implementation in future?

| 2. | Which countries have submitted full statistical data relating to the IACS and on which countries have financial corrective measures been imposed owing to a failure to submit the above data? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Which countries have submitted full statistical data relating to the IACS and on which countries have financial corrective measures been imposed owing to a failure to submit the above data?

| 3. | What is the rate of implementation of on-the-spot checks and how reliable are they? |
| --- | --- |

3.

What is the rate of implementation of on-the-spot checks and how reliable are they?

| 4. | Does a single computer database exist for the programme, and, if so, is it available to the bodies involved in implementing it? |
| --- | --- |

4.

Does a single computer database exist for the programme, and, if so, is it available to the bodies involved in implementing it?

| 5. | In which countries has codification on the basis of orthophoto maps been completed? |
| --- | --- |

5.

In which countries has codification on the basis of orthophoto maps been completed?

| 6. | What progress has Greece made in implementing elements of the IACS, and what is the outlook for 2003? |
| --- | --- |

6.

What progress has Greece made in implementing elements of the IACS, and what is the outlook for 2003?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(24 March 2003)

| 1. | IACS has already been implemented for several years to a high and acceptable level in all Member States except Greece. However, IACS is periodically updated in all Member States to take account of new policy instruments, such as the compatibility requirement in respect of certain aid schemes as from 1 January 2003. The Greek authorities have promised full implementation of IACS in Greece by November 2003. |
| --- | --- |

1.

IACS has already been implemented for several years to a high and acceptable level in all Member States except Greece. However, IACS is periodically updated in all Member States to take account of new policy instruments, such as the compatibility requirement in respect of certain aid schemes as from 1 January 2003. The Greek authorities have promised full implementation of IACS in Greece by November 2003.

| 2. | All Member States supply annual statistical data in the framework of IACS-related aid schemes. Since 2000 the requirement has been laid down in IACS Regulations and the situation has shown a marked improvement in recent years.
  No financial corrections have been decided in the context of the Commission's clearance of account's procedure for Member States' failure to supply data. However the information received by the Commission's agricultural audit service is scrutinised administratively and on-the-spot during audit missions, often leading to observations and where necessary financial consequences. |
| --- | --- |

2.

All Member States supply annual statistical data in the framework of IACS-related aid schemes. Since 2000 the requirement has been laid down in IACS Regulations and the situation has shown a marked improvement in recent years.

No financial corrections have been decided in the context of the Commission's clearance of account's procedure for Member States' failure to supply data. However the information received by the Commission's agricultural audit service is scrutinised administratively and on-the-spot during audit missions, often leading to observations and where necessary financial consequences.

| 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 (1) lays down minimum on-the-spot checking levels of 5 % for surface aids, 5 % or 10 % for bovine premium schemes, depending on the operational reliability of the national Identification and Registration database, and 10 % for the ewe and goat premium scheme. In practice, all Member States generally exceed the minimum control level.
  The Commission's agricultural audit service routinely controls Member States' performance by means of analytical review, scrutiny of instructions and reports and re-performance of a sample of inspections. The quality of national checks is generally satisfactory largely as a result of the setting up of land parcel and animal identification systems, technological advances ensuring full cross referencing and risk targeting, and rationalisation of controls by means of successive regulatory improvements. |
| --- | --- |

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 (1) lays down minimum on-the-spot checking levels of 5 % for surface aids, 5 % or 10 % for bovine premium schemes, depending on the operational reliability of the national Identification and Registration database, and 10 % for the ewe and goat premium scheme. In practice, all Member States generally exceed the minimum control level.

The Commission's agricultural audit service routinely controls Member States' performance by means of analytical review, scrutiny of instructions and reports and re-performance of a sample of inspections. The quality of national checks is generally satisfactory largely as a result of the setting up of land parcel and animal identification systems, technological advances ensuring full cross referencing and risk targeting, and rationalisation of controls by means of successive regulatory improvements.

| 4. | Article 2 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 3508/92 (2) requires that Member States set up IACS to comprise 5 main elements, including a computerised database. According to Article 3(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 3508/92 ‘Member States may set up decentralised databases on condition that these, and the administrative procedures for recording and accessing data, are designed homogeneously throughout the territory of the Member State and are compatible with one another’. Therefore, there is no single database. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Article 2 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 3508/92 (2) requires that Member States set up IACS to comprise 5 main elements, including a computerised database. According to Article 3(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 3508/92 ‘Member States may set up decentralised databases on condition that these, and the administrative procedures for recording and accessing data, are designed homogeneously throughout the territory of the Member State and are compatible with one another’. Therefore, there is no single database.

| 5. | According to Article 4 of Regulation (EEC) No 3508/92 there is no regulatory obligation on Member States to have an identification system on the basis of ortho-photo maps. The systems in Belgium, Ireland, Portugal, and Finland are fully dependent on ortho-photos. Greece's system is similarly constructed but not yet complete. Denmark and Italy have systems with full ortho-photo coverage, and also use digital mapping techniques. The Netherlands and Sweden deploy a system with partial use of ortho-photography. |
| --- | --- |

5.

According to Article 4 of Regulation (EEC) No 3508/92 there is no regulatory obligation on Member States to have an identification system on the basis of ortho-photo maps. The systems in Belgium, Ireland, Portugal, and Finland are fully dependent on ortho-photos. Greece's system is similarly constructed but not yet complete. Denmark and Italy have systems with full ortho-photo coverage, and also use digital mapping techniques. The Netherlands and Sweden deploy a system with partial use of ortho-photography.

| 6. | Greece has not yet completed its bovine identification and registration system pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1760/2000 of the Parliament and of the Council of 17 July 2000 establishing a system for the identification and registration of bovine animals and regarding the labelling of beef and beef products and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 820/97 (3), which had to be fully in place by 1 January 2000 at the latest. Likewise, the system whereby sheep and goat farmers are required to maintain flock movement registers, pursuant to Council Directive 92/102/EEC of 27 November 1992 on the identification and registration of animals (4), does not operate correctly. Greece's Land Parcel Identification System that pursuant to Council Regulation (EEC) No 3508/92 was to be finalised by 1 January 1997 at the latest is still incomplete.
  These deficiencies relate to key components of IACS. Consequently, the regulatory and administrative controls, such as computerised cross-checks, cannot be applied and on-farm inspections are not fully reliable.
  The Commission constantly monitors the situation in Greece, and has received certain undertakings from the Greek authorities regarding progress expected during 2003 that, if such a program is confirmed, would significantly enhance IACS performance in respect of the claim year 2004, payable in financial year 2005. |
| --- | --- |

6.

Greece has not yet completed its bovine identification and registration system pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1760/2000 of the Parliament and of the Council of 17 July 2000 establishing a system for the identification and registration of bovine animals and regarding the labelling of beef and beef products and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 820/97 (3), which had to be fully in place by 1 January 2000 at the latest. Likewise, the system whereby sheep and goat farmers are required to maintain flock movement registers, pursuant to Council Directive 92/102/EEC of 27 November 1992 on the identification and registration of animals (4), does not operate correctly. Greece's Land Parcel Identification System that pursuant to Council Regulation (EEC) No 3508/92 was to be finalised by 1 January 1997 at the latest is still incomplete.

These deficiencies relate to key components of IACS. Consequently, the regulatory and administrative controls, such as computerised cross-checks, cannot be applied and on-farm inspections are not fully reliable.

The Commission constantly monitors the situation in Greece, and has received certain undertakings from the Greek authorities regarding progress expected during 2003 that, if such a program is confirmed, would significantly enhance IACS performance in respect of the claim year 2004, payable in financial year 2005.

---

(1)  OJ L 327, 12.12.2001.

(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)  OJ L 204, 11.8.2000.

(4)  OJ L 355, 5.12.1992.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/16

---

(2004/C 78 E/0016)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0293/03

by Struan Stevenson (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(7 February 2003)

Subject:   Animal welfare in Greek slaughterhouses

A report by the European Commission's Food and Veterinary Office in 2000 (DG(SANCO)/1060/2000) exposed serious animal welfare problems in Greek slaughterhouses. A new film has now exposed continued serious animal welfare problems in Greek slaughterhouses. The film revealed goats being slaughtered without any attempt at pre-stunning, in breach of Council Directive 93/119/EC (1), and sheep being stunned so ineffectively that a significant proportion regain consciousness before throat-cutting, which is also in breach of Directive 93/119/EC.

What steps is the Commission planning to take to press the Greek Government to ensure that animals in Greek slaughterhouses are slaughtered in accordance with Council Directive 93/119/EC?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(17 March 2003)

The Commission is aware both from past mission reports of its Food and Veterinary Office (FVO) and information supplied by animal welfare organisations that there have been serious deficiencies in ensuring respect of the requirements of Council Directive 93/119/EEC of 22 December 1993 on the protection of animals at the time of slaughter and killing in Greek slaughterhouses.

The poor situation in the past led the Commission to open infringement proceedings against this Member State. The FVO recently completed a follow-up mission to that mentioned by the Honourable Member. This mission was carried out between 13 and 17 January 2003. Although the final mission report is not yet available, some positive developments have occurred since the previous report. The competent Greek authorities have, for example, provided appropriate instructions to official veterinarians working in slaughterhouses in relation to animal welfare, improved the system for reporting deficiencies and recruited additional official veterinarians. The mission team indicated that in the three slaughterhouses visited, although deficiencies remained, these were not as severe as indicated in previous reports. However, the level of progress is not considered conclusive. A further follow-up FVO mission is therefore planned in 2003.

The report of the inspection will be sent to the Parliament when finalised, in accordance with the Commission's usual procedures, and will be published on the website of Directorate General Health and Consumer Protection: (http://europa.eu.int/comm/food/fs/inspections/index_en.html).

The Commission remains very concerned about the level of deficiencies in the compliance by Greece with Community Animal Welfare Legislation, and notably on inadequate enforcement of the rules. It will not fail to take such other action as is necessary to secure better observance of Community law in this domain including in particular use of the infringement procedure under article 226 of the EC Treaty.

---

(1)  OJ L 340, 31.12.1993, p. 21.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/17

---

(2004/C 78 E/0017)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0439/03

by Elly Plooij-van Gorsel (ELDR) to the Commission

(12 February 2003)

Subject:   European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) draft proposal for an Independent Recourse Mechanism

The G7 laid down in 2002 in Genoa that multilateral financial institutions should set up an independent compliance mechanism. In response, the EBRD recently issued a proposal for such a mechanism. In Europe, to date, the proposal has attracted little attention.

As long ago as 1993, the Washington-based World Bank set up a comparable body by establishing the Inspection Panel. The panel was set up to operate as a public forum for individuals to submit complaints to the Bank whenever they believe that they are being harmed, or may be harmed, by a project which has World Bank funding.

The EBRD proposal has been commented on in the following terms by two former Inspection Panel chairmen:

| — | the proposed compliance mechanism does not guarantee independence for the panel body; |
| --- | --- |

—

the proposed compliance mechanism does not guarantee independence for the panel body;

| — | the mechanism cover only part of the EBRD's activities; |
| --- | --- |

—

the mechanism cover only part of the EBRD's activities;

| — | disclosure of information concerning drafts subject to the mechanism is conditional and vague; |
| --- | --- |

—

disclosure of information concerning drafts subject to the mechanism is conditional and vague;

| — | persons appointed to the compliance panel do not enjoy sufficiently clear autonomy and effectiveness; |
| --- | --- |

—

persons appointed to the compliance panel do not enjoy sufficiently clear autonomy and effectiveness;

| — | to judge from the proposal, much more emphasis is placed on problem solving than on compliance. |
| --- | --- |

—

to judge from the proposal, much more emphasis is placed on problem solving than on compliance.

| 1. | Is the Commission aware of the EBRD proposal and, if so, has it checked the draft against the criteria laid down by the G8 in July 2000, such as independence, transparency, etc.? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is the Commission aware of the EBRD proposal and, if so, has it checked the draft against the criteria laid down by the G8 in July 2000, such as independence, transparency, etc.?

| 2. | Does the Commission agree with the above criticisms? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Does the Commission agree with the above criticisms?

| 3. | If so, does the Commission plan to take action in this connection vis-à-vis the EBRD? |
| --- | --- |

3.

If so, does the Commission plan to take action in this connection vis-à-vis the EBRD?

| 4. | Does the Commission plan to draw greater attention to the proposal and, if so, in what way? |
| --- | --- |

4.

Does the Commission plan to draw greater attention to the proposal and, if so, in what way?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(11 March 2003)

The draft proposal for an Independent Recourse Mechanism referred to by the Honourable Member has already been discussed by the Board of Governors and the Board of Directors of the EBRD and has been endorsed in principle by its committee for financial operations and policies, which is responsible for such matters.

A wide-ranging public consultation exercise on the draft proposal was launched in October 2002 on the EBRD website and the comments received will be examined and taken into account in the final drafting of the Independent Recourse Mechanism. The Honourable Member's criticisms have therefore been passed on to the EBRD Board of Governors by the Commission.

It should, however, be noted that the final decision on the matter, which is expected in April 2003, will be taken by the EBRD Board of Directors alone. It should also be remembered that, while all G8 members, the European Community and all the Member States are represented on it, the Board of Directors must also take account of the institution's mandate and specific operational requirements.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/18

---

(2004/C 78 E/0018)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0487/03

by Hanja Maij-Weggen (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(17 February 2003)

Subject:   El Khosheh judgment

In its reply to my Written Question E-3652/02 (1) the Commission states that it:‘... was encouraged by the initial measures taken by the Egyptian authorities to restore calm to the area and bring those responsible to justice’.

Is the Commission aware that the police stood by inactive when the disturbances occurred in El Khosheh in January 2000, and has it raised the role of the police with the Egyptian authorities?

Is the Commission aware that the judicial verdict in the case relating to the violence in El Khosheh in January 2000 is to be announced on 27 February 2003?

Will the Commission be present when the judgment is passed and can it issue a report on this?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(18 March 2003)

The Commission's understanding is that security forces were quickly brought in from outside to El Khosheh to restore law and order, possibly in recognition that the local police in El Khosheh were unable to do so. The villages were also visited almost immediately by Ministers and senior officials with an explicit brief to restore calm and to give assurances that those responsible for the outrages would be brought to justice. These immediate reactions contrasted strongly and positively with the official reactions to previous events in El Khosheh although questions remain concerning the behavior of local security forces.

The Commission is aware that the initial verdicts at the first trial were seen by many Coptic commentators as falling far short of assurances that the guilty would pay for their misdeeds. The verdict of the retrial announced on 27 February 2003 (only two defendents were convicted against four in the first trial) may revive criticism of the court although some human rights and Coptic sources caution against speculation that the court has been biased in favour of the defendents. It is a civil not a military or emergency court and it is quite possible that the prosecutor general will again bring the decision to the attention of the Court of Cassation after the presiding judge publishes the reasons for its decision.

Although the Commission was not present in court the Commission Delegation and Member State embassies in Cairo have closely followed this case and will continue to do so. And representations will be made through the normal channels if it is considered appropriate.

---

(1)  See page 9.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/19

---

(2004/C 78 E/0019)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0559/03

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(27 February 2003)

Subject:   Horse identification documents

| 1. | Given the Commission's enthusiasm under Decision 2000/68 (1) to provide passports for all equidae in order to prevent drugged meat from entering the food chain, what complementary measures is the Commission proposing to take to avoid similar contamination in imports from third countries? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Given the Commission's enthusiasm under Decision 2000/68 (1) to provide passports for all equidae in order to prevent drugged meat from entering the food chain, what complementary measures is the Commission proposing to take to avoid similar contamination in imports from third countries?

| 2. | What proportion of horsemeat consumption comes from third countries, and what tonnage was imported last year? |
| --- | --- |

2.

What proportion of horsemeat consumption comes from third countries, and what tonnage was imported last year?

| 3. | When does the Commission propose to bring forward similar measures for more frequently eaten species such as pigs, sheep and cattle? |
| --- | --- |

3.

When does the Commission propose to bring forward similar measures for more frequently eaten species such as pigs, sheep and cattle?

| 4. | How does the Commission recommend that such measures should be applied in the New Forest, an area in the south-east of England in which there are many feral and semi-feral ponies, on Dartmoor or in the Camargue? |
| --- | --- |

4.

How does the Commission recommend that such measures should be applied in the New Forest, an area in the south-east of England in which there are many feral and semi-feral ponies, on Dartmoor or in the Camargue?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(24 April 2003)

In relation to imports from third countries of food of animal origin, these countries submit in accordance with Council Directive 96/23/EC of 29 April 1996 on measures to monitor certain substances and residues thereof in live animals and animal products and repealing Directives 85/358/EEC and 86/49/EEC and Decisions 89/187/EEC and 91/664/EEC (2) for approval by the Commission a plan setting out guarantees as regards monitoring and control of residues of veterinary medicinal products that must have an effect at least equivalent to those provided for food of animal origin produced in the Member States. In particular, the third countries must have in place the relevant legislation, including legislation on veterinary medicinal products for use in food producing animals.

Breeding of equidae and the production of meat from solipeds are not subject to Community market measures, for this reason detailed figures on the production of such meat are not available. However, according to the Commission's statistical and economic information 2001 the self-sufficiency of the 15 Member States (EU-15) in meat from solipeds is about 30 to 35 %. The Union Equus 2000 conference estimated the total horse population in the EU-15 of 4,5 million animals. According to Eurostat the EU-15 imported in 2002 a total of 84 404 equidae for slaughter and 59 457 tons of meat from solipeds.

With regard to the Commission's motivation for adopting 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, the Commission wishes to recall that a solution to the real or perceived lack of medicinal products for treatment of horses was vigorously requested by the Parliament, the Council, international veterinary organisations and, last but not least, the affected horse industry and owners of equidae. The Commission received most requests for an exceptional solution for equidae from Member States where the consumption of meat from solipeds is least popular.

In 2001 the Commission proposed amendments to Directive 2001/82/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to veterinary medicinal products (3), amongst others to take into account the identification of equidae and derogation with respect to treatment of equidae with medicinal product under the conditions provided for in the Commission Decision 2000/68/EC. The proposal is presently in the co-decision process.

The Commission has no intention to propose similar measures for species such as pigs, sheep and cattle. Such animals are normally raised exclusively for food production and are subject to identification requirements under Community law taking into account relevant production conditions.

The Commission is of course aware of difficulties in implementing Decision 2000/68/EC in certain Member States. However, the horses of the feral or semi-feral breeds referred to by the Honourable Member are registered with their respective breeding organisation approved in accordance with Directive 90/427/EEC of 26 June 1990 on the zootechnical and genealogical conditions governing intra-Community trade in equidae (4). Registered horses born after 1 January 1998 must have a passport in accordance with Commission Decision 93/623/EEC of 20 October 1993 establishing the identification document (passport) accompanying registered equidae (5). The use of the passport for horses in Camargue has proven valid for example in 2000, when during the movement restrictions due to West Nile Fever in that area, traceability had to be maintained also for horses used to herd semi-feral Camarguese cattle, which, as other bovine animals, are fully traceable through double ear-tags, passport and cattle database.

---

(1)  OJ L 23, 28.1.2000, p. 72.

(2)  OJ L 125, 23.5.1996.

(3)  OJ L 311, 28.11.2001.

(4)  OJ L 224, 18.8.1990.

(5)  OJ L 298, 3.12.1993.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/20

---

(2004/C 78 E/0020)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0622/03

by Brice Hortefeux (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(3 March 2003)

Subject:   Combating cartels

As a member of Parliament's Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, I am following with great interest all Mr Monti's efforts against unlawful agreements, abuse of a dominant position and the formation of cartels.

I should therefore particularly like to thank him for taking an often courageous stance, even though the companies concerned sometimes seek support from Members of Parliament, claiming that what has happened is incomprehensible.

Could the Commission provide a list of European companies against which action has been taken since 1999 and the amounts they have been fined?

Could it also indicate the collection rate?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(2 April 2003)

Because of the length of the answer, which includes a number of tables, the Commission is sending it direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/20

---

(2004/C 78 E/0021)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0682/03

by María Sornosa Martínez (PSE) to the Commission

(7 March 2003)

Subject:   Dam building project in Rivas de Tereso (La Rioja-Spain)

Since 1997, the Minister of Agriculture has been planning to build an irrigation dam in Páganos (Laguardia district), as stated in the Boletín Ofical de la Rioja 13/10/1998, whose main promoter is the Rioja Alavesa y Sonsierra ‘Irrigators’ Community'. In a Summary Memorandum on assessing the environmental impact, a fresh option is mentioned, namely Rivas de Tereso, which appears to be preferred, claiming that the Páganos option faced social opposition, was apparently a threat to the people of Páganos should the dam break, and would cost more in terms of expropriations. The 38 metre high dam would hold 2,8 hectometres and mean the loss of at least 25 hectares of arable land (under cereals and vines).

The people of the San Vicente district and the Sonsierra area have been voicing opposition to the scheme, since:

| — | social opposition in Rivas has been the same or even stronger, a fact the impact assessment does not reflect at all, |
| --- | --- |

—

social opposition in Rivas has been the same or even stronger, a fact the impact assessment does not reflect at all,

| — | no rigorous evaluation was made of the land to be expropriated, which moreover accounted for a tiny part of the total cost of building the dam, and does not therefore constitute a major factor in deciding its location; what would be required is a study globally costing the building of dams in each of the potential sites, |
| --- | --- |

—

no rigorous evaluation was made of the land to be expropriated, which moreover accounted for a tiny part of the total cost of building the dam, and does not therefore constitute a major factor in deciding its location; what would be required is a study globally costing the building of dams in each of the potential sites,

| — | the dam's closeness to the village (some 50 metres), combined with low water levels in the summer months, would mean serious problems for the village in terms of smells, insects and salubriousness, |
| --- | --- |

—

the dam's closeness to the village (some 50 metres), combined with low water levels in the summer months, would mean serious problems for the village in terms of smells, insects and salubriousness,

| — | the dam would have a severe economic and social impact on the area, thanks to the disappearance of the arable land already mentioned, (which represents one-tenth of the entire arable land in Rivas), |
| --- | --- |

—

the dam would have a severe economic and social impact on the area, thanks to the disappearance of the arable land already mentioned, (which represents one-tenth of the entire arable land in Rivas),

| — | negative environmental repercussions on the (highly sensitive) vines, for example, have not been given due weight in assessing the impact (mist, temperature changes, earth moving, mud and waste, etc.). |
| --- | --- |

—

negative environmental repercussions on the (highly sensitive) vines, for example, have not been given due weight in assessing the impact (mist, temperature changes, earth moving, mud and waste, etc.).

It is felt that existing alternatives have not been taken into account (such as building a series of smaller dams) which would be better suited to maintaining the economic and ecological equilibrium of the area.

Can the Commission guarantee that the environmental impact assessment, particularly its third stage (irrigation dams), was carried out in accordance with the provisions of Directive 85/337/EEC (1) and its later amendments, given the obligatory requirement that more than environment-friendly alternatives should be investigated? Does the Commission not believe that there has been a clear violation of legislation on public access to environmental information?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(16 April 2003)

The papers which the Honourable Member has provided in connection with this question do not include the full environmental assessment prepared for the Spanish authorities. It is, therefore, not possible for the Commission to say whether the assessment was carried out in accordance with the provisions 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 (2).

As regards the question whether there has been a violation of the provisions of Council Directive 90/313/EEC of 7 June 1990 on the freedom of public access to environmental information (3), the Commission wants to point out that this Directive obliges public authorities to reply to requests for access to environmental information. Apart from the obligation to provide general information to the public on the state of environment, this Directive does not contain obligations for public authorities to actively disseminate environmental information. The information put forward by the Honourable Member does not contain any information as to the fact that a request for access to environmental information was addressed to the competent public authorities and whether or not access was given. In the absence of such information, the Commission can not say that the provisions of this Directive have been violated.

---

(1)  OJ L 175, 5.7.1985, p. 40.

(2)  OJ L 73, 14.3.1997.

(3)  OJ L 158, 23.6.1990.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/22

---

(2004/C 78 E/0022)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0733/03

by Sebastiano Musumeci (UEN) to the Commission

(4 March 2003)

Subject:   Air transport safety and use of passengers' mother tongue

The safety of air passengers partly depends on the crew's ability to provide information and communicate easily for preventive purposes and also in the event of an emergency.

On international flights the crew do not always speak the languages of the two countries between which they are flying.

Furthermore, a large percentage of passengers (especially the elderly and less prosperous or less educated people) on aircraft only speak their mother tongue.

This makes it impossible for them to communicate with the crew, increases their feelings of panic and isolation in the event of an emergency and makes it difficult, if not impossible, to comply with the safety instructions for the evacuation of the aircraft.

Can the Commission say:

| 1. | whether it does not consider that this situation, caused by airlines, constitutes a serious violation of the most basic right of passengers, the right to safety; |
| --- | --- |

1.

whether it does not consider that this situation, caused by airlines, constitutes a serious violation of the most basic right of passengers, the right to safety;

| 2. | what steps it intends to take to guarantee the assistance required by passengers who have the misfortune not to know the languages most often used by aircrew, i.e. English and French? |
| --- | --- |

2.

what steps it intends to take to guarantee the assistance required by passengers who have the misfortune not to know the languages most often used by aircrew, i.e. English and French?

Answer given by Ms de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(31 March 2003)

Most airlines endeavour to employ cabin staff who speak the language of the majority of the passengers they transport. Furthermore, international rules require them to equip their aircraft with cards bearing safety instructions set out in the form of pictograms which allow passengers to understand the vital steps that must be taken in an emergency regardless of their language knowledge.

The Commission does not know of any cases where passengers' lives may have been endangered when an accident occurred because they did not understand a particular language.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/22

---

(2004/C 78 E/0023)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0883/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(21 March 2003)

Subject:   Use of funds from the Customs 2002 programme by the municipality of Fiumicino

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 Fiumicino, urgently need to use European funds for measures to enhance the spirit of partnership and cooperation created between the Commission and the Member States, for monitoring and anti-fraud measures and in order to improve the tools used by customs authorities in their work, can the Commission state:

| 1. | whether the municipality of Fiumicino has submitted projects for the Customs 2002 programme? |
| --- | --- |

1.

whether the municipality of Fiumicino has submitted projects for the Customs 2002 programme?

| 2. | whether the municipality of Fiumicino has secured funding for these projects? |
| --- | --- |

2.

whether the municipality of Fiumicino has secured funding for these projects?

| 3. | whether this funding has been used? |
| --- | --- |

3.

whether this funding has been used?

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/23

---

(2004/C 78 E/0024)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1061/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(28 March 2003)

Subject:   Use of funds from the Customs 2002 programme by the municipality of Ancona

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 Ancona, urgently need to use European funds for measures to enhance the spirit of partnership and cooperation created between the Commission and the Member States, for monitoring and anti-fraud measures and in order to improve the tools used by customs authorities in their work,

can the Commission state:

| 1. | whether the municipality of Ancona has submitted projects for the Customs 2002 programme? |
| --- | --- |

1.

whether the municipality of Ancona has submitted projects for the Customs 2002 programme?

| 2. | whether the municipality of Ancona has secured funding for these projects? |
| --- | --- |

2.

whether the municipality of Ancona 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-0883/03 and E-1061/03

given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(8 May 2003)

The Customs 2002 programme financed activities that aimed to improve co-operation between the Customs administrations of the Member States in the internal market (1). The programme distinguishes between two type of activities: IT activities (2) and Joint and Other actions (3).

The IT activities concern the Customs IT systems. For instance Transit. The Joint and Other Actions were organised by the Commission and the Customs administrations of the Member States. The participants in the events were officials from these administrations.

The financial management of Joint and Other Actions part of the programme is organised in the following way: the Commission pays an advance to the administrations of the Member States concerned while these administrations make the necessary payments. Examples of payments are paying for a plane ticket of a participant or paying an invoice for a conference facility when an administration hosts a seminar. The administrations of the Member States have to report twice a year to the Commission on the expenses financed from the programme budget.

Consequently, the Commission can inform the Honorable Member that the municipalities of Ancona and Fiumicino did not fit the criteria for participating in the Customs 2002 programme and therefore did not submit projects or secured any funding.

---

(1)  The Programme Decision gives a detailed overview of the objectives of the programme. (Customs 2002 Decision No 210/97/EC of 19 December 1996, amended by Decision No 105/2000/EC of 17 December 1999).

(2)  Information Exchange and Communication Systems.

(3)  For instance seminars, exchanges, working or benchmarking groups.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/24

---

(2004/C 78 E/0025)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0895/03

by Glenys Kinnock (PSE) to the Commission

(17 March 2003)

Subject:   Agro-business Bank of Georgia

Does the Commission intend to re-open the tendering process for the Agro-business Bank in Georgia?

If, in the light of new circumstances, this is the case, when is the process likely to be resumed?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(21 May 2003)

The tendering process for the project ‘Strengthening the capacity of the Agro Business Bank of Georgia’ was completed in 2002. However, due to the kidnapping of a former project's Team Leader, Mr. Shaw, the Commission decided to keep this and other Georgian projects on hold. Once the situation was unblocked and following a careful analysis of the most appropriate options for the future of the Agro Business Bank, it was recently decided to sign the contract with the winner of last year's tender. The implementation of the project has just started.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/24

---

(2004/C 78 E/0026)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0912/03

by Claude Moraes (PSE) to the Commission

(24 March 2003)

Subject:   Racism and racial attacks in candidate countries

Following the report of the European Parliament on countering racism, xenophobia and anti-Semitism in the candidate countries (A5-0055/2000) and recent reports from the UK House of Lords which suggest that reports by the Ellis enlargement commission do not give an adequate picture of the persecution of the Roma in Hungary, Poland and the Czech and Slovak Republics, what is the Commission doing to remind candidate governments of their responsibility to combat discrimination against the Roma people?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(8 May 2003)

In the context of protection of human rights and minorities, the Commission considers the principle of anti-discrimination to be a very important part of the Community ‘acquis’, as laid down notably in Article 13 of the EC Treaty and in the Council Directives 2000/43/EC of 29 June 2000 implementing the principle of equal treatment between persons irrespective of racial or ethnic origin (1) and 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation (2) and as reaffirmed in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

The Commission has paid close attention to the fulfilment of these criteria. In its progress reports for the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland and Slovakia, the Commission has attached high importance to the situation of the Roma minority. Whilst underlining the progress achieved over a number of years, the reports have clearly identified the remaining problems and have called for continued efforts to remedy any remaining weaknesses. The Reports also underlined the need to fully transpose Directives 2000/43/EC and 2000/78/EC and to make further efforts to comply with Article 13 of the EC Treaty, including the establishment of an Equality Body. These issues are raised at all appropriate occasions and at the highest political level.

Necessary arrangements are also made to allow the participation of the Candidate Countries in the Community programme against discrimination. Moreover, Phare is also funding important and specific assistance programmes in this field. For example, the Phare 2001 Programme allocated EUR 3 million for a civil society project in the Czech Republic to encourage participation of the Roma in public life, and EUR 5 million to a social integration programme in Hungary which puts special emphasis on the Roma population. A further EUR 10 million was allocated in Slovakia to support infrastructure and education projects which will benefit the Roma. The PHARE 2002 Programme provided EUR 0,5 million to increase the effectiveness of policies and programmes promoting Roma integration in Hungary, and a further EUR 3 million to promote anti-discrimination and tolerance towards the Roma in Hungary. PHARE 2003 has allocated EUR 1 million for a project to improve the long-term opportunities of the Roma in the Czech Republic.

The Commission will continue to closely monitor and support preparations for accession in the area of non-discrimination.

---

(1)  OJ L 180, 19.7.2000.

(2)  OJ L 303, 2.12.2000.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/25

---

(2004/C 78 E/0027)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0922/03

by José Ribeiro e Castro (UEN) to the Commission

(24 March 2003)

Subject:   Serbia; assassination of the Prime Minister; instability

On 12 March the Serbian Prime Minister, Zoran Djindjic, was brutally murdered. The reason for the assassination seems to have been his determination to combat organised crime.

Can the Commission say:

| — | what information it has regarding who committed the crime; |
| --- | --- |

—

what information it has regarding who committed the crime;

| — | whether it considers that the Union should assist the Republic of Serbia at this time of emergency and political and social instability; |
| --- | --- |

—

whether it considers that the Union should assist the Republic of Serbia at this time of emergency and political and social instability;

| — | whether it will be willing to continue to provide this assistance with regard to fighting crime and consolidating democratic institutions in Serbia; |
| --- | --- |

—

whether it will be willing to continue to provide this assistance with regard to fighting crime and consolidating democratic institutions in Serbia;

| — | how it will be able to do this? |
| --- | --- |

—

how it will be able to do this?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(8 May 2003)

The Commission has on various occasions, including during a personal visit by the Member of the Commission responsible for External Relations, the day after the assassination and the attendance of President Prodi at the funeral of Prime Minister Djindjic, strongly condemned this horrible deed and voiced its strong support for Serbia and Montenegro at this critical junction.

The Commission is not in a position to comment on ongoing criminal investigations in Serbia. Serbia has taken decisive action against organized crime and political extremism in recent weeks, which appears to be bearing fruit.

The Commission immediately reacted by discussing possible further assistance with the authorities, enhancing the Union's already very generous support. It is obviously important to do what we can to underpin the democratic, political and economic reforms necessary for a properly functioning State Union of Serbia and Montenegro.

As an example of this continued assistance, the Community 2003 Annual Program for Serbia (CARDS — EUR 229 million in 2003), which is in the process of adoption, includes substantial aid for justice and home affairs and institution building. The Commission has also spelt out possible additional support measures, including macro-economic financial assistance, technical advice, coordination of Member States' efforts and enhanced trade opportunities, in a joint letter with Mr Javier Solana sent to Union's Foreign Ministers in advance of the General Affairs and External Relations Council of 14 April 2003.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/26

---

(2004/C 78 E/0028)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1033/03

by Cristiana Muscardini (UEN) to the Commission

(28 March 2003)

Subject:   Famine in Africa

The Commission is undoubtedly aware of the recent report from Nairobi in which the FAO points out that 14 million people in Ethiopia — out of a total population of 63 million — urgently need food aid. So far, the international organisations fighting famine have only managed to secure 40 % of the minimum requirement. Even if the ration of cereals per person is cut to 12,5 kilos — compared to the 15 kilos considered necessary for survival — stocks will run out by June. In statistical terms, the situation is even worse in Eritrea, where, out of a total population of 3,5 million, 2 million persons are in need of food, while current stocks will last until the end of April at best. Meanwhile, more than 28 % of children under five are suffering from severe malnutrition. Eritrea is also suffering from widespread livestock losses caused by the devastating drought that has ravaged the country for four years.

In the light of the above, will the Commission say:

| 1. | what aid has been given to Ethiopia and Eritrea? |
| --- | --- |

1.

what aid has been given to Ethiopia and Eritrea?

| 2. | in the light of the fall in cereal crops (four fifths lower than the average for the last decade), what measures it has taken or plans to take in cooperation with the FAO to help production to recover? |
| --- | --- |

2.

in the light of the fall in cereal crops (four fifths lower than the average for the last decade), what measures it has taken or plans to take in cooperation with the FAO to help production to recover?

| 3. | whether it intends to promote the training of farmers in particularly suitable cultivation techniques in order to help achieve this objective? |
| --- | --- |

3.

whether it intends to promote the training of farmers in particularly suitable cultivation techniques in order to help achieve this objective?

| 4. | whether it believes priority should be given to promoting projects to identify and exploit aquifers, in cooperation with the governments of the drought-affected countries and other international humanitarian agencies? |
| --- | --- |

4.

whether it believes priority should be given to promoting projects to identify and exploit aquifers, in cooperation with the governments of the drought-affected countries and other international humanitarian agencies?

| 5. | whether the Commission is cooperating with charity organisations operating in the African regions concerned to achieve these goals, in addition to humanitarian aid activities? |
| --- | --- |

5.

whether the Commission is cooperating with charity organisations operating in the African regions concerned to achieve these goals, in addition to humanitarian aid activities?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(8 May 2003)

The Commission is indeed aware of the Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) Report on the current food crisis in Ethiopia, even if it does not share its claims in terms of the numbers of people affected (which were revised down to EUR 11,3 million for Ethiopia in December 2002) and, by extension, the percentage of needs met. The assertion that more than 28 % of children under five are suffering from severe malnutrition in Eritrea is also extremely doubtful, and is unfortunately an illustration of the tendency amongst certain involved partners to present an exaggerated picture of emergency situations.

This being said, the food crisis in the Horn of Africa is of course very real, even if — through greatly improved early warning systems and generous donor response — it has not developed into a catastrophic famine such as has been known in the past.

The Commission itself has made an unprecedented response to the crisis in Ethiopia and Eritrea, and, together with Member States, has covered some 35-40 % of the assessed food needs to end-2003. A table is sent direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat.

However, a high priority for the Commission in terms of policy objectives, for Ethiopia in particular, is to support efforts to achieve food security, since some four to five million Ethiopians are predictably food insecure, for structural reasons, every year — including years of good harvests. For this reason, the Commission has set aside in its 9th European Development Fund allocation for Ethiopia a sum of EUR 54 million for programmes in support of food security. The programmes to be funded under this allocation are now being identified and appraised, but are likely to include the improvement of livestock health services, improved access to water points and support for an improved grain marketing system.

The Commission is cooperating and will undoubtedly continue to cooperate with charity organisations operating in the food insecure countries of Africa to support food security, as well as of course in humanitarian aid activities.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/27

---

(2004/C 78 E/0029)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1289/03

by Elly Plooij-van Gorsel (ELDR) to the Commission

(4 April 2003)

Subject:   Disruption of market access to the People's Republic of China for photographic products: specific import tariffs not complying with WTO agreements

Since 1997 the People's Republic of China has imposed an import tariff on photographic products, in the form of a specific duty calculated in renminbi per product unit (measured in square metres).

In connection with its accession to the World Trade Organisation China has undertaken to phase out this specific tariff and replace it with an ad valorem tariff. These commitments are set out in the bilateral agreement between the European Union and China and in the protocol on China's accession to the WTO. In January 2002, however, China announced that it would maintain the specific import tariffs on photographic products. This is not compatible with the WTO agreements.

As an illustration, in 2002 China committed itself to a 42 % ad valorem import tariff on rolls of 35mm film. However, in practice China has imposed a specific tariff of 15 5 renminbi per square metre. This has resulted in an effective ad valorem tariff of 89 %. This specific tariff thus exceeds the authorised limit.

| 1. | Is the Commission aware of these specific levies per product unit on various photographic products? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is the Commission aware of these specific levies per product unit on various photographic products?

| 2. | Does it consider that this constitutes an illegal tariff barrier under China's obligations within the World Trade Organisation? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Does it consider that this constitutes an illegal tariff barrier under China's obligations within the World Trade Organisation?

| 3. | Has the Commission already made a complaint to the authorities responsible in China? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Has the Commission already made a complaint to the authorities responsible in China?

| 4. | If so, what has been their reaction? If not, why not, and does the Commission intend to take action in the near future? |
| --- | --- |

4.

If so, what has been their reaction? If not, why not, and does the Commission intend to take action in the near future?

Answer given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(8 May 2003)

| 1. | The Commission is aware that China chose to opt for specific duties rather than ad valorem rates for a number of products, including photographic products. It should be noted that China's use of specific duties rather than ad valorem rates is not per se a violation of China's World Trade Organisation (WTO) obligations (even if China's commitments — the bound rates — are expressed using ad valorem values). |
| --- | --- |

1.

The Commission is aware that China chose to opt for specific duties rather than ad valorem rates for a number of products, including photographic products. It should be noted that China's use of specific duties rather than ad valorem rates is not per se a violation of China's World Trade Organisation (WTO) obligations (even if China's commitments — the bound rates — are expressed using ad valorem values).

| 2. | There would be a breach of China's WTO commitments when the use of specific duties leads in practice to rates higher than the bound ad valorem rates. Following contacts with some companies, this seemed to be the case for a few specific rates concerning photographic products in 2002. |
| --- | --- |

2.

There would be a breach of China's WTO commitments when the use of specific duties leads in practice to rates higher than the bound ad valorem rates. Following contacts with some companies, this seemed to be the case for a few specific rates concerning photographic products in 2002.

| 3. | At the end of 2002 and following contacts with some companies on this issue, the Commission has raised the problem both bilaterally with the Chinese authorities and in the context of the Transitional Review Mechanism. This is a WTO mechanism established in the context of China's accession, the objective of which is to review annually China's implementation of her WTO obligations.
  It has to be noted that this issue has also been raised by Japan, which appears to be China's trade partner with by far the main trade interest at stake regarding this issue. |
| --- | --- |

3.

At the end of 2002 and following contacts with some companies on this issue, the Commission has raised the problem both bilaterally with the Chinese authorities and in the context of the Transitional Review Mechanism. This is a WTO mechanism established in the context of China's accession, the objective of which is to review annually China's implementation of her WTO obligations.

It has to be noted that this issue has also been raised by Japan, which appears to be China's trade partner with by far the main trade interest at stake regarding this issue.

| 4. | The Chinese authorities undertook to seriously consider the request made by the Union and Japan, and we are thus awaiting the results of these official contacts. |
| --- | --- |

4.

The Chinese authorities undertook to seriously consider the request made by the Union and Japan, and we are thus awaiting the results of these official contacts.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/28

---

(2004/C 78 E/0030)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1309/03

by Bill Newton Dunn (ELDR) to the Commission

(7 April 2003)

Subject:   Human rights abuses in Laos

The Commission will be aware of the human rights abuses, notably the treatment of Christians, which continue in Laos.

Has the Commission:

| 1. | made representations to the Laotian Government? |
| --- | --- |

1.

made representations to the Laotian Government?

| 2. | other plans, to try to improve the situation? |
| --- | --- |

2.

other plans, to try to improve the situation?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(8 May 2003)

The Commission is aware of reports that freedom of religious expression remains restricted in Laos, including reports of members of Christian groups being persecuted and/or detained on grounds of their religious affiliation.

This is done despite the fact that the Constitution stipulates ‘the right and freedom to believe or not to believe in religion’. The level of tolerance of religious practice varies between regions. There have been reports of arrest and detention of religious believers and their spiritual leaders without charges. Some Christians have been sentenced for gathering ‘to create social turmoil’. Some reports also mention difficulties for religious groups seeking to establish new places of worship in particular provinces. In other parts of the country both Catholic and Protestant followers are able to worship openly.

The Commission follows this and other matters relating to human rights in Laos closely and concerns are frequently raised in bilateral meetings between the Community and Laos. The Commission also participates fully in all Union démarches to convey our concerns to the Laotian authorities.

The Commission is fully committed to emphasising the need to strengthen respect for civil and political rights in Laos, including freedom of expression, assembly, association and religion. During this spring, the Commission will be opening a Delegation in Vientiane, Laos. This will increase opportunities to engage in a more profound and constructive dialogue on human rights issues with the Lao Government.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/29

---

(2004/C 78 E/0031)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1409/03

by Othmar Karas (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(14 April 2003)

Subject:   Reform of European corporate taxation policy

The primary objective of European integration is enhancement of the prosperity of the Member States through the elimination of the barriers between them to the free movement of goods and production factors. The challenges confronting the European internal market in seeking to achieve this objective in the field of tax policy are correspondingly great. EU measures in the taxation field must ensure that tax systems contribute to the efficient operation of the internal market.

Parliament is fully aware of the complications facing small businesses in particular as a result of 15 (and soon 25) different tax systems and of the resulting administrative delays and barriers affecting cross-border activities and is critical of the administrative effort required by the various VAT rules and of the enormous burden of paperwork on businesses deriving from the different systems of corporate taxation and countless double taxation agreements.

What timetable and milestones has the Commission envisaged in order to make headway on this extremely controversial issue?

What opportunities and possible difficulties at the implementation stage does it detect for the following plans:

| — | adoption and implementation of the EU tax convention (closure of loopholes, no tax relief for direct foreign investment and holding structures); |
| --- | --- |

—

adoption and implementation of the EU tax convention (closure of loopholes, no tax relief for direct foreign investment and holding structures);

| — | coordination of corporate taxation systems with a view to reducing the international room for manoeuvre for tax evasion (transfer pricing); |
| --- | --- |

—

coordination of corporate taxation systems with a view to reducing the international room for manoeuvre for tax evasion (transfer pricing);

| — | same rate of taxation for corporate enterprises, partnerships and one-man businesses; |
| --- | --- |

—

same rate of taxation for corporate enterprises, partnerships and one-man businesses;

| — | reduction of the tax burden on the transfer of individually owned undertakings; |
| --- | --- |

—

reduction of the tax burden on the transfer of individually owned undertakings;

| — | implementation of a pilot project on ‘home country taxation’ (corporate taxation and income tax) for all SMEs, including partnerships; |
| --- | --- |

—

implementation of a pilot project on ‘home country taxation’ (corporate taxation and income tax) for all SMEs, including partnerships;

| — | alignment of the double taxation agreements within the EU; |
| --- | --- |

—

alignment of the double taxation agreements within the EU;

| — | turnover tax return for external turnover in the home country of a company where the company has no permanent subsidiary abroad; |
| --- | --- |

—

turnover tax return for external turnover in the home country of a company where the company has no permanent subsidiary abroad;

| — | complete harmonisation of the administrative rules governing VAT; |
| --- | --- |

—

complete harmonisation of the administrative rules governing VAT;

| — | guaranteed reimbursement of VAT within an appropriate time limit (reform of 8th VAT Directive); |
| --- | --- |

—

guaranteed reimbursement of VAT within an appropriate time limit (reform of 8th VAT Directive);

| — | continuation of the experiment involving reduced VAT rates for labour-intensive services and its extension to all sectors concerned? |
| --- | --- |

—

continuation of the experiment involving reduced VAT rates for labour-intensive services and its extension to all sectors concerned?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(23 May 2003)

The Commission has launched a variety of initiatives, which are aimed at tackling the existing tax problems in the Internal Market with a view to improve its overall functioning and efficiency. In particular, the Honourable Member should have regard to the various activities that the Commission is undertaking following its Communications ‘Towards an Internal Market without tax obstacles — A Strategy for providing companies with a consolidated corporate tax base for their EU-wide activities’ (1) and ‘A Strategy to improve the operation of the VAT System within the context of the Internal Market’ (2). The administrative problems and compliance cost faced by small and medium-sized enterprises are receiving particular attention in this Commission work. For instance, the Commission is in the process of launching a very comprehensive compliance cost survey for 3 000 European companies. It is hoped that this survey will provide new insights on the cost for companies resulting from the need to cope with 15 separate tax systems and on the main drivers of this cost.

It is important to note that most of the measures proposed or to be proposed by the Commission require unanimous adoption by Member States, which is why the Commission is not in a position to indicate the precise timetable for their implementation.

As regards individual initiatives, the following observations can however be made:

| — | Adoption and implementation of the EU tax convention (closure of loopholes, no tax relief for direct foreign investment and holding structures)'. The Commission has assisted the Presidency in its efforts to achieve final conclusions on the tax package to eliminate harmful tax competition. Subject to the reservation tabled by one Member State, agreement on the package has been been reached. In particular, the work on the Code of Conduct for business taxation, which is designed to eliminate harmful tax competition by addressing business taxation measures which provide for a lower level of taxation than generally applies in the Member State concerned, has been successfully concluded. |
| --- | --- |

—

Adoption and implementation of the EU tax convention (closure of loopholes, no tax relief for direct foreign investment and holding structures)'. The Commission has assisted the Presidency in its efforts to achieve final conclusions on the tax package to eliminate harmful tax competition. Subject to the reservation tabled by one Member State, agreement on the package has been been reached. In particular, the work on the Code of Conduct for business taxation, which is designed to eliminate harmful tax competition by addressing business taxation measures which provide for a lower level of taxation than generally applies in the Member State concerned, has been successfully concluded.

| — | ‘Co-ordination of corporate taxation systems with a view to reducing the international room for manoeuvre for tax evasion (transfer pricing)’: In the ‘EU Joint Transfer Pricing Forum’, which was created in 2002 following a Commission initiative, high-level tax experts from Member States' administrations and from the business community are currently looking into possible ways for dealing with transfer pricing problems in the Internal Market. The Forum will provide a final report on its work towards the end of 2004. |
| --- | --- |

—

‘Co-ordination of corporate taxation systems with a view to reducing the international room for manoeuvre for tax evasion (transfer pricing)’: In the ‘EU Joint Transfer Pricing Forum’, which was created in 2002 following a Commission initiative, high-level tax experts from Member States' administrations and from the business community are currently looking into possible ways for dealing with transfer pricing problems in the Internal Market. The Forum will provide a final report on its work towards the end of 2004.

| — | ‘Same rate of taxation for corporate enterprises, partnerships and sole proprietorships’: Partnerships and sole proprietors are predominantly subject to personal income tax laws. As stated in the Commission Communication ‘Tax policy in the European Union — priorities for the years ahead’ (3), ‘the level of taxation in this area [direct taxation] is however a matter for the Member States to decide, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity’, provided that the Member States' laws respect the principles of the EC Treaty. |
| --- | --- |

—

‘Same rate of taxation for corporate enterprises, partnerships and sole proprietorships’: Partnerships and sole proprietors are predominantly subject to personal income tax laws. As stated in the Commission Communication ‘Tax policy in the European Union — priorities for the years ahead’ (3), ‘the level of taxation in this area [direct taxation] is however a matter for the Member States to decide, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity’, provided that the Member States' laws respect the principles of the EC Treaty.

| — | ‘Reduction of the tax burden on the transfer of individually owned undertakings’: In accordance with the subsidiarity principle, transfer transactions of individually owned undertakings are generally a matter for Member States, subject to compliance with their treaty obligations. This is in particular the case for inheritance tax. However, in 1994 the Commission published a Recommendation 94/1069/EC on the transfer of small and medium sized enterprises and a Communication 98/C93/02 on its implementation in 1998. This subject has been addressed further by an expert group whose final report was published in July 2002 (4). It presents the measures taken by the Member States to facilitate the transfer of small and medium-sized enterprises and makes proposals for further action. The work of the experts was followed up by a project whose aim is to help Member States make further progress in implementing the Commission Recommendation and to respond to the expert group's proposals. The results of this project will be published shortly. |
| --- | --- |

—

‘Reduction of the tax burden on the transfer of individually owned undertakings’: In accordance with the subsidiarity principle, transfer transactions of individually owned undertakings are generally a matter for Member States, subject to compliance with their treaty obligations. This is in particular the case for inheritance tax. However, in 1994 the Commission published a Recommendation 94/1069/EC on the transfer of small and medium sized enterprises and a Communication 98/C93/02 on its implementation in 1998. This subject has been addressed further by an expert group whose final report was published in July 2002 (4). It presents the measures taken by the Member States to facilitate the transfer of small and medium-sized enterprises and makes proposals for further action. The work of the experts was followed up by a project whose aim is to help Member States make further progress in implementing the Commission Recommendation and to respond to the expert group's proposals. The results of this project will be published shortly.

| — | ‘Implementation of a pilot project on “home state taxation” (corporate taxation and income tax) for all small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), including partnerships’: Following a successful workshop with stakeholders in December 2002, the Commission has launched a consultation procedure with a view to this possible pilot scheme. The deadline for contributions to the detailed consultation document has been extended until 30 April 2003. An analysis of the contributions will be published afterwards. The Commission intends to report on its conclusions from this consultation and from appropriate internal technical work in a Communication, in around October 2003. This Communication will also report on the follow-up to other aspects of the company tax study (5) and Communication (6) of 2001. |
| --- | --- |

—

‘Implementation of a pilot project on “home state taxation” (corporate taxation and income tax) for all small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), including partnerships’: Following a successful workshop with stakeholders in December 2002, the Commission has launched a consultation procedure with a view to this possible pilot scheme. The deadline for contributions to the detailed consultation document has been extended until 30 April 2003. An analysis of the contributions will be published afterwards. The Commission intends to report on its conclusions from this consultation and from appropriate internal technical work in a Communication, in around October 2003. This Communication will also report on the follow-up to other aspects of the company tax study (5) and Communication (6) of 2001.

| — | ‘Alignment of the double taxation agreements within the Union’: The Commission is fully aware of the varied and complex problems relating to the double taxation treaties in the Internal Market. A Commission initiative in this area is planned for 2004 with a view to co-ordinating Member States' double taxation treaty policies within a Community framework. Possible approaches to resolve the problems of double taxation in the Internal Market and incompatibilities with Community law that are not currently being adequately addressed by bilateral treaties include, inter alia, the conclusion of a multilateral tax treaty between all Member States and the development of an Union model tax treaty. |
| --- | --- |

—

‘Alignment of the double taxation agreements within the Union’: The Commission is fully aware of the varied and complex problems relating to the double taxation treaties in the Internal Market. A Commission initiative in this area is planned for 2004 with a view to co-ordinating Member States' double taxation treaty policies within a Community framework. Possible approaches to resolve the problems of double taxation in the Internal Market and incompatibilities with Community law that are not currently being adequately addressed by bilateral treaties include, inter alia, the conclusion of a multilateral tax treaty between all Member States and the development of an Union model tax treaty.

| — | Turnover tax return for external turnover in the home country of a company where the company has no permanent subsidiary abroad': The mechanism providing single registration and reporting for transactions carried out in several Member States has currently only been adopted for non-European companies making digitised e-commerce sales to Union consumers. This mechanism will enter into force on 1 July 2003. The operation of this mechanism will be followed closely by the Commission and the Member States in order to determine its effectiveness and possible application to other transactions, and also to the benefit of EU companies. |
| --- | --- |

—

Turnover tax return for external turnover in the home country of a company where the company has no permanent subsidiary abroad': The mechanism providing single registration and reporting for transactions carried out in several Member States has currently only been adopted for non-European companies making digitised e-commerce sales to Union consumers. This mechanism will enter into force on 1 July 2003. The operation of this mechanism will be followed closely by the Commission and the Member States in order to determine its effectiveness and possible application to other transactions, and also to the benefit of EU companies.

| — | ‘Complete harmonisation of the administrative rules governing VAT’: The Commission has launched a wide consultation of European enterprises on the outcome of a study relating to the simplification and modernisation of VAT obligations. Depending on the outcome of this consultation process, the Commission will evaluate whether a legislative proposal is to be made in this area. |
| --- | --- |

—

‘Complete harmonisation of the administrative rules governing VAT’: The Commission has launched a wide consultation of European enterprises on the outcome of a study relating to the simplification and modernisation of VAT obligations. Depending on the outcome of this consultation process, the Commission will evaluate whether a legislative proposal is to be made in this area.

| — | ‘Guaranteed reimbursement of VAT within an appropriate time limit (reform of the 8th Directive)’: The Commission presented in June 1998 a proposal to replace the 8th Directive procedure by the right of taxable persons to recover VAT directly in the periodic return which they make to their Member State of establishment. This is currently under discussion in the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

‘Guaranteed reimbursement of VAT within an appropriate time limit (reform of the 8th Directive)’: The Commission presented in June 1998 a proposal to replace the 8th Directive procedure by the right of taxable persons to recover VAT directly in the periodic return which they make to their Member State of establishment. This is currently under discussion in the Council.

| — | ‘Continuation of the experiment involving reduced rates for labour-intensive services and its extension to all sectors concerned’: The Commission intends before the summer 2003 to present a proposal on reduced VAT rates that will take into account the results of this experiment. |
| --- | --- |

—

‘Continuation of the experiment involving reduced rates for labour-intensive services and its extension to all sectors concerned’: The Commission intends before the summer 2003 to present a proposal on reduced VAT rates that will take into account the results of this experiment.

---

(1)  COM(2001) 582 final.

(2)  COM(2000) 348 final.

(3)  COM(2001) 260 final.

(4)  http://europa.eu.int/comm/enterprise/entrepreneurship/support_measures/transfer_business/best_project.htm.

(5)  SEC(2001)1681.

(6)  COM(2001) 582 final.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/32

---

(2004/C 78 E/0032)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1431/03

by Pierre Jonckheer (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(24 April 2003)

Subject:   Open-cast coal mine in northern Leon (Valle de Laciana, Spain)

On 14 June 1999, the Department of the Environment and Regional Planning for Castille and Leon adopted the environmental impact statement for the exploitation of the Fonfría open-cast mine in view of the measures proposed in the environmental restoration plan and monitoring plan, with it being understood that these measures would help improve the current state of the environment and leave the landscape much the same as it was originally. This approach is inadmissible because it fails to take into account many factors.

In particular (1):

| (a) | extraction estimates for the mine are for 18 579 705 cubic metres, 3 500 000 cubic metres of which will be deposited on two slag heaps. Slag is currently being tipped in the Fonfría watercourse, as a result of which the spring itself has disappeared under the waste, despite the fact that it was supposed to have been protected under the corrective measures proposed; |
| --- | --- |

(a)

extraction estimates for the mine are for 18 579 705 cubic metres, 3 500 000 cubic metres of which will be deposited on two slag heaps. Slag is currently being tipped in the Fonfría watercourse, as a result of which the spring itself has disappeared under the waste, despite the fact that it was supposed to have been protected under the corrective measures proposed;

| (b) | the northernmost slag heap juts into a Community-financed area of afforestation; |
| --- | --- |

(b)

the northernmost slag heap juts into a Community-financed area of afforestation;

| (c) | the environmental impact assessment makes no mention of the existence of lakes which are of great ecological importance or of the various other springs besides Fonfría. Neither is any reference made to the changes to or the disappearance of various streams or of a large area of juvenile oak trees resulting from a series of forest fires (in the Orallo mountains); |
| --- | --- |

(c)

the environmental impact assessment makes no mention of the existence of lakes which are of great ecological importance or of the various other springs besides Fonfría. Neither is any reference made to the changes to or the disappearance of various streams or of a large area of juvenile oak trees resulting from a series of forest fires (in the Orallo mountains);

| (d) | the environmental impact survey was carried out in isolation, as if this were the only mine in the area, without taking into account the proximity of other mines (including Feixolín), certain cuttings that have already been mined out, others which are currently being exploited, cuttings that are in the process of being authorised and several others at the study stage. The end result will be a large scar several kilometres long and the destruction of thousands of hectares. |
| --- | --- |

(d)

the environmental impact survey was carried out in isolation, as if this were the only mine in the area, without taking into account the proximity of other mines (including Feixolín), certain cuttings that have already been mined out, others which are currently being exploited, cuttings that are in the process of being authorised and several others at the study stage. The end result will be a large scar several kilometres long and the destruction of thousands of hectares.

Will the Commission investigate these issues? Does it not think it should order the suspension of mining activities and require that the environment be restored and the respective European funding repaid (2)?

---

(1)  Detailed documentation on the subject was presented to the European Commission by the Asociación Laciana para la Defensa de la Naturaleza (Laciana Environmental Protection Association) on 18 May, 9 July and 10 October 2002, file No 2001/4914, SG(2001) A/10264. See also Written Question E-1892/02.

(2)  As the Commission itself has indicated, the company MSP has received millions of pesetas from the Regional Government of Castille and Leon, in line with decisions relating to the ECSC, since the Coal Plan was implemented in 1998. This aid is completely at odds with the aid received between 1992 and 1996 for LIFE projects for the conservation of brown bear populations and their habitats in the Cantabrian Hills (ECU 8 625 266, 75 % of which was paid by the EU).

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/32

---

(2004/C 78 E/0033)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1432/03

by Pierre Jonckheer (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(24 April 2003)

Subject:   Open-cast coal mine in northern Leon (Valle de Laciana, Spain)

On 14 June 1999, the Department of the Environment and Regional Planning for Castille and Leon adopted the environmental impact statement for the exploitation of the Fonfría open-cast mine in view of the measures proposed in the environmental restoration plan and monitoring plan, with it being understood that these measures would help improve the current state of the environment and leave the landscape much the same as it was originally. This approach is inadmissible because it fails to take into account many factors.

In particular (1):

| (a) | the survey does not fulfil the requirements of Decree No 209/1995 of 5 October 1995 since the members of the drafting team did not have the qualifications required by that decree (biologist or environmental engineer); |
| --- | --- |

(a)

the survey does not fulfil the requirements of Decree No 209/1995 of 5 October 1995 since the members of the drafting team did not have the qualifications required by that decree (biologist or environmental engineer);

| (b) | despite the fact that Decree No 108/1990 of 21 June 1990 granted protected status to brown bears in Castille and Leon and introduced a recovery plan for the brown bear, and that under Royal Decree No 439/1990 of 30 March 1990 brown bears were declared a protected species in danger of extinction, open-cast mining has been permitted in the bears' natural habitat; |
| --- | --- |

(b)

despite the fact that Decree No 108/1990 of 21 June 1990 granted protected status to brown bears in Castille and Leon and introduced a recovery plan for the brown bear, and that under Royal Decree No 439/1990 of 30 March 1990 brown bears were declared a protected species in danger of extinction, open-cast mining has been permitted in the bears' natural habitat;

| (c) | the scientific study commissioned by the regional government of Castille and Leon itself (2) points to the especially serious effects of open-cast mines in this area, in view of the fact that it forms a bio-geographical corridor of vital importance to brown bears in the Cantabrian hills. On 22 May 2002, a brown bear killed a bullock less than 500 metres from the entrance to the mine and less than a kilometre away from the mine workings; |
| --- | --- |

(c)

the scientific study commissioned by the regional government of Castille and Leon itself (2) points to the especially serious effects of open-cast mines in this area, in view of the fact that it forms a bio-geographical corridor of vital importance to brown bears in the Cantabrian hills. On 22 May 2002, a brown bear killed a bullock less than 500 metres from the entrance to the mine and less than a kilometre away from the mine workings;

| (d) | the existence of a colony of capercaillie, a species protected under Directive 79/409/EEC (3) in an oak grove close to the mine was also overlooked, and no reference was made to other types of wild fauna and flora that are protected under Directive 92/43/EEC (4). |
| --- | --- |

(d)

the existence of a colony of capercaillie, a species protected under Directive 79/409/EEC (3) in an oak grove close to the mine was also overlooked, and no reference was made to other types of wild fauna and flora that are protected under Directive 92/43/EEC (4).

Will the Commission investigate these issues? Has it opened infringement proceedings against Spain for failing to comply with Community law on environmental impact assessments and the protection of habitats and species?

Joint answer

to Written Questions E-1431/03 and E-1432/03

given by Ms Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(26 June 2003)

It should first be noted that the Commission does not have the power to require Member States to suspend a project which is being investigated. Nevertheless, under the procedural rules which it must follow, the Commission has adopted every measure possible to ensure that Community law is respected in this case. In particular, after it had been made aware of the facts set out in these written questions as a result of several complaints, the Commission asked the Spanish authorities for their comments on the application of Community law in this particular case.

The Commission is currently examining the reply sent by the Spanish authorities in order to decide what measures are necessary to ensure that the Spanish authorities comply with Community law, in particular 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), as amended by Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997 (6), and Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (7). The Commission will take particular account of the points which the Honourable Member raises in Written Question E-1431/03 when examining the content of the environmental impact assessment undertaken by the Spanish authorities.

---

(1)  Detailed documentation on the subject was presented to the European Commission by the Asociación Laciana para la Defensa de la Naturaleza (Laciana Environmental Protection Association) on 18 May, 9 July and 10 October 2002, file No 2001/4914, SG(2001) A/10264. See also Written Question E-1892/02.

(2)  ‘Critical areas and management units for the brown bear in western Leon — a review and proposals’ by A. Fernández, J. Naves and E. García, 2001, the findings of which have been confirmed by other leading experts in this field, including Francisco J. Purroy, Chair of Animal Biology at the University of Leon.

(3)  OJ L 103, 25.4.1979, p. 1.

(4)  OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7.

(5)  OJ L 175, 5.7.1985.

(6)  OJ L 73, 14.3.1997.

(7)  OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/34

---

(2004/C 78 E/0034)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1435/03

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(24 April 2003)

Subject:   Increasing Third World dependence on emigration to work in rich countries and earnings transfers from rich countries

| 1. | Is the Commission aware of the World Bank report of 2 April 2003, entitled ‘Global Development Finance’, which describes migrant workers who send part of their earnings obtained in countries with highly developed economies to members of their families who have stayed on in the Third World, or invest in such countries in some other way, as having now become an indispensable source of funding for developing countries that also creates more stability than the customary loans? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is the Commission aware of the World Bank report of 2 April 2003, entitled ‘Global Development Finance’, which describes migrant workers who send part of their earnings obtained in countries with highly developed economies to members of their families who have stayed on in the Third World, or invest in such countries in some other way, as having now become an indispensable source of funding for developing countries that also creates more stability than the customary loans?

| 2. | Is the Commission aware that this source of funding concerns very considerable sums, and that the total amount originating in all rich countries taken together rose from EUR 64,5 thousand million in 2000 to EUR 74 thousand million in 2002, and that the amounts from EU Member States for the year 2002, in thousand million US dollars, break down as follows: Germany 8,2; Belgium, 8,1; France, 3,9; Luxembourg, 3,1; Italy, 2,6; Spain, 2,2; the Netherlands, 1,5; and the United Kingdom, 1,3? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Is the Commission aware that this source of funding concerns very considerable sums, and that the total amount originating in all rich countries taken together rose from EUR 64,5 thousand million in 2000 to EUR 74 thousand million in 2002, and that the amounts from EU Member States for the year 2002, in thousand million US dollars, break down as follows: Germany 8,2; Belgium, 8,1; France, 3,9; Luxembourg, 3,1; Italy, 2,6; Spain, 2,2; the Netherlands, 1,5; and the United Kingdom, 1,3?

| 3. | How does the Commission view the conclusion by World Bank researcher Dilip Ratha, that more migration is likely to provide the world with great advantages and that rich countries must therefore make international migration easier? Is this view compatible, in the Commission's judgement, with the problems of pressure on living space and possible confrontations between social groups with different cultures, and with the EU Member States' tendency only to admit a limited number of economic migrants who are able to supply needs that cannot be met, or can be met only partly, by their own inhabitants? |
| --- | --- |

3.

How does the Commission view the conclusion by World Bank researcher Dilip Ratha, that more migration is likely to provide the world with great advantages and that rich countries must therefore make international migration easier? Is this view compatible, in the Commission's judgement, with the problems of pressure on living space and possible confrontations between social groups with different cultures, and with the EU Member States' tendency only to admit a limited number of economic migrants who are able to supply needs that cannot be met, or can be met only partly, by their own inhabitants?

| 4. | In what way can the EU help to ensure that Third World countries become not more, but less, dependent on earnings obtained by working in Europe, for instance by directly ensuring that economic growth increasingly occurs elsewhere in the world, rather than encouraging it in the EU and subsequently investing the profits from it elsewhere? |
| --- | --- |

4.

In what way can the EU help to ensure that Third World countries become not more, but less, dependent on earnings obtained by working in Europe, for instance by directly ensuring that economic growth increasingly occurs elsewhere in the world, rather than encouraging it in the EU and subsequently investing the profits from it elsewhere?

Source: Dutch newspaper ‘De Volkskrant’ 3.4.2003.

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(19 June 2003)

| 1. | Yes, the Commission is aware of the World Bank report referred to. It contains a chapter entitled ‘Workers’ Remittances: an important and stable source of external development finance', by World Bank researcher Dilip Ratha. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Yes, the Commission is aware of the World Bank report referred to. It contains a chapter entitled ‘Workers’ Remittances: an important and stable source of external development finance', by World Bank researcher Dilip Ratha.

| 2. | The Commission has noted that these figures are mentioned in the report. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The Commission has noted that these figures are mentioned in the report.

| 3. | The report says that ‘facilitating labor mobility between source and destination countries is perhaps the most crucial — and controversial — means of increasing remittance flows to developing countries’. This may be true, but this is not, in the view of the Commission in itself a reason to favour an increase of international labour mobility. Seen from the perspective of developing countries, international migration may lead to negative ‘brain drain’ phenomena, as it is already the case in several sectors and regions (e.g. the medical profession in African countries). While the net effect for developing countries does not need to be negative as output losses from the migration of skilled workers are to some extent offset by gains from remittances and network effects (business contacts, investments, technological help, support to education, etc.), migration needs to be managed very carefully. There are well known domestic reasons for the Union not to opt for a fully liberalised international labour market. Its migration policy is and will continue to be based on the concept of migration management, which allows, inter alia, for the creation of synergies between development and migration policy objectives.
  On the specific subject of migrants' remittances, one of the aspects where — e.g. in the context of development cooperation — meaningful support may be given is to make the transfer of remittances cheaper and more reliable. The report mentions the fact that the cost of transferring remittances often exceeds 20 %. Reducing such costs to less than 10 % would — according to the report — imply an annual saving of EUR 3,5 billion to migrant workers. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The report says that ‘facilitating labor mobility between source and destination countries is perhaps the most crucial — and controversial — means of increasing remittance flows to developing countries’. This may be true, but this is not, in the view of the Commission in itself a reason to favour an increase of international labour mobility. Seen from the perspective of developing countries, international migration may lead to negative ‘brain drain’ phenomena, as it is already the case in several sectors and regions (e.g. the medical profession in African countries). While the net effect for developing countries does not need to be negative as output losses from the migration of skilled workers are to some extent offset by gains from remittances and network effects (business contacts, investments, technological help, support to education, etc.), migration needs to be managed very carefully. There are well known domestic reasons for the Union not to opt for a fully liberalised international labour market. Its migration policy is and will continue to be based on the concept of migration management, which allows, inter alia, for the creation of synergies between development and migration policy objectives.

On the specific subject of migrants' remittances, one of the aspects where — e.g. in the context of development cooperation — meaningful support may be given is to make the transfer of remittances cheaper and more reliable. The report mentions the fact that the cost of transferring remittances often exceeds 20 %. Reducing such costs to less than 10 % would — according to the report — imply an annual saving of EUR 3,5 billion to migrant workers.

| 4. | The promotion of high and sustainable growth within developing countries themselves is one of the priorities of the Union's external policy and is supported through a variety of financial and technical assistance instruments world-wide. In its recent Communication on ‘Integrating migration issues in the EU's relations with third countries’ (1) the Commission has proposed several relevant policies, including ‘the improvement of effective market access of developing countries’ products into the EU','the enhancement of south-south trade', ‘the promotion of foreign direct investments into developing countries’, ‘the promotion of outsourcing arrangements between developed and developing countries’ (notably in the information technology and research and Technological development sectors), ‘the facilitation of migrants’ efforts to contribute to the economic and social development in their countries of origin (without permanently returning to it), etc. Workers' remittances can contribute to higher and more stable growth in recipients' countries, as supported by the fact that remittances are increasingly used for investment purposes. |
| --- | --- |

4.

The promotion of high and sustainable growth within developing countries themselves is one of the priorities of the Union's external policy and is supported through a variety of financial and technical assistance instruments world-wide. In its recent Communication on ‘Integrating migration issues in the EU's relations with third countries’ (1) the Commission has proposed several relevant policies, including ‘the improvement of effective market access of developing countries’ products into the EU','the enhancement of south-south trade', ‘the promotion of foreign direct investments into developing countries’, ‘the promotion of outsourcing arrangements between developed and developing countries’ (notably in the information technology and research and Technological development sectors), ‘the facilitation of migrants’ efforts to contribute to the economic and social development in their countries of origin (without permanently returning to it), etc. Workers' remittances can contribute to higher and more stable growth in recipients' countries, as supported by the fact that remittances are increasingly used for investment purposes.

---

(1)  COM(2002) 703 final.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/35

---

(2004/C 78 E/0035)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1483/03

by Johanna Boogerd-Quaak (ELDR) to the Commission

(23 April 2003)

Subject:   Protection of information concerning air passengers — Joint Declaration of 4 March 2003

Since the beginning of March, airlines have been required by an American law, on pain of heavy fines, to provide all kinds of information about their passengers. The Commission recently issued a Joint Declaration with the USA on this subject.

Does the Commission agree that, in the light of the case law of the Court of Justice of the EC, this is a field where joint competence exists?

If so, when did the Commission inform the Member States of the relevant developments?

How are the Member States kept informed of the latest developments in this field?

Were the Member States in any way involved in the decision-making leading to the Joint Declaration of 4 March 2003?

Does the American law conflict with the national legislation of any of the Member States?

If so, which Member States and what are the consequences?

Are there any Member States which have concluded individual agreements with the USA on this subject?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(22 May 2003)

The transfer of personal data by airlines to the American authorities is a complex issue, certain aspects of which fall within the Community's field of competence. The processing of personal data by airlines in the context of their economic activities, for example, is clearly regulated by Community law. The information requested by the US authorities includes this type of data.

Since 2002, the Commission has kept the Member States informed about the situation at meetings of the Council's Working Parties, particularly those dealing with transport and trans-Atlantic relations. The Commission has also provided detailed information for the Committee set up by Article 31 of Directive 95/46/EC (1), which is composed of representatives of the Member States. This information was provided on 12 December 2002 and 21 February 2003. The Commission also reported to Coreper on the latest developments with the dossier, principally in February 2003 when discussions were held on the Joint Declaration mentioned by the Honourable Member.

The Member States were not directly involved in the process leading up to the Joint Declaration. The Commission would, however, stress that this declaration only aims to define a method for discussions with the US authorities which might lead to a solution that is consistent with Community law. In this context, the Commission has paid particular attention to the situation confronting European airlines, which are faced with the conflicting demands made by two different legal systems and the threat of tough economic sanctions which could even extend to the withdrawal of their landing rights in the USA.

The solution envisaged by the Commission is based on Article 25.6 of Directive 95/46/EC. This provision allows the Commission to recognise that a third country ensures adequate protection of the data transferred to it. The Member States take part in the decision-making process through their involvement in the Committee set up by Article 31 of Directive 95/46/EC, as this Committee has to deliver an opinion on the draft of the measures to be taken, in accordance with the comitology rules.

The Commission has not conducted a detailed examination into the compatibility of the US law with the national legislation of the Member States, given that the proposed measures posed problems vis-à-vis the requirements of Directive 95/46/EC, and all Member States legislation has to comply with that Directive.

Finally, the Commission has no knowledge of any agreements concluded on this subject between individual Member States and the USA.

---

(1)  Directive 95/46/EC of the European 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, OJ L 281, 23.11.1995.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/36

---

(2004/C 78 E/0036)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1550/03

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(7 May 2003)

Subject:   Uncontrolled flows of funds on the transfer of media ownership in Poland and possible preferential treatment for Poland as a new EU Member State

| 1. | Has the Polish government requested financial contributions from a newspaper in return for a change in the law which would make it easier for that newspaper to take over television companies? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Has the Polish government requested financial contributions from a newspaper in return for a change in the law which would make it easier for that newspaper to take over television companies?

| 2. | Have the financial contributions referred to in question 1 gone to in the Polish Exchequer to be used for expenditure decided upon by the government and parliament and traceable in the government budget and final accounts for the relevant financial year, or did the funds end up in the hands of private individuals and/or organisations, details of which are not available to the public? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Have the financial contributions referred to in question 1 gone to in the Polish Exchequer to be used for expenditure decided upon by the government and parliament and traceable in the government budget and final accounts for the relevant financial year, or did the funds end up in the hands of private individuals and/or organisations, details of which are not available to the public?

| 3. | If this action was in breach of Polish law, will the matter be brought before the courts, or are the police under political pressure to restrict their investigations and inquiries, after which the case will be dropped because of lack of evidence? |
| --- | --- |

3.

If this action was in breach of Polish law, will the matter be brought before the courts, or are the police under political pressure to restrict their investigations and inquiries, after which the case will be dropped because of lack of evidence?

| 4. | Does the emphasis placed by Commissioner Verheugen in the Netherlands TV programme ‘It's a Knockout’ (KRO-Reporter) on 10 April 2003 on Poland's large population compared with the nine others States that will join the EU at the same time in 2004 mean that special priority is being given to Polish membership? Is there a possibility that this priority may result in non-compliance with the EU ‘acquis’ being treated more flexibly in the case of Poland than in the case of other States? |
| --- | --- |

4.

Does the emphasis placed by Commissioner Verheugen in the Netherlands TV programme ‘It's a Knockout’ (KRO-Reporter) on 10 April 2003 on Poland's large population compared with the nine others States that will join the EU at the same time in 2004 mean that special priority is being given to Polish membership? Is there a possibility that this priority may result in non-compliance with the EU ‘acquis’ being treated more flexibly in the case of Poland than in the case of other States?

| 5. | Will Poland be judged by the same standards as those by which the other new Member States that have complied with their obligations more fully will continue to be judged? |
| --- | --- |

5.

Will Poland be judged by the same standards as those by which the other new Member States that have complied with their obligations more fully will continue to be judged?

| 6. | On what basis does Commissioner Verheugen conclude that by the time of its accession on 1 May 2004 Poland will have completely satisfied the requirements of existing EU legislation? What guarantees are there that this will happen on time? What is the Commission doing to prevent a return to the present level of corruption after 1 May 2004? |
| --- | --- |

6.

On what basis does Commissioner Verheugen conclude that by the time of its accession on 1 May 2004 Poland will have completely satisfied the requirements of existing EU legislation? What guarantees are there that this will happen on time? What is the Commission doing to prevent a return to the present level of corruption after 1 May 2004?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(19 June 2003)

The Commission is closely monitoring the implementation of the commitments Poland has made in the accession negotiations. This is the case with regard to the amendment to the audio-visual law the Honourable Member refers to in his first question, as well as with regard to all other areas that have been subject to the negotiations with Poland.

The Commission is, however, not in a position to judge upon the ‘Rywin-gate’ corruption affair to which the first three questions refer. This affair is currently under close investigation by the Polish judicial authorities. The Public Prosecutor has concluded its work and is expected to submit the outcome to the relevant court within the next couple of days. In the meantime, the special inquiry committee of the Polish Parliament, will pursue its investigation of the affair. Whilst the Commission may regret that bribery attempts at such a scale could have taken place, it also notes the openness and determination by which it is being dealt with by the Polish authorities at this moment.

With regard to questions 4 and 5, the Commission wishes to underline that the accession negotiations as well as the monitoring of commitments with the ten Candidate Countries have been, and are being, carried out on a purely objective basis, with no more favourable treatment for any of the Candidate Countries. The same standards have applied during the negotiations and will continue to be applied in the monitoring process.

As regards the last question, the Commission concluded in its Regular Report on Poland's Progress towards accession of October 2002 (1) that Poland would be fulfilling all of the three accession criteria (political, economic and ‘acquis’ related) as from 2004 onwards. The Member States concluded that enlargement would take place on 1 May 2004 and the Commission, as explained above, is closely monitoring further progress made by all of the Candidate Countries. A Comprehensive Monitoring Report, laying down the results of this monitoring process, is scheduled to be presented to the Parliament and to the Council and made public by the beginning of November 2003. On the basis of this Report, the Commission may consider safeguard clauses in certain specific areas if such are necessary.

---

(1)  http://europa.eu.int/comm/enlargement/report2002/pl_en.pdf.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/37

---

(2004/C 78 E/0037)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1551/03

by Paulo Casaca (PSE) to the Commission

(7 May 2003)

Subject:   Labelling of products containing asbestos

Council Directive 83/478/EEC (1) of 19 September 1983 lays down special provisions making it compulsory for the labelling of products containing asbestos to warn against the dangers.

However, in Portugal some products containing asbestos, such as fibre-cement, do not carry a warning when sold to the public.

Can the Commission say what stage has been reached in the legal transposition of this directive in Portugal?

Can it explain the reason for Portugal's non-compliance?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(17 June 2003)

Council Directive 83/478/EEC of 19 September 1983 amending for the fifth time (asbestos) Directive 76/769/EEC on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States relating to restrictions on the marketing and use of certain dangerous substances and preparations was transposed into Portuguese national legislation on 14 January 1987 as ‘Decreto-Lei n. 28/87 de 14/01/1987. Limita a comercialização e a utilização do amianto e dos produtos que o contenham, Diário da República I Série n. 11 de 14/01/1987 Página 183’.

Portugal has therefore complied with the obligation to transpose the Directive into national legislation, in particular those provisions dealing with the labelling of products containing asbestos (Annex II of Directive 83/478/EEC).

It is nevertheless important to note that, apart from Annex II which is still in force today, the Annex I of Directive 83/478/EEC is no longer in force. Indeed Directive 83/478/EEC has been subsequently amended (2) or adapted (3)
   (4), by several Directives that will lead by 1 January 2005 to a total ban of all kind of asbestos fibres (except diaphragms for electrolysis installation). The placing on the market of asbestos based fibre-cement, except for that containing chrysotile, is already prohibited within the Union.

The enforcement of the provisions of Directive 83/478/EEC (labelling) and its subsequent modifications in the national legislation is primarily the responsibility of the Member State concerned. Nevertheless, the Commission has responsibility for ensuring that the provisions of the EC Treaty and the measures taken by the institutions pursuant thereto, including directives, are applied. It will, therefore, contact the Portuguese authorities in order to ensure that they take the necessary measures to enforce the Directive in question.

---

(1)  OJ L 263, 24.9.1983, p. 33.

(2)  OJ L 375, 31.12.1985; transposed into Portuguese national legislation as ‘Decreto-Lei n. 138/88 de 22.4.1988’.

(3)  OJ L 363, 31.12.1991; transposed into Portuguese national legislation as ‘Decreto-Lei n. 228/94 de 13.9.1994’.

(4)  OJ L 142, 5.6.1999; not yet transposed into Portuguese national legislation.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/38

---

(2004/C 78 E/0038)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1568/03

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(8 May 2003)

Subject:   Sharp cuts in passenger services on the Slovakian rail network as a result of secret conditions in a loan granted by the EIB in 1999

| 1. | Is the Commission aware that the European Investment Bank (EIB) granted the Slovakian government a loan of EUR 120 million in 1999 and that it only later emerged that the loan was tied to conditions imposed unilaterally by the EIB requiring stringent cuts in passenger services through the closure of 32 lines in 2002? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is the Commission aware that the European Investment Bank (EIB) granted the Slovakian government a loan of EUR 120 million in 1999 and that it only later emerged that the loan was tied to conditions imposed unilaterally by the EIB requiring stringent cuts in passenger services through the closure of 32 lines in 2002?

| 2. | Does the Commission consider it realistic that a private company will want to take over responsibility for the passenger services to be closed without additional government subsidies to compensate for the losses and ensure profitability? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Does the Commission consider it realistic that a private company will want to take over responsibility for the passenger services to be closed without additional government subsidies to compensate for the losses and ensure profitability?

| 3. | Is the Commission aware that in October 2001 the Slovakian government and the Slovakian railways ZSR not only refused to disclose the conditions of the loan to the international environmental organisation Friends of the Earth, but that the EIB, despite the announcement of its new information policy in November 2000, also refused to do so, referring to the responsibility of the other parties involved? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Is the Commission aware that in October 2001 the Slovakian government and the Slovakian railways ZSR not only refused to disclose the conditions of the loan to the international environmental organisation Friends of the Earth, but that the EIB, despite the announcement of its new information policy in November 2000, also refused to do so, referring to the responsibility of the other parties involved?

| 4. | Does the Commission consider it right that there should be secrecy surrounding the far-reaching effects on government policy of loans granted to governments by a government-owned bank? Is this consistent with the proper functioning of the parliamentary democracy that is an established standard within the EU and the openness that it requires? |
| --- | --- |

4.

Does the Commission consider it right that there should be secrecy surrounding the far-reaching effects on government policy of loans granted to governments by a government-owned bank? Is this consistent with the proper functioning of the parliamentary democracy that is an established standard within the EU and the openness that it requires?

| 5. | Are the implications of this loan consistent with the Commission's policy to promote rail transport and prevent an unnecessary shift from rail to road in the new Member States? |
| --- | --- |

5.

Are the implications of this loan consistent with the Commission's policy to promote rail transport and prevent an unnecessary shift from rail to road in the new Member States?

| 6. | What action is the Commission taking to enable future EU Member State Slovakia to maintain its public service provision in the field of passenger rail services? |
| --- | --- |

6.

What action is the Commission taking to enable future EU Member State Slovakia to maintain its public service provision in the field of passenger rail services?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(19 June 2003)

| 1. | The Commission is not aware of any allegedly secret conditions concerning the loan granted by the European Investment Bank (EIB) to the Slovak Government in 1999.
  The Commission was consulted on the proposal in accordance with Article 21 of the Bank's Statute and gave a favourable opinion on the project prior to its presentation to the Bank's Board of Directors. The Commission is also represented on the Bank's Board of Directors, which on 20 July 1999 approved a loan of EUR 200 million to Slovakia's railway company, ZSR, for the upgrading and modernisation of the Slovak railway network and the purchase of rolling stock.
  The EIB issued a press communiqué on 26 July 1999, on signature of the loan. This is posted on the Bank's website under: (http://www.eib.org/news/press/press.asp?Press=1026).
  Loan conditions are never imposed unilaterally by the EIB: in negotiating the terms of loan contracts, the EIB and potential lenders always operate as equal partners. The conditions of this loan were based on independent studies and restructuring action plans of the Slovak government that wished to urgently re-establish financial stability in the country's railway services. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The Commission is not aware of any allegedly secret conditions concerning the loan granted by the European Investment Bank (EIB) to the Slovak Government in 1999.

The Commission was consulted on the proposal in accordance with Article 21 of the Bank's Statute and gave a favourable opinion on the project prior to its presentation to the Bank's Board of Directors. The Commission is also represented on the Bank's Board of Directors, which on 20 July 1999 approved a loan of EUR 200 million to Slovakia's railway company, ZSR, for the upgrading and modernisation of the Slovak railway network and the purchase of rolling stock.

The EIB issued a press communiqué on 26 July 1999, on signature of the loan. This is posted on the Bank's website under: (http://www.eib.org/news/press/press.asp?Press=1026).

Loan conditions are never imposed unilaterally by the EIB: in negotiating the terms of loan contracts, the EIB and potential lenders always operate as equal partners. The conditions of this loan were based on independent studies and restructuring action plans of the Slovak government that wished to urgently re-establish financial stability in the country's railway services.

| 2. | In accordance with Community Directives, ZSR has been split into an infrastructure public entity (ZSR) and an operating company (ZS). The division was based on a Government resolution dated 18 October 2000 and approved by Parliament that came into effect on 1 January 2002. ZS, which is in charge of passenger services, is a joint stock company 100 % owned by the State. ZS indeed benefits from operating subsidies that are included in the annual State budget, and it would be for the Slovak Government to extend this system of subsidies to any privately operating company if the case would arise.
  The Commission is not aware of the circumstances under which the Slovak authorities intend to hand over exploitation of rail passenger services to another railway undertaking. In general, however, it can be stated that undertakings are not likely to take over services if they assess that exploitation is not feasible. |
| --- | --- |

2.

In accordance with Community Directives, ZSR has been split into an infrastructure public entity (ZSR) and an operating company (ZS). The division was based on a Government resolution dated 18 October 2000 and approved by Parliament that came into effect on 1 January 2002. ZS, which is in charge of passenger services, is a joint stock company 100 % owned by the State. ZS indeed benefits from operating subsidies that are included in the annual State budget, and it would be for the Slovak Government to extend this system of subsidies to any privately operating company if the case would arise.

The Commission is not aware of the circumstances under which the Slovak authorities intend to hand over exploitation of rail passenger services to another railway undertaking. In general, however, it can be stated that undertakings are not likely to take over services if they assess that exploitation is not feasible.

| 3. | The Commission was not aware of the allegation according to which the Slovak government and the Slovak railways ZSR decided not to disclose the conditions of the loan to the environmental organisation Friends of the Earth.
  With regard to the EIB's refusal to disclose information, the Commission understands that the Bank indeed received requests, in 1999 and 2001, from Friends of the Earth (and CEE Bankwatch) to disclose the conditions of the loan provided to ZSR and declined to do so without the agreement of the other parties to the contract. EIB considers that it has an obligation of professional secrecy towards its clients and will not disclose information that is covered by an undertaking of confidentiality. The Bank is currently considering a renewed request from Friends of the Earth (request dated 3 May 2003) and has forwarded it to the Borrower. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The Commission was not aware of the allegation according to which the Slovak government and the Slovak railways ZSR decided not to disclose the conditions of the loan to the environmental organisation Friends of the Earth.

With regard to the EIB's refusal to disclose information, the Commission understands that the Bank indeed received requests, in 1999 and 2001, from Friends of the Earth (and CEE Bankwatch) to disclose the conditions of the loan provided to ZSR and declined to do so without the agreement of the other parties to the contract. EIB considers that it has an obligation of professional secrecy towards its clients and will not disclose information that is covered by an undertaking of confidentiality. The Bank is currently considering a renewed request from Friends of the Earth (request dated 3 May 2003) and has forwarded it to the Borrower.

| 4. | As a general rule, the Commission has been requesting all acceding countries to increase transparency and access to information. The Law on Free Access to Information entered into force in Slovakia in January 2001, contributing to the improvement of transparency in public life and the fight against corruption. However, as mentioned in the 2002 Regular Report, whereas awareness among the population has increased, uniform treatment by administrative bodies of documents considered to be secret appears to remain difficult. This issue is still being monitored in the pre-accession phase in the framework of the general monitoring exercise.
  Likewise, the EIB expects borrowers to disclose information in compliance with relevant Community legislation; however, openness as regards other business-related or political considerations are left to the judgement of its borrowers. The Commission understands that the EIB would have no objection to the Borrower/Slovak Government deciding to publish the information contained in the Finance Contract signed with the Bank. |
| --- | --- |

4.

As a general rule, the Commission has been requesting all acceding countries to increase transparency and access to information. The Law on Free Access to Information entered into force in Slovakia in January 2001, contributing to the improvement of transparency in public life and the fight against corruption. However, as mentioned in the 2002 Regular Report, whereas awareness among the population has increased, uniform treatment by administrative bodies of documents considered to be secret appears to remain difficult. This issue is still being monitored in the pre-accession phase in the framework of the general monitoring exercise.

Likewise, the EIB expects borrowers to disclose information in compliance with relevant Community legislation; however, openness as regards other business-related or political considerations are left to the judgement of its borrowers. The Commission understands that the EIB would have no objection to the Borrower/Slovak Government deciding to publish the information contained in the Finance Contract signed with the Bank.

| 5. | In its White Paper on European Transport Policy for 2010: time to decide (1), the Commission formulated its aim to maintain the modal share of rail transport in 2010 at 1998 levels. In order to increase the competitiveness of the rail mode and to allow achievement of this aim, railway undertakings have to comply with the requirements of the amended Directive 91/440/EEC (2), which provides that railway undertakings be managed according to the principles which apply to commercial companies. This requirement also applies to services carried out by railway undertakings under public service contracts and obligations concluded between the railway undertaking and the authorities of a Member State.
  The loan was the Bank's first operation in the railway sector in Slovakia. The benefits of the project were to enable the rail company to increase its competitiveness with regard to road transport, in view of the sharp increase of the latter in CEECs, a Union objective, which the Bank supports throughout the Union of 25. Indeed EIB activity in support of rail projects over the last five years (EUR 16,4 billion) is higher than its support for projects in the road transport sector (EUR 13 billion). The benefits were also in line with Slovakia's Union Accession Partnership which specifically highlighted the need for upgrading, including TENs corridors and restructuring in the rail sector. |
| --- | --- |

5.

In its White Paper on European Transport Policy for 2010: time to decide (1), the Commission formulated its aim to maintain the modal share of rail transport in 2010 at 1998 levels. In order to increase the competitiveness of the rail mode and to allow achievement of this aim, railway undertakings have to comply with the requirements of the amended Directive 91/440/EEC (2), which provides that railway undertakings be managed according to the principles which apply to commercial companies. This requirement also applies to services carried out by railway undertakings under public service contracts and obligations concluded between the railway undertaking and the authorities of a Member State.

The loan was the Bank's first operation in the railway sector in Slovakia. The benefits of the project were to enable the rail company to increase its competitiveness with regard to road transport, in view of the sharp increase of the latter in CEECs, a Union objective, which the Bank supports throughout the Union of 25. Indeed EIB activity in support of rail projects over the last five years (EUR 16,4 billion) is higher than its support for projects in the road transport sector (EUR 13 billion). The benefits were also in line with Slovakia's Union Accession Partnership which specifically highlighted the need for upgrading, including TENs corridors and restructuring in the rail sector.

| 6. | Public service contracts and obligations are regulated under the amended Regulation 1191/69 (3). Slovakia has not requested a derogation for this Regulation during the accession negotiations.
  Furthermore, the Commission would like to point out that it has submitted a proposal (4) for a new Regulation on Public service contracts, which reinforces the responsibility of authorities to aim to ensure adequate and efficient public transport services for its citizens. The Regulation would also put in place arrangements for the transparent and competitive award of public service contracts, an approach that has been shown in existing Member States to lead to greater efficiency (and therefore more effective use of public finances) and higher patronage. This proposal is currently under consideration by the Council. |
| --- | --- |

6.

Public service contracts and obligations are regulated under the amended Regulation 1191/69 (3). Slovakia has not requested a derogation for this Regulation during the accession negotiations.

Furthermore, the Commission would like to point out that it has submitted a proposal (4) for a new Regulation on Public service contracts, which reinforces the responsibility of authorities to aim to ensure adequate and efficient public transport services for its citizens. The Regulation would also put in place arrangements for the transparent and competitive award of public service contracts, an approach that has been shown in existing Member States to lead to greater efficiency (and therefore more effective use of public finances) and higher patronage. This proposal is currently under consideration by the Council.

---

(1)  COM(2001) 317 final, OJ C 240 E, 28.8.2001.

(2)  Directive 91/440/EEC of 29 July 1991, OJ L 237, 24.8.1991, amended by Directive 2001/12/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2001 on the development of the Community's railways, OJ L 75, 15.3.2001.

(3)  Regulation 1191/69/EEC of the Council of 26 June 1969, OJ L 156, 28.6.1969, as amended by Council Regulation (EEC) No 1893/91 of 20 June 1991 on action by Member States concerning the obligations inherent in the concept of a public service in transport by rail, road and inland waterway, OJ L 169, 29.6.1991.

(4)  Amended proposal for a Regulation of the Parliament and of the Council on action by Member States concerning public service requirements and the award of public service contracts in passenger transport by rail, road and inland waterway, (COM(2002) 107 final - 2000/0212(COD)), OJ C 151 E, 25.6.2002.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/40 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/40

---

(2004/C 78 E/0039)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1596/03

by Regina Bastos (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(6 May 2003)

Subject:   Closure of ‘Schuh-Union’ located in Ponte de Lima, Portugal

The German shoe company Schuh-Union closed its factory in Ponte de Lima and more than 180 workers lost their jobs. Management informed staff about the definitive closure by simply putting up a notice at the entrance to the factory.

The company had drawn up a protocol guaranteeing that it would stay in Ponte de Lima for at least 20 years, but it closed down after only 12 years.

Management blamed the closure on a shortage of orders, but in actual fact the orders had been passed on to other factories in Romania and Turkey, where labour is cheaper.

In May 2002 Schuh-Union already closed the factory at Maia (Portugal) in order to relocate to Romania, depriving 460 workers of their jobs. At that time management claimed that the closure would enable the factory at Ponte de Lima to maintain its full production capacity and retain all the staff.

Nevertheless, in October 2002 Schuh-Union closed the cutting and stitching section of its Ponte de Lima factory, which immediately made 172 workers redundant.

It should be noted that 97 % of the staff are women aged between 40 and 50, who will naturally find it difficult to find other jobs, especially in a town where there are few job opportunities.

Can the Commission therefore say:

| — | whether Schuh-Union has received any Community funding; |
| --- | --- |

—

whether Schuh-Union has received any Community funding;

| — | if so, how much it received, when, and what conditions were imposed on the company? |
| --- | --- |

—

if so, how much it received, when, and what conditions were imposed on the company?

Supplementary answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(30 September 2003)

The Commission can inform the Honourable Member that Schuh-Union received no aid from the European Social Fund but did receive from the European Regional Development Fund PTE 199 431 000 (part-financing of a total cost of PTE 280 735 000) for two projects, one approved on 12 November 1992 under the PNICIAP programme and one approved on 2 March 1998 under the programme for modernisation of the economic fabric.

These aids was allocated by Portugal under aid schemes approved by the Commission. Portugal is, however, responsible for seeing that the Community rules on competition are respected and the Commission will ask her authorities to check if this has been the case in connection with the aid granted to Schuh-Union.

The location of enterprises is primarily a matter for those who head them. However, under the new regulatory provisions on Structural Fund financing for the 2000-2006 programming period, Member States are to ensure that during the five years following the decision to grant aid no substantial project modification, including no ‘change of location in a productive activity’, occurs (1). The Guidelines on national regional aid adopted by the Commission on 10 March 1998 require both capital assets financed and jobs created to be maintained for at least five years from the time at which the aided investment was made.

---

(1)  Article 30(4)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 of 21 June 1999.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/41 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/41

---

(2004/C 78 E/0040)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1670/03

by María Sornosa Martínez (PSE) to the Commission

(19 May 2003)

Subject:   Authorisation by the Commission of projects harmful to the Natura 2000 network

At the end of April the Spanish press reported the Commission's decision to authorise, for economic reasons, three projects with a serious impact on the environment. The projects are the extension of the port of Rotterdam (Holland), the exploitation of a coalmining area in North Rhineland (Germany) and the building of a new railway line in Bothnia (Sweden). Apparently, in all three cases the Community authorities acknowledged that the projects would have ‘harmful effects’ on protected areas included in the Natura 2000 network.

The decision has aroused great concern among the population and ecologists because, although the deterioration of any natural area is a serious matter, the destruction, for economic reasons, of the Natura 2000 zones which the European Union itself decided to create is even more serious.

Bearing in mind that according to the regulations governing the Community funds projects which damage protected areas or the environment in general cannot receive aid.

Can the Commission say whether it can confirm or deny the information published about the three projects referred to above?

Whether these projects receive any kind of Community funding?

Whether it can guarantee that the principle of trying to find sustainable alternatives was observed appropriately in each of the cases mentioned?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(30 July 2003)

On 24 April 2003 the Commission adopted four opinions according to Article 6 (4) of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (1) (the ‘Habitats Directive’). These opinions concern an operational master plan of the Prosper Haniel Colliery near Bottrop (North Rhine-Westfalia), a planned industrial area near Siegen/Freudenberg (North Rhine-Westfalia), the Development Plan ‘Mainport Rotterdam’ and the Bothnia Railway project from Nordmaling to Umea (Sweden).

According to article 6(4) of Directive 92/43/EEC, a plan or a project may be carried out in spite of significant negative implications for a Natura 2000 site, in the absence of alternative solutions, if it is justified for imperative reasons of overriding public interest, including those of a social or economic nature. In this case the Member States shall take all compensatory measures necessary to ensure that the overall coherence of Natura 2000 is protected. Where the affected site hosts a priority natural habitat type and/or a priority species, and if considerations relating to human health, public safety or beneficial consequences of primary importance for the environment cannot be invoked, the project can be justified, further to an opinion from the Commission, by other imperative reasons of overriding public interest.

The Commission can confirm that, for all three development projects referred to by the Honourable Member, favourable opinions were issued on 24 April 2003, stating that the respective development projects can be executed for reasons of overriding public interest on the condition that the necessary compensation measures to ensure the overall protection of the coherence of Natura 2000 shall be taken. A negative opinion was issued in relation with the planned industrial area near Trupbach/Siegen, as in this case, neither the search for alternative solutions, nor the provision of compensatory measures had been dealt with in a satisfactory way. The four Commission opinions include relevant information on the projects and their effects, as well as on the examination of possible alternative solutions and the planned compensatory measures. The Commission invites the Honourable Member to refer to the detailed text of the opinions for more details on these aspects.

In all three cases mentioned by the Honourable Member the provisions of article 6(4) of the Habitats Directive for authorising projects that may lead to a significant deterioration of a Natura 2000 site were applied and a favourable opinion was issued by the Commission. As a consequence, and insofar as other aspects of the Union's environmental legislation are respected, there is no legal obstacle from this point of view for a possible Community funding for these projects. However, so far the Commission has not received any request in this sense.

---

(1)  OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/43 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/43

---

(2004/C 78 E/0041)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1687/03

by Inger Schörling (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(21 May 2003)

Subject:   Botniabanan — Umea river delta, Sweden

As the Commission is aware, the Botniabanan railway line in Sweden threatens the Umea River Natura 2000 site, which supports a number of birds and priority habitats.

Evidence has been presented that there are viable alternatives to the west, avoiding goods transportation through Umea City, and to the east, avoiding a ‘sack solution’ in Umea City. What is the Commission's view of these alternatives?

Concerns have been expressed that the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) carried out for this project in 1998 is incomplete. Is the Commission satisfied that the EIA carried out by the Swedish authorities fulfils the requirements of Directive 85/337/EEC (1) (updated 97/11/EC (2))? In the Commission's view, does the EIA provide all the relevant information on the likely environmental impacts of the railway development, and fully evaluate the options regarding the alternative routes? Does the Commission consider the proposal to move the roosting area for 10 000 wetland birds 4km to the north of the site a scientifically sound recommendation for a compensatory measure? Does the Commission believe that the overall conclusions of the EIA are supported by scientific evidence?

How is the Commission assessing both of these issues: the alternative routes and possible problems with the EIA? Are they being considered jointly by the relevant services of the Commission? Is the Commission concerned, given the evidence of alternative routes and the possible problems with the EIA, that Sweden may be in contravention of the Directives on Habitats, Birds and EIA?

Evidence has been presented from highly competent reviewers, that the noise calculations in the city and Umeå river delta region, done by the Swedish authorities, are substantially underestimated. These calculations are far below the results of measurements of noise from hundreds of train passages made in Sweden during the 1990s. Has the Commission considered the impact of this difference of at least 15 dB (A) noise increase on the bird life of the delta?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(25 July 2003)

The Commission is aware of the issues raised by the Honourable Member. On the request of the Government of Sweden, the Commission adopted on 24 April 2003 an opinion according to Article 6(4) of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of the natural habitats as well as the wild animals and plants (3) (hereafter ‘Habitats Directive’) concerning the project.

According to Article 6(4) of the Habitats Directive, a plan or a project may be carried out in spite of significant negative implications for a Natura 2000 site, in the absence of alternative solutions, if it is justified for imperative reasons of overriding public interest, including those of a social or economic nature. In this case the Member States shall take all compensatory measures necessary to ensure that the overall coherence of Natura 2000 is protected. Where the affected site hosts a priority natural habitat type and/or a priority species, and if considerations relating to human health, public safety or beneficial consequences of primary importance for the environment cannot be invoked, the project can be justified, further to an opinion from the Commission, by other imperative reasons of overriding public interest.

In the above-mentioned opinion, the Commission has accepted the argument made by the Swedish Government that the impact of alternative routes on projected income is such that they cannot be seen as economically viable. The Commission therefore accepted the overall conclusion that the proposed route is the only viable solution.

In addition, the Commission considered that the proposed compensations are as yet not adequate to make up for the negative effects of the project on Natura 2000. The compensation package should involve the establishment of an overall management plan for the Natura 2000 sites to provide a framework for implementation of the long term targets of the compensatory measures as well as the future management of the sites. The package must also include a commitment from the Swedish Government with assurances on sufficient funding, efficient implementation, maintenance and monitoring of the compensatory measures, to ensure achievement of the targets.

As regards Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (EIA Directive) as amended by Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997, the Commission did indeed investigate whether the EIA carried out by the Swedish authorities fulfilled the requirements of the Directive. Having investigated the claim of complainants that Community law had been breached in this respect, the Commission concluded that no infringement of the EIA Directive could be identified. Regarding any further EIA on this project, it is the responsibility for the Swedish authorities to see that a complete EIA is carried out before the development consent is granted.

---

(1)  OJ L 175, 5.7.1985, p. 40.

(2)  OJ L 73, 14.3.1997, p. 5.

(3)  OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/44 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/44

---

(2004/C 78 E/0042)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1688/03

by Anders Wijkman (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(21 May 2003)

Subject:   The construction of the Ladia Galaska road in the province of Aceh, Indonesia

The Leuser Ecosystem Region in the war-torn province of Aceh, Indonesia, has a wealth of biodiversity which makes it one of the most important conservation areas in the world and which performs life support functions for the sustainable development of more than 4 million people living around it. The European Union has for many years supported conservation efforts, most recently investing in the Leuser Development Programme. The 2002 -2006 EU Country Strategy for Indonesia proposes the twin priorities of good governance and preservation and sustainable management of natural resources.

It is of severe concern that the Aceh Government wishes to construct a major road network called Ladia Galaska through the Leuser ecosystem which would lead to its eventual destruction, as it would facilitate illegal logging and the poaching of endangered species and, as experience has recently shown, lead to major flooding. The road has not gone through a fair, objective and comprehensive environmental impact assessment process and violates various environmental laws and regulations.

Although it is to be welcomed that President Megawati of Indonesia has ordered a review of the road, the struggle for the preservation of the Leuser Ecosystem is a long way from being over.

| 1. | Given the EU's investment in the region, the EU's Strategy Priorities for Indonesia and the EU's Gothenburg commitment to halting biodiversity decline, could the Commission inform us as to what action it is taking to try to prevent the construction of the Ladia Galaska roads? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Given the EU's investment in the region, the EU's Strategy Priorities for Indonesia and the EU's Gothenburg commitment to halting biodiversity decline, could the Commission inform us as to what action it is taking to try to prevent the construction of the Ladia Galaska roads?

| 2. | Given the commitment to integrating the environment into all forms of policy, could it furthermore assure us that it will not fund any infrastructure projects that risk harming the Leuser Ecosystem? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Given the commitment to integrating the environment into all forms of policy, could it furthermore assure us that it will not fund any infrastructure projects that risk harming the Leuser Ecosystem?

| 3. | And will the Commission be exercising influence on the Indonesian Government, the Aceh Provincial Government and the local district governments to make sure that relevant laws pertaining to the construction of infrastructure projects are observed? |
| --- | --- |

3.

And will the Commission be exercising influence on the Indonesian Government, the Aceh Provincial Government and the local district governments to make sure that relevant laws pertaining to the construction of infrastructure projects are observed?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(20 June 2003)

The Commission is well aware of the ecological importance of the Leuser region in Aceh and has, therefore, supported the conservation of the area through the ‘Leuser Development Programme’ (with a Community support of EUR 31 000 000).

The Commission has also promoted and supported the establishment and the self-sufficiency of the ‘Leuser International Foundation’ (LIF) as a crucial mechanism to ensure the long-term sustainable protection of the Leuser Ecosystem. The LIF was granted the right to implement the conservation management of the Leuser Ecosystem for seven years by Ministerial Decree No 227 in 1995, and this was strengthened by Presidential Decree No 33 in 1998, with the right extended to thirty years. The Community support to the Leuser International Foundation contributes to the Government's efforts to ensure that the existing protection laws aimed at conserving the Leuser Ecosystem will be duly enforced.

The Commission is aware of the environmental degradation that opening of roads and the subsequent land clearance would have on such a delicate ecosystem, as well as the potential adverse consequences on the long-term sustainable economic growth and social development which the Leuser Ecosystem supports, and the potentially damaging effect on the bio-diversity in the area.

In order to prevent an escalation of environmental damage and economic loss the ‘Leuser Development Programme’ and the LIF have been active in lobbying the Government of Aceh, the District Governments, the donor community and the central Government to rethink the road proposals and even cancel the most contentious plans.

The Commission's Delegation implemented an action plan on this topic with a series of meetings which were held with several line Ministers. The purpose of the meetings was to put forward the Community view on Ladia Galaska and to explore possible joint alternatives to the project.

In addition, considering the severe damage to the area that a land transportation network would provoke, the Commission has been supporting the construction of an airstrip in Kutacane. The Government of Aceh Tenggara considers this as an alternative for the lost benefits for not proceeding with the construction of roads through the Leuser ecosystem. The support to the construction of the airstrip in Kutacane has been based on sound pre-conditions: environmental, technical, legal and financial.

The Commission will endeavour to ensure that funds for which it is responsible are not utilised for infrastructure projects that risk to damage the Leuser Ecosystem.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/45 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/45

---

(2004/C 78 E/0043)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1726/03

by Mikko Pesälä (ELDR) to the Commission

(23 May 2003)

Subject:   Shooting noise abatement

Shooting is a widely popular sport which has very solid long-standing traditions all over the world. One problem that has arisen, however, is the resulting noise, a considerable nuisance factor in the vicinity of shooting ranges, which are often situated close to built-up areas. Shooting noise has thus become an environmental problem.

In some Member States the problem has been effectively solved, in particular by adopting the use of silencers. In Finland, for example, the use of silencers was prohibited before 1993, but the authorisation to use them has since then brought nothing but benefits. Norway's experiences have been much the same as Finland's. Sweden is at the moment amending its law along similar lines.

The use of silencers is not allowed in every Member State. As a result, new types of silencers do not come onto the internal market, and product development is also made more difficult.

Does the Commission consider that any of the factors involved in this matter are likewise hampering the operation of the internal market? Secondly, does it think that any Community action might be conducive to environmental noise abatement at shooting ranges? Is there any way in which it could encourage Member States to remove legislative obstacles to the use of silencers, citing the favourable experiences in the Nordic countries?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(23 July 2003)

The use of silencers is not subject to harmonisation at Community level. This question therefore falls directly within the scope of Articles 28 to 30 of the EC Treaty.

In this context, the Member States may adopt measures aimed at restricting the use and movement of certain products, provided that these are justified on grounds such as public order or safety. The question which arises therefore is to know whether the restrictions in some Member States, as mentioned by the Honourable Member, are covered by such grounds. As the Commission has no knowledge of the nature, scale and scope of the restrictions, it can only ask that the Honourable Member provide further details on the restrictions he mentions, and particularly on their justification.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/46 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/46

---

(2004/C 78 E/0044)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1781/03

by Claude Moraes (PSE) to the Commission

(28 May 2003)

Subject:   The EQUAL funding programme post-enlargement

Can the Commission please provide information or analysis on how the EQUAL funding programme will be affected by the enlargement of the EU in 2004?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(14 July 2003)

The table below gives the breakdown of the financial envelope for the Accession Countries for EQUAL by country, and has been prepared in full compliance with the decisions of the European Council at Copenhagen (12 and 13 December 2002).

The figures for each year have been indexed to the prices of the year in question, and the total figures for the period 2004-2006 are shown below:

| — | Cyprus: EUR1 808 504; |
| --- | --- |

—

Cyprus: EUR1 808 504;

| — | Czech Republic: EUR 32 095 830; |
| --- | --- |

—

Czech Republic: EUR 32 095 830;

| — | Estonia: EUR4 067 447; |
| --- | --- |

—

Estonia: EUR4 067 447;

| — | Hungary: EUR 30 287 325; |
| --- | --- |

—

Hungary: EUR 30 287 325;

| — | Latvia: EUR 8 024 512; |
| --- | --- |

—

Latvia: EUR 8 024 512;

| — | Lithuania: EUR 11 864 504; |
| --- | --- |

—

Lithuania: EUR 11 864 504;

| — | Malta: EUR1 240 962; |
| --- | --- |

—

Malta: EUR1 240 962;

| — | Poland: EUR 133 916 932; |
| --- | --- |

—

Poland: EUR 133 916 932;

| — | Slovakia: EUR 22 262 812; |
| --- | --- |

—

Slovakia: EUR 22 262 812;

| — | Slovenia: EUR 6 441 243. |
| --- | --- |

—

Slovenia: EUR 6 441 243.

The financial envelopes of the existing Member States will remain unchanged. The total budget available for EQUAL will, therefore, increase by EUR 252 010 071 as a result of enlargement.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/47 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/47

---

(2004/C 78 E/0045)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1817/03

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(2 June 2003)

Subject:   Air pollution

Will the Commission state the typical air pollution resulting from the emissions of a passenger vehicle, light van and goods lorry in each case while idling in a traffic queue and while running at typical cruising speeds?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(4 August 2003)

The same amount of emissions from a vehicle can cause rather different levels of air pollution depending e.g. on the weather (wind speeds, presence of an inversion layer etc), on the insolation (ozone formation) and on the topography (e.g. street canyons). This is why the Auto-Oil programme used a simulation programme, Tremove, in order to model the impacts of pollutant emissions in a number of different European cities. The proposals for emission limit values for motor vehicles that the Commission then produced were based on these calculations. It is thus not possible to define ‘typical’ levels of air pollution resulting from emissions.

The levels of emissions of air pollutants are much more readily understood than the pollution they cause, because they can be directly measured. They are thus used in the type approval procedure for motor vehicles. However, it is difficult to identify ‘typical’ cruising speeds, which is why the legislation for light-duty vehicles (cars and vans) makes reference to a drive cycle that is intended to simulate real-world driving. The emission limit values laid down in Directive 1998/69/EC (1) (in terms of grams per kilometre) are, therefore, a good indication of the air pollution produced by light-duty vehicles.

The situation is somewhat more complex for heavy-duty vehicles where the emissions are being measured not per kilometre driven but per unit of work done by the engine (grams per kilowatt-hour). The corresponding emission limit values are laid down in Directive 1999/96/EC (2). The emissions on a per-kilometre basis would differ markedly between different types of lorries, e.g. because the same kind of engines are used for very different types of heavy-duty vehicle, and because the load can vary significantly. A simulation model such as Tremove would be required to obtain values on a per-kilometre basis.

The idling state of the engine is part of the drive cycle used for the type-approval of passenger cars. The emissions while idling are thus implicitly regulated by Community type-approval legislation. However, it should be pointed out that the emissions while idling in a traffic queue are strongly influenced by the degree of congestion encountered (stop-and-go traffic) and can thus not be answered in a general manner. The Commission does not have detailed information on this topic at present.

There are many transport models that use emission factors for establishing the quantity of emissions emitted by motor vehicles at different constant road speeds and these emission factors are always in the process of update as new vehicles meeting more stringent emission standards enter the market and the data on which the emission factors are based is improved.

Taking typical emission factor data and concentrating only on diesel vehicles and the main regulated pollutants of oxides of nitrogen (NOx) and particulates, a modern diesel engined passenger car may emit 40 % less NOx and 20 % less particulate travelling at a steady 50 kilometre per hour (km/h) than at a steady 120 km/h.

A diesel engined light commercial vehicle may emit 43 % less NOx and 70 % less particulate travelling at a steady 50 km/h than at a steady 120 km/h.

A diesel engine articulated heavy-duty vehicle may emit 3 % less NOx and 12 % more particulate travelling at a steady 50 km/h than at a steady 100 km/h.

Of course, these figures can all be influenced by ambient conditions such as temperature, humidity and road gradient.

---

(1)  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, specific table p. 15.

(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, OJ L 44, 16.2.2000, specific table p. 22.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/48 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/48

---

(2004/C 78 E/0046)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1820/03

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(2 June 2003)

Subject:   Sausage meat

Is the Commission satisfied that the use of pork cheek or jowl in sausage meat is still consistent with healthy eating, particularly for children and old people, given the possible build-up of drug residues and disease in the pituitary glands?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(14 July 2003)

Definitions of ‘meat’ and ‘fresh meat’ are set down in Council Directive 64/433/EEC of 26 June 1964 on health problems affecting intra-Community trade in fresh meat (1). The terms mean that all parts of domestic swine which are suitable for human consumption and which have not undergone any treatment other than cold treatment to ensure preservation may be considered as fresh meat. The Directive prescribes ante mortem and post mortem health inspections and lists the meats that the official veterinarian declares unfit for human consumption. The use of hygienically produced pork cheek or jowl meat, in accordance with the requirements of the Directive, as raw material for the production of sausage meat is thus acceptable in principle. The term ‘sausage meat’, as such, is not defined in Council Directive 94/65/EC of 14 December 1994 laying down the requirements for the production and placing on the market of minced meat and meat preparations (2). Sausage meat must be produced in accordance with the requirements in that Directive for meat preparations.

The pituitary gland or hypophysis, being located at the base of the brain in the cranial cavity, is not harvested when cheek meat is removed.

In addition, Council Directive 96/23/EC of 29 April 1996 on measures to monitor certain substances and residues thereof in live animals and animal products (3) provides for a statistically significant surveillance in food producing animals. It also requires that Member States take measures to protect the consumers where prohibited substances or residues above the permitted limits have been found. The Commission reports on these actions on a yearly basis.

---

(1)  OJ Ρ 121, 29.7.1964.

(2)  OJ L 368, 31.12.1994.

(3)  OJ L 125, 23.5.1996.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/49 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/49

---

(2004/C 78 E/0047)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1831/03

by Stavros Xarchakos (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(2 June 2003)

Subject:   Statistics concerning poverty and unemployment in Greece

On 16 May 2003 it was announced that another Greek company, the ‘Yvonni Stores’ chain of beauty products, had failed, resulting in job losses for over 100 women. This unfortunate development follows the recent closure of the Siser-Palko factory ten days ago resulting in placing a further 500 Greek women out of work. According to Eurostat statistics (Communication 8/2003 and Press Release 43/2002) published in ‘Agence Europe’ on 10 May 2003, statistics for ‘total long-term unemployment’ and ‘total very long-term unemployment’ in Greece between 60 and 70 % higher than the Community average. The poverty risk is 21 % in Greece and Portugal, higher than in all other EU Member States.

Furthermore, ‘long-term unemployment’ and ‘very long-term unemployment’ indicators are much higher than the Community average for both men and women, unemployment among women giving particular cause for concern; the ‘long-term unemployment’ indicator being 8,7 (Community average: 3,7), while for very long-term unemployment' it is 5,1 in Greece as opposed to 2,4 in the EU as a whole. Furthermore, according to the European Community Household Panel (ECHP), the indicator for those who have been poor at least once in their life is 25,1 in Greece (EU 19,2), while the indicator for those in a permanent state of poverty in Greece is 6,5 (EU 3,8). (Information published by Agence Europe on 10 May 2003).

What view does the Commission take of the persistent and long-term unemployment in Greece, coupled with the high poverty levels? Does it have statistics regarding the number of enterprises which have closed down since 1994 in Greece? How many have transferred to countries outside the EU and what is the total number of job losses in Greece? Has the Commission made any recommendations to the Greek authorities concerning measures to contain the problem and, if so, what was their response?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(24 July 2003)

Long-term unemployment is a key structural problem in the labour market. It affects the most disadvantaged groups of the population, women and young people, and it drives individuals towards inactivity and social exclusion. The Greek employment situation, as presented in the 2002 National Action Plan for Employment, shows that although long-term unemployment in the country is declining, it continues to lie above the Union's average. In addition, the rate of long-term unemployment to the overall unemployment rate is higher than the Union's average.

The Commission's view is that long-term unemployment needs to be further reduced in order to achieve an inclusive labour market; in spite of the progress made, the employment position of disadvantaged people remains weak. This calls for better tailored policies, comprehensive approaches involving both supply and demand and a close link with the wider policies of social inclusion.

This is clearly stated in the Joint Employment Report and through the Union's recommendations addressed to Greece. The Commission's view is that the reform of the Public Employment Services (PES) and the establishment of the preventive and individualised approach (taking into account the personal characteristics of the people concerned), will be a major tool in the fight against long-term unemployment. This is also evident in the ‘Prevention and activation’ recommendation which states, ‘complete the restructuring of the public employment services and fully implement the preventive and individualised approach, in particular for women and young people; further upgrade statistical systems so that indicators on prevention and activation are available in good time and progress can be effectively monitored.’

The Greek Authorities have responded to the above recommendation, both through legislative measures to promote the reorganisation of the Greek Manpower Employment Organisation (OAED) and by setting up new Employment Promotion Centres.

Moreover, the 2001 National Action Plan against poverty and social exclusion has represented an important tool in the fight against poverty over the last two years — a process which is still ongoing in the drafting of the plan for 2003-2005. The clear link between access to the labour market and monetary poverty will be recognised in the Joint Inclusion Report 2003: for example the common list of indicators adopted at the Laeken European Council (14 and 15 December 2001) adopts several indicators relating to employment status, and includes breakdowns of poverty risk by activity status. Furthermore, statistics on poverty dynamics from the European Community Household Panel suggest that poverty reduction following re-integration into the labour market after a spell of unemployment — however short — is not easily achieved. On average, persons who are at risk of poverty in Greece have an income which falls far below the at-risk-of-poverty threshold.

The any-time at-risk-of-poverty rate (within the duration of the European Community Household Panel (ECHP) 1995-2000) is 38 % for Greece which is similar to Spain, Ireland and Italy, lower than Portugal (40 %) but higher than other Member States (EU 15 average: 30 %). This does not take into account prior lifetime exposure to poverty risk. The persistent at-risk-of-poverty measure is generally preferred to the continuous measure to avoid the ‘windfall’ situation where the incomes of persons at risk rise just above the threshold in one year but then fall back.

It is worth noting that the European Social Fund (ESF) is active in Greece in the area of employment and social inclusion and finances measures aimed at the improvement of employability and the promotion of employment for vulnerable groups, including facilitation of access to the education and health systems.

The Commission has no statistical information concerning the number of enterprises that have closed down in Greece, how many have transferred to countries outside the Union or the total number of job losses concerned. However, according to Eurostat, a slight increase in employment has been observed from 1995 to 2002, especially in the services sector.

Finally, in the framework of the Community Support Framework for Greece for the period 2000-2006, the Commission finances measures to promote entrepreneurship (incentives to start-ups, training of new entrepreneurs), and to enhance the competitiveness of Greek enterprises (actions for the technological modernisation of existing firms).

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/50 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/50

---

(2004/C 78 E/0048)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1836/03

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(3 June 2003)

Subject:   Particulates

Given the Commission's line, are there any plans to encourage the increased usage of biodiesel or exhaust filters to reduce the pollution, in particular the emission of PM10 and PM2.5 particulates, from diesel engines?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(6 August 2003)

The Commission's Communication on alternative fuels for road transportation and on a set of measures to promote the use of biofuels (1), the proposal for a Parliament and Council Directive on the promotion of the use of biofuels (2) and proposal for a Council Directive on a reduced rate of excise duty on certain mineral oils containing biofuels and on biofuels (3) is being finalised by the institutions and provides for the introduction of biofuels into the Community market.

Regarding diesel particulate filters, many test programmes have shown the benefits of using a diesel particulate filter on heavy-duty vehicles and buses for reducing not only the overall mass emission of particulate but also the very much smaller nano-particulate which are suspected of having a causal effect on human health.

The emission standards due to take effect for new heavy-duty vehicles in 2005 and a further stage of standards in 2008 through Directive 1999/96/EC (4) (the so-called Euro 4 and Euro 5 standards) will require manufacturers to consider using diesel particulate filters to meet the emission standards. The standards set performance targets that can be met by an appropriately durable technology. The diesel particulate filter may not be the best technical solution for long distance trucks but for buses and other vehicles operating in urban areas, the diesel particulate filter has a lot of merit. The Commission is now considering the Euro 6 emission standards and this will focus not only on further reductions in particulate mass (the measurement unit of today) but also on the reduction of emission of nano-particulate. New measurement procedures for nano-particulate are being finalised with this objective in mind.

Article 3 of Directive 1999/96/EC provides the mechanism for Member States to grant fiscal incentives to vehicles that meet future emission standards in advance of the date of their mandatory application. Therefore, Community measures are in place to encourage the use of diesel particulate filters in the Member States.

As far as passenger cars are concerned, in September 2002, the Commission submitted a Communication on the taxation of cars in the Union (5). In the Communication, the Commission proposed, inter alia, to relate vehicle taxation more directly to Carbon dioxide (C02) emissions. It also mentions the possibility of add-on elements to tackle other environmental objectives, e.g. those that concern air pollution such as particulates. The proposal is currently being discussed in the Institutions.

The same issue regarding nano-particulates applies to the next stage of Euro 5 emission limits for passenger cars which the Commission is also now considering.

---

(1)  COM(2001) 547 final.

(2)  OJ C 103 E, 30.4.2002.

(3)  OJ C 103 E, 30.4.2002.

(4)  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, OJ L 44, 16.2.2000.

(5)  COM(2002)431 final.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/51 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/51

---

(2004/C 78 E/0049)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1867/03

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(6 June 2003)

Subject:   Average cost of capital in the euro area

Will the Commission please estimate whether there has been a reduction in the average cost of capital in real terms to euro-zone enterprises as a result of the introduction of the euro and the consequent growth of the euro-denominated corporate bond market?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(8 July 2003)

While the Commission has monitored developments in the euro-denominated corporate bond market since 1999, the impact of these developments on the average cost of capital to euro-area enterprises has not been estimated directly. The cost of capital is the result of a range of interacting factors, both cyclical and structural, so that it is difficult to isolate the individual impact of increased access to direct debt financing in euro. Nevertheless, the availability of a larger and more liquid euro-denominated corporate bond market has widened the financing opportunities for euro-area enterprises and evidence suggests that this has resulted in lower financing costs. A recent study undertaken on behalf of the Commission (1) estimates that the rapid growth in the stock of euro-denominated corporate bonds since 1999 has reduced the corporate credit spread over the government benchmark by about 90 basis points and that — if integration and growth in the market were to continue at a similar pace — a further reduction of 40 basis points in corporate financing costs would be possible. The study also concludes that gross debt issuance costs in the euro area have already fallen significantly toward a level broadly in line with the United States. With regard to trading costs, the study notes that the secondary market for euro-denominated corporate debt is still very much in its infancy but that as the primary market grows and new, more transparent and liquid trading platforms develop, these costs are likely to fall in the future. More generally, an efficient corporate bond market — in providing an attractive alternative source of financing — can be expected to stimulate efficiency improvements in the equity market and the banking sector also.

---

(1)  See Chapter 4 of the Final Report on ‘Quantification of the Macro-Economic Impact of Integration of EU Financial Markets’ to the European Commission — Directorate-General for the Internal Market, by London Economics in association with PricewaterhouseCoopers and Oxford Economic Forecasting, November 2002, available at: http://europa.eu.int/comm/internal_market/en/finances/mobil/overview.htm.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/52 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/52

---

(2004/C 78 E/0050)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1868/03

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(6 June 2003)

Subject:   Equity culture

Will the Commission give the figures for the number of quoted companies in each Member State in each year for the last ten years? Will it also estimate the market capitalisation at the end of each year as a percentage of GDP? Will it further give the aggregate for the euro-area?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(17 July 2003)

The degree of detailed information may vary from country to country and may also vary from statistical sources on the stock markets. Sometimes, problems that can arise with provided data series where presence of gaps simply means a lack of data.

The sources of information used: World Federation of Exchanges, FESE, national institutions, Eurostat. When the data of the international organisations differ or are incomplete Eurostat turns to the data of the national institutions.

In order to increase the comparability level of the statistical information presented with other sources, a definition of the market capitalisation and of the number of listed companies are given below:

| — | The number of companies which have shares listed on a specific exchange, split into domestic and foreign, and excluding investment funds, unit trusts is sent direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat. A company with several classes of shares is counted just once. |
| --- | --- |

—

The number of companies which have shares listed on a specific exchange, split into domestic and foreign, and excluding investment funds, unit trusts is sent direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat. A company with several classes of shares is counted just once.

| — | A table with market capitalisation is sent direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat. Stock market capitalisation (end of period, in billion ECU/euro, and percentage of gross domestic product (GDP) only annual figures) is calculated by multiplying the volume of shares quoted on the stock market by their market value. The series covers common and preferred shares, and shares without voting rights. Excluded are investment funds; rights, warrants, convertible instruments; options, futures; listed foreign shares; companies whose only business goal is to hold shares of other listed companies. Euro-zone and EU-15 aggregates are the sum of the individual countries available. Since 2001, the Euronext series replace the national series of Belgium, France and the Netherlands in the calculation of the European aggregates. From 2002, onwards this is also the case for Portugal. The United States data comprises the NYSE and Nasdaq exchanges, while Japan data comprises only the Tokyo exchange. Cross-country comparisons should be treated with caution, because of different national definitions, reporting rules and calculation methods. On 22 September 2000, the stock exchanges of Brussels, Paris and Amsterdam merged to form a new stock exchange called Euronext. End 2002 the stock exchanges of Oporto and Lisbon joint also Euronext. The data of this series are consolidated. Historical series start in general in 1991 apart from the series of Portugal, Ireland and Greece. The series of the Netherlands and Portugal stop in January 2002. |
| --- | --- |

—

A table with market capitalisation is sent direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat. Stock market capitalisation (end of period, in billion ECU/euro, and percentage of gross domestic product (GDP) only annual figures) is calculated by multiplying the volume of shares quoted on the stock market by their market value. The series covers common and preferred shares, and shares without voting rights. Excluded are investment funds; rights, warrants, convertible instruments; options, futures; listed foreign shares; companies whose only business goal is to hold shares of other listed companies. Euro-zone and EU-15 aggregates are the sum of the individual countries available. Since 2001, the Euronext series replace the national series of Belgium, France and the Netherlands in the calculation of the European aggregates. From 2002, onwards this is also the case for Portugal. The United States data comprises the NYSE and Nasdaq exchanges, while Japan data comprises only the Tokyo exchange. Cross-country comparisons should be treated with caution, because of different national definitions, reporting rules and calculation methods. On 22 September 2000, the stock exchanges of Brussels, Paris and Amsterdam merged to form a new stock exchange called Euronext. End 2002 the stock exchanges of Oporto and Lisbon joint also Euronext. The data of this series are consolidated. Historical series start in general in 1991 apart from the series of Portugal, Ireland and Greece. The series of the Netherlands and Portugal stop in January 2002.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/53 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/53

---

(2004/C 78 E/0051)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1900/03

by María Sornosa Martínez (PSE) to the Commission

(6 June 2003)

Subject:   Nitrate pollution in the Valencia region

Despite the various procedures for non-compliance which the Commission has initiated and the various judgments issued by the European Court of Justice (1), Spain (and, in particular, the Valencia Regional Government) repeatedly fails to meet the standards applicable to water and nitrates.

According to data recently published by Miliarium (2), a total of 192 aquifers in various parts of the Community are still at risk of nitrate pollution, with Valencia province (with 152 ‘blackspots’) being the worst affected.

Discharges of harmful substances (mainly nitrates) originate in factories, urban-waste dumps and intensive farming practices involving excessive use of manure and fertilisers.

Since a quantity of nitrate exceeding 10 milligrammes per litre is (according to some estimates) sufficient to produce a detrimental effect on human health, Miliarium's recent measurements — according to which the 192 aquifers affected contain between 50 and 100 milligrammes per litre — are particularly worrying. In this connection, particular attention should be drawn to the disturbing measurements taken from the waters of the river Vinalopó, where the nitrate concentration has been found to exceed 100 milligrammes per litre.

Since the European Court of Justice judgments have had little effect on the attitudes of Spain's central and regional authorities in this area, and since people's health is being put at risk (whereby the right to public health as laid down in the treaties is not being upheld), what further action is the Commission intending to take in order to ensure that water-quality standards are met in the Valencia region and in Spain as a whole?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(4 August 2003)

The Commission was not aware of the data published by Miliarium and mentioned by the Honourable Member in this written question. However, this data will be fully considered in light of the information already in its possession in order to be able to verify whether the Spanish Authorities are correctly applying Council Directive 91/676/EEC of 12 December 1991 concerning the protection of waters against pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources (3).

The Honourable Member might wish to note that the Commission has already started infringement proceedings against Spain for the failure to designate a sufficient number of vulnerable zones in various Autonomous Communities, among them the Valencian Community. Within the framework of these infringement proceedings, the Commission has sent a letter of formal notice to the Spanish authorities. Their reply is currently under assessment.

In the same way, the Commission is investigating the application of the relevant dispositions of Community Law in the field of water protection by the Spanish authorities, in particular Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991, concerning urban waste-water treatment (4). Consequently, the Commission will adopt all measures necessary in order to ensure that these dispositions are properly observed.

---

(1)  Case C-214/96 for failure to comply with Directive 76/464/EEC; Case C-71/97 and Case C-274/98 for failure to comply with Directive 91/676/EEC

(2)  http://www.miliarium.com/monografías/nitratos.

(3)  OJ L 375, 31.12.1991.

(4)  OJ L 135, 30.5.1991.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/54 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/54

---

(2004/C 78 E/0052)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1906/03

by Stavros Xarchakos (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(11 June 2003)

Subject:   Credibility of televoting and its cost to the European public

In recent years, the use of ‘televoting’ has become widespread, giving viewers the impression that they are directly taking part in events on the screen.

Recently (24 May 2003), something similar also occurred in the Eurovision Song Contest where — supposedly — European viewers voted for the ‘best song’. ‘Voting’ took place using dedicated lines and text messaging and lasted a total of only five minutes. The results — supposedly again — gave Turkey first place, while the Greek and Cypriot press described as extremely strange the totally unexpected high number of votes which Cyprus gave Turkey via — again supposedly — televoting. However, no details were announced of how many had ‘voted’ in each country and what independent authority had verified the reliability of the ‘voting’. Furthermore, telephone ‘voting’ and text messaging are generally very expensive services, costing in Greece on the evening of the contest up to almost EUR 0,50 (before VAT) per call or message.

Is there any Community legislation covering televoting, the method of checking the reliability of the results and the charge to each consumer using this service? Does the Commission consider, in general, that televoting is credible?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(4 August 2003)

There is no Community instrument regulating voting procedures used in connection with broadcast programmes. The Commission has no information about the reliability of SMS services for the purpose of televoting. It would be up to the organiser of the vote to ensure that the reliability of the method is commensurate with the interests at stake. The price of SMS messages is determined by the market, subject to any national obligations requiring service providers to give users prior information about the applicable tariffs.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/55 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/55

---

(2004/C 78 E/0053)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1910/03

by Margrietus van den Berg (PSE) to the Commission

(12 June 2003)

Subject:   Underground storage of nuclear waste

On 6 November 2002 the Commission published a communication to Parliament and the Council entitled ‘Nuclear safety in the European Union’ (1). In it the Commission says that underground storage of nuclear waste is the safest solution. The Member States are required to have identified underground storage locations by 2008 and to have brought them into operation by 2018.

The Commission also says that storage must take place in geologically stable rock formations but the nuclear waste must be retrievable. In the case of underground storage in salt domes in Groningen and Drenthe in the Netherlands this is impossible because the clay and salt deposits in the Netherlands are not in geologically stable rock formations as referred to the communication.

On 12 May 2003 State-Secretary Van Geel gave a reaction to these proposals, on behalf of the Netherlands Cabinet, in a letter to the Second Chamber saying that there was no question of underground storage in the Netherlands over the next hundred years. He also said that the deadlines for implementing the proposals were unrealistic.

What is the Commission's reaction to the various points raised in State-Secretary Van Geel's letter, including the statement that there is no question of underground storage in the Netherlands in the next 100 years?

Can the Commission indicate how it intends to deal with salt and clay formations that do not have the geological structure referred to in the communication, such as the salt domes in Groningen and Drenthe?

Is the Commission prepared to revise its proposals?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(23 July 2003)

The PAGIS study conducted within the Community Research Framework Programme showed the widespread distribution of suitable host rock formations throughout the Union. These are specifically clay, salt and crystalline rocks. The PAGIS study specifically mentioned the existence of potentially suitable salt formations in the Netherlands.

Concerning retrievability, as geological disposal is based on the ‘concentrate and contain’ strategy, the packages containing the radioactive waste could, under normal conditions, be retrievable for many years after emplacement of the waste in repositories in geological formations.

The Commission considers that the current proposal for a Council Directive (Euratom) on the management of spent nuclear fuel and radioactive waste (2) already offer significant flexibility to allow for differences between Member States. The Commission has made it clear that it is ready to continue the discussions on its proposals with the Member States in the Council to see if such flexibility might be further enhanced.

---

(1)  COM(2002) 605 final.

(2)  COM(2003) 32 final.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/56 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/56

---

(2004/C 78 E/0054)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1927/03

by Jules Maaten (ELDR) to the Commission

(13 June 2003)

Subject:   Bovine and porcine protein in chicken

| 1. | Is the Commission aware of the BBC's Panorama programme of 22 May 2003 which reported that Dutch chicken contained protein from beef and pork, although this was not indicated on the label? It was also claimed that Dutch companies were using proteins which could no longer be traced by such bodies as the Food and Veterinary Office. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is the Commission aware of the BBC's Panorama programme of 22 May 2003 which reported that Dutch chicken contained protein from beef and pork, although this was not indicated on the label? It was also claimed that Dutch companies were using proteins which could no longer be traced by such bodies as the Food and Veterinary Office.

| 2. | Is the Commission aware of these practices? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Is the Commission aware of these practices?

| 3. | Are such practices acceptable and safe for consumers? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Are such practices acceptable and safe for consumers?

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/56 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/56

---

(2004/C 78 E/0055)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1955/03

by Baroness Sarah Ludford (ELDR) to the Commission

(13 June 2003)

Subject:   Processing of chicken intended for human consumption

The BBC TV programme ‘Panorama’ in the UK recently highlighted a common practice in the food industry of using protein derived from pork and beef as an additive to chicken fillets in order to increase the amount of water that the meat can hold and, hence, the weight.

Much of this product is supplied to the catering industry, so there is little or no information available to consumers. Will the Commission undertake to ban this practice, which amounts to consumer fraud and an infringement of consumers' right to choose what they eat?

Joint answer

to Written Questions E-1927/03 and E-1955/03

given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(28 July 2003)

The Commission is aware of the programme made by the BBC and broadcast on 22 May 2003, and of the results of the tests carried out by the UK and Irish authorities and published on 12 March 2003 (1) relating to chicken-fillet-based products made in the Netherlands and intended for catering outlets.

The practices investigated are intended to increase the amount of water in the end product by adding water-retaining ingredients such as salts, polyphosphates and proteins (caseins, protein hydrolysates).

As the Commission stated in its answers to Written Questions E-2418/02 from Ms Jackson (2) and E-2331/02 from Ms Corby (3) on the same subject, it is not illegal to process meat in this way, as long as hygiene and food safety rules are respected and the buyer is clearly informed of the real nature of the product. With regard to the latter point, the Commission has proposed, in the context of the work of its Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health, a new measure making it obligatory to mention the presence of added water in a product's trade name.

With regard to the difficulty of ensuring the traceability of the proteins used, according to the BBC programme it was impossible to detect the DNA of the proteins used and therefore to identify the species of animal from which they were derived. The Commission will be looking at the procedure with experts from the Member States.

However, it should be emphasised at this stage that DNA detection does not, in itself, constitute traceability, but rather an a posteriori traceability tool. Other measures, in particular documentary checks, are needed in order to trace back a product.

With regard to the labelling of these meat products, current EU legislation (4) requires the use of a trade name and list of ingredients that do not mislead the buyer and requires the amount of the characteristic ingredient of the food (in this case meat) to be stated.

This legislation applies to foods intended to be supplied as they are to the end consumer, i.e. foods sold packaged or not, self-service or take-away. Dishes served in restaurants are not covered, although, as the legislation also applies to foodstuffs supplied to restaurants, the latter should be able to provide any information requested on the ingredients and characteristics of these products.

---

(1)  http://www.foodstandards.gov.uk/news/pressreleases/chickenwater0303 http://www.fsai.ie/press_releases/120303.htm.

(2)  OJ C 28 E, 6.2.2003, p. 234.

(3)  OJ C 52 E, 6.3.2003, p. 152.

(4)  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.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/57 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/57

---

(2004/C 78 E/0056)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1937/03

by Mihail Papayannakis (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(13 June 2003)

Subject:   Corinth-Patras railway link

Various local organisations have complained that no account has been taken of the special regional planning study on the Gulf of Corinth funded by the EU's Envireg programme in the construction of the new rail link between Corinth and Patras. Furthermore, the method generally adopted in such cases, namely the construction of tunnels and viaducts at a distance from the coast and built-up areas, has been completely ignored. Given that the construction of railways is a project of key importance for the region as a whole, would the Commission examine whether this project is being carried out in the most appropriate manner, so as to cause least damage to the environment?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(29 July 2003)

The responsibility for the design and implementation of major infrastructure projects, such as the construction of a new railway, lies with the authorities in the Member State in accordance with the principles of decentralised management that apply to the Structural Funds. It is for these authorities to determine an appropriate balance between economic, societal and environmental considerations, and to ensure respect for regulatory requirements.

As concerns the railway Korinthos-Patras, the application submitted by the Greek authorities for European co-funding met all the required conditions, including those relating to environmental terms and conditions.

The study to which the Honourable Member refers dates back to the early nineties. It did not give rise to a legally binding spatial planning framework for the area covered by it, nor did it concern specifically the track design of the railway.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/58 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/58

---

(2004/C 78 E/0057)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1946/03

by Camilo Nogueira Román (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(13 June 2003)

Subject:   Investigations into subsidies paid by Spain to the Izar company and resumption of construction work on merchant vessels at the Izar-Fene shipyards in Galicia

To what extent can the investigations undertaken by the Commission into alleged payments of subsidies by the Spanish Government to the Izar group affect the legitimate complaints relating to resumption of construction work on merchant vessels at the Izar-Fene — formerly Astano — shipyards in Galicia?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(14 August 2003)

The Commission does not see any direct link between the investigation of possible subsidies paid by the Spanish Government to the IZAR group and the prohibition of Fene shipyard to construct merchant ships.

The investigation of possible subsidies to IZAR is part of a state aid investigation covering the years after 2000. The prohibition of Fene shipyard to construct merchant ships was decided by the Commission (1) in 1997 as a condition for state aid supporting a major restructuring of the public Spanish shipyards. Therefore, even though Fene shipyard is part of the group of public Spanish shipyards, the two issues are not directly linked.

---

(1)  OJ C 354, 21.11.1997.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/58 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/58

---

(2004/C 78 E/0058)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1951/03

by Giacomo Santini (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(5 June 2003)

Subject:   Provisions banning traffic in Austria

The President of the Tyrolean regional government, Herwig van Staa, recently issued an astonishing ban on the circulation of motor vehicles weighing more than 7,5 tonnes on a section of motorway between Kundl and Ampass in Tyrol, in accordance with the following provisions:

| — | from 1 June this year the ban on night traffic, which was in force during the winter, will be reintroduced; |
| --- | --- |

—

from 1 June this year the ban on night traffic, which was in force during the winter, will be reintroduced;

| — | furthermore, from 1 August there will be a 24-hours-a-day ban on vehicles in certain sectors: waste, scrap metal, cereals, timber, minerals, motor vehicles, steel and stone; |
| --- | --- |

—

furthermore, from 1 August there will be a 24-hours-a-day ban on vehicles in certain sectors: waste, scrap metal, cereals, timber, minerals, motor vehicles, steel and stone;

| — | the ban will also affect the mining and transport of porphyry, which in the Alpine region is the sole and irreplaceable source of income for thousands of families and hundreds of SMEs, which would suffer incalculable damage. |
| --- | --- |

—

the ban will also affect the mining and transport of porphyry, which in the Alpine region is the sole and irreplaceable source of income for thousands of families and hundreds of SMEs, which would suffer incalculable damage.

Whilst one can understand the Tyrolean authorities' reasons for the ban, it is only fair to remind them that solutions of this kind contravene the provisions of the Treaty, in that they restrict the free movement of goods within the single market. It is unacceptable that regional authorities should be allowed to compromise a great deal of work which has already been done by adopting unilateral decisions outside the sphere of Community rules.

Furthermore, in view of the fact that the long-standing problem of eco-points applied unilaterally by Austria has been challenged by all the other Member States and is going to be abolished as a result of European Parliament pressure, can the Commission say:

| 1. | whether it does not consider, once again, that the Austrian Government and the Tyrolean regional government are contravening the EU Treaty as regards rules concerning the free movement of goods and persons; |
| --- | --- |

1.

whether it does not consider, once again, that the Austrian Government and the Tyrolean regional government are contravening the EU Treaty as regards rules concerning the free movement of goods and persons;

| 2. | what steps it intends to take to ensure the withdrawal of these unilateral decisions, which do not correspond to Community law; |
| --- | --- |

2.

what steps it intends to take to ensure the withdrawal of these unilateral decisions, which do not correspond to Community law;

| 3. | whether it does not consider that these repeated violations of the Treaty should be brought before the Court of Justice in Luxembourg? |
| --- | --- |

3.

whether it does not consider that these repeated violations of the Treaty should be brought before the Court of Justice in Luxembourg?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(8 August 2003)

The Commission services have looked into the ban on heavy goods vehicles carrying certain types of goods on a section of the A 12 motorway between the Inntal and the Tyrol, as per the order adopted on 27 May by the Governor of the Tyrol. In the light of the explanations given by the Austrian authorities, the Commission decided, on 24 June 2003, to instigate infringement proceedings against Austria on the grounds that the traffic ban entering into force on 1 August 2003 represents a restriction upon the freedom to provide road haulage services and an obstacle to the free movement of goods. In addition, the measure seems excessive given its declared objective of improving ambient air quality. On 23 July 2003 the Commission decided to refer the matter to the Court of Justice with a request for an injunction. On 30 July 2003, the President of the Court of Justice issued an order to the effect that Austria should cease to apply the legislation challenged by the Commission pending a ruling in the above proceedings.

The Commission is currently examining the proposal to extend the ban on night traffic to the whole year to see whether it is compatible with Community law. It will decide in due course whether this too is a matter for infringement proceedings.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/59 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/59

---

(2004/C 78 E/0059)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1953/03

by Lissy Gröner (PSE) to the Commission

(13 June 2003)

Subject:   Unused EU funding in Bavaria totalling EUR 17 million for 2002

The German Bundesland Bavaria was unable to commit funding of EUR 17 million from the rural development programme, provided under the 2002 EU budget, and returned it to Brussels.

| 1. | Has funding from the European Social Fund also been returned by Bavaria? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Has funding from the European Social Fund also been returned by Bavaria?

| 2. | What are the sums involved? |
| --- | --- |

2.

What are the sums involved?

| 3. | What areas of assistance are affected? |
| --- | --- |

3.

What areas of assistance are affected?

| 4. | Does the Commission have a summary of current projects under other Community programmes, such as Leader+? |
| --- | --- |

4.

Does the Commission have a summary of current projects under other Community programmes, such as Leader+?

| 5. | What projects funded by these programmes are there for Bavaria? |
| --- | --- |

5.

What projects funded by these programmes are there for Bavaria?

| 6. | Does the Commission have a summary of assistance provided under other Community programmes and projects, such as Daphne, or training programmes? |
| --- | --- |

6.

Does the Commission have a summary of assistance provided under other Community programmes and projects, such as Daphne, or training programmes?

| 7. | What projects are affected and what is the level of assistance? |
| --- | --- |

7.

What projects are affected and what is the level of assistance?

| 8. | What cross-border projects are in progress involving Bavaria and the Czech Republic? |
| --- | --- |

8.

What cross-border projects are in progress involving Bavaria and the Czech Republic?

Supplementary answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(1 October 2003)

| 1. to 3. | No funding from the European Social Fund has to be returned by Bavaria. All commitments for the year 2000 have been used. |
| --- | --- |

1. to 3.

No funding from the European Social Fund has to be returned by Bavaria. All commitments for the year 2000 have been used.

| 4. and 5. | In the framework of the Community initiative Leader+ the Commission is not involved in the selection and the approval of projects. It is the task of the Leader action group to select and implement projects according to their concept and the relevant legislative framework. There are no reporting obligations for Member States on project level. |
| --- | --- |

4. and 5.

In the framework of the Community initiative Leader+ the Commission is not involved in the selection and the approval of projects. It is the task of the Leader action group to select and implement projects according to their concept and the relevant legislative framework. There are no reporting obligations for Member States on project level.

| 6. and 7. | A list with German associations receiving aid from Daphne is sent direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat.
  In the framework of education, the funds are not allocated to a certain region. For the interventions in the part mobility of the educational programmes, the funds are at the disposal of the Member States participating in the programmes and administrated in a decentralised manner. For the interventions regarding other parts of these programmes, the allocation of aid follows a call for proposals and depends on the results of the selection.
  In the framework of the programmes Socrates, Leonardo da Vinci and youth the total amount of aid allocated in 2002 for projects where the promoter has its residence in Bavaria amounts to EUR 2,9 million. This amount does not include the mobility grants handed out to beneficiaries from Bavaria by national agencies in charge of funds for decentralised programmes in Germany. |
| --- | --- |

6. and 7.

A list with German associations receiving aid from Daphne is sent direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat.

In the framework of education, the funds are not allocated to a certain region. For the interventions in the part mobility of the educational programmes, the funds are at the disposal of the Member States participating in the programmes and administrated in a decentralised manner. For the interventions regarding other parts of these programmes, the allocation of aid follows a call for proposals and depends on the results of the selection.

In the framework of the programmes Socrates, Leonardo da Vinci and youth the total amount of aid allocated in 2002 for projects where the promoter has its residence in Bavaria amounts to EUR 2,9 million. This amount does not include the mobility grants handed out to beneficiaries from Bavaria by national agencies in charge of funds for decentralised programmes in Germany.

| 8. | A list of projects regarding cross-border projects in progress involving Bavaria and Czech Republic is sent direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat. |
| --- | --- |

8.

A list of projects regarding cross-border projects in progress involving Bavaria and Czech Republic is sent direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/60 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/60

---

(2004/C 78 E/0060)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1961/03

by Alexander de Roo (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(5 June 2003)

Subject:   Ispra meeting to discuss the Spanish National Hydrological Plan

Further to Question No 39 by Alexander de Roo (H-0211/03), answered by the European Commission during Question Time on 8 April 2003, can the Commission give further details of the proposed meeting in Ispra with technical and scientific experts to discuss the Spanish National Hydrological Plan?

When will this meeting take place?

Which technical and scientific experts will be involved?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(24 July 2003)

With regard to the expert meeting to discuss certain aspects of the proposed Ebro transfer, the Commission at the moment is planning to hold the meeting in September 2003 at a date to be finalised.

The Commission expects that objective and expert knowledge should be made available to this meeting.

Within this framework, the Commission invites the Spanish Authorities to send appropriate technical experts to the meeting. Invitations are also extended to the European Environmental Bureau (EEB), World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) (Brussels), WWF (Spain), and Foundation for a New Water Culture, Platform for the Defence of the Ebro and the Region of Aragon.

All participants in the meeting will be expected to have an appropriate technical background and a detailed knowledge of the Ebro river and its delta.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/61 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/61

---

(2004/C 78 E/0061)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1970/03

by Proinsias De Rossa (PSE) to the Commission

(13 June 2003)

Subject:   Recycling charges for household goods

What is the Commission's view of the charge that some, but not all, local authorities and private waste management companies in Ireland impose on citizens for returning household goods (e.g. radios, hairdryers, kettles, etc.) for recycling? Does the Commission believe that these charges are compatible with the recycling aims of EU waste management policies and with the WEEE Directive, which has to be implemented by August 2004? Would the Commission agree that such charges represent a disincentive to citizens to return goods for recycling?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(25 July 2003)

The Commission is aware that charging consumers at the point of return may have negative repercussions on the collection results for waste electrical and electronic equipment (1). This is the reason for the free take back obligation for household equipment in Article 5 (2a) of Directive 2002/96/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 27 January 2003, on waste electrical and electrical equipment (WEEE) (2). This Article provides that ‘for WEEE from private households, Member States shall ensure that by 13 August 2005, systems are set up allowing final holders and distributors to return such waste at least free of charge’.

However, until that date there is no Community legislation that would forbid charges on citizens for returning household electrical and electronic equipment.

---

(1)  OJ C 365 E, 19.12.2000.

(2)  OJ L 37, 13.2.2003.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/61 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/61

---

(2004/C 78 E/0062)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1971/03

by Cristiana Muscardini (UEN) to the Commission

(13 June 2003)

Subject:   Flying ultralight aircraft

Pleasure and sports flights on board ultralight aircraft are apparently governed by specific regulations in all EU Member States. Under the Italian regulations, pilots of such aircraft may be given the green light to fly without being required to show their ‘flight plan’, unlike pilots of standard flights. At present most states accept that such flights may even cross borders; however, the Italian authorities have recently stated that they are not prepared to recognise a German ‘green light’ given to flights over Italian territory because the relevant documents are not identical in the two countries.

Even though the equivalence of such documents is a matter falling within the jurisdiction of the Member States, does the Commission not consider that the governments of the Member states should be asked to harmonise their regulations on procedures and the documents required for authorisation to fly such aircraft, in particular since such harmonisation would remove an obstacle to the exercise of a sporting activity which is very popular among young people?

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(24 July 2003)

The Commission welcomes all efforts to remove obstacles to free movement in general and to the exercise of a sporting activity in particular.

However, on the basis of the information given, the Commission cannot give a precise reply to the question asked, namely how Community law could be involved in this case, because the rules to which the Honourable Member refers do not seem to be based on discrimination on grounds of nationality.

The Honourable Member is requested to bear in mind that the Community is not competent to deal with the question of harmonisation between the Member States of regulations on the procedures and documents required for authorisations to fly ultra-light aircraft.

The problems of harmonisation of such documents therefore lie solely within the competence of the Member States.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/62 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/62

---

(2004/C 78 E/0063)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1986/03

by Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(16 June 2003)

Subject:   Atmospheric pollution in Athens and Thessaloniki

According to Greek press reports at the beginning of June 2003, research was recently carried out on behalf of the Commission into levels of harmful microparticles in the air in 19 European cities. These publications show that Athens and Thessaloniki have the highest levels of tropospheric ozone or benzene, namely up to 2,6 times the permitted levels laid down in Community environmental legislation. In particular, while the highest permitted levels of this specific pollutant in the EU are 48 μg/m3, in these two cities they are as high as 125 μg/m3. Moreover, the Ministry for the Environment, Regional Planning and Public Works, the ministry responsible, admits that suspended particles really do pose a problem, especially in view of the targets set out in the Kyoto Protocol for 2005.

Will the Commission say:

| 1. | What are the basic conclusions of this specific research regarding this type of pollution in Athens and Thessalonki? |
| --- | --- |

1.

What are the basic conclusions of this specific research regarding this type of pollution in Athens and Thessalonki?

| 2. | What proportion of overall environmental pollution in Athens and Thessaloniki is accounted for by this pollutant? |
| --- | --- |

2.

What proportion of overall environmental pollution in Athens and Thessaloniki is accounted for by this pollutant?

| 3. | Has the Commission so far made any recommendations to the Greek authorities to limit this pollutant and, if so, what measures has the Greek government taken to implement them? If no recommendations have been made to the Greek government, does the Commission consider that competent Greek authorities could have taken preventive measures in respect of the pollutant in question on their own initiative? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Has the Commission so far made any recommendations to the Greek authorities to limit this pollutant and, if so, what measures has the Greek government taken to implement them? If no recommendations have been made to the Greek government, does the Commission consider that competent Greek authorities could have taken preventive measures in respect of the pollutant in question on their own initiative?

| 4. | What are the permissible levels for emissions of the pollutant in question in the Kyoto Protocol and what stage has Greece reached in preparing to meet these obligations? |
| --- | --- |

4.

What are the permissible levels for emissions of the pollutant in question in the Kyoto Protocol and what stage has Greece reached in preparing to meet these obligations?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(17 July 2003)

Judging from a similar Written Question (E-3254/02 by the Honourable Member) (1) sent to the Commission in November 2002, it appears that the research project referred to here is the European Aerosol Research Lidar Network (Earlinet). A basic conclusion of this project is that it is possible to develop an infrastructure for setting up a European-wide network of LIDAR systems to study the vertical distribution of aerosols. Since measurements were not carried out continuously throughout the year there is a need for caution in drawing other conclusions. In particular online monitoring of ground level particle concentrations was not in the scope of the project.

Airborne suspended particulate matter (PM) has to be considered as one of the key pollutants affecting human health. Based on reports officially submitted to the Commission under the provisions of current Community legislation, annual concentrations of PM10 (i.e. particles with a diameter less that 10 micrometer (μm) in Athens and Thessaloniki are in the range of 50-70 micrograms per cubic meter (μg/m3) thus clearly exceeding the limit value (plus margin of tolerance) of 46 μg/m3 for the year 2003. Therefore it certainly represents a major fraction of the overall air pollution, as is the case in other large European cities. However, other air pollutants like ozone, benzene, nitrogen oxides or sulphur dioxide are also important.

Current Community legislation on air quality (Air Quality Framework Directive (1996/62/EC (2)) and accompanying Daughter Directives (1999/30/EC (3), 2000/69/EC (4), 2002/3/EC (5))) sets out limit values for specific pollutants (including PM10) to be reached by certain attainment dates (2005 for PM10). In the case of exceedance of the limit value plus a defined margin of tolerance (which decreases yearly reaching zero at the attainment date), Member States are obliged to submit plans and programmes to demonstrate how the limit value can be reached. These are due for the first time by the end of 2003. It is Member States' responsibility to take appropriate measures to reduce the air pollution. These can differ between Member States. The Commission does not give specific recommendations on how the limit values are to be reached in individual cases.

While particles do influence the radiation balance through their specific absorption and light scattering characteristics they are not regarded as a major cause of climate change. Consequently they are not amongst the substances covered by the Kyoto Protocol.

---

(1)  OJ C 155 E, 3.7.2003, p. 119.

(2)  Council Directive 96/62/EC of 27 September 1996 on ambient air quality assessment and management, OJ L 296, 21.11.1996.

(3)  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, OJ L 163, 29.6.1999.

(4)  Directive 2000/69/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 16 November 2000 relating to limit values for benzene and carbon monoxide in ambient air, OJ L 313, 13.12.2000.

(5)  Directive 2002/3/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 12 February 2002 relating to ozone in ambient air, OJ L 67, 9.3.2002.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/63 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/63

---

(2004/C 78 E/0064)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1987/03

by Piia-Noora Kauppi (PPE-DE) and Per-Arne Arvidsson (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(16 June 2003)

Subject:   Nuclear safety principles applied to the EU accession countries

We refer to the proposal for a Council Directive setting out basic obligations and general principles concerning the safety of nuclear installations (1). The Directive proposes common safety standards and verification mechanisms to guarantee the application of common methods and criteria with regard to nuclear safety throughout the enlarged EU. The Directive is based on the Nuclear Safety Convention concluded under the auspices of the IAEA and lays down a precise legal framework for the nuclear safety system.

Given the forthcoming harmonization of safety rules and practices in connection with the IAEA safety system, and having regard to the view of the European Parliament as expressed in a resolution on the accession process adopted in June 2002 concerning the open-minded approach that should be adopted to the future of the two nuclear units 3 and 4 at Kozloduy in Bulgaria, and taking account of the observations and recommendations of the IAEA inspectors, could the Commission specify how account is being taken of the view of the European Parliament and the IAEA assessments at the accession talks with Bulgaria?

Given the substantial upgrading which has been done to Kozloduy Units 3 and 4 in the period 1991-2002, which, according to the IAEA Safety Review Mission conducted in June 2002, has addressed all the original safety concerns and has brought the units into line with the IAEA nuclear safety standards, considering, furthermore, the existence of an independent and professionally staffed nuclear regulator in Bulgaria, and noting the Union's demand for an early closure of these reactors in the context of the Accession Conference negotiations on the energy chapter, could the Commission explain how it intends to apply the principles of the Convention on Nuclear Safety to the solution of Kozloduy 3 and 4 issue?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(24 July 2003)

With regard to the current state of the accession negotiations on the issue of nuclear safety in units 3 and 4 of the Kozloduy power station, the Commission would remind the Honourable Members that, in the framework of the Accession Conference, Chapter 14 (Energy) was provisionally closed with Bulgaria on 18 November 2002. The terms of the agreement between the Member States and Bulgaria on nuclear safety, in particular as regards units 3 and 4 of the Kozloduy power station, are set out in the EU common position. The Bulgarian Government has undertaken to close units 3 and 4 of the Kozloduy power station in 2006. As regards the peer review under the auspices of the Council, the European Union will send an expert mission to Bulgaria as soon as possible, before the conclusion of the accession negotiations. The EU also notes Bulgaria's expectation that the Community will continue to provide financial assistance (linked to the consequences of the early closure of certain units of the Kozloduy power station) and is willing to consider this matter.

The Commission considers that the questions raised by the Honourable Members concerning units 3 and 4 of the Kozloduy power station must be understood and reassessed in this framework. With regard to period prior to the abovementioned agreement, the Commission would refer the Honourable Members to the answers it gave at the time, notably that to Written Question E-3164/02 from Mr Matikainen-Kallström et Mr Rovsing (2).

The Commission would point out that, like all the other nuclear installations in the candidate countries, units 3 and 4 of the Kozloduy power station were evaluated by the Working Party on Nuclear Safety (WPNS) under the auspices of the Council. The evaluation gave rise to recommendations, and the WPNS monitored the implementation of those recommendations in the first half of 2002. The WPNS considered that the implementation of five recommendations required further close monitoring, and in its reports of June 2001 and 2002 it stressed that the improvements made to units 3 and 4 should be understood in the context of the units being closed in 2006.

---

(1)  COM(2003) 32 final.

(2)  OJ C 11 E, 15.1.2004, p. 30.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/65 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/65

---

(2004/C 78 E/0065)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1991/03

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(16 June 2003)

Subject:   Shedding of light on the circumstances relating to the organisation of the Commission that contributed to the death of Commission official Quatraro in 1993, and the secrecy surrounding the events

| 1. | Has an administrative report and/or an UCLAF report ever been published that clearly establishes the responsibility of the then Commission official Antonio Quatraro for fraud in connection with the EU's tobacco policy? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Has an administrative report and/or an UCLAF report ever been published that clearly establishes the responsibility of the then Commission official Antonio Quatraro for fraud in connection with the EU's tobacco policy?

| 2. | What does the Commission know of a network, referred to in connection with this matter by Robert Dougal Watts, of persons within the EU institutions alleged to be involved in secretly diverting EU funds and pursuing their own gain? |
| --- | --- |

2.

What does the Commission know of a network, referred to in connection with this matter by Robert Dougal Watts, of persons within the EU institutions alleged to be involved in secretly diverting EU funds and pursuing their own gain?

| 3. | Could the Commission provide me with reports prepared by it on this matter, including the report written by Mr Hans-Helmut Wachter? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Could the Commission provide me with reports prepared by it on this matter, including the report written by Mr Hans-Helmut Wachter?

| 4. | What did the Commission do to assist the Belgian police in establishing the causes of the death of Mr Quatraro in 1993? |
| --- | --- |

4.

What did the Commission do to assist the Belgian police in establishing the causes of the death of Mr Quatraro in 1993?

| 5. | Did the Commission allow, or refuse, the Belgian police access to Mr Quatraro's office? |
| --- | --- |

5.

Did the Commission allow, or refuse, the Belgian police access to Mr Quatraro's office?

| 6. | Did the Commission allow the Belgian police to interview the last Commission officials to have seen Mr Quatraro? |
| --- | --- |

6.

Did the Commission allow the Belgian police to interview the last Commission officials to have seen Mr Quatraro?

| 7. | If not, what steps has the Commission taken to clarify the circumstances surrounding Mr Quatraro's death? |
| --- | --- |

7.

If not, what steps has the Commission taken to clarify the circumstances surrounding Mr Quatraro's death?

| 8. | Has the Commission encountered opposition in seeking to establish the truth? |
| --- | --- |

8.

Has the Commission encountered opposition in seeking to establish the truth?

| 9. | What guarantees does the Commission have that the problems arising in connection with Mr Quatraro's work ten years ago can no longer occur today? |
| --- | --- |

9.

What guarantees does the Commission have that the problems arising in connection with Mr Quatraro's work ten years ago can no longer occur today?

| 10. | What additional measures does the Commission intend to take in connection with this matter? |
| --- | --- |

10.

What additional measures does the Commission intend to take in connection with this matter?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(12 August 2003)

| 1. | An administrative enquiry report of Spring 1991 provided some grounds for suspecting the official concerned of malpractice. However, the available evidence was not considered to be substantial enough to justify immediate action. As a result, it was decided to initiate disciplinary proceedings in order to formally examine the compatibility of the activities of the person concerned with his duties as a Commission official. This procedure was abandoned following the death of the official concerned on 30 March 1993. |
| --- | --- |

1.

An administrative enquiry report of Spring 1991 provided some grounds for suspecting the official concerned of malpractice. However, the available evidence was not considered to be substantial enough to justify immediate action. As a result, it was decided to initiate disciplinary proceedings in order to formally examine the compatibility of the activities of the person concerned with his duties as a Commission official. This procedure was abandoned following the death of the official concerned on 30 March 1993.

| 2. | The European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) has found no elements of fact to substantiate the allegations referred to in the Honourable Member's question. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) has found no elements of fact to substantiate the allegations referred to in the Honourable Member's question.

| 3. | The Commission will consider transmission of this enquiry report to the European Parliament if and when it receives a request for that under the appropriate procedures of Annex III to the Framework Agreement of 2000 on the relations between our institutions. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The Commission will consider transmission of this enquiry report to the European Parliament if and when it receives a request for that under the appropriate procedures of Annex III to the Framework Agreement of 2000 on the relations between our institutions.

| 4. and 5. | The Belgian police arrived at Commission premises shortly after the death of Mr Quatraro and were given immediate and unrestricted access to the building and office where the deceased official worked. |
| --- | --- |

4. and 5.

The Belgian police arrived at Commission premises shortly after the death of Mr Quatraro and were given immediate and unrestricted access to the building and office where the deceased official worked.

| 6. and 7. | In circumstances such as those prevailing in this case, it is clearly appropriate that the judicial authorities of the Member State concerned investigate: the Commission would do everything necessary to facilitate such investigation, including lifting the immunity where necessary. That was done in this case. The Belgian police were able to take witness statements from anyone they wanted to interview. |
| --- | --- |

6. and 7.

In circumstances such as those prevailing in this case, it is clearly appropriate that the judicial authorities of the Member State concerned investigate: the Commission would do everything necessary to facilitate such investigation, including lifting the immunity where necessary. That was done in this case. The Belgian police were able to take witness statements from anyone they wanted to interview.

| 8. | There is no evidence available to the Commission to suggest that either the Commission in its initial enquiry or the Belgian police and the judicial authorities encountered any opposition in seeking to establish the facts in this case. |
| --- | --- |

8.

There is no evidence available to the Commission to suggest that either the Commission in its initial enquiry or the Belgian police and the judicial authorities encountered any opposition in seeking to establish the facts in this case.

| 9. | Where substantial amounts of money are at stake in complex subsidy schemes, it is impossible for the Commission or any other body to absolutely guarantee that fraud will not be attempted or occur. It should be noted, however, that since 1992 the Common Organisation of the Market (COM) of the raw tobacco sector has been profoundly reformed. Among other changes, the three mechanisms which had given rise to fraudulent activities — and in particular intervention and sale by auction, export refunds and differential primia according to variety — have been stopped. See Regulation (ECC) No 2075/92 (1).
  The structure of the COM was later simplified in 1996 and in 1998. See Regulation (EC) No 415/96 of 4 March 1996 (2) and Regulation (EC) No 1636/98 of 20 July 1998 (3).
  The Commission regularly carries out discharge exercises and preventive audits. |
| --- | --- |

9.

Where substantial amounts of money are at stake in complex subsidy schemes, it is impossible for the Commission or any other body to absolutely guarantee that fraud will not be attempted or occur. It should be noted, however, that since 1992 the Common Organisation of the Market (COM) of the raw tobacco sector has been profoundly reformed. Among other changes, the three mechanisms which had given rise to fraudulent activities — and in particular intervention and sale by auction, export refunds and differential primia according to variety — have been stopped. See Regulation (ECC) No 2075/92 (1).

The structure of the COM was later simplified in 1996 and in 1998. See Regulation (EC) No 415/96 of 4 March 1996 (2) and Regulation (EC) No 1636/98 of 20 July 1998 (3).

The Commission regularly carries out discharge exercises and preventive audits.

| 10. | An external independent assessment of the tobacco sector is underway and will be finalised in the course of the coming weeks. The Commission is currently working on the framework for further substantial reform of the COM in raw tobacco which should be in line with the objectives laid out in the Commission communication on sustainable development presented at the European Council Meeting in Göteborg (15 and 16 June 2001).
  The Commission will put forward a proposal to Parliament and Council in the course of autumn 2003. |
| --- | --- |

10.

An external independent assessment of the tobacco sector is underway and will be finalised in the course of the coming weeks. The Commission is currently working on the framework for further substantial reform of the COM in raw tobacco which should be in line with the objectives laid out in the Commission communication on sustainable development presented at the European Council Meeting in Göteborg (15 and 16 June 2001).

The Commission will put forward a proposal to Parliament and Council in the course of autumn 2003.

---

(1)  OJ L 215, 30.7.1992.

(2)  OJ L 59, 8.3.1996.

(3)  OJ L 210, 28.7.1998.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/66 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/66

---

(2004/C 78 E/0066)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2001/03

by Jan Dhaene (PSE) and Patricia McKenna (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(16 June 2003)

Subject:   Radioactive discharges from Sellafield

The ‘Fisheries Section Committee’ of the International Transport Federation (ITF) has called on North Sea states to demand that the UK stop radioactive discharges from Sellafield. Several national transport unions have adopted this request. The problem is not limited to the UK; Cogéma in La Hague causes widespread radioactive pollution of the local environment.

One of the isotopes that concerns the ITF the most is Technetium-99 (Tc99). This isotope is discharged into the Irish Sea, although it is technically possible for it to be filtered out and collected before the waste water is discharged in to the sea.

| 1. | Is the Commission aware of the threat to the maritime environment connected with the discharge of radioactive waste from plants such as Sellafield and, in particular, to fish and shellfish and the consumers thereof. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is the Commission aware of the threat to the maritime environment connected with the discharge of radioactive waste from plants such as Sellafield and, in particular, to fish and shellfish and the consumers thereof.

| 2. | Is the Commission aware of the impact on fishermen and other crew on board vessels which frequently fish these areas close to the pollution source (Sellafield and La Hague)? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Is the Commission aware of the impact on fishermen and other crew on board vessels which frequently fish these areas close to the pollution source (Sellafield and La Hague)?

| 3. | What is the Commission's view of the ITF proposal that the Technetium-99 should be filtered out of the waste water from Sellafield and La Hague? |
| --- | --- |

3.

What is the Commission's view of the ITF proposal that the Technetium-99 should be filtered out of the waste water from Sellafield and La Hague?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(30 July 2003)

The Commission is aware of the issues raised by the Honourable Members.

The Community is a Contracting Party to the Oslo-Paris (OSPAR) Convention and is represented at OSPAR meetings by the Commission. The central objective of the strategies adopted by the OSPAR Commission to advance its work, is the protection of the OSPAR maritime area. One of these strategies concerns radioactive substances and has the specific objective that by the year 2020 discharges, emissions and losses of radioactive substances are reduced to levels where the additional concentrations in the marine environment above historic levels, resulting from such discharges, emissions and losses, are close to zero.

The OSPAR Commission is assisted in the implementation of the strategy with regard to radioactive substances by its Radioactive Substances Committee (RSC), which meets at least once a year. The Commission is an active participant in this Committee contributing significantly to the understanding and awareness of the discharge of radioactive substances from all sources into the maritime area. As part of this contribution, the Commission recently completed a study known as Marína II, which examined all radioactive discharges and their effects on the OSPAR maritime area including effects on biota, consumers of seafood and individuals engaged in fishing in the proximity of such discharges.

The Commission is firmly committed to the attainment of the objective of the OSPAR strategy with regard to radioactive substances, which requires the progressive and substantial reduction of all radioactive discharges by 2020. At the first ministerial meeting of the OSPAR Commission in Sintra, July 1998, the concern of a number of contracting parties about technetium-99 discharges from Sellafield was noted, and the United Kingdom ministers indicated that such concerns would be addressed. These concerns were emphasised again at the recent OSPAR ministerial meeting in Bremen in June 2003. Furthermore, the initiative of the United Kingdom to request the operator of Sellafield to stop discharges from its medium active concentrate (MAC) treatment process for nine months while further research and development of abatement technology is carried out was welcomed.

It should, nevertheless, be noted that while activity concentrations of technetium-99 are relatively high, the radiological impact of technetium-99 discharges to the environment is small compared to other radionuclides, including naturally occurring radionuclides.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/67 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/67

---

(2004/C 78 E/0067)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2031/03

by Antonios Trakatellis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(12 June 2003)

Subject:   Implementation of Community legislation on solid waste and the landfill of waste in Greece

A study carried out by the National Centre for the Environment states that over 90 % of urban waste is disposed of in landfill sites (legal or otherwise), while a mere 8 % is recycled and 1 % composted. However, it is reported that the mechanical waste sorting unit is not only not functioning, it also fails to meet EU specifications and is technologically outdated compared to the optimum available technology.

Given that the Commission has initiated proceedings against Greece for failing to comply with the waste directives — in particular Directive 75/442/EEC (1) on waste — and that all EU Member States are obliged, on the basis of Directive 1999/31/EC (2) on the landfill of waste, to draw up a national strategy and to notify the Commission thereof by 16 July 2003 at the latest and to take specific measures in respect of existing landfill sites, will the Commission say:

| 1. | Has Greece complied with Community legislation on waste, in particular on solid waste, and what measures has the Commission taken to protect the environment and public health from the uncontrolled dumping of hazardous and other waste in Greece? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Has Greece complied with Community legislation on waste, in particular on solid waste, and what measures has the Commission taken to protect the environment and public health from the uncontrolled dumping of hazardous and other waste in Greece?

| 2. | How does it judge the operation of the mechanical waste sorting unit in Liossia, according to environmental criteria and in the light of the best available technology, and what amount of Community resources has been used for the construction of this plant which is not functioning? |
| --- | --- |

2.

How does it judge the operation of the mechanical waste sorting unit in Liossia, according to environmental criteria and in the light of the best available technology, and what amount of Community resources has been used for the construction of this plant which is not functioning?

| 3. | Has Greece announced a national strategy for the landfill of waste and in respect of how many of the existing landfill sites has a waste disposal plan been drawn up and adopted, including gas control and collection measures, measures in respect of hazardous waste and measures to reduce biodegradable urban waste intended for landfill, particularly through recycling, composting and biogas production or materials/energy recovery, as laid down in Directive 1999/31/EC? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Has Greece announced a national strategy for the landfill of waste and in respect of how many of the existing landfill sites has a waste disposal plan been drawn up and adopted, including gas control and collection measures, measures in respect of hazardous waste and measures to reduce biodegradable urban waste intended for landfill, particularly through recycling, composting and biogas production or materials/energy recovery, as laid down in Directive 1999/31/EC?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(10 July 2003)

| 1. | The Commission is aware of the problem of the uncontrolled disposal of waste in Greece. On the basis of information transmitted by the Greek authorities and following a large number of complaints, the Commission initiated infringement proceedings under Article 226 of the EC Treaty in July 2002. The Greek authorities acknowledged that 1399 illegal or uncontrolled landfills were still operating at the end of 2002 and said that a new waste management plan was about to be adopted. According to their timetable, all illegal landfills will be closed by the end of 2007 and replaced by permanent facilities. In December 2002 the Commission delivered a reasoned opinion under Article 226 of the EC Treaty inviting Greece to take the necessary measures to comply with the requirements of Directive 75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975 (3) on waste, as amended by Directive 91/156/EEC of 18 March 1991 (4) If Greece does not fulfil its obligations, the Commission will not hesitate to bring the matter before the Court of Justice. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The Commission is aware of the problem of the uncontrolled disposal of waste in Greece. On the basis of information transmitted by the Greek authorities and following a large number of complaints, the Commission initiated infringement proceedings under Article 226 of the EC Treaty in July 2002. The Greek authorities acknowledged that 1399 illegal or uncontrolled landfills were still operating at the end of 2002 and said that a new waste management plan was about to be adopted. According to their timetable, all illegal landfills will be closed by the end of 2007 and replaced by permanent facilities. In December 2002 the Commission delivered a reasoned opinion under Article 226 of the EC Treaty inviting Greece to take the necessary measures to comply with the requirements of Directive 75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975 (3) on waste, as amended by Directive 91/156/EEC of 18 March 1991 (4) If Greece does not fulfil its obligations, the Commission will not hesitate to bring the matter before the Court of Justice.

| 2. | The project mentioned by the Honourable Member consists of a waste sorting unit and a composting plant. It was cofinanced by the ERDF, under the Regional Operational Programme (ROP) for Attica. The total amount of Community cofinancing was EUR 54,3 million: EUR 33,2 million under Attica's ROP for 1994-1999 and EUR 21,1 million under Attica's ROP for 2000-2006. The total cost of the facilities cofinanced was EUR 72,4 million.
  According to the information available to the Commission at present, the facilities underwent several operating trials. First there were problems, then an accident occurred and now they are apparently not in operation. To date, the authorities responsible have provided no satisfactory explanation for the situation. The Commission will follow the matter up and could, if required, order the recovery of Community cofinancing used for the construction of the facilities. It does not have any information on the site's environmental performance. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The project mentioned by the Honourable Member consists of a waste sorting unit and a composting plant. It was cofinanced by the ERDF, under the Regional Operational Programme (ROP) for Attica. The total amount of Community cofinancing was EUR 54,3 million: EUR 33,2 million under Attica's ROP for 1994-1999 and EUR 21,1 million under Attica's ROP for 2000-2006. The total cost of the facilities cofinanced was EUR 72,4 million.

According to the information available to the Commission at present, the facilities underwent several operating trials. First there were problems, then an accident occurred and now they are apparently not in operation. To date, the authorities responsible have provided no satisfactory explanation for the situation. The Commission will follow the matter up and could, if required, order the recovery of Community cofinancing used for the construction of the facilities. It does not have any information on the site's environmental performance.

| 3. | Greece has not yet submitted its national strategy on the reduction of biodegradable waste going to landfills. Directive 1999/31/EC of 26 April 1999 (5) on the landfill of waste requires Member States to draw up this strategy by 16 July 2003 and to submit it to the Commission as soon as possible. For existing landfills the Directive requires each operator to present a conditioning plan to the authorities setting out the necessary measures to adapt the landfill to the requirements of the Directive. The Commission does not have any information on the number of existing landfills for which conditioning plans have been drawn up. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Greece has not yet submitted its national strategy on the reduction of biodegradable waste going to landfills. Directive 1999/31/EC of 26 April 1999 (5) on the landfill of waste requires Member States to draw up this strategy by 16 July 2003 and to submit it to the Commission as soon as possible. For existing landfills the Directive requires each operator to present a conditioning plan to the authorities setting out the necessary measures to adapt the landfill to the requirements of the Directive. The Commission does not have any information on the number of existing landfills for which conditioning plans have been drawn up.

---

(1)  OJ L 194, 25.7.1975, p. 39.

(2)  OJ L 182, 16.7.1999, p. 1.

(3)  OJ L 194, 25.7.1975.

(4)  OJ L 78, 26.3.1991.

(5)  OJ L 182, 16.7.1999.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/69 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/69

---

(2004/C 78 E/0068)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2043/03

by Maurizio Turco (NI), Emma Bonino (NI), Marco Pannella (NI), Marco Cappato (NI), Benedetto Della Vedova (NI), Gianfranco Dell'Alba (NI) and Olivier Dupuis (NI) to the Commission

(19 June 2003)

Subject:   Means of putting an end to violations of religious freedom

Knowing that:

| — | In May 2003 the US Commission on International Religious Freedom, a US federal government agency published its annual report on religious freedom in the world, which includes the following points:






  — | serious concerns are expressed about the situation in the Russian Federation, including possible interference by the Russian Orthodox Church in national politics, strict control of religious practice among Russian citizens by the State and the refusal to grant visas to clergy and religious workers; |
| --- | --- | --- |

—

In May 2003 the US Commission on International Religious Freedom, a US federal government agency published its annual report on religious freedom in the world, which includes the following points:

—

serious concerns are expressed about the situation in the Russian Federation, including possible interference by the Russian Orthodox Church in national politics, strict control of religious practice among Russian citizens by the State and the refusal to grant visas to clergy and religious workers;

| — | the situation in the People's Republic of China is characterised by the regular internment, torture and detention of Chinese citizens owing to their religious beliefs, as well as strict surveillance of religious activities in Tibet; |
| --- | --- |

—

the situation in the People's Republic of China is characterised by the regular internment, torture and detention of Chinese citizens owing to their religious beliefs, as well as strict surveillance of religious activities in Tibet;

| — | in Laos, government officials are involved in systematic violation of religious freedom, which takes the form of imprisonment and forced conversions; |
| --- | --- |

—

in Laos, government officials are involved in systematic violation of religious freedom, which takes the form of imprisonment and forced conversions;

| — | in Vietnam, religious dissidents are jailed and there has been a campaign of forced conversions of Vietnamese religious minorities in the north-western provinces and the central highlands inhabited by the ‘Montagnard’ communities. In view of the seriousness of violations the USCIRF suggests halting aid for projects other that humanitarian actions until the Vietnamese authorities undertake to respect religious freedom. |
| --- | --- |

—

in Vietnam, religious dissidents are jailed and there has been a campaign of forced conversions of Vietnamese religious minorities in the north-western provinces and the central highlands inhabited by the ‘Montagnard’ communities. In view of the seriousness of violations the USCIRF suggests halting aid for projects other that humanitarian actions until the Vietnamese authorities undertake to respect religious freedom.

Will the Commission state:

| — | whether it is aware of the serious and systematic violation of religious freedom in Russia, China, Laos and Vietnam? |
| --- | --- |

—

whether it is aware of the serious and systematic violation of religious freedom in Russia, China, Laos and Vietnam?

| — | whether it intends to accept the USCIRF's suggestion that aid for projects other than humanitarian actions be halted until the Vietnamese authorities undertake to respect religious freedom? |
| --- | --- |

—

whether it intends to accept the USCIRF's suggestion that aid for projects other than humanitarian actions be halted until the Vietnamese authorities undertake to respect religious freedom?

| — | whether it considers that the suspension of all aid other than humanitarian aid until religious freedom is respected can act as an effective deterrent or what could be used as an alternative instrument? |
| --- | --- |

—

whether it considers that the suspension of all aid other than humanitarian aid until religious freedom is respected can act as an effective deterrent or what could be used as an alternative instrument?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(18 July 2003)

The Commission is well aware of the situation regarding religious freedom in the Russian Federation, China, Laos and Vietnam, and monitors this issue closely.

This issue has been raised with these national authorities, within the framework of the political dialogue that the Union conducts with these countries. Furthermore, the Commission will continue to raise these problems through all channels available, as appropriate.

The Commission will also continue to impress upon the Russian authorities that the pattern of developments regarding freedom of religion — and other related human rights issues — is neither acceptable nor compatible with the major international and European Human Rights conventions that Russia has ratified, which include reference to freedom of religion or belief.

In the case of Laos, Commission concerns regarding freedom of religion are frequently raised in bilateral meetings between the Commission and the Government of Lao People Democratic Republic (PDR). Thus, the situation on human rights, including religious freedom, will also be on the agenda for the Commission-Lao PDR Joint Committee Meeting, scheduled to be held in the autumn of 2003. The recent opening of a Commission Delegation in Vientiane will provide further possibilities for the Commission to engage in a more profound dialogue on human rights issues with the authorities.

The Commission is well aware of the United Nations (UN) Human Rights Committee's serious concerns that Vietnam's State party practice does not meet the requirements of Article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). The Union, the Member States together with the Commission, have repeatedly raised this issue with the authorities in the framework of Union démarches and regular discussions on Human Rights.

In the particular case of China, the Union has repeatedly expressed its concern about restrictions on unofficial churches and religious groups and on Islam. It has regularly raised the issue of freedom of religion and belief in the framework of the Union-China structured dialogue on human rights, and will continue to do so as appropriate.

The Union has repeatedly affirmed that human rights and democratisation must form an integral part of all political dialogues with third countries. Religious freedom, as one of the fundamental human rights, as well as the rights of religious minorities are thus addressed through the Union's bilateral political dialogues and, when appropriate, through démarches and public declarations, as well as through Union action in fora such as the UN Commission on Human Rights or the Third Committee of the UN General Assembly.

As regards the provision of assistance and as outlined in its May 2001 Communication (1) on the Union's role in the promotion of Democracy and Human Rights in third countries, the Commission is committed to mainstreaming Human Rights and democratisation issues in all Community assistance programmes. Country Strategy Papers were 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.

In the specific case of assistance to Vietnam, the Commission's overall policy towards this country is to encourage and support its progress on human rights and democratisation, and to raise concerns where abuses occur or where a deterioration in the situation becomes evident. The Commission has defined the promotion of good governance, best administrative practices and a properly functioning judiciary system as priorities for co-operation with Vietnam under the Country Strategy 2002-2006. The Commission believes that its co-operation programme, especially through its specific support for institutional reforms as well as the inclusion of governance related training activities into all co-operation projects will contribute to strengthen Vietnam's overall governance and human rights commitments.

Overall, the Commission is of the opinion that a incitative approach is the most likely to lead to improvements in the respect of Human Rights, including religious freedom. The Commission will continue favouring dialogue and assistance in its relations with third countries. The suspension of aid until religious or other freedoms are respected can only be a last resort approach, whose consequences are very likely to impact badly on the populations whose rights are violated.

---

(1)  COM(2001) 252 final.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/70 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/70

---

(2004/C 78 E/0069)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2045/03

by Maurizio Turco (NI), Marco Pannella (NI), Emma Bonino (NI), Marco Cappato (NI), Benedetto Della Vedova (NI), Gianfranco Dell'Alba (NI) and Olivier Dupuis (NI) to the Commission

(19 June 2003)

Subject:   Serious and persistent violations of the fundamental human rights of the Uighur minority in the Chinese province of Xinjiang (eastern Turkestan)

Knowing that:

| — | Seven million Uighurs, a Shiite Muslim minority, live in Xinjiang (eastern Turkestan), the largest province in China. They have been oppressed by the central government for decades, but with particular relentlessness since the war with neighbouring Afghanistan. |
| --- | --- |

—

Seven million Uighurs, a Shiite Muslim minority, live in Xinjiang (eastern Turkestan), the largest province in China. They have been oppressed by the central government for decades, but with particular relentlessness since the war with neighbouring Afghanistan.

| — | In 1990 the Chinese government tried to stabilise the region by investing billions of dollars in building roads, railways, hospitals and army barracks, digging oil wells and, above all, encouraging massive migration from eastern China. Whereas the Han ethnic group made up only 5 % of the population in 1950, they now constitute 50 % of the 18 million inhabitants. |
| --- | --- |

—

In 1990 the Chinese government tried to stabilise the region by investing billions of dollars in building roads, railways, hospitals and army barracks, digging oil wells and, above all, encouraging massive migration from eastern China. Whereas the Han ethnic group made up only 5 % of the population in 1950, they now constitute 50 % of the 18 million inhabitants.

| — | Even now the government is promising those who move to Xinjiang guaranteed jobs, obviously at the expense of the Uighurs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Even now the government is promising those who move to Xinjiang guaranteed jobs, obviously at the expense of the Uighurs.

| — | According to Amnesty International 3 000 Uighurs were arrested recently and one hundred were executed after summary trials. Young Uighurs are forced to attend courses of indoctrination at school and anyone caught listening to Radio Free Asia is arrested. |
| --- | --- |

—

According to Amnesty International 3 000 Uighurs were arrested recently and one hundred were executed after summary trials. Young Uighurs are forced to attend courses of indoctrination at school and anyone caught listening to Radio Free Asia is arrested.

| — | The most historic district of Kashgar was demolished in order to build the new railway and the ancient bazaar is being destroyed to make way for a Chinese hypermarket. |
| --- | --- |

—

The most historic district of Kashgar was demolished in order to build the new railway and the ancient bazaar is being destroyed to make way for a Chinese hypermarket.

| — | The most famous Uighur singer, Abdurihim, was forced to shave off his beard, has been banned from singing in public and a poster has been stuck up on his house bearing the words ‘re-educated at last’. |
| --- | --- |

—

The most famous Uighur singer, Abdurihim, was forced to shave off his beard, has been banned from singing in public and a poster has been stuck up on his house bearing the words ‘re-educated at last’.

In view of the excellent relations between the EU and China in the sphere of economic and commercial cooperation and the fact that, according to the Commission, the dialogue on human rights is being held in an ‘open and constructive atmosphere’, can the Commission say:

| — | whether it is aware of the facts outlined above; |
| --- | --- |

—

whether it is aware of the facts outlined above;

| — | whether and when the issue of the Uighur minority was raised publicly and officially with China and with what outcome; |
| --- | --- |

—

whether and when the issue of the Uighur minority was raised publicly and officially with China and with what outcome;

| — | what steps, in the context of cooperation relations, might constitute a serious and effective instrument for inducing China to respect fundamental human rights? |
| --- | --- |

—

what steps, in the context of cooperation relations, might constitute a serious and effective instrument for inducing China to respect fundamental human rights?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(25 July 2003)

The Commission is well aware of reports on repression and discrimination of the Uighur minority. Since the beginning of the Union-China bilateral human rights dialogue, the question of minority rights has been very high on its agenda. Basic rights as well as religious and cultural identity of the Uighur population have been regularly addressed in every session of the dialogue. Moreover it has been suggested that the next round of the dialogue, to be held in China in December 2003, be followed by a field visit to Xinjiang Province. The situation has not, as yet, fundamentally improved on the ground.

Some years ago the Commission launched an extended human rights related co-operation programme which, in its view, constitutes a useful instrument to induce China to respect fundamental rights. This programme has, up to now, mainly dealt with legal co-operation, support to local governance, the rights of more vulnerable groups like women or handicapped people and the ratification and implementation of the United Nations human rights covenants.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/71 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/71

---

(2004/C 78 E/0070)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2051/03

by Caroline Jackson (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(20 June 2003)

Subject:   Essential oils and consumer protection

The seventh amendment to the Cosmetics Directive went to some lengths to ensure that consumers were protected in relation to the use of essential oils. Such oils are included in products eaten by consumers, for example yoghurt with lavender oil. Would it not be consistent to put the same warning on such foods as on cosmetic products? Is the Commission proposing to do this? If not, why not?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(31 July 2003)

Council Directive 76/768/EEC of 27 July 1976 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to cosmetic products (1) does not restrict the use of essential oils as such in cosmetic products but requests the labelling of certain substances if they are present in cosmetic products above certain levels.

For the use of flavourings and food ingredients with flavouring properties (e.g. herbs and spices) in and on foods, Community legislation follows a different approach in order to protect human health. The Framework Directive 88/388/EEC on flavourings (2) prohibits the addition of substances as such to foods if they raise toxicological concern. For their unavoidable presence in flavoured/spiced foods due to their natural occurrence in plants, like common herbs, the Directive sets maximum levels. Essential oils fall under the definition of ‘flavouring preparations’ to which the limits for these substances also apply. Given this strict approach, Directive 2000/13/EC (3) does not request the labelling of specific names of substances, but requires to inform consumers about the presence of flavourings in food by the term ‘flavouring’.

At the request of the Commission, the Scientific Committee on Food (SCF) has evaluated a number of such naturally occurring substances during the past two years. The opinions are available from the web site ‘Flavourings’ of the Directorate General Health and Consumer Protection: (http://europa.eu.int/comm/food/ fs/sfp/addit_flavor/flavourings/index_en.html).

On the basis of these opinions, the Commission is currently elaborating an update of the list of naturally occurring substances which should not be added as such to foods as well as an update of their maximum levels in foods. This update will be part of a proposal for a new framework regulation on flavourings which should replace Directive 88/388/EEC.

---

(1)  OJ L 262, 27.9.1976.

(2)  Council Directive 88/388/EEC of 22 June 1988 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to flavourings for use in foodstuffs and to source materials for their production, OJ L 184, 15.7.1988.

(3)  Directive 2000/13/EC of the 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.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/72 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/72

---

(2004/C 78 E/0071)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2056/03

by Kathleen Van Brempt (PSE) to the Commission

(20 June 2003)

Subject:   Ethylene

Ethylene is one of the volatile organic compounds released into the atmosphere through incineration processes, by the petrochemicals industry, road transport and through the burning of timber, etc. However, it is also a natural plant hormone involved in the maturing of plants and causes, inter alia, fruit to ripen, leaves to fall, dormant periods to cease and flower parts to mature, and it is physiologically active in very low concentrations (0,01-0,1 ppm). In its role as a plant hormone, ethylene is the most important VOC which has a direct effect on plants. Accordingly, even minimal pollution with this hormone has (or may have) serious consequences for various plants and agricultural crops. In various locations, ethylene has been shown to be present in much higher concentrations than the values regarded in scientific literature as normal ambient concentrations. Nevertheless, with regard to ethylene, no critical level has, to date, been laid down for exposure of vegetation to such compounds, nor any specific emission standards for ethylene which might restrict excessive emissions from point sources. A farmer whose crops have been damaged by ethylene has no opportunity to claim compensation, since no norms or critical values have been established.

| 1. | Can the Commission confirm that, since the 1970s, average values of ethylene in the atmosphere have increased from some 5 ppb to 30-50 ppb? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Can the Commission confirm that, since the 1970s, average values of ethylene in the atmosphere have increased from some 5 ppb to 30-50 ppb?

| 2. | Does the Commission have any emission data for ethylene and measurements of ethylene in the ambient air which give a clear picture of the order of magnitude and the breadth of this problem in Europe, of the differences between rural and urban areas and of the possible peak values in certain areas, such as in the vicinity of petrochemical plants or other emission sources? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Does the Commission have any emission data for ethylene and measurements of ethylene in the ambient air which give a clear picture of the order of magnitude and the breadth of this problem in Europe, of the differences between rural and urban areas and of the possible peak values in certain areas, such as in the vicinity of petrochemical plants or other emission sources?

| 3. | Does the Commission intend to initiate a more targeted programme for monitoring ethylene, lay down a critical threshold value, take specific measures and establish standards for industrial processes, possibly doing so as part of the review of the Clean Air For Europe Programme (CAFE) in 2004? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Does the Commission intend to initiate a more targeted programme for monitoring ethylene, lay down a critical threshold value, take specific measures and establish standards for industrial processes, possibly doing so as part of the review of the Clean Air For Europe Programme (CAFE) in 2004?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(29 July 2003)

Alongside its role as a plant hormone and the possible consequent effects of ambient levels on vegetation, ethylene (ethene) is one of the substances known as volatile organic compounds (VOCs), which favour the formation of ozone pollution. It is therefore covered by emission controls aimed at reducing VOCs, although standards are based on a weighted average based on photo-oxidisation potential, rather than being specifically targeted at individual substances.

Community legislation provides a mechanism for Member States to exchange data on air quality, but data exchange on ethylene (ethene) concentrations is not mandatory and almost no data has been exchanged so far. For this reason the Commission can neither confirm nor contradict the figures quoted by the Honourable Member concerning average values of ethylene in the atmosphere. This situation may improve in the future as a result of the Directive 2002/3/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 12 February 2002 relating to ozone in ambient air (1), which requires Member States to set up ambient air monitoring stations for volatile organic compounds as ozone precursors. Ethylene is one of the substances recommended to be monitored in this context.

The picture is similar as regards emission data, since Member States generally report emissions of volatile organic compounds as a whole, rather than substance by substance.

At the moment the Commission is not aware of any convincing evidence that current levels of ethylene in the atmosphere give rise to significant effects on vegetation, and there is, consequently, no current intention to initiate a more targeted monitoring programme.

---

(1)  OJ L 67, 9.3.2002.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/73 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/73

---

(2004/C 78 E/0072)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2059/03

by Camilo Nogueira Román (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(20 June 2003)

Subject:   One-year delay by the Spanish government in extracting fuel oil from the wreck of the ‘Prestige’ off the Galician coast

The Spanish government has just stated that the extraction operations (entrusted to the Repsol company) for the 3 5 000 tonnes of fuel oil that still have to be removed from the wreck of the ‘Prestige’ off the Galician coast will be delayed for a year, i.e. until spring 2004. This serious delay contradicts the Spanish government's earlier promises, and will increase the risks generated by the presence of the wreck at almost 4 000 metres underwater.

The Commission has declared that the presence of this vessel, still with one-half of its original load, is a matter of European concern, and has expressed its willingness to cooperate with the Spanish government to deal with the problem.

Is the Commission aware of the Spanish government's decision? Does it consider it justified? What action will it take to hold the Spanish government to its promise to remove the fuel oil remaining in the hold of the ‘Prestige’ during 2003? Has it contacted the Spanish government on the matter? What contacts has it established with the Galician regional government to resolve the problem?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(31 July 2003)

The Honourable Member is invited to refer to his previous Written Questions E-3595/02 (1), E-1259/03 (2) and his oral question H-69/03 during question time at Parliament's March 2003 session (3).

The measures to be taken concerning the extraction of the fuel oil still on board the Prestige fall primarily under the competence of the Spanish authorities.

A delegation from the Spanish ministry for development and representatives from Repsol have recently presented to the Commission services and to the Director of the European Maritime Safety Agency (EMSA) the details of the plan for the extraction of the fuel from the wreck of the Prestige.

The Commission understands that the same information was made available by the Spanish authorities to the Parliament's rapporteur on the Prestige accident.

A copy of the CD-rom presented by the Spanish authorities is sent directly to the Honourable Member.

---

(1)  OJ C 242 E, 9.10.2003, p. 63.

(2)  OJ C 280 E, 21.11.2003, p. 121.

(3)  Written reply, 11.3.2003.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/74 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/74

---

(2004/C 78 E/0073)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2080/03

by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(17 June 2003)

Subject:   Summary of subsidies to undertakings

I understand that varying amounts of subsidies both from the Member States and from the EU's structural funds are constantly being transferred to a variety of undertakings in the EU.

Does the Commission possess a summary of how much money the different undertakings receive, on the one hand in the form of state aid approved by the EU, and on the other hand in the form of contributions from the EU's structural funds?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(18 July 2003)

The Commission publishes a State aid Scoreboard twice each year. The spring version contains detailed information on annual State aid expenditure for each Member State including the objective of the aid and the sector for which it is earmarked. The Scoreboard covers State aid as defined under Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty that is granted by the fifteen Member States and has been examined by the Commission. Accordingly, general measures are not included in the figures. For example, a general tax break for expenditure on research and development is not considered as State aid although it may well appear in Member States national budgets as public support for research and development. Community funds and instruments are not specifically identified in the scoreboard, although the figures include aid granted by national and/or regional authorities which are co-financed by structural funds. The Scoreboard can be consulted on the Commission's website: http://europa.eu.int/comm/competition/state_aid/scoreboard/.

For practical reasons it is not possible, however, to give precise information on the amount of aid awarded to each individual undertaking.

The Commission also publishes regular reports on the Structural Funds (http://europa.eu.int/comm/ regional_policy/sources/docoffic/official/repor_fr.htm). This includes a description of the ongoing programmes for each Member State. An evaluation study on the financing of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) was carried out in 1999 for the period 1994-1999. (http://europa.eu.int/comm/ regional_policy/sources/docgener/evaluation/sme/index_en.htm).

As regards the financing of the Structural Funds for the period 2000-2006, the Commission bases its analyses on a very detailed database containing the financing plans of each programme measure, as declared by the Member States. The Member States are responsible for the implementation of the measures and the choice of the individual recipients. On the basis of this programming, the amounts of which may vary to take account of the modifications required for economic and social reasons, aid for SMEs (and the handicraft sector) from the Structural Funds is about EUR 21 billion. This accounts for 11 % of the total Structural Funds for the period 2000-2006.

The breakdown of the Community funding as a percentage of the total EUR 21 billion is as follows:

| — | Plant and equipment: 37,3 %; |
| --- | --- |

—

Plant and equipment: 37,3 %;

| — | Environment-friendly technologies: 3,3 %; |
| --- | --- |

—

Environment-friendly technologies: 3,3 %;

| — | Business advisory services: 14,1 %; |
| --- | --- |

—

Business advisory services: 14,1 %;

| — | Shared business services: 15,6 %; |
| --- | --- |

—

Shared business services: 15,6 %;

| — | Financial engineering: 6,2 %; |
| --- | --- |

—

Financial engineering: 6,2 %;

| — | Services in support of the social economy: 3,7 %; |
| --- | --- |

—

Services in support of the social economy: 3,7 %;

| — | Vocational training: 4,2 %; |
| --- | --- |

—

Vocational training: 4,2 %;

| — | Others non classified: 15,6 %. |
| --- | --- |

—

Others non classified: 15,6 %.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/75 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/75

---

(2004/C 78 E/0074)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2084/03

by Graham Watson (ELDR) to the Commission

(24 June 2003)

Subject:   1970 Unesco Convention

Does the Commission consider that Member States have taken adequate measures to comply with the 1970 Unesco Convention on illicit trafficking of cultural property?

If not, will the Commission draw the failure to comply to the attention of the recalcitrant States?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(30 September 2003)

With regard to the relationship between Member States and third countries, the 1970 United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (Unesco) Convention maintains its importance as the main legal instrument at universal level aimed at fighting the illicit traffic in cultural goods. Currently, nine Member States and eight Acceding States are parties to the Convention, while its ratification is being examined in a number of other Member States. Recent accession by three Member States in 2003 shows that awareness as to the need to combat illicit trafficking in cultural goods is increasing, as well as acceptance of the Convention, which has now reached the number of 100 States Parties.

Within the specific context of the Union-Africa Dialogue, the ‘Return of Stolen and Illicitly Exported Cultural Goods’ has been one of the priority themes since the Cairo Action Plan. In November 2002, the Union-Africa Ministerial Meeting in Ouagadougou endorsed a set of guiding principles and concrete recommendations for action in this area. In its recent Communication on the Union-Africa Dialogue (1), the Commission outlined a series of measures to support the dialogue on cultural goods, which also include adherence by all countries in the Union and Africa to the relevant international conventions, in particular the 1970 Unesco Convention, and support to Unesco's activities in the context of the 1970 Convention.

In addition to creating a diplomatic mechanism for the return of stolen cultural goods, the 1970 Unesco Convention contains a number of obligations for States Parties to foster protective and capacity-building measures within their territories, such as the development of museums structures and inventories or the implementation of educational programmes. The Commission, for its part, has already undertaken capacity-building activities in the area of cultural goods within its external aid programmes; the possibility of supporting a concrete project in the context of the Union-Africa Dialogue on cultural goods is currently being examined.

It was deemed necessary to adopt measures at Community level as this protection could not be adequately guaranteed via the ratification of the 1970 Unesco Convention on the measures to be adopted to prohibit and prevent the illicit import, export and transfer of ownership of cultural goods. However, since 1 January 1993, with the abolition of physical checks at the Community's internal borders, there has been a need for additional measures for the completion of the internal market in order to provide supplementary means of ensuring adequate protection for cultural goods.

In the context of the operation of the single market, Regulation (EEC) No 3911/92 (2) and Directive 93/7/EEC (3) seek to reconcile the fundamental principle of free movement of cultural goods with that of the protection of national treasures.

The Regulation introduces uniform controls for the prevention of exports of cultural goods at the external borders of the Community, which allow the competent (Culture and Customs) authorities of the Member States from which the cultural goods are to be exported to a third country to take the interests of the other Member States into account. This is because, in the absence of such controls, abolishing checks at the physical borders within the Community would have meant that a national treasure unlawfully removed from a Member State could be presented at a customs office of another Member State and exported easily to a third country.

Directive 93/7/EEC complements Regulation (EEC) No 3911/92 by providing for administrative cooperation mechanisms between Member States as regards their national treasures in the context of the internal market, and a procedure for restoring national treasures when these have been unlawfully removed from the territory of a Member State. While the aim of the Regulation is to avoid national treasures being taken out of Community territory without controls, the Directive, for its part, deals with the arrangements for restoring such treasures to the Member State of origin when they have been unlawfully removed from it.

The Commission reviews implementation by Member States of the Community instruments referred to above and produces a report every three years. The latest report was issued on 25 May 2000 (4).

---

(1)  COM(2003) 316 final.

(2)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 3911/92 of 9 December 1992 on the export of cultural goods, OJ L 395, 31.12.1992.

(3)  Council Directive 93/7/EEC of 15 March 1993 on the return of cultural objects unlawfully removed from the territory of a Member State, OJ L 74, 27.3.1993.

(4)  COM(2000) 325 final.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/76 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/76

---

(2004/C 78 E/0075)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2087/03

by Marjo Matikainen-Kallström (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(24 June 2003)

Subject:   Recognition of Finnish engineering qualifications in certain Mediterranean countries

Finnish engineers have had practical difficulties in carrying on their occupation in most Mediterranean countries. Problems have arisen in Portugal, Italy, Greece, and Cyprus. The difficulties regarding exercise of the profession stem either from legislation or from procedural practice in the countries concerned. As a result of these systems Finnish engineers have been directly or indirectly prevented from working in the above-mentioned Mediterranean countries and have encountered difficulties in that respect.

The problems have to do with the fact that the professional associations in the countries concerned have been given the right to decide who should be allowed to use the professional title in question. For its part, the professional association in such a country will not admit members other than home nationals. In practice, recognition of Finnish engineering qualifications is thus withheld, or, for other reasons, only nationals of the particular country or those who have qualified in that country are considered suitable to carry on the occupation of engineer.

Article 39 of the EC Treaty guarantees freedom of movement for workers and prohibits any discrimination to which workers from Member States might be subjected on the grounds of nationality when entering into a contract of employment or as regards pay and other working conditions. The failure to recognise the qualifications held by nationals of another Member State leads in practice to discrimination on the labour market.

What will the Commission do to eliminate the indirect discrimination based on nationality which Finnish engineers suffer in the Mediterranean countries referred to above?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(4 August 2003)

When it comes to the recognition of professional qualifications, the profession of engineer is governed by directive 89/48/EEC (1). In accordance with this Directive, a Member State cannot in principle deny a citizen of a Member State access to a regulated profession and the pursuit of such a profession in its territory, provided that he holds the diploma required in his Member State of origin for the pursuit of the same 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 give evidence of professional experience or to complete compensatory measures in the form of an adaptation period or aptitude test.

The Commission has in fact received several complaints about the improper application of Directive 89/48/EEC in Greece and, in particular, the refusal by the Greek Technical Chamber (professional body) to register engineers who have obtained their professional qualifications in another Member State on the basis of the recognition decision issued by the competent national authority in accordance with Directive 89/48/EEC. From the complaints sent to the Commission, it would appear that this refusal is not due to the nationality of the migrant, but to the fact that these migrants hold qualifications obtained in another Member State and that these qualifications have not been granted academic recognition. On the basis of the facts brought to its attention, in addition to certain elements of non-conformity in the transposing legislation, the Commission initiated infringement proceedings against Greece and decided to refer the matter to the Court of Justice on 17 December 2002.

With regard to Cyprus, Directive 89/48/EEC will not apply to this country until the Accession Treaty enters into force.

An analysis of the legislation transposing Directive 89/48/EEC in Italy and Portugal has not revealed any problems of conformity. Nor does the Commission have any knowledge of administrative practices by the authorities in these Member States which might be contrary to the rules of this Directive. If the Commission were to receive complaints about the improper application of Directive 89/48/EEC in these Member States, these would of course be investigated in order to determine the appropriate action to be taken.

As regards registration with specific professional associations in Greece, Italy and Portugal, restricting admission to nationals only would be contrary to the principle of non discrimination set out in Articles 39, 43 and 49 of the EC Treaty. The Honourable Member is asked to send more detailed information on this matter to the Commission so that it can, if necessary, make representations to the national authorities concerned.

---

(1)  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.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/78 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/78

---

(2004/C 78 E/0076)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2101/03

by José Ribeiro e Castro (UEN) to the Commission

(25 June 2003)

Subject:   Common agricultural policy reform — ‘capping’

A frequent topic for discussion in debates on the reform of the CAP is that of deciding whether or not a ceiling should be imposed on the amount of aid/subsidy which, under any heading, may be allocated to a given farm or to a farmer on an individual basis. This is customarily known as ‘capping’.

On this subject, impressive arguments of a social nature are normally put forward (and also, these days, ones of a financial nature, since ‘capping’ would enable significant amounts of CAP funding to be released for the benefit of the new CAP headings, thereby reducing pressure on other mechanisms such as modulation).

The Commission:

| — | Would it therefore say why it does not advocate strict capping of CAP subsidies? |
| --- | --- |

—

Would it therefore say why it does not advocate strict capping of CAP subsidies?

| — | Does it not believe this to be an imperative of justice? |
| --- | --- |

—

Does it not believe this to be an imperative of justice?

| — | For what reason does it not take advantage of the resulting major financial benefits in order to improve the redistribution of aid and incentives and to provide greater support for the reformed CAP's new budget headings? |
| --- | --- |

—

For what reason does it not take advantage of the resulting major financial benefits in order to improve the redistribution of aid and incentives and to provide greater support for the reformed CAP's new budget headings?

Answer given by Mrs Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(24 July 2003)

In its Communication on the Mid-term Review of the Common Agricultural Policy of 10 July 2002 (1), the Commission did advocate capping of direct payments. However, it turned out in the following discussions that no consensus was possible among Member States on the introduction of strict capping.

Thus, the Commission proposed, in the context of modulation and degressivity, to cut direct payments while granting a franchise to those farmers who receive smaller amounts of direct payments. According to this proposal, the cuts in direct payments were to be fully reimbursed up to an amount of EUR 5000 in direct payments received and half for all amounts between EUR 5000 and EUR 50 000. The money was to be spent on rural development measures.

In the final Council decisions, modulation was adopted with a franchise of EUR 5 000. As regards degressivity, the Commission proposal was not taken up. Instead the introduction of a mechanism of Financial Discipline has been announced. In this respect, a Commission Declaration states that the proposal concerning Financial Discipline would include a franchise of EUR 5 000 and possibly other franchises.

Further options for redistributing money among different regions and agricultural sectors have been added to the provisions on the optional regional application of the single farm payment scheme.

---

(1)  COM(2002) 394 final.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/78 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/78

---

(2004/C 78 E/0077)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2111/03

by Proinsias De Rossa (PSE) to the Commission

(25 June 2003)

Subject:   Comparative study of special needs teaching

EP resolution A5-0377/2001 (1) of 15 November 2001 called on the Commission to carry out a comparative study on the functioning, funding and results of the various systems of teaching for pupils with special needs in the European Union. What action has the Commission taken in response to this call and when will it be in a position, if it has not already done so, to release this study?

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(24 July 2003)

The Commission pays great attention to the various approaches to teaching for pupils with special needs. Already in 1998, the European Agency for Special Needs Education carried out a study, co-financed by the Commission, on ‘Integration in Europe, Provision for Pupils with Special Educational Needs’. This study focussed on trends in 14 European countries. An update is currently being prepared.

With regard to the parliamentary resolution in question, the Commission co-financed a report on ‘Special Needs Education in Europe’ in 2003, carried out and published by the Agency in co-operation with Eurydice (Information Network on Education in Europe). The electronic version is already available in French and in English on the website of the Agency at the following address: www.european-agency.org. The study, which covers 26 European countries, is being translated into eleven other languages.

It examines current practice across Europe in five key areas:

| — | inclusive education policies and practices; |
| --- | --- |

—

inclusive education policies and practices;

| — | funding of special needs education; |
| --- | --- |

—

funding of special needs education;

| — | teachers and special needs education; |
| --- | --- |

—

teachers and special needs education;

| — | information and communication Technology in Special Needs Education; |
| --- | --- |

—

information and communication Technology in Special Needs Education;

| — | and early intervention. |
| --- | --- |

—

and early intervention.

The Commission intends to continue monitoring developments in the field of special needs education on a regular basis.

---

(1)  OJ C 140 E, 13.6.2002, p. 589.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/79 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/79

---

(2004/C 78 E/0078)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2120/03

by Isabelle Caullery (UEN) to the Commission

(25 June 2003)

Subject:   Development of renewable energy sources in Moldova

| 1. | Can the Commission inform us of the various types of aid, measures, programmes and/or budget lines that can be used to promote the development of renewable energy sources, particularly wind energy, in Moldova, bearing in mind that the country depends on oil and gas imports for 99 % of its energy supplies? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Can the Commission inform us of the various types of aid, measures, programmes and/or budget lines that can be used to promote the development of renewable energy sources, particularly wind energy, in Moldova, bearing in mind that the country depends on oil and gas imports for 99 % of its energy supplies?

| 2. | Can the Commission also tell us what facilities are offered by the EIB to promote this type of energy in Moldova, as well as in Romania and Bulgaria? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Can the Commission also tell us what facilities are offered by the EIB to promote this type of energy in Moldova, as well as in Romania and Bulgaria?

| 3. | Does the Commission take the view that the last two countries, which are in line for EU membership in 2007, should internalise the objective of the European directive whereby by 2010 12 % of the energy used in Europe will be from renewable sources? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Does the Commission take the view that the last two countries, which are in line for EU membership in 2007, should internalise the objective of the European directive whereby by 2010 12 % of the energy used in Europe will be from renewable sources?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(4 August 2003)

The main programme for providing financial assistance to Moldova is Tacis. This programme offers technical assistance on the basis of shared values and priorities agreed with the partner countries concerned. Currently, Tacis is not engaged in activities directed to support the development of renewable energy resources in Moldova, since they have not been identified among national priorities.

Tacis is, however, engaged in the development of the energy market and resources through the Inogate regional programme, whose activities cover Moldova.

In addition, Moldova is an observer in the dialogue on Regional Electricity Market in South East Europe that is organised by the Commission. This provides a forum in which Moldova can learn from the experience of other countries on how to ensure balanced approach to energy production.

Finally, the multi-annual programme Intelligent Energy for Europe (IEE), covering the period 2003-2006, is open to Candidate Countries and includes also a domain, called Coopener, which is devoted to cooperation with third countries. At present, however, a final decision has yet to be made regarding possible beneficiary countries.

European Investment Bank (EIB) loans and projects are not open to Moldova. However, in Moldova this type of activity could be financed through European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) loans. Bulgaria and Romania do benefit from EIB loans under the general lending mandate for Central and Eastern European countries, guaranteed by the Community budget, and under the three-year Pre-Accession Facility, which is not covered by the Community guarantee. The EIB is interested in increasing support for investments in renewable energy, including wind energy. Its aim is to at least double its loan volume (individual and dedicated global loans) for renewable energy between 2002 and 2007.

The objective of achieving a 12 % contribution from renewable energy sources to overall energy consumption in the Union was included in Commission White Paper from 1997 (1). The 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 (2) is part of the ‘acquis’ to be implemented by Romania and Bulgaria before accession. Both countries have been regularly encouraged to enhance the use of renewable energy and to define national indicative targets, consistent with the global indicative target of 12 % of gross national energy consumption by 2010.

---

(1)  COM(97) 599 final.

(2)  OJ L 283, 27.10.2001.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/80 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/80

---

(2004/C 78 E/0079)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2127/03

by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(25 June 2003)

Subject:   Guarantees as to the correctness of businesses' financial information

The Flemish newspaper De Standaard reported on 13 June 2003 that a majority (three quarters) of financial directors have doubts about the accuracy and quality of the available financial information concerning their business. These findings come from a study by a French business specialising in financial reporting software and are based on information supplied by 150 financial directors of large international companies.

Is the Commission aware of this alarming finding and, bearing in mind that several major business scandals have occurred recently, will it:

| (a) | check these data, and |
| --- | --- |

(a)

check these data, and

| (b) | take measures to guarantee that such companies' employees, investors and customers (i.e. society) receive accurate financial information? |
| --- | --- |

(b)

take measures to guarantee that such companies' employees, investors and customers (i.e. society) receive accurate financial information?

If so, what steps will the Commission take to this end?

If not, why will the Commission not take any action on the findings of this study?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(6 August 2003)

| (a) | The Commission was not aware of this specific study by a French company specialising in financial reporting software. It will however, assess this study. The survey results, if correct, are indeed of concern, and also surprising. Surprising because financial directors of large international companies from the Union normally sign-off for the accuracy of the financial statements as a member of the board of directors. |
| --- | --- |

(a)

The Commission was not aware of this specific study by a French company specialising in financial reporting software. It will however, assess this study. The survey results, if correct, are indeed of concern, and also surprising. Surprising because financial directors of large international companies from the Union normally sign-off for the accuracy of the financial statements as a member of the board of directors.

| (b) | Back in 1999 when the Commission proposed the International Accounting Standards (IAS) financial reporting strategy, the Commission emphasised that Europe needs strong and consistent enforcement of IAS. Enron and other scandals have confirmed the importance that the Commission attached to enforcement of financial reporting standards. The Commission is working on high quality IAS enforcement on different fronts with European national securities regulators through the Committee of European Securities Regulators (CESR) network, the action plan on company law and corporate governance as well as through improving the audit function in the Union. |
| --- | --- |

(b)

Back in 1999 when the Commission proposed the International Accounting Standards (IAS) financial reporting strategy, the Commission emphasised that Europe needs strong and consistent enforcement of IAS. Enron and other scandals have confirmed the importance that the Commission attached to enforcement of financial reporting standards. The Commission is working on high quality IAS enforcement on different fronts with European national securities regulators through the Committee of European Securities Regulators (CESR) network, the action plan on company law and corporate governance as well as through improving the audit function in the Union.

The following measures have been proposed or adopted to ensure accurate financial reporting:

| — | CESR adopted in April 2003 its first standard on Financial Information: ‘Enforcement of standards on financial information in Europe’. This standard represents a significant contribution to the task of developing and implementing a common approach to the enforcement of International Accounting Standards in Europe. |
| --- | --- |

—

CESR adopted in April 2003 its first standard on Financial Information: ‘Enforcement of standards on financial information in Europe’. This standard represents a significant contribution to the task of developing and implementing a common approach to the enforcement of International Accounting Standards in Europe.

| — | The Commission's action plan on ‘Modernising Company Law and Enhancing Corporate Governance in the European Union’ (1) (issued on 21 May 2003) called, amongst many other actions, for a legislative measure to confirm at Union level the collective responsibility of board members for financial statements as a short term priority. |
| --- | --- |

—

The Commission's action plan on ‘Modernising Company Law and Enhancing Corporate Governance in the European Union’ (1) (issued on 21 May 2003) called, amongst many other actions, for a legislative measure to confirm at Union level the collective responsibility of board members for financial statements as a short term priority.

| — | The Commission outlined in its Communication ‘Reinforcing the statutory audit in the EU’ (2), of 21 May 2003 a series of actions aimed at further improving statutory audit quality in the Union. Important short term priorities will be the modernisation of Union legislation on auditing (the 8th Company Law Directive (3)), strengthening public oversight and the use of International Standards on Auditing from 2005 onwards. |
| --- | --- |

—

The Commission outlined in its Communication ‘Reinforcing the statutory audit in the EU’ (2), of 21 May 2003 a series of actions aimed at further improving statutory audit quality in the Union. Important short term priorities will be the modernisation of Union legislation on auditing (the 8th Company Law Directive (3)), strengthening public oversight and the use of International Standards on Auditing from 2005 onwards.

These actions demonstrate that the Commission is strongly committed to ensuring proper financial reporting which is a crucial to protect the interests of shareholders, creditors, employees and other stakeholders.

---

(1)  COM(2003) 284 final.

(2)  COM(2003) 286 final.

(3)  Eighth Council Directive 84/253/EEC of 10 April 1984 based on Article 54 (3)(g) of theTreaty on the approval of persons responsible for carrying out the statutory audits of accounting documents, OJ L 126, 12.5.1984.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/82 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/82

---

(2004/C 78 E/0080)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2166/03

by Giuseppe Di Lello Finuoli (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(30 June 2003)

Subject:   Update regarding of the Italian State and Campania Regional Government funding of the programme contract presented by Agrifuturo

In the Commission's reply of 5 June 2003 to Written Question P-1530/03 (1) (which was a follow-up to Written Question P-0126/03 (2)) it is stated that relevant information has been received from the Italian Government but has yet to be analysed.

Would the Commission state the eventual outcome of such analysis and indicate any action which it intends to take or which it has already taken?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(7 August 2003)

The Commission has received information on the funding of the programme contract submitted by Agrifuturo Scarl, which it is still analysing.

Once the analysis is complete, one of two things will happen:

| — | if it appears that the terms and conditions of the relevant regulations have been met, the case will be closed, |
| --- | --- |

—

if it appears that the terms and conditions of the relevant regulations have been met, the case will be closed,

| — | if it appears that some of the terms and conditions of the relevant regulations have not been met, the Commission will open the investigation procedure provided for in Article 88(2) of the EC Treaty. |
| --- | --- |

—

if it appears that some of the terms and conditions of the relevant regulations have not been met, the Commission will open the investigation procedure provided for in Article 88(2) of the EC Treaty.

---

(1)  OJ C 58 E, 6.3.2004, p. 77.

(2)  OJ C 161 E, 10.7.2003, p. 180.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/82 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/82

---

(2004/C 78 E/0081)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2173/03

by Paulo Casaca (PSE) to the Commission

(30 June 2003)

Subject:   Compliance with EU legislation on asbestos

In its reply to Written Question E-1551/03 (1) the Commission stated that it intended to contact the Portuguese authorities with a view to ensuring that appropriate action is taken in order to enforce Community legislation on asbestos — thereby justifying the concern felt by the author of this question.

Would the Commission say when it intends to ‘ensure that [he Portuguese authorities] take the necessary measures to enforce the Directive in question’?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(31 July 2003)

In accordance with its recent reply to the Honourable Member's Written Question E-1551/03 (2), the Commission has sent a letter dated 16 June 2003 to the Portuguese Authorities asking them to check the correct and full implementation of Community law related to Asbestos in Portugal as required by Council Directive 76/769/EEC of 27 July 1976 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States relating to restrictions on the marketing and use of certain dangerous substances and preparations (3).

The Commission currently awaits the reply of the Portuguese Authorities before taking, if appropriate, any further action.

---

(1)  See page 37.

(2)  See page 37.

(3)  OJ L 262, 27.9.1976.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/83 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/83

---

(2004/C 78 E/0082)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2176/03

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(30 June 2003)

Subject:   Procurement

Will the Commission estimate for each of the last five years the proportion of public procurement contracts let under the public procurement directives?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(28 July 2003)

The Commission has calculated estimates for the value of contracts advertised in the Official Journal of the European Union in accordance with the public procurement Directives, since 1998. Estimated values for total public procurement within the Union have also been calculated, from statistics provided to Eurostat by national statistical Institutes.

The estimated value of contracts advertised in the Official Journal of the European Union (procurement contracts let under the public procurement directives) as a proportion of total public procurement for the years 1998 to 2001 are set out in the following table for all Member States. Equivalent estimates for 2002 will not be available until later this year.

Value of procurement advertised in the Official Journal as % of total public procurement

| | 1997 | 1998 | 1999 | 2000 | 2001 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Belgium | 10,9 | 13,8 | 15,6 | 15,6 | 18,6 |
| Denmark | 13,4 | 13,5 | 14,3 | 20,9 | 16,0 |
| Germany | 6,3 | 6,5 | 5,2 | 5,6 | 5,7 |
| Greece | 42,9 | 45,1 | 39,5 | 32,7 | 35,1 |
| Spain | 11,5 | 11,5 | 16,8 | 25,3 | 23,4 |
| France | 8,4 | 11,0 | 11,7 | 14,6 | 16,6 |
| Ireland | 19,3 | 16,0 | 16,7 | 21,1 | 18,9 |
| Italy | 11,3 | 10,7 | 13,2 | 17,6 | 15,5 |
| Luxembourg | 9,2 | 14,3 | 12,8 | 12,1 | 10,6 |
| Netherlands | 5,5 | 5,2 | 5,9 | 10,8 | 12,5 |
| Austria | 7,5 | 8,3 | 7,0 | 13,5 | 14,5 |
| Portugal | 15,1 | 15,5 | 14,6 | 15,0 | 17,9 |
| Finland | 8,0 | 9,0 | 9,6 | 13,2 | 15,3 |
| Sweden | 12,9 | 12,9 | 14,0 | 20,1 | 26,2 |
| United Kingdom | 17,9 | 16,9 | 15,1 | 21,4 | 21,4 |
| EU 15 | 10,7 | 11,1 | 11,2 | 15,0 | 15,4 |

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

Belgium

10,9

13,8

15,6

15,6

18,6

Denmark

13,4

13,5

14,3

20,9

16,0

Germany

6,3

6,5

5,2

5,6

5,7

Greece

42,9

45,1

39,5

32,7

35,1

Spain

11,5

11,5

16,8

25,3

23,4

France

8,4

11,0

11,7

14,6

16,6

Ireland

19,3

16,0

16,7

21,1

18,9

Italy

11,3

10,7

13,2

17,6

15,5

Luxembourg

9,2

14,3

12,8

12,1

10,6

Netherlands

5,5

5,2

5,9

10,8

12,5

Austria

7,5

8,3

7,0

13,5

14,5

Portugal

15,1

15,5

14,6

15,0

17,9

Finland

8,0

9,0

9,6

13,2

15,3

Sweden

12,9

12,9

14,0

20,1

26,2

United Kingdom

17,9

16,9

15,1

21,4

21,4

EU 15

10,7

11,1

11,2

15,0

15,4

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/84 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/84

---

(2004/C 78 E/0083)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2180/03

by Samuli Pohjamo (ELDR) and Mikko Pesälä (ELDR) to the Commission

(30 June 2003)

Subject:   Damage caused by predators in the Finnish reindeer range

Reindeer husbandry has long traditions in Finland. Reindeer husbandry and herding are not directly comparable to farming. Reindeer graze freely in a vast wilderness.

Predator populations have increased alarmingly as a result of the protection requirements laid down in the EU Habitats Directive (Directive 92/43/EEC (1)). Predators seek out areas where food is ready to hand, in other words the reindeer range. In particular, members of herding cooperatives close to the Russian border have lost huge numbers of reindeer in recent years. There is evidence that by 31 May of this year, predators had already killed 160 reindeer in the Suomussalmi area alone. In the Halla herding cooperative, wolves have caused the number of reindeer for slaughter to slump to a third of the normal level.

In most cases, the carcasses of reindeer killed by predators are never found in the vast wilds of the range. It is up to reindeer herdsmen to look for their animals and meet the costs incurred in so doing. A great deal of resources and valuable time are wasted in protecting reindeer from predators at the expense of reindeer husbandry proper, thus undermining its viability. In addition, the larger bear population has led to substantial losses of reindeer calves, a situation due in part to the fact that spring hunting privileges have been abolished.

Reindeer herdsmen are invoking Article 16(1), and in particular point (b) thereof, of the Habitats Directive. The reindeer are their property, and predators are inflicting serious specific damage. The expanded predator population threatens to wipe out the traditional livelihood of the EU's only aboriginal people, the Lapps. For the most part, the damage caused by predators affects the reindeer range, and that is therefore the area where the predator population should be reduced appreciably.

Do the Union and the Commission accept that the ever-increasing predator populations will destroy traditional reindeer herding in a sparsely populated region with little in the way of industry and commerce?

Can the national authorities issue licences by more flexible accelerated procedures in order to keep predator populations under control in the reindeer range and hence preserve the operating conditions required to make reindeer herding possible?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(30 July 2003)

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), Annex IV (a). These species are therefore subject to the strict protection scheme that requires, among others, that their deliberate killing is prohibited. Derogation from the protection regime in a case of serious damage to property may be granted under Article 16(1) which allows for the elimination of the damage-causing individuals.

According to official information from the Finnish authorities, the populations of bear and lynx are stable rather than expanding. The spring hunting of bear was discontinued well before Finland joined the Union, the reasons for this being national — a general unsustainability of the hunting and a considerable number of cub-nursing females being killed by hunters in the spring. The wolf densities in the reindeer herding area are far lower than elsewhere in Eastern Finland, because of its lower protection status there. There is no evidence to support the claim that the large carnivore populations are ever-increasing in the reindeer herding area.

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, it is prohibited to use indiscriminate means of capture or killing that would lead to local disappearance or serious disturbance of populations (3). It lies within the competence of the national authorities to take the appropriate measures with due regard to the above. The Commission's task, in accordance with Article 211 of the EC Treaty, is to ensure that the protection of those species by Finland fulfils the requirements of the Directive.

---

(1)  OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7.

(2)  OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.

(3)  Article 15 of Council Directive 92/43/EEC.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/85 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/85

---

(2004/C 78 E/0084)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2186/03

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(30 June 2003)

Subject:   Need for better consumer protection against malicious or negligent practices in international e-commerce

| 1. | Is the Commission aware of the findings of the European Consumer Centre which indicate that, in too many cases, international shopping over the Internet results in failure to deliver the goods ordered (34 %), payments being banked for goods which have not been delivered (8 %), failure to repay the price of goods returned by the recipient (33 %) and failure to repay the costs of delivery of goods returned (37 %)? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is the Commission aware of the findings of the European Consumer Centre which indicate that, in too many cases, international shopping over the Internet results in failure to deliver the goods ordered (34 %), payments being banked for goods which have not been delivered (8 %), failure to repay the price of goods returned by the recipient (33 %) and failure to repay the costs of delivery of goods returned (37 %)?

| 2. | In view of these figures, does the Commission agree with the Consumer Centre's conclusion that the position of consumers is highly unsatisfactory in this respect? |
| --- | --- |

2.

In view of these figures, does the Commission agree with the Consumer Centre's conclusion that the position of consumers is highly unsatisfactory in this respect?

| 3. | Does the Commission agree with me that additional protection is needed?
  If so, what will the Commission do to bring about the introduction of rules to protect consumers adequately against abuse by international e-commerce firms which commit malicious and deliberate abuses and are difficult for consumers to trace and whose principal business seems to consist of receiving money for goods which they do not deliver? What initiatives will the Commission take to this end? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Does the Commission agree with me that additional protection is needed?

If so, what will the Commission do to bring about the introduction of rules to protect consumers adequately against abuse by international e-commerce firms which commit malicious and deliberate abuses and are difficult for consumers to trace and whose principal business seems to consist of receiving money for goods which they do not deliver? What initiatives will the Commission take to this end?

| 4. | How are e-commerce businesses monitored, particularly to prevent abuses by businesses acting in bad faith? |
| --- | --- |

4.

How are e-commerce businesses monitored, particularly to prevent abuses by businesses acting in bad faith?

| 5. | Might it be possible to prohibit businesses from receiving payments before the goods have been delivered and/or possibly returned? How could compliance with such a prohibition be adequately policed? |
| --- | --- |

5.

Might it be possible to prohibit businesses from receiving payments before the goods have been delivered and/or possibly returned? How could compliance with such a prohibition be adequately policed?

| 6. | Might it be possible to recognise that — until such time as it becomes possible to provide genuinely effective protection against abuses — consumers should be strongly advised to avoid making purchases over the Internet or this method of purchase should even be stopped until supplementary security requirements which will make abuses impossible have been met? |
| --- | --- |

6.

Might it be possible to recognise that — until such time as it becomes possible to provide genuinely effective protection against abuses — consumers should be strongly advised to avoid making purchases over the Internet or this method of purchase should even be stopped until supplementary security requirements which will make abuses impossible have been met?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(13 August 2003)

The Commission is indeed aware of the report and its findings. It has supported the European Consumer Centres' initiative in this matter, and is also supporting their initiative to continue their work in this area.

The Commission has taken note of the conclusions of the report. Even though the results of the report are based on a fairly small sample of test transactions, the report does appear to show that the e-commerce market in the Union is not functioning as it should.

In this context, however, the Commission believes that whereas malevolent and abusive practices may be a part of the problem, this is not the full picture. Questions which will play an important role in this respect are those related to the understanding, by both consumers and companies, in particular small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), of the rules and regulations put in place to preserve consumers' interests. Moreover, there should be an analysis of the numbers of defective cases within Member States as opposed to those in cross-border trade, compared against the respective levels of national and international purchases. Both the Commission and the European Consumer Centres are planning to follow-up on their work.

The Commission has been aware of the need for additional efforts at Union level to protect consumers. This issue is wider in scope than e-commerce, and affects all aspects of cross-border B2C trade.

There is already a sound level of protection provided under existing rules, and in particular the distance selling Directive (1), even though its transposition in Member States has been slow, and the e-commerce Directive (2).

In addition, the Commission has recently launched a proposal for a Framework Directive on unfair commercial practices (3). This Directive, once implemented, should raise, and in particular harmonise, the level of protection of consumers against unfair practices across the Union. It will also complement existing legislation in this area.

Control and monitoring of companies' activities, and enforcement of consumer protection legislation, belongs to the Member States' competence. The Commission is, however, working towards enhancing cooperation between Member States in this area, notably through the proposal for a Regulation on cooperation between national authorities responsible for enforcement of consumer protection laws, adopted on 18 July 2003 (4).

As the Honourable Member is aware, the issue of payments in e-commerce is complex, and includes questions such as ‘chargeback’ (in which case the consumer's credit card company undertakes to recover payments from the merchant in case of dispute), or indeed the possibility of obliging companies to refrain from collection until delivery has taken place. All these options are currently being considered by the Commission.

The Commission does not share the Honourable Member's view that consumers should be advised not to shop on the internet. Even though the e-commerce report of the European Consumer Centres shows that there are shortcomings in some respects, the Commission would not conclude that shopping on the Internet is in itself unsafe.

What, the Commission believes, is important is to inform consumers of what they should expect and require from e-merchants. Similarly, e-merchants should be informed about the applicable legal requirements and encouraged to inform consumers clearly about their rights.

The Commission would also like to draw the Honourable Member's attention to the e-confidence initiative which was launched by the Member of the Commission in charge of Health and Consumer Protection and which resulted in a joint document presented by European Consumers and Employers. This initiative, which aims at producing a set of European standards for e-commerce trustmarks, is part of the overall package of consumer protection initiatives undertaken by the Commission.

---

(1)  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, OJ L 144, 4.6.1997.

(2)  Directive 2000/31/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2000 on certain legal aspects of information society services, in particular electronic commerce, in the Internal Market, OJ L 178, 17.7.2000.

(3)  COM(2003) 356 final.

(4)  COM(2003) 443 final.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/87 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/87

---

(2004/C 78 E/0085)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2187/03

by Sérgio Marques (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(30 June 2003)

Subject:   Participation by the outermost regions in the RTD framework programmes

In its 2000 report on measures to implement Article 299(2) of the EC Treaty the Commission expressed support for the proposal put forward by the outermost regions in 1999 with a view to promoting strategic development areas and it emphasised the need for strategies to be developed which would enable the outermost regions to optimise their participation in the RTD framework programmes. In its October 2001 Communication on the Regional Dimension of the European Research Area the Commission also emphasised that its priority was to boost research, technological development and innovation strategy in those regions.

In recital 14 of the Sixth RTD Framework Programme it is stated that the participation of the outermost regions in Community RTD actions through appropriate mechanisms adapted to their particular situation should be facilitated. An identical provision is contained in recital 9 of the regulation laying down the rules for implementing the framework programme and in recitals 10 and 11 of the specific implementing programmes. In spite of this the EU has yet to take any action to put those recitals into practice, in terms of either scope or content.

Since promoting research, technological development, demonstration and innovation in the outermost regions is of major importance as a means of furthering those regions' active participation in the activities of the European Research Area, would the Commission answer the following questions:

| 1. | When and how does the Commission intend to facilitate effective, active participation by the outermost regions in the Sixth RTD Framework Programme? |
| --- | --- |

1.

When and how does the Commission intend to facilitate effective, active participation by the outermost regions in the Sixth RTD Framework Programme?

| 2. | Technical assistance in the presentation of projects, support for the formation of partnerships and the establishment of assessment criteria suited to the particular situation of the outermost regions are some of the requisite measures. What action is the Commission intending to take in this area? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Technical assistance in the presentation of projects, support for the formation of partnerships and the establishment of assessment criteria suited to the particular situation of the outermost regions are some of the requisite measures. What action is the Commission intending to take in this area?

Answer given by Mr Busquin on behalf of the Commission

(6 August 2003)

The Commission pays special attention to the participation of the outermost regions in the Research and Development Framework Programme. Strengthening links between researchers in these regions and European centres of excellence is mutually beneficial, as the outermost regions have climatic, geographical and geological conditions which are of major importance for European research.

Since the aim of the Framework Programme is to provide funding for the best European teams in terms of scientific excellence, the participation criteria for the outermost regions cannot be adapted in the way proposed by the Honourable Member. The Commission has, however, adopted a number of provisions which enable the participation of the outermost regions in the Research Framework Programme to be supported and optimised.

First of all, bodies in Objective 1 regions which are selected to participate in a Framework Programme project may now apply for supplementary funding under the Structural Funds. This new measure, which has been introduced for the Sixth Research Framework Programme, will in particular benefit those outermost regions which are all Objective 1 regions. The Member States have been informed about this possibility and asked to disseminate this information widely to the relevant regional teams.

More generally, support from the Structural Funds for the development of research infrastructure in the outermost regions helps to strengthen the scientific excellence of these regions, and therefore their ability to participate in the Research Framework Programme.

In addition, the Commission makes an active contribution to informing the outermost regions about ways in which they can participate in the Framework Programme. These were presented by the Commission at the last Conference of the Presidents of the outermost regions in La Palma. The Sixth Framework Programme (2002-2006) provides new opportunities for the outermost regions, in particular for the mobility of their researchers, with the budget available for mobility grants having been considerably increased, and for the coordination of national and regional research programmes through the new instrument to promote cooperation on and the coordination of research and innovation activities (ERA-NET).

Finally, the Commission has had a study carried out on the integration of the outermost regions into the European Research Area, which has led to a number of proposals to both the Commission and the national and regional authorities. The study has also led those involved to create a database on research capability in the outermost regions, which will help to provide a better understanding of the research potential of these regions and integrate them in research partnerships financed by the Framework Programme. The study and the database are available on the website www.erup.net, which will have a direct link to the new web portal on research in the regions established by the Commission.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/88 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/88

---

(2004/C 78 E/0086)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2191/03

by José Ribeiro e Castro (UEN) to the Commission

(2 July 2003)

Subject:   Funding for the IRENE organisation

In answer to other recent questions to the Commission (E-0344/03 (1) and P-1436/03 (2)), Mrs Diamantopoulou stated that the whole amount of appropriations under the new budget Item A-3046 had been allocated to an organisation called IRENE and described the terms and conditions under which this action had been taken. I need to gain a clearer understanding of the matter.

Can the Commission therefore say what Community subsidies or other type of financial support it granted to IRENE, directly or indirectly, in the years 2000, 2001, 2002, and — as far as is known — 2003? Specifically, what amounts were granted under what budget headings and/or Community programmes?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(14 August 2003)

According to the Commission's databases on contracts, the following amounts have been committed to the Irene organisation:

| — | in 2001, an amount of EUR 36 402 under the STOP programme (budget heading B5-820); |
| --- | --- |

—

in 2001, an amount of EUR 36 402 under the STOP programme (budget heading B5-820);

| — | in 2002, an amount of EUR 99 494,36 under budget heading B3-4105 (Preparatory measures combating and preventing exclusion) and an amount of EUR 300 000 under budget heading A-3046 (Women's organisations). |
| --- | --- |

—

in 2002, an amount of EUR 99 494,36 under budget heading B3-4105 (Preparatory measures combating and preventing exclusion) and an amount of EUR 300 000 under budget heading A-3046 (Women's organisations).

---

(1)  OJ C 161 E, 10.7.2003, p. 211.

(2)  OJ C 268 E, 7.11.2003, p. 198.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/89 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/89

---

(2004/C 78 E/0087)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2194/03

by Michael Cashman (PSE) to the Commission

(26 June 2003)

Subject:   Counterfeiting and piracy

In January 2003, the Commission held a Forum on the prevention and combating of counterfeiting and piracy. What action is the Commission now planning with a view to enhancing cooperation under the third pillar in order to counter the illegal smuggling of goods liable to excise duty?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(29 July 2003)

Intellectual property violations such as counterfeiting and product piracy pose a major challenge in the fight against organised crime. They affect a broad variety of sectors. Counterfeiting and piracy are an international phenomenon which must be tackled as such.

On 30 January 2003 the Commission organised a meeting on the fight against piracy and counterfeiting in the context of the Forum on Organised Crime Prevention.

The meeting was attended by about a hundred experts and provided the opportunity for a constructive dialogue between representatives of business, national judicial authorities, the police, customs, and European and international organisations.

The conclusions of this meeting included:

| — | the acknowledgement of the importance of harmonising criminal legislation in the Union as regards counterfeiting and improving police and judicial cooperation, in particular where organised crime is involved, as well as the need for penal sanctions to be proportionate and dissuasive; |
| --- | --- |

—

the acknowledgement of the importance of harmonising criminal legislation in the Union as regards counterfeiting and improving police and judicial cooperation, in particular where organised crime is involved, as well as the need for penal sanctions to be proportionate and dissuasive;

| — | the need for provisions regarding the confiscation of the proceeds of crime; |
| --- | --- |

—

the need for provisions regarding the confiscation of the proceeds of crime;

| — | the recognition that legislation to improve police and judicial co-operation in the Union should be fully applied in the fight against counterfeiting and piracy, in particular where offences are committed in connection with organised crime, and that the principle of mutual recognition of judgements in criminal matters should be applied as widely as possible to such offences; |
| --- | --- |

—

the recognition that legislation to improve police and judicial co-operation in the Union should be fully applied in the fight against counterfeiting and piracy, in particular where offences are committed in connection with organised crime, and that the principle of mutual recognition of judgements in criminal matters should be applied as widely as possible to such offences;

| — | the acknowledgement that Member States should ensure that there is good co-ordination between the various services responsible for the fight against counterfeiting, for example by establishing national specialist centralised services staffed by both police and customs officers; |
| --- | --- |

—

the acknowledgement that Member States should ensure that there is good co-ordination between the various services responsible for the fight against counterfeiting, for example by establishing national specialist centralised services staffed by both police and customs officers;

| — | that public-private partnerships should be established to help prevent counterfeiting and piracy and that training programmes for judicial authorities and enforcement services should be intensified. |
| --- | --- |

—

that public-private partnerships should be established to help prevent counterfeiting and piracy and that training programmes for judicial authorities and enforcement services should be intensified.

As a follow-up to the Forum meeting on 30 January 2003, the Commission is working on a text to approximate penal sanctions at Union level and to improve cross-border cooperation between responsible authorities in the Member States.

This instrument will provide third pillar measures which are complementary to the proposal for a directive concerning the means of enforcing respect for intellectual property rights (1).

The Commission is also organising further meetings in order to enhance the fight against counterfeiting and product piracy and to maintain close working relations with Europol which has created a new working group in this field.

Concerning illegal smuggling of excised goods, such as cigarettes, a new procedure of exchange of information has entered into force between the world customs organisation (WCO) and the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) on 1 July 2003 and will be in application as from 1 September 2003.

---

(1)  COM(2003)46 final.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/90 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/90

---

(2004/C 78 E/0088)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2196/03

by Geoffrey Van Orden (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(2 July 2003)

Subject:   Civil protection

What civil protection resources and capabilities are available to the European Commission and how is the Commission organised to handle these matters? What is the Commission's budget for civil protection activities for each year in the period 2000-2005? What steps are taken to ensure that the Commission does not duplicate the activities of the Euro-Atlantic Disaster Response Coordination Centre at NATO HQ? In the event of a crisis, what mechanisms exist to ensure that the Commission's call for and mobilisation of capabilities, and execution of civil protection procedures, are fully coordinated with those of NATO?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(31 July 2003)

Following the Council Decision 2001/792/EC, Euratom of 23 October 2001 establishing a Community mechanism to facilitate reinforced co-operation in civil protection assistance interventions (1), the Commission has established a Response Centre which is accessible and able to react immediately 24 hours a day. The Centre can be activated in case of a natural or man-made emergency, occurring inside or outside the Union. If it receives a request for assistance, it takes up immediate contact with the 24-hour contact points of the countries participating in the mechanism (Member States, European Economic Area (EEA) and Accession Countries). Then, the Centre puts together the means available, offered on a voluntary basis by the national competent authorities and facilitates their deployment.

The budget for Civil Protection activities for the year 2003 is EUR 6,5 million. This budget covers, on a co-financing basis, different types of activities: training, exercises and exchange of experts for civil protection personnel, workshops and projects aiming at better information of the public, awareness raising projects.

Out of this budget EUR 2 million have been earmarked by the Parliament for floods and earthquake forecasting projects.

The Commission has developed regular contacts with all relevant bodies and international organisations concerned with civil protection, including NATO's Euro-Atlantic Disaster Response Coordination Centre (EADRCC). It will be up to those Member States who have offered civil protection capabilities to one or more co-ordination centres to decide how best their resources should be deployed in any given emergency situation. Council Decision 1999/847/CE establishing a Community action programme in the field of civil protection (2) is also worth mentioning in this context.

---

(1)  OJ L 297, 15.11.2001.

(2)  OJ L 327, 21.12.1999.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/90 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/90

---

(2004/C 78 E/0089)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2197/03

by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(2 July 2003)

Subject:   Cattle transport — CATRA findings

The Commission announces in its communication IP/03/854 that the CATRA research project makes recommendations on the transportation of cattle (over long distances).

According to the findings of this study, animals experience the greatest stress during loading and unloading. Also, cattle transport vehicles need better, more appropriate design. The study also calls for improvements in the design of lairage facilities.

What concrete measures will the Commission be taking in these areas in order not only to improve the quality of the meat — as it states in its communication —, but also to ensure that transportation of animals takes place under the best possible conditions for them?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(4 August 2003)

A legislative proposal on the protection of animals during transport was adopted by the Commission on 16 July 2003. Scientific advice provides a sound basis for the formulation of policy proposals by the Commission and the recent findings of the Community-funded cattle transport (CATRA) research project provide valuable information in this regard. Additional inputs concerning this issue include an opinion from the Scientific Committee on Animal Health and Animal Welfare and the outcome of a detailed stakeholder and public consultation.

The legislative proposal takes these various elements into account in order to improve the protection of animals during transport. The Commission's proposal covers inter alia animal loading and unloading, handling facilities, vehicle standards and the training of personnel. The Commission believes that a step-by-step approach represents the best means of securing real improvements in animal welfare over the short to medium term. Consequently, the Commission proposal aims to ensure that the high standards recommended by scientists are implemented by the creation of proper legislative instruments, facilitating improved control and enforcement by the national competent authorities.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/91 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/91

---

(2004/C 78 E/0090)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2206/03

by Gerhard Schmid (PSE) to the Commission

(2 July 2003)

Subject:   Action to confine marketing of specified products to the Czech Republic

Appendix A to Annex V to the Accession Act lists establishments in the Czech Republic that are permitted to delay until 31 December 2006 their compliance, in the area of veterinary legislation, with the structural requirements of the directives applicable respectively to fresh meat, fresh poultry meat, meat products, egg products and milk. Products originating from those establishments may, during that period, only be placed on the domestic market or used for further processing in domestic establishments.

I therefore ask the Commission what action can be taken, short of border checks on products, to ensure that the above products originating from the Czech establishments concerned have in fact been placed or processed only on the domestic market?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(8 August 2003)

The provisions of Annex V to the Accession Act provide specific rules guaranteeing that products from establishments granted a transitional period do not circulate in the internal market. In addition, Annex V entitles the Commission to adopt detailed implementing rules for the production, marketing (including special marking) and control of products originating from establishments granted a transitional period.

The Commission has initiated discussions on supplementary control measures to be applied to the production and marketing of products in transition with existing and new Member States.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/92 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/92

---

(2004/C 78 E/0091)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2207/03

by Charles Tannock (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(2 July 2003)

Subject:   Labelling of animal, including poultry, products and problems posed for members of religious minorities eating these products

The UK Food Standards Agency (FSA) has recently urged the Commission to cap the amount of water that may be added to chicken products to 15 % and to ban the use of non-chicken proteins such as beef and pork in those products. This follows the carrying-out of two surveys during December 2001 and March 2003 which revealed that some chicken pieces had as much as 55 % added water. There is no other use for these additional non-chicken animal proteins except to retain very high levels of added water. This practice, in turn, is liable not only to deceive consumers but to cause problems for members of religious communities such as Jews, Hindus and Muslims who do not eat beef or pork even if they do not specifically buy meat products prepared and approved by their respective religious authorities.

Can the Commission indicate whether or not it is correct that there is no limit to the amount of water that can be added to chicken and poultry products, and, if so, whether the Commission believes that some kind of limit should be set? Further, does the Commission accept that this would be entirely compatible with WTO rules, given that Article 2.2 of the Agreement to technical barriers to trade (TBT) require only that labelling requirements be ‘not more trade restrictive than necessary to fulfill a legitimate objective, taking account of the risks non-fulfilment would create’ and that such objectives include inter-alia ‘the prevention of deceptive practices’?

Can the Commission also clarify whether or not it is compulsory or voluntary to indicate on the label of any food product whether or not animal ingredients have been added to the product or, in the case of livestock, nurtured on food containing animal protein? If not, does the Commission believe that consumers have a right to be informed in this way?

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/92 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/92

---

(2004/C 78 E/0092)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2440/03

by Diana Wallis (ELDR) to the Commission

(16 July 2003)

Subject:   Addition of water and protein to chicken meat

The Commission is well aware of the scandalous situation where adulterated and incorrectly labelled chicken meat is being imported in large quantities into the UK. Trading Standards Officers in Hull have been pursuing this racket for six years. Most of this processed meat is exported from the Netherlands. In the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health, the Dutch authorities claimed to have ended fraudulent practices on 13 June 2002, but this is clearly not the case. Indeed, the problem is getting worse as the processors are now using blocking agents to produce a negative PCR result for most tests.

Consumers and certain religious communities are being misled by the immoral practice of adding beef and pork proteins to chicken meat which is then labelled Halal. This is completely unacceptable. What immediate action will the Commission take to suspend exports of such products? Will the Commission bring forward urgently-needed legislation to limit the maximum allowable percentage of added water to 15 % and ban the use of protein additives?

Joint answer to

Written Questions E-2207/03 and P-2440/03

given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(12 September 2003)

The present Community legislation does not provide for a limit to the amount of water that can be added to poultrymeat preparations and poultrymeat products. On the other hand, the fraudulent practice of not indicating in the label the artificial increase of the weight of meat by the addition of proteins and water should be strictly controlled and any fraud prosecuted by the competent authority in the Member State. The Commission has been alerted already and consideration is being given to the possibility of emphasising the water content on the labelling of meat preparations. Moreover, the Commission is also studying the possibility of developing standards to limit the amount of water that can be added to such products.

Any possible future initiative by the Commission in this area will take into full account the need to respect the World Trade Organisation/Technical Barries to Trade (WTO/TBT) obligations.

The indication of all ingredients used in the manufacture of any foodstuff, and still present in the finished product, is compulsory according to Directive 2000/13/EC of the 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 (1). Also the use of animal proteins in feed for livestock is well regulated within the Union and indication of different feed materials will be compulsory when labelling feed for livestock as from 6 November 2003.

---

(1)  OJ L 109, 6.5.2000.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/93 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/93

---

(2004/C 78 E/0093)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2216/03

by Marco Pannella (NI), Maurizio Turco (NI), Marco Cappato (NI), Benedetto Della Vedova (NI), Gianfranco Dell'Alba (NI) and Olivier Dupuis (NI) to the Commission

(2 July 2003)

Subject:   Arrest of twelve members of an evangelical church in China

Twelve members of an evangelical church have been arrested and eight of them are liable to be detained in labour camps if the court finds them guilty of ‘disseminating feudal superstitions’. The church is not recognised by the Beijing authorities and has been out of operation since 6 June 2003, after Chinese police broke into four private houses where religious ceremonies were being held. The authorities responsible for supervision of religious organisations have justified the arrests on the grounds that the accused were ‘visiting villages twice a week, spreading superstitious beliefs there and requesting donations from already impoverished local inhabitants’.

The persons arrested are liable to be sent to labour camps merely for manifesting their religion through teaching, practice, worship and observance, in accordance with Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

The Commission:

| — | Does it have more detailed information on the fate of these twelve Chinese citizens? |
| --- | --- |

—

Does it have more detailed information on the fate of these twelve Chinese citizens?

| — | How will it monitor their trial and safeguard their right to a defence? |
| --- | --- |

—

How will it monitor their trial and safeguard their right to a defence?

| — | Will it convey a message to the Beijing authorities strongly condemning this incident, stressing that it is totally contrary to the principles enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights to make the full enjoyment of the right to religious freedom subject to state authorisation and to prevent religious ceremonies from being conducted in private homes? |
| --- | --- |

—

Will it convey a message to the Beijing authorities strongly condemning this incident, stressing that it is totally contrary to the principles enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights to make the full enjoyment of the right to religious freedom subject to state authorisation and to prevent religious ceremonies from being conducted in private homes?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(31 July 2003)

The Commission has no further details on the situation of the 12 members of the Evangelical Church and will endeavour to obtain information. Through the EU-China bilateral dialogue on human rights the EU regularly raises the issue of freedom of religion and faith and will certainly address the matter of these citizens arrested for practising their faith. Should a trial be held, the EU will consider the most appropriate means to monitor it and ensure that it takes place in satisfactory conditions.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/94 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/94

---

(2004/C 78 E/0094)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2221/03

by Alexander de Roo (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(2 July 2003)

Subject:   Situation of the High Flux Reactor in Petten

According to a report in the 18 June 2003 edition of ‘De Volkskrant’, Europe wants to abandon the nuclear reactor in Petten. The European Union, the owner of the High Flux Reactor (HFR) wants to abandon as soon as possible its authorisation for the reactor which is actually operated by NRG (Nuclear Research and Consultancy Group). The transfer has to be completed by the end of 2003.

The Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and the Environment's transfer documents dated 15 May 2003 (see http://www.vrom.nl/pagina.html?id=2686) set out three options (a Netherlands company becomes the owner of the reactor, a Netherlands company becomes the owner of the authorisation to operate the reactor, the authorisation remains with the Joint Research Centre) which are currently under review.

Over the last two years, the operation of and the situation pertaining to the HFR have regularly been the subject of concern and disquiet on the part of politicians, the media and the general public. It is alleged that the safety culture is becoming worse, that cracks have appeared in the reactor vessel, that the concrete is decaying and that the reactor might explode.

To what extent is the European Commission prepared to abandon its current ownership rights?

On what grounds?

Given the problems with the safety culture and the alleged technical shortcomings, would it not be better for the European Commission to continue to supervise the HFR?

Answer given by Mr Busquin on behalf of the Commission

(7 August 2003)

The Commission is neither considering a transfer of ownership of the high flux reactor (HFR), nor abandoning its involvement in the use of the HFR for research purposes.

The Commission does, however, intend to put in place a different set up for the chain of responsibility for the safety of the reactor. Therefore, it has indicated since autumn of 2002, to the competent Dutch authority, that the HFR licence should be transferred to NRG, the current operator of the reactor.

The Commission is of the opinion that safety can potentially be improved by introducing shorter lines of communication, providing clearer accountabilities and simplifying and reducing organisational interfaces. In February — March 2002 an audit was performed by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) on the safety culture at the HFR in Petten. One of the IAEA suggestions made in the final report of the audit was to transfer the operational licence from the Commission to the operator, i.e. NRG.

For what concerns the safety culture, an action plan was designed after the IAEA audit and agreed with the Dutch authority, which also regularly monitors the progresses on this issue. The action plan will be completed in time, i.e. by the end of 2003.

For what concerns defect indications in a weld of the reactor vessel, this issue is subject of a very detailed plan of action strictly followed by the Dutch authority and by independent experts.

For what concerns alleged technical shortcomings like that the concrete is decaying the Dutch authority has controlled and confirmed unfounded these allegations after appropriate inspections and extended analysis reviewed by independent bodies.

Finally, the allegation that the reactor might explode was the subject of a thorough analysis reviewed by the Dutch authority and submitted to an independent panel of international experts. The conclusions were that the reactor cannot explode and these conclusions were forwarded to the Dutch Parliament by the State Secretary of Environment in January 2003.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/95 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/95

---

(2004/C 78 E/0095)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2236/03

by Stavros Xarchakos (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(7 July 2003)

Subject:   Disastrous environmental situation in Greece

According to a report published and compiled by the Greek National Environmental Centre on the so-called ‘sustainability indicators’, the level of unmonitored waste disposal is particularly high in Greece in comparison with other EU countries and amounts to 40 %, while the report describes the recovery of useful materials as very low.

With regard to reforestation, it has been calculated that in Greece each year areas of 10 000 to 130 000 hectares are burnt, of which scarcely 1 500 hectares are replanted (figures from 2000), whereas in 1990 4 500 hectares were replanted.

The report also points out that the use of water and fertilisers is increasing faster than the added value of the agricultural products produced, while only 1 % of the total land cultivated is farmed by organic growers.

With reference to water, the report stresses that excessive pumping from underground aquifers has doubled in comparison with 1990 and covers over 40 % of total demand, giving rise to concerns over the future adequacy of the water supply, particularly in view of the delays being experienced in Greece in the construction of infrastructure projects in the water sector.

What are the data on fires and the level of reforestation, and on levels of unmonitored waste disposal in the other EU countries? What is the proportion of organic growers in the other Member States of the Union? Is the Commission concerned, and what approaches has it made to the Greek authorities in respect of excessive pumping from underground aquifers in Greece and the deforestation of Greek forests, which has been particularly marked over the last 20 years in Greece?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(31 July 2003)

The Commission has long recognised the environmental importance of forests and the fact that they can be severely damaged by forest fires, particularly in Southern Europe.

Although the main responsibility for the co-ordination and implementation of forest policy is at the level of Member States, the Community has helped them in their efforts to fight against forest fires. A scheme to protect and monitor forests against fire was established by Council Regulation (EEC) No 2158/92 of 23 July 1992 (1) and expired in 2002.

The Community continues its support to Member States against forest fires through the new Regulation ‘Forest Focus’ — still under discussion — and 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). These Regulations continue all the previous actions developed against forest fires, i.e. prevention measures in the field and monitoring activities.

The Joint Research Centre has released official figures for forest fires in Greece which show that, during the year 2001, the area burnt was below the average of recent decades and comparatively small, taking into account the large number of fires there. The 2002 figures are still being finalised but they are expected to show a similar decrease in the area burnt.

The Commission also has recognised the importance to increase the forest area through the support of afforestation measures. Under Council Regulation (EEC) No 2080/92 of 30 June 1992 (3), instituting a Community aid scheme for forestry measures in agriculture, Member States established one million hectares of forest with the financial support of the Community. In 1999 this measure was incorporated into Council Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999.

The most recent Food and Agricultural Organisation (FAO) publication ‘State of the World's Forests’, published in March 2003, shows that the forest area of Europe is slowly but continuously increasing at an annual rate — calculated for the period 1990-2000 — of about +0,1 %. The rate for Greece is +0,9 %. There is no official evidence to suggest a reduction of the forest area in Greece.

Statistical data that show the share of organic farming areas in Europe, in total of UAA (Utilised Agricultural Area), are available in the annex.

With regard to waste, the Commission does not yet have sufficient information to allow a general overview of uncontrolled waste deposits in the Member States. However, on the basis of individual complaints and other information received by the Commission, infringement procedures were launched against a great number of Member States for non-respect of the Community legislation concerning its treatment.

With regard to the over-abstraction of groundwater, the existing Council Directive 80/68/EEC of 17 December 1979 on the protection of groundwater against pollution caused by certain dangerous substances (4) does not deal with this issue, which will actually be regulated under 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 (5). This Directive has to be implemented by the Member States by the end of 2003. Therefore, no infringement procedures have been launched.

---

(1)  OJ L 217, 31.7.1992.

(2)  OJ L 160, 26.6.1999.

(3)  OJ L 215, 30.7.1992.

(4)  OJ L 20, 26.1.1980.

(5)  OJ L 327, 22.12.2000.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/96 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/96

---

(2004/C 78 E/0096)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2240/03

by Bartho Pronk (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(7 July 2003)

Subject:   Follow-up to an application for a driving licence in another EU Member State

On 15 May 2003 the Commission answered my Written Question E-1269/03 (1). However, the answer is incomplete. The Commission acknowledges that some applicants may not meet the 185-day requirement in any Member State, but fails to deal with the second part of my question, namely what steps individuals and Member States should take in such a case.

Can the Commission answer the following:

| 1. | In the situation outlined above, what should citizens and Member States do in order to comply with what the Commission sees as the clear requirement laid down in Directive 91/439/EEC (2)? |
| --- | --- |

1.

In the situation outlined above, what should citizens and Member States do in order to comply with what the Commission sees as the clear requirement laid down in Directive 91/439/EEC (2)?

| 2. | If a question consists of three parts, would it not be better for the Commission to answer each part separately, so as to ensure that none is forgotten? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If a question consists of three parts, would it not be better for the Commission to answer each part separately, so as to ensure that none is forgotten?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(12 September 2003)

As the Commission has already indicated to the Honourable Member, the description of normal residence given in Article 9 of Council Directive 91/439/EEC of 29 July 1991 on driving licences constitutes a detailed definition of where a person has his or her normal residence. It also points to the solution to be adopted in specific cases, including where a person does not live for at least 185 days a year in any Member State. In this case, ‘the normal residence ... shall be regarded as being the place of his personal ties.’ Each person thus has a normal residence in one of the Member States and will need to approach the authorities of that Member State in order to obtain a driving licence. Since the notion of normal residence is also useful in respect of other dealings with the authorities, e.g. in relation to tax matters, members of the public should in principle be in possession of such information.

---

(1)  OJ C 11 E, 15.1.2004, p. 171.

(2)  OJ L 237, 24.8.1991, p. 1.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/97 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/97

---

(2004/C 78 E/0097)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2241/03

by Kathalijne Buitenweg (Verts/ALE) and Jean Lambert (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(7 July 2003)

Subject:   Funding of enforced return measures

In its communication (1), entitled ‘Integrating migration issues in the European Union's relations with third countries’, the European Commission refers to the possibility of establishing ‘financial instruments designed to provide back-up to a return policy’ and states that such a move ‘would necessarily have to involve a reallocation of some of the European Refugee Fund's appropriations given the reduced margin of manoeuvre in the financial perspective for internal policies’. This would ‘result in a corresponding reduction of the amount of finance available for the genuine solidarity effort which shaped the establishment of the Fund’.

In its communication of 11 June 2003 (2) the European Commission proposes, as a replacement for budget Article B7-667, a programme of financial assistance for third countries in the sphere of migration and asylum. According to the proposal, the measures which the Commission is seeking to support by means of this programme do not include enforced returns.

In Conclusion 23 of the Thessaloniki Summit of 20 June 2003 the European Commission is invited to examine the possibility of appropriating funds under Heading 3 of the financial perspective (internal policies) with a view to financing an enforced return policy for third-country nationals illegally resident in the EU.

| 1. | Does the Commission regard the financing of an enforced return policy as consistent with the subsidiarity principle, given that as yet no European minimum standards have been laid down stipulating who may legally reside in a Member State (as a refugee or migrant) and who may not? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Does the Commission regard the financing of an enforced return policy as consistent with the subsidiarity principle, given that as yet no European minimum standards have been laid down stipulating who may legally reside in a Member State (as a refugee or migrant) and who may not?

| 2. | Given that the release of resources to finance an enforced return policy must not be carried out at the expense of solidarity in connection with the reception, integration and voluntary return of refugees (the aims of the European Refugee Fund), where in Chapter B5-8/under Heading 3 does the Commission propose to find appropriations to finance an enforced return policy? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Given that the release of resources to finance an enforced return policy must not be carried out at the expense of solidarity in connection with the reception, integration and voluntary return of refugees (the aims of the European Refugee Fund), where in Chapter B5-8/under Heading 3 does the Commission propose to find appropriations to finance an enforced return policy?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(16 September 2003)

In its Communication on a Community return policy on illegal residents of 10 October 2002 (3), which was tabled to prepare a Return Action Programme as requested by the Seville European Council in June 2002, the Commission highlighted the need for a common approach to return of illegal residents. In order to be effective, a common return policy must fit smoothly into a genuine management of migration issues, requiring clear consolidation of legal immigration channels and of the situation of legal immigrants, an effective and humane asylum system based on rapid procedures offering access to true protection for those needing it and enhanced dialogue with third countries. The development of a common return policy of illegal immigrants should be built upon a number of actions in the short and medium terms, such as enhanced operational co-operation between Member States based on common co-ordination and — where necessary — legislative adjustments. As recently confirmed in the Communication on the development of a common policy on illegal immigration, smuggling and trafficking of human beings, external borders and the return of illegal residents of 3 June 2003 (4), the Commission intends to take the initiative to prepare a proposal for a Council Directive on minimum standards for return procedures and mutual recognition of return decisions. The Commission further suggests that consideration could be given to a financial instrument, which might cover voluntary return, forced return and support for return of irregular migrants in transit countries.

As regards forced returns, it was suggested that a financial assistance scheme — strictly limited to illegal residents — could include, amongst measures aimed at improving cooperation among Member States, financial support for enforcement measures linked to such cooperation operations. This element could contribute to enhancing greater solidarity and burden-sharing between Member States on return, with regard, for example, to travel costs for returnees and escorts.

The Commission clearly presented in its Communication of 3 June 2003 the financial implications linked to the development of a common policy on illegal immigration, smuggling and trafficking of human beings, external borders and the return of illegal residents. The Commission also outlined the difficulties of finding an appropriate level of resources under the current financial perspectives. The Commission, however, stated its willingness to examine, in agreement with the budgetary authority and in accordance with the principles governing the use of the budget, the possibility of using part of the margin available for internal policies under heading 3 of the Financial Perspective to cover part of the resources necessary to the development of the Visa Information System (VIS), a burden-sharing mechanism on the management of external borders as well as an integrated return programme. This process could also include the examination of possible reallocations from instruments which already partly cover operations relating to return, such as the European Refugee Fund. However, given the uncertainty which affects the budgetary margin, in particular should current forecasts of growth levels and inflation prove not to be correct, the level of resources available may not allow the implementation of all these initiatives in the short term. It cannot be ruled out that, for these reasons, the introduction of an integrated return programme may have to be deferred until the adoption of the post-2006 new financial perspectives.

The Commission is currently in the process of determining what specific concrete follow-up it will suggest as a consequence of the Thessaloniki European Council conclusions, of 19 and 20 June 2003 in particular Nos 17 and 18. The Commission will report back on this subject by the end of 2003 as requested by the European Council.

---

(1)  COM(2002) 703.

(2)  COM(2003)355.

(3)  COM(2002) 564 final.

(4)  COM(2003) 323 final.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/99 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/99

---

(2004/C 78 E/0098)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2250/03

by Maurizio Turco (NI), Marco Pannella (NI), Marco Cappato (NI), Benedetto Della Vedova (NI), Gianfranco Dell'Alba (NI) and Olivier Dupuis (NI) to the Commission

(7 July 2003)

Subject:   Violation of religious freedom in China. Arrest of Father Lu Xiaozhou of the ‘clandestine’ Catholic church

The Catholic news agency UCA reports that Father Lu Xiaozhou of the ‘clandestine’ Catholic church was arrested on 16 June 2003 at Wenzhou (1 416 kilometres south-east of Beijing) as he was on his way to the hospital to attend to the sick.

The same afternoon, the security forces searched his house and seized all his belongings.

On 17 June 2003 Father Lu Xiaozhou was transferred to the Religious Affairs Bureau, with a view to forcing him to sign a letter agreeing to join the government-recognised Catholic Patriotic Association.

According to the agency dispatch, the priest will probably not be released until he has signed that letter.

These events occurred just a few days after 12 Protestants belonging to the clandestine church were arrested in a village in Yunnan Province.

In view of the above, can the Commission indicate:

| — | what information it has on this umpteenth violation of the right to religious freedom, recognised in Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights; |
| --- | --- |

—

what information it has on this umpteenth violation of the right to religious freedom, recognised in Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights;

| — | what it will do to secure the immediate release of the Catholic priest and 12 Protestants arrested in June 2003; |
| --- | --- |

—

what it will do to secure the immediate release of the Catholic priest and 12 Protestants arrested in June 2003;

| — | whether it will formally censure the Chinese Government for the intimidatory practices which the Religious Affairs Bureau uses to compel members of the clandestine churches to renounce their faith and join the official State-recognised churches? |
| --- | --- |

—

whether it will formally censure the Chinese Government for the intimidatory practices which the Religious Affairs Bureau uses to compel members of the clandestine churches to renounce their faith and join the official State-recognised churches?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(7 August 2003)

The Commission know nothing about Father Lu Xiaozhou's situation but will endeavour to find out. As it indicated in its answer to Written Question E-2216/03 (1) from the Honourable Members, religious freedom is one of the priorities pursued by the European Union its dialogue with China on human rights. It will raise, as it has already done on several occasions in the past, the cases of persons who are persecuted for practising their faith.

---

(1)  See page 93.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/99 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/99

---

(2004/C 78 E/0099)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2251/03

by Joaquim Miranda (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(7 July 2003)

Subject:   Charter for Children in Hospital

In 1988 a ‘Charter for Children in Hospital’ was drawn up in Leiden with the aim of making care services for children more human.

The 19 European countries which have to date acceded to the Charter, and which include Portugal, France, Italy, Belgium, the Netherlands, Germany, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Finland and Iceland, jointly founded a ‘European Association for Children in Hospital’ which decided, at its 7th international conference held in Brussels in 2002, to propose associating the EU institutions in its discussions. Although this issue does not fall within the Community's sphere of competence, will the Commission indicate whether it intends to look into the matter, in particular by proposing that the Council adopt measures in line with the recommendations made in the Charter?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(7 August 2003)

As indicated by the Honourable Member, the issue of hospitalisation of children does not fall within the Community's sphere of competence.

The responsibility for health care lies with the Member States. The Commission is not able to intervene in this respect and will, therefore, not propose that the Council adopt measures in line with the recommendations made in the Charter for Children in Hospital.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/100 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/100

---

(2004/C 78 E/0100)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2277/03

by Mihail Papayannakis (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(9 July 2003)

Subject:   Construction faults on the Ionian highway

In a few months the bridge between Rio and Antimo which is intended to link the southern and northern parts of western Greece will be completed. The Rio-Antirrio bridge is the point where the axis leading from the southern Peloponnese to Patras meets the Athens-Corinth-Patras axis. The Antimo side of the bridge also marks the start of the axis leading to Epirus and the Albanian border which at some point crosses the Egnatia highway. The theoretical development consequences of the new project for the whole of western Greece and far beyond are obvious. However, the axis leading from Antimo to the border is essentially a very inadequate provincial road which is unable to play the part assigned to it.

Will the Commission say how and when this axis (the Ionian highway) is due to become a reality and make the investment in the bridge worthwhile? Is it true that sections of the highway have already been funded by the EU and that the Agrinio by-pass is not functioning properly and the Arta by-pass is not functioning at all owing to very serious construction faults? Does it intend to press for these problems to be corrected and, possibly, for responsibility for this state of affairs to be established?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(22 August 2003)

The Honourable Member is requested to refer to the answers given to Written Questions E-1799/03 by Mr Hatzidakis (1) and P-0386/03 by Mr Averoff (2), as regards the questions of the co-funding with funds of the European Union and the programming for the construction of the Agrinio and Arta by-passes and of the whole Ionian road axe.

On the basis of the information available to the Commission, the by-passes of Agrinio and Arta are now under construction. They are not completed and operational. No faults or other specific problems have been reported by the national authorities for these projects.

The Commission will be informed on any new development concerning these projects and the whole Ionian axe, and will act on the basis of this and any other relevant information, as provided by the regulations in force for the Structural Funds and the Cohesion Fund.

---

(1)  OJ C 58 E, 6.3.2004, p. 97.

(2)  OJ C 222 E, 18.9.2003, p. 194.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/101 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/101

---

(2004/C 78 E/0101)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2291/03

by Marjo Matikainen-Kallström (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(11 July 2003)

Subject:   Equal treatment of Member States in recruiting EU officials

Equality and equal treatment of Member States are among the most important principles governing the activities of the European Union. At present, these principles are not adhered to in filling the top posts. Finland is the only EU Member State which does not have a single one of its nationals in an EU Director-General's post. Yet there is no shortage of capable Finnish candidates for A1 posts with the EU.

In Finland this situation is regarded as unsatisfactory and it is liable to damage the EU's whole image in the eyes of the people of Finland. The protracted dispute about the seat of the Food Standards Agency has also damaged confidence in the EU among Finns. As well as having no Directors-General, Finland still does not have any EU agency in its territory. In view of the forthcoming enlargement, the concerns felt by Finns are particularly acute at present.

Why is the principle of equality and of quotas not applied when selecting candidates for the most senior posts in EU officialdom? How and in accordance with what timetable will the Commission remedy the defect which exists in the filling of vacancies?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(23 September 2003)

The Commission can, of course, respond to the Honourable Member's question only in terms of this Institution. Any enquiries that she has about ‘EU Directors General posts’ in ‘EU officialdom’ elsewhere must be addressed to the administrations of the other Institutions.

The Commission does not apply quotas for its selection of officials, whether that selection is through open competition or for senior level posts. Paragraph 3 of Article 27 of the Staff Regulations specifies that ‘no posts shall be reserved for nationals of any specific Member State’.

Maintaining geographical balance is not only a policy objective and practise for the Commission as a multinational and multilingual public service, it is a requirement of the Staff Regulations of the European Communities, subject to the overriding consideration of merit. That is apparent from the wording of paragraph 1 of Article 27 of the Staff Regulations which states 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’.

The Court of First Instance has given a clear interpretation of this rule: under the Staff Regulations, merit and qualifications are the prime consideration and nationality considerations may be invoked only to distinguish between candidates whose qualifications are equivalent.

When taking office in September 1999 the Prodi Commission confirmed some clear general principles concerning Senior management posts, namely that:

| — | merit is the prime consideration in taking appointment decisions, |
| --- | --- |

—

merit is the prime consideration in taking appointment decisions,

| — | every effort should be made to respect the need for a balance of nationalities in senior management positions, and |
| --- | --- |

—

every effort should be made to respect the need for a balance of nationalities in senior management positions, and

| — | every effort should be made to respect the need for a better balance of qualified women and men in the most senior posts in the Commission. |
| --- | --- |

—

every effort should be made to respect the need for a better balance of qualified women and men in the most senior posts in the Commission.

This policy has been applied since then, and all appointments have been made in full conformity with the Commission's commitment to these principles as reflected in its internal procedures for the selection and appointment of senior officials.

As to the representation of Finnish nationals at the A1 level, the fact that there is at the moment no Director General of Finnish nationality does not mean that the Commission is ignoring the principle of geographical balance in its senior management positions.

In fact, since June 2002, when the Commission appointed a Finnish national at A1 level as Deputy Director General in Directorate General Health and Consumer Protection, there have been two Finnish nationals holding A1 positions in the Commission. The relative numbers of nationals from Member States holding A1 positions can, of course, vary from time to time. For instance, the number of Finnish citizens who have A1 positions is currently larger than the number of citizens in A1 posts from other Member States of similar or larger population size.

There is no ‘timetable’ determining the appointments to senior posts other than the one established by the policy which this Commission has implemented of requiring all Directors General, Deputy Directors General and Directors to ‘rotate’ to equivalent positions in not more than 5 — or, in particular circumstances and at an absolute maximum — 7 years. Other than in these general rotations — which do not mean automatic or guaranteed movement from one Director Generalship to another — vacancies in those senior posts are filled as they arise.

In making appointments, whether in the course of ‘rotations’ or otherwise, the Commission is, of course, continually mindful of the principle of geographical and gender balance whilst maintaining the essential commitment to merit.

Decisions on the location of EU agencies are, as the Honourable Member will know, nothing to do with the Commission. Those decisions are entirely taken by the Heads of State and Government in the European Council.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/102 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/102

---

(2004/C 78 E/0102)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2301/03

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(8 July 2003)

Subject:   Implementation of Directive 1999/70/EC

In her reply to my Question H-0293/03 (1) on the implementation by Greece of Council Directive 1999/70/EC (2) (on the abuse of fixed-term contracts), Commissioner Diamantopoulou, the Commissioner responsible, referred to Presidential Decree 81/2003 which transposes the Directive in question into Greek law and stated that the Commission services were examining it and that ‘we shall be able to give an evaluation before the summer’.

Given that the Greek courts are called upon to rule on hundreds of appeals by employees with contracts and that the summer has already begun, will the Commissioner say whether the evaluation of the above Presidential Decree has already taken place?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(20 August 2003)

The European Commission is currently examining the transposition of Directive 1999/70/EC in the 15 Member States.

An initial examination of Presidential Decree 81/2003 suggests the possibility of problems of conformity in the transposition of this Directive in Greece.

If, once the Greek authorities have been given the opportunity to provide an explanation, this proves to be the case, the Commission will have to consider initiating the procedure provided for in Article 226 of the EC Treaty against Greece.

---

(1)  Oral reply of 3.6.2003.

(2)  OJ L 175, 10.7.1999, p. 43.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/103 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/103

---

(2004/C 78 E/0103)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2320/03

by Christoph Konrad (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(14 July 2003)

Subject:   First aid at the scene of an accident

The Commission recently drew attention to the enormous death toll on the roads in EU Member States and submitted an extensive road safety action programme. Against this background, on 20 June 2003 the Commission adopted a proposal for a directive which would make it compulsory, from July 2004, for all types of vehicles newly placed on the market to be fitted with seatbelts.

Therefore, the following questions:

| 1. | According to the information at the Commission's disposal, would the situation be improved if all applicants for driving licences in the European Union were required to take a short course in emergency measures at the scene of an accident, which is already compulsory in Germany and Austria, for example? If so, will the Commission submit a legislative proposal to this effect in the foreseeable future? |
| --- | --- |

1.

According to the information at the Commission's disposal, would the situation be improved if all applicants for driving licences in the European Union were required to take a short course in emergency measures at the scene of an accident, which is already compulsory in Germany and Austria, for example? If so, will the Commission submit a legislative proposal to this effect in the foreseeable future?

| 2. | Would a qualified first aid course, such as those which the St John's Ambulance Brigade offers to all driving licence-holders in Britain, considerably improve first aid in emergencies? If so, will the Commission submit a legislative proposal on the subject in the foreseeable future? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Would a qualified first aid course, such as those which the St John's Ambulance Brigade offers to all driving licence-holders in Britain, considerably improve first aid in emergencies? If so, will the Commission submit a legislative proposal on the subject in the foreseeable future?

| 3. | Are the existing rules on the contents of first aid kits for vehicles licensed in EU Member States and the applicant countries adequate? In connection with the requirement to keep a first aid kit in a vehicle, would a minimum level of instruction to ensure its proper use be appropriate? If so, will the Commission submit a legislative proposal on the subject in the foreseeable future? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Are the existing rules on the contents of first aid kits for vehicles licensed in EU Member States and the applicant countries adequate? In connection with the requirement to keep a first aid kit in a vehicle, would a minimum level of instruction to ensure its proper use be appropriate? If so, will the Commission submit a legislative proposal on the subject in the foreseeable future?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(11 September 2003)

On 14 September 2000 the Commission adopted a Directive on driving licences which significantly raised the minimum requirements for driving tests. Several provisions of the Directive, which will enter into force on 1 October 2003, deal with the question of first aid. Accordingly, anyone wishing to obtain a driving licence must have a knowledge of the general rules specifying how drivers must behave in the event of an accident (setting warning devices and raising the alarm) and the measures they can take to assist road accident victims. Even stricter requirements apply to persons wishing to obtain a heavy goods vehicle or bus licence: they must have a knowledge of the measures to be taken after an accident or similar occurrence, including action such as evacuation of passengers and a basic knowledge of first aid.

The Commission would also draw the Honourable Member's attention to the proposed directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the initial qualification and periodic training of professional drivers (1). The list of subjects to be covered by the initial qualification and the periodic training includes assistance in the event of an accident and goes beyond what is required in order to obtain a driving licence. Individuals must be able to assess the situation, prevent further complications arising, summon assistance, assist casualties and give first aid, react in the event of fire and evacuate the occupants.

The Commission is of the opinion that these two Community acts meet the requirements, and is not planning any further legislation in this area.

It is for the Member States to decide whether vehicles should carry a first aid kit, and whether drivers should undergo special training. At present, there is nothing to suggest to the Commission that European legislation is warranted here. However, it does believe that several thousands of lives could be saved if the emergency services were able to arrive sooner at the scenes of accidents. It is therefore studying how the process of emergency service alert and intervention can be automated. In the meantime, the decision to provide the emergency services with information enabling them to locate emergency calls made using the 112 number is an important step forward (2).

---

(1)  COM(2003) 296 final.

(2)  This is required by Directive 2002/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on universal service and users' rights relating to electronic communications networks and services, OJ L 108, 24.4.2003, and referred to by the Commission recommendation of 25 July 2003.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/104 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/104

---

(2004/C 78 E/0104)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2340/03

by Giovanni Fava (PSE) to the Commission

(11 July 2003)

Subject:   National site for radioactive waste in Sardinia

The Italian press recently published reports that the government intends to choose Sardinia as the location for the possible single national radioactive waste dump.

A report by Enea (the national authority for new technologies, energy and the envirnoment) ruled out islands as possible locations for the disposal of waste, precisely in order to avoid the danger of environmental disasters in the event of an accident during transport by sea.

In an order issued in March 2003 the Italian Government gave the company Sogin full responsibility for choosing the national site for the radioactive waste dump. Unlike Enea, Sogin decided that the island criterion would no longer be considered as an exclusion factor in the choice of site.

In view of all this, does not the Commission consider that:

| 1. | the choice of the location for the single radioactive waste dump should be made after consulting the populations concerned, as European legislation requires; |
| --- | --- |

1.

the choice of the location for the single radioactive waste dump should be made after consulting the populations concerned, as European legislation requires;

| 2. | the economic problems of islands should be a valid reason for excluding them when a site is being chosen; |
| --- | --- |

2.

the economic problems of islands should be a valid reason for excluding them when a site is being chosen;

| 3. | a nuclear-free region such as Sardinia, whose main resource is tourism, is entitled to oppose a possible decision making it the location for a radioactive waste dump? |
| --- | --- |

3.

a nuclear-free region such as Sardinia, whose main resource is tourism, is entitled to oppose a possible decision making it the location for a radioactive waste dump?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(12 August 2003)

The responsibility for managing radioactive waste rests with the country of jurisdiction. In the interests of all concerned, any programme for the long-term management of waste must ensure full stakeholder participation in the decision-making process, thus enabling a proper appraisal of any impacts.

In this context, it is important to note that any site for the final disposal of radioactive waste — or for storage of such wastes for more than 10 years — must be the subject of an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) under 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)) before development consent is given. This legislation requires that the EIA shall identify, describe and assess the direct and indirect effects of the project on human health, fauna, flora, soil, water, air, climate and the landscape as well as material assets and cultural heritage. The interaction between the above-mentioned factors should also be addressed in the EIA. Consultations with the public and other authorities likely to be concerned by reason of their specific environmental responsibilities have to be carried out and the decision for development consent should take into account the outcomes of the above consultations and information provided in this context. Finally, the decision has to be made available to the public.

Currently, 85 % of all such wastes in the Union are regularly disposed of at surface or near surface disposal sites. Volumes of waste are very small compared with other forms of waste, and no health or safety impacts have been detected at any of the disposal sites concerned. It is possible that there could be, on balance, economic benefits for any region hosting a site.

---

(1)  OJ L 175, 5.7.1985.

(2)  OJ L 73, 14.3.1997.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/105 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/105

---

(2004/C 78 E/0105)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2348/03

by Camilo Nogueira Román (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(16 July 2003)

Subject:   Measures to be taken in response to evidence that oil from the ‘Prestige’ is continuing to reach the coasts of Galicia and the Bay of Biscay

It is now July, eight months after the ‘Prestige’ disaster, and oil from the ‘Prestige’ is continuing to reach the coasts of Galicia and the Bay of Biscay. This is undermining confidence among people living in the areas affected, who can see that the forecasts made by the authorities responsible are systematically failing to match reality. What measures is the Commission taking, in conjunction with the authorities of the Spanish State and Galician Government, in order to assess the scale of this problem and prevent it from recurring?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(10 September 2003)

The Honourable Member is invited to refer to the answers given to his previous Written Questions E-3595/02 (1), E-1259/03 (2) and E-2059/03 (3), and to his oral question H-69/03 during question time at Parliament's March 2003 session (4).

---

(1)  OJ C 242 E, 9.10.2003, p. 63.

(2)  OJ C 280 E, 21.11.2003, p. 121.

(3)  See page 73.

(4)  Written reply, 12.3.2003.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/105 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/105

---

(2004/C 78 E/0106)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2349/03

by Camilo Nogueira Román (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(16 July 2003)

Subject:   Galicia and CAP reform

What will be the situation of Galician agriculture when the CAP reform approved by the Council is implemented, bearing in mind that the Galician farming industry is characterised by the predominance of milk production, land-based family farms and a clear vocation and capacity for modernisation and, on the other hand, that the milk quota is totally inadequate to allow aspirations of non-Malthusian development? How will the measures taken as regards rural development affect Galician society? The Galician Government has stated that, in order to offset the fall in milk prices, Galicia will receive a sum of EUR 530 million in direct aid for the milk sector between now and 2014: what will be the significance of these funds, and where will they come from?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(11 September 2003)

The Commission considers that the latest CAP Reform offers to European farmers a clear, long-term planning framework for their business decisions, which allows them the flexibility to respond to future market demands, while at the same time contributing substantially to the stability of their incomes. The Commission believes that the reform will enhance quality, will make prices more a reflection of market demand and will allow the CAP to respond better to societal concerns regarding the environment and animal welfare. This will increase the support of consumers and taxpayers for the CAP, thus improving the image of farmers in European society.

Regarding the reform of the milk sector, the Honourable Member will recall that Commission's proposal to increase quotas by 1 % in each of the years 2007 and 2008 was turned down and that the Council decided to postpone, by one year to 2006, the 1,5 % increases already foreseen in the Agenda 2000 reform of 0,5 % in each of the years 2005, 2006 and 2007. However, the additional cuts agreed in the intervention price for butter have been compensated with higher levels of dairy premiums and additional payments to producers, now up to EUR 35,5 per tonne, which will be incorporated in the single payment scheme from 2007. These dairy premiums, which will be granted to dairy producers, are calculated from the payment rate multiplied by the individual reference quantity for milk available on the holding on 31 March of the calendar year concerned.

As for rural development, the CAP Reform package includes a number of new or reinforced measures that could be useful for Galician agriculture, during the transition to the new economic conditions expected. These measures include support for participation in food quality schemes and temporary support for compliance with new statutory standards and entry into the voluntary farm advisory system. In addition, support measures for young farmers will be reinforced and Community support for agri-environment measures strengthened. Extra funding for rural development will be made available as from 2006 by means of the compulsory modulation mechanism.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/106 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/106

---

(2004/C 78 E/0107)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2356/03

by Ria Oomen-Ruijten (PPE-DE), Caroline Jackson (PPE-DE), Johannes Blokland (EDD), Alexander de Roo (Verts/ALE) and Karl-Heinz Florenz (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(17 July 2003)

Subject:   Interpretation of the RoHS Directive (2002/95/EC)

The answer to the Written Question E-0789/03 (1) given by Mrs. Wallström on behalf of the Commission on 8 May 2003 reads: Article 2(3) does not provide for their use in new electrical and electronic equipment put on the market from 1 July 2006'. Here ‘their use’ refers to spare parts. However the question did not concern re-use as spare parts for electrical and electronic equipment placed on the market before 1 July 2006. It related to the re-use in new equipment of components that contain substances restricted by the RoHS Directive (2002/95/EC (2)), but originate from used electrical and electronic equipment put on the market before 1 July 2006.

In Article 3(d) of the WEEE Directive (2002/96/EC (3)‘re-use’ is defined as: ‘any operation by which WEEE or components thereof are used for the same purpose for which they were conceived, including the continued use of the equipment or components thereof’. Application of this definition will allow the continued use of recovered components in any equipment regardless whether it is already in existence or new. Thus premature disposal of used components that are perfectly suitable for reuse will be avoided in line with the environmental objectives of the WEEE Directive.

If Article 2(3) of the RoHS Directive is interpreted narrowly as not allowing the re-use described above, this is in direct conflict with Article 4, Product design, of the WEEE Directive. Article 4 provides that ‘Member States shall encourage the design and production of electrical and electronic equipment which take into account and facilitate dismantling and recovery, in particular the re-use and recycling of WEEE, their components and materials’. Thus, early disposal and destruction of components taken from used electrical and electronic equipment put on the market before 1 July 2006, that contain substances restricted by the RoHS Directive, but are otherwise well suited for re-use, is in conflict with the purpose of Article 4 of the WEEE Directive.

Does the Commission share the view that it is permissible for new electrical and electronic equipment put on the market for the first time after 1 July 2006 to contain components that are re-used from electrical and electronic equipment put on the market before that date, even when these components contain the substances restricted by the RoHS Directive?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(11 September 2003)

In the view of the Commission, one of the main objectives of the Directive 2000/95/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 27 January 2003 on the restriction of the use of certain hazardous substances in electrical and electronic equipment (4), the so-called RoHS Directive, is that new electrical and electronic equipment, i.e. put on the market for the first time from 1 July 2006, does not contain lead, cadmium, mercury, hexavalent chromium, Polybrominated biphenyls (PBB) or Polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDE). For this reason, an explicit prohibition with this meaning is stipulated in Article 4(1) of the RoHS Directive. There are two sets of derogations to this hazardous substance restriction under the RoHS Directive. Firstly, it does not apply to the applications listed in an Annex to the RoHS Directive (5). In addition, Article 2(3) provides that ‘This Directive does not apply to spare parts for the repair, or to the reuse, of electrical and electronic equipment put on the market before 1 July 2006’. This aims to allow old equipment to be maintained with spare parts and to ensure that old electrical and electronic equipment is reused. This derogation is explicitly limited to old equipment, i.e. put on the market before 1 July 2006. Under the Directive, it is therefore allowed to market spare parts containing the hazardous substances for the repair of old equipment as well as to market old equipment for the purpose of reuse.

However, in reply to the question of the Honourable Members, the Commission does not consider it to be permissible for new electrical and electronic equipment to contain components re-used from electrical and electronic equipment, when these components contain the substances restricted by the RoHS Directive.

Firstly, this would in the Commission's view contradict the above-mentioned main objective of the Directive and also conflict with the express wording of Article 2(3) of the Directive. To take any other approach would run the risk of permitting retrofitting of new equipment with components containing hazardous substances. This would prolong the existence of hazardous substances in the waste stream and limit increased recycling efforts. It would of course also make the enforcement of the RoHS Directive as well as the Directive 2002/96/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 27 January 2003 on waste electrical and electronic equipment, the so-called WEEE-Directive (6) difficult.

Furthermore, retrofitting of new equipment with components containing the substances restricted by the RoHS Directive was subject to consideration during the conciliation process but was rejected.

In the Commission's view, the above-mentioned interpretation of Article 2(3) of the RoHS Directive does not contradict Article 4 of the WEEE Directive. The RoHS Directive is concerned about restricting hazardous substances in new equipment and the WEEE Directive about avoiding a threat to human health and the environment caused by waste electrical and electronic equipment. The presence of these hazardous substances in new electrical and electronic equipment would be mutually exclusive to the objectives listed in Article 4 of the WEEE Directive, namely to encourage recycling and dismantling, for the reasons given above.

---

(1)  OJ C 11 E, 15.1.2004, p. 118.

(2)  OJ L 37, 13.2.2003, p. 19.

(3)  OJ L 37, 13.2.2003, p. 24.

(4)  OJ L 37, 13.2.2003.

(5)  Article 4(2), 5 and Annex.

(6)  OJ L 37, 13.2.2003.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/108 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/108

---

(2004/C 78 E/0108)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2380/03

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(18 July 2003)

Subject:   New business formation

Will the Commission estimate the proportion of the working population engaged in new enterprises — however defined — in each Member State, the EU as a whole, and the United States?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(12 September 2003)

At present, no regular data collection on new enterprises or the number of persons employed in new enterprises is carried out at European level. Therefore Directorate General Enterprise and Eurostat have launched a harmonised data collection on ‘Business Demography’ amongst Member States. A table with first results for reference year 2000 comprising ten Member States is sent direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat.

In the ten Member States for which data is available new enterprises in the market economy created roughly 1,5 million jobs, equivalent to about 2,8 % of the total number of persons employed in the market economy in these Member States. In most Member States, especially new enterprises in Construction and Business Services created a relatively large number of new jobs — 4,7 % respectively 4,5 % of the total number of persons employed in the sector. It should be noted that employment data from Denmark, the Netherlands and Finland are provided in full-time equivalents (number of persons working less than the standard working time of a full-year full-time employee are converted into full time equivalents). This should be taken into consideration when comparing data for the different countries and using the totals of the ten Member States.

Directorate General Enterprise and Eurostat intend to continue this harmonised data collection among the Member States on the creation of new enterprises — with the scope of enlarging the data collection to all Member States — and, among other indicators, their impact on employment. Data on the proportion of the working population engaged in new enterprises are included in the design of the data collection. The results are planned to be included in the Structural Indicators from the 2004 Spring Report.

For the United States of America and Japan no data on the number of persons employed in new enterprises is available.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/109 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/109

---

(2004/C 78 E/0109)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2381/03

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(18 July 2003)

Subject:   Single market

Will the Commission define what it means by a successful single market? How will it know when we have arrived at the single market?

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/109 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/109

---

(2004/C 78 E/0110)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2382/03

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(18 July 2003)

Subject:   Single market

Will the Commission in future benchmark the success of the EU single market against the US single market, notably in the volatility and discrepancy of prices for differing goods and services?

Joint answer

to Written Questions E-2381/03 and E-2382/03

given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(7 August 2003)

To judge the success of the Internal Market, the Commission uses a variety of standard market integration indicators, both legal and economic; these cover price convergence, internal trade and internal cross-border investment as well as the legal transposition and application of Community law in the Member States.

Europe's results for each of these indicators can then be compared with the results that a successful Internal Market would be expected to achieve. The latter can be defined in a variety of ways: theoretically (see, for example, boxes 4 and 5 of the statistical annex to Directorate General Internal Market's Report on Product and Capital Markets 2001) or against the results achieved by an actual single market (often, but not always, the United States (US)).

In the case of price convergence, the Commission is already using the US as a benchmark in its monitoring of the single market. Whenever possible and suitable from a technical point of view, it will continue to do so. However, although the US is a relevant benchmark for the Union since the two areas are of approximately the same size, population etc, the Commission believes that it is sometimes more relevant to use a European benchmark, e.g. one of the larger Member States (Germany, France or the United Kingdom). The advantage of this is that the outlet structure, product availability and consumption patterns in these Member States is similar to that of the Union as a whole (more similar than what is found in the US).

So far, the picture as regards price convergence is a mixed one. For example, price dispersion in groceries has been significantly reduced in recent years (the coefficient of variation fell from more than 20 % in the early 1990s to around 10 % today). But it is still almost double than in the US (5,6 %). And it remains higher than the maximum price dispersion for these goods within individual Member States.

As well as measuring the degree of market integration achieved, it is also important to assess the benefits which have flowed from this integration for Community business and consumers. This is the purpose of the Commission's recent report to mark the 10th anniversary of the 1992 Internal Market. In particular, it estimates that the Internal Market has delivered nearly EUR 900 billion in extra wealth and 2,5 million extra jobs. It also demonstrates that consumers have benefited from the extra competition in the Internal Market through lower prices, better goods and services and increased choice.

Despite these successes, however, it is clear that the Internal Market is not yet complete. There is still a great deal to do, notably in services in general and financial services in particular. The Commission believes that, with enlargement just around the corner, it is especially important to make a determined push now to improve the Internal Market. To help this process, it has just launched its new Internal Market Strategy which sets out priorities for the next three years. To be effective, this Strategy requires the active support of the Council, the Parliament and the Member States.

Finally, building a fully integrated market is not a definite task with a finite end, but rather an ongoing process requiring constant effort, vigilance and updating. There are always new challenges and, as obstacles to making the Internal Market work are removed, other barriers come to light and have to be dealt with. It is therefore of the greatest importance that any new Treaty contains the necessary legal powers and competences to continue the work of building and operating an integrated market.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/110 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/110

---

(2004/C 78 E/0111)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2391/03

by Elisabeth Jeggle (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(21 July 2003)

Subject:   Numbers of pigs and cattle in the EU 15 and the 10 accession countries

To enable me to answer a question from a constituent, would the Commission please tell me the number of pigs and cattle (no further breakdown required) in the 15 EU Member States and the 10 accession countries?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(16 September 2003)

At the December 2002 survey total cattle herd accounted for 78 281 022 heads in the EU-15 and 10 280 171 heads in the 10 Acceding Countries. Total pig herd accounted for 122 015 941 heads in the EU-15 and 32 222 296 heads in the 10 Acceding Countries.

| Heads | Cattle herd | Pig herd |
| --- | --- | --- |
| BE (Belgium) | 2 758 463 | 6 600 158 |
| DK (Denmark) | 1 740 000 | 12 879 000 |
| D (Germany) | 13 731 958 | 26 251 490 |
| GR (Greece) | 573 000 | 903 000 |
| E (Spain) | 6 278 519 | 23 518 039 |
| F (France) | 19 729 162 | 15296000 |
| IRL (Ireland) | 6 337 818 | 1 781 500 |
| I (Italy) | 6 695 000 | 9 166 000 |
| L (Luxembourg) | 189 850 | 76 478 |
| NL (Netherlands) | 3 780 000 | 11 154 000 |
| AT (Austria) | 2 066 942 | 3 304 650 |
| Ρ (Portugal) | 1 395 128 | 2 343 705 |
| FI (Finland) | 1 011 672 | 1 422 800 |
| SE (Sweden) | 1 612 300 | 1 989 000 |
| UK (United Kingdom) | 10 381 210 | 5 330 121 |
| Total EU-15 | 78 281 022 | 122 015 941 |
| CY (Cyprus) | 58 139 | 490 818 |
| CZ (Czech Republic) | 1 511 000 | 3 505 000 |
| EE Estonia | 253 000 | 345 400 |
| HU Hungary | 770 000 | 5 082 000 |
| LT Lithuania | 779 100 | 1 061 000 |
| LV Latvia | 388 100 | 453 200 |
| MT Malta | 18 770 | 78 303 |
| PL Poland | 5 420 987 | 18 997 030 |
| SI Slovenia | 473 240 | 655 665 |
| SK Slovak Republic | 607 835 | 1 553 880 |
| Total Acceding Countries | 10 280 171 | 32 222 296 |

Heads

Cattle herd

Pig herd

BE (Belgium)

2 758 463

6 600 158

DK (Denmark)

1 740 000

12 879 000

D (Germany)

13 731 958

26 251 490

GR (Greece)

573 000

903 000

E (Spain)

6 278 519

23 518 039

F (France)

19 729 162

15296000

IRL (Ireland)

6 337 818

1 781 500

I (Italy)

6 695 000

9 166 000

L (Luxembourg)

189 850

76 478

NL (Netherlands)

3 780 000

11 154 000

AT (Austria)

2 066 942

3 304 650

Ρ (Portugal)

1 395 128

2 343 705

FI (Finland)

1 011 672

1 422 800

SE (Sweden)

1 612 300

1 989 000

UK (United Kingdom)

10 381 210

5 330 121

Total EU-15

78 281 022

122 015 941

CY (Cyprus)

58 139

490 818

CZ (Czech Republic)

1 511 000

3 505 000

EE Estonia

253 000

345 400

HU Hungary

770 000

5 082 000

LT Lithuania

779 100

1 061 000

LV Latvia

388 100

453 200

MT Malta

18 770

78 303

PL Poland

5 420 987

18 997 030

SI Slovenia

473 240

655 665

SK Slovak Republic

607 835

1 553 880

Total Acceding Countries

10 280 171

32 222 296

Source: Eurostat, Cattle and pig survey, December 2002.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/111 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/111

---

(2004/C 78 E/0112)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2408/03

by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(21 July 2003)

Subject:   Watching an LCD screen whilst driving a motor vehicle

According to a report in the 28 June 2003 edition of the Flemish-language newspaper ‘Het Belang van Limburg’, more and more drivers are installing in their vehicles LCD screens on which DVDs and video games may be played. This does not always involve ‘operational’ information, such as route maps, or the entertainment of passengers; in many cases, the screen is also used for the driver's own amusement. Although some types of the equipment involved have a built-in safety device — which ensures that the screen may be used only when the handbrake is on — that device is often overridden.

In many European countries, using a telephone whilst driving is forbidden unless the car is equipped with a hands-free set. Since, on the one hand, watching a screen of this nature and, on the other, paying due attention to the traffic situation are mutually exclusive, the Netherlands Government recently decided to prohibit the installation of LCD screens which the driver may watch whilst driving.

Is the Commission aware of the fashion for installing LCD screens for drivers, and, in line with the Netherlands, is it thinking of introducing a Europe-wide ban on such products which distract drivers when they are driving?

If so, what specific measures will it take, and will the ban apply to both ‘operational’ and ‘entertainment’ use?

If not, why will it not follow the example of the Netherlands Government?

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/111 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/111

---

(2004/C 78 E/0113)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2422/03

by Kathleen Van Brempt (PSE) to the Commission

(21 July 2003)

Subject:   In-car LCD screens

In-car dashboard computer screens are all the rage in Belgium and the Netherlands. For young people, in particular, it is considered cool to install an in-car LCD screen on which to play computer games or DVDs. Such screens are installed in luxury cars in order to guide drivers to their destination as rapidly as possible, and the DVD function cannot operate while the car is being driven. However, the models being installed in car centres are not always equipped with such cut-out devices. In the Netherlands, LCD screens which the driver may watch whilst driving are prohibited because they are too dangerous. That is not yet the case in Belgium.

Is the European Commission aware of the increasing use of LCD screens in cars for entertainment purposes?

What is the Commission's view of this phenomenon? Does it regard it as a dangerous trend?

What measures is the Commission taking in order to ensure that drivers in cars equipped with LCD screens will drive safely? Is it considering a ban on dashboard LCDs which can be used for playing computer games and watching DVDs?

Joint answer to

Written Questions E-2408/03 and E-2422/03

given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(29 September 2003)

The Commission's attention is drawn to the fact that an increasing number of drivers are making use of LCD screens for their own personal entertainment while driving. Such screens were initially intended either for the provision of traffic information or for navigation or for the entertainment of passengers. Since this situation could lead to dangerous driving practices, Dutch legislation has formally prohibited the installation of LCD screens intended for drivers. The question therefore arises as to whether or not the problem should be considered at EU level.

Since 1990 the EU has been carrying out studies to assess the development of in-vehicle telematics devices and the fact that they may be used by the driver while driving. The question of whether these tools should be used while driving has been considered from various points of view and examined by several Directorates-General (DGs) of the Commission (DG Energy and Transport, DG Enterprise, DG Research and DG Information Society).

The Commission is aware of the potential danger in using this new equipment which could distract the driver while driving. It therefore published a Recommendation on 21 December 1999 on safe and efficient in-vehicle information and communication systems: A European statement of principles on human machine interface (1).

Its recommendations include:

| — | (principle 4) that the system should be designed so as not to distract or visually entertain the driver; |
| --- | --- |

—

(principle 4) that the system should be designed so as not to distract or visually entertain the driver;

| — | (principle 8) that visual information not related to driving that is likely to distract the driver significantly (e.g. TV, video and automatically scrolling images and text) should be disabled or should only be presented in such a way that the driver cannot see it while the vehicle is in motion. |
| --- | --- |

—

(principle 8) that visual information not related to driving that is likely to distract the driver significantly (e.g. TV, video and automatically scrolling images and text) should be disabled or should only be presented in such a way that the driver cannot see it while the vehicle is in motion.

Since the publication of this Recommendation, the eSafety initiative — a joint venture between European car manufacturers and the Commission — has re-opened the debate with its plan to establish a safety guide for the use of in-vehicle systems while driving.

It should be remembered that the manufacture of motor vehicles is subject to the Community type-approval system, established under Article 95 of the EC Treaty, and that the Commission must be notified of all unilateral draft initiatives by Member States. Furthermore, since the EU has signed up to international agreements, such as those concluded under the auspices of the United Nations, it is also necessary to examine the impact of all draft initiatives at international level.

---

(1)  Notified under document number C (1999) 4786 and published in the Official Journal (OJ L 19, 25.1.2000).

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/113 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/113

---

(2004/C 78 E/0114)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2436/03

by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(22 July 2003)

Subject:   Support for fishermen unable to fish for biological reasons

Fishing with dredges is prohibited for 45 days in southern Portugal for biological reasons. This prohibition was in force again this year, without any compensation being paid to fishermen. This is clearly unfair, given their low incomes.

The Southern Fisheries Workers' Union has insisted that compensatory allowances should be paid during this period and called for the ban to be reduced to 30 days.

Nevertheless, the Portuguese Government argued that Community legislation does not permit the payment of such compensation and that for biological reasons it is not possible to reduce the length of the ban from 45 to 30 days because this could endanger stock biomass in the short term.

While it is indeed important to preserve stocks and maintain the current fishing effort, it is not fair that fishermen should have to bear the costs of conserving resources.

What measures will the Commission take to compensate fishermen's incomes?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(26 September 2003)

The legal basis for compensation to fishermen and shipowners as a result of a temporary cessation of activity is Article 16 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 (1), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 2369/2002 (2).

The Member States may grant aid, part-financed by the Community, in the event of unforeseeable circumstances, including those caused by biological factors. Compensation may be granted for no more than three consecutive months or six months over the entire period from 2000 to 2006. The managing authority must furnish the Commission in advance with scientific proof of these circumstances. The financial contribution from the FIFG to these measures per Member State for the entire period from 2000 to 2006 may not exceed the higher of the following two thresholds: EUR 1 million or 4 % of the Community financial assistance allocated to the sector in the Member State concerned. However, in the case of a recovery or management plan adopted by the Council or of emergency measures decided by the Commission, these thresholds may be exceeded.

The temporary cessation of fishing with dredges for biological reasons in southern Portugal must therefore be seen in this regulatory context. The Portuguese authorities responsible for managing the sector must examine whether the conditions laid down in the Regulation are met and, if that is the case, inform the Commission before taking the measures they think necessary and determining the level of financial compensation to be granted. As regards setting the length of time for which it is to be paid, this is also, in the first instance, the responsibility of the Portuguese authorities. Also, under Article 9 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 (3)
  OJ L 358, 31.12.2002., the national authorities may take non-discriminatory measures at least as rigorous as the existing Community rules for the conservation of resources and marine eco-systems within the 12 nautical mile zone.

---

(1)  OJ L 337, 30.12.1999.

(2)  OJ L 358, 31.12.2002.

(3)  OJ L 358, 31.12.2002.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/114 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/114

---

(2004/C 78 E/0115)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2448/03

by Georges Berthu (NI) to the Commission

(23 July 2003)

Subject:   Inappropriate incentive to destroy hedgerows

Article 22(2) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2419/2001 (1) of 11 December 2001 specifies that the width of hedgerows taken into account when determining the surface area of agricultural parcels eligible for area aid ‘must correspond to a traditional width in the region in question and shall not exceed 2 metres. The Member States may [ ...] allow a width greater than 2 metres if those areas were taken into account for the fixing of the yields of the regions concerned.’

The upshot of these provisions is to encourage farmers to destroy hedgerows that exceed the permitted width, at a time when their conservation would often seem to be an objective in the general interest.

Might the Commission present to the Council and the European Parliament a measure reforming the article in question so as to put an end to its perverse effects?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(10 September 2003)

The Commission is committed to improving and maintaining the rural environment in the context of the Common Agricultural Policy. It considers hedges and field ditches as being of great importance for wildlife and other environmental functions across the whole farming spectrum. However, the Commission has also to ensure that only eligible land may benefit from Community aid, hence the provisions under Article 22 of 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, which were adopted only after much consideration of the environmental issues involved, allow the Member States to decide that certain features such as hedgerows may be considered part of the fully utilised area of an agricultural parcel.

Thus, the Commission considers that the regulatory provision cited by the Honourable Member provides sufficient flexibility for Member States to account for specific environmental needs, and does not agree with his assertion that the provisions of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2419/2001 encourage farmers to destroy hedgerows.

Consequently, there are no plans to amend the article in question.

---

(1)  OJ L 327, 12.12.2001, p. 11.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/114 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/114

---

(2004/C 78 E/0116)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2450/03

by Marco Cappato (NI) to the Commission

(23 July 2003)

Subject:   Infringement by the Salerno Chamber of Commerce of legislation on fixed term employment contracts

In Italy, the conclusion of fixed-term employment contracts is governed by Legislative Decree No 368 of 6 September 2001 (implementing Directive 1999/70/EC (1)).

The Salerno Chamber of Commerce, a public authority under the supervision of the Italian Ministry of Production Activities by virtue of Article 4 1. 1993/580- has, for over ten years now, been inviting applications for one-year ‘educational grants’.

It could be said that this grant system is purely and simply part of the black economy, since the ‘grant recipients’ are required to work without any social security cover for 36 hours a week (the same hours, under the national collective labour contract, as Chamber of Commerce employees) and to perform exactly the same tasks as regular employees and auxiliary staff (to the exclusion of any research and study activities).

This year, the ten ‘grant recipients’ taken on referred this matter, by recorded delivery letter of 5 April 2003, to the Salerno Labour Inspectorate, which is an integral part of the Italian Ministry of Labour and Social Policies. Three months down the line, this body has still to report the results of any enquiries it has conducted in relation to this year or previous years.

Article 136 of the EC Treaty provides that The Community and Member States, having in mind fundamental social rights such as those set out in the European Social Charter signed in Turin on 18 October 1961 and in the 1989 Community Charter of the Fundamental Social Rights of Workers, shall have as their objectives the promotion of employment, improved living and working conditions, so as to make possible their harmonisation while the improvement is being maintained, proper social dialogue...'.

Article 211 of the EC Treaty provides that‘... the Commission shall ensure that the provisions of this Treaty... are applied’.

What initiatives will the Commission pursue to induce Italy to take steps to detect and penalise any abuses that may have been committed by the Salerno Chamber of Commerce?

What other initiatives will it take to guarantee the impartiality of the bodies appointed to police abuses of labour law in cases involving the public authorities themselves?

Finally, what initiatives will the Commission take to verify that it is not standard procedure for the public authorities to use ‘educational grants’ to circumvent legislation on fixed-term contracts?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(14 August 2003)

The Honourable Member refers to Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP (2).

This Directive lays down a principle of non-discrimination as regards employment conditions for fixed-term workers compared to permanent workers. The Directive does not define a ‘worker’, but refers to the definition made by law, collective agreements or practice in each Member State. Furthermore, the Member State can provide that the Directive should not apply to initial vocational training relationships and apprenticeship schemes or employment contracts and relationships which have been concluded within the framework of a specific public or publicly-supported training, integration and vocational retraining programme.

If grant recipients believe they should be considered as workers according to Italian law or practice, they must therefore bring the matter before a competent Italian authority.

---

(1)  OJ L 175, 10.7.1999, p. 43.

(2)  OJ L 175, 10.7.1999.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/115 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/115

---

(2004/C 78 E/0117)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2466/03

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(23 July 2003)

Subject:   Systematic provision of information to police forces, businessmen and holidaymakers with a view to ensuring that foreign tourists are not punished when they unwittingly break the law

| 1. | I understand that in early July a holidaymaker from the Netherlands visiting the Greek island of Crete (Chersonissos) hired a scooter which was not supplied with a helmet and then had an EUR 78 fine imposed on him without warning by the police in another town (Neopali). I have previously raised related matters in my Written Questions E-3455/00 (1) and E-0958/01 (2). Is the Commission aware that with alarming frequency residents of an EU Member State on holiday in another Member State are surprised to be caught by the police, the traffic police, ticket inspectors, lifeguards, customs officers, the fire brigade or other officials in the act of breaking the law, even though they have done so unwittingly and could not reasonably have avoided committing the offence in question. |
| --- | --- |

1.

I understand that in early July a holidaymaker from the Netherlands visiting the Greek island of Crete (Chersonissos) hired a scooter which was not supplied with a helmet and then had an EUR 78 fine imposed on him without warning by the police in another town (Neopali). I have previously raised related matters in my Written Questions E-3455/00 (1) and E-0958/01 (2). Is the Commission aware that with alarming frequency residents of an EU Member State on holiday in another Member State are surprised to be caught by the police, the traffic police, ticket inspectors, lifeguards, customs officers, the fire brigade or other officials in the act of breaking the law, even though they have done so unwittingly and could not reasonably have avoided committing the offence in question.

| 2. | Does the Commission see a role for the EU in protecting as far as possible nationals of the Member States against what they repeatedly experience as incomprehension, unfairness, arbitrary behaviour or legalised extortion in other Member States? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Does the Commission see a role for the EU in protecting as far as possible nationals of the Member States against what they repeatedly experience as incomprehension, unfairness, arbitrary behaviour or legalised extortion in other Member States?

| 3. | Can the Commission help to bring about a greater degree of uniformity in the behaviour which tourists can reasonably expect from the police and other forces of law and order in the regions which they frequent? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Can the Commission help to bring about a greater degree of uniformity in the behaviour which tourists can reasonably expect from the police and other forces of law and order in the regions which they frequent?

| 4. | Can the Commission help to ensure that adequate information is available concerning blatant departures from generally accepted rules which unexpectedly turn people into criminals and the ways in which businessmen in the tourist sector can systematically help to ensure that such situations do not arise? |
| --- | --- |

4.

Can the Commission help to ensure that adequate information is available concerning blatant departures from generally accepted rules which unexpectedly turn people into criminals and the ways in which businessmen in the tourist sector can systematically help to ensure that such situations do not arise?

| 5. | Is the Commission developing practical measures with that aim in view, not least in connection with the EU's much-touted, but thus far largely theoretical, role in removing obstacles to cross-border tourism? |
| --- | --- |

5.

Is the Commission developing practical measures with that aim in view, not least in connection with the EU's much-touted, but thus far largely theoretical, role in removing obstacles to cross-border tourism?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(16 September 2003)

| 1. | It is a matter for Member States to decide upon their domestic legislation, except in areas where it has been considered appropriate to harmonise or approximate legislation. Article 33 of the Treaty on European Union provides that European legislation shall not affect the responsibilities incumbent on Member States with regard to the maintenance of law and order. It remains the responsibility of holidaymakers to acquaint themselves with the relevant laws of any other Member State they may wish to visit. Ignorance of the law is not a defence available to nationals of a Member State. The Commission does not believe that foreign visitors should be treated differently from nationals.
  The Commission has no reason to believe that either the law at issue here or the manner in which it is enforced is discriminatory against non-nationals. |
| --- | --- |

1.

It is a matter for Member States to decide upon their domestic legislation, except in areas where it has been considered appropriate to harmonise or approximate legislation. Article 33 of the Treaty on European Union provides that European legislation shall not affect the responsibilities incumbent on Member States with regard to the maintenance of law and order. It remains the responsibility of holidaymakers to acquaint themselves with the relevant laws of any other Member State they may wish to visit. Ignorance of the law is not a defence available to nationals of a Member State. The Commission does not believe that foreign visitors should be treated differently from nationals.

The Commission has no reason to believe that either the law at issue here or the manner in which it is enforced is discriminatory against non-nationals.

| 2. | The question does not disclose evidence of ‘incomprehension, unfairness, arbitrary behaviour’. In any event, legislating for this type of conduct does not fall within the competence of the Union and there is no legal basis to act against such conduct in the general sense. Any instances of ‘legalised extortion’ which are the result of discrimination against nationals of another Member State would be contrary to Article 12 of the EC Treaty. It should also be noted that the Commission plans to submit a proposal for a Framework Decision on procedural safeguards for suspects and defendants in criminal proceedings throughout the Union in the autumn 2003. This should ensure that there are common minimum standards as far as trial rights in criminal proceedings are concerned. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The question does not disclose evidence of ‘incomprehension, unfairness, arbitrary behaviour’. In any event, legislating for this type of conduct does not fall within the competence of the Union and there is no legal basis to act against such conduct in the general sense. Any instances of ‘legalised extortion’ which are the result of discrimination against nationals of another Member State would be contrary to Article 12 of the EC Treaty. It should also be noted that the Commission plans to submit a proposal for a Framework Decision on procedural safeguards for suspects and defendants in criminal proceedings throughout the Union in the autumn 2003. This should ensure that there are common minimum standards as far as trial rights in criminal proceedings are concerned.

| 3. | The Union has no power to legislate at the European level for ‘uniformity’ in the conduct of police and other forces of law and order. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The Union has no power to legislate at the European level for ‘uniformity’ in the conduct of police and other forces of law and order.

| 4. | The Commission has no knowledge of ‘blatant departures from generally accepted rules which unexpectedly turn people into criminals’ and in any event, has no jurisdiction to act in such a case for the reasons set out above.
  The Commission will shortly be recommending a set of procedural safeguards designed to ensure that foreign suspects and defendants are treated fairly in criminal proceedings throughout the Union.
  The Commission believes that the issue raised by the Honourable Member is no obstacle which would have a measurable impact on European tourism in general, even if in individual cases, it can cause problems. But it also agrees that visitors should be provided with sufficient local information to make their stay a pleasant one. However, due to the already mentioned lack of specific Community competence in the sphere of tourism, it is largely up to national, regional and local authorities, and to the private sector and civil society bodies, to make the relevant information available to tourists. |
| --- | --- |

4.

The Commission has no knowledge of ‘blatant departures from generally accepted rules which unexpectedly turn people into criminals’ and in any event, has no jurisdiction to act in such a case for the reasons set out above.

The Commission will shortly be recommending a set of procedural safeguards designed to ensure that foreign suspects and defendants are treated fairly in criminal proceedings throughout the Union.

The Commission believes that the issue raised by the Honourable Member is no obstacle which would have a measurable impact on European tourism in general, even if in individual cases, it can cause problems. But it also agrees that visitors should be provided with sufficient local information to make their stay a pleasant one. However, due to the already mentioned lack of specific Community competence in the sphere of tourism, it is largely up to national, regional and local authorities, and to the private sector and civil society bodies, to make the relevant information available to tourists.

| 5. | Regarding practical Community measures specifically designed for favouring European tourism, the Commission has outlined them in its Communication Working together for the future of European tourism (3). Furthermore, comprehensive information to this end is publicly available at the Commission's special tourism website http://europa.eu.int/comm/enterprise/services/tourism/index_en.htm. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Regarding practical Community measures specifically designed for favouring European tourism, the Commission has outlined them in its Communication Working together for the future of European tourism (3). Furthermore, comprehensive information to this end is publicly available at the Commission's special tourism website http://europa.eu.int/comm/enterprise/services/tourism/index_en.htm.

---

(1)  OJ C 151 E, 22.5.2001, p. 174.

(2)  OJ C 318 E, 13.11.2001, p. 161.

(3)  COM(2001) 665 final.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/117 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/117

---

(2004/C 78 E/0118)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2481/03

by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(24 July 2003)

Subject:   Transferable fishing quotas

When appearing before Parliament's Committee on Fisheries on 10 June 2003, Commissioner Fischler announced that the Commission would put forward a working paper on transferable fishing quotas in Community waters before the end of the year.

Given this document's importance for the future CFP:

| 1. | Can the Commission provide more information on the matter? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Can the Commission provide more information on the matter?

| 2. | Can it now give more precise dates for when the document might be available? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Can it now give more precise dates for when the document might be available?

| 3. | Is the Commission considering its possible application in all the various fisheries, zones and fleets? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Is the Commission considering its possible application in all the various fisheries, zones and fleets?

| 4. | Will the Commission act on the suggestion made in Parliament and start introducing transferable quotas by means of experimental or pilot projects? |
| --- | --- |

4.

Will the Commission act on the suggestion made in Parliament and start introducing transferable quotas by means of experimental or pilot projects?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(10 September 2003)

In its Communication on reform of the CFP (1) the Commission states its intention of examining the economic aspects of fisheries management in the Union and to that end organising workshops with the stakeholders in economic management and presenting a reflection paper looking in particular at the question of individual and transferable fishing rights.

At the moment the Commission is engaged in consulting all stakeholders so that they can make their experiences known to it. Widely varying management systems have been tried in Europe and elsewhere in the world, individual fisheries are very diverse in nature and the constraints under which they operate are not often comparable. Since the Commission wants discussion to be as wide, full and open as possible and this year's calendar is already very heavily laden it appears necessary to defer the report to 2004.

The Commission's primary wish for its report on the economics of fishery management is that it should contribute to the stakeholders' reflections. It has no intention of advocating the use of any particular management system. Its responsibility is to propose annual catch rates (total allowable catches) and quotas but it has no authority to allocate these within countries or regions or to decide that experimental or pilot projects for transferable quota systems should be run within Member States.

---

(1)  Commission Communication to the Council and Parliament on reform of the Common Fisheries Policy (‘Roadmap’) COM(2002)181 final.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/118 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/118

---

(2004/C 78 E/0119)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2484/03

by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(24 July 2003)

Subject:   Galicia and CAP reform

With a view to assessing the possible short-, medium- and long-term effects of the recent mid-term reform of the CAP and specifically its application in a less-favoured Objective 1 region such as Galicia, it would be extremely useful to have information on the Commission's data, studies, reports and opinions on the subject:

| 1. | Does the Commission have any studies on the impact which the application of this reform may have on a strong livestock farming region such as Galicia, where farms are small, are not yet technologically advanced and receive low levels of agricultural support? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Does the Commission have any studies on the impact which the application of this reform may have on a strong livestock farming region such as Galicia, where farms are small, are not yet technologically advanced and receive low levels of agricultural support?

| 2. | Has the Commission taken sufficient account of the fact that, in certain inland areas of Galicia, the economies of medium-sized municipalities chiefly depend on milk production? Has it therefore considered the effects which the decoupling of aid might have on production? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Has the Commission taken sufficient account of the fact that, in certain inland areas of Galicia, the economies of medium-sized municipalities chiefly depend on milk production? Has it therefore considered the effects which the decoupling of aid might have on production?

| 3. | Can the Commission provide any study assessing these scenarios? If no such study is available, does the Commission not consider it necessary to make this type of forecast, at least in strong farming regions recognised as less favoured regions, in order to analyse the impact of the reform in the medium and long term (10-20 years)? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Can the Commission provide any study assessing these scenarios? If no such study is available, does the Commission not consider it necessary to make this type of forecast, at least in strong farming regions recognised as less favoured regions, in order to analyse the impact of the reform in the medium and long term (10-20 years)?

| 4. | Can the Commission provide the following information on the application of CAP reform in Galicia: what figures does it envisage as regards developments affecting the population of rural areas? What proportion would have crop and/or animal production as their main activity? What would be the anticipated volume of production? How would the local agro-industry be affected? What indirect repercussions would there be on local and even regional economies? |
| --- | --- |

4.

Can the Commission provide the following information on the application of CAP reform in Galicia: what figures does it envisage as regards developments affecting the population of rural areas? What proportion would have crop and/or animal production as their main activity? What would be the anticipated volume of production? How would the local agro-industry be affected? What indirect repercussions would there be on local and even regional economies?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(11 September 2003)

During the last couple of years the Commission has carried out an unprecedented number of studies in order to assess the possible impact of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) reform proposals.

In July 2002, together with the Mid-Term Review Communication, the Commission presented the main results of a study to assess the possible impact of future options for the milk quota system and the common market organisation for milk and milk products. Further details about this study were published in October 2002.

In January 2003, the Commission published an impact analysis of the July 2002 Mid-Term Review proposals, which included four studies carried out by independent experts and two internal analyses carried out by Commission services.

In March 2003, the Commission has published an impact analysis of the January 2003 legal proposals for CAP reform, which included two internal analyses carried out by Commission services.

In the coming months, the Commission will publish an impact analysis of the CAP reform decisions as agreed at the June Luxembourg Agricultural Council.

These studies are based on macro-economic models developed for the Union as whole (current 15 Member States and enlarged Union), and, in some cases, at Member State level. An enormous amount of reliable statistical information and parameters is required for the estimation, calibration and validation of these models. The lack of reliable information at regional level makes it difficult to develop quantitative tools at regional level and therefore limits the possibility to carry out impact analysis at regional level. The few quantitative studies which have been published recently by research institutes across Europe have shown sometimes puzzling and implausible results, very difficult to explain on the basis of past experience and economic theory. For all these reasons the Commission has not published an impact analysis at regional level. However, most of the conclusions of the impact studies at Union level can also be useful for some considerations for the regional impact assessment.

| 1. | The impact of the latest CAP reform agreement is currently being investigated by the Commission in view of publication in the next few months. However, previous analyses have shown that the introduction of a single payment based on historical entitlements is expected to have moderate impact on income of Union farmers, as the expected reduction in production would be counterbalanced by higher producer prices. In the case of a livestock oriented region like Galicia one might expect similar results. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The impact of the latest CAP reform agreement is currently being investigated by the Commission in view of publication in the next few months. However, previous analyses have shown that the introduction of a single payment based on historical entitlements is expected to have moderate impact on income of Union farmers, as the expected reduction in production would be counterbalanced by higher producer prices. In the case of a livestock oriented region like Galicia one might expect similar results.

| 2. | The Commission is well aware of the importance of the milk sector for a region like Galicia, which concentrates more than 50 % of Spanish milk producers, representing more than 30 % of Spanish milk production. The Commission considers that the latest CAP reform offers a clear, long term planning framework for their business decisions, allowing them to carefully evaluate the restructuring needs in view of future market demands. Decoupling aids from actual milk production is expected to have a moderate impact compared to other sectors, as the milk quotas system, which validity has been prolonged until 2015, will continue to play a role in supply control. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The Commission is well aware of the importance of the milk sector for a region like Galicia, which concentrates more than 50 % of Spanish milk producers, representing more than 30 % of Spanish milk production. The Commission considers that the latest CAP reform offers a clear, long term planning framework for their business decisions, allowing them to carefully evaluate the restructuring needs in view of future market demands. Decoupling aids from actual milk production is expected to have a moderate impact compared to other sectors, as the milk quotas system, which validity has been prolonged until 2015, will continue to play a role in supply control.

| 3. | As already mentioned, in the next few months the Commission will publish an impact analysis of the CAP reform as agreed at the June Luxembourg Agricultural Council. This report will comprise two internal studies, the first one analysing the impact on the current Member States and a second one studying the impact on and enlarged Union over the medium term (2003-2010).
  The reduction of rural population is a generalised phenomenon that takes place in most industrialised countries. Over the past decades the CAP has provided tools to fight this trend, recognising the beneficial role of agriculture for the survival of rural communities. With the latest CAP reform, an enhanced rural development package has been introduced, which includes a number of new or reinforced measures that could be useful for Galician agriculture, during the transition to the new economic conditions expected. |
| --- | --- |

3.

As already mentioned, in the next few months the Commission will publish an impact analysis of the CAP reform as agreed at the June Luxembourg Agricultural Council. This report will comprise two internal studies, the first one analysing the impact on the current Member States and a second one studying the impact on and enlarged Union over the medium term (2003-2010).

The reduction of rural population is a generalised phenomenon that takes place in most industrialised countries. Over the past decades the CAP has provided tools to fight this trend, recognising the beneficial role of agriculture for the survival of rural communities. With the latest CAP reform, an enhanced rural development package has been introduced, which includes a number of new or reinforced measures that could be useful for Galician agriculture, during the transition to the new economic conditions expected.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/119 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/119

---

(2004/C 78 E/0120)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2495/03

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(25 July 2003)

Subject:   Common agriculture policy

Will the Commission estimate, on the basis of a typical basket of food purchases in each Member State for a typical household, the additional cost paid by consumers as a result of farm support prices compared with a situation where all aid was untied to production and world market prices applied? Will the Commission also cite other estimates from other researchers for one or more Member States of a similar calculation?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(11 September 2003)

The Commission is not aware of any such specific calculation made either by single researchers or international organisations. This is mainly due to the fact that such estimates are too problematic to be considered enough reliable from an economic point of view. The Commission recognises that for a certain number of food products Union consumers pay a higher price than if they would buy them at world market price. However, keeping aside the question of the existence of a perfectly functioning and efficient world market — and then of a world price — it should be mentioned that this price gap is only slightly higher than for the whole Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) countries. It should also not be ignored that support prices for the main agricultural products in the Union have sharply fallen since 1992 (45 % for cereals and 35 % for beef) and that the current Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) reform is continuing in the same direction.

There are many reasons that explain a slightly higher consumer price in the Union for some food products:

| — | Requirements of Union consumers concerning diversity, freshness, quality and food safety are extremely high, |
| --- | --- |

—

Requirements of Union consumers concerning diversity, freshness, quality and food safety are extremely high,

| — | Union food producers face higher wage, social and energy costs than most of their competitors, |
| --- | --- |

—

Union food producers face higher wage, social and energy costs than most of their competitors,

| — | The prices paid by consumers also reflect the slightly higher prices of agricultural products paid to farmers in the Union, which are mainly linked to the specific economic, social, structural and environmental conditions faced by Union farmers. |
| --- | --- |

—

The prices paid by consumers also reflect the slightly higher prices of agricultural products paid to farmers in the Union, which are mainly linked to the specific economic, social, structural and environmental conditions faced by Union farmers.

However, all these considerations are based on the assumption that world prices would not substantially increase following a full liberalisation of agricultural trade, which is totally unrealistic. In addition, it should be stressed that the basic agricultural products only represent some 20 % of the value of the food products purchased by the consumers.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/120 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/120

---

(2004/C 78 E/0121)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2497/03

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(25 July 2003)

Subject:   Foreign direct investment

Will the Commission list the different figures produced by different international organisations (such as Eurostat and also the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development) and Member States for foreign direct investment, and will it clarify any differences in definitions that might lead to discrepancies in the figures?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(12 September 2003)

Section 1 (of the annexes sent direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat) provides a comparison between FDI data published by Eurostat and by the Organisation for Economic Cooperation (OECD). Section 2 (of the annexes sent direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat) provides the same comparison for the European Central Bank (ECB). Section 3 is about national data published by the Member States. A summary of Eurostat data collection process for FDI is also included (particularly in section 1), showing the links and differences with data collections of the OECD and of the ECB.

Main conclusions are as follows:

| — | there are no methodological differences between Eurostat and the OECD with respect to FDI data. Existing differences in data published for the EU15 Member States (1995-2002 is the period considered) are of limited impact on total numbers. Differences are due either to rounding (exchange rate effect, data in billions or in millions), or to temporary differences in timing of data revisions for latest years. Maximum total difference 2 % (Table 2); |
| --- | --- |

—

there are no methodological differences between Eurostat and the OECD with respect to FDI data. Existing differences in data published for the EU15 Member States (1995-2002 is the period considered) are of limited impact on total numbers. Differences are due either to rounding (exchange rate effect, data in billions or in millions), or to temporary differences in timing of data revisions for latest years. Maximum total difference 2 % (Table 2);

| — | there is one methodological difference of a certain importance, concerning the Netherlands, between the data published by Eurostat and the ECB for the Eurozone. Eurostat and the ECB are working actively with the Netherlands to eliminate this difference during the course of next year 2004; |
| --- | --- |

—

there is one methodological difference of a certain importance, concerning the Netherlands, between the data published by Eurostat and the ECB for the Eurozone. Eurostat and the ECB are working actively with the Netherlands to eliminate this difference during the course of next year 2004;

| — | Member States also apply the international methodological definitions in their data collection on which are based the data collected by Eurostat, the OECD and the ECB. Concerning the publication of data, some temporary differences may exist due to differences in timing of data revisions for latest years. |
| --- | --- |

—

Member States also apply the international methodological definitions in their data collection on which are based the data collected by Eurostat, the OECD and the ECB. Concerning the publication of data, some temporary differences may exist due to differences in timing of data revisions for latest years.

Please find the development of these conclusions in Annex A supported by tables 1, 2 and 3 that are sent direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/121 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/121

---

(2004/C 78 E/0122)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2521/03

by Carles-Alfred Gasòliba i Böhm (ELDR) to the Commission

(29 July 2003)

Subject:   Linguistic plurality of Spain with regard to passports

The Resolution of 10 July 1995 (1) requires all Member States to adjust the format of their passports by replacing the term ‘European Communities’ with that of ‘European Union’.

In connection with this adjustment, a proposal was tabled in the Spanish Parliament that centred on recognising the plurality of official languages in passports of citizens resident in autonomous communities where there is more than one official language. However, the Spanish Government rejected this proposal, citing the Resolution of 23 June 1981 (2).

Since Article I-3 of the Draft EU Constitutional Treaty states that ‘The Union shall respect its rich cultural and linguistic diversity’ and Article II-22 thereof adds that ‘The Union shall respect cultural, religious and linguistic diversity’, thus echoing the Charter on Fundamental Rights, and given the conclusions of the European Year of Languages established by decision of the Parliament and the Council: Does the Commission intend to propose that the said Resolution be amended so that, whenever the case arises, all the official languages in an EU Member State are included?

---

(1)  OJ C 200, 4.8.1995, p. 1.

(2)  OJ C 241, 19.9.1981, p. 1.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/121 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/121

---

(2004/C 78 E/0123)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2548/03

by Joan Vallvé (ELDR) to the Commission

(31 July 2003)

Subject:   Linguistic coexistence as reflected in Spanish passports

The resolution of 10 July 1995 (1) requires all Member States to adjust the format of their passports by replacing the term ‘European Communities’ with ‘European Union’.

In connection with this adjustment, a proposal has been tabled in the Spanish Congress of Deputies to recognise the coexistence of official languages in the passports issued to citizens living in an autonomous community where there is more than one official language. The Spanish Government, however, refuses to accept that proposal, citing the resolution of 23 June 1981 (2).

Given that Article I-3 of the draft Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe states that ‘The Union shall respect its rich cultural and linguistic diversity’ and Article II-22, moreover, stipulates that ‘The Union shall respect cultural, religious and linguistic diversity’, thus echoing the Charter of Fundamental Rights, and having regard to the conclusions arising from European Year of Languages, as laid down by decision of Parliament and the Council: Will the Commission propose that the above resolution be amended so that, whenever the case arises, all the official languages in an EU Member State can be covered?

Joint answer to

Written Questions E-2521/03 and E-2548/03

given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(24 September 2003)

The Commission would point out that, according to the Resolution of the Representatives of the Governments of the Member States meeting within the Council on 23 June 1981, entries on passports must be made in the official language(s) of the Member State issuing the passport.

It is for each Member State to decide which is or are its official language or languages.

The Commission is not, therefore, planning to propose an amendment to that Resolution.

---

(1)  OJ C 200, 4.8.1995, p. 1.

(2)  OJ C 241, 19.9.1981, p. 1.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/122 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/122

---

(2004/C 78 E/0124)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2535/03

by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(29 July 2003)

Subject:   Farm incomes in Portugal

In the report on the state of Portuguese agriculture the Commission indicates that, according to the Eurostat economic accounts for agriculture, farm incomes rose by approximately 30 % between 1986 and 1995 and by 32 % between 1995 and 2002. However, these calculations do not say how the income growth was spread according to the scale (in economic and area terms) on which farmers operate or to the type of production.

Can the Commission answer the following:

| — | What was the trend in farm incomes (for Portugal and the EU) between 1986 and 2002 (as evidenced by annual figures), taking into account the economic scale of and the size of the land areas used by farmers, especially those with less than 5 hectares (and/or less than 4 ESU) or more than 50 hectares (and/or more than 100 ESU)? |
| --- | --- |

—

What was the trend in farm incomes (for Portugal and the EU) between 1986 and 2002 (as evidenced by annual figures), taking into account the economic scale of and the size of the land areas used by farmers, especially those with less than 5 hectares (and/or less than 4 ESU) or more than 50 hectares (and/or more than 100 ESU)?

| — | What was the trend in farm incomes during the same period for farmers producing fruit and vegetables, wine, olive oil, arable crops, milk, and beef and veal? |
| --- | --- |

—

What was the trend in farm incomes during the same period for farmers producing fruit and vegetables, wine, olive oil, arable crops, milk, and beef and veal?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(29 September 2003)

The Commission's ‘Report on the situation in Portuguese agriculture’ (1) described the increase in farm incomes in Portugal on the basis of Eurostat economic accounts for agriculture. Unfortunately, this approach does not permit a breakdown of income in terms of size or type of holding.

However, though the income indicators are not strictly equivalent and are based on a different methodology, data from Directorate General (DG) Agriculture's Farm Accounts Data Network can be used to provide an indication in the trends in terms of size or type of holding in Portugal.

In the period 1993 to 2000, by this method, incomes expressed as Net Value Added per Annual Working Unit (NVA/AWU) are estimated to have increased more quickly for larger than for smaller holdings. Holdings greater than 100 Economic Size Units (ESU) increased by 7,3 % per year while incomes on holdings smaller than 4 ESU increased by 4,6 % per year. The incomes on intermediate sized holdings of 4 to 100 ESU grew by 5,2 % per year. It can be seen from the table below that incomes grew at a higher rate in Portugal than the Union's average.

In terms of type of holding, over the same period and by the same method, the annual rate of increase in incomes was positive for specialist horticulture, specialist vineyard, specialist fruit and citrus fruit and specialist dairying holdings, at between 3,4 and 5,0 % per year. Incomes for holding specialised in cattle-dairying (rearing and fattening combined) were estimated to be somewhat higher. Income growth was estimated to be negative on specialist arable holdings (- 2,1 % per year) and stable for specialist olive oil holdings (- 0,2 % per year).

The data can be found in the tables below:

| (Annual rate of increase 1993-2000 in %) |
| --- |
| NVA/AWU in real terms | < 4 ESU | 4-100 ESU | > 100 ESU | All farms |
| Portugal | 4,55 | 5,14 | 7,31 | 3,62 |
| EU-12 | 3,89 | -0,60 | -0,53 | 0,21 |

(Annual rate of increase 1993-2000 in %)

NVA/AWU in real terms

< 4 ESU

4-100 ESU

> 100 ESU

All farms

Portugal

4,55

5,14

7,31

3,62

EU-12

3,89

-0,60

-0,53

0,21

| (Annual rate of increase 1993-2000 in %) |
| --- |
| NVA/AWU in real terms | Specialist cereals, oilseeds and protein crops | Specialist horticulture | Specialist vineyards | Specialist fruit and citrus fruit | Specialist olives | Specialist dairying | Cattle-dairying,
  rearing and fattening combined |
| Portugal | -2,09 | 4,97 | 4,62 | 3,36 | -0,21 | 4,66 | 12,26 |

(Annual rate of increase 1993-2000 in %)

NVA/AWU in real terms

Specialist cereals, oilseeds and protein crops

Specialist horticulture

Specialist vineyards

Specialist fruit and citrus fruit

Specialist olives

Specialist dairying

Cattle-dairying,

rearing and fattening combined

Portugal

-2,09

4,97

4,62

3,36

-0,21

4,66

12,26

---

(1)  COM(2003) 359 final.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/123 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/123

---

(2004/C 78 E/0125)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2540/03

by Maurizio Turco (NI) to the Commission

(30 July 2003)

Subject:   Agreements between the Spanish State and the Vatican State which violate fundamental rights

The questioner would like to refer to:

| — | Articles 6(1) and 6(2) of the EU Treaty, Articles 226 and 307 of the EC Treaty |
| --- | --- |

—

Articles 6(1) and 6(2) of the EU Treaty, Articles 226 and 307 of the EC Treaty

| — | Articles 1(1), 14,16 and 27(3) of the Spanish Constitution; and |
| --- | --- |

—

Articles 1(1), 14,16 and 27(3) of the Spanish Constitution; and

| — | Articles 6, 10, 21 and 14(3) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU. |
| --- | --- |

—

Articles 6, 10, 21 and 14(3) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU.

Knowing that:

| — | the application of certain agreements concluded between the Vatican State and the Spanish State in 1976 and 1979 is giving rise to a violation of the fundamental rights of equality freedom and nondiscrimination protected under EU law and the Spanish Constitution; |
| --- | --- |

—

the application of certain agreements concluded between the Vatican State and the Spanish State in 1976 and 1979 is giving rise to a violation of the fundamental rights of equality freedom and nondiscrimination protected under EU law and the Spanish Constitution;

| — | by virtue of the Agreement concerning Economic Affairs, the Catholic Church enjoys tax benefits and exemptions that are not enjoyed by any other religious faith in Spain, which constitutes religious discrimination against the other religious faiths registered in that country; |
| --- | --- |

—

by virtue of the Agreement concerning Economic Affairs, the Catholic Church enjoys tax benefits and exemptions that are not enjoyed by any other religious faith in Spain, which constitutes religious discrimination against the other religious faiths registered in that country;

| — | in addition to giving rise to a violation of the fundamental right protected under Article 14(3) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU and Article 27(3) of the Spanish Constitution, the Agreement on Education and Cultural Affairs, through laws such as the Organic Law on Quality in Education, contravenes Article 16(2) of the Spanish Constitution and Article 3(2) of Royal Decree 2438/1994, as was established by the Supreme Court of the Canaries (TSJC) in its judgment No 153/2003. |
| --- | --- |

—

in addition to giving rise to a violation of the fundamental right protected under Article 14(3) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU and Article 27(3) of the Spanish Constitution, the Agreement on Education and Cultural Affairs, through laws such as the Organic Law on Quality in Education, contravenes Article 16(2) of the Spanish Constitution and Article 3(2) of Royal Decree 2438/1994, as was established by the Supreme Court of the Canaries (TSJC) in its judgment No 153/2003.

Is the Commission aware of the above facts, and if it has taken them into consideration and assessed them, what conclusions does it draw from this assessment?

Does it consider the agreements between the Holy See and the Spanish State to be incompatible with the EC Treaty and the EU Treaty and does it believe that the Kingdom of Spain has taken all appropriate steps to remove the incompatibilities?

Does it believe that complaints against infringements of the Constitution should be brought only through the country's national law, or can they be taken into consideration by the Community institutions as serious violations of the rule of law and democracy?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(18 September 2003)

The Commission would point out that the matters to which the Honourable Member refers concern the status granted by the Spanish State to religions, and in particular the Catholic religion. These matters do not, therefore, fall within the scope of European Union law.

Accordingly, any incompatibilities with religious freedom that might come to light in this connection must be dealt with at national level.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/124 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/124

---

(2004/C 78 E/0126)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2541/03

by Maurizio Turco (NI) to the Commission

(30 July 2003)

Subject:   The ‘Gescartera’ case and agreements between the Spanish State and the Holy See

Gescartera, the brokerage firm which invested in the stock market and became involved in Spain's worst stock-market fraud (leaving EUR 87 million unaccounted for) included among its clients a number of organisations linked to the Catholic Church.

Six of Gescartera's 15 largest clients in terms of volume of profits are religious bodies: Salesian Inspectors of Mary Help of Christians, Order of Saint Augustine, Philippian Missionaries of Education, Emilio Álvarez Gallego Foundation, Augustinian Missionaries and the Archbishopric of Valladolid. One of the clients which entrusted most money to Gescartera, and accordingly one of the main beneficiaries of artificial capital gains, was a body enjoying the exemptions provided for under Law 49/2002 on the tax arrangements for non-profit-making bodies and tax incentives for patronage, which granted such bodies an exemption in respect of income from property (Article 6).

Moreover, without wishing to lend credence to rumours that the archbishopric simulated fictitious ownership of the securities it invested, the amount invested does appear disproportionate in relation to an archbishopric such as that of Valladolid.

The archbishopric's accounts are opaque and contradictory, and it refused to cooperate when the investigating magistrate asked it to furnish its accounts between 1996 and 1999, by which time it had accumulated investments with Gescartera amounting to EUR 6 641 184 (which it withdrew when it learnt that Gescartera was being investigated by the CNMV, the National Commission for the Securities Market), and for the 2001 financial year, when it invested EUR 150 253. The Spanish Bishops' Conference supported this refusal to cooperate on the grounds that ecclesiastical documents are inviolable on the basis of the Agreement concerning Legal Affairs, which recognises and protects the Spanish Church's right to exclusive safekeeping of its archives and recognises that they are ‘inviolable’.

Under the Agreement concerning Economic Affairs between Spain and the Holy See, the system for financing the Catholic Church takes the form of an allocation system based on each taxpayer's income-tax statement explicitly in favour of the Catholic Church, and an allocation from the Spanish general budget (amounting to an average of 130 million pesetas). In addition, the Catholic Church enjoys a VAT exemption in contravention of Directive 91/680/EC (1). The fact that the budgets of the Catholic Church and the various bodies linked to it are not public and the allocation from the state is not made conditional on transparency in the Church's financial management makes it extremely difficult to establish whether or not the money which the Catholic Church invested on the stock market stemmed from the advantages it enjoys by virtue of the agreements with the Spanish State.

Is the Commission aware of these facts, and if so, what initiatives has it taken or will it take in response to these serious circumstances?

Does it consider the agreements between the Holy See and the Spanish State to be incompatible with the EC Treaty and the EU Treaty, and does it believe that the Kingdom of Spain has taken all appropriate steps to remove the incompatibilities?

Does it believe that complaints against infringements of the Constitution should be brought only through the country's national law, or can they be taken into consideration by the Community institutions as serious violations of the rule of law and democracy?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(18 September 2003)

The matters raised by the Honourable Member have not been referred to the Commission.

With regard to VAT, I would refer the Honourable Member to the reply to his Written Question P-3773/02 (2).

---

(1)  OJ L 376, 31.12.1991, p. 1.

(2)  OJ C 161 E, 10.7.2003, p. 142.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/125 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/125

---

(2004/C 78 E/0127)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2546/03

by Jules Maaten (ELDR) to the Commission

(30 July 2003)

Subject:   Evaluation of tobacco products

Article 11 of Directive 2001/37/EC (1) requires that the Commission submits by 31 December 2004 a report to the European Parliament on the application of the said directive.

More specifically Article 11 of Directive 2001/37/EC states, amongst other things, that scientific and technical experts should assist in preparing the report and that the report should include an evaluation of tobacco products which may have a potential to reduce harm.

| 1. | What measures has the Commission taken to involve scientific and technical experts in producing the report, particularly in view of the evaluation of tobacco products which may have a potential to reduce harm? |
| --- | --- |

1.

What measures has the Commission taken to involve scientific and technical experts in producing the report, particularly in view of the evaluation of tobacco products which may have a potential to reduce harm?

| 2. | Will the Commission report, as required by Article 11 of Directive 2001/37/EC, include an evaluation of tobacco products which may have a potential to reduce harm? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Will the Commission report, as required by Article 11 of Directive 2001/37/EC, include an evaluation of tobacco products which may have a potential to reduce harm?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(11 September 2003)

The Honourable Member asks in particular what measures the Commission has taken to involve scientific and technical experts in producing the report required by article 11 of Directive 2001/37/EC (2) on the manufacture, presentation and sale of tobacco products, particularly ‘in view of the evaluation of tobacco products which may have a potential to reduce harm’. In addition, the Honourable Member asks if the said report will include an evaluation of tobacco products, which may have a potential to reduce harm.

The recent opinions and reports from the scientific community make it very clear that the issue (possible ‘harm reduction’ tobacco products) referred to in the written question must be very carefully analysed. The matter is complex and difficult, and the Commission intends to get a comprehensive and balanced analysis and scientific advice. To be able to achieve this, the Commission intends to involve appropriately the scientific community and the Regulatory Committee in this process while preparing the report. The Commission has already had preparatory consultations with scientific experts in the field. The first expert consultation involving all Member States will take place on 29 September 2003, after which the direction to be taken should be clear.

The report containing, as foreseen in the Directive, an evaluation of tobacco products that may have the potential to reduce harm is due by the end of 2004.

---

(1)  OJ L 194, 18.7.2001, p. 26.

(2)  Directive 2001/37/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 5 June 2001 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning the manufacture, presentation and sale of tobacco products — Commission statement, OJ L 194, 18.7.2001.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/126 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/126

---

(2004/C 78 E/0128)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2556/03

by Robert Evans (PSE) to the Commission

(4 August 2003)

Subject:   Voting in Mallorcan elections

On 12 March 2003 the European Parliament's President was asked to urgently investigate complaints that non-Spanish EU citizens were unable to register to vote in the Mallorca municipal elections that were to take place in May 2003.

I have subsequently been approached by British citizens who believed they had registered but when they arrived on the day of the elections, were told they had not been registered and were therefore not entitled to vote.

As it is a fundamental right of all EU citizens to vote in local and European elections in the country of residence, does the Commission agree that this inability to vote is a denial of those rights? Will the Commission investigate this disenfranchisement?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(16 September 2003)

The Honourable Member draws the attention to the fundamental right of citizens of the Union to vote in municipal elections in their Member State of residence, even when they are not nationals of that State. This right is guaranteed by Article 19 of the EC Treaty and the detailed arrangements for the exercise of the right were laid down by Council Directive 94/80/EC (1).

Spain has transposed Directive 94/80/EC by Ley orgánica 1/1997. The Commission has received the following information concerning the practice for entering citizens of the Union to electoral rolls from the Spanish Authorities: Voters must register in their local municipal population register. This is compulsory for all persons residing in Spain, whether Spanish or not, and these registers are used as the basis for the national electoral roll.

Oficina del Censo Electoral (the Electoral Roll Office) keeps a constantly updated register of voters who are non-national Union citizens, reflecting any changes to municipal population registers involving the latter. It receives the personal details of voters from local population registers.

The Spanish law provides that non-national Union citizens residing in Spain must indicate their wish to vote in municipal elections, when voting for the first time. To comply with this requirement, the Electoral Roll Office sends a reminder to all non-national Union voters three months before the elections take place, to indicate whether or not they wish to vote. The appropriate form is attached, with instructions in all Community languages and a pre-paid envelope is provided for the reply. The forms are also available at all Spanish local authority headquarters six months before the elections. As regards those Union citizens who are already entered into electoral rolls, the letter functions as a reminder about the forthcoming elections.

Finally, provisional lists of Union citizens having right to vote are drawn up on the basis of affirmative responses. These lists are displayed in local authority offices for eight days, from the 6th day after the election is called. Appeals may be made during this period and the names of those obtaining a favourable outcome are incorporated to the final list.

The Commission considers that the system of entering Union citizens into electoral rolls in Spain is in compliance with Directive 94/80/EC.

The Commission has not received any complaints that the registration system would not have functioned in the context of the last local elections in Spain, held in May 2003. The Commission strives for guaranteeing that the Member States comply with Community law, including fundamental rights, but the information included in the question is not sufficiently detailed to enable the Commission to take further measures.

---

(1)  Council Directive 94/80/EC of 19 December 1994 laying down detailed arrangements for the exercise of the right to vote and to stand as a candidate in municipal elections by citizens of the Union residing in a Member State of which they are not nationals, OJ L 368, 31.12.1994.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/127 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/127

---

(2004/C 78 E/0129)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2565/03

by Hiltrud Breyer (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(6 August 2003)

Subject:   Residues of hormones, antibiotics and phthalic acid esters in drinking water

Drinking water obtained from surface water may contain residues of antibiotics and hormones. In addition, phthalic acid esters may be passed into drinking water from the pipe system.

| 1. | Does the Commission have measurements of the above from the Member States? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Does the Commission have measurements of the above from the Member States?

| 2. | Does the Commission plan to introduce limit values for the above? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Does the Commission plan to introduce limit values for the above?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(6 October 2003)

In the frame of the current Council Directive 80/778/EEC of 15 July 1980 on the quality of water intended for human consumption (1), the substances mentioned by the Honourable Member are neither currently regulated nor monitored.

On the basis of the available information, the exact concentrations of endocrine disrupting compounds (EDCs) in drinking water and thus the quantities consumed are currently unknown for all the European countries.

In order to have more information about this issue, the Commission launched a study on endocrine disrupters in drinking water. The aim of this study was to provide information on the exposure to endocrine disrupters through water intended for human consumption, using existing data from the various Member States and published studies, and to design and execute a case study to produce a more complete picture of the actual occurrence of endocrine disrupters and the potential exposure of humans to endocrine disrupters through drinking water.

The following EDCs were selected as relevant for drinking water from an assessment of the published literature and a survey of the waterworks of several European countries: synthetic and natural estrogens, alkylphenol, alkylphenol ethoxylates, alkylphenoxy acetic acids, Bisphenol A and organotin compounds.

The main conclusions of this study are:

| — | Efficient drinking water treatment chains are appropriate to avoid drinking water contamination by EDCs (e.g. using ozonation, activated carbon, bank filtration). |
| --- | --- |

—

Efficient drinking water treatment chains are appropriate to avoid drinking water contamination by EDCs (e.g. using ozonation, activated carbon, bank filtration).

| — | Even if the raw water of waterworks is free of EDCs, drinking water/tap water might be contaminated by individual EDCs due to leaching from materials used in waterworks and water pipes. |
| --- | --- |

—

Even if the raw water of waterworks is free of EDCs, drinking water/tap water might be contaminated by individual EDCs due to leaching from materials used in waterworks and water pipes.

| — | Even if the highest concentration of an individual EDC reported for drinking water is considered for the assessment of effects on humans, based on current knowledge, endocrine effects via the consumption of drinking water are very unlikely. |
| --- | --- |

—

Even if the highest concentration of an individual EDC reported for drinking water is considered for the assessment of effects on humans, based on current knowledge, endocrine effects via the consumption of drinking water are very unlikely.

These conclusions and the need to regulate these substances in the drinking water will be discussed in the forthcoming seminar on the Drinking Water Directive (2) organised by the Commission on 27 and 28 October 2003. Detailed information on this seminar may be found at the following internet address: (www.drinkingwaterseminar.org).

---

(1)  OJ L 229, 30.8.1980.

(2)  Council Directive 98/83/EC of 3 November 1998 on the quality of water intended for human consumption, OJ L 330, 5.12.1998.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/128 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/128

---

(2004/C 78 E/0130)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2566/03

by Markus Ferber (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(6 August 2003)

Subject:   EU aid for construction projects in Italy

The firm Planten en Bloemen, based at Batzenhofen (Germany), commissioned the firm Europepartner, owned by Geom. Cataffo Doriano and based in Salerno (Italy), to build a warehouse in Täfertingen (Germany), an investment totalling EUR 850 000. The construction firm considered that there was a possibility of EU aid and, according to its own information, applied for it. The project, however, was not completed and the whereabouts of the Italian builder is unknown.

| 1. | Is there any possibility in general of such construction projects receiving aid? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is there any possibility in general of such construction projects receiving aid?

| 2. | If so, under which programme could the aid be paid? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If so, under which programme could the aid be paid?

| 3. | Was an application made for aid for the above project? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Was an application made for aid for the above project?

| 4. | If so, when and want amount was paid out? |
| --- | --- |

4.

If so, when and want amount was paid out?

| 5. | Were accounts duly kept? |
| --- | --- |

5.

Were accounts duly kept?

| 6. | Is the Commission aware that the project was not completed? |
| --- | --- |

6.

Is the Commission aware that the project was not completed?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(23 September 2003)

The Commission can confirm that the area in question is not among those defined as eligible for European regional aid under the Structural Funds, nor is it covered under the rural development programmes of the CAP. Accordingly, there is no Community financial instrument available to the Bavarian authorities to support the project in question.

The Commission is informed that the project is not yet complete, but would point out that only the investor (in this case Planten en Bloemen, Batzenhofen) may apply for Community co-financing via the Bavarian authorities, and not the individual building contractor.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/129 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/129

---

(2004/C 78 E/0131)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2569/03

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(6 August 2003)

Subject:   Bioptic driving

Will the Commission state in which Member States bioptic driving is currently allowed?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(11 September 2003)

As the Commission indicated to the Honourable Member in its reply to his Written Question E-1231/03 (1), the Commission is not aware of any Member State allowing to drive with the use of bioptic lenses. Moreover, no experiments have been conducted at any larger scale in Europe. Therefore, it is not expected that bioptic lenses will be allowed to be used in the near future, as it should first be thoroughly investigated and discussed.

---

(1)  OJ C 58 E, 6.3.2004, p. 52.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/129 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/129

---

(2004/C 78 E/0132)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2586/03

by Maurizio Turco (NI) to the Commission

(8 August 2003)

Subject:   New information concerning the refunds for agricultural products exported from the Member States to the Vatican City State

It appears that, in reply to questions E-1477/03 to E-1480/03 (1) on refunds for agricultural products exported from the Member States to the Vatican City State, Mr Fischler, Commissioner, stated on 21 May 2003 that the Commission was gathering the information it needed in order to be able to answer the questions and that it would pass on the results of its research as soon as possible.

Furthermore, following correspondence with the Italian State Customs Agency (which had been asked for the same information as was requested from the Commission), the questioner was told on 27 May that, unfortunately, not all the information requested was available, but from what was available it emerged that:

| — | the average number of potential beneficiaries registered in 1989 was 32 600; |
| --- | --- |

—

the average number of potential beneficiaries registered in 1989 was 32 600;

| — | in 2001, on the basis of data received from the Rome Customs Office and cross-checked with information from the Vatican City, the Vatican imported 548 925 kg of meat and 288 351 kg of dairy products, whilst data supplied by theVatican for the same items indicated imports of 505 553 and 271 699 kg for 2001 and of 712 232 and 293 543 kg for 2000; |
| --- | --- |

—

in 2001, on the basis of data received from the Rome Customs Office and cross-checked with information from the Vatican City, the Vatican imported 548 925 kg of meat and 288 351 kg of dairy products, whilst data supplied by theVatican for the same items indicated imports of 505 553 and 271 699 kg for 2001 and of 712 232 and 293 543 kg for 2000;

| — | as regards exports from Italy to the Vatican, the Italian Customs system shows that Italy by itself exported:






  (a) | meat: 1998, 250473 kg; 1999, 1 254 200 kg; 2000, 386832 kg; 2001, 377028 kg; |
| --- | --- | --- |

—

as regards exports from Italy to the Vatican, the Italian Customs system shows that Italy by itself exported:

(a)

meat: 1998, 250473 kg; 1999, 1 254 200 kg; 2000, 386832 kg; 2001, 377028 kg;

| (b) | sugar: 1998, 71 040 kg; 1999, 695 500 kg. |
| --- | --- |

(b)

sugar: 1998, 71 040 kg; 1999, 695 500 kg.

A comparison of the data for exports from Italy to the Vatican as ascertained by the Italian Customs System (Source: Datawarehouse — MERCE system) and by the CATS system reveals that, as regards meat imports from Italy, the Vatican:

| — | imported 250 473 kg in 1998 without taking advantage of the Community aid available, thereby foregoing approximately EUR 169 000; |
| --- | --- |

—

imported 250 473 kg in 1998 without taking advantage of the Community aid available, thereby foregoing approximately EUR 169 000;

| — | imported 1 254 200 kg in 1999 and applied for Community aid only in respect of 377 028 kg, thereby foregoing approximately EUR 556 000; |
| --- | --- |

—

imported 1 254 200 kg in 1999 and applied for Community aid only in respect of 377 028 kg, thereby foregoing approximately EUR 556 000;

| — | imported 377 028 kg in 2001 and applied for Community aid only in respect of 18 677 300 kg, thereby foregoing approximately EUR 240 000. |
| --- | --- |

—

imported 377 028 kg in 2001 and applied for Community aid only in respect of 18 677 300 kg, thereby foregoing approximately EUR 240 000.

Will the Commission say:

| — | what stage has been reached in the research being carried out in order to enable the above-mentioned questions to be answered? |
| --- | --- |

—

what stage has been reached in the research being carried out in order to enable the above-mentioned questions to be answered?

| — | what technical reasons justify foregoing Community aid? |
| --- | --- |

—

what technical reasons justify foregoing Community aid?

| — | whether or not it considers that the increasingly obvious shortfalls and discrepancies between the data from the various official sources pose a serious threat to the credibility of those sources, and that those shortfalls and discrepancies could stem from possible defrauding of the Community budget — or is the Commission already in a position to dismiss that possibility? |
| --- | --- |

—

whether or not it considers that the increasingly obvious shortfalls and discrepancies between the data from the various official sources pose a serious threat to the credibility of those sources, and that those shortfalls and discrepancies could stem from possible defrauding of the Community budget — or is the Commission already in a position to dismiss that possibility?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(7 October 2003)

The joint reply to Written Questions E-1477/03 (2) to E-1480/03 needed some research and has now been submitted to the Honourable Member.

The main reason for not claiming Community aid on exports of agricultural products is the fact that, for many of these products, simply no export refunds are applicable (for instance: no export refunds are applicable on pig meat). Furthermore, exporters can, for various reasons, choose not to claim for export refunds even if refunds are applicable (for instance: for exports of small quantities, the internal administrative cost of claiming for the refund may be higher than the refund paid).

The Honourable Member has received data from various sources, which all have been collected in a certain context and for certain purposes, and thus have their own significance. For instance, the difference between Comext (the Eurostat foreign trade database; reflects the commercial flux) and CATS (Clearance Audit Trail System; contains Community aids paid) has been explained in the reply to Written Question E-1478/03 (3). Apparent discrepancies are thus not necessarily anomalies, but can reflect another view on the same reality, which makes the different data complementary and not contradictory.

Three extractions from the Comext Database are sent to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat.

These tables contain data on the export flow from Member States to the Vatican City.

Each table is specialised for a group of products and reflects the value on annual data from 1989 until 2001.

---

(1)  OJ C 70 E, 20.3.2004, p. 45.

(2)  OJ C 70 E, 20.3.2004, p. 45.

(3)  OJ C 70 E, 20.3.2004, p. 45.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/131 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/131

---

(2004/C 78 E/0133)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2591/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(4 August 2003)

Subject:   State of emergency due to the drought in the Region of Lazio

The drought that has hit Italy in the last few weeks is having an alarming impact on the Lazio region, where the water levels in river basins are below the critical threshold.

The lakes of Bolsena, Albano, Nemi and Castelgandolfo have reached their lowest recorded levels, which is causing increasing concern as regards crops. The situation has reached the point where farmers in Lazio have requested recognition of a natural disaster.

The production of maize and cereals is already only half what it should be and one third of crops in the fruit and vegetable sector have been destroyed. Confagricoltura, the national organisation of farmers, has forecast further falls in production by the end of July.

The drought problem is taking on alarming proportions in Lazio, not least because of its direct effects on the population. In particular the Simbrivio acqueduct, which supplies more than sixty municipalities, is unable to ensure a constant supply of water to the inhabitants.

In view of the seriousness of the situation and with reference to the Council Regulation of 15 November establishing the European Union Solidarity Fund for natural disasters, can the Commission say:

| 1. | whether the current state of emergency in Lazio may be recognised pursuant to Articles 2 and 3 of the Regulation; |
| --- | --- |

1.

whether the current state of emergency in Lazio may be recognised pursuant to Articles 2 and 3 of the Regulation;

| 2. | whether the Italian State meets the requirements for requesting the grant provided for this purpose under the Solidarity Fund? |
| --- | --- |

2.

whether the Italian State meets the requirements for requesting the grant provided for this purpose under the Solidarity Fund?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(18 September 2003)

The Commission would like to sympathise with the inhabitants of the Region of Lazio and also the inhabitants in the other affected regions in Italy who are suffering from the present drought.

The Commission is deeply concerned about the serious repercussions that the drought is having on the living conditions, the natural environment and the economy in the Lazio Region.

The Honourable Member in referring to Article 2 and 3 of the EUSF Regulation (1), has correctly indicated the main qualifying criteria of the European Union Solidarity Fund (EUSF).

The Commission would however like to remind the Honourable Member that the EUSF was set up to provide assistance mainly in the event of major disasters and the eligibility criteria are rather specific. The fund can only be utilised to provide immediate financial assistance in accordance with the qualifying criteria outlined in the EUSF Regulation. Intervention can only take place to help finance making good public damage not covered by insurance. It cannot cover economic losses (e.g. of farmers).

The Commission is not in receipt of any official information from the Italian authorities as to the size and scale of direct damages suffered to date in the Lazio Region or any other area in Italy in respect of the present drought. Hence it is unable to comment if the qualifying criteria for the EUSF to intervene in respect of this disaster are fulfilled.

The Italian Government has the sole discretion to submit an application. Depending on the scale of damages suffered and the areas affected, it can submit an application for each of the regions affected by different disasters, or it could submit one application if the cumulative scale of damages for all the areas affected by the same disaster exceeds 0,6 % of gross national income (GNI).

It should be noted, that subject to the approval by the Council and Parliament of recent Commission decisions to grant assistance, the total amount of EUSF funding for disasters at a regional level available for the remainder of 2003, is EUR 18,75 million. The amount of assistance available for major disasters is EUR 925 million.

The EUSF Regulation requires that applications should be made within ten weeks of the date of the first damage caused by the disaster.

Whether any of the conditions and other requirements of the Regulation are met, will be examined on the basis of the information provided in any application made by the Italian Government. The Commission can only propose the mobilisation of the Solidarity Fund to the Budgetary Authority if is demonstrated that all the criteria laid down in the Regulation are met.

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 2012/2002 of 11 November 2002 establishing the European Union Solidarity Fund, OJ L 311, 14.11.2002.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/132 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/132

---

(2004/C 78 E/0134)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2597/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(14 August 2003)

Subject:   Natural disaster alert in Italy

The drought which has hit the Mediterranean area in the last few weeks is having alarming consequences in Italy: natural water resources are running low, with increasingly serious knock-on effects for agriculture and for the supply of hydroelectric power stations. The Italian civil protection authorities are about to submit a report to the government which will speak of a full-blown natural disaster.

The agriculture minister estimates the losses to agriculture at several million euros already, and the civil protection authorities predict that unless rain comes, by the end of July sprinkling by farmers will have exhausted the water reserves.

The water level of the large rivers and lakes which feed the hydroelectric power stations has fallen considerably: in some parts of the north, certain major tributaries of the Po have dried up completely. The regions of Piedmont and Emilia-Romagna have declared a state of emergency, and Lombardy and Veneto are about to follow suit.

The continuity of electricity supply can no longer be ensured at all times: rationing and blackouts are being resorted to, but such measures are not sufficient to guarantee electricity supply between now and the hoped-for autumn rains.

In view of the seriousness of the situation, and pursuant to the Council Regulation of 15 November 2002 setting up the Solidarity Fund for natural disasters, can the Commission state:

| 1. | whether the present disaster alert in Italy qualifies for recognition under Articles 2 and 3 of that Regulation? |
| --- | --- |

1.

whether the present disaster alert in Italy qualifies for recognition under Articles 2 and 3 of that Regulation?

| 2. | whether Italy meets the requirements for applying for a grant from the Solidarity Fund? |
| --- | --- |

2.

whether Italy meets the requirements for applying for a grant from the Solidarity Fund?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(18 September 2003)

The Commission is greatly concerned as to the scale of damage that is being caused by the ongoing drought in Italy. It sympathises with all the affected persons, including the regions referred of Piedmont, Emilia-Romagna, Lombardy and Veneto.

The Honourable Member is referred to her Written Question P-2591/03 (1). The response to this question explains in detail issues of eligibility and the necessary information that the national authorities must provide to the Commission when making an application for support from the Solidarity Fund.

---

(1)  See page 131.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/133 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/133

---

(2004/C 78 E/0135)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2605/03

by Elizabeth Lynne (ELDR) to the Commission

(28 August 2003)

Subject:   Recognition of qualifications for language teachers

Is the Commission aware that a British teacher of English having all adequate qualifications and teaching experience in the United Kingdom is required to pass the CAPES exam (Certificat d'aptitude pédagogique à l'enseignement du second degré, a very difficult exam, particularly for a foreigner) in order to be able to have a full-time teacher position in the French education system?

Would this not be in contravention of Council Directive 89/48/EEC (1) of 21 December 1988 on a general system for the recognition of higher education diplomas awarded on completion of professional education and training?

Is the proposed Directive on recognition of professional qualifications (2) going to eliminate this anomaly, particularly since French teachers are able to teach in the United Kingdom without such an additional examination?

Supplementary answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(9 January 2004)

The Commission has carried out an analysis of the consequences of the Court of Justice's judgment of 9 September 2003 in Case C-285/01 ‘Isabel Burbaud’ as to the recruitment in the French public service of fully qualified teachers from other Member States. The judgment concerns hospital managers. In France, hospital managers in the public service are subject to a recruitment competition which gives access to a period of training at the ‘École nationale de la santé publique’ before candidates are permanently appointed to a post. The Court has held that it is contrary to Community law that fully qualified hospital managers from other Member States sit a competition like the one referred to in the judgment. The Court observed that the specific features of this method of recruitment, which does not take account of specific qualifications in the field of hospital management obtained by candidates who are nationals of other Member States, place those nationals at a disadvantage and are liable to dissuade them from exercising their rights, as workers, to freedom of movement.

The Commission considers that, in principle, this case-law may extend to teachers, as they are also recruited in the French public service by means of a competition which gives access to a period of training at the ‘Instituts Universitaires de Formation des Maîtres’.

It is important to note that the Court has not ruled out the possibility to require properly qualified candidates from other Member States to sit a competition for recruitment in the public service. The Court has held that this requirement does not infringe Directive 89/48/EEC, since the Directive does not concern the choice of selection and recruitment procedures for filling positions and cannot be relied on as the basis for a right to be recruited. The Court has however excluded that properly qualified migrants can be required to pass a competition for admission to a course of training. Consequently, the Commission considers that France will have to amend its recruitment system as regards qualified teachers from other Member States. The Commission will contact the French authorities with a view to ensuring that France complies with the Court's jurisprudence.

The proposal for a new directive on the recognition of professional qualifications does not contain any provision regarding this matter.

---

(1)  OJ L 19, 24.1.1989, p. 16.

(2)  COM(2002) 119 final.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/134 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/134

---

(2004/C 78 E/0136)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2606/03

by Armin Laschet (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(14 August 2003)

Subject:   Discontinuation of the infringement proceedings against the Federal Republic of Germany in connection with the Avantis cross-border business park

The 1997 and 2002 infringement proceedings against the Federal Republic of Germany in connection with the breach of the EU's flora, fauna and habitat (FFH) directive on the conservation of natural habitats and wild fauna and flora, and in this particular instance the field hamster, through the construction of the Avantis cross-border business park in Aachen-Heerlen have been discontinued.

On what grounds did the European Commission halt the proceedings?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(12 September 2003)

The transboundary industrial area ‘Avantis’ near Aachen (DE) and Heerlen (NL) was subject to an infringement procedure against Germany. The project was authorised in 1998 and has been implemented in part. As a consequence, breeding sites of the Common Hamster, Cricetus cricetus, a species subject to the protection regime under Article 12 of the Habitats Directive (1), have been destroyed.

Under Article 16 of the Habitats Directive, the destruction of breeding sites of the Hamster may only be authorised if 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. Additionally, such a derogation is only possible for specific reasons listed in the Directive, inter alia for imperative reasons of overriding public interest, including those of a social or economic nature (Article 16 (1) (c)).

The German Government and the Commission do not agree whether all the conditions for a derogation under Article 16 of the Habitats Directive were fulfilled when the project was authorised.

However, Germany informed the Commission about compensation measures undertaken by the city of Aachen in the vicinity of the affected area and about a five-year Species Protection Plan for the Hamster in the region of North-Rhine Westfalia. The plan includes management agreements with farmers to improve the ecological quality of agricultural land for the enhancement of the hamster populations. The total cost of the programme is EUR 1,28 million (225 000 EUR/year). The agricultural area under Hamster-friendly management will be extended by some 200 hectares (ha) per year. Annual compensation payments for farmers will be around 1 000 EUR/ha. Community funding under the rural development programmes will be requested. In addition to this programme, the Land of North Rhine-Westphalia will participate in a Dutch/German pilot project for the re-introduction of the Common Hamster in areas where it has recently disappeared. The measures will be continuously monitored and reports will be made available to the Commission.

The Commission considers the proposed compensation measures and species protection plan, together with the German/Dutch re-introduction efforts, as being an effective package of measures to protect and promote the Common Hamster in North Rhine Westphalia. The measures will compensate for the negative impact of the new industrial area at the local level. As it appears unlikely that a continuation of the infringement procedure would provide any added value for the conservation of the Hamster the Commission decided to close the procedure on 9 July 2003.

This decision was based on the specific circumstances of the case. It should not be understood as a precedent allowing the circumvention of Article 12 and 16 of the Habitats Directive. The Commission expects full compliance with these provisions in all other cases.

---

(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.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/135 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/135

---

(2004/C 78 E/0137)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2610/03

by Proinsias De Rossa (PSE) to the Commission

(28 August 2003)

Subject:   Charging consumers for returning waste household electrical equipment

In its answer to Written Question E-1970/03 (1) given on 25 July 2003, the Commission acknowledged that charging consumers at the point of return may have a negative impact on the collection results for waste electrical and electronic equipment but that such charges would not contravene Community legislation until Article 5 (2a) of Directive 2002/96/EC (2) takes effect, i.e. by 13 August 2005 at the latest.

Has the Commission informed the Irish authorities of this situation and, if so, what has been their response? What steps is the Commission now considering taking so as to ensure that the Irish public will be able to return such goods free of charge after 13 August 2005, in accordance with Directive 2002/96/EC?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(26 September 2003)

Directive 2002/96/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 27 January 2003 on waste from electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE) requires Member States to ensure that, by 13 August 2005, systems are set up allowing final holders and distributors to return WEEE from private households at least free of charge.

The national laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive must be brought into force by 13 August 2004 and communicated to the Commission.

The Commission has not discussed the issue of charging consumers with Ireland specifically. Regular meetings between the Commission and the Member States take place in order to discuss questions of implementation. The Commission will take all necessary measures to ensure that the Directive is correctly implemented in all Member States.

---

(1)  See page 61.

(2)  OJ L 37, 13.2.2003, p. 24.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/136 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/136

---

(2004/C 78 E/0138)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2631/03

by Maurizio Turco (NI) to the Commission

(2 September 2003)

Subject:   Refunds on exports from Member States to the Vatican City State of fresh and frozen beef (code 0201) for 1998. Inconsistencies between CATS and OECD data.

In response to questions E-1477/03 and E-1480/03 (1) relating to refunds on exports of agricultural products from Member States to the Vatican City State (VCS), Commissioner Fischler stated on 21 May 2003 that the Commission was collecting the information it needed to answer the question and would communicate its findings as soon as possible.

The following supplementary data can be supplied in relation to the export of fresh and frozen beef (code 0201):

| (a) | the European Commission's CATS (Clearance Audit Trail System) database shows that in 1998:






  — | 346 233 kg were exported from Holland to the VCS with a refund of EUR 233 566,63 equivalent to aid of EUR 0,67/kg; |
| --- | --- | --- |

(a)

the European Commission's CATS (Clearance Audit Trail System) database shows that in 1998:

—

346 233 kg were exported from Holland to the VCS with a refund of EUR 233 566,63 equivalent to aid of EUR 0,67/kg;

| (b) | the OECD (Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development) database shows that in 1998:






  — | 314 600 kg were exported from Holland, 240100 kg from Italy, 329 600 from Ireland and 74 700 kg from Belgium to the VCS; |
| --- | --- | --- |

(b)

the OECD (Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development) database shows that in 1998:

—

314 600 kg were exported from Holland, 240100 kg from Italy, 329 600 from Ireland and 74 700 kg from Belgium to the VCS;

| (c) | this indicates that:






  — | unwarranted aid of EUR 21 339,43 was paid on an additional 31 633 kg not shown in the OECD data; |
| --- | --- | --- |

(c)

this indicates that:

—

unwarranted aid of EUR 21 339,43 was paid on an additional 31 633 kg not shown in the OECD data;

| — | no application was made for aid of EUR 434 708,24 for the export of 644 400 kg on which Community aid could have been paid. |
| --- | --- |

—

no application was made for aid of EUR 434 708,24 for the export of 644 400 kg on which Community aid could have been paid.

Could the Commission state the technical reasons for the foregoing of this Community aid?

Does it not agree that the increasingly patent omissions and the discrepancies between the data from the different institutional sources seriously affect the credibility of these institutions and might be due to possible fraud against Community funds, or is it already able to discount this possibility of fraud?

---

(1)  OJ C 70 E 20.3.2004, p. 45.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/136 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/136

---

(2004/C 78 E/0139)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2632/03

by Maurizio Turco (NI) to the Commission

(2 September 2003)

Subject:   Refunds on exports from Member States to the Vatican City State of fresh and frozen beef (code 0201) for 1999. Inconsistencies between CATS and OECD data.

In response to questions E-1477/03 and E-1480/03 (1) relating to refunds on exports of agricultural products from Member States to the Vatican City State (VCS), Commissioner Fischler stated on 21 May 2003 that the Commission was collecting the information it needed to answer the question and would communicate its findings as soon as possible.

The following supplementary data can be supplied in relation to the export of fresh and frozen beef (code 0201):

| (a) | the European Commission's CATS (Clearance Audit Trail System) database shows that in 1999:






  — | 57 984 kg were exported from Belgium to the VCS with a refund of EUR 40 732,82, equivalent to aid of EUR 0,70/kg; |
| --- | --- | --- |

(a)

the European Commission's CATS (Clearance Audit Trail System) database shows that in 1999:

—

57 984 kg were exported from Belgium to the VCS with a refund of EUR 40 732,82, equivalent to aid of EUR 0,70/kg;

| — | 163 960 kg were exported from Ireland to the VCS with a refund of EUR 93 598,44 equivalent to aid of EUR 0,57/kg; |
| --- | --- |

—

163 960 kg were exported from Ireland to the VCS with a refund of EUR 93 598,44 equivalent to aid of EUR 0,57/kg;

| — | 395 920 kg were exported from Italy to the VCS with a refund of EUR 256 405,34 equivalent to aid of EUR 0,65/kg; |
| --- | --- |

—

395 920 kg were exported from Italy to the VCS with a refund of EUR 256 405,34 equivalent to aid of EUR 0,65/kg;

| — | 345 782 kg were exported from Holland to the VCS with a refund of EUR 268 925,00 equivalent to aid of EUR 0,78/kg; |
| --- | --- |

—

345 782 kg were exported from Holland to the VCS with a refund of EUR 268 925,00 equivalent to aid of EUR 0,78/kg;

| (b) | the OECD (Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development) database shows that in 1999:






  — | 12 200 kg were exported from Ireland, 472 800 kg from Italy and 363 000 kg from Holland to the VCS, |
| --- | --- | --- |

(b)

the OECD (Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development) database shows that in 1999:

—

12 200 kg were exported from Ireland, 472 800 kg from Italy and 363 000 kg from Holland to the VCS,

| (c) | This indicates that:






  — | unwarranted aid of EUR 127 366,75 was paid on an additional 209 744,00 kg not shown in the OECD data; |
| --- | --- | --- |

(c)

This indicates that:

—

unwarranted aid of EUR 127 366,75 was paid on an additional 209 744,00 kg not shown in the OECD data;

| — | no application was made for aid of EUR 63 179,91 for the export of 94 098 kg on which Community aid could have been paid. |
| --- | --- |

—

no application was made for aid of EUR 63 179,91 for the export of 94 098 kg on which Community aid could have been paid.

Could the Commission state the technical reasons for the foregoing of this Community aid?

Does it not agree that the increasingly patent omissions and the discrepancies between the data from the different institutional sources seriously affect the credibility of these institutions and might be due to possible fraud against Community funds, or is it already able to discount this possibility of fraud?

---

(1)  OJ C 70 E, 20.3.2004, p. 45.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/137 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/137

---

(2004/C 78 E/0140)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2633/03

by Maurizio Turco (NI) to the Commission

(2 September 2003)

Subject:   Refunds on exports from Member States to the Vatican City State of fresh and frozen beef (code 0201) for 2000. Inconsistencies between CATS and OECD data.

In response to questions E-1477/03 and E-1480/03 (1) relating to refunds on exports of agricultural products from Member States to the Vatican City State (VCS), Commissioner Fischler stated on 21 May 2003 that the Commission was collecting the information it needed to answer the question and would communicate its findings as soon as possible.

The following supplementary data can be supplied in relation to the export of fresh and frozen beef (code 0201):

| (a) | the European Commission's CATS (Clearance Audit Trail System) database shows that in 2000:






  — | 46 404,210 kg were exported from Ireland to the VCS with a refund of EUR 38 323,65, equivalent to aid of EUR 0,83/kg; |
| --- | --- | --- |

(a)

the European Commission's CATS (Clearance Audit Trail System) database shows that in 2000:

—

46 404,210 kg were exported from Ireland to the VCS with a refund of EUR 38 323,65, equivalent to aid of EUR 0,83/kg;

| — | 389 850 kg were exported from Italy to the VCS with a refund of EUR 305 341,16 equivalent to aid of EUR 0,78/kg; |
| --- | --- |

—

389 850 kg were exported from Italy to the VCS with a refund of EUR 305 341,16 equivalent to aid of EUR 0,78/kg;

| — | 294 544 kg were exported from Holland to the VCS with a refund of EUR 211 144,95 equivalent to aid of EUR 0,72/kg; |
| --- | --- |

—

294 544 kg were exported from Holland to the VCS with a refund of EUR 211 144,95 equivalent to aid of EUR 0,72/kg;

| (b) | the OECD (Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development) database shows that in 2000:






  — | 249 700 kg were exported from Italy and 266 700 kg from Holland to the VCS, |
| --- | --- | --- |

(b)

the OECD (Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development) database shows that in 2000:

—

249 700 kg were exported from Italy and 266 700 kg from Holland to the VCS,

| (c) | This indicates that:






  — | unwarranted aid of EUR 168 053,03 was paid on an additional 214 398,21 kg not shown in the OECD data; |
| --- | --- | --- |

(c)

This indicates that:

—

unwarranted aid of EUR 168 053,03 was paid on an additional 214 398,21 kg not shown in the OECD data;

Does the Commission not agree that the increasingly patent omissions and the discrepancies between the data from the different institutional sources seriously affect the credibility of these institutions and might be due to possible fraud against Community funds, or is it already able to discount this possibility of fraud?

---

(1)  OJ C 70 E, 20.3.2004, p. 45.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/138 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/138

---

(2004/C 78 E/0141)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2634/03

by Maurizio Turco (NI) to the Commission

(2 September 2003)

Subject:   Refunds on exports from Member States to the Vatican City State of fresh and frozen beef (code 0201) for 2001. Inconsistencies between CATS and OECD data.

In response to questions E-1477/03 and E-1480/03 (1) relating to refunds on exports of agricultural products from Member States to the Vatican City State (VCS), Commissioner Fischler stated on 21 May 2003 that the Commission was collecting the information it needed to answer the question and would communicate its findings as soon as possible.

The following supplementary data can be supplied in relation to the export of fresh and frozen beef (code 0201):

| (a) | the European Commission's CATS (Clearance Audit Trail System) database shows that in 2001:






  — | 12 237,500 kg were exported from Ireland to the VCS with a refund of EUR 10 844,52, equivalent to aid of EUR 0,89/kg; |
| --- | --- | --- |

(a)

the European Commission's CATS (Clearance Audit Trail System) database shows that in 2001:

—

12 237,500 kg were exported from Ireland to the VCS with a refund of EUR 10 844,52, equivalent to aid of EUR 0,89/kg;

| — | 18 677,300 kg were exported from Italy to the VCS with a refund of EUR 12 487,13 equivalent to aid of EUR 0,67/kg; |
| --- | --- |

—

18 677,300 kg were exported from Italy to the VCS with a refund of EUR 12 487,13 equivalent to aid of EUR 0,67/kg;

| — | 181 335 kg were exported from Holland to the VCS with a refund of EUR 87 462,25 equivalent to aid of EUR 0,48/kg; |
| --- | --- |

—

181 335 kg were exported from Holland to the VCS with a refund of EUR 87 462,25 equivalent to aid of EUR 0,48/kg;

| (b) | the OECD (Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development) database shows that in 2001:






  — | 350 700 kg were exported from Italy and 158 100 kg from Holland to the VCS, |
| --- | --- | --- |

(b)

the OECD (Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development) database shows that in 2001:

—

350 700 kg were exported from Italy and 158 100 kg from Holland to the VCS,

| (c) | This indicates that:






  — | unwarranted aid of EUR 22 051,32 was paid on an additional 35 472,50 kg not shown in the OECD data; |
| --- | --- | --- |

(c)

This indicates that:

—

unwarranted aid of EUR 22 051,32 was paid on an additional 35 472,50 kg not shown in the OECD data;

| — | no application was made for aid of EUR 221 981,26 for the export of 332 022,70 kg on which Community aid could have been paid. |
| --- | --- |

—

no application was made for aid of EUR 221 981,26 for the export of 332 022,70 kg on which Community aid could have been paid.

Could the Commission state the technical reasons for the foregoing of this Community aid?

Does it not agree that the increasingly patent omissions and the discrepancies between the data from the different institutional sources seriously affect the credibility of these institutions and might be due to possible fraud against Community funds, or is it already able to discount this possibility of fraud?

---

(1)  OJ C 70 E 20.3.2004, p. 45.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/139 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/139

---

(2004/C 78 E/0142)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2635/03

by Maurizio Turco (NI) to the Commission

(2 September 2003)

Subject:   Refunds on exports from Member States to the Vatican City State of butter and other fats and oils derived from milk, milk products (code 0405) for 1998

In response to questions E-1477/03 and E-1480/03 (1) relating to refunds on exports of agricultural products from Member States to the Vatican City State (VCS), Commissioner Fischler stated on 21 May 2003 that the Commission was collecting the information it needed to answer the question and would communicate its findings as soon as possible.

The following supplementary data can be supplied in relation to the export of butter and other fats and oils derived from milk, milk products (code 0405):

| (a) | the European Commission's CATS (Clearance Audit Trail System) database shows that in 1998:






  — | 155000 kg were exported from Austria to the VCS with a refund of EUR 272 200,57, equivalent to aid of EUR 1,76/kg; |
| --- | --- | --- |

(a)

the European Commission's CATS (Clearance Audit Trail System) database shows that in 1998:

—

155000 kg were exported from Austria to the VCS with a refund of EUR 272 200,57, equivalent to aid of EUR 1,76/kg;

| — | 19 215,50 kg were exported from Germany to the VCS with a refund of EUR 33 854,82, equivalent to aid of EUR 1,76/kg; |
| --- | --- |

—

19 215,50 kg were exported from Germany to the VCS with a refund of EUR 33 854,82, equivalent to aid of EUR 1,76/kg;

| (b) | the OECD (Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development) database shows that in 1998:






  — | 150 000 kg were exported from Austria and 18 000 kg from Germany to the VCS, |
| --- | --- | --- |

(b)

the OECD (Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development) database shows that in 1998:

—

150 000 kg were exported from Austria and 18 000 kg from Germany to the VCS,

| (c) | This indicates that:






  — | unwarranted aid of EUR 10 922,19 was paid on an additional 6 215,50 kg not shown in the OECD data; |
| --- | --- | --- |

(c)

This indicates that:

—

unwarranted aid of EUR 10 922,19 was paid on an additional 6 215,50 kg not shown in the OECD data;

Does the Commission not agree that the increasingly patent omissions and the discrepancies between the data from the different institutional sources seriously affect the credibility of these institutions and might be due to possible fraud against Community funds, or is it already able to discount this possibility?

---

(1)  OJ C 70 E, 20.3.2004, p. 45.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/139 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/139

---

(2004/C 78 E/0143)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2636/03

by Maurizio Turco (NI) to the Commission

(2 September 2003)

Subject:   Refunds on exports from Member States to the Vatican City State of butter and other fats and oils derived from milk, milk products (code 0405) for 1999

In response to questions E-1477/03 and E-1480/03 (1) relating to refunds on exports of agricultural products from Member States to the Vatican City State (VCS), Commissioner Fischler stated on 21 May 2003 that the Commission was collecting the information it needed to answer the question and would communicate its findings as soon as possible.

The following supplementary data can be supplied in relation to the export of butter and other fats and oils derived from milk, milk products (code 0405):

| (a) | the European Commission's CATS (Clearance Audit Trail System) database shows that in 1999:






  — | 135 000 kg were exported from Austria to the VCS with a refund of EUR 231 985,50, equivalent to aid of EUR l,72/kg; |
| --- | --- | --- |

(a)

the European Commission's CATS (Clearance Audit Trail System) database shows that in 1999:

—

135 000 kg were exported from Austria to the VCS with a refund of EUR 231 985,50, equivalent to aid of EUR l,72/kg;

| — | 21 000 kg were exported from Germany to the VCS with a refund of EUR 35 986,05 equivalent to aid of EUR 1,71/kg; |
| --- | --- |

—

21 000 kg were exported from Germany to the VCS with a refund of EUR 35 986,05 equivalent to aid of EUR 1,71/kg;

| — | 230 kg were exported from Italy to the VCS with a refund of EUR 402,90 equivalent to aid of EUR l,75/kg; |
| --- | --- |

—

230 kg were exported from Italy to the VCS with a refund of EUR 402,90 equivalent to aid of EUR l,75/kg;

| (b) | the OECD (Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development) database shows that in 1999:






  — | 120 000 kg were exported from Austria and 21 600 kg from Germany to the VCS, |
| --- | --- | --- |

(b)

the OECD (Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development) database shows that in 1999:

—

120 000 kg were exported from Austria and 21 600 kg from Germany to the VCS,

| (c) | This indicates that:






  — | unwarranted aid of EUR 26 179,07 was paid on an additional 15 230 kg not shown in the OECD data; |
| --- | --- | --- |

(c)

This indicates that:

—

unwarranted aid of EUR 26 179,07 was paid on an additional 15 230 kg not shown in the OECD data;

| — | no application was made for aid of EUR 1 028,17 for the export of 600 kg on which Community aid could have been paid. |
| --- | --- |

—

no application was made for aid of EUR 1 028,17 for the export of 600 kg on which Community aid could have been paid.

Could the Commission state the technical reasons for the foregoing of this Community aid?

Does it not agree that the increasingly patent omissions and the discrepancies between the data from the different institutional sources seriously affect the credibility of these institutions and might be due to possible fraud against Community funds, or is it already able to discount this possibility of fraud?

---

(1)  OJ C 70 E, 20.3.2004, p. 45.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/140 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/140

---

(2004/C 78 E/0144)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2637/03

by Maurizio Turco (NI) to the Commission

(2 September 2003)

Subject:   Refunds on exports from Member States to the Vatican City State of butter and other fats and oils derived from milk, milk products (code 0405) for 2000

In response to questions E-1477/03 and E-1480/03 (1) relating to refunds on exports of agricultural products from Member States to the Vatican City State (VCS), Commissioner Fischler stated on 21 May 2003 that the Commission was collecting the information it needed to answer the question and would communicate its findings as soon as possible.

The following supplementary data can be supplied in relation to the export of butter and other fats and oils derived from milk, milk products (code 0405):

| (a) | the European Commission's CATS (Clearance Audit Trail System) database shows that in 2000:






  — | 125 000 kg were exported from Austria to the VCS with a refund of EUR 212 500,82, equivalent to aid of EUR l,70/kg; |
| --- | --- | --- |

(a)

the European Commission's CATS (Clearance Audit Trail System) database shows that in 2000:

—

125 000 kg were exported from Austria to the VCS with a refund of EUR 212 500,82, equivalent to aid of EUR l,70/kg;

| — | 20 560 kg were exported from Germany to the VCS with a refund of EUR 34 952,01, equivalent to aid of EUR l,70/kg; |
| --- | --- |

—

20 560 kg were exported from Germany to the VCS with a refund of EUR 34 952,01, equivalent to aid of EUR l,70/kg;

| (b) | the OECD (Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development) database shows that in 2000:






  — | 80 000 kg were exported from Austria and 14 400 kg from Germany to the VCS, |
| --- | --- | --- |

(b)

the OECD (Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development) database shows that in 2000:

—

80 000 kg were exported from Austria and 14 400 kg from Germany to the VCS,

| (c) | This indicates that:






  — | unwarranted aid of EUR 86 972,30 was paid on an additional 51 160 kg not shown in the OECD data; |
| --- | --- | --- |

(c)

This indicates that:

—

unwarranted aid of EUR 86 972,30 was paid on an additional 51 160 kg not shown in the OECD data;

Does the Commission not agree that the increasingly patent omissions and the discrepancies between the data from the different institutional sources seriously affect the credibility of these institutions and might be due to possible fraud against Community funds, or is it already able to discount this possibility of fraud?

---

(1)  OJ C 70 E, 20.3.2004, p. 45.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/141 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/141

---

(2004/C 78 E/0145)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2638/03

by Maurizio Turco (NI) to the Commission

(2 September 2003)

Subject:   Refunds on exports from Member States to the Vatican City State of butter and other fats and oils derived from milk, milk products (code 0405) for 2001

In response to questions E-1477/03 and E-1480/03 (1) relating to refunds on exports of agricultural products from Member States to the Vatican City State (VCS), Commissioner Fischler stated on 21 May 2003 that the Commission was collecting the information it needed to answer the question and would communicate its findings as soon as possible.

The following supplementary data can be supplied in relation to the export of butter and other fats and oils derived from milk, milk products (code 0405):

| (a) | the European Commission's CATS (Clearance Audit Trail System) database shows that in 2001:






  — | 125 200 kg were exported from Austria to the VCS with a refund of EUR 211 760,72, equivalent to aid of EUR l,69/kg; |
| --- | --- | --- |

(a)

the European Commission's CATS (Clearance Audit Trail System) database shows that in 2001:

—

125 200 kg were exported from Austria to the VCS with a refund of EUR 211 760,72, equivalent to aid of EUR l,69/kg;

| — | 21 000 kg were exported from Germany to the VCS with a refund of EUR 35 700, equivalent to aid of EUR l,70/kg; |
| --- | --- |

—

21 000 kg were exported from Germany to the VCS with a refund of EUR 35 700, equivalent to aid of EUR l,70/kg;

| (b) | the OECD (Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development) database shows that in 2001:






  — | 123 400 kg were exported from Austria and 21 200 kg from Germany to the VCS, |
| --- | --- | --- |

(b)

the OECD (Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development) database shows that in 2001:

—

123 400 kg were exported from Austria and 21 200 kg from Germany to the VCS,

| (c) | This indicates that:






  — | unwarranted aid of EUR 3 044,48 was paid on an additional 1 800 kg not shown in the OECD data; |
| --- | --- | --- |

(c)

This indicates that:

—

unwarranted aid of EUR 3 044,48 was paid on an additional 1 800 kg not shown in the OECD data;

| — | no application was made for aid of EUR 340 for the export of 200 kg on which Community aid could have been paid. |
| --- | --- |

—

no application was made for aid of EUR 340 for the export of 200 kg on which Community aid could have been paid.

Could the Commission state the technical reasons for the foregoing of this Community aid?

Does it not agree that the increasingly patent omissions and the discrepancies between the data from the different institutional sources seriously affect the credibility of these institutions and might be due to possible fraud against Community funds, or is it already able to discount this possibility of fraud?

---

(1)  OJ C 70 E 20.3.2004, p. 45.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/142 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/142

---

(2004/C 78 E/0146)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2639/03

by Maurizio Turco (NI) to the Commission

(2 September 2003)

Subject:   Refunds on exports from Member States to the Vatican City State of beet and cane sugar and chemically pure sucrose in solid form (code 1701) for 1998

In response to questions E-1477/03 and E-1480/03 (1) relating to refunds on exports of agricultural products from Member States to the Vatican City State (VCS), Commissioner Fischler stated on 21 May 2003 that the Commission was collecting the information it needed to answer the question and would communicate its findings as soon as possible.

The following supplementary data can be supplied in relation to the export of beet and cane sugar and chemically pure sucrose in solid form (code 1701):

| (a) | the European Commission's CATS (Clearance Audit Trail System) database shows that in 1998:






  — | 110 kg were exported from France to the VCS with a refund of EUR 44,18, equivalent to aid of EUR 0,40/kg; |
| --- | --- | --- |

(a)

the European Commission's CATS (Clearance Audit Trail System) database shows that in 1998:

—

110 kg were exported from France to the VCS with a refund of EUR 44,18, equivalent to aid of EUR 0,40/kg;

| — | 727 700 kg were exported from Italy to the VCS with a refund of EUR 315 365,71, equivalent to aid of EUR 0,43/kg; |
| --- | --- |

—

727 700 kg were exported from Italy to the VCS with a refund of EUR 315 365,71, equivalent to aid of EUR 0,43/kg;

| (b) | the OECD (Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development) database shows that in 1998:






  — | 1 371 000 kg were exported from Italy to the VCS, |
| --- | --- | --- |

(b)

the OECD (Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development) database shows that in 1998:

—

1 371 000 kg were exported from Italy to the VCS,

| (c) | This indicates that:






  — | unwarranted aid of EUR 44,18 was paid on an additional 110 kg not shown in the OECD data; |
| --- | --- | --- |

(c)

This indicates that:

—

unwarranted aid of EUR 44,18 was paid on an additional 110 kg not shown in the OECD data;

| — | no application was made for aid of EUR 278 789,01 for the export of 643 300 kg on which Community aid could have been paid. |
| --- | --- |

—

no application was made for aid of EUR 278 789,01 for the export of 643 300 kg on which Community aid could have been paid.

Could the Commission state the technical reasons for the foregoing of this Community aid?

Does it not agree that the increasingly patent omissions and the discrepancies between the data from the different institutional sources seriously affect the credibility of these institutions and might be due to possible fraud against Community funds, or is it already able to discount this possibility of fraud?

---

(1)  OJ C 70 E 20.3.2004, p. 45.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/142 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/142

---

(2004/C 78 E/0147)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2640/03

by Maurizio Turco (NI) to the Commission

(2 September 2003)

Subject:   Refunds on exports from Member States to the Vatican City State of beet and cane sugar and chemically pure sucrose in solid form (code 1701) for 1999

In response to questions E-1477/03 and E-1480/03 (1) relating to refunds on exports of agricultural products from Member States to the Vatican City State (VCS), Commissioner Fischler stated on 21 May 2003 that the Commission was collecting the information it needed to answer the question and would communicate its findings as soon as possible.

The following supplementary data can be supplied in relation to the export of beet and cane sugar and chemically pure sucrose in solid form (code 1701):

| (a) | the European Commission's CATS (Clearance Audit Trail System) database shows that in 1999:






  — | 2 803 kg were exported from Spain to the VCS with a refund of EUR 1 268,38, equivalent to aid of EUR 0,45/kg; |
| --- | --- | --- |

(a)

the European Commission's CATS (Clearance Audit Trail System) database shows that in 1999:

—

2 803 kg were exported from Spain to the VCS with a refund of EUR 1 268,38, equivalent to aid of EUR 0,45/kg;

| — | 790 750 kg were exported from Italy to the VCS with a refund of EUR 315 365,71, equivalent to aid of EUR 0,43/kg; |
| --- | --- |

—

790 750 kg were exported from Italy to the VCS with a refund of EUR 315 365,71, equivalent to aid of EUR 0,43/kg;

| (b) | the OECD (Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development) database shows that in 1999:






  — | 724 300 kg were exported from Italy and 263 400 kg from Germany to the VCS, |
| --- | --- | --- |

(b)

the OECD (Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development) database shows that in 1999:

—

724 300 kg were exported from Italy and 263 400 kg from Germany to the VCS,

| (c) | This indicates that:






  — | unwarranted aid of EUR 33 682,96 was paid on an additional 69 253 kg not shown in the OECD data; |
| --- | --- | --- |

(c)

This indicates that:

—

unwarranted aid of EUR 33 682,96 was paid on an additional 69 253 kg not shown in the OECD data;

| — | no application was made for aid of EUR 123 839,10 for the export of 263 400 kg on which Community aid could have been paid. |
| --- | --- |

—

no application was made for aid of EUR 123 839,10 for the export of 263 400 kg on which Community aid could have been paid.

Could the Commission state the technical reasons for the foregoing of this Community aid?

Does it not agree that the increasingly patent omissions and the discrepancies between the data from the different institutional sources seriously affect the credibility of these institutions and be due to possible fraud against Community funds, or is it already able to discount this possibility of fraud?

---

(1)  OJ C 70 E 20.3.2004, p. 45.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/143 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/143

---

(2004/C 78 E/0148)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2641/03

by Maurizio Turco (NI) to the Commission

(10 September 2003)

Subject:   Refunds on exports from Member States to the Vatican City State of beet and cane sugar and chemically pure sucrose in solid form (code 1701) for 2000

In response to questions E-1477/03 and E-1480/03 (1) relating to refunds on exports of agricultural products from Member States to the Vatican City State (VCS), Commissioner Fischler stated on 21 May 2003 that the Commission was collecting the information it needed to answer the question and would communicate its findings as soon as possible.

The following supplementary data can be supplied in relation to the export of beet and cane sugar and chemically pure sucrose in solid form (code 1701):

| (a) | the European Commission's CATS (Clearance Audit Trail System) database shows that in 2000:






  — | 311650 kg were exported from Germany to the VCS with a refund of EUR 164 007,53, equivalent to aid of EUR 0,53/kg; |
| --- | --- | --- |

(a)

the European Commission's CATS (Clearance Audit Trail System) database shows that in 2000:

—

311650 kg were exported from Germany to the VCS with a refund of EUR 164 007,53, equivalent to aid of EUR 0,53/kg;

| — | 701 150 kg were exported from Italy to the VCS with a refund of EUR 356 906,17, equivalent to aid of EUR 0,51/kg; |
| --- | --- |

—

701 150 kg were exported from Italy to the VCS with a refund of EUR 356 906,17, equivalent to aid of EUR 0,51/kg;

| (b) | the OECD (Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development) database shows that in 2000:






  — | 312 400 kg were exported from Germany and 1 126 000 kg from Austria to the VCS, |
| --- | --- | --- |

(b)

the OECD (Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development) database shows that in 2000:

—

312 400 kg were exported from Germany and 1 126 000 kg from Austria to the VCS,

| (c) | This indicates that:






  — | unwarranted aid of EUR 356 906,17 was paid on an additional 701 150 kg not shown in the OECD data; |
| --- | --- | --- |

(c)

This indicates that:

—

unwarranted aid of EUR 356 906,17 was paid on an additional 701 150 kg not shown in the OECD data;

| — | no application was made for aid of EUR 583 260,26 for the export of 1 126 750 kg on which Community aid could have been paid. |
| --- | --- |

—

no application was made for aid of EUR 583 260,26 for the export of 1 126 750 kg on which Community aid could have been paid.

Could the Commission state the technical reasons for the foregoing of this Community aid?

Does it not agree that the increasingly patent omissions and the discrepancies between the data from the different institutional sources seriously affect the credibility of these institutions and might be due to possible fraud against Community funds, or is it already able to discount this possibility of fraud?

---

(1)  OJ C 70 E, 20.3.2004, p. 45.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/144 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/144

---

(2004/C 78 E/0149)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2642/03

by Maurizio Turco (NI) to the Commission

(10 September 2003)

Subject:   Refunds on exports from Member States to the Vatican City State of beet and cane sugar and chemically pure sucrose in solid form (code 1701) for 2001

In response to questions E-1477/03 and E-1480/03 (1) relating to refunds on exports of agricultural products from Member States to the Vatican City State (VCS), Commissioner Fischler stated on 21 May 2003 that the Commission was collecting the information it needed to answer the question and would communicate its findings as soon as possible.

The following supplementary data can be supplied in relation to the export of beet and cane sugar and chemically pure sucrose in solid form (code 1701):

| (a) | the European Commission's CATS (Clearance Audit Trail System) database shows that in 2001:






  — | 24 150 kg were exported from Germany to the VCS with a refund of EUR 10 118,61, equivalent to aid of EUR 0,42/kg; |
| --- | --- | --- |

(a)

the European Commission's CATS (Clearance Audit Trail System) database shows that in 2001:

—

24 150 kg were exported from Germany to the VCS with a refund of EUR 10 118,61, equivalent to aid of EUR 0,42/kg;

| — | 2 285,30 kg were exported from Italy to the VCS with a refund of EUR 1 016,39, equivalent to aid of EUR 0,44/kg; |
| --- | --- |

—

2 285,30 kg were exported from Italy to the VCS with a refund of EUR 1 016,39, equivalent to aid of EUR 0,44/kg;

| (b) | the OECD (Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development) database shows that in 2001:






  — | 96 000 kg were exported from Germany and 1 207 700 kg from Austria to the VCS, |
| --- | --- | --- |

(b)

the OECD (Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development) database shows that in 2001:

—

96 000 kg were exported from Germany and 1 207 700 kg from Austria to the VCS,

| (c) | This indicates that:






  — | unwarranted aid of EUR 1 106,39 was paid on an additional 2 285,30 kg not shown in the OECD data; |
| --- | --- | --- |

(c)

This indicates that:

—

unwarranted aid of EUR 1 106,39 was paid on an additional 2 285,30 kg not shown in the OECD data;

| — | no application was made for aid of EUR 551 674,62 for the export of 1 279 550 kg on which Community aid could have been paid. |
| --- | --- |

—

no application was made for aid of EUR 551 674,62 for the export of 1 279 550 kg on which Community aid could have been paid.

Could the Commission state the technical reasons for the foregoing of this Community aid?

Does it not agree that the increasingly patent omissions and the discrepancies between the data from the different institutional sources seriously affect the credibility of these institutions and might be due to possible fraud against Community funds, or is it already able to discount this possibility of fraud?

Joint answer to Written Questions

E-2631/03, E-2632/03, E-2633/03, E-2634/03, E-2635/03, E-2636/03, E-2637/03, E-2638/03, E-2639/03, E-2640/03, E-2641/03 and E-2642/03

given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(28 October 2003)

The Honourable Member has received data from various sources, which all have been collected in a certain context and for certain purposes and consequently have their own significance as it has been explained in the Commission's joint reply to the Honourable Member's Written Questions E-1477/03 to E-1480/03 (2) and to its reply to the Honourable Member's Written Question E-2586/03 (3).

As it has been stated in these replies, both databases are conceptually different and therefore no conclusions can be drawn upon possible discrepancies.

---

(1)  OJ C 70 E, 20.3.2004, p. 45.

(2)  OJ C 70 E, 20.3.2004, p. 45.

(3)  See page 129.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/145 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/145

---

(2004/C 78 E/0150)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2645/03

by Eija-Riitta Korhola (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(10 September 2003)

Subject:   Amendment of Article 25(1) of the Kyoto Protocol regarding entry into force

The Kyoto Protocol will enter into force when it has been ratified by not less than 55 parties to the UNFCCC accounting for at least 55 % of the total CO2 emissions of the Annex I countries. At present the Protocol has been accepted by 113 states making up over 80 % of the world's population, but the proportion of emissions accounted for by the Annex I countries which have ratified it stands at only 44,2 % and, even taken together, the remaining Annex I countries (Liechtenstein, Monaco, and Australia, whose combined total is 2,1 %) will not raise the figure above the 55 % threshold unless either Russia (17,4 %) or the United States (36,1 % of the Annex I countries' emissions) can likewise be persuaded to give its support. The US has already publicly distanced itself from the Protocol. Russia thus holds the key.

From a climate change perspective the Protocol naturally needs if nothing else to enter into force on schedule. It might in any case be strategically better for the purposes of the negotiations to be conducted with Russia and helpful to all sides if Russia agreed to participate, but as regards entry into force of Protocol this is not absolutely essential.

Has the Commission thought of taking immediate steps in order to amend Article 25(1) of the Protocol in accordance with the procedure under Article 20 with a view to replacing the requisite 55 % with, say, just 45 % of the Annex I countries' emissions, thus ensuring that, whatever happens, the Protocol can enter into force?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(23 October 2003)

Amendment of Article 25(1) of the Kyoto Protocol is not feasible from a legal point of view. Article 20 of the Kyoto Protocol defines the procedure that has to be followed for amendments to the Protocol itself. As the responsibility for adoption of any amendments lies with the Conference of the Parties serving as the Meeting of the Parties of the Kyoto Protocol, this procedure is applicable only once the Kyoto Protocol has entered into force. The conditions in Article 25(1) also underline the need to address the global problem of climate change by international action involving broad participation.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/146 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/146

---

(2004/C 78 E/0151)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2647/03

by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(28 August 2003)

Subject:   Use of synthetic prohormones for livestock fattening

Reports in the Flemish press suggest that the law enforcement authorities in Belgium are investigating a new livestock fattening product, which promotes the production of testosterone. It is apparently a synthetic version of a natural prohormone. The substance stimulates the brain to produce hormones naturally produced by the body, in this case testosterone. Hormones of this kind are banned in Belgium. According to the report, the hormone also contains dehydroepiandrosterone (DHEA), which causes liver damage and probably has other side-effects.

Is the Commission aware of this technique?

If so, what action has it already taken?

If not, does it intend to ask the European Food Safety Authority to issue a scientific opinion on the matter in accordance with Article 29(1)(a) of Regulation (EEC) 178/2002 (1)?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(18 September 2003)

The Commission is aware that so-called pro-hormones can be used to stimulate the natural production of androgenic and oestrogenic hormones in livestock in order to stimulate growth. DHEA is such a substance. This substance is covered by Directive 96/22/EC of 29 April 1996 concerning the prohibition on the use in stockfarming of certain substances having a hormonal or thyrostatic action and of β-agonists (2).

It is the responsibility of the Member States to verify compliance with this legislation by applying Council Directive 96/23/EC of 29 April 1996 on measures to monitor certain substances and residues thereof in live animals and animal products (2) and to take the appropriate measures.

With the support of the Commission, the Community Reference Laboratory responsible for hormones is gathering the available technical information and is organising a workshop at which the issue will be discussed with the Member States in October 2003.

The Scientific Committee on Veterinary measures relating to Public Health (SCVPH) evaluated the risks to human health from hormone residues in bovine meat and meat products treated with hormones for growth promotion in 1999, in 2000 and again in 2002. The reports are available on http://europa.eu.int/ comm/food/index_en.html. Consequently the Commission does not intend at present to ask the European Food Safety Authority to issue a scientific opinion on the matter, in accordance with Article 29(1)(a) of Regulation (EEC) 178/2002 (3) of the 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)  OJ L 31, 1.2.2002, p. 1.

(2)  OJ L 125, 23.5.1996.

(3)  OJ L 31, 1.2.2002.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/147 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/147

---

(2004/C 78 E/0152)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2651/03

by Phillip Whitehead (PSE) to the Commission

(10 September 2003)

Subject:   Consumer involvement in the common implementation strategy for the Water Framework Directive 2000/60/EC

In the answer given by the Commission to a previous question (E-0879/03 (1), 2 May 2003) the Commission claimed that looking back at the first phase of one and a half years, the common implementation strategy had delivered on expectations, including the involvement of stakeholders and non-governmental organisations. However, the Commission admitted that although in October 2001 it invited European consumer umbrella organisations BEUC and AEC to participate, neither organisation had to date joined the implementation strategy process.

Does the Commission regret that no organisation representing consumers, who are a key stakeholder in the aims and objectives of the Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC (2)), is participating in the process? BEUC has proposed to the Commission that the UK consumer body WaterVoice should be invited to participate as an expert water consumer group, but the Commission is understood to have declined because WaterVoice is not classed as a European organisation. Is the Commission satisfied that it is right not to make a pragmatic exception which would achieve some involvement by a consumer organisation rather than as now, and over the last one and a half years, none at all?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(7 October 2003)

The Commission regrets that, so far, no European, or international, consumer organisation is currently participating in the Common Implementation Strategy (CIS) for the Water Framework Directive (3). Since the last communication on this issue (response to the Honourable Member's Written Question E-0879/03), the Commission has continued to encourage and invite European and international consumer organisations to participate in the Common Implementation Strategy. In addition to the Bureau Européen des Unions des Consommateurs (BEUC) and the Association of European Consumers (AEC) which were already contacted in 2002, the Commission has also approached ‘Consumers International’ and invited that organisation to take part in the CIS. Consumers International has shown considerable interest and is currently consulting with BEUC in order to agree on an appropriate modus operandi.

In the beginning of the CIS, criteria for participation of stakeholders and non-governmental organisations (NGOs) have been laid down and agreed between the Commission and the Member States. These criteria include the requirement that participating organisations should have a European vocation representing the consolidated views of different national or regional bodies. The reason for this restriction was to ensure that the inputs from the different interest groups were balanced and representative of a wide range of opinion rather than simply presenting national or regional positions. In addition, in many of the Member States the national implementation process for the Water Framework Directive includes the active participation of national and regional interest groups and there is no interest to repeat this structure at a European level. With the exception of the consumer organisations, the criteria for participation have been proven useful in practice without being too restrictive.

As regards the United Kingdom's consumer body ‘Water Voice’, the Commission has taken note of their interest. In order to find a solution which enables this national organisation to participate, while still respecting the general criteria, the Commission suggested to BEUC that ‘Water Voice’ might send a representative on behalf of BEUC. In their response, BEUC clearly stated that Water Voice cannot represent BEUC as a whole'. Therefore, the application of ‘Water Voice’ had to be regarded as from a national organisation rather than a European umbrella organisation and thus representing regional (England & Wales) not European consumers' interests. It also has to be kept in mind that the situation in England and Wales concerning the structure of the water sector is unique in Europe and that consumer experience is therefore unlikely to be representative. In parallel to the efforts of ‘Water Voice’ to participate in the CIS, the Commission has invited ‘Water Voice’ to apply for access to the information exchange platform (CIRCA system) for the CIS: the CIRCA System includes all the documentation that is prepared in the context of the CIS.

The Commission will continue its efforts to ensure that European consumers interests as a whole are being represented in the Common Implementation Strategy. The Commission is confident that in the ongoing dialogue with Consumer International an appropriate solution will be found.

---

(1)  OJ C 280 E, 21.11.2003, p. 110.

(2)  OJ L 327, 22.12.2000, 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.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/148 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/148

---

(2004/C 78 E/0153)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2663/03

by Ian Hudghton (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(10 September 2003)

Subject:   Illegal trade in ozone-depleting substances

The Environmental Investigation Agency (EIA) has expressed its concerns about delays in ratification of the Montreal Amendment, in particular as it pertains to the illegal trade in ozone-depleting substances. As of October 2002, the EIA reported that only 84 of the 183 parties to the Protocol had ratified the Amendment, committing signatories to the implementation of a licensing system in the context of trade in ozone-depleting substances. Could the Commission provide information on which of the EU Member States have ratified this amendment?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(16 October 2003)

As of 28 July 2003, Germany, France, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Austria, Finland, Sweden and the United Kingdom have ratified the Montreal Amendment to the Montreal Protocol. The Community ratified the Montreal amendment on 17 November 2000. The Montreal Amendment, adopted in 1997 at the ninth meeting of the Parties, requires all Parties to implement an import and export licensing system. Implementing such systems is important in helping to prevent illegal trade in ozone depleting substances. The Commission, on behalf of the Community and its Member States, has implemented an import and export licensing system for controlled substances which operates under Regulation (EC) No 2037/2000 of the Parliament and of the Council of 29 June 2000 on substances that deplete the ozone layer (1).

---

(1)  OJ L 244, 29.9.2000.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/149 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/149

---

(2004/C 78 E/0154)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2669/03

by Cristiana Muscardini (UEN) to the Commission

(10 September 2003)

Subject:   ELSA laboratory — transport safety (JRC Ispra)

The Commission recently decided to discontinue the work on transport safety being carried out by ELSA, the European Laboratory for Structural Assessment, located at the Commission's Joint Research Centre at Ispra. The laboratory used to be considered the only one of its kind in Europe as regards size and potential and over the years has proved extremely useful for the Commission's Directorate-General for Transport. As highlighted in the Commission White Paper of 2001, the transport sector and the related safety issues are a priority for the European Union's future work. For this reason the decision, vaguely justified by a lack of support from the other directorates-general, is all the more worrying and deprives the Directorate-General for Transport, and hence the Commission itself, of an important research instrument.

Can the Commission say:

| 1. | what the logic is behind decisions of this kind, which adversely affect the work of the European Union as a whole; |
| --- | --- |

1.

what the logic is behind decisions of this kind, which adversely affect the work of the European Union as a whole;

| 2. | whether the closure means that alternative measures will be carried out at the Joint Research Centre to continue to provide this important service for the businesses and population of the EU? |
| --- | --- |

2.

whether the closure means that alternative measures will be carried out at the Joint Research Centre to continue to provide this important service for the businesses and population of the EU?

| 3. | Is the decision perhaps part of a move towards a gradual dismantling of the JRC, which year by year seems to be losing its operational potential, because of a few reprehensible initiatives? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Is the decision perhaps part of a move towards a gradual dismantling of the JRC, which year by year seems to be losing its operational potential, because of a few reprehensible initiatives?

Answer given by Mr Busquin on behalf of the Commission

(17 October 2003)

The strategy developed by the Directorate General (DG) Joint Research Centre (JRC) for the European Laboratory for Structural Assessment (ELSA), a unit within the Institute for the Protection and Security of the Citizen (IPSC), consists in focusing the Unit's work on its core activity concerning the construction and the earthquake engineering, thus maintaining and further developing JRC's competence in these areas. This strategy, will enable the Unit to fulfil the needs of DG Enterprise (ENTR) with respect to Eurocodes research, to strengthen the collaboration with DG Environment (ENV) with respect to civil protection and to develop work with national civil protection authorities. In particular, there currently is a contract in preparation with the Italian Civil Protection Department of the Presidency of the Council of Ministers.

Furthermore, the continuation of the ELSA reaction wall as a Marie Curie Training Site, the objective to increase access of the European research community to ELSA, and the transfer of related know-how and expertise to Enlargement Countries are fully in line with JRC's role in the European Research Area. One should therefore be reassured that the core scientific and technical competencies of ELSA are consolidated and maintained at the highest level.

As far as car and transport safety is concerned, the JRC competence and infrastructure is not unique. Due to the decreasing customer demand, in particular from DG ENTR, and despite the White Paper on Transport (1) published by the Commission, there is no longer a request for specific JRC support. In fact, transport safety is a multi-disciplinary topic in which structural mechanics — the field of expertise of ELSA — is only one of the relevant disciplines. It plays a major role essentially in passive safety studies (crash worthiness of vehicles, pedestrian protection, safety of road infrastructures). The Directive finally proposed (2) by DG ENTR to increase the protection of pedestrians in accidents with passenger cars and approved by the Commission in 2003 will be implemented in two phases. Phase 1 will enter into force in 2005 with the set of tests and values that was proposed by JRC in a technical study delivered in December 2000. Phase 2, with enhanced pass criteria, will enter into force from 2010 with the set of tests and values proposed by the European Enhanced Vehicle Committee (EEVC). Originally, as a compromise between the points of view of the Association Européenne des Constructeurs Automobiles' (ACEA) and EEVC on the set of required tests, a monitoring committee was foreseen to follow the implementation of the Directive. However, this approach has not been retained, and the final Directive does not include such a monitoring Committee. This makes the continuation of the support role of JRC to DG ENTR inappropriate in this matter. There will be feasibility studies to prepare the implementation of phase 2 and verify whether the EEVC criteria can be really fulfilled and in economically viable conditions, but the ELSA team has not the technical skills to do such work, since it requires long experience in car body design.

The phasing out of the transport safety activity in ELSA will in fact result mainly in the closure of automotive industry research at the Large Dynamic Test Facility, a bench for characterisation of materials and structural components at ‘high deformation speed’. This test facility had been created in the context of nuclear safety studies and is relevant for transport safety studies, but it has, however, remained very much underused. There are of course other European laboratories equipped to do testing for automotive industry research.

From the above, the Honourable Member should be reassured that there is no logic of dismantlement of the JRC, on the contrary of reinforcement in key areas of relevance to Community policy support.

---

(1)  COM(2001) 370 final.

(2)  COM(2003) 67 final.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/150 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/150

---

(2004/C 78 E/0155)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2678/03

by Caroline Jackson (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(10 September 2003)

Subject:   1991 Nitrates Directive

It is being argued that the 50 milligrammes per litre maximum level for nitrates in water in the 1991 Nitrates Directive (91/676/EEC (1)) is out of date and that, for health reasons, the nitrates in water should actually exceed that limit. Does the Commission have any observation to make on this claim, and is it planning in any way to amend the Nitrates Directive which is still far from being fully implemented in many Member States?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(16 October 2003)

The Commission disagrees with the position that the standard of 50 milligram (mg) per litre of nitrates set by the Nitrates Directive (2), which is one of the criteria to identify vulnerable zones, is out of date and that for health reasons, nitrates in water should exceed that limit.

The recent revision of Council Directive 80/778/EEC of 15 July 1980 on the quality of water intended for human consumption (3), Council Directive 98/83/EC of 3 November 1998 (4), which reviewed the parametric values in accordance with the latest available scientific knowledge (e.g. World Health Organisation (WHO) Guidelines, Scientific Committee on Toxicology and Ecotoxicology), confirmed for nitrates the previous limit value of 50 mg per litre.

The precautionary value of 50 mg per litre is essential to prevent health effects, such as methaemoglobi naemia in infants. This disease, linked to high nitrate levels in drinking water, still exists both in Eastern Europe (hundreds of cases) and in the United States, and the relatively low incidence in the countries of Western Europe is in relation to the enforcement of strict limit values on nitrates over the last 20 years.

The Commission is not planning to propose amendments to the Nitrates Directive at present, as it is convinced that its full implementation is crucial to reduce the impact of nutrients from agricultural sources on European waters. More than 20 % of European groundwaters are facing excessive nitrate concentrations and at least 30-40 % of rivers and lakes show eutrophication symptoms or bring high nitrogen fluxes to coastal waters and seas: it is estimated that agriculture is responsible for 50 to 80 % of the nitrogen input to European waters (5).

In this context the Commission is fully committed to ensure that the Nitrates Directives, aimed at reducing and preventing the pollution from agricultural sources, is correctly implemented in the Member States with a set of actions, first of all putting legal pressure through infringement procedures towards the Member States which do not implement the different steps of the Directive.

Significant efforts are also devoted by the Commission to support a better knowledge on pressures and environmental status of European waters through regular monitoring and reporting exercises, and to promote the exchange of technical information between the Member States on agricultural practices and their impact on nutrient losses and on tools for measuring, modelling and forecasting their impact on water quality.

---

(1)  OJ L 375, 31.12.1991, p. 1.

(2)  Council Directive 91/676/EEC of 12 December 1991 concerning the protection of waters against pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources.

(3)  OJ L 229, 30.8.1980.

(4)  OJ L 440, 5.12.1998.

(5)  Implementation of Council directive 91/676/EEC concerning the protection of waters against pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources. Synthesis from year 2000 Member States reports, p.43.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/151 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/151

---

(2004/C 78 E/0156)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2691/03

by Herbert Bösch (PSE) to the Commission

(2 September 2003)

Subject:   EURES expenditure

EURES is an information network which is intended to promote the cross-border mobility of workers. The accession of the new Member States means that EURES will gain in importance. Efficient use of the EU funds provided is a crucial element in ensuring the success of European public employment services.

Can the Commission indicate:

| — | the level of the (maximum) amounts of support for cross-border partnerships applied for and approved in 2003, and |
| --- | --- |

—

the level of the (maximum) amounts of support for cross-border partnerships applied for and approved in 2003, and

| — | how the expenditure in the overall EURES budget for 2003 is broken down (breakdown by type of expenditure), and who the recipients of EURES funding are? |
| --- | --- |

—

how the expenditure in the overall EURES budget for 2003 is broken down (breakdown by type of expenditure), and who the recipients of EURES funding are?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(19 September 2003)

Supporting the co-operation between the labour market actors at cross-border level (involving public employment services, the social partners and others) is an important element of the EURES Decision adopted by the Commission in December 2003 (1). The Commission shares the view that the financial means at the disposal of EURES should be used in the most efficient manner possible — each relevant request for support is examined with rigour to ensure good value for money.

With regard to the requests for subsidies and grants provided for the EURES Cross-border partnerships in 2003 following a call for proposals, the Commission received requests amounting to EUR 8 025 005. In the light of the Commission's analysis, a total of EUR 7 443 411 was committed to support the work of the 21 partnerships making up the EURES cross-border network (representing 93 % of the funds requested)

The following is the breakdown in commitments for the whole of the EURES budget for 2003 (covering both parts A and Β of the B3-4011 budget line):

| (euro) |
| --- |
| National public employment services | 5 104 580 |
| Cross-border partnerships | 7 443 411 |
| Maintenance and upkeep of databases and website | 754 886 |
| Training programme | 738 445 |
| Job mobility information campaign | 979 790 |
| Conferences and seminars | 93 131 |
| Publications | 152 000 |
| Total | 15 266 243 |

(euro)

National public employment services

5 104 580

Cross-border partnerships

7 443 411

Maintenance and upkeep of databases and website

754 886

Training programme

738 445

Job mobility information campaign

979 790

Conferences and seminars

93 131

Publications

152 000

Total

15 266 243

Recipients of EURES funding include the Member State public employment services responsible for the delivery of EURES services, the cross-border partnerships which support labour market mobility in frontier zones, contractors selected to organise the training programme aimed essentially at training EURES advisers, contractors selected to participate in the European job mobility information campaign (which forms part of the Commission's Action Plan on Skills and Mobility) (2), contractors selected to organise conferences and seminars, and contractors responsible for publishing EURES promotional and other material.

---

(1)  OJ L 5, 10.1.2003.

(2)  COM(2002) 72 final.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/152 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/152

---

(2004/C 78 E/0157)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2693/03

by Caroline Lucas (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(2 September 2003)

Subject:   GMOs

A number of Member States have invoked Article 16 of Directive 90/220/EC (1) (now replaced by Directive 2001/18/EC (2)) in respect to the following Part C marketing consents:

| — | C/F/95/12/07: T25 and T14 Maize — Austria (28 April 2000), Italy (4 August 2000); |
| --- | --- |

—

C/F/95/12/07: T25 and T14 Maize — Austria (28 April 2000), Italy (4 August 2000);

| — | C/UK/95/M5/1: Topas 19/2 Oilseed rape — Greece (3 November 1998), France (16 November 1998); |
| --- | --- |

—

C/UK/95/M5/1: Topas 19/2 Oilseed rape — Greece (3 November 1998), France (16 November 1998);

| — | C/GB/94/M1/1: MS1 and RF1 Oilseed rape — France (18 November 1998); |
| --- | --- |

—

C/GB/94/M1/1: MS1 and RF1 Oilseed rape — France (18 November 1998);

| — | C/F/94/11-03: CG00526-176 (aka Bt-176) Maize — Austria (13 February 1997), Luxembourg (28 February 1997), Germany (31 March 2000); |
| --- | --- |

—

C/F/94/11-03: CG00526-176 (aka Bt-176) Maize — Austria (13 February 1997), Luxembourg (28 February 1997), Germany (31 March 2000);

| — | C/F/95/12/02: MON810 Maize — Austria (2 June 1999), Italy (4 August 2000); |
| --- | --- |

—

C/F/95/12/02: MON810 Maize — Austria (2 June 1999), Italy (4 August 2000);

| — | C/F/95/12-01/B: MON809 Maize — Italy (4 August 2000). |
| --- | --- |

—

C/F/95/12-01/B: MON809 Maize — Italy (4 August 2000).

Would the Commission please indicate the current status of the measures imposed by Member States on the basis of Article 16 of Directive 90/220/EEC. Have they been upheld or overturned by the European Union?

Would the Commission also indicate the specific reasons given by the Member States for imposing these measures and release copies of the documentation provided by these Member States or justification for invoking Article 16?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(28 October 2003)

Article 16 of Council Directive 90/220/EEC of 23 April 1990 on the deliberate release into environment of genetically modified organisms, replaced on 17 October 2002 by Directive 2001/18/EC of the Parliament and the Council of 12 March 2001, was invoked by six Member States in nine cases which concerned five authorisations of genetically modified plant products. Italy has not invoked Article 16 under Directive 90/220/EEC, but has taken safeguard measures relating to certain products authorised under Regulation (EC) No 258/97 of the Parliament and of the Council of 27 January 1997, concerning novel foods and novel food ingredients (3).

The Commission submitted the documents Member States had provided to justify measures taken according to Article 16 of Directive 90/220/EEC to the Scientific Committee(s). In all cases the Committee(s) concluded, after examination of the reasons and information submitted by Member States, that they did not provide new scientific evidence to change the original risk assessment on the grounds of which the products concerned had been authorised.

In the case of Bt-176 maize (C/F/94/11-03) consultations of the Regulatory Committee were launched end of 1997, according to Article 21 of Directive 90/220/EEC. The Regulatory Committee failed to deliver an opinion on the draft decisions of the Commission in April 1998. These were subsequently transmitted to the Council. The Council did not have the qualified majority to act on the proposed decisions within the statutory three-month period. In the other Article 16 cases, the Regulatory Committee consultation is pending.

The reasons given by the Member States for imposing measures taken according to Article 16 are as follows:

| — | Concerning male sterile and herbicide (glufosinate) tolerant oilseed rape MS1, RF1 (C/UK/94/M1/1),
  France raised questions and stressed the need of further research in order to answer these questions on dissemination, volunteers, rate and consequences of intra- and interspecific geneflow, accumulation and possible loss of effectiveness of herbicide tolerance genes, management of weeds and volunteers. |
| --- | --- |

—

Concerning male sterile and herbicide (glufosinate) tolerant oilseed rape MS1, RF1 (C/UK/94/M1/1),

France raised questions and stressed the need of further research in order to answer these questions on dissemination, volunteers, rate and consequences of intra- and interspecific geneflow, accumulation and possible loss of effectiveness of herbicide tolerance genes, management of weeds and volunteers.

| — | Concerning insect resistant (Bt toxin), herbicide (glufosinate) tolerant and antibiotic (ampicillin) resistance marker gene carrying maize Bt 176 (C/F/94/11-03),
  Austria put forward the potential risk of the antibiotic resistance gene to be transferred to bacteria, especially in the intestine of humans or animals, thereby possibly inactivating important antibiotics used in human and veterinary therapy; the need to evaluate the possible role of multiresistance plasmids and transposons in the spread of antibiotic resistance genes; the potential risk of the Bt-toxin to non-target (soil) organisms; possible accumulation of the Bt-toxin in soils; development of resistance to the Bt-toxin in target organisms; need of mandatory resistance management programmes; unclear possibility to use the herbicide tolerance in cultivation; the use of this gene as a marker would not correspond to the state of the art in genetic engineering; insufficient labelling.
  Luxembourg raised essentially the same issues as Austria concerning the antibiotic resistance gene, possible resistance development in target organisms and the need for a mandatory resistance management programme. Luxembourg stressed that genetically modified organisms should only contain the minimum of transgenes needed for their desired functioning.
  Germany raised essentially the same issues as Austria concerning enhanced antibiotic resistance development, potential impact on non-target organisms, possible resistance development in target organisms and accumulation of Bt-toxin in soils. |
| --- | --- |

—

Concerning insect resistant (Bt toxin), herbicide (glufosinate) tolerant and antibiotic (ampicillin) resistance marker gene carrying maize Bt 176 (C/F/94/11-03),

Austria put forward the potential risk of the antibiotic resistance gene to be transferred to bacteria, especially in the intestine of humans or animals, thereby possibly inactivating important antibiotics used in human and veterinary therapy; the need to evaluate the possible role of multiresistance plasmids and transposons in the spread of antibiotic resistance genes; the potential risk of the Bt-toxin to non-target (soil) organisms; possible accumulation of the Bt-toxin in soils; development of resistance to the Bt-toxin in target organisms; need of mandatory resistance management programmes; unclear possibility to use the herbicide tolerance in cultivation; the use of this gene as a marker would not correspond to the state of the art in genetic engineering; insufficient labelling.

Luxembourg raised essentially the same issues as Austria concerning the antibiotic resistance gene, possible resistance development in target organisms and the need for a mandatory resistance management programme. Luxembourg stressed that genetically modified organisms should only contain the minimum of transgenes needed for their desired functioning.

Germany raised essentially the same issues as Austria concerning enhanced antibiotic resistance development, potential impact on non-target organisms, possible resistance development in target organisms and accumulation of Bt-toxin in soils.

| — | Concerning herbicide (glufosinate) tolerant oilseed rape Topas 19/2 (C/UK/95/M5/1),
  Greece claimed that seeds would be lost, even if cultivation is not intended; spreading would be facilitated because of the mild climate in Greece which allows for overwintering; outcrossing into weedy wild variants and relatives, which are used as food, with unpredictable health effects; at a later stage risk of multiresistant weeds; loss of effectiveness of herbicides; spreading into natural habitats with unpredictable consequences; lack of risk assessment of progeny resulting from crosses between Topas 19/2 and non-GM (genetically modified) oilseed rape.
  France raised the same issues as for oilseed rape MS1, RF1 (C/UK/94/M1/1). |
| --- | --- |

—

Concerning herbicide (glufosinate) tolerant oilseed rape Topas 19/2 (C/UK/95/M5/1),

Greece claimed that seeds would be lost, even if cultivation is not intended; spreading would be facilitated because of the mild climate in Greece which allows for overwintering; outcrossing into weedy wild variants and relatives, which are used as food, with unpredictable health effects; at a later stage risk of multiresistant weeds; loss of effectiveness of herbicides; spreading into natural habitats with unpredictable consequences; lack of risk assessment of progeny resulting from crosses between Topas 19/2 and non-GM (genetically modified) oilseed rape.

France raised the same issues as for oilseed rape MS1, RF1 (C/UK/94/M1/1).

| — | Concerning insect (Bt-toxin) resistant maize Mon 810 (C/F/95/12-02),
  Austria put forward potential unintended effects on non-target organisms; possible resistance development in target insects; lacking proof of the resistance management's effectiveness; insufficient scope of the monitoring plan. |
| --- | --- |

—

Concerning insect (Bt-toxin) resistant maize Mon 810 (C/F/95/12-02),

Austria put forward potential unintended effects on non-target organisms; possible resistance development in target insects; lacking proof of the resistance management's effectiveness; insufficient scope of the monitoring plan.

| — | Concerning herbicide (glufosinate) tolerant Maize T25 (C/F/95/12-07)
  Austria stressed the lack of a monitoring plan; lack of protection of ecological sensitive areas; lack of evaluation of herbicide application under realistic conditions; outcrossing into surrounding non-GM maize fields.
  United Kingdom claimed the possibility to grow organically pure maize as well as to protect the integrity of other non-GM maize crops in Wales. |
| --- | --- |

—

Concerning herbicide (glufosinate) tolerant Maize T25 (C/F/95/12-07)

Austria stressed the lack of a monitoring plan; lack of protection of ecological sensitive areas; lack of evaluation of herbicide application under realistic conditions; outcrossing into surrounding non-GM maize fields.

United Kingdom claimed the possibility to grow organically pure maize as well as to protect the integrity of other non-GM maize crops in Wales.

The opinions of the Scientific Committees are publicly available on line at http://europa.eu.int/comm/food/ fs/sc/scp/outcome_gmo_en.html and at (http://europa.eu.int/comm/food/fs/sc/oldcomm7/out02_en.html). The national safeguard measures can be found in the Official Journals of the above mentioned Member States.

---

(1)  OJ L 117, 8.5.1990, p. 15.

(2)  OJ L 106, 17.4.2001, p. 1.

(3)  OJ L 43, 14.2.1997.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/154 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/154

---

(2004/C 78 E/0158)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2695/03

by Raffaele Costa (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(2 September 2003)

Subject:   Implementation of the Promise programme

The Promise programme, which ended in 2002, provided funds totalling EUR 25 million for projects involving the exchange of information, technology and good practice with a view to improving the security of telecommunications networks. What projects have been funded under this programme, with particular reference to Italy? Would the Commission list in full the companies, undertakings and public bodies that submitted projects under the programme, and the companies whose applications were successful? Was the successful completion of the projects monitored, and were their results assessed?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(16 October 2003)

The total spending amount of Promise, as foreseen by its legal basis was EUR 25 million, for five years. The total amount committed was EUR 21 847 032 covering all the period of the programme. An overall information on the spending in 1998 and 1999 and the indication for expenditure with reference to Italy is sent direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat.

In 2000, after the mid-term review evaluation made by a group of external experts, the Promise programme was redirected towards the eEurope Action plan and in particular the associated benchmarking exercise and exchange of best practices. In this context, the budget of Promise was devoted to call for tenders for studies or surveys launched by the Commission and committed according to public procurement rules. The budget breakdown for 2000, 2001 and 2002 is sent direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat. This includes the names of the contractor and the Member State, where its seat is established. In the case of the Eurobarometer surveys, the indicated contractor is a Belgian company which carried out the contract together with its subsidiaries in each Member State.

During the last two years Promise financed three best practices projects in collaboration with presidency countries; Two ‘e-government’ conferences in Belgium (2001) and Italy (2003) and the ‘eHealth’ Conference (Greece 2003). Furthermore, one work-shop on eEurope 2005 has been organised in Spain, during the Spanish Presidency.

The Commission has issued payments for the services received on the basis of invoices and after analysis and acceptance of the technical reports submitted by the contractors according to standard procedures.

A group of external independent experts are currently in charge of the final evaluation of the programme. They work on the basis of the terms of reference agreed in the Promise management committee and will submit their report in November 2003.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/155 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/155

---

(2004/C 78 E/0159)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2702/03

by Bill Miller (PSE) to the Commission

(11 September 2003)

Subject:   Illegally-sourced timber

The Commission will be aware that the world's rainforests are rapidly diminishing, especially in the Amazon Basin and Indonesia. Much of the timber from these illegal operations finds its way into Europe.

What steps has the Commission taken to outlaw illegally-sourced timber in Europe?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(7 October 2003)

The Commission shares the Honourable Member's concern at the rate of deforestation of the world's rainforests. According to research conducted by the Commission's Joint Research Centre, the highest rates of deforestation are in South-east Asia (0,91 % per annum). Because it has a larger area, the deforestation rate for the Amazon Basin is less in percentage terms, but similar in absolute terms to that of South-east Asia, at about 2,5 million hectares (ha) per annum.

The Union is undoubtedly a market for some of the illegally harvested timber traded from these regions. However, in the case of South-east Asia, East Asian countries such as China and Japan constitute the main market for exports of tropical timber. In the Amazon basin most of the timber is consumed internally — one widely quoted estimate being that 80 to 90 % of Brazilian timber is consumed within Brazil. Generally speaking, the extent to which illegal logging accounts for deforestation is difficult to separate from other factors such as agricultural expansion and infrastructure development.

Aware of the impact of illegal logging not only on the environment, but also in undermining good governance and the rule of law, the Commission adopted a Communication entitled ‘Forest Law Enforcement, Governance and Trade (FLEGT) -Proposal for an EU Action Plan’ on 21 May 2003 (1). The Action Plan describes a series of proposed measures to reduce illegal logging in affected countries and to exclude illegally harvested timber from the Union. These include a proposal for voluntary, but binding agreements to be made with interested countries, allowing for the identification of legally harvested timber, including legislation allowing for the exclusion of timber from these countries not identified as being legal under such agreements. At the time of writing, the Commission is awaiting the views of the Council and the Parliament on the FLEGT Communication before it can take any substantial further steps in pursuit of these proposals.

---

(1)  COM(2003) 251 final.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/156 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/156

---

(2004/C 78 E/0160)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2705/03

by Raffaele Costa (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(11 September 2003)

Subject:   Renewable energies

The Altener Programme for research, promotion and funding at national level of projects dedicated to the development of renewable energies was allocated EUR 74 million in funding. Can the Commission indicate what projects were presented by Italy, which of these received financial support and of how much, and what results were achieved?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(16 October 2003)

The period for the funding referred to in the Honourable Member's question is the period of the Altener II programme from 1998 to 2002. In response, a table is sent direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat. The table is giving details of all proposals which were submitted by proposers from Italy to the Altener programme for co-financing in the last two years of the Altener II programme (2001 and 2002). For these two years, this table contains details of those proposals for which funding was not awarded following evaluation and selection, and of those which were accepted for Community support. For those proposals which were accepted for support, the table also contains the amount of Community support to the Italian co-ordination and the location (home town) of the Italian co-ordinator (plus respective details of any Italian partner). For the first three years of the Altener II programme (1998-2000), the table contains only those projects with Italian coordinators which received support by the Community as for this period data regarding proposals that have not been selected are not available.

Every Altener project has to be concluded with a final report which must be approved by the Commission before final payments are made. These reports normally contain an executive summary together with details of the actions undertaken during the project and the final outcome of the work. A copy of the executive summary and/or the final report for any specific project will be made available to the Honourable Member on request.

The Honourable Member may also be interested to read the evaluation of the management and of the results of both successive Altener programmes for the years 1996-2000 (‘Evaluation of the Altener Programme (1996-2000): Final report for the Directorate General Energy & Transport of the Commission’), which was commissioned from external experts in the year 2000. This report does of course not distinguish between projects with Italian coordinators and other coordinators. However, in case of interest a copy of this Altener programme evaluation can also be provided on request.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/157 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/157

---

(2004/C 78 E/0161)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2708/03

by Raffaele Costa (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(11 September 2003)

Subject:   City-Res Network project

The aims of the City-Res Network project included the exchange of information and good practices and raising awareness with regard to the use of alternative energies in the major cities of the European Union. It received Community funding of EUR 200 000 and ended in 2000. Could the Commission indicate what the results of this project were, which European cities were involved, what events were organised and how the funds were spent?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(23 October 2003)

The City-Res project referred to by the Honourable Member and co-financed under the Altener II programme for an amount of EUR 200 000 (1997 budget) as he mentions, started in 1998 and ended in 2000. It aimed at setting up a Union-wide network for promotion of renewable energy applications in urban areas, and bringing both existing members of the association ‘Energie-Cités’, and further cities, on board (1).

The tasks proposed and subsequently fulfilled were:

| — | in particular monitoring of Altener I (1993-1997) and II (1998-2002) municipal projects in general, |
| --- | --- |

—

in particular monitoring of Altener I (1993-1997) and II (1998-2002) municipal projects in general,

| — | setting up a monitoring centre for existing initiatives, |
| --- | --- |

—

setting up a monitoring centre for existing initiatives,

| — | providing a dissemination service on the Altener programme targeted principally at municipal officials, |
| --- | --- |

—

providing a dissemination service on the Altener programme targeted principally at municipal officials,

| — | creation and ongoing co-ordination of an experience exchange network, |
| --- | --- |

—

creation and ongoing co-ordination of an experience exchange network,

| — | the organisation of a relevant event (seminar in the spring of 2000 in Verona). |
| --- | --- |

—

the organisation of a relevant event (seminar in the spring of 2000 in Verona).

As provided in the work programme, 50 case studies within the theme of the project on cities had been completed by March 2000, and the CD-ROM containing them distributed at the Verona meeting, and also made available on the internet. A successor project, a brief description of which follows, resulted in an updated and greatly expanded version of this CD-ROM, containing 105 Best-Practice case studies in Union cities. The Commission is sending it direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat.

This follow-up project, also co-ordinated by Energie-Cités (www.energie-cites.org) took the form of a larger ‘cluster’ of three distinct projects, with a total cost of EUR 1,13 million, with 50 % co-financing again from the Altener programme (Ref. B4.1030/C/00-006). The eighteen-month project ended in September 2002.

The general aims were:

| — | to continue stimulating the exchange of experience concerning renewable energies between municipalities; |
| --- | --- |

—

to continue stimulating the exchange of experience concerning renewable energies between municipalities;

| — | to invite them into, and further reinforce, partnerships between the different cities, and encourage them to join an overall RES Partnership of European cities and regions. |
| --- | --- |

—

to invite them into, and further reinforce, partnerships between the different cities, and encourage them to join an overall RES Partnership of European cities and regions.

The three different projects were:

| — | ‘City-RES 2001’ (co-ordinated by Energie-Cités); |
| --- | --- |

—

‘City-RES 2001’ (co-ordinated by Energie-Cités);

| — | A plan for a climate-friendly 100 % regenerative energy-supply in the N. German district of Lüchow-Dannenberg, including heat and power production (CHP) from renewable energies at selected sites (co-ordinated by the Landkreis (local authority)); |
| --- | --- |

—

A plan for a climate-friendly 100 % regenerative energy-supply in the N. German district of Lüchow-Dannenberg, including heat and power production (CHP) from renewable energies at selected sites (co-ordinated by the Landkreis (local authority));

| — | A Regional Energy Plan for Hartberg (Austria) (co-ordinated by Joanneum Research, Austria). |
| --- | --- |

—

A Regional Energy Plan for Hartberg (Austria) (co-ordinated by Joanneum Research, Austria).

Whereas the second and the third project were Pilot Actions, in the form of Regional and Local Energy Plans, including a Targeted Action on Combined Heat and Power Production (CHP), City-RES 2001 was again mainly a Promotion and Dissemination Activity, with special emphasis on support to the Campaign for Take-Off for Renewables managed by the Commission. In addition to relevant events, and further networking, the major deliverable of the project was the CD-ROM of 105 city best-practice cases referred to above.

---

(1)  Reference B4.1030/Z/1998-07.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/158 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/158

---

(2004/C 78 E/0162)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2732/03

by Herbert Bösch (PSE) to the Commission

(11 September 2003)

Subject:   Possible conflict of interests at the Directorate-General for Competition

The Directorate-General for Competition is entrusted with a variety of sensitive tasks such as deciding whether to approve company mergers, to approve them conditionally, or to reject them. As part of their duties, Competition DG officials deal with a range of insider information, which, when made public, has a considerable effect on the share prices of the companies concerned on Europe's stock exchanges.

Is there a compliance code at the Competition DG and at the Commission's departments privy to sensitive information, as is the case at investment banks, in order to prevent insider information from being misused? Is there an official within the Commission responsible for compliance?

Do officials who work with such information have to declare their share-trading activities? Is there a watch list or a block list covering shares in companies about which sensitive information is known? Do Commission officials working with sensitive information have to declare the details of their bank accounts used to carry out securities transactions?

How many in-house reviews has the Commission already conducted to ensure that insider information is not misused?

Have any of these reviews uncovered cases of suspected misuse of sensitive information?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(14 November 2003)

In 1999, Directorate General (DG) Competition developed a compliance code based on the Staff Regulations for its officials, temporary and auxiliary staff, trainees and seconded national experts to manage the risks concerning conflicts of interest and insider dealing. This code complements, and draws staff's attention to, the Belgian criminal law prohibiting insider dealing.

The aim of the compliance code is on the one hand to prevent and resolve conflicts of interest and on the other hand to prevent dealing on stock markets on the basis of non-public information which comes to the knowledge of DG Competition staff.

As far as conflicts of interest are concerned, the code states that ‘the official must not own shares, or derivatives (options, warrants, etc.) linked to shares, in the company concerned’. Should a potential or apparent conflict of interest (e.g. if the case handler or a member of his or her close family owns shares in one of the companies involved in a case) arise in a particular case, the official is required to report this to his superior as soon as it becomes known. Appropriate measures can then be taken by the hierarchy, including if necessary a reallocation of the case to another official.

In terms of insider dealing the code states that ‘officials should never themselves deal, or instruct or advise others to deal, in securities on the stock markets on the basis of'sufficiently precise non-public information'(expression used in the Belgian Act) which is'liable significantly to influence the price'(expression used in the Belgian Act)’.

These rules have been implemented since 1999. Whilst there is no specific ‘surveillance list’ or ‘black list’, all staff have to sign a written declaration that they accept and are willing to apply these specific rules on conflict of interest and insider dealing as well as the more general security instructions for ‘handling classified information in DG Comp’. DG Competition requests officials in other DGs who are involved in merger cases through interservice consultations to sign the same declarations.

According to the internal control standards the Commission has adopted (specifically control standard number 1 concerning ‘ethics and integrity’), DG Competition has made available several documents to staff (including the Staff Regulations, Code of good administrative behaviour, Guide to testing for vulnerability to fraud). These documents, including the ethical code for staff of DG Competition established in 1999 referred to above, are available on the intracom website of DG Competition and hence easily accessible to all staff of DG Competition.

In addition, DG Competition has developed specific rules and guidelines on assignments and outside activities of officials and former officials, including when officials apply for ‘Leave on Personal Ground’.

The application of these rules is supervised by the management of the directorates and by the security officer in DG Competition's ‘Resources’ Directorate. Moreover, a Deputy Director General has specific responsibility for matters of security and ethics.

These issues are discussed regularly in management meetings and repeated in communication to staff to increase staff awareness, ongoing attention and sensitivity. The management of DG Competition has not discovered any cases of suspected insider dealing, nor has it ever been alerted of any such suspicions by any stock market authority.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/159 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/159

---

(2004/C 78 E/0163)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2736/03

by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission

(11 September 2003)

Subject:   Monkfish quotas

Recent reports say that Cornish fishermen are putting their livelihoods and communities at risk because they have to throw back large amounts of their catch so as to comply with excessively strict quotas. In the light of this situation, will the Commission relax the restrictions on the populations of certain species, for example Monkfish, so as to prevent the loss of large quantities of dead fish that are thrown overboard?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(22 October 2003)

The Commission is aware of reports of large amounts of discarding of small anglerfish (also called monkfish) in the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) Division VII (South-West Cornwall). This appears to be due to a higher than expected abundance of small anglerfish on the fishing grounds, in an area where a mixed fishery with megrims and sole is pursued.

It is clearly important to avoid waste caused by killing and discarding many small fish. However, allowing more fishing of these small fish is not a solution by itself, since many of these fish are too small to be marketed and the fish which are killed will not have a chance to grow and produce higher yields for the long term. It is also necessary to moderate fishing effort so that healthy adult stocks are maintained.

The Commission services requested additional scientific advice from ICES on this matter on 28 August 2003. ICES' revised advice is that the sum of the total allowable catches (TACs) for areas VII and VIII a, b, d, e could be increased from 19 372 tonnes (t) to 21 000 t for 2003, if this can be implemented without increased targeting of small anglerfish and without increased effort.

Based on this advice, the Commission services are preparing for the consideration of the Commission a proposal to increase the TACs for Division VII from 15810 t to 17138 t and for Sub-Divisions VIIIabde from 3 562 t to 3 862 t. The increase is allocated to two TACs because biological advice indicates that the stocks concerned are distributed in both areas. The Commission services are also keeping under review complementary measures that would avoid increased targeting of small anglerfish and also avoid increases in effort.

These proposals will be prepared for a decision at the Agriculture and Fisheries Council of 17 and 18 November.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/160 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/160

---

(2004/C 78 E/0164)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2739/03

by Bernd Lange (PSE) to the Commission

(11 September 2003)

Subject:   Leader+: pre-financing by promoters

Under the Leader+ programme, proof of the completed implementation of the intended measures must be provided following the project's approval. This includes producing receipted invoices, meaning that the promoters must settle the bill before being reimbursed and must therefore be able to pre-finance their own measures. For financially weak promoters, however, this is often not possible.

Is the Commission aware of this problem?

Is it possible for promoters who are not able to provide upfront funding for their measures to be exempt from the requirement to produce receipted invoices?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(7 October 2003)

The Commission knows about and regrets the difficulties spoken of by the Honourable Member that recipients of assistance under the Leader+ programme may encounter. The rule of reimbursing only expenditure actually incurred is, however, a common one for all payments from the four Community Structural Funds, including the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund Guidance Section, and applies to all types of programme. It is a matter of compliance with Article 32(1) third subparagraph of Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 of 21 June 1999 laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds (1), which states that ‘interim payments and payments of the balance shall relate to expenditure actually paid out, which must correspond to payments effected by the final beneficiaries, supported by receipted invoices or accounting documents of equivalent probative value.’ There is no provision for any exception to this rule.

---

(1)  OJ L 161, 26.6.1999.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/161 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/161

---

(2004/C 78 E/0165)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2745/03

by Joan Vallvé (ELDR) to the Commission

(11 September 2003)

Subject:   Environmental impact of the enlargement of Eivissa airport

In Question E-0209/03 (1) of 21 January 2003 on the environmental impact of carrying out the scheme to enlarge Eivissa airport, I observed that this scheme would ... affect the special protection zone of the Ses Salines d'Eivissa i Formentera natural park (Law 17/2001 of the Parlament de les Illes Balears).

Specifically, this would directly impact on the entire protected area, including major socio-economic impact from new occupation of lands and of privately owned houses, increased noise and air pollution affecting the dune systems of the Es Codolar area, which are registered as a predominantly conservation area, and impact on the landscape. Furthermore, the area is a Special Protection Area for Birds, under the Birds Directive 79/409/EEC (2).

Secondly, the enlargement of the boundaries of the airport's service area would mean directly occupying and remodelling land which lies within the boundaries of the natural park. The portion occupied is part of the extreme south-west of the dune system of the Es Codolar area, a zone registered as a conservation area, and protected by the EEC Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC (3)) as an ecosystem of Community interest. Furthermore, the enlargement involves a whole range of spatial planning changes in other areas bordering on the Ses Salines d'Eivissa i Formentera natural park and therefore once again impacting thereon.

Six months ago, in its answer of 14 March 2003, the Commission stated that it was investigating a complaint lodged in connection with the airport enlargement.

Has the Commission reached any solid conclusions as a result of the complaint lodged?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(16 October 2003)

As it stated in its answer to Written Question E-0209/03 from the Honourable Member, the Commission is currently investigating a complaint about the enlargement of Ibiza airport.

As part of its investigation of this complaint, the Commission has asked the Spanish authorities for full information about the project in question and for a copy of the project impact assessment carried out and the measures taken to comply with the obligations arising from Article 6 of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild flora and fauna (4).

The Commission is still waiting for a reply from the Spanish authorities to this letter.

This file will also be discussed with the Spanish authorities during a bilateral meeting in October 2003 to review certain complaints and infringements by Spain in the field of the environment.

---

(1)  OJ C 222 E, 18.9.2003, p. 163.

(2)  OJ L 103, 25.4.1979, p. 1.

(3)  OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7.

(4)  OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/162 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/162

---

(2004/C 78 E/0166)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2755/03

by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission

(15 September 2003)

Subject:   Requirement for nationality to be listed on driving licences

A member of my constituency in the south-west of England has just received his new driving licence which states his place of birth, Ireland. He is concerned about this, having suffered discrimination because of his nationality throughout life, particularly in the 1970s when many people from Ireland living in England were victims of prejudice both at work and in many other aspects of their daily lives.

As a result of this, although proud of his Irish heritage, he would rather be identified as a citizen of the EU on his licence, to avoid further possible discrimination. What provisions does the Commission have to protect citizens of the EU who have suffered in this way? Are there any plans to amend the regulations concerning driving licences?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(27 October 2003)

Council Directive 91/439/EEC of 29 July 1991, on driving licences (1) foresees that the date and place of birth of the holder are mentioned on the driving licence. These entries are necessary in order to allow a precise identification of the holder by the public authorities, notably for enforcement purposes. The Commission does not intend to propose a modification of this provision.

---

(1)  OJ L 237, 24.8.1991.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/162 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/162

---

(2004/C 78 E/0167)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2765/03

by Raffaele Lombardo (PPE-DE) and Francesco Musotto (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(16 September 2003)

Subject:   Amending Regulation (EC) No 1623/2000 for the use of concentrated musts and rectified concentrated musts

The rationale for the European Union's common agricultural policy (CAP) lies in developing the rural economy, sustaining agricultural production, increasing crop diversification and improving the standard and high quality of food and security of supply.

As is clear from the Agenda 2000 programme which the Berlin European Council adopted in December 1999, any reform of the CAP must pursue the aims of environmental sustainability, strengthening the economy of rural areas and consolidating the cultural heritage and social justice.

The CAP is evolving towards a differentiation in legislative discipline in the light of the clear differences in social and economic development between the Union's regions and the impending enlargement towards the countries of central and eastern Europe.

At its meeting of 8 July 2003 the Wine Management Committee looked into the possibility of amending Regulation (EC) No 1623/2000 (1) concerning the amount of aid to be granted for the use of concentrated musts (CMs) and rectified concentrated musts (RCMs).

Would the Commission therefore say

| — | what measures have been taken to ensure that levels of aid for the use of CMs and RCMs vary according to the geographical, economic and social features of each European region? |
| --- | --- |

—

what measures have been taken to ensure that levels of aid for the use of CMs and RCMs vary according to the geographical, economic and social features of each European region?

| — | what provisions will be adopted, including those under Article 158 of the EC Treaty, specifically to support Sicilian wine production, which is facing additional costs because of the insular nature of its region? |
| --- | --- |

—

what provisions will be adopted, including those under Article 158 of the EC Treaty, specifically to support Sicilian wine production, which is facing additional costs because of the insular nature of its region?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(13 October 2003)

The first of the Honourable Members' questions relates to the common organisation of the wine market under which aid is granted on concentrated grape must used to increase the alcoholic strength of wine. In fact since the aid was introduced in 1982 it has been differentiated by the origin of the must. In general the aid rates for musts of wine-growing zone CIII, which includes Sicily, are higher than those for must originating in the other zones. There is a very restricted waiver for certain musts from zones other than C III produced under particular conditions.

Nonetheless, given the general reorientation of the common agricultural policy to which the Honourable Members allude that has occurred since the measure was introduced, the Commission is planning a thorough assessment of all features of this aid.

The Honourable Members' second question relates to the economic and social cohesion policy, under which the wine sector can be aided from the Community Structural Funds, in this case the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund, Guarantee Section. For the period 2000-2006 the sector can be aided through the Sicilia Regional Operational Programme. The relevant measures covered those covering farm-level investments (4.06) processing and marketing of agricultural products (4.09) and marketing of high quality agricultural products (4.13).

Decisions on future measures will be taken in partnership with the Commission, with the monitoring committee for the regional operational programme closely involved.

---

(1)  OJ L 194, 31.7.2000, p. 45.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/163 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/163

---

(2004/C 78 E/0168)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2769/03

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(16 September 2003)

Subject:   Dangerous Goods Safety Advisor examinations

| 1. | Can the Commission confirm that a Dangerous Goods Safety Advisor (DGSA) in the UK is currently only required to be qualified and examined on ADR/RID (transportation of dangerous goods by road/rail), and not the International Maritime Dangerous Goods (IMDG) Code, even if the DGSA is advising on the transportation of dangerous goods going by sea? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Can the Commission confirm that a Dangerous Goods Safety Advisor (DGSA) in the UK is currently only required to be qualified and examined on ADR/RID (transportation of dangerous goods by road/rail), and not the International Maritime Dangerous Goods (IMDG) Code, even if the DGSA is advising on the transportation of dangerous goods going by sea?

| 2. | If so, is the Commission satisfied that organisations transporting dangerous goods by sea can employ DGSAs who have no training or qualification in sea transport? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If so, is the Commission satisfied that organisations transporting dangerous goods by sea can employ DGSAs who have no training or qualification in sea transport?

| 3. | Does the Commission intend to propose amendments to the current Directive to ensure DGSAs have a compulsory examination in IMDG Code or an appropriate equivalent? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Does the Commission intend to propose amendments to the current Directive to ensure DGSAs have a compulsory examination in IMDG Code or an appropriate equivalent?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(23 October 2003)

According to ADR, RID and Directives 96/35/EC (1) and 2000/18/EC (2), the safety advisers in the United Kingdom have to have undergone training and passed examination, in order to have a vocational certificate, valid for the mode or modes of transport concerned. The scope of the Directives above is the transport of dangerous goods by road, rail and inland waterway (referring to ADN). In other words, the scope does not cover the maritime transport — consequently the scope of the safety adviser's training and certificate neither.

There is no need to extend the field of a safety adviser, authorised on the basis of ADR/RID/ADN (or Directives 96/35/EC and 2000/18/EC), to maritime transport. Specific rules laid down in the IMDG Code are applicable to maritime transport of dangerous goods. In addition, under the International Safety Management code (ISM Code), which is world-wide mandatory for all types of ships operating on international voyages, it is the responsibility of the company responsible for the ship to engage competent personnel to ensure that the appropriate safety and environmental protection policy is implemented and maintained at all levels of the company both for its ship-based and shore-based activities.

The scope of ADR/RID/ADN and of its regular updating machinery in the auspices of United Nations — Economic Commission for Europe (UN-ECE) is clearly limited to the transport of dangerous goods by road, rail and inland waterway only. Since the scope of Directives 96/35/EC and 2000/18/EC, in terms of transport mode, focuses on the one of ADR/RID/ADN, it is not advisable to amend these Directives out-of-scope. In contrast, it could be considered, whether some kind of horizontal approach could be found for the safety advising function of the transport of dangerous goods in all four transport modes: by road, rail, inland waterway and maritime.

---

(1)  Council Directive 96/35/EC of 3 June 1996 on the appointment and vocational qualification of safety advisers for the transport of dangerous goods by road, rail and inland waterway, OJ L 145, 19.6.1996, p. 10-15.

(2)  Directive 2000/18/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 17 April 2000 on minimum examination requirements for safety advisers for the transport of dangerous goods by road, rail or inland waterway, OJ L 118, 19.5.2000, p. 41-43.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/164 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/164

---

(2004/C 78 E/0169)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2770/03

by Robert Evans (PSE) to the Commission

(16 September 2003)

Subject:   Personal injury awards

The Commission will be aware of the significant disparities that can exist between personal injury awards for identical circumstances between Member States of the European Union.

Could the Commission inform me of any plans it may have to introduce measures to help ease this problem?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(10 October 2003)

The Commission has taken a number of specific initiatives in the context of establishing a European area of justice that will be of benefit for an improved access to justice for personal injury claimants.

It has presented a proposal for a Council Directive on compensation to crime victims (1), focussing on compensation from the state. The proposed Directive aims at establishing a minimum standard for all crime victims in the Union and facilitating access to compensation in cross-border situations. The proposal is currently under discussion in the Council and the Parliament.

The Commission has recently presented a proposal for a Council Regulation on the applicable law to noncontractual obligations (2). The proposed Regulation would harmonise the conflict of laws of the Member States for cross-border disputes involving torts or delicts, and will greatly improve the predictability and clarity of the legal situation for personal injury claimants in cross-border situations.

The Commission supports projects carried out in this area also, which can serve to deepen the debate on what further measures could be taken at European level and also help to make information on national laws on personal injury more accessible for lawyers as well as citizens.

However, the Commission has no plans to launch measures towards harmonising personal injury laws in general. The added value of such an initiative can be questioned and the existence of a legal basis in the EC Treaty is unclear. Moreover, the main differences between the Member States would appear to be in the way different losses are evaluated and compensated for by the courts, in particular as concerns non-pecuniary losses. This reflects among other things, socio-economic differences between the Member States. It is not conceivable to proceed towards any kind of common European tariffs to even out such differences.

---

(1)  OJ C 45 E, 25.2.2003.

(2)  COM(2003) 427 final.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/165 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/165

---

(2004/C 78 E/0170)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2776/03

by Hans Kronberger (NI) to the Commission

(11 September 2003)

Subject:   Conflict between the objectives of Directive 2001/77/EC on renewable energy and the implementation of the EU Water Framework Directive in Austria

In Austria, small hydroelectric power plants are a vital source of energy, supplying 8 % of the electricity market. They generate electricity cheaply and are environmentally benign, as they do not emit any pollutants or consume any materials. Consequently, small-scale hydroelectric power makes a substantial contribution to the attainment of the Kyoto objectives and of the objectives set forth in Directive 2001/77/EC (1) on renewable energy.

The implementation of the EU Water Framework Directive in Austria will significantly hamper the operation of the plants and further expansion and investment in this sector. The Water Framework Directive will restrict opportunities for small hydroelectric power plants to operate because it introduces new requirements concerning residual water. The Directive abolishes the fundamental right to use water as an energy source, so that procedural operators may at any time encroach upon existing water rights. Moreover, there is no provision to enable hydroelectric power plant operators to participate in the drafting of national water plans in order to defend their interests.

Therefore the following questions:

| 1. | Does the Commission agree that the implementation of the Water Framework Directive in Austria will make it significantly more difficult to attain the Kyoto objectives there and the objectives set forth in the directive on renewable energy? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Does the Commission agree that the implementation of the Water Framework Directive in Austria will make it significantly more difficult to attain the Kyoto objectives there and the objectives set forth in the directive on renewable energy?

| 2. | Does the Commission agree that, in the case of the conflict between the Water Framework Directive and the directive on renewable energy, the respective public interests need to be weighed up and that under certain circumstances the interest in maintaining water in a ‘good’ or ‘very good’ condition should be subordinated to climate protection and promotion of renewable energy? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Does the Commission agree that, in the case of the conflict between the Water Framework Directive and the directive on renewable energy, the respective public interests need to be weighed up and that under certain circumstances the interest in maintaining water in a ‘good’ or ‘very good’ condition should be subordinated to climate protection and promotion of renewable energy?

| 3. | What will the Commission do to enable a decision to be arrived at where the Water Framework Directive and the directive on renewable energy conflict? |
| --- | --- |

3.

What will the Commission do to enable a decision to be arrived at where the Water Framework Directive and the directive on renewable energy conflict?

| 4. | What will the Commission do to eliminate at legislative level the conflicts between the two directives to which attention has been drawn here? |
| --- | --- |

4.

What will the Commission do to eliminate at legislative level the conflicts between the two directives to which attention has been drawn here?

| 5. | What relevant measures is the Commission aware of in other Member States? |
| --- | --- |

5.

What relevant measures is the Commission aware of in other Member States?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(16 October 2003)

| 1. | The Commission does not share the Honourable Member's opinion that implementation of the Water Framework Directive (2) in Austria will make it distinctly more difficult to reach the Kyoto objectives as well as those under the Renewable Energies Directive (3). In implementing the Water Framework Directive the impact of all sectors of activity, including the electricity sector, will be integrated into the objectives/assessment of the Directive. The Commission believes that small hydroelectric power plants can continue to make a contribution to attaining the Kyoto objectives, given the right framework that takes full account of the Water Framework Directive (3). |
| --- | --- |

1.

The Commission does not share the Honourable Member's opinion that implementation of the Water Framework Directive (2) in Austria will make it distinctly more difficult to reach the Kyoto objectives as well as those under the Renewable Energies Directive (3). In implementing the Water Framework Directive the impact of all sectors of activity, including the electricity sector, will be integrated into the objectives/assessment of the Directive. The Commission believes that small hydroelectric power plants can continue to make a contribution to attaining the Kyoto objectives, given the right framework that takes full account of the Water Framework Directive (3).

| 2. | The Commission does not share the view that without exception small hydroelectric power plants provide only environmental advantages. Whilst it is evident that such plants do not produce greenhouse gases in generating electricity, they may, however, have a considerable impact on the ecological environment, depriving rivers of their water flow, providing an insurmountable barrier for migrating fish, interfering with the recharge of groundwater aquifers close to rivers etc. However, in the majority of cases solutions can be found that can remedy these negative effects. The Commission is of the view that environmental aspects cannot be subordinated to each other, but that in the interest of transparency, it is essential that the benefits for and negative impacts on the environment of small hydro schemes are assessed and put into the clearly defined perspectives of the Water Framework Directive while also taking into account the global impacts. This will be one of the tasks when establishing the river basin management plans, and subject to scrutiny by the Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The Commission does not share the view that without exception small hydroelectric power plants provide only environmental advantages. Whilst it is evident that such plants do not produce greenhouse gases in generating electricity, they may, however, have a considerable impact on the ecological environment, depriving rivers of their water flow, providing an insurmountable barrier for migrating fish, interfering with the recharge of groundwater aquifers close to rivers etc. However, in the majority of cases solutions can be found that can remedy these negative effects. The Commission is of the view that environmental aspects cannot be subordinated to each other, but that in the interest of transparency, it is essential that the benefits for and negative impacts on the environment of small hydro schemes are assessed and put into the clearly defined perspectives of the Water Framework Directive while also taking into account the global impacts. This will be one of the tasks when establishing the river basin management plans, and subject to scrutiny by the Commission.

| 3. | The Water Framework Directive established the legally binding obligation for Member States to encourage the active involvement of all interested parties (including where relevant the electricity industry), when the river basin management plans are produced, reviewed and updated. Further, those parties have under the Directive the legal right of access to all relevant documents including background documents and information. Thus the Water Framework Directive does not at all deprive Austrian operators of hydroelectric power plants of their right of being consulted, on the contrary expanding their rights of participation and ensuring a transparent and balanced decision-taking process.
  The Water Framework Directive is the subject of an extensive programme of cooperation on implementation involving the Commission, Member States, stakeholders and non-governmental organisations (NGOs). The electricity industry is fully involved in this cooperation via their European trade organisation Eurelectric. Such cooperation at European level is complemented by national and regional cooperation, such as the Austrian electricity industry being fully involved into the Austrian Ministry's implementation efforts, entailing inter alia a June 2002 workshop with the Association of Austrian Electricity Operators with participation and contributions by Commission and Austrian Ministry. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The Water Framework Directive established the legally binding obligation for Member States to encourage the active involvement of all interested parties (including where relevant the electricity industry), when the river basin management plans are produced, reviewed and updated. Further, those parties have under the Directive the legal right of access to all relevant documents including background documents and information. Thus the Water Framework Directive does not at all deprive Austrian operators of hydroelectric power plants of their right of being consulted, on the contrary expanding their rights of participation and ensuring a transparent and balanced decision-taking process.

The Water Framework Directive is the subject of an extensive programme of cooperation on implementation involving the Commission, Member States, stakeholders and non-governmental organisations (NGOs). The electricity industry is fully involved in this cooperation via their European trade organisation Eurelectric. Such cooperation at European level is complemented by national and regional cooperation, such as the Austrian electricity industry being fully involved into the Austrian Ministry's implementation efforts, entailing inter alia a June 2002 workshop with the Association of Austrian Electricity Operators with participation and contributions by Commission and Austrian Ministry.

| 4. | The Union and all its Member States ratified the Kyoto Protocol on 31 May 2002. Austria has taken a commitment to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by 13 % by 2012 compared to 1990 under the Union burden sharing agreement. |
| --- | --- |

4.

The Union and all its Member States ratified the Kyoto Protocol on 31 May 2002. Austria has taken a commitment to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by 13 % by 2012 compared to 1990 under the Union burden sharing agreement.

| 5. | Summarising, the Commission does not see any contradiction between the Renewable Energies Directive 2001/77/EC and the Water Framework Directive. Stakeholders, including the electricity industry, are fully involved into the ongoing implementation efforts. As regards detailed implementation regulations from Member States fully taking into account the Directive, the Commission is — against the background of the implementation deadlines set out in the Water Framework Directive (environmental and economic analysis by December 2004, river basin management plans by December 2009) — not aware of such documents being already available. However, the Commission is aware of assessments of small hydroelectric power plants as regards their impact on the environment, commissioned and published by the German Federal Environment Agency (Umweltbundesamt) (4). |
| --- | --- |

5.

Summarising, the Commission does not see any contradiction between the Renewable Energies Directive 2001/77/EC and the Water Framework Directive. Stakeholders, including the electricity industry, are fully involved into the ongoing implementation efforts. As regards detailed implementation regulations from Member States fully taking into account the Directive, the Commission is — against the background of the implementation deadlines set out in the Water Framework Directive (environmental and economic analysis by December 2004, river basin management plans by December 2009) — not aware of such documents being already available. However, the Commission is aware of assessments of small hydroelectric power plants as regards their impact on the environment, commissioned and published by the German Federal Environment Agency (Umweltbundesamt) (4).

---

(1)  OJ L 11, 16.1.2001, p. 14.

(2)  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)  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.

(4)  German Federal Environment Agency (Umweltbundesamt): Hydroelectric Power Plants as a Source of Renewable Energy — legal and ecological aspects (‘Wasserkraftanlagen als erneuerbare Energiequelle — rechtliche und ökologische Aspekte’), UBA-Texte 1/01, ISSN 0722-186X, Berlin 2001.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/167 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/167

---

(2004/C 78 E/0171)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2782/03

by Torben Lund (PSE) to the Commission

(11 September 2003)

Subject:   EIA report and the Habitats Directive

In a June 2003 report on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (EIA), the Commission concluded that there are only few monitoring systems in place for EIAs, that the results of EIAs are not adequately integrated into the decision-making process and that the comments of the general public should be included.

Before the end of 2003 the Danish municipality of Vejle is expected to decide, among other things, to construct a dual carriageway that will have adverse consequences for the countryside throughout the Svinholt area. In view of its possible construction an altogether limited EIA assessment has been carried out (Environmental assessment of Ødsted-Ny Højen-Vinding dual carriageway, Technical EIA statement, August 2003) which has also been criticised by several members of the public for containing errors.

This being so, will the Commission explain whether the above EIA assessment satisfies all relevant requirements, whether the procedure is in conformity with the directives relating to the Århus Convention and whether, in its view, this road project can be expected to comply with the provisions of the Habitats Directive. Lastly, will it state clearly whether such a project can be commenced before appropriate assessments have been carried out and before various complaints to the Commission, etc. have been examined and the findings are available?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(14 October 2003)

The recent report on the application and effectiveness of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Directive (1) has identified some shortcomings in its application. It is worth pointing out that this report has examined areas, such as monitoring, that are not covered by the EIA Directive.

Currently, Article 2(1) of the EIA Directive, requires Member States to adopt all measures necessary to ensure that, before consent is given, projects likely to have significant effects on the environment by virtue, inter alia to their nature, size or location are made subject to a requirement for development consent and an assessment with regard to their effects. Article 6 of the Directive provides for consultations with authorities as well as consultations with the public (2). In accordance with its Article 8, the results of consultations and information gathered during the EIA procedure must be taken into consideration in the development consent procedure. Moreover, Article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive (3) requires that national authorities shall agree to a project likely to have significant effect on a Natura site only after having ascertained that it will not adversely affect the integrity of the site concerned. Should a project have significant effects on the site, it can only be authorised in the absence of alternatives, for reasons of overriding public interest and with adequate compensation.

It appears from the question of the Honourable Member that no development consent has yet been granted to this project. Therefore, at this stage it is for the national authorities to ensure that the EIA Directive and the Habitats Directive are effectively applied before the authorisation of the project.

Further to a complaint received earlier concerning the effects of the project on a Natura site, the Commission has sent a request for information to the Danish authorities to ascertain how the requirements of the Habitats Directive are being taken into account in this case.

The Commission will not hesitate to initiate an infringement proceeding, in accordance with Article 226 of the EC Treaty, if it considers that Denmark has failed to fulfil its obligations to ensure compliance with Community law.

---

(1)  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.

(2)  The EIA Directive has been recently amended by Directive 2003/35/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 26 May 2003 providing for public participation in respect of the drawing up of certain plans and programmes relating to the environment and amending with regard to public participation and access to justice Council Directives 85/337/EEC and 96/61/EC, OJ L 156, 25.6.2003. This amendment is designed to ensure that the EIA Directive is fully compatible with the provisions of the Århus Convention. However, it is to be implemented by Member States by 25 June 2005 and already the EIA Directive presently applicable provides for public consultation.

(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.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/168 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/168

---

(2004/C 78 E/0172)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2788/03

by Chris Davies (ELDR) to the Commission

(19 September 2003)

Subject:   Use of peat for electricity generation

Article 2 of Directive 2001/77/EC (1) on the promotion of electricity from renewable energy sources excludes peat from the specified list of renewable fuels.

Earlier this year the Swedish Parliament agreed that peat should be added to its country's list of fuels eligible for green certificates used as the basis for reporting progress on renewable energy production to the EU.

Use of peat by gardeners and for the production of electricity has led to peat bogs being ranked amongst the most threatened natural habitats in Europe.

What action does the Commission intend to take to ensure that peat is not permitted to be eligible for green certificates in Sweden?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(23 October 2003)

The Commission agrees that peat is not regarded as a renewable energy source according to the definitions in Article 2 in 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.

Consequently, electricity produced with peat as fuel cannot contribute to the Swedish fulfilment of the target defined in the Directive. Furthermore a Member State cannot issue a guarantee of origin for electricity produced from peat in the context of the Directive.

According to Article 3 and 6 in the Directive Member States shall publish before 27 October 2003 reports including an analysis of success in meeting the national targets and an evaluation of the existing legislative and regulatory framework.

The Commission has not yet received these reports. If the Swedish reports indicate that the implementation into national legislation is not in compliance with Directive 2001/77/EC the Commission will take the necessary steps towards the Swedish authorities.

Directive 2001/77/EC does not prevent a Member State from using peat for electricity production nor from establishing a system of certificates for certain types of electricity. If such a system of certificates includes economic support the system must be in compliance with Community regulations on state aid. The use of peat for electricity production must also comply with the Community Directives concerning protection of nature such as the Habitat Directive (Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (2)). The Commission will also react regarding these regulations if a Member State is not in compliance.

---

(1)  OJ L 283, 27.10.2001, p. 33.

(2)  OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/169 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/169

---

(2004/C 78 E/0173)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2802/03

by Pedro Marset Campos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(19 September 2003)

Subject:   Special tolls in France and Germany for the transport of goods by road

The announcement that the French and German authorities will shortly impose special tolls for lorries travelling through those countries on the motorways is likely to cause justified alarm in the Murcia region (Spain), particularly in the farming industry, since it might have adverse effects on the transport of fruit and vegetables from Murcia to various EU countries.

| 1. | Is the Commission aware of this situation? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is the Commission aware of this situation?

| 2. | Does the Commission not consider it appropriate to demand that this measure should not be implemented, given that the charges are discriminatory and damaging? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Does the Commission not consider it appropriate to demand that this measure should not be implemented, given that the charges are discriminatory and damaging?

| 3. | Does the Commission take the view that these French and German measures may violate the free movement and transport of goods in the EU? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Does the Commission take the view that these French and German measures may violate the free movement and transport of goods in the EU?

| 4. | Does the Commission not believe that, if they were to be implemented, these measures would be most damaging for the most outlying European regions, such as the Murcia region which remains an Objective 1 region? Does this measure not represent flagrant discrimination among regions? |
| --- | --- |

4.

Does the Commission not believe that, if they were to be implemented, these measures would be most damaging for the most outlying European regions, such as the Murcia region which remains an Objective 1 region? Does this measure not represent flagrant discrimination among regions?

| 5. | Does the Commission not believe that, at a time of economic recession in the euro zone, these measures would damage economic recovery in a key sector such as the transport of goods by road? |
| --- | --- |

5.

Does the Commission not believe that, at a time of economic recession in the euro zone, these measures would damage economic recovery in a key sector such as the transport of goods by road?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(31 October 2003)

Member States have the right to maintain or introduce tolls and user-charges on lorries of 12 tonnes and above, provided they comply with the provisions contained in Directive 1999/62/EC (1) of the Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 1999 on the charging of heavy goods vehicles for the use of certain infrastructures.

As long as Member States fulfil the requirements of the Directive, concerning in particular non-discrimination, free flow of traffic and appropriate toll levels that are related to the cost of construction, operation and development of the network concerned, they are in line with Community legislation.

As far as Germany is concerned, the Commission is still examining the envisaged toll system. The Commission has to assess if the notified measure of the introduction of a distance-based motorway user charge for heavy goods vehicles accompanied by a reimbursement system based on the purchase of fuel in Germany is compatible with the common market and fully in line with the relevant Community legislation. Due to the doubts raised by the notified measure, the Commission decided on 23 July 2003 to open the formal investigation procedure laid down in article 88 §2 of the EC Treaty to allow Germany and other interested parties to make comments. On 27 August 2003, a short version of the decision summarising all the relevant issues of fact and law has been published in the Official Journal of the European Union
   (2). The Commission's aim is to make sure that the principle of free movement of goods will not be hampered and that the system fully respects the principle of non-discrimination.

In France there are no plans for a change for the moment, but the Commission will look at the case to ensure the respect of these same principles, if such a development takes place.

---

(1)  OJ L 187, 20.7.1999.

(2)  OJ C 202, 27.8.2003.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/170 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/170

---

(2004/C 78 E/0174)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2805/03

by Avril Doyle (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(19 September 2003)

Subject:   Solar energy

Can the Commission advise whether there are any common funds available for the conversion of individual dwelling houses to solar power?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(27 October 2003)

The Commission informs the Honourable Member that, based on the 6th Research and Technological Development Framework Programme 2003-2006, priority thematic area ‘Sustainable development, global change and ecosystems’, the Commission has in place a relevant activity to exploit solar energy for electricity and heat generation.

The short and medium term part of this activity supports projects aiming at the cost reduction of renewable energy technologies and their large scale integration within local communities. Common contributions for the conversion of individual dwelling houses to solar power may be available only if the action is integrated within a large project, that presents appropriate elements of research and technological innovation, and has a clear European dimension.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/171 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/171

---

(2004/C 78 E/0175)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2809/03

by Paulo Casaca (PSE) to the Commission

(19 September 2003)

Subject:   Innovative actions in the fisheries sector, 2003/C 115/08

Under reference No 2003/C 115/08 the Commission published a competition for innovative actions in the fisheries sector (1).

The Notice of the Competition fails to provide two essential elements, namely the dates on which a decision will be taken and the competitors informed of the outcome.

When does the Commission intend to rectify this omission?

When and in what shape can I have access to the list of projects approved?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(9 October 2003)

The section ‘Duration of project, date foreseen for closing the awarding procedure and admissible financing period’ in point 2.3 of the call for proposals referred to states:‘... the date foreseen for closing the awarding procedure is 15 October 2003. Projects are expected to start on 1 December 2003’. Therefore, as this indicative timetable implies, the selection procedure for proposals received will be completed by the end of 2003 and applicants will then be informed directly by mail of the outcome of their proposal(s).

Once the beneficiaries have given their assent by signing their grant agreements, the Commission will publish a list of projects and beneficiaries and the amounts granted.

---

(1)  OJ C 115, 15.5.2003.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/171 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/171

---

(2004/C 78 E/0176)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2810/03

by Ari Vatanen (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(17 September 2003)

Subject:   Allowing longer truck combinations in Europe

Finland and Sweden are allowed to use vehicles up to 25,25 m in length on their territories. This has proved very effective and safe.

The benefits of longer trucks are multiple:

| — | less fuel consumption |
| --- | --- |

—

less fuel consumption

| — | less emissions per tonne km |
| --- | --- |

—

less emissions per tonne km

| — | less room taken on the roads |
| --- | --- |

—

less room taken on the roads

| — | less tear and wear of the road network |
| --- | --- |

—

less tear and wear of the road network

| — | lower transport costs and thus lower prices for consumers |
| --- | --- |

—

lower transport costs and thus lower prices for consumers

More specifically, in a study made by the Swedish Road Administration (Vägverket) in connection with the so-called Extra Project it was concluded that the large trucks make unnecessary approximately one third of journeys and reduce total costs by 23 %.

Already now modular solutions (motor vehicle coupled to two modules of 13,6 m and 7,82 m) are allowed in the EU. However, for the better functioning of the internal market it would be logical to permit the use of the Finnish and Swedish types in the entire EU. Naturally there may be roads where such long combinations prove difficult but this should obviously not preclude their use on the rest of the road network.

| 1. | Does the Commission acknowledge the benefits of the truck lengths used in Finland and Sweden and the market inefficiencies the current system leads to? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Does the Commission acknowledge the benefits of the truck lengths used in Finland and Sweden and the market inefficiencies the current system leads to?

| 2. | If it does, how and when will the Commission act in order to ensure that these benefits are extended to the rest of the European Union? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If it does, how and when will the Commission act in order to ensure that these benefits are extended to the rest of the European Union?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(10 October 2003)

The Commission is aware of the fact that the use of long vehicles could contribute to a more efficient transport of goods. Although the modular concept is allowed in the Union, Member States have not made any use of this possibility except for some limited experiments such as in the Netherlands. Reasons could be that it is not yet clear how such vehicles will impact on road safety under different traffic and road conditions nor how their use would affect the distribution of the transport of goods between the various modes.

The Commission has the intention to organise a meeting in the beginning of 2004 with Member States' experts in the field of vehicle weights and dimensions to discuss the need for any change to the existing related Community legislation.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/172 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/172

---

(2004/C 78 E/0177)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2811/03

by Rosa Miguélez Ramos (PSE) to the Commission

(18 September 2003)

Subject:   Situation of the Mauritanian fishing ground

In its communication on an integrated framework for fisheries partnership agreements with third countries (1) and in the Green Paper on reform of the CFP, the Commission emphasises the development cooperation component which these international fisheries agreements must contain.

Development cooperation should not mean that fishing agreements become unbalanced, with financial compensation far exceeding the value of catch possibilities, but that the Community and European firms should transfer technology and know-how to developing countries so that those countries' fishery resources increase in value. This means that third countries must properly regulate the exploitation of fishery resources so that their fleets also practise sustainable fishing.

At present, however, genuine fisheries development cooperation is not taking place, particularly in relation to the main agreement with Mauritania, and the Commission is not exerting pressure on the other party, i.e. the Mauritanian Government, to guarantee the proper sustainable management of fishery resources. The result is that the Community fleet cannot catch the quotas granted under the agreement and the agreement is therefore not profitable for Community firms, which have to pay a large fee and subsequently find that, owing to Mauritania's failure to ensure the sustainable management of resources, there are not sufficient resources available.

Large numbers of launches, canoes and other vessels fish for octopus with traps in breeding grounds close to the beaches. Numerous Chinese vessels fish under the Mauritanian flag or in fictitious joint ventures without respecting the most basic principles of responsible fishing. Fifteen Dutch supertrawlers authorised to catch pelagic species use enormous nets reaching from the surface to the sea bed and scoop up everything in their path ... The small-scale artisanal fleet wreaks havoc in the breeding grounds and destroys stocks, while the industrial fleet complies with the requirements of sustainable fishing.

Is the Commission aware of these facts? Has it expressed its concern at the deterioration in the fishing ground to the Mauritanian Government? What steps will the Commission take to cooperate with the Mauritanian authorities on the responsible management of fishery resources?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(23 October 2003)

In its Communication on an integrated framework for fisheries partnership agreements with third countries (2) the Commission recalled the need to ensure coherence between the international aspects of the CFP and those of other Community policies. In the same document it points out that the primary objective of the external side of the CFP is to protect the legitimate interests of European fishermen and seek new alliances and partnerships (through partnership agreements) with developing countries. Such agreements must in future be considered as a contribution by the Community at international level, through political dialogue with the country or countries concerned, to achievement of sustainable and responsible fishing.

As the Honourable Member quite rightly points out, the Community's financial contribution under these agreements will therefore have to be based on an assessment of what needs to be done, in concert with the country, to achieve responsible and sustainable fishing in the waters under its jurisdiction that also provides genuine opportunities for Community fishermen.

The agreement with Mauritania to which the Honourable Member refers was signed in 1998 and last renewed in 2001, hence predates the abovementioned Communication and reform of the CFP. It does however incorporate a contribution to responsible fishing by including Community financing for directly identified action on management, conservation and surveillance of fishing activities and to develop local small-scale fishing, though strictly speaking this cannot be classed as a real political dialogue as intended by the Communication on partnership agreements, since the present agreement makes no provision for the necessary consultative and decision-taking mechanism.

In the last few months the question of pressure on resources in the waters under Mauritanian jurisdiction has been raised several times, notably at meetings of scientific experts in Mauritania in June. In October the experts confirmed that at the moment cephalopod stocks are in decline but stated that the other stocks are in good condition. The Commission has recently been informed of repeated infringements by Community vessels exporting octopus stocks that are endangering renewal of this resource.

It is incorrect however to speak of ‘quotas’, since the agreement only provides for access rights and the Mauritanian Government as sovereign power offers no exclusive access to European vessels.

The Commission shares the Honourable Member's awareness of the importance of sustainable management of the resources in the waters under Mauritanian jurisdiction. It has already put its concerns on the agenda for the next meeting in December of the EC-Mauritania Joint Committee so that more attention can be paid to them in future.

---

(1)  COM(2002) 637 final.

(2)  COM(2002) 637 final.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/174 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/174

---

(2004/C 78 E/0178)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2812/03

by Bernd Lange (PSE) to the Commission

(19 September 2003)

Subject:   Revision of the Directive on driving licences — driving licences for light motorcycles

The Commission's Work Programme for 2003 includes a proposed revision of the Directive on driving licences.

Is the Commission planning to make it possible for drivers applying for Category Β licences to automatically obtain Category A1 licences for motorcycles of 125 cc and under and 11 kW and under (light motorcycles) without a further test?

In Germany before 1 April 1980, licences for Category A1 mopeds were issued at the same time as Category 3 licences (equivalent to the present Category B), meaning a greater choice of modes of transport.

Would it not be a good idea to introduce a similar rule throughout Europe?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(15 October 2003)

Council Directive 91/439/EEC (1) allows Member States to authorise light motorcycles to be driven on their territory under a category B car licence. This option is currently available in Spain, France, Italy and Austria, with certain conditions applying in the case of Spain, France and Austria (2). Regarding the situation in Germany, it should be noted that this is an acquired right of long standing which has been confirmed by Decision 2000/275/EC (3), and not an equivalence under the terms of the driving licences Directive.

The Commission does not intend to propose amendments in this respect.

---

(1)  Council Directive 91/439/EEC of 29 July 1991 on driving licences, OJ L 237, 24.8.1991.

(2)  Commission interpretative communication on Community driver licensing, OJ C 77, 28.3.2002.

(3)  Commission Decision 2000/275/EC of 21 March 2000 on equivalences between certain categories of driving licences, OJ L 91, 12.4.2000.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/174 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/174

---

(2004/C 78 E/0179)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2813/03

by Bernd Lange (PSE) to the Commission

(19 September 2003)

Subject:   Revision of the Directive on driving licences — eyesight requirements

A revision of the Directive on driving licences is included in the Commission's Work Programme for 2003.

Will uniform rules on eyesight requirements be introduced as part of this revision?

Will it be possible for the visually impaired to use bioptics so that they too can meet the eyesight requirements?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(15 October 2003)

The Commission does not intend to propose any amendments in relation to eyesight requirements and would refer the Honourable Member to its answers to Written Questions E-1231/03 (1), E-2568/03 (2) and E-2569/03 (3) by Mr Christopher Huhne.

---

(1)  OJ C 58 E, 6.3.2004, p. 52.

(2)  OJ C 58 E, 6.3.2004, p. 181.

(3)  See page 129.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/175 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/175

---

(2004/C 78 E/0180)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2823/03

by Françoise Grossetête (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(18 September 2003)

Subject:   Annex to Directive 90/435/EEC

The success currently enjoyed by simplified joint stock companies (Sociétés par Actions Simplifiées (SAS)) creates numerous problems, particularly in the following circumstances.

The characteristics of this type of company do not appear in the annex to Directive 90/435/EEC of 23 July 1990 (1) (see p. 6 for the list of eligible companies).

Thus difficulties arise especially with cross-border leveraged buy-outs and takeovers of companies.

However, the SAS type of company is a continuation of the public limited company (‘société anonyme’ (SA)), which does figure in the annex to Directive 90/435/EEC.

Are the provisions concerning the SA directly applicable in the case of the SAS in the present context?

If not, will the Commission propose an amendment to the above directive or update its annexes?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(10 October 2003)

The scope of Council Directive 90/435/EEC of 23 July 1990 on the common system of taxation applicable in the case of parent companies and subsidiaries of different Member States is defined in its Article 2.

According to this provision, the Directive applies to companies which:

| — | take one of the forms listed in the Annex to the Directive; |
| --- | --- |

—

take one of the forms listed in the Annex to the Directive;

| — | are resident for tax purposes in a Member State; |
| --- | --- |

—

are resident for tax purposes in a Member State;

| — | are subject to corporate tax without the possibility of an option or of being exempt. |
| --- | --- |

—

are subject to corporate tax without the possibility of an option or of being exempt.

In particular, the list refers to the following French companies: companies under French law known as ‘société anonyme’, ‘société en commandite par actions’, ‘société à responsabilité limitée’ and industrial and commercial public establishments and undertakings.

The French ‘societé par actions simplifiés’ (SAS) is not included in the list of the Annex. Neither does it have the legal form of one of the companies above mentioned. Thus, the Directive is not applicable to it.

The Commission adopted a proposal on 29 July 2003 (2), to amend Directive 90/435/EEC and in particular the list of companies to which it applies. Among the new entries in the list, the SAS is included. Thus, if the Council adopts this proposal, the SAS will enjoy the benefits of the Directive.

Moreover, the same issue concerns Council Directive 90/434/EEC of 23 July 1990 on the common system of taxation applicable to mergers, divisions, transfers of assets and exchanges of shares concernin companies of different Member States (3). The Commission services are currently working on a proposal to amend this Directive in order, inter alia, to extend its scope to the SAS.

---

(1)  OJ L 225, 20.8.1990, p. 6.

(2)  COM(2003) 462 final.

(3)  OJ L 225, 20.8.1990.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/176 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/176

---

(2004/C 78 E/0181)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2845/03

by Isabelle Caullery (UEN) to the Commission

(25 September 2003)

Subject:   EU enlargement and air transport

Can the Commission state whether, on the basis of the Treaty of Athens, air routes between the airports of the 10 new Member States and the airports of current Member States will, from 1 May 2004, be considered intra-Community air routes as defined in Council Regulation (EEC) No 2408/92 (1) of 23 July 1992?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(23 October 2003)

Council Regulation (EEC) No 2408/92 of 23 July 1992 on access for Community air carriers to intra-Community air routes (2) will apply fully to the ten new Member States as of 1 May 2004, the date on which they are due to accede to the Union. As of that date, routes to/from the airports of those States will be considered to be intra-Community routes within the meaning of the Regulation.

---

(1)  OJ L 240, 24.8.1992, p. 8.

(2)  OJ L 240, 24.8.1992.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/176 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/176

---

(2004/C 78 E/0182)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2846/03

by Isabelle Caullery (UEN) to the Commission

(25 September 2003)

Subject:   European directive on transport infrastructure charging

Regarding the draft European directive on transport infrastructure charging, can the Commission state whether airport operators in general are likely to be affected by this law and, if so, to what extent?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(30 October 2003)

For the rail sector, infrastructure charging is already included in the first railway package (Directive 2001/14/EC (1)). As requested by the Copenhagen European Council of December 2002 and by the Brussels European Council of March 2003, the Commission presented on 23 July 2003 a proposal (2) amending 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 (3). This new proposal concentrates on road transport, more precisely on heavy goods vehicles over 3,5 tonnes. The fact that these vehicles are involved, on a regular basis, in intra-community traffic justifies common rules concerning the charging for the use of infrastructure. Concerning the other means of transport, no Community framework is applicable to them at present.

More specifically for the airport sector a wide range of policy options on the Regulation of airport charges exists and the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) has recently developed further its policy guidance for aeronautical charges (4). A Commission proposal from 1997, though strongly inspired by generally recognised ICAO principles, did not receive sufficient support in the Council of Ministers and therefore the Commission decided to withdraw this initiative (5).

---

(1)  Directive 2001/14/EC of the 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)  OJ L 187, 20.7.1999.

(3)  COM(2003) 448 final.

(4)  ICAO's policies on charges for airports and Air Navigation Charges — document 9082, sixth edition 2001.

(5)  OJ C 257, 22.8.1997 and COM(2001)763 final.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/177 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/177

---

(2004/C 78 E/0183)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2847/03

by Miquel Mayol i Raynal (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(18 September 2003)

Subject:   Plans to develop Salobrar de Campos — Es trenc

There are plans to build a polo field and accommodation for 2000 people in the Salobrar de Campos — Es trenc area in the south of Mallorca. The polo field would be situated on fossilised dunes (semi-arid zone) on a saltwater table, next to an area of wetlands and coastal dunes containing Phoenician juniper which has been designated a special protection area for birds under Directive 79/409/EEC (1) of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds and a priority habitat for conservation under Directive 92/43/EEC (2) of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora.

Is the Commission aware of this development project?

Has the Commission been consulted by the Spanish State on this project as required under Article 6(3) and (4) of the Habitats Directive?

Does the Commission believe that this project to construct accommodation and a polo field is compatible with the provisions of the Habitats Directive?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(16 October 2003)

The Commission was not aware of the project referred to by the Honourable Member.

The Commission has checked that the site in question has been classified as a special protection area (SPA) for birds pursuant to Article 4 of Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds.

It should be noted that the Spanish authorities have also proposed the ‘Es trenc — Salobrar de Campos ES0000037’ site, which covers an area of 1 442 hectares, as a site of Community importance (SCI) for future inclusion in the Natura 2000 network under the terms of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora.

The Commission has contacted the Spanish authorities to seek their comments on how the abovementioned Directives have been enforced in this particular case and to determine whether the project in question is likely to have a significant effect on the site in terms of the objectives of Directive 92/43/EEC, in which case the procedure laid down in Article 6 thereof would have to be applied.

In any event, the Commission, as guardian of the Treaties, will take the necessary steps to ensure that Community law is complied with in this case.

---

(1)  OJ L 103, 25.4.1979, p. 1.

(2)  OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/178 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/178

---

(2004/C 78 E/0184)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2849/03

by Stavros Xarchakos (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(26 September 2003)

Subject:   Complaints or infringements regarding the implementation of Greece of Community environmental legislation

In reply to my question E-1829/03 (1), Commissioner Wallström obligingly indicated that it was possible to obtain general statistics concerning complaints and infringements regarding transposition into Greek law and implementation of Community environmental legislation in Greece. Would the Commission be kind enough to forward to me the relevant statistics and the matters to which they relate from 1994 to the present date?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(10 November 2003)

For technical reasons, the Commission can only provide the Honourable Member with statistics relating to 1995 onwards. Thus, between 1995 and 2002 the Commission registered and investigated 257 dossiers relating to alleged or established infringements of Community environment law in Greece. These dossiers were opened on the basis of complaints, petitions and parliamentary questions, and on the Commission's own initiative. At 24 September 2003, 98 dossiers relating to alleged or established infringements of Community environment law in Greece were still open.

The infringement procedure laid down by Article 226 of the Treaty was initiated for 85 of the 257 dossiers. Of these 85 dossiers, 19 concerned air pollution, 18 related to Community waste management legislation, 13 dealt with nature protection, 11 related to chemicals, ten concerned water protection, five related to Directive 85/337/EEC (2), as amended by Directive 97/11/EC (3), three concerned genetically modified organisms and six concerned other areas of Community environment law.

---

(1)  OJ C 33 E, 6.2.2004, p. 175.

(2)  OJ L 175, 5.7.1985.

(3)  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, OJ L 73, 14.3.1997.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/179 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/179

---

(2004/C 78 E/0185)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2850/03

by Stavros Xarchakos (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(26 September 2003)

Subject:   Unsatisfactory performance by building and holiday home cooperatives in Greece

Very strong dissatisfaction is being expressed in Greece by members of building and holiday home cooperatives who maintain that, having paid annual and lump sum contributions over long periods, they have not yet obtained building plots. One example of this is the Medical Staff Summer Property Cooperative situated in Athens (Odos Rizari 17), founded in 1965 and officially recognised in 1968 by the Greek Social Affairs Ministry. It has 3090 members. However, after a period of over 35 years its members (doctors and medical staff) maintain that they have not yet obtained building plots despite payment of their annual contributions to the cooperative, together with additional lump sum payments amounting to hundreds of thousands of drachmae each (at early 1980s prices).

What view does the Commission take of the fact that nationals of an EU Member State have for 35 years or more been paying contributions and subscriptions to a building cooperative without yet obtaining from it the building plots to which they are entitled? What legal measures can be taken to protect the interests of the thousands of members of this and other cooperatives which have been collecting subscriptions for years (or, as claimed by the members of this particular association, for decades) without any building plots having yet been obtained?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(11 November 2003)

There is no relevant European legislation covering the situation described by the Honourable Member. The provisions of Directive 94/47/EC on the protection of purchasers in respect of certain aspects of contracts relating to the purchase of the right to use immovable properties on a timeshare basis do not apply to cooperatives. Timeshare amounts to buying a right to spend a set period of time once a year in a holiday property for three years or longer. The purchase of a plot in a building or holiday home cooperative does not limit the enjoyment of this plot to a set annual period of time.

The Commission has no jurisdiction to deal with private matters, such as those raised in the question asked by the Honourable Member, which, on the basis of the information provided, appears to be a contractual matter solely for the national authorities concerned.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/179 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/179

---

(2004/C 78 E/0186)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2855/03

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(18 September 2003)

Subject:   Biocidal Products Directive

Was it the Commission's intention in proposing and agreeing the Biocidal Products Directive BPD 98/8/EC (1) to ban the production of natural products that have been used for many years such as barley straw matting for clearing algae from domestic ponds? Does the Commission agree with the interpretation of the UK Health and Safety Executive that barley straw must be covered by the Directive, and that it must therefore undergo a full analysis of its active ingredients before it can be reintroduced to the market?

Is the Commission aware that blue and green algae, which can be toxic, are also controlled by the use of barley straw by many if not all water utilities? If this product is no longer available, what alternative means would the Commission propose for controlling toxic algae? Is the Commission aware of the side-effects of chemical solutions to the control of algae? Will the Commission propose to make any amendments or exemptions to the directive in light of these problems?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(14 October 2003)

The Commission would like to inform the Honourable Member that the intention of Directive 98/8/EC of 16 February 1998 concerning the placing of biocidal products on the market, as proposed by the Commission and adopted by the Parliament and the Council is to guarantee a high level of protection of human health and the environment from unintentional adverse effects of biocidal products by ensuring that only sufficiently effective products with no unacceptable effects on target organisms, humans, animals, or the environment are placed on the market.

The particular question about the treatment of Barley straw in the framework of Directive 98/8/EC has been brought to the attention of the Commission directly by the company concerned. The Commission is currently investigating the matter in close co-operation with the competent authorities of all Member States.

There are a number of rather complicated issues of technical and legal nature at stake. The definition of ‘biocidal product’ and ‘active substance’ in Directive 98/8/EC as adopted by the Parliament and the Council does not exclude that products and materials of natural origin would be covered by the provisions of the Directive, as long as the action they exert against harmful organisms is by chemical or biological means. With the initial information provided not being fully conclusive, further clarification will be necessary before a final position can be taken, also in order to avoid unwanted effects on non-target organisms.

A great number of other active substances have been notified under Commission Regulation (EC) No 1896/2000 of 7 September 2000 on the first phase of the programme referred to in Article 16(2) of Directive 98/8/EC of the Parliament and of the Council on biocidal products (2) that could be used for the control of algae. In line with the provisions of Article 16(2) of the Directive, these will be rigorously assessed with regard to their risks to human health and the environment in the course of the review programme for existing active substances. Only substances for which the risks are deemed to be acceptable (including side-effects on non-target organisms) will be eligible for use in biocidal products to control algae.

---

(1)  OJ L 123, 24.4.1998, p. 1.

(2)  OJ L 228, 8.9.2000.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/180 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/180

---

(2004/C 78 E/0187)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2858/03

by Pierre Jonckheer (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(26 September 2003)

Subject:   Opencast mining in the north of León (Valle de Laciana district, Spain)

Further to the information provided in questions E-1431/03 and E-1432/03 (1) on the Fonfría opencast mine belonging to Minero Siderúrgica Ponferrada S.A., I would observe: The area is also home to wolves (Canis lupus signatus), otters (Lutra lutra), native trout (Salmo trutta) and roach (Chondrostoma arcasii), all of them priority species, and the gentian (Gentiana lutea), a northern alpine flower — listed as a plant species of Community interest in Annex V of Directive 92/43/EEC (2) — which has already been wiped out in a large part of the region (3). The mining company complies with virtually none of the preventive, corrective and/or compensatory measures provided for in the environmental impact statement endorsed by the Castilla y León Environmental and Regional Planning Ministry on 14 June 1999, which is a sine qua known for carrying out mining operations.

The most glaring failures to comply involve:

| — | The protection of the oak wood surrounding the future mine, particularly at the eastern end (on the right bank of the river Orallo). In fact, the company has built a track running right through the wood, cutting down a huge number of trees (oak, birch and other species) in the process, and then gone on to fell large numbers of trees off this track as well. |
| --- | --- |

—

The protection of the oak wood surrounding the future mine, particularly at the eastern end (on the right bank of the river Orallo). In fact, the company has built a track running right through the wood, cutting down a huge number of trees (oak, birch and other species) in the process, and then gone on to fell large numbers of trees off this track as well.

| — | The preservation of the stream which rises from a spring near the northern slag heap, which was to run through a 200 metre culvert in order to protect it completely from the slag heap. Instead, the stream has been used as a rubbish tip, and has been almost entirely filled in, apart from the first few metres running from the spring. |
| --- | --- |

—

The preservation of the stream which rises from a spring near the northern slag heap, which was to run through a 200 metre culvert in order to protect it completely from the slag heap. Instead, the stream has been used as a rubbish tip, and has been almost entirely filled in, apart from the first few metres running from the spring.

| — | Rigorous control of dust production. A slag heap has been built outwith the area indicated in the plan, spreading right over the crests of the hills, and thus exposed to the region's frequent north winds, blowing clouds of dirty, polluting black dust down on the village. |
| --- | --- |

—

Rigorous control of dust production. A slag heap has been built outwith the area indicated in the plan, spreading right over the crests of the hills, and thus exposed to the region's frequent north winds, blowing clouds of dirty, polluting black dust down on the village.

| — | Planting woodland fruit trees along the watercourses — which already exist within the mine, and those in the areas to remain unchanged — before mining operations start. No planting of any kind has taken place, and the watercourses are generally used as tips. |
| --- | --- |

—

Planting woodland fruit trees along the watercourses — which already exist within the mine, and those in the areas to remain unchanged — before mining operations start. No planting of any kind has taken place, and the watercourses are generally used as tips.

Given the lackadaisicality of the relevant Spanish authorities, can the Commission investigate where responsibility lies, as regards both the management of the mine and the deterioration of areas and species protected by the Habitats Directive?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(14 November 2003)

Having examined the available information, the Commission has concluded that, in the case in hand, the Spanish authorities have misapplied Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (4), as amended by Directive 97/11/EC (5), and Directive 92/43/EEC (6) of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora. It has therefore decided to institute infringement proceedings under Article 226 of the EC Treaty and has sent Spain a letter of formal notice inviting the Spanish authorities to submit their observations on its comments.

The Commission is currently waiting to receive those observations.

---

(1)  See page 33.

(2)  OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7.

(3)  Information taken from the Unesco Draft Declaration of the Valle de Laciana biosphere as a nature reserve.

(4)  OJ L 175, 5.7.1985.

(5)  OJ L 73, 14.3.1997.

(6)  OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/182 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/182

---

(2004/C 78 E/0188)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2864/03

by Maurizio Turco (NI) to the Commission

(22 September 2003)

Subject:   Data and sources indicating the role currently played by the Vatican's financial system in the payment of interest to natural persons

The answer to question E-2426/03 (1) given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission on 5 September 2003 states that the Commission can only say that the role currently played by the Vatican's financial system in the payment of interest to natural persons does not appear to be jeopardising the competitiveness of European financial markets.

Can the Commission say what data it has to support this claim and what their source was?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(16 October 2003)

The Commission would refer to the reply to Written Question E-1914/02 put by the Honourable Member (2). The finding that a commercial financial sector does not currently exist on the territory of the Vatican City State (the only bank being the IOR (Istituto Opere di Religione), which also is the central bank) does indeed suggest that management of the assets of EU-resident natural persons is unlikely to be taking place on a scale comparable with that of the six non-EU countries to which the Council has given priority in starting discussions on taxation of savings (the United States, Switzerland, Liechtenstein, Monaco, Andorra, and San Maríno).

The priority given to a limited number of particularly significant financial centres was, moreover, inevitable given that the Council had opted to establish a link between the (early) adoption and implementation of the Community Directive and receipt of adequate assurances from the third countries concerned that they would introduce measures equivalent to those of the directive in their territory. Entering into immediate contacts with a larger number of financial centres would have been likely, under these conditions, to set back by several years not only the date of application of the Directive on taxation of savings, but also that of the other components of the tax package (the code of conduct on company taxation and the Directive on interest and royalties). The Commission hopes that the Honourable Member can agree that such a delay would be undesirable in the interests of the smooth operation of the internal market.

The Commission has undertaken to collect the available information on the matter raised by the Honourable Member and will inform him directly of the outcome.

---

(1)  OJ C 65 E, 13.3.2004.

(2)  OJ C 92 E, 17.4.2003.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/182 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/182

---

(2004/C 78 E/0189)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2865/03

by Elisabeth Schroedter (Verts/ALE) and Inger Schörling (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(26 September 2003)

Subject:   Destruction of unique parts of the European natural heritage in Brandenburg, Federal Republic of Germany

In its answer to Elisabeth Schroedter's question (E-3577/02 (1)) of 27 January 2003 and in the answer to complaint 2000/4731, the Commission indicates that the Lacoma wetlands should have been proposed as a site of Community importance pursuant to Article 4(1) and Annex III of the FFH Directive (92/43/EEC (2)on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora) because of its exceptional natural beauty and its large population of fire-bellied toads (Bombina bombina), which is possibly unique in Europe. The German Government, however, did not prompt the Land of Brandenburg to do so. Once the approval procedure is concluded, therefore, the area is in danger of being completely drained so that lignite can be mined for the generation of electricity by the Swedish firm Vattenfall.

| 1. | Following its assessment (see the answer to question E-3577/02), has the Commission reached the conclusion that the German Government did not need to propose the Lacoma wetlands, despite the fact that the Commission itself had noted their importance to the European natural heritage? Does it also consider that their destruction was inconsequential in relation to the objectives of Natura 2000, even though the unusually large population of fire-bellied toads probably represents a source population for other smaller populations? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Following its assessment (see the answer to question E-3577/02), has the Commission reached the conclusion that the German Government did not need to propose the Lacoma wetlands, despite the fact that the Commission itself had noted their importance to the European natural heritage? Does it also consider that their destruction was inconsequential in relation to the objectives of Natura 2000, even though the unusually large population of fire-bellied toads probably represents a source population for other smaller populations?

| 2. | Does the Commission adhere to its view expressed in the answer to complaint 2000/4731 that, in a liberalised European energy market, Vattenfall's lignite mining constitutes ‘imperative reasons’ even though those reasons must relate to ‘human health’ and ‘public safety’ within the meaning of Article 6(4) of the FFH Directive owing to the presence of the priority species Osmoderma Eremita, and despite evidence that conditions in the Lacoma wetlands are favourable for the development of Osmoderma Eremita and other species listed in Annex II of the FFH Directive? If so, how does the Commission justify its view in the context of the FFH Directive (92/43/EEC) and its responsibility to reveal hidden distortions of competition on the European market? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Does the Commission adhere to its view expressed in the answer to complaint 2000/4731 that, in a liberalised European energy market, Vattenfall's lignite mining constitutes ‘imperative reasons’ even though those reasons must relate to ‘human health’ and ‘public safety’ within the meaning of Article 6(4) of the FFH Directive owing to the presence of the priority species Osmoderma Eremita, and despite evidence that conditions in the Lacoma wetlands are favourable for the development of Osmoderma Eremita and other species listed in Annex II of the FFH Directive? If so, how does the Commission justify its view in the context of the FFH Directive (92/43/EEC) and its responsibility to reveal hidden distortions of competition on the European market?

| 3. | Does the Commission intend to abandon the proceedings for infringement of the Treaty even though there is as yet no guarantee, in legal or financial terms, that compensatory measures will be forthcoming? If so, why? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Does the Commission intend to abandon the proceedings for infringement of the Treaty even though there is as yet no guarantee, in legal or financial terms, that compensatory measures will be forthcoming? If so, why?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(11 November 2003)

The Commission was made aware by means of a complaint of the natural values of the site ‘Lacomaer Teiche und Hammergraben’, which is likely to be significantly affected by the impending implementation of a lignite mining project. The complainant considered that this site should have been proposed as a Site of Community Importance under Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992, on the conservation of natural habitats and wild fauna and flora (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Directive’). The Commission, after a preliminary assessment, shared this view. This view of the Commission was based in particular on the presence of an important population of the Fire-bellied toad (Bombina bombina), which, however, is not a priority species under the above Directive.

As a result of its investigation of the complaint, the Commission came to the conclusion that even if the site had been proposed by the German authorities, this would not have provided any added value for the Natura 2000 network in the long term since the mining project could be implemented in compliance with Article 6(4) 1st sentence of the Directive (absence of alternatives, overriding public interest and compensation).

There is no viable alternative to the lignite mining project intended to be implemented on that site. This project is of huge importance for the regional economy and energy security. It is worth noting that mining enterprise promoting the project enjoys legal protection as the mining project was, in principle, authorised before the German reunification. Finally, substantial compensation measures are being designed.

Since the Commission has received subsequent information indicating that a priority species listed in the Annexes of the Directive, namely osmoderma eremita, a wood beetle, has been found at the site, the Commission has again made representations to the German Government in order to gather information with a view to deciding on further steps to be taken to ensure appropriate compliance with Community environmental law. Until now the Commission has not taken any decision on this case.

---

(1)  OJ C 161 E, 10.7.2003, p. 108.

(2)  OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/184 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/184

---

(2004/C 78 E/0190)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2868/03

by Brice Hortefeux (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(26 September 2003)

Subject:   European electricity market

The electricity failure on 14 August 2003 in the USA and Canada left 50 million Americans and Canadians without electricity for 29 hours.

The salient characteristics of the North American system, which is completely liberalised and essentially comprises private operators, are the absence of integration, weak global regulation, and lack of cooperation between network operators. Furthermore, in recent years, the market had cut to a minimum investment in building or modernising electricity transport and production infrastructure in order to maximise profits. The US Government, for its part, had laid stress on an energy supply strategy rather than managing energy demand, in a country notable for overconsumption (Americans use twice as much electricity as Europeans).

Given the impending opening-up of the European electricity market, the issue of how that market would react to a crisis like that of 14 August is a legitimate concern. Does the Commission posses a comparative analysis, and if so, can it make this available?

Answer given by Ms de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(3 November 2003)

The blackout in Italy on 28 September 2003 showed that no system is immune to failure. A very high level of dependency on imports makes the Italian system more susceptible to problems.

The other network operators were able to prevent the blackout from spreading to other countries and the Italian electricity system was restored in a few hours — within a shorter time frame than in the United States.

The blackout in Italy was caused by a storm, which was clearly not the case in the United States. It is also clear that it was not caused by the process of opening up the market nor by the creation of an internal market in electricity. The blackout resulted from a failure in the transmission system, which remains in a monopoly position. It should also be noted that in Switzerland the transmission system operator is still incorporated in a company which is entirely vertically integrated and that this limits the transparency and effective management of the market.

The Commission does not possess a comparative study of the American and European systems. It will pursue its investigations into the blackout in Italy over the coming weeks.

However, a number of initiatives are already in preparation at EU level to deal with these issues. In this context, the second communication on infrastructure will be presented before the end of 2003. The first communication (1) has already set the target of a 10 % level of interconnection for all Member States. Even though this objective was approved by all Heads of State and Government at Barcelona, little progress has been achieved and higher levels of interconnection are needed in many countries.

Several concrete proposals will be presented, namely a Directive on the security of electricity supply, a revision of the guidelines for the trans-European networks and the extension and updating of the list of priority projects of European interest eligible for priority financing at EU level. Furthermore, the Commission will see to it that the work of the Union for the Co-ordination of Transmission of Electricity (UCTE) in continental Europe, towards completing the Manual of Standards for security and reliability is speeded up. This work is already well advanced. A method of ensuring that the rules of this manual are fully complied with remains to be determined.

It must be stressed, however, that the primary responsibility in this area lies with Member States. The biggest threat to the security of supply comes from disproportionate planning permission procedures. Europe needs new high-voltage electricity lines and new power stations. If difficult decisions are not taken at national level on these issues in the coming years, the problems encountered in California will begin to arise in Europe.

---

(1)  OJ C 151 E, 25.6.2002.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/185 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/185

---

(2004/C 78 E/0191)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2886/03

by Charles Tannock (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(29 September 2003)

Subject:   Difficulties encountered in the liberalisation of the European rail freight sector

Since March of this year an EU directive requiring all EU Member States to allow operators based in other Member States to haul international freight across their tracks. A number of Member States, including France, have already transposed the directive into national law, whilst other Member States, including Germany and the U.K., both of which are in reality already open to foreign operators, have not done so.

There are concerns, however, that transposition of the directive will not, in itself, be sufficient to ensure that the directive will be properly enforced, even though there is clearly public pressure to reduce road congestion by increasing the proportion of European goods carried by rail at a time when that proportion has fallen from over 20 % thirty years ago to only 8 % today. In particular, there are concerns that Eurostar's plan to start direct rail freight services from Dourges near Lille in France to Daventry in the U.K. Midlands will be disrupted by opposition from French trades unions, ensuring that Eurostar either fails to receive an operating licence or receives it in a form that would make the project unworkable.

Is the Commission committed to facilitating the carrying of freight across Europe by rail and does it have any concerns about the difficulties likely to be faced by European freight operators in the future? In particular, can the Commission see any objection to Eurostar's plans to run a freight service from Dourges to Daventry or any reason why an operating licence should not be made available to the company allowing it to carry freight along the whole of that route?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(10 November 2003)

The Commission is strongly committed to facilitating an increase of the competitiveness of European rail freight and a modal shift towards environmentally friendly modes such as rail. The Commission pursues these objectives by creating a Common European Railway Area including opening of rail freight markets and establishing a European regulatory framework for interoperability and safety. It also provides financial support for the development of essential rail infrastructure and for the demonstration of innovative rail freight service concepts.

A cornerstone of the regulatory approach of the Community to revitalise rail freight are the rail infrastructure package Directives (1) that Member States had to implement by 15 March 2003. These Directives have not yet been transposed by all Member States and some of the Directives, which have been legally implemented, still have to be put into practice ‘on the ground’. The Commission is employing all legal instruments at hand to push Member States for a swift and thorough implementation.

The Commission is aware of the intention of Eurotunnel SA (not Eurostar as indicated) to establish itself as a railway undertaking providing rail freight services through the Channel tunnel. As a preparatory measure the company has applied for a railway licence with the competent French authorities. Currently, the French authorities are processing the request on the basis of the national implementation legislation for Directive 2001/13/EC. The Commission has no reason to doubt that Eurotunnel SA will be granted a railway licence, if they fulfil all legal requirements in conformity with Community Directives.

---

(1)  Directive 2001/12/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2001 amending Council Directive 91/440/EEC on the development of the Community's railways; Directive 2001/13/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2001 amending Council Directive 95/18/EC on the licensing of railway undertakings; and Directive 2001/14/EC of the 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.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/186 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/186

---

(2004/C 78 E/0192)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2887/03

by Bill Miller (PSE) to the Commission

(29 September 2003)

Subject:   Animal by-products

How many incinerators are there in Europe burning animal by-products and in which countries are they?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(16 October 2003)

The Commission does not have the information requested. However, according to the draft report on Best Available Techniques for waste incineration (1), about 421 installations are in operation in the Member States, and about 106 installations in the Candidate Countries. These installations burn mainly municipal waste, non-hazardous and hazardous industrial waste, sewage sludge and clinical waste. Among these waste types could also be fractions of animal by-products.

---

(1)  http://eippcb.jrc.es/pages/Factivities.htm.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/186 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/186

---

(2004/C 78 E/0193)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2907/03

by Antonios Trakatellis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(1 October 2003)

Subject:   Expenditure on and structural indicators for research and innovation in the EU and Greece

One of the objectives set out in the conclusions to the European Council meeting in Barcelona in March 2002 was that overall spending on R & D and innovation in the Union should be increased with the aim of approaching 3 % of GDP by 2010. It was made clear that two-thirds of this new investment should come from the private sector (1). At the present time, the average level of investment in research in the EU totals 1,9 % of GDP and to reach the 3 % target requires an annual increase of 8 %. Given that the gap between the Union and its more serious competitors is constantly widening, the Union should concentrate all its efforts on R & D and innovation, with particular emphasis on frontier technologies, to achieve the target of 3 % of GDP by 2010.

| 1. | What is the level of investment in research as a whole in the Union and separately for each Member State and what is the percentage increase or decrease in that figure for each Member State separately according to the latest available data? |
| --- | --- |

1.

What is the level of investment in research as a whole in the Union and separately for each Member State and what is the percentage increase or decrease in that figure for each Member State separately according to the latest available data?

| 2. | What research funding is invested in Greece, broken down by source separately for the private sector, national public participation and Community initiatives and programmes in the field of research, and what measures will the Commission take to deliver statistics on a regular basis and within specified deadlines in accordance with Decision 1608/2003/EC (2)? |
| --- | --- |

2.

What research funding is invested in Greece, broken down by source separately for the private sector, national public participation and Community initiatives and programmes in the field of research, and what measures will the Commission take to deliver statistics on a regular basis and within specified deadlines in accordance with Decision 1608/2003/EC (2)?

| 3. | On how many, and which, of each of the 16 structural indicators under the Lisbon Strategy (e.g. percentage of GDP by source of funds spent on R & D, patents, etc.) relating to Innovation and Research (II) is Greece behind or ahead of the Community average? |
| --- | --- |

3.

On how many, and which, of each of the 16 structural indicators under the Lisbon Strategy (e.g. percentage of GDP by source of funds spent on R & D, patents, etc.) relating to Innovation and Research (II) is Greece behind or ahead of the Community average?

| 4. | Is there a need to revise the Commission's approach to the ‘open coordinating method’, which is not binding on the Member States and ineffective but was adopted by the European Council to achieve the target of 3 % of GDP by 2010, and what measures will the Commission take to encourage links between research and new business opportunities? |
| --- | --- |

4.

Is there a need to revise the Commission's approach to the ‘open coordinating method’, which is not binding on the Member States and ineffective but was adopted by the European Council to achieve the target of 3 % of GDP by 2010, and what measures will the Commission take to encourage links between research and new business opportunities?

Answer given by Mr Busquin on behalf of the Commission

(14 November 2003)

| 1. | The figures available concerning investment in research and development (R & D) relate to 2000 or 2001 in all the Member States, with the exception of Greece, where the latest statistics date from 1999. A table will be forwarded directly to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat. While investment was increasing everywhere, the rates of growth differed, ranging from more than 7 % in Belgium, Denmark and Ireland to less than 1 % in Germany. The data already available for 2002 show that investment is decreasing in France, Portugal and the United Kingdom. A table (2) will be forwarded directly to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's secretariat. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The figures available concerning investment in research and development (R & D) relate to 2000 or 2001 in all the Member States, with the exception of Greece, where the latest statistics date from 1999. A table will be forwarded directly to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat. While investment was increasing everywhere, the rates of growth differed, ranging from more than 7 % in Belgium, Denmark and Ireland to less than 1 % in Germany. The data already available for 2002 show that investment is decreasing in France, Portugal and the United Kingdom. A table (2) will be forwarded directly to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's secretariat.

| 2. | The breakdown by funding sources for R & D differs in Greece, in both nature and structure, compared with the rest of the Community. Funding by the private sector is twice as low while that from non-national sources is four times as high, notably from the contribution made by the Community Research Framework Programme. A table (3) will be forwarded directly to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat.
  Indicators for following progress in achieving the 3 % target defined in the Commission's action plan ‘Investing in research’ can all be calculated from the scientific and technological (S & T) data which Eurostat collects from the Member States, using procedures which are being reviewed in implementation of Decision No 1608/2003/EC (3). |
| --- | --- |

2.

The breakdown by funding sources for R & D differs in Greece, in both nature and structure, compared with the rest of the Community. Funding by the private sector is twice as low while that from non-national sources is four times as high, notably from the contribution made by the Community Research Framework Programme. A table (3) will be forwarded directly to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat.

Indicators for following progress in achieving the 3 % target defined in the Commission's action plan ‘Investing in research’ can all be calculated from the scientific and technological (S & T) data which Eurostat collects from the Member States, using procedures which are being reviewed in implementation of Decision No 1608/2003/EC (3).

| 3. | Greece is lagging significantly behind for nine of the 16 structural indicators for research and innovation and is doing as well as, or better than, the European average for four of the indicators, while information is unavailable for three others. A table (4) will be forwarded directly to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Greece is lagging significantly behind for nine of the 16 structural indicators for research and innovation and is doing as well as, or better than, the European average for four of the indicators, while information is unavailable for three others. A table (4) will be forwarded directly to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat.

| 4. | The Commission's action plan ‘Investing in research’ proposes a coherent series of measures to increase private sector investment in R & D. Measures for which the Member States are competent (more than half of the total) will be implemented through the open coordination method as defined by the European Council. For the Commission, this means setting up an appropriate framework to facilitate mutual learning between Member States and, where applicable, their developing together new measures on the following six themes: ‘human resources’; ‘the public research base and its links to industry’; ‘small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) and research’; ‘fiscal measures to promote research’; ‘intellectual property rights and research’ and ‘public funding for research and the policy mix’. Progress will be monitored annually.
  The ‘Action Plan for Innovation’ which the Commission is planning to launch in the first half of 2004 will help, in addition, to strengthen innovation in companies by adopting a broader and more business-oriented outlook which will place greater emphasis on the non-technological, organisational and marketing aspects of innovation. |
| --- | --- |

4.

The Commission's action plan ‘Investing in research’ proposes a coherent series of measures to increase private sector investment in R & D. Measures for which the Member States are competent (more than half of the total) will be implemented through the open coordination method as defined by the European Council. For the Commission, this means setting up an appropriate framework to facilitate mutual learning between Member States and, where applicable, their developing together new measures on the following six themes: ‘human resources’; ‘the public research base and its links to industry’; ‘small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) and research’; ‘fiscal measures to promote research’; ‘intellectual property rights and research’ and ‘public funding for research and the policy mix’. Progress will be monitored annually.

The ‘Action Plan for Innovation’ which the Commission is planning to launch in the first half of 2004 will help, in addition, to strengthen innovation in companies by adopting a broader and more business-oriented outlook which will place greater emphasis on the non-technological, organisational and marketing aspects of innovation.

---

(1)  http://europa.eu.int/comm/barcelona_council/index_en.html.

(2)  OJ L 230, 16.9.2003, p. 1.

(3)  Decision No 1608/2003/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 July 2003 concerning the production and development of Community statistics on science and technology.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/187 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/187

---

(2004/C 78 E/0194)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2909/03

by Olivier Dupuis (NI) to the Commission

(29 September 2003)

Subject:   Future status of Tibet

In a recent interview published in Le Figaro, the Dalai Lama stated that he ‘hope[d] that there would be others [other contacts with the Chinese] and that they would lead to serious discussions’. He believes that ‘at present there is basically nothing new. Since the 1980s we have been demanding self-determination and no longer independence. The Chinese know that perfectly well.’ The Dalai Lama added: ‘Tibetan youth organisations clearly want independence. They do not agree with me. But there is no conflict between us on that account. To be honest, if my approach were to fail, these young people would have a perfect right to take up the torch and demand independence. One must be patient. It is barely a year since contacts with China were resumed. But, if in two or three years’ time they have not borne any fruit, it will be difficult for me to explain to young people why the ‘middle way’ in the right one.'

Is the Commission aware of the radical change in the position of the Tibetan leadership which is implied by the unambiguous statement that it will be necessary to find a solution very soon (within two or three years)? Ought not the European Union to do everything it can to induce the Chinese authorities and the Tibetan government in exile to reach agreement quickly on defining a fully autonomous status for Tibet in all fields except defence and foreign policy? Is the Commission aware that, after the period of two or three years mentioned by the Dalai Lama, Tibet is liable to become a fresh source of tension or even the scene of violence and bloody repression? Could not the Commission help to bring about the opening of such negotiations by proposing that the EU Member States recognise the Tibetan government in exile?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(15 October 2003)

In its regular dialogue with China, particularly on human rights, the Commission has unfailingly expressed its opinion that establishing direct dialogue with the Dalai Lama is the only realistic way of seeking a practical and lasting solution to the Tibetan question based on granting the region full autonomy.

In this connection, it followed with interest the visit by the special envoys of the Dalai Lama to China between 25 May and 8 June 2003 and considers that everything should be done to avoid compromising the contacts made recently between the parties concerned.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/188 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/188

---

(2004/C 78 E/0195)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2921/03

by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission

(2 October 2003)

Subject:   Cotton subsidies

Could the Commission detail subsidies paid to cotton producers by country within the EU each year for the past five years and give the comparison between EU subsidies paid per tonne and those paid in the US?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(5 November 2003)

In line with a commitment made at Luxembourg on 26 June this year, the Commission on 23 September adopted a Communication on reform of the common market organisations for olive oil, tobacco and cotton. This is geared to the same purposes and adopts the same approach as this year's earlier common agricultural policy (CAP) reform package.

In support of this Communication a working document entitled ‘The cotton sector’ (available at europa.eu.int/comm/agriculture/markets/cotton) was drawn up by the Agriculture Directorate-General to provide a documentary basis for the proposal.

It gives the reader a picture of the Community cotton sector's place in the world market during the last few years. It also describes how the Community aid scheme has operated since it was set up when Greece joined the Community. Statistical information (areas, production, budget) is given for the scheme.

It should be remembered that the Community cotton sector aid is paid to the processor on the basis of the quantity of unginned cotton delivered by the grower, who must have received a minimum price per tonne of unginned cotton. There are no export support measures such as refunds.

The aid per tonne of unginned cotton paid to the processor is the difference between a guide price set by the Council and the world market price determined by the Commission from quotations on the international fibre market. If production exceeds reference levels a stabilising mechanism reduces the guide price and the minimum price by the same amount and so lowers the aid rate.

For the last five marketing years the aid per tonne of unginned cotton has been:

| (EUR/tonne) |
| --- |
| Campaign | Greece | Spain |
| 1998/1999 | 561 | 664 |
| 1999/2000 | 474 | 523 |
| 2000/2001 | 427 | 633 |
| 2001/2002 | 461 | 696 |
| 2002/2003 | 562 | 670 |

(EUR/tonne)

Campaign

Greece

Spain

1998/1999

561

664

1999/2000

474

523

2000/2001

427

633

2001/2002

461

696

2002/2003

562

670

According to the International Cotton Advisory Committee American aid per pound of ginned cotton was:

| (US cents/lb) |
| --- |
| Campaign | United States Internal support |
| 1998/1999 | 22 |
| 1999/2000 | 25 |
| 2000/2001 | 12 |
| 2001/2002 | 24 |

(US cents/lb)

Campaign

United States Internal support

1998/1999

22

1999/2000

25

2000/2001

12

2001/2002

24

Under the new Farm Bill from 2002/03 an additional aid, the ‘counter-cyclical payment’, is to be granted when the grower's overall income (market price + normal subsidies) is less than a guide price of US 72,4 cents/lb.

Other forms of American export aid for cotton should also be mentioned, notably the subsidised export credit programmes. There is no comparable Community support.

Other facts to be borne in mind are that there is free access to the European market (no customs duty or import quotas), that the Union is the leading world importer of ginned cotton and that European production at (about 2,5 % of the world total) is of marginal importance compared with American production (about 20 %). This situation is reflected in the overall budgets:

| Campaign | European Union (EUR million) | United States (1) (USD million) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 1998/1999 | 903 | 1 132 |
| 1999/2000 | 855 | 1 882 |
| 2000/2001 | 733 | 3 809 |
| 2001/2002 | 804 | 1 868 |
| 2002/2003 | 871 | 3 307 |

Campaign

European Union (EUR million)

United States (1) (USD million)

1998/1999

903

1 132

1999/2000

855

1 882

2000/2001

733

3 809

2001/2002

804

1 868

2002/2003

871

3 307

---

(1)  USDA (United States Department of Agriculture).

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/190 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/190

---

(2004/C 78 E/0196)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2924/03

by Salvador Garriga Polledo (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(6 October 2003)

Subject:   European Council to guarantee energy supplies

Summer 2003 will be remembered, inter alia, for the number of electricity black-outs which left various international communities deprived of the energy supplies, that public authorities should guarantee their citizens.

The fact that one of those communities was London, the capital of the UK, has led analysts to wonder whether the EU needs a European Consultative Council for guaranteeing energy supplies, in all forms, so that the distress occasioned by this summer's blackouts does not spread to other parts of the Community.

Does the Commission believe that it should set up a consultative council for secure energy supplies, with a view to protecting the whole EU from black-outs?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(13 November 2003)

No electricity system can be 100 % immune from interruptions. Having said that, a repeat of the large number of incidents during 2003 on a regular basis would be unacceptable to European citizens.

Generally, the Commission believes that it is the task of Member States to ensure the continuity of electricity supplies. This applies both to generation adequacy (sufficient generation capacity to meet the consumption at any time) and to network adequacy (sufficient transmission and distribution network capacity to serve the loads at any time).

However, as the electricity transmission of the whole Europe is interconnected, there is a need for a close co-operation between the system operators. To this end, the Union of Co-ordination of Transmission of Electricity (UCTE) at the request of the ‘Florence’ Electricity Regulation Forum, has initiated the work on the Operational Handbook which aims at binding security and reliability rules in the UCTE network.

This work serves mainly to consolidate existing agreements between system operators which have been in place for a number of years. The Commission, European regulators, the transmission system operator (TSOs) outside the UCTE area and other stakeholders have also participated in this work. The Regulation on cross-border trade of electricity provides for the possibility to include, in the guidelines on congestion management, common rules on minimum safety and operational standards for the use and operation of the network. It is the intention of the Commission that the future guidelines will include basic rules of this type in support of the development of the Handbook.

It is also considered important that the regulatory framework in place ensures adequate investments to the electricity generation and transmission infrastructure in medium and long term. The Commission intends to produce a Communication on this subject by the end of 2003, which will contain some specific proposals on this subject.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/190 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/190

---

(2004/C 78 E/0197)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2927/03

by Michl Ebner (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(6 October 2003)

Subject:   Urgent need to expand voluntary fire services

Mediterranean countries have again been hit this summer by devastating forest and bush fires. Large numbers of people have fallen victim to fires in Portugal and the south of France, which have been unusually frequent and have affected an unusually wide area. Enormous damage has also been caused both to the natural environment and the economy. It was only by deploying large numbers of personnel, and thanks to the help of numerous volunteers, that the fires were able to be brought under control. Discussions on the possibility of promoting the use of voluntary fire services date back to 1996.

To what extent is expansion of voluntary fire services, such as already exist in the South Tyrol, Austria and Germany, planned? Is such expansion also supported in Mediterranean countries?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(30 October 2003)

The Commission fully agrees with the Honourable Member regarding the role and the importance of volunteers and non-governmental organisations (NGOs) involved in the field of civil protection.

It appreciates the great work done by voluntary fire-fighters during the summer facing the overwhelming fires, especially in the southern Member States.

Already in 2002 a Union project on the role of non-governmental volunteers in the field of civil protection was finalised. This was conducted within the framework of the civil protection action programme (1). (Its results can be accessed on the website of the civil protection unit within Directorate General Environment: http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/civil/).

The project aimed at identifying the civil protection structure in the Member States and how the competent authorities could best benefit from NGOs or volunteers experience while including them in the civil protection system.

In the present action programme the Commission foresees for next year an activity to raise the awareness for volunteering in civil protection, obviously including the sector of volunteer fire fighting.

Finally, the Commission is open to any kind of initiative in this field, taking duly into account the principle of subsidiarity.

---

(1)  Council Decision 1999/847/EC of 9 December 1999 establishing a Community action programme in the field of civil protection, OJ L 327, 21.12.1999.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/191 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/191

---

(2004/C 78 E/0198)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2935/03

by Monica Frassoni (Verts/ALE) and Guido Sacconi (PSE) to the Commission

(6 October 2003)

Subject:   Inclusion of waste among the energy sources coming under the arrangements applying to renewable energy sources

Article 2(a) of Directive 2001/77/EC (1) on the promotion of electricity produced from renewable energy sources in the internal electricity market states that the term ‘renewable energy sources’ covers, among other things, ‘biomass’. Article 2(b) defines biomass 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’.

Article 15 (inclusion of waste among the energy sources coming under the arrangements applying to renewable energy sources) of the draft Presidential Decree incorporating into national law Directive 2001/77/EC on the promotion of electricity produced from renewable energy sources in the internal electricity market, which is currently in the process of being adopted in Italy, provides that waste, including the nonbiodegradable fraction, will come under the arrangements applying to renewable energy sources.

Although the final deadline for the directive's incorporation into national law is 27 October 2003, in its Inter-Environnement Wallonie ruling the Court of Justice confirmed that during the period between the adoption of a directive and the deadline for its transposition Member States must refrain from taking any measures liable to undermine the directive's objectives.

Given the above, can the Commission confirm:

| 1. | that Directive 2001/77/EC applies solely to the biodegradable fraction of waste? |
| --- | --- |

1.

that Directive 2001/77/EC applies solely to the biodegradable fraction of waste?

| 2. | that, in particular, the incentive system established therein applies solely to the biodegradable fraction of waste? |
| --- | --- |

2.

that, in particular, the incentive system established therein applies solely to the biodegradable fraction of waste?

| 3. | that national transposition measures which include the non-biodegradable fraction of waste among renewable energy sources for the purposes of Directive 2001/77/EC (as regards at least some of its provisions such as, in this instance, eligibility for the incentives laid down for renewable sources) are contrary to the directive's provisions? |
| --- | --- |

3.

that national transposition measures which include the non-biodegradable fraction of waste among renewable energy sources for the purposes of Directive 2001/77/EC (as regards at least some of its provisions such as, in this instance, eligibility for the incentives laid down for renewable sources) are contrary to the directive's provisions?

| 4. | that national arrangements seeking to make the non-biodegradable fraction of waste eligible for support under the scheme set up by the national authorities in accordance with Directive 2001/77/EC are, in addition to being contrary to the directive's provisions, in breach of the Treaty, with particular reference to Articles 87 and 88 thereof? |
| --- | --- |

4.

that national arrangements seeking to make the non-biodegradable fraction of waste eligible for support under the scheme set up by the national authorities in accordance with Directive 2001/77/EC are, in addition to being contrary to the directive's provisions, in breach of the Treaty, with particular reference to Articles 87 and 88 thereof?

| 5. | that national arrangements involving non-differentiated support (i.e. that also covers the nonbiodegradable fraction) for the incineration of waste on the basis of the principles laid down in Directive 2001/77/EC are not compatible with the Community waste management strategy set out in the Commission communication of 30 July 1996 (2), on which Directive 2001/77/EC is based? |
| --- | --- |

5.

that national arrangements involving non-differentiated support (i.e. that also covers the nonbiodegradable fraction) for the incineration of waste on the basis of the principles laid down in Directive 2001/77/EC are not compatible with the Community waste management strategy set out in the Commission communication of 30 July 1996 (2), on which Directive 2001/77/EC is based?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(20 November 2003)

The Commission confirms that the non-biodegradable fraction of waste is not regarded as a renewable energy source according to the definition in Article 2(b) in 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 (3).

The Directive has as a main purpose to promote an increase in the contribution of renewable energy sources to electricity production. However, the Directive does not establish a renewable energy support system. The Commission shall present not later than October 2005 a report on the different support systems existing in Member States and this report, if necessary, will be accompanied by a proposal for a Community framework with regard to support schemes, such as green certificates, for electricity produced from renewable energy sources.

Concerning its provisions on the eligibility for the incentives laid down for renewable sources of energy, Directive 2001/77/EC simply indicates that support should be granted ‘without prejudice to Article 87 and 88 of the Treaty’. National legislation that includes non-biodegradable waste amongst renewable sources of energy must therefore be in line with the Community State aid rules on environmental matters, which are laid down in the Community guidelines on State aid for environmental protection (4).

It is clear that the specific provisions of the guidelines concerning aid to renewable sources of energy (points E.1.3 and E.3.3 of the environmental guidelines) can only apply if these renewable sources are defined in accordance with Article 2 of Directive 2001/77/EC (see point 6 and footnote 7 of the environmental guidelines). These provisions are therefore not applicable to aid for the production of electricity from non-biodegradable waste. However, this type of aid could be in line with the provisions of the environmental guidelines applicable to operating aid to promote waste management (Point E.3.1 of the guidelines).

The objective of Directive 2001/77/EC has to be seen together with the waste management principles laid down in the Community waste strategy. National arrangements involving non-differentiated support (i.e. that also covers the non-biodegradable fraction) for the incineration of waste need to demonstrate that they do not run counter the principle of waste prevention and do not hinder waste re-use and recycling.

The Commission will carefully analyse the laws, regulations and administrative provisions which will be brought into force by Member States to comply with Directive 2001/77/EC.

---

(1)  OJ L 283, 27.10.2001, p. 33.

(2)  COM(96) 399 final.

(3)  ‘Biomass’ shall mean 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.

(4)  OJ C 37, 3.2.2001.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/193 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/193

---

(2004/C 78 E/0199)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2943/03

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(8 October 2003)

Subject:   European taxpayers' contribution to promoting and maintaining bullfighting and other local traditions involving cruelty to animals

| 1. | Is it possible that monies granted from the EU structural or cohesion funds to strengthen regional economies can be used to support the breeding of bulls especially for bullfighting or that some funds from the common agricultural policy can be allocated to providing an affordable range of feeding stuffs for bulls that are not bred for meat production but are specifically selected and even registered from birth for bullfighting? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is it possible that monies granted from the EU structural or cohesion funds to strengthen regional economies can be used to support the breeding of bulls especially for bullfighting or that some funds from the common agricultural policy can be allocated to providing an affordable range of feeding stuffs for bulls that are not bred for meat production but are specifically selected and even registered from birth for bullfighting?

| 2. | Has the Commission an overview of the amounts from the regional funds and the common agricultural policy, in particular the special premium for bull calves, which might have been used over the period 1993-2002 to promote and maintain bullfighting? If so, what were the absolute amounts and the relative percentages? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Has the Commission an overview of the amounts from the regional funds and the common agricultural policy, in particular the special premium for bull calves, which might have been used over the period 1993-2002 to promote and maintain bullfighting? If so, what were the absolute amounts and the relative percentages?

| 3. | Is the Commission aware of other cases, in addition to bullfighting in Spain, Portugal and the southern coast of France, in which EU funds are made available to maintain local cultural traditions that are considered repugnant and criminal offences involving cruelty to animals by citizens elsewhere in Europe, such as bullfighting, cockfighting and rodeos? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Is the Commission aware of other cases, in addition to bullfighting in Spain, Portugal and the southern coast of France, in which EU funds are made available to maintain local cultural traditions that are considered repugnant and criminal offences involving cruelty to animals by citizens elsewhere in Europe, such as bullfighting, cockfighting and rodeos?

| 4. | What means does the Commission have within the current rules for ensuring that no EU funds are used for such controversial purposes, irrespective of whether or not legislation and public opinion in the Member States concerned permits such activities as cultural traditions? |
| --- | --- |

4.

What means does the Commission have within the current rules for ensuring that no EU funds are used for such controversial purposes, irrespective of whether or not legislation and public opinion in the Member States concerned permits such activities as cultural traditions?

| 5. | If the means referred to in paragraph 4 are inadequate, is the Commission prepared to take steps to introduce further measures to require beneficiaries of EU funds to give a prior guarantee that no monies whatsoever will be used for the preparation, advertising or organisation of fighting involving animals and that, if such an assurance is not provided, the subsidies concerned will be withheld? |
| --- | --- |

5.

If the means referred to in paragraph 4 are inadequate, is the Commission prepared to take steps to introduce further measures to require beneficiaries of EU funds to give a prior guarantee that no monies whatsoever will be used for the preparation, advertising or organisation of fighting involving animals and that, if such an assurance is not provided, the subsidies concerned will be withheld?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(19 November 2003)

As a general rule, the Commission would like to point out that there is no specific Community legislation on the issue raised by the Honourable Member. Areas covered by Community legislation only concern animal welfare on the farm, slaughter of animals, conditions for transporting them and animals used in the laboratory. As the issue remains with the Member States competence, the Commission underlines that there is no all-embracing definition of animal cruelty currently accepted for all purposes by the Member States.

Having said that, as regards the specific questions raised by the Honourable Member, the Commission would like to provide the following information:

| — | Among different measures intended to support the income of beef and veal producers, Community legislation stipulates that a producer holding male bovine animals on his holding may qualify, on application, for a special premium. The special premium is granted no more than once in the life of each bull from the age of nine months, within the limits of a regional ceiling per Member State of not more than 90 animals for this age bracket per year and per holding. |
| --- | --- |

—

Among different measures intended to support the income of beef and veal producers, Community legislation stipulates that a producer holding male bovine animals on his holding may qualify, on application, for a special premium. The special premium is granted no more than once in the life of each bull from the age of nine months, within the limits of a regional ceiling per Member State of not more than 90 animals for this age bracket per year and per holding.

| — | In view of the costs generated by the rearing of the animals, the stock breeder of bulls does not postpone the granting of the premium, which is in general actually paid from the age laid down by the regulation, i.e. at a time when one does not know yet for which purpose the animal will be used. The stockbreeder of bulls of the type which could be used for bullfighting in the Member States concerned indeed decides which of his bulls will be intended for the fight only when animals reach adulthood. |
| --- | --- |

—

In view of the costs generated by the rearing of the animals, the stock breeder of bulls does not postpone the granting of the premium, which is in general actually paid from the age laid down by the regulation, i.e. at a time when one does not know yet for which purpose the animal will be used. The stockbreeder of bulls of the type which could be used for bullfighting in the Member States concerned indeed decides which of his bulls will be intended for the fight only when animals reach adulthood.

| — | According to information available to the Commission, on farms breeding bulls the proportion of animals which will actually be intended for the fight is very small in relation to the number of animals which will go to the slaughterhouse. The rest of the bulls of the herd are bred with a view to slaughter for consumption as well as ‘common’ bulls, since producers who select a small percentage of animals for the fight also are beef and veal producers. |
| --- | --- |

—

According to information available to the Commission, on farms breeding bulls the proportion of animals which will actually be intended for the fight is very small in relation to the number of animals which will go to the slaughterhouse. The rest of the bulls of the herd are bred with a view to slaughter for consumption as well as ‘common’ bulls, since producers who select a small percentage of animals for the fight also are beef and veal producers.

| — | It results from this that the special premium benefits producers in respect of all the male bovine animals they hold, including those finally intended for fighting. According to the legislation in force, the Member States are not obliged to indicate separately bulls on the basis of this criterion when they notify the Commission with information as regards the number of animals accepted for the premium each year. |
| --- | --- |

—

It results from this that the special premium benefits producers in respect of all the male bovine animals they hold, including those finally intended for fighting. According to the legislation in force, the Member States are not obliged to indicate separately bulls on the basis of this criterion when they notify the Commission with information as regards the number of animals accepted for the premium each year.

| — | In this context, the Commission cannot exclude these breeders from the granting of the special premium and of direct payments in general. Moreover, the Commission is not in a position to propose any differentiation between bulls according to their final destination since nothing distinguishes a priori ‘fighting bulls’ from other bulls, in particular with regard to their suitability for human consumption. |
| --- | --- |

—

In this context, the Commission cannot exclude these breeders from the granting of the special premium and of direct payments in general. Moreover, the Commission is not in a position to propose any differentiation between bulls according to their final destination since nothing distinguishes a priori ‘fighting bulls’ from other bulls, in particular with regard to their suitability for human consumption.

| — | The Commission adopted in January 2003 proposals for a reform of the Common Agricultural Policy. The Commission proposed to introduce a system of decoupled (from production) income support per farm by establishing a single farm payment to replace most of the premia under different Common Market Organisations (CMO), including beef and veal. Such proposal implies among others the end of the granting of direct payments, in particular the special premium for male bovine animals, to beef producers holding bulls including those finally intended for fighting. Furthermore, Commission proposals generalise the application of the principle of cross compliance. Farmers receiving direct payments must respect statutory management requirements as regards in particular animal welfare. As the rules governing the CMO in beef and veal including the direct payments to which all bovine animals are submitted are laid down in a Council Regulation, only the Council can change the current legal framework after the Parliament having given an opinion. |
| --- | --- |

—

The Commission adopted in January 2003 proposals for a reform of the Common Agricultural Policy. The Commission proposed to introduce a system of decoupled (from production) income support per farm by establishing a single farm payment to replace most of the premia under different Common Market Organisations (CMO), including beef and veal. Such proposal implies among others the end of the granting of direct payments, in particular the special premium for male bovine animals, to beef producers holding bulls including those finally intended for fighting. Furthermore, Commission proposals generalise the application of the principle of cross compliance. Farmers receiving direct payments must respect statutory management requirements as regards in particular animal welfare. As the rules governing the CMO in beef and veal including the direct payments to which all bovine animals are submitted are laid down in a Council Regulation, only the Council can change the current legal framework after the Parliament having given an opinion.

| — | Where the Structural Funds are concerned, the Commission can inform the Honourable Member that in response to a call for applications closing on 10 January 2003 a project entitled Minotauro was submitted for Community financing under the Interreg IIIC Community Initiative. The project leader was located in Spain and there were nine partners from four Member States: France, Greece, Portugal and Spain. It was submitted as a project to network local authorities involved in culture management and not as a specific project for activities linked to bullfighting. |
| --- | --- |

—

Where the Structural Funds are concerned, the Commission can inform the Honourable Member that in response to a call for applications closing on 10 January 2003 a project entitled Minotauro was submitted for Community financing under the Interreg IIIC Community Initiative. The project leader was located in Spain and there were nine partners from four Member States: France, Greece, Portugal and Spain. It was submitted as a project to network local authorities involved in culture management and not as a specific project for activities linked to bullfighting.

| — | This project was not in fact selected for Community financing. |
| --- | --- |

—

This project was not in fact selected for Community financing.

| — | The Commission would however point out that under the regulatory provisions on management of Structural Fund assistance project analysis, assessment and selection is entirely a matter for the national and regional authorities appointed by the Member States as managing authorities for the various Structural Fund programmes. For all projects submission and selection procedures defined at national or regional level must therefore be followed and projects must satisfy the eligibility and selection criteria laid down in each programme. Obviously the Commission has a responsibility to see that the entire procedure conforms with Community law. But all questions of the priority to be given to and the desirability of aiding particular projects are a matter for the representative bodies of the Member States, regions and other relevant bodies. |
| --- | --- |

—

The Commission would however point out that under the regulatory provisions on management of Structural Fund assistance project analysis, assessment and selection is entirely a matter for the national and regional authorities appointed by the Member States as managing authorities for the various Structural Fund programmes. For all projects submission and selection procedures defined at national or regional level must therefore be followed and projects must satisfy the eligibility and selection criteria laid down in each programme. Obviously the Commission has a responsibility to see that the entire procedure conforms with Community law. But all questions of the priority to be given to and the desirability of aiding particular projects are a matter for the representative bodies of the Member States, regions and other relevant bodies.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/195 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/195

---

(2004/C 78 E/0200)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2946/03

by Dana Scallon (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(8 October 2003)

Subject:   Specific programme for research

In the European Commission 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 Commission 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?

Answer given by Mr Busquin on behalf of the Commission

(7 November 2003)

The Commission would like to inform the Honourable Member that in the context of the Commission proposal (2) and the condition (e) of the annex it refers to, the ‘donor(s)’ refers to the person(s) who is legally responsible for the human embryo created as a result of medically-assisted in vitro fertilisation designed to induce pregnancy and no longer to be used for that purpose (supernumerary embryo).

The person(s) legally responsible is defined differently in national legislations regulating in vitro fertilisation. For that reason, the Commission proposal (3), in the context of subsidiarity, makes reference to national legislation which imposes specific requirements concerning the consent procedure of the donor(s).

---

(1)  COM(2003) 390 final.

(2)  COM(2003) 390.

(3)  COM(2003) 390 final — 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).

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/195 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/195

---

(2004/C 78 E/0201)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2947/03

by Peter Liese (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(2 October 2003)

Subject:   Trupbach industrial estate

On 24 April 2003, the Commission delivered its opinion on the plan for an industrial estate on the former military training area of Trupbach in Siegerland. The Commission rejected the plan while, on the same day, three other projects on FFH sites (Rotterdam port, a mine at Bottrop, a railway line in Sweden) were given the go-ahead on grounds of overriding public interest. The Commission justifies its rejection of the plan, in particular, on the grounds that it was not adequately shown that there were no alternatives to the proposal and that the competent authorities (the Land of Nordrhein-Westfalen) did not propose any compensatory measures.

Is it correct that the opinion on the Trupbach industrial estate is the only negative opinion delivered by the Commission on a project planned within an FFH site? Is it correct that decisive reasons for the negative opinion were that no compensatory measures were proposed and that it was not adequately shown why there were no alternatives to this project? Was this a case of failure to apply the FFH Directive properly? Can the Commission confirm that an application which put forward better reasons why there are no alternatives available and which proposed compensatory measures would possibly hold out the prospect of a positive opinion from the Commission?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(24 October 2003)

Since the adoption of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (1) the Commission has issued six opinions in accordance to Article 6, paragraph 4 of that Directive. The Commission opinion of 24 April 2003 concerning the creation of a new industrial area ‘Siegerland’ within the former military training area Trupbach near Siegen/Freudenberg (North Rhine-Westfalia) is the only negative opinion issued so far in this context.

On the basis of the information available, the Commission concluded that a number of alternative sites exist that may represent relevant alternatives for providing additional space for industrial settlement to the city of Siegen. According to Article 6(4) of Directive 92/43/EEC, the absence of alternative solutions is a first condition for authorising projects that have a significant negative impact on sites protected by this Directive.

The Commission also expressed the view that there was no evidence for particular imperative reasons of overriding public interest for creating one large additional industrial area on the Trupbach site, whereas the absence of alternative sites in the region had not been clearly demonstrated.

The provision of compensatory measures necessary to ensure that the overall coherence of Natura 2000 is protected is an additional condition to the authorisation of projects that have a significant negative effect on sites protected by Directive 92/43/EEC, also when there is no alternative to a project and when a project is justified by imperative reasons of overriding public interest. This condition was not fulfilled.

In relation to the planned industrial site in Trupbach (Siegen), Directive 92/43/EEC was correctly applied in so far that a Commission opinion was requested according to Article 6(4) of the Directive and that the project was not authorised by the competent authorities before an opinion was issued. However, as it was laid out above, not all the provisions of Article 6(3) and (4) were applied in a satisfactory way. Detailed guidelines on the correct application of these provisions were published by the Commission in November 2000 and in 2001 (2).

Any possible new request for a revised Commission opinion on the planned industrial area would only make sense if clear evidence could be provided, demonstrating that there are no feasible alternatives to the planned project, that the project is justified by imperative reasons of overriding public interest and that all compensatory measures are being taken that are necessary to ensure that the overall coherence of Natura 2000 is protected. In the event of a renewed application the Commission will base its opinion on an analysis of the information presented related to these elements.

---

(1)  OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.

(2)  Managing Natura 2000 Sites — The provisions of Article 6 of the ‘Habitats’ Directive 92/43/EEC (Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, 2000) and Assessment of plans and projects significantly affecting Natura 2000 sites (Methodological guidance on the provisions of Article 6(3) and (4) of the Habitats Directive 92/43/EEC (Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, 2001).

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/197 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/197

---

(2004/C 78 E/0202)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2948/03

by Christopher Heaton-Harris (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(2 October 2003)

Subject:   Whistleblowing provisions

How many people have used Commissioner Kinnock's whistleblowing provisions since they were announced?

Answer given by Ms Schreyer on behalf of the Commission

(2 December 2003)

The whistleblowing procedure was put in place by the Commission as part of the reform in order to enable and encourage officials and other staff to express their concern about any malfunctioning coming to their attention while guaranteeing whistleblowers every protection.

Article 2 of the Commission Decision of 2 June 1999 (1) requires officials and other staff to inform their Head of Service or Director-General, or the European Anti-fraud Office (OLAF) or Secretariat-General direct, of any evidence giving rise to the presumption of the existence of possible cases of fraud.

The Commission decision of 4 April 2002 restates the obligation on all official or other staff to inform at once their superiors, the Secretary-General or OLAF direct of any evidence they have suggesting some illegal practice and also offers them the possibility of disclosing information outside the Commission or the European Anti-fraud Office in certain well-defined circumstances.

The Commission does not collect general statistics about the number of people having used the whistleblowing procedure. OLAF receives information from a large number of sources which may include whistleblowing by Community staff. However, the categories referred to in the OLAF activity report (see http://europa.eu.int/comm/anti_fraud/reports/olaf/2002.en) make the distinction between Commission, other institutions, freephone, etc but do not make it possible to link the incoming information via an instrument put in place by the Commission with whistleblowing.

OLAF has told the Commission, concerning the information it receives, that since 1 June 1999, 76 investigations have been opened on the basis of allegations coming from ‘Commission information sources’.

The Commission President announced to Plenary on 18 November that the Commission's Action Plan following the Eurostat affair will include provisions to strengthen information flows between OLAF and the Commission.

---

(1)  Commission Decision of 2 June 1999 concerning the terms and conditions for internal investigations in relation to the prevention of fraud, corruption and any illegal activity detrimental to the Communities' interests, OJ L 149, 16.6.1999.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/197 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/197

---

(2004/C 78 E/0203)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2964/03

by Brigitte Langenhagen (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(2 October 2003)

Subject:   Digital recording equipment

Article 2(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2135/98 (1) stipulates that the Commission shall submit a proposal to the Council and (in accordance with Article 251 of the EC Treaty) Parliament for an extension of the deadlines for issuing driver cards (deadline 5 May 2004) and fitting digital recording equipment (deadline 5 August 2004) if type-approval has not been granted by 5 August 2003. To date no type-approval has been issued, and in accordance with Chapter VIII of Annex 1 B to Regulation (EEC) No 3821/85 (2) type-approval cannot be expected before the first quarter of 2004 at the earliest. Nevertheless, the Commission has not yet submitted any proposal for a codecision procedure to set new deadlines.

If the Commission does not initiate the codecision procedure and the deadlines of 5 May 2004 for issuing cards and 5 August 2004 for fitting equipment continue to apply, there is a serious danger that the car industry and possibly some Member States will not have sufficient time to ensure the smooth introduction of this major new system.

Given that, for legal reasons, type-approval cannot be granted before the end of 2003, can the Commission say what legal and practical steps it will take to guarantee the trouble-free introduction of digital recording equipment simultaneously in all the Member States?

Has the Commission carried out a risk analysis of both alternatives when considering whether or not to initiate a codecision procedure, and what was the outcome?

Does the Commission see the danger that, if the industry and authorities are set unclear or unrealistic deadlines, the introduction of digital recording equipment is likely to be delayed for longer than it would be if the codecision procedure was initiated?

As a matter of principle, how does the Commission view Parliament's rights under Article 2(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2135/98?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(18 November 2003)

Recently, the Commission was provided by the tachograph manufacturers with new information concerning the state of the type approvals for the digital recording equipment. The Commission regrets the fact that contrary to former statements issued by the industry in the beginning of this year, according to which type approval could be expected before the end of this year, it is now stated that type approval in the best case should be expected to be granted by April 2004. Up to now, in letters to Members of the Parliament, Member States and other stakeholders based on statements provided previously by the industry, the Commission has said that it would assess the situation, when the first type approvals were expected to be granted. Now that it has become clear that there will be no type approval by the end of 2003, the Commission will have to re-assess the situation. The decision not to extend the implementation deadlines, taken by the Commission earlier this year, was based on an analysis of the options available, after the tachograph manufacturers had informed the Commission that the type approval of their equipment would be delayed by a few months. On the basis of this assessment the Commission decided not to submit a proposal for extension of the implementation deadlines. Such an extension was not justified as it would have led to considerable delay in the overall introduction of the digital tachograph and to an unacceptable situation from a road safety point of view.

The Commission is well aware both of the need to set clear and realistic implementation deadlines as well as of the prerogatives of the Community legislator under Article 2(3) of Regulation No 2135/98 (3). The Commission will reconsider the situation once it is clear when the first type approvals will be granted. The Commission expects industry to accelerate their work.

---

(1)  OJ L 274, 9.10.1998, p. 1.

(2)  OJ L 370, 31.12.1985, p. 8.

(3)  OJ L 274, 9.10.1998.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/199 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/199

---

(2004/C 78 E/0204)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2965/03

by Graham Watson (ELDR) to the Commission

(8 October 2003)

Subject:   Endometriosis research funding

How much funding has been provided by the EU towards endometriosis research in the past three years?

Answer given by Mr Busquin on behalf of the Commission

(10 November 2003)

The Commission has not funded proposals addressing specifically endometriosis research in the last three years.

A project funded in the Fifth Research and Technological Development Framework Programme: ‘Life Sciences Programme’ (Key action environment and Health) on ‘Comparison of exposure-effect pathways to improve the assessment of human health risks of complex environmental mixtures of organohalogens’ partly addresses this disease; it studies possible associations of environmental exposure and endometriosis. As endometriosis is not the main focus of this project it is, however, not feasible to estimate the specific funding for endometriosis in this project.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/199 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/199

---

(2004/C 78 E/0205)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2969/03

by Roberto Bigliardo (UEN) to the Commission

(8 October 2003)

Subject:   Management of EUR 150 000 of Community funds — involvement of a Romanian government minister

According to the Romanian press, the husband and the son of the Romanian Minister for European Integration are making improper use of EUR 150 000 awarded under the Leonardo da Vinci programme for vocational training. The Romanian press and the French newspaper Le Monde of 23 September 2003 further report that the Commission sent experts to Bucharest who stayed there for only one day — at the seat of the EU representation.

| 1. | Can the Commission say what kind of credibility such a Community programme can have that awards funds to companies run by family members of a Minister for European Integration? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Can the Commission say what kind of credibility such a Community programme can have that awards funds to companies run by family members of a Minister for European Integration?

| 2. | Can the Commission provide detailed accounts of the use of these funds by the following companies:






  — | Haka Industrienlagen; |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

Can the Commission provide detailed accounts of the use of these funds by the following companies:

—

Haka Industrienlagen;

| — | Millenium; |
| --- | --- |

—

Millenium;

| — | Imes; |
| --- | --- |

—

Imes;

| — | Debrom? |
| --- | --- |

—

Debrom?

| 3. | What does the Commission intend to do to remedy this situation? |
| --- | --- |

3.

What does the Commission intend to do to remedy this situation?

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(18 November 2003)

The sum of EUR 150 000 relates to two mobility projects submitted in 2000 (i.e. before Mrs Puwak was appointed Minister for European Integration) and another two in 2001.

The audit carried out by four Commission officials (two days in Bucharest then analysis of the documents submitted in Brussels) concluded that the Romanian National Agency had called in independent experts for the evaluation of project proposals in 2000 and 2001.

The Commission did not find evidence of any external attempt to influence this process, notably on the part of the Romanian Government of the time.

For the record, the companies Imes and Haka, which were present at the proposal submission stage, were replaced by the companies Millenium Consulting and DE*BE*ROM respectively as partners for hosting trainees.

Management of the mobility support measure is decentralised and is the responsibility of the national authorities, in this case the Romanian Ministry of Education. It has set up a special committee to carry out another complete analysis of the reports from the four projects in question, looking in particular at the supporting documentation for expenditure. The results of this inquiry should be released in the first week of November 2003. The Ministry of Education has agreed to take any action deemed necessary in the light of these results.

The Commission is following the Romanian committee of inquiry's work closely.

Following the above mission, some irregularities were uncovered by the Directorate-General for Education and Culture during a detailed examination of the files on the management of the Community funds granted to the four projects. The Commission has made its position known to the Romanian authorities. The European Antifraud Office has been called in to assess the allegations and is available to assist the authorities concerned.

In any event, the Romanian National Agency was asked, back in late 2001, to draw up a plan for improving mobility procedures.

On a broader scale, in January 2002 the Commission began setting up a quality assurance system for the different stages of the mobility support measure for all participant countries.

The next stage will involve:

| — | developing the quality assurance approach for the partnerships: creating a ‘Leonardo da Vinci charter’ setting out the promoter's and its partners' obligations; |
| --- | --- |

—

developing the quality assurance approach for the partnerships: creating a ‘Leonardo da Vinci charter’ setting out the promoter's and its partners' obligations;

| — | improving the beneficiary reporting system in order to gain a better insight into their traineeships; |
| --- | --- |

—

improving the beneficiary reporting system in order to gain a better insight into their traineeships;

| — | defining what is required from the National Agencies in terms of monitoring projects, based on previously developed best practices. |
| --- | --- |

—

defining what is required from the National Agencies in terms of monitoring projects, based on previously developed best practices.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/200 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/200

---

(2004/C 78 E/0206)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2971/03

by Alexander de Roo (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(6 October 2003)

Subject:   Toxic ships

In 2003 (as of 1 September) 124 ships were dumped by European shipowners on breaking beaches in Asia. This means that for all these 124 ships, toxic chemicals like asbestos, PCB, oil, sludge and paints have found their way into the environment, polluting an ecosystem that is already being pushed to its limits. In addition, workers on these breaking beaches have been exposed to dangerous and potentially lethal substances.

The current waste regulation ((EEC) 259/93 (1)) in the European Union prohibits the export of hazardous wastes. The European Parliament attaches great importance to upholding these regulations to prevent environmental pollution from wastes. The export of old ships in effect is the same as the export of hazardous waste and there is concern that if nothing changes the European Union will continue to allow the illegal export of hazardous waste despite existing regulations.

We draw the attention of the Commission to the following ship that is part of the batch of 124 sent to Asia in 2003.

Skopelos, a crude oil tanker (274 949 dwt) from 1974 under Greek flag. The main heading for the vessel was Aeolos Management S.A. The registered owner was E.N.E. Skopelos Ltd (a small Greek company with apparently no other ships).

The final voyage of this vessel in 2003 started directly out of European waters straight to Bangladeshi breaking yards by the following schedule:

| — | Piraeus, GRC: after 12.4.2003 — before 25.4.2003; |
| --- | --- |

—

Piraeus, GRC: after 12.4.2003 — before 25.4.2003;

| — | Suez, EGY: 25.4.2003 — 25.4.2003; |
| --- | --- |

—

Suez, EGY: 25.4.2003 — 25.4.2003;

| — | Fujairah Anch., ARE: 10.5.2003 — 16.5.2003; |
| --- | --- |

—

Fujairah Anch., ARE: 10.5.2003 — 16.5.2003;

| — | Chittagong Roads, BGD: 27.5.2003 — before 04.6.2003; |
| --- | --- |

—

Chittagong Roads, BGD: 27.5.2003 — before 04.6.2003;

| — | Chittagong, BGD: 04.6.2003; |
| --- | --- |

—

Chittagong, BGD: 04.6.2003;

Does Council Regulation (EEC) 259/93 apply in the case of exporting ships like Skopelos from the European Union to shipbreaking yards in developing countries, and are ships like Skopelos that are destined for dismantling considered as hazardous waste?

What will the European Commission do to ensure that the competent authorities (in the case of Skopelos, Greece) will act according to the rules and procedures laid down in Council Regulation (EEC) 259/93 to ensure that there will be no illegal export of ships to Asian breaking yards?

What will the European Commission do to ensure that shipowners (in the case of Skopelos, Aeolus Management SA from Piraeus, Greece) will act according to rules and procedures laid down in Council Regulation (EEC) 259/93?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(1 December 2003)

Regulation (EEC) No 259/93 applies to shipments of waste within, into and out of the Community.

The definition of waste is laid down in Directive 75/442/EEC, as amended and the definition of ‘hazardous waste’ is defined in Directive 91/689/EEC, as amended

The European Court of Justice has ruled on a number of occasions concerning the concept of waste and it is clear from the jurisprudence that the term ‘waste’ is not to be construed restrictively. Instead, all the relevant circumstances must be taken into consideration in order to determine whether the holder ‘discards’, ‘intends’ or ‘is required to discard’ as prescribed in the definition. If an end of life ships is sent to the mentioned destination for the purpose of breaking up, it is to be considered as waste given that the holder intends to discard it.

As regards the objective element of the waste definition — the duty to discard — the question is when this duty is established. Certain legislation, like for example 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) can contribute to answering this question (see in particular Article 9).

The ‘discarding’ or the ‘intention to discard’ element depends very much on concrete circumstances in each individual case and on the visibility of this intention to the outside world. A number of qualifying circumstances may point to evidence of intention from an objective perspective (e.g. a contract regarding the dismantling of the ship, state of repair, deletion from the ship registry, age of the ship, etc.) The difficulties in establishing this subjective ‘intention to discard’ are obvious.

However, it is clear that first of all a ship can be considered a waste and generally speaking, a ship constitutes a waste when it is discarded or is intended or required to be discarded — meaning from the moment that it is the intention of the owner not to use it as a ship anymore. A ship destined for dismantling is thus to be considered a waste.

The Regulation does not exclude neither end of life ships or carriage by sea from its scope.

However the Regulation does contain an exception with regard to waste listed in Annex II (non-hazardous) that is destined for recovery only. The question therefore is if end of life ships as those in question are listed in Annex II. Entry GC 030 of Annex III lists ‘vessels and other floating structures for breaking up, properly emptied of any cargo and other materials arising from the operation of the vessel which may have been classified as a dangerous substance or waste’. However, ships destined for dismantling are usually not ‘properly emptied’ to an extend that will justify listing in Annex II. Also they might not be destined for recovery but rather disposal. In such cases the exception is therefore not applicable.

Most ships contain different kinds of inorganic materials e.g. asbestos which is used as fire protection and insulation material for pipes and cabin walls. Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB) are used to insulate cables and lead and tributyltin are used for painting.

These hazardous materials are listed as hazardous entries in the EU waste list. More importantly, such waste is also listed in Annex V of the Regulation. Annex V lists waste subject to the ban on export of hazardous waste from OECD to non-OECD countries as implemented in the Regulation (EEC) No 259/93. The export-ban originates from the Basel Convention.

Inter alia the following hazardous entries relevant for ships destined for dismantling can be found in Annex V, Part 1, list A:

| — | A2050 Waste asbestos (dusts and fibres); |
| --- | --- |

—

A2050 Waste asbestos (dusts and fibres);

| — | A3020 Waste mineral oils unfit for their originally intended use; |
| --- | --- |

—

A3020 Waste mineral oils unfit for their originally intended use;

| — | A4060 Waste oils/water, hydrocarbons/water mixtures, emulsions; |
| --- | --- |

—

A4060 Waste oils/water, hydrocarbons/water mixtures, emulsions;

| — | A4070 Wastes from the production, formulation and use of inks, dyes, pigments, paints, lacquers, varnish excluding any such waste specified on list Β (note the related entry on list Β, Β4010). |
| --- | --- |

—

A4070 Wastes from the production, formulation and use of inks, dyes, pigments, paints, lacquers, varnish excluding any such waste specified on list Β (note the related entry on list Β, Β4010).

If a ship destined for dismantling is not emptied of all cargo and other hazardous materials arising from its operation, it is to be considered a hazardous waste. In practice it is impossible for a ship still sailing on its own power to be emptied as described and in order to sail it will always carry some hazardous materials, e.g. asbestos. Consequently it is to be considered a hazardous waste.

Enforcement of and inspection of compliance with Community legislation, including waste legislation is the responsibility of the Member States. The Commission encourages co-operation between Member States, inter alia through the IMPEL network, to ensure proper implementation of the Regulation and the ban on export of hazardous waste on non-OECD countries.

---

(1)  OJ L 30, 6.2.1993, p. 1.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/203 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/203

---

(2004/C 78 E/0207)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2973/03

by Jean-Louis Bernié (EDD) to the Commission

(6 October 2003)

Subject:   Marais Breton site — September 2003

In his letter of 25 August 2003, addressed to Mr Jean-Louis Bernié, Senator Oudin (Vendée/France) stated:

| | The step taken by France (la démarche de la France) being contractual, there is no obligation on local authorities to apply the recommended management measures. |
| --- | --- |

The step taken by France (la démarche de la France) being contractual, there is no obligation on local authorities to apply the recommended management measures.

In the light of the entire European legal arsenal, can the Commission confirm to me that a Member State may decide, that in the absence of financial compensation (e.g. for owners, farmers, fishermen, hunters or other ‘users’ of nature) there is no obligation incumbent on local authorities in Natura 2000 sites?

Does the Commission believe that a contractual policy can, by itself, guarantee the conservation of the Natura 2000 sites?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(19 November 2003)

To answer the Honourable Member's first question, Article 6 of Directive 92/43/EEC (1) applies. This requires Member States to establish the necessary conservation measures for special conservation areas. They must also take appropriate measures to avoid the deterioration of natural habitats and the habitats of species in these areas. This may involve requiring local authorities to apply the recommended management measures, whether or not there is financial compensation.

In reply to the Honourable Member's second question on the contractual policy applicable to the management of Natura 2000 sites, the Commission does not believe that such a policy can, by itself, guarantee the protection and conservation of the sites.

Article 6(1) of Directive 92/43/EEC provides for positive measures for all special conservation areas, in order to achieve the Directive's general objective, which is to maintain or restore at a favourable conservation status natural habitats and species of wild fauna and flora of Community interest. These conservation measures must meet the ecological requirements of the Annex I natural habitats and Annex II species present on the sites. They can take two forms: appropriate statutory, administrative or contractual measures, or if need be, appropriate management plans.

The choice between statutory, administrative or contractual measures and even the choice of management plans is the responsibility of the Member States. These arrangements comply with the principle of subsidiarity. The Member States must however choose at least one of the three categories: statutory, administrative or contractual measures. The Member States are free to use, on a Natura 2000 site, a single category of measures (e.g. contractual measures), or combined measures (e.g. a combination of statutory and contractual measures, depending on the conservation problems affecting the Annex I natural habitats and the Annex II species present on the sites). In addition to the compulsory measures chosen, the Member States may also define and implement management plans.

However, whatever type of measures the Member States choose, they must comply with the general objectives of the Directive. If a Member State chooses contractual measures, it is still required to establish, on a permanent basis, conservation measures which meet the ecological requirements of Annex I natural habitats and Annex II species present on the sites, and it must still comply with the Directive's general conservation objective.

In addition to the general conservation measures the Member States must establish for special conservation areas under Article 6(1) of the Directive, the requirements of Article 6(2), (3) and (4) also apply. These provide for preventive measures to avoid deterioration, disturbance and adverse effects on Natura 2000 sites.

---

(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.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/204 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/204

---

(2004/C 78 E/0208)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2980/03

by Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(9 October 2003)

Subject:   Suspension of funding for public works studies in Greece from the Community budget

According to reports which have appeared in the Greek press, Community funding for advance studies for all projects covered by the Structural Funds has been suspended owing to a breach of Community law.

More specifically, the Commission Director-General for the internal market stated in a letter sent to the other directors-general on 31 July 2003 that he had detected infringements of Community directives, notably Directive 92/50/EEC (1) on public contracts. As a result, the press reports state that it was decided to suspend the financing of studies.

| 1. | What is the Commission's official position on this matter? |
| --- | --- |

1.

What is the Commission's official position on this matter?

| 2. | If the Commission has already made cuts, to what extent will the reduction in funding for studies affect the budget? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If the Commission has already made cuts, to what extent will the reduction in funding for studies affect the budget?

| 3. | How will these studies be financed? |
| --- | --- |

3.

How will these studies be financed?

| 4. | If studies are financed from national funds despite the Commission's objections in relation to compatibility with Community law, is it possible that the projects themselves could still be financed through the Structural Funds and the Cohesion Fund? |
| --- | --- |

4.

If studies are financed from national funds despite the Commission's objections in relation to compatibility with Community law, is it possible that the projects themselves could still be financed through the Structural Funds and the Cohesion Fund?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(7 January 2004)

| 1. | In the course of a regularly scheduled on-the-spot control mission concerning the Egnatia project, the studies of which are partly co-financed through the Trans-European Transport Network (TEN-T) budget line, some issues were identified, which showed that Egnatia's practices for the award of study contracts may not be compatible with public procurement rules and thus required further clarification. Egnatia seems to award the contracts on the basis of the quality of the enterprise itself and not the quality of the services which selected enterprises can provide, which would be contrary to Council Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992 relating to the coordination of procedures for the award of public service contracts.
  The Commission is in close contact with the Greek authorities, in order to collect all necessary information which would allow it to assess the issues raised. |
| --- | --- |

1.

In the course of a regularly scheduled on-the-spot control mission concerning the Egnatia project, the studies of which are partly co-financed through the Trans-European Transport Network (TEN-T) budget line, some issues were identified, which showed that Egnatia's practices for the award of study contracts may not be compatible with public procurement rules and thus required further clarification. Egnatia seems to award the contracts on the basis of the quality of the enterprise itself and not the quality of the services which selected enterprises can provide, which would be contrary to Council Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992 relating to the coordination of procedures for the award of public service contracts.

The Commission is in close contact with the Greek authorities, in order to collect all necessary information which would allow it to assess the issues raised.

| 2. | Whilst awaiting the outcome of the compatibility assessment under the public procurement rules, a part of the payments, namely those linked to the Ten-T budget line, has been suspended by the Commission (the suspended payments concern 38 decisions — studies — which amount to EUR 82 million of the total planned support). |
| --- | --- |

2.

Whilst awaiting the outcome of the compatibility assessment under the public procurement rules, a part of the payments, namely those linked to the Ten-T budget line, has been suspended by the Commission (the suspended payments concern 38 decisions — studies — which amount to EUR 82 million of the total planned support).

| 3. and 4. | Should the Commission reach the conclusion that an infringement of Community law is at stake, it may initiate the procedure foreseen under article 226 EC. In such a case, all Community payments (i.e. including those concerning the European Regional Development Fund and the Cohesion Fund) related to the subject-matter of the possible infringement proceeding will have to be suspended. The Commission would like to stress that a cooperative dialogue is currently taking place between the Greek authorities and the competent Commission services with a view to clarify the current situation and bring the possible infringement to an end. |
| --- | --- |

3. and 4.

Should the Commission reach the conclusion that an infringement of Community law is at stake, it may initiate the procedure foreseen under article 226 EC. In such a case, all Community payments (i.e. including those concerning the European Regional Development Fund and the Cohesion Fund) related to the subject-matter of the possible infringement proceeding will have to be suspended. The Commission would like to stress that a cooperative dialogue is currently taking place between the Greek authorities and the competent Commission services with a view to clarify the current situation and bring the possible infringement to an end.

---

(1)  OJ L 209, 24.7.1992, p. 1.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/205 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/205

---

(2004/C 78 E/0209)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2982/03

by Mihail Papayannakis (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(9 October 2003)

Subject:   Stability pact

In reply to my Oral Question H-0564/01 (1) to the Council on the Greek stability and development programme I was informed that ‘on 12 February 2001, the Ecofin Council discussed Greece's initial stability programme which relates to the 2000-2004 period (...). The Ecofin Council was of the opinion that, under normal circumstances, the budget estimates provide sufficient guarantees against exceeding the shortage threshold of 3 %’.

It has been reported that, after carrying out exhaustive checks on the budgets for projects in connection with the Olympic Games in cooperation with the ‘Athens 2004’ organisation, the Greek Government has now concluded that an additional sum of around EUR 2,3 billion will be required in 2003-2004 to complete the projects. To what extent does the Commission believe that Greece will not exceed the safety margin and that its deficit will remain stable? Does the Commission still take the view that Greece has not deviated from the constraints set by the stability pact in the two years that have passed since the Ecofin Council first assessed Greece's financial situation?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(4 November 2003)

The Commission is closely monitoring developments in the Greek public finances all the more that the increasing costs of the preparations for the Olympics as well as the cost of the announced social package seem to add significant pressures to the State budget. In fact, the Greek Government has recently revised the figure for the general government deficit to 1,4 % of the gross domestic product (GDP) in 2003. In spring, the Commission forecasted the government deficit at 1,1 % of GDP in 2003 and 1,0 % of GDP in 2004. Recent developments imply that these estimates will be certainly revised in the Commission Autumn forecasts, which, however, are not completed as yet. Under these circumstances, it is certain that the Commission will examine with the closest attention budgetary developments in Greece in case clear signs of deterioration would emerge; it should be reminded that the Council in its Opinion on the 2002 updated stability programme (January 2003) recommended to Greece to implement stronger and more robust medium term budgetary adjustment; it was stressed that this effort was required taking into consideration the still very high level of the government debt and its insufficient decline in the recent years.

---

(1)  Written answer of 4.7.2001.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/206 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/206

---

(2004/C 78 E/0210)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2983/03

by Mihail Papayannakis (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(9 October 2003)

Subject:   Instances of infringements of Community legislation on the environment

Can the Commission say in which specific cases it has identified incompatibilities between Greek legislation and Community legislation on the environment? In which of these cases has the Commission launched infringement proceedings against Greece?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(12 November 2003)

On 21 October 2003, there were 92 cases open concerning suspected or confirmed infringements of Community environmental legislation in Greece. Of these, 24 relate to Community waste management legislation, 19 relate to Directive 85/337/EEC, as amended by Directive 97/11/EC (1), 19 concern nature protection, 13 relate to air pollution, 11 relate to water, and the remaining six concern other areas of Community environmental legislation. In 42 cases the Commission, considering that Greece has failed to meet its obligations under Community environmental legislation, has initiated infringement proceedings under Article 226 or Article 228 of the EC Treaty.

For 11 infringement cases, the Commission has sent Greece a reasoned opinion in accordance with Article 226 of the Treaty. The infringements concern the designation of special protection areas under Directive 79/409/EEC (2), the construction of a waste water treatment plant in Gerani, the treatment of used oils, protection of the Mesolongi lagoon, an illegal waste dump in Paiania, sewage sludge treatment at the Psittalia plant, the Maroulas waste dump on Crete, and failure to notify measures transposing Directives 2000/69/EC (3), 2000/76/EC (4), 2001/80/EC (5) and 2001/81/EC (6).

The Commission has already brought nine cases before the Court of Justice: case C-301/01 (non-conformity of measure transposing Directive 85/337/EEC into Greek law), C-119/02 (failure to establish a system for the collection and appropriate treatment of urban waste waster in the Thriassio region), C-420/02 (operation of a waste dump at the Pera Galinoi site on Crete), C-163/03 (pollution in the Thriassio Pedio region), C-167/03 (incompatibility of Greek hunting legislation with the Birds Directive), C-246/03 (failure to notify measures transposing Directive 2000/53/EC (7)), C-247/2003 (failure to notify measures transposing Directive 1999/22/EC (8)), C-364/03 (operating conditions at a power station in Linoperamata, Crete), C-416/03 (failure to notify measures transposing Directive 2001/18/EC (9)).

The Commission, considering that Greece has not taken the measures required to comply with certain judgments of the Court of Justice, has also initiated infringement proceedings under Article 228 of the EC Treaty. The cases in question concern failure to establish programmes including quality objectives in order to reduce pollution caused by dangerous substances covered by the first indent of list II in the annex to Directive 76/464/EEC (10) (judgment of 25 May 2000, C-384/97), failure to establish and implement an effective system of strict protection for the sea turtle Caretta caretta on Zakynthos (judgment of 30 January 2002, C-103/00) and failure to provide the information specified in Article 8(3) of Directive 91/689/EEC (11).

The Commission has also decided to bring two more infringement cases before the Court of Justice. On 21 October 2003, the preparations for lodging the applications were in hand. The infringements concern the operation in Greece of a large number of illegal or uncontrolled waste dumps and the inadequate treatment of waste water in Athens.

In its judgments of 5 June 2003, the Court of Justice stated that, by failing to notify measures transposing Directive 2000/14/EC (12) (C-352/02) and by failing to communicate the information referred to in Article 11 of Directive 96/59/EC (13) (C-83/02), Greece had failed to fulfil its obligations under those Directives.

---

(1)  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, OJ L 73, 14.3.1997.

(2)  Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds, OJ L 103, 25.4.1979.

(3)  Directive 2000/69/EC of Parliament and of the Council of 16 November 2000 relating to limit values for benzene and carbon monoxide in ambient air, OJ L 313, 13.12.2000.

(4)  Directive 2000/76/EC of Parliament and of the Council of 4 December 2000 on the incineration of waste, OJ L 332, 28.12.2000.

(5)  Directive 2001/80/EC of Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2001 on the limitation of emissions of certain pollutants into the air from large combustion plants, OJ L 309, 27.11.2001.

(6)  Directive 2001/81/EC of Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2001 on national emission ceilings for certain atmospheric pollutants, OJ L 309, 27.11.2001.

(7)  Directive 2000/53/EC of Parliament and of the Council of 18 September 2000 on end-of-life vehicles — Commission Statements, OJ L 269, 21.10.2000.

(8)  Council Directive 1999/22/EC of 29 March 1999 relating to the keeping of wild animals in zoos, OJ L 94, 9.4.1999.

(9)  Directive 2001/18/EC of 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/CEE — Commission Declaration, OJ L 106, 17.4.2001.

(10)  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.

(11)  Council Directive 91/689/EEC of 12 December 1991 on hazardous waste, OJ L 377, 31.12.1991.

(12)  Directive 2000/14/EC of Parliament and of the Council of 8 May 2000 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the noise emission in the environment by equipment for use outdoors, OJ L 162, 3.7.2000.

(13)  Council Directive 96/59/EC of 16 September 1996 on the disposal of polychlorinated biphenyls and poly-chlorinated terphenyls (PCB and PCT), OJ L 243, 24.9.1996.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/207 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/207

---

(2004/C 78 E/0211)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2984/03

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(9 October 2003)

Subject:   Building on seafronts

| 1. | Can the Commission state whether there is any EU legislation that prohibits or affects building on seafronts or beaches? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Can the Commission state whether there is any EU legislation that prohibits or affects building on seafronts or beaches?

| 2. | Can the Commission confirm or indicate whether it has any intention to introduce such a proposal? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Can the Commission confirm or indicate whether it has any intention to introduce such a proposal?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(10 November 2003)

| 1. | There is no Community legislation that prohibits building on seafronts or beaches. However prior to development consent, a construction project may be subject to an environmental impact assessment in application of 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 (1) (‘EIA Directive’). Annexes I and II of this Directive list projects that are likely to occur in the coastal zone, such as port facilities, coastal defence works, marinas and more in general urban and tourism development projects (Annex I.8; Annex II.10 (b) (e) (k) and 12 (b), (c)). |
| --- | --- |

1.

There is no Community legislation that prohibits building on seafronts or beaches. However prior to development consent, a construction project may be subject to an environmental impact assessment in application of 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 (1) (‘EIA Directive’). Annexes I and II of this Directive list projects that are likely to occur in the coastal zone, such as port facilities, coastal defence works, marinas and more in general urban and tourism development projects (Annex I.8; Annex II.10 (b) (e) (k) and 12 (b), (c)).

| 2. | While the Commission does not have the intention to propose legislation to prohibit building on the seafront, the problems associated with construction in the coastal zone are being looked into.
  In 2001, the Parliament voted a budget allocation of EUR 5 million to look into the increasing problem of coastal erosion. Based on this resource, the Commission launched a major pan-European project called ‘EUrosion’ (2), which is to deliver by May 2004 policy recommendations for the Union, national, regional and local levels in how to deal in a sustainable way with coastal erosion.
  Finally, in its Chapter IV.3.b (i) the Parliament and Council Recommendation 2002/413/EC of 30 May 2002 on the implementation of integrated coastal zone management in Europe (3) invites Member States to consider in particular measures to control additional urbanisation on the coast, in the context of the national strategies for integrated coastal zone management due by February 2006. |
| --- | --- |

2.

While the Commission does not have the intention to propose legislation to prohibit building on the seafront, the problems associated with construction in the coastal zone are being looked into.

In 2001, the Parliament voted a budget allocation of EUR 5 million to look into the increasing problem of coastal erosion. Based on this resource, the Commission launched a major pan-European project called ‘EUrosion’ (2), which is to deliver by May 2004 policy recommendations for the Union, national, regional and local levels in how to deal in a sustainable way with coastal erosion.

Finally, in its Chapter IV.3.b (i) the Parliament and Council Recommendation 2002/413/EC of 30 May 2002 on the implementation of integrated coastal zone management in Europe (3) invites Member States to consider in particular measures to control additional urbanisation on the coast, in the context of the national strategies for integrated coastal zone management due by February 2006.

---

(1)  OJ L 73, 14.3.1997.

(2)  www.eurosion.org.

(3)  OJ L 148, 6.6.2002.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/208 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/208

---

(2004/C 78 E/0212)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3010/03

by Adriana Poli Bortone (UEN) to the Commission

(8 October 2003)

Subject:   Blackout in Italy

Can the Commission say whether it intends to ascertain the causes of the blackout which hit Italy during the night of 27/28 September 2003?

Was the lengthy power cut caused by ‘human error’ as reported in the press or by other factors attributable to the countries that supply Italy with energy?

Answer given by Ms de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(6 November 2003)

According to the information currently available, provided by the UCTE (Union for the Co-ordination of Transmission of Electricity), the sequence of events was as follows:

| — | 28 September 2003 at 03.01 h: Lavorgno-Mettlen line tripped (situated in Switzerland, supplying Italy). |
| --- | --- |

—

28 September 2003 at 03.01 h: Lavorgno-Mettlen line tripped (situated in Switzerland, supplying Italy).

| — | 28 September 2003 at 03.25 h: Sils-Soazza and Airlo-Mettlen lines tripped (Swiss lines, supplying Italy). |
| --- | --- |

—

28 September 2003 at 03.25 h: Sils-Soazza and Airlo-Mettlen lines tripped (Swiss lines, supplying Italy).

After these power cuts the electricity supply from Switzerland to Italy was reduced by almost 3 000 megawatts. This power was transferred onto the other interconnecting lines — Italy-France, Italy-Austria — and this rapidly (within 40 seconds) resulted in the tripping of all lines interconnecting Italy and neighbouring countries.

The fact that the electricity imported into Italy (about 25 % of consumption during off-peak hours) could not be immediately replaced, after the power cut, by Italian-produced power during that time, meant that a blackout ensued across the entire Italian peninsula.

The UCTE is currently investigating the causes of this incident, in particular the possibility that one or more of its members did not comply with the operational standards. It is also inquiring into a possible lack of coordination between the transmission system operators (TSO).

The Italian and French regulators, in collaboration with the Swiss ministry, are also analysing the events.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/209 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/209

---

(2004/C 78 E/0213)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3011/03

by Elspeth Attwooll (ELDR) to the Commission

(8 October 2003)

Subject:   Fisheries: national boundaries within the EU's EEZ

In the hypothetical situation that national boundaries were to be established within the European Union's Exclusive Economic Zone, where within the ICES zones IIa, IV (a, b and c), Vb (1 and 2), VI (a and b), VII (a, d, e, f, g, h and j) and XII would those boundaries lie?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(24 October 2003)

The Commission informs the Honourable Member that the Member States are responsible for defining their exclusive economic zones and the boundaries between sea areas where such a definition is necessary as a result of opposing or adjacent coastlines. They are defined in accordance with the rules of the international law of the sea.

The Member States have adopted national legislation defining the boundaries in the zones referred to in the Honourable Member's question, with the exception of International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) zone XII, which only covers international waters.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/209 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/209

---

(2004/C 78 E/0214)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3018/03

by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(14 October 2003)

Subject:   Promotions within the Commission

What is the Commission's position with regard to the claims made by the Commission official Josè A. Sequeira Carvalho (Staff No 61779) with regard to his failure to be promoted to A4, which he believes should have taken place in 2000?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(21 November 2003)

The reasons why Mr Sequeira has not been promoted to grade A4 since 2000 were set out in detail in a note signed by Mr Richelle, Director General of Directorate General Development on 13 August 2003 and addressed to Mr Sequeira.

Officials who are not satisfied with a decision by the Appointing Authority can, of course, specify and register a complaint in accordance with Article 90 §2 of the Staff Regulation. Such complaints — or appeals — are given attention with rigour and with respect for the privacy of the individual.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/210 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/210

---

(2004/C 78 E/0215)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3039/03

by Herbert Bösch (PSE) to the Commission

(17 October 2003)

Subject:   Allegations of bribery made against journalists without any basis in fact

In two articles published on 28 February and 7 March 2002 respectively ‘Stern’ magazine reported on claims made by an EU official, Paul van Buitenen, and the investigations carried out by the European Union Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) into those accusations. The articles were based on confidential documents which the magazine had procured.

On 27 March 2002, OLAF published a press release in which it stated that, in accordance with the first paragraph of Article 5 of Regulation (EC) No 1073/1999 (1), it had decided to open an investigation into the suspected leaking of confidential information. The press release also stated that the internal investigation would also cover the claim that the relevant documents had been acquired against payment of an official.

In a recommendation dated 18 June 2003, the European Ombudsman noted that the allegation of bribery referred to had been published without any basis in fact. The Office was advised to retract its allegation of bribery.

In a press release dated 30 September 2003, OLAF reiterated its suspicion that bribery had been involved and simply stated that no evidence had been found to date of any cash payments being made.

Does the Commission take the view that, in making this statement, OLAF has suitably complied with the Ombudsman's recommendations?

Answer given by Mrs Schreyer on behalf of the Commission

(1 December 2003)

The draft Recommendation of the Ombudsman stated that ‘OLAF should consider withdrawing the allegations of bribery that were published and that were likely to be understood as directed at the complainant.’

In response to this draft Recommendation, OLAF issued a press release on 30 September 2003, stating the following:

| | On 27 March 2002, the European Anti-fraud Office (OLAF) issued a press release (2) announcing that it had opened an internal investigation under (EC) Regulation No 1073/1999 (3) into an apparent leak of confidential information included in a report prepared within OLAF. |
| --- | --- |

On 27 March 2002, the European Anti-fraud Office (OLAF) issued a press release (2) announcing that it had opened an internal investigation under (EC) Regulation No 1073/1999 (3) into an apparent leak of confidential information included in a report prepared within OLAF.

| | It stated that according to information received by the Office, a journalist had received a number of documents relating to the so-called ‘Van Buitenen affair’, and that it was not excluded that payment might have been made to somebody within OLAF (or possibly another EU institution) for these documents. |
| --- | --- |

It stated that according to information received by the Office, a journalist had received a number of documents relating to the so-called ‘Van Buitenen affair’, and that it was not excluded that payment might have been made to somebody within OLAF (or possibly another EU institution) for these documents.

| | OLAF's enquiries have not yet been completed, but to date, OLAF has not obtained proof that such a payment was made. |
| --- | --- |

OLAF's enquiries have not yet been completed, but to date, OLAF has not obtained proof that such a payment was made.

Accordingly, the investigation of this matter is still not finished and no final conclusion has yet been reached. Therefore, it is OLAF's view that the press release respects the draft recommendation while not giving the public the impression that a definitive answer has been found.

---

(1)  OJ L 136, 31.5.1999, p. 1.

(2)  http://europa.eu.int/comm/anti_fraud/press_room/pr/2002/2002_03_en.html.

(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.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/211 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/211

---

(2004/C 78 E/0216)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3044/03

by Graham Watson (ELDR) to the Commission

(17 October 2003)

Subject:   Τ Pods

Is the Commission aware of Τ Pods and does it plan to make Τ Pods mandatory?

Τ Pods are self-contained submersible computer and hydrophone units that recognise and log echo-location clicks from porpoises and dolphins and are manufactured in the UK.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(10 November 2003)

Under the ‘Habitats’ Directive (1), the Member States must undertake surveillance of the conservation status of species of wild fauna of Community interest and take the requisite measures.

The Commission is paying very close attention to the research and data recording equipment used at sea (T Pods) mentioned by the Honourable Member, and all other technologies which help improve knowledge of the natural marine environment.

However, the Commission does not believe it is necessary to interfere in the choice of methods or technologies used for obtaining the data required for the surveillance activities of the Member States.

Consequently, the Commission does not plan to make the use of Τ Pods mandatory.

---

(1)  Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild flora and fauna, OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/211 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/211

---

(2004/C 78 E/0217)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3048/03

by Cristiana Muscardini (UEN) to the Commission

(17 October 2003)

Subject:   Coordinating the fight against paedophilia

During the international conference organised by the cybercrime police of the Canton of Ticino in Switzerland the international movement ‘Innocence in Danger’ (based in Paris) announced that following years of intensive work on the part of dozens of non-governmental organisations for the protection of children all over the world, 272 000 paedophile websites containing extremely shocking material have been reported to the police all over the world during the last few years. This means that 272 000 cases should be brought worldwide against ‘persons unknown’ who have disseminated pornographic paedophile material. The results of this research thus reveal the global scale of the phenomenon and its users and throws new light on on-line paedophilia. The volume of images produced is cause for concern and involves millions of children all over the world. At the conference Don Fortunato Di Noto, vice-chairman of the movement and also chairman of the Italian association Meter Online, suggested that action should be focused on identifying the children. But because of some kind of bureaucratic institutional inertia ‘action is not coordinated at European or trans-national level’.

| 1. | Is this claim true as far as the Union countries are concerned? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is this claim true as far as the Union countries are concerned?

| 2. | In the Commission's view, where does responsibility for the lack of organisation and coordination lie — with national cybercrime police forces or with Europol's lack of initiative in the sector? |
| --- | --- |

2.

In the Commission's view, where does responsibility for the lack of organisation and coordination lie — with national cybercrime police forces or with Europol's lack of initiative in the sector?

| 3. | What measures will the Commission promote to remedy this extremely unfortunate situation? |
| --- | --- |

3.

What measures will the Commission promote to remedy this extremely unfortunate situation?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(16 December 2003)

The Commission fully shares the concerns expressed by the Honourable Member about the growing 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 through the existing channels of communications, such as Europol and Interpol.

The 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 Union's strategy to combat child pornography also consists of legal instruments and practical measures against computer crime and child pornography. These include the Commission proposal for a Council Framework Decision (2) on approximation of laws and sanctions in the field of sexual exploitation of children, with particular reference to child pornography on the Internet (3), and the Council Recommendation of 27 September 1998 (4) on the protection of minors and human dignity and the Council Decision of May 2000 to combat child pornography on the Internet (5).

At the beginning of 2003, the Commission received the final version of the ‘International Child Exploitation Database’ feasibility study, co-funded under the STOP II Programme and run by a project group composed of experts from several Member States. The project group recommended the setting-up of a networked international child sexual exploitation image database, building on the fledgling system at Interpol.

The Commission is not responsible for the actual setting up of such an international database as this is left to the will of the Member States and other involved countries, but finances under the AGIS programme an implementation study for the establishment of this database. To this extent it concluded on 3 October 2003 an agreement with the National Crime Squad from the United Kingdom, aiming 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)  COM(2000) 854 final.

(3)  The Council reached a common approach on this Commission proposal on 14 October 2002. Two Member States have still parliamentary reservations on the proposal.

(4)  OJ L 270, 7.10.1998.

(5)  OJ L 138, 9.6.2000.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/213 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/213

---

(2004/C 78 E/0218)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3052/03

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(9 October 2003)

Subject:   Suspension of the payment of Community appropriations for public works studies in Greece

According to reports which have caused concern in the Greek Parliament, the Commission, in letters sent by its competent services to the Greek Government and the corresponding directorates-general (letter from the Commission concerning the trans-European energy and transport networks of 13 July 2003, letter from the Transport Directorate-General of 28 July 2003 and letter from the Internal Market Directorate-General of 13 August 2003), has announced that payments for the Egnatia motorway and for all studies co-financed in Greece under the trans-European networks have been suspended and that it intends to bring the relevant proceedings before the European Court of Justice on the grounds that Greece is in breach of the rules governing the award of studies for public works.

In view of the serious nature of the decisions taken by the Commission's competent directorates-general, can the Commission answer the following questions:

| 1. | Does the awarding of studies for public works in Greece pose any problem and if so, what specific aspects are concerned? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Does the awarding of studies for public works in Greece pose any problem and if so, what specific aspects are concerned?

| 2. | Have payments for studies co-financed in the field of public works in Greece been suspended, which projects are affected and what amounts of funding are involved? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Have payments for studies co-financed in the field of public works in Greece been suspended, which projects are affected and what amounts of funding are involved?

| 3. | Has it initiated the procedure for bringing Greece before the European Court of Justice and/or imposing fines and requiring the repayment of appropriations? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Has it initiated the procedure for bringing Greece before the European Court of Justice and/or imposing fines and requiring the repayment of appropriations?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(26 November 2003)

| 1. | In the course of a regularly scheduled on-the-spot control mission concerning the Egnatia project, the studies of which are partly co-financed through the Trans-European Transport Network (TEN-T) budget line, some issues were identified, which showed that the practices in Greece for the award of study contracts may not be compatible with public procurement rules and thus required further clarification. The problem seems to be a mixing of the qualitative selection criteria with the criteria for the award of these contracts.
  The Commission is in close contact with the Greek authorities; in order to collect all necessary information which would allow it to assess the issues raised. |
| --- | --- |

1.

In the course of a regularly scheduled on-the-spot control mission concerning the Egnatia project, the studies of which are partly co-financed through the Trans-European Transport Network (TEN-T) budget line, some issues were identified, which showed that the practices in Greece for the award of study contracts may not be compatible with public procurement rules and thus required further clarification. The problem seems to be a mixing of the qualitative selection criteria with the criteria for the award of these contracts.

The Commission is in close contact with the Greek authorities; in order to collect all necessary information which would allow it to assess the issues raised.

| 2. | Whilst awaiting the outcome of the compatibility assessment under the public procurement rules, the Commission has decided to freeze payments for all studies benefiting from TEN-T support.
  Therefore, payments will be suspended for 38 decisions (studies) which amount to EUR 82 million of the total planned support, until the Greek authorities provide evidence of the compatibility of national rules or practices with the Community legislation on public procurement. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Whilst awaiting the outcome of the compatibility assessment under the public procurement rules, the Commission has decided to freeze payments for all studies benefiting from TEN-T support.

Therefore, payments will be suspended for 38 decisions (studies) which amount to EUR 82 million of the total planned support, until the Greek authorities provide evidence of the compatibility of national rules or practices with the Community legislation on public procurement.

| 3. | Should the Commission reach the conclusion that an infringement of Community law is at stake, it will initiate the procedure foreseen under article 226 of the EC Treaty. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Should the Commission reach the conclusion that an infringement of Community law is at stake, it will initiate the procedure foreseen under article 226 of the EC Treaty.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/214 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/214

---

(2004/C 78 E/0219)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3054/03

by Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(17 October 2003)

Subject:   Replacement of the illegal waste dump at Kouroupitos

In its answer to my Written Question (E-0491/03) (1), dated 31 March 2003, the Commission stated that it had received a complaint in relation to the non-operation of the provisional solid waste management installation in Messomouri, the delay in the construction of the permanent, hygienic waste landfill site at Korakia and the non-rehabilitation of the Kouroupitos site. The Commission gave an assurance that the matter was being investigated.

Can the Commission say whether the investigation into the matter has been completed, and whether Greece has complied with Community environmental legislation?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(21 November 2003)

In its judgment (2) of 4 July 2000 (the second judgment under Article 228 of the EC Treaty) the Court of Justice declared that Greece had not implemented all the necessary measures to comply with the judgment of 7 April 1992 (3) (the first judgment under Article 226 of the EC Treaty) and had failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 171 of the EC Treaty (now Article 228). In particular, Greece had failed to take the measures necessary to ensure that waste is disposed of in the area of Chania without endangering human health and without harming the environment, and to draw up waste management plans for that area.

Following the judgment, the Greek authorities transmitted information regarding the adoption of management plans for solid and dangerous wastes in the district of Chania, the definitive closure of the illegal dump at Kouroupitos, the full functioning of the new provisional installation in Messomouri, and the timetable for the construction of a permanent waste landfill site and composting plant in Korakia. This information was confirmed by an inspection in situ. Consequently, the Commission concluded that Greece had complied with the requirements of the Court judgment.

The complaint received in April 2002 relates to the operation of the provisional installation for compression, baling and storage of waste in Messoumouri. The complainant mainly argued that the old plastic film-wrapped bales temporarily deposited at the site since February 2001 had ruptured due to their prolonged storage and the high temperatures. In addition, the complainant maintained that the Kouroupitos site was not yet rehabilitated.

The Commission raised the issue with the Greek authorities. They have submitted their observations as regards the operation of the installation in Messomouri, the rehabilitation of the site of Kouroupitos, and the construction of the permanent waste management installations at Korakia. With a view to forming a proper opinion on the technical and factual aspects of the situation and before deciding on what action should be taken, the Commission selected independent experts, who conducted an on site fact-finding mission in February 2003. The aim of the mission was to evaluate the state of the environment at the temporary storage site of Messomouri and at the Kouroupitos site and to assess progress in relation to the construction of the permanent waste installations in Korakia.

The findings of the experts' final report are being assessed with the purpose of ensuring an appropriate and effective follow-up of the case.

---

(1)  OJ C 222 E, 18.9.2003, p. 208.

(2)  Case C-387/97, ECR p. 5047.

(3)  Case C-45/91, ECR p. 2509.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/215 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/215

---

(2004/C 78 E/0220)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3055/03

by Margrietus van den Berg (PSE) to the Commission

(17 October 2003)

Subject:   Accounting scandals and corporate governance

Following cases in the United States, instances of accounting scandals involving multinational undertakings have now also come to light in Europe. Over-ambitious boards of directors have focused on expansion, to the detriment of stability, with the result that multinational undertakings can keep their heads above water only if the economic climate is favourable. The economic tide has now turned and these undertakings are facing problems: subsidiaries and shareholdings are being sold off and in some cases profits are being artificially inflated. These developments are having serious consequences, with the brunt of the problems being borne by pension funds, employees and customers, and trust in the economy is being further undermined. Rising unemployment and poor economic prospects are adding to the concerns regarding firms and workers who are the innocent victims of the misplaced optimism and irresponsible ambitions of major undertakings.

One example of this problem in the Netherlands is the accounting scandal involving Ahold, into which two judicial inquiries have now been launched. The last two years' profits of Ahold subsidiaries in Argentina and the United States were deliberately inflated and Ahold suppressed side letters from the accountants Deloitte & Touche. Now the Netherlands subsidiary Albert Heijn and its dozens of employees seem set to become the victims of Ahold's mismanagement, despite the fact that Albert Heijn is a healthy firm which has nothing whatsoever to do with its holding company's practices abroad.

| 1. | What view does the Commission take of this case, which is but one example among many involving multinational undertakings? |
| --- | --- |

1.

What view does the Commission take of this case, which is but one example among many involving multinational undertakings?

| 2. | What action does the Commission plan to take to combat mismanagement, in the light of its action plan on improving corporate governance? |
| --- | --- |

2.

What action does the Commission plan to take to combat mismanagement, in the light of its action plan on improving corporate governance?

| 3. | How does the Commission plan to protect innocent subsidiaries and employees against the effects of mismanagement, once again in the light of its action plan on improving corporate governance? |
| --- | --- |

3.

How does the Commission plan to protect innocent subsidiaries and employees against the effects of mismanagement, once again in the light of its action plan on improving corporate governance?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(25 November 2003)

| 1. | Cases like Ahold have no doubt contributed to a loss of confidence of investors in capital markets to the detriment of the European economy, all its stakeholders and investors. It confirms the importance of Commission initiatives aiming at restoring the confidence of the capital markets in the contents of the financial information published by companies, in the people who prepare financial statements and in the professionals who audit those financial statements. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Cases like Ahold have no doubt contributed to a loss of confidence of investors in capital markets to the detriment of the European economy, all its stakeholders and investors. It confirms the importance of Commission initiatives aiming at restoring the confidence of the capital markets in the contents of the financial information published by companies, in the people who prepare financial statements and in the professionals who audit those financial statements.

| 2. | The following initiatives have been taken by the Commission in order to contribute to restoring confidence, particularly in the areas of financial reporting and corporate governance:






  — | The introduction of a requirement for all listed Community companies to prepare their consolidated accounts in accordance with the International Accounting Standards (IAS) as of 2005 (Regulation (EC) No 1606/2002 of 19 July 2002 (1)); |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

The following initiatives have been taken by the Commission in order to contribute to restoring confidence, particularly in the areas of financial reporting and corporate governance:

—

The introduction of a requirement for all listed Community companies to prepare their consolidated accounts in accordance with the International Accounting Standards (IAS) as of 2005 (Regulation (EC) No 1606/2002 of 19 July 2002 (1));

| — | The publication of a Communication in May 2003 (2) on modernising company law and enhancing corporate governance in the Union, with an indication of specific proposals to be made in the short term on subjects such as the collective responsibility of board members for financial and key non-financial statements; |
| --- | --- |

—

The publication of a Communication in May 2003 (2) on modernising company law and enhancing corporate governance in the Union, with an indication of specific proposals to be made in the short term on subjects such as the collective responsibility of board members for financial and key non-financial statements;

| — | The publication of a Communication in May 2003 (3) on priorities in the area of statutory audit, with the indication of an amendment in the short term of the Eighth Company Law Directive of 12 May 1984 (4) in order to introduce into this Directive requirements aiming at an improvement of audit quality throughout the Union, such as proper public oversight, external quality control, and the use of one set of auditing standards (International Auditing Standards). |
| --- | --- |

—

The publication of a Communication in May 2003 (3) on priorities in the area of statutory audit, with the indication of an amendment in the short term of the Eighth Company Law Directive of 12 May 1984 (4) in order to introduce into this Directive requirements aiming at an improvement of audit quality throughout the Union, such as proper public oversight, external quality control, and the use of one set of auditing standards (International Auditing Standards).

| 3. | Subsidiaries of a group are not always the innocent victim of the group's behaviour, on the contrary, they may also be the direct cause of problems for the group as whole. In order to get a better insight into intra-group relations, the company law Action Plan mentioned above includes a proposal to be made by the Commission in the short term concerning an increased disclosure of group structures and relations, both financial and non financial. Increased transparency might contribute to a quicker assessment of the situation so that measures can be taken before the problems materialise. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Subsidiaries of a group are not always the innocent victim of the group's behaviour, on the contrary, they may also be the direct cause of problems for the group as whole. In order to get a better insight into intra-group relations, the company law Action Plan mentioned above includes a proposal to be made by the Commission in the short term concerning an increased disclosure of group structures and relations, both financial and non financial. Increased transparency might contribute to a quicker assessment of the situation so that measures can be taken before the problems materialise.

---

(1)  Regulation (EC) No 1606/2002 of the Parliament and of the Council of 19 July 2002 on the application of international accounting standards, OJ L 243, 11.9.2002.

(2)  COM(2003) 284 final.

(3)  OJ C 236, 2.10.2003.

(4)  Eighth Council Directive 84/253/EEC of 10 April 1984 based on Article 54 (3) (g) of the Treaty on the approval of persons responsible for carrying out the statutory audits of accounting documents, OJ L 126, 12.5.1984.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/216 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/216

---

(2004/C 78 E/0221)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3058/03

by Gabriele Stauner (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(17 October 2003)

Subject:   Contradictions and inconsistencies in Commission and OLAF statements about the Datashop case

In my Written Question E-2205/03 (1), I asked why the Commission had still asked OLAF to continue with its investigations into the Planistat/Datashop case in May 2003, although the case had been referred to the Paris judicial authorities on 19 March 2003 and they had taken over the case. In its answer, the Commission stated that there were two aspects to the Datashop case, an external one, which involved the activities of Planistat Europe SA, and a second one involving Community officials.

The documents delivered to the Paris Public Prosecutor's Office on 19 March 2003 concerned solely the external aspect of the case. According to the answer given by Mrs Schreyer on behalf of the Commission on 22 September 2003, the internal aspect had not been referred to the French courts. However, on page 7 of the note drawn up by the Director of OLAF on 24 September 2003 for the President of the Commission, I read that ‘the French judicial authorities are in possession of the internal aspects relating to the doings of Community officials’.

How is this possible, when the note dated 24 September 2003 from the Director of OLAF also says that ‘the report on these internal aspects will be sent to the French judicial authorities very shortly’, i.e. that the OLAF report on these internal aspects had not yet been sent to the French judicial authorities?

Who then, if not OLAF, informed the French judicial authorities in advance about the internal aspects of the case?

From the note drawn up by the Director of OLAF, I also gather that the OLAF investigation into the external aspects of the case was opened only on 18 March 2003 and that the relevant findings were then forwarded to the Paris Public Prosecutor's Office just one day later, on 19 March 2003. How can that be?

Answer given by Ms Schreyer on behalf of the Commission

(22 December 2003)

The Commission would point out that the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) is in sole charge of the investigations it conducts and that OLAF informed the Commission that the material it sent to the Paris Public Prosecutor's Office on 19 March 2003 concerned a contractor of Directorate-General Eurostat and therefore an external investigation.

On the basis of the material supplied on 19 March 2003, the Paris Public Prosecutor's Office initiated a judicial investigation.

Subsequently the Commission, acting on the advice of OLAF, decided to file a complaint against X on 10 July 2003, in order to cover the entire potential financial loss. As the Honourable Member is informed by the note of the Director of OLAF of 24 September 2003, the Public Prosecutor submitted an application to the examining judge on 4 August 2003. In the above mentioned note, the Director of OLAF also informed that the report on the internal aspects will be sent to the French judicial authorities very shortly.

The documents which OLAF sent to the Paris Public Prosecutor's Office are governed by the national procedure and as such are covered by the judicial secrecy applicable to criminal matters; it is not for the Commission to comment on them.

---

(1)  OJ C 70 E, 20.3.2004, p. 80.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/217 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/217

---

(2004/C 78 E/0222)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3070/03

by Christoph Konrad (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(20 October 2003)

Subject:   Distortions of competition caused by the German Foreign Trade Act

| 1. | Is the Commission aware that the Federal German Government is intending to introduce in the armaments industry a new authorisation and notification with regard to the sale to foreign buyers of more than 25 % of shares in domestic undertakings to foreign buyers? If so, what is the Commission's reaction thereto, and has it delivered an opinion thereon? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is the Commission aware that the Federal German Government is intending to introduce in the armaments industry a new authorisation and notification with regard to the sale to foreign buyers of more than 25 % of shares in domestic undertakings to foreign buyers? If so, what is the Commission's reaction thereto, and has it delivered an opinion thereon?

| 2. | This new Federal Act is to apply to undertakings which manufacture or trade in goods for export. It is claimed that the aim of the authorisation obligation is to monitor the relocation of German undertakings and dominance by third countries, but only in respect of the sensitive armaments industry. |
| --- | --- |

2.

This new Federal Act is to apply to undertakings which manufacture or trade in goods for export. It is claimed that the aim of the authorisation obligation is to monitor the relocation of German undertakings and dominance by third countries, but only in respect of the sensitive armaments industry.

| 3. | The definition and demarcation of what is covered by the term ‘armaments industry’ in the broadest sense of the term is vague. What does the Commission intend to do to prevent the danger that such an authorisation of one EU Government might introduce a politically motivated dominance in other economic sectors as well and thus decisively restrict the competitiveness and entrepreneurial freedom of the German undertakings concerned? |
| --- | --- |

3.

The definition and demarcation of what is covered by the term ‘armaments industry’ in the broadest sense of the term is vague. What does the Commission intend to do to prevent the danger that such an authorisation of one EU Government might introduce a politically motivated dominance in other economic sectors as well and thus decisively restrict the competitiveness and entrepreneurial freedom of the German undertakings concerned?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(27 November 2003)

While, according to Article 56 of the EC Treaty, all restrictions on the movement of capital between Member States and between Member States and third countries shall be prohibited, according to Article 58 EC, the provisions of Article 56 EC shall be without prejudice to the right of Member States:

| — | to take all requisite measures to prevent infringements of national law and regulations; |
| --- | --- |

—

to take all requisite measures to prevent infringements of national law and regulations;

| — | to lay down procedures for the declaration of capital movements for purposes of administrative information; and |
| --- | --- |

—

to lay down procedures for the declaration of capital movements for purposes of administrative information; and

| — | to take measures which are justified on grounds of public security (Article 58 (1) b of the EC Treaty). |
| --- | --- |

—

to take measures which are justified on grounds of public security (Article 58 (1) b of the EC Treaty).

In his question, the Honourable Member refers to a German federal law which is at the drafting stage. While any further position by the Commission would require an analysis of existing legislation and its definite wording, an authorisation/notification procedure with regard to the sale of more than 25 % of shares in domestic undertakings to foreign buyers in the sector of armament manufacturing and export trade might be covered by these prudential considerations. The Commission will of course monitor that the scope of the application of this new law will not give rise to concerns in the sense of Article 58(3) of the EC Treaty (arbitrary discrimination, disguised restriction on the free movement of capital).

On the basis of the information available, the Commission does not intend to take specific measures to cope with Member States' initiatives such as the one described by the Honourable Member. The Commission will, however, continue to ensure that the free movement of capital is not unduly restricted.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/218 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/218

---

(2004/C 78 E/0223)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3072/03

by Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(20 October 2003)

Subject:   Provision of the ADSL service in Greece

The Telecommunications Organisation of Greece (OTE) introduced the ADSL service in Greece in June 2003. Straight away, many complaints were made concerning the type of provision, the quality of services and the scale of charges. A characteristic feature is the fact that the service is provided in Greece at a cost which is five times higher than in the rest of the EU. The reason for this is that, through various manoeuvres, the OTE has essentially succeeded in excluding private ADSL-suppliers from the market, thereby preventing them from competing with the OTE.

More specifically the OTE, which provides this service on both a wholesale and retail basis, has decided to set charges so that the difference between the wholesale and retail rate is very small and essentially to prevent private firms from offering the ADSL service at lower prices than those charged by the OTE. Moreover, the OTE does not guarantee any level of quality in the ADSL service which it supplies to private firms on a wholesale basis (it confines itself to ‘best efforts’), with the result that those firms are completely unable to guarantee the quality of the services they provide to their customers. The OTE also supplies the ADSL service only to those users who have obtained the terminal equipment from the OTE itself.

| 1. | How does the Commission assess these actions on the part of the OTE in the context of the liberalisation of telecommunications in the EU? |
| --- | --- |

1.

How does the Commission assess these actions on the part of the OTE in the context of the liberalisation of telecommunications in the EU?

| 2. | Will it intervene with the Greek authorities with a view to ending the monopoly which has essentially been created in the above market, and which is preventing both Greek citizens and the Greek economy from using and exploiting this new technology? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Will it intervene with the Greek authorities with a view to ending the monopoly which has essentially been created in the above market, and which is preventing both Greek citizens and the Greek economy from using and exploiting this new technology?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(27 November 2003)

Under the new Community regulatory framework for electronic communications, the national regulatory authority (NRA) will, taking due account of the Commission's Recommendation on relevant markets (1), need to conduct a market analysis of, inter alia, the market for wholesale unbundled access (including shared access) to metallic loops and sub-loops for the purpose of providing broadband and voice services and the market for wholesale broadband access, in order to determine whether any operator has significant market power (SMP) on those markets. If SMP is found to exist, the NRA will need to impose appropriate remedies.

Greece has not yet transposed the new Community framework. The Commission has initiated infringement proceedings against Greece for non-communication of the transposition measures.

The Commission has been informed of the slow progress in the provision of broadband services in Greece in the context of its regular inquiries carried out in the open network provision (ONP) and Communications Committees. No complaints, either formal or informal, have been submitted to the Commission by any operator regarding the provision of ADSL lines in Greece. Concerns have, however, been addressed to the Commission by members of the public, to whom the Commission has duly responded.

The old Community framework, which applied until it was superseded by the new one on 25 July 2003, is still applicable in Greece through its national transposition measures. The old framework does not provide for the simple resale of ADSL lines but rather regulates the provision by the incumbent of access and interconnection to its network. In particular, the NRA had to ensure that the incumbent is not providing access to its network to its competitors under discriminatory terms and conditions.

The Commission has informed the National Communications and Post Commission (EETT) and the General Secretariat of the Ministry of Transport and Communications of the concerns expressed by users. The EETT carried out relevant inquiries which resulted in substantial reductions to prices which currently, according to the EETT, do not seem to deviate from the Community average. However, it seems that the margin between wholesale and retail prices for the provision of ADSL lines is still limited. The EETT is currently examining the pricing and quality of service issue to ensure that OTE is not offering the service to its competitors under discriminatory terms and conditions.

The Commission is following the case closely and will either bring infringement proceedings if it considers that Community obligations are not properly implemented or use its powers under the EC Treaty competition rules should the behaviour by OTE prove to be incompatible with its obligations under Article 82 of the EC Treaty.

---

(1)  Commission Recommendation 2003/311/EC of 11 February 2003 on relevant product and service markets within the electronic communications sector susceptible to ex ante regulation in accordance with Directive 2002/21/EC of the Parliament and of the Council on a common regulatory framework for electronic communication networks and services, OJ L 114, 8.5.2003.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/219 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/219

---

(2004/C 78 E/0224)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3073/03

by Ioannis Marínos (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(20 October 2003)

Subject:   Cost of bank transactions in Greece

According to information published in the Greek press, Greek banks plan to introduce a charge for all types of bank operations (including the simplest operations such as providing information on the balance on an account) carried out by staff at the counter. It has also been reported that each exchange transaction will incur a charge of at least EUR 2 and a similar charge will be applied to deposits or withdrawals of cash from a depositor's account, whilst information concerning the balance on the account will be subject to a charge of EUR 1,5.

It might be pointed out that, apart from professionals and the many thousands of other Greek depositors, hundreds of thousands of Greek pensioners carry out transactions at the counter, and naturally enough they have little knowledge of how to use automated teller machines (ATMs), the Internet and phone banking. If the above plans are carried through, pensioners will face a particular problem given that, if they are to avoid paying the above charge for transactions at the counter, they will be obliged to use ATMs (which are often located in the open rather than inside the banks), with the result, among other things, that they will become a fairly easy target for the many criminals who have been overrunning Greece in recent years.

What charges are citizens in the remaining 14 EU countries required to pay for deposits, withdrawals and the provision of information concerning their account? What are the average interest rates for current and savings accounts in the 12 countries of the ‘eurozone’?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(17 December 2003)

The Commission regrets that it does not have sufficient information to be able to fully answer the written question.

To the best of the Commission's knowledge, charges for banking operations are decided by each bank on the basis of its costs and the competitive environment. If, as alleged in the written question, prices are the same for all banks, and the Honourable Member has reasons to believe that there may have been collusion between banks in deciding on identical prices, the Commission would suggest that he submit this information to the national competition authorities. The Commission, in principle, does not intervene on the question of prices. The only Union provision dealing with prices for payments is Regulation (EC) No 2560/2001 of the Council of 19 December 2001 on cross-border payments in euro (1), which establishes a non-discrimination rule between charges for national and cross-border payments in euro.

As regards information concerning charges in Member States to citizens for deposits, withdrawals and the provision of account information, the Commission has not collected and is not aware of the existence of such information. Several thousand financial institutions in the Union set these prices independently and no average prices per country are collected for these charges.

As regards average interest rates on current and savings accounts in the 12 euro-zone countries, the European Central Bank (ECB) gathers and publishes certain unharmonised national statistics on current account deposits, time deposits and savings accounts. However, such rates cannot be compared directly with one another. The tables from the ECB can be accessed on the Internet at the following address: (http://www.ecb.int/stats/nrir/rir_nrir.pdf). The Commission will send the Honourable Member a copy of the more detailed tables separately.

In June 2003, average interest rates ranged from 0,15 % to 1,48 % for current accounts, and from 0,04 % to 3,15 % for savings accounts, in those Member States where such information was available. The average for the euro area was 1,85 % for deposits with one year maturity, and 1,83 % for deposits redeemable at up to three months notice.

---

(1)  OJ L 344, 28.12.2001.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/220 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/220

---

(2004/C 78 E/0225)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3074/03

by Proinsias De Rossa (PSE) to the Commission

(20 October 2003)

Subject:   Avermectin

The pesticide Avermectin (also known as Abamectin and Ivermectin) is classified by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as a class IV toxicity pesticide, or practically non-toxic. At very high doses, however, it can affect mammals, causing symptoms of nervous system depression, such as lack of coordination, tremors, lethargy, anxiety and pupil dilation.

How is this pesticide regulated by the EU?

Is the Commission satisfied with the level of compliance with existing EU legislation on this pesticide at Member State level, and if not, what action is it considering?

What is the Commission's response to claims that residues of this insecticide in animal waste slow down the composting process?

Further to its 2002 communication on soil protection (1), what formal response has the Commission received so far from the Irish Government to its proposals for legislation on compost and other biowaste, due in 2004?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(14 November 2003)

The use of the group of active substances named avermectins (including among other substances abamectin and ivermectin) is legislated for in plant protection product legislation, in biocides legislation and in veterinary medicinal products legislation. The legislation also provides for the establishment of maximum residue limits in products of plant and animal origin.

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. A complete dossier has to be submitted to the Commission by 25 November 2003. The Commission will decide on the acceptability of the use of abamectin in plant protection on the basis of an evaluation of that dossier.

Maximum levels of abamectin residues in food arising from its use in plant protection products are fixed 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 (4).

The use of abacmectin in biocidal products is governed by Directive 98/8/EC of the Parliament and the Council of 16 February 1998, on the placing of biocidal products on the market (5). The Directive provides that active substances may only be used in biocidal products 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 May 2000, the Directive permits national rules to stay in place on a temporary basis. Abamectin has been notified by industry in accordance with Commission Regulation (EC) No 1896/2000 of 7 September 2000 on the first phase of the programme referred to in Article 16(2) of Directive 98/8/EC of the Parliament and of the Council on biocidal products (6) for use in two product types: insecticides and molluscicides. In accordance with a soon to be adopted Commission Regulation, a complete dossier for use in insecticides will have to be submitted by 30 April 2006 at the latest. The Commission will decide on the acceptability of the use of abamectin in biocidal products on the basis of an evaluation of that dossier.

Maximum residues limits of abamectin residues in bovine and ovine tissues arising from its use in veterinary medicine have been established by Commission Regulations (EC) No 3425/93 of 14 December 1993 amending Annexes I and II to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2377/90 laying down a Community procedure for the establishment of maximum residue limits of veterinary medicinal products in foodstuffs of animal origin (7) and Commission Regulation (EC) No 868/2002 of 24 May 2002 amending Annexes I and II of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2377/90 (8) respectively.

The Commission has not received any reports indicating that existing Community legislation on this pesticide is not complied with by the Member States.

The Commission has not received any reports that residues of this pesticide in animal waste slow down the composting process. Any such impact of residues arising from the use of the pesticide in plant protection would be evaluated as part of the assessment scheduled to be undertaken under Directive 91/414/EEC.

In the context of the Communication ‘Towards a Thematic Strategy on soil protection’, the Commission has announced a series of initiatives, including the development of a proposal for the management of biowaste. Such a Communication did not require any specific response from Member States. The Council has adopted conclusions on integrated soil protection on 25 June 2002. In it, Council stressed that ongoing environmental legislation initiatives on, inter alia, compost would make an important contribution to soil protection and requested the Commission to present the appropriate proposals as soon as possible.

---

(1)  COM(2002) 179 final.

(2)  OJ L 230, 19.8.1991.

(3)  OJ L 55, 29.2.2000.

(4)  OJ L 291, 28.10.2002.

(5)  OJ L 123, 24.4.1998.

(6)  OJ L 228, 8.9.2000.

(7)  OJ L 312, 15.12.1993.

(8)  OJ L 137, 25.5.2002.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/222 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/222

---

(2004/C 78 E/0226)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3096/03

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(20 October 2003)

Subject:   Protection of monopolies and high fares by means of aviation agreements with third countries and attempts by potential competitors to break such monopolies

| 1. | Is the Commission aware that, on the basis of a 1996 agreement, the airlines KLM and SLM enjoy a monopoly in the form of a joint venture on the busy scheduled route between Schiphol in the Netherlands and Zanderij in the former Netherlands colony of Suriname? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is the Commission aware that, on the basis of a 1996 agreement, the airlines KLM and SLM enjoy a monopoly in the form of a joint venture on the busy scheduled route between Schiphol in the Netherlands and Zanderij in the former Netherlands colony of Suriname?

| 2. | What view does the Commission take of the fact that much higher fares are charged on this route than on internal French flights to the overseas department of Cayenne (French Guyana), given that this French route can offer no serious competition to KLM and SLM whilst there is no good road link between Cayenne and Suriname? |
| --- | --- |

2.

What view does the Commission take of the fact that much higher fares are charged on this route than on internal French flights to the overseas department of Cayenne (French Guyana), given that this French route can offer no serious competition to KLM and SLM whilst there is no good road link between Cayenne and Suriname?

| 3. | Is it normal and permissible for an EU Member State to conclude an aviation agreement with a third country in order to reserve routes for two of its ‘own’ airlines, with abnormally high fares as the result? Is the Commission aware of any other examples of this practice? Do those cases also involve routes to former colonies which are vital to the countries in question in that they provide their inhabitants with a link to their families, universities and the outside world in general? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Is it normal and permissible for an EU Member State to conclude an aviation agreement with a third country in order to reserve routes for two of its ‘own’ airlines, with abnormally high fares as the result? Is the Commission aware of any other examples of this practice? Do those cases also involve routes to former colonies which are vital to the countries in question in that they provide their inhabitants with a link to their families, universities and the outside world in general?

| 4. | Is the Commission aware that, as from 1 November 2003, the Netherlands airline Air Holland intends to offer a competing seat-only service between the Netherlands and Suriname, with fares roughly half those charged under the current monopoly, and that, should the Netherlands once again refuse Air Holland a licence, flights would be operated from Belgium, which has a separate aviation agreement with Suriname? |
| --- | --- |

4.

Is the Commission aware that, as from 1 November 2003, the Netherlands airline Air Holland intends to offer a competing seat-only service between the Netherlands and Suriname, with fares roughly half those charged under the current monopoly, and that, should the Netherlands once again refuse Air Holland a licence, flights would be operated from Belgium, which has a separate aviation agreement with Suriname?

| 5. | What steps can the Commission take in order to ensure that, in the light of the much lower fares, more passengers can use the services operated via Cayenne, the Caribbean island of Curaçao or Brussels? |
| --- | --- |

5.

What steps can the Commission take in order to ensure that, in the light of the much lower fares, more passengers can use the services operated via Cayenne, the Caribbean island of Curaçao or Brussels?

Source: the 7 October 2003 edition of the Netherlands daily newspaper de Volkskrant.

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(22 December 2003)

The Commission is aware that air traffic between the Member States and third countries is regulated by bilateral air service agreements concluded between the countries where the airports are located. The Commission is also aware that some of these agreements impose restrictions on the number of air carriers designated to operate the route, on frequencies and also on tariffs. Furthermore, these agreements limit the operation of the concerned routes to air carriers owned or controlled by nationals of the Member State party to the agreement. This ‘nationality clause’ impedes other Community carriers from operating on third country routes from Union airports other than the ones located in the Member State of its ‘nationality’.

On 5 November 2002, the Court of Justice recognised the Commission's competence to negotiate certain aspects covered by these bilateral agreements. It has, among others, declared the ‘nationality clauses’ incompatible with the EC Treaty. Consequently, the Commission has proposed to the Council the adoption of certain measures with a view to providing a sound legal framework for the negotiation and implementation of air services agreements and an appropriate division of responsibilities between the Community and its Member States. These measures were adopted by the Council on 5 June 2003. The Commission has immediately started negotiations aiming at (a) concluding a comprehensive Union air service agreement with the United States; (b) renegotiating the matters covered by the bilateral agreements for which the Community has exclusive competence and (c) securing non-discriminatory market access in international agreements for all Community carriers as required by the EC Treaty. The Commission cannot, however, renegotiate all existing bilateral agreements at once. In its Communication of 19 November 2002 (1) in response to the Court's judgements, the Commission identified a number of key trading partners with which it believes Community negotiations should be opened in the future.

Apart from the above-mentioned aspects covered by bilateral air services agreements for which the Community competence has been recognised by the Court of Justice, according to Community law as it stands today, other aspects of such agreements remain the competence of the Member States themselves. These other aspects include, among other things, the allocation of traffic rights under a bilateral agreement. Any problem arising from this allocation and related authorisations remain the responsibility of the national authorities.

With regard to the application of competition rules, attention must be drawn to the fact that under Article 10 of the EC Treaty read in combination with Articles 81 and 82 of the EC Treaty, Member States are under an obligation not to require nor encourage the violation of competition rules.

However, it must be noted that the existence of a duopoly in certain routes does not, in itself, amount to a breach of the competition rules. It is mentioned in the question that the fares charged on the Amsterdam-Zanderij routes are much higher than the tariffs applied on similar routes between France and Cayenne. This fact on its own does not mean that there is an abuse of dominant position on the route in question. Indeed, fares tend to be lower on markets open to competition than on restricted markets [markets reserved for one or a few operators].

Finally, it must be noted that under the current regulatory situation, the Commission only enjoys limited powers to enforce the competition rules on air traffic between the Community and third countries. Indeed, the current procedural Regulation excludes from its scope air transport between the Community and third countries. The new procedural Regulation — Regulation (EC) 1/2003 — will not change this situation. Consequently, the Commission adopted a proposal last February 2003 to change this handicap. The proposal has been submitted to the Council and discussions are ongoing.

---

(1)  COM(2002) 649 final.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/223 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/223

---

(2004/C 78 E/0227)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3113/03

by Maurizio Turco (NI) to the Commission

(22 October 2003)

Subject:   Classification of the codes for the units of measurement of quantities exported shown on the Commission's database CATS (Clearance Audit Trail System)

The additional answer to Written Question P-3202/02 (1) incorporated extracts from the Commission's database CATS (Clearance Audit Trail System) containing data from Member States concerning export refunds for Community agricultural products to third countries.

In these extracts the various figures include the unit of measurement of the exported quantities, for which the codes are: 1; 10; 30; GRA; HL; Hl; hl; HST; k; K; kg; Kg; Kgs; KGS; NUM; NUMBER; P; q; ST; T; t; TON; U; UNI.

Can the Commission say whether ‘GRA’ should be taken to mean grams; whether ‘k, kg, K, Kg, Kgs and KGS’ should be taken to mean kilograms; whether ‘q’ should be taken to mean quintal; whether ‘TON, T and’ should be taken to mean tonnes; whether ‘HL, Hl and hl’ should be taken to mean hectolitres, and to what units of measurement the following codes correspond: 1; 10; 30; HST; NUM; NUMBER; P; ST; U; UNI?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(19 November 2003)

The additional answer given to the Written Question P-3202/02 concerns a listing of aggregated refunds paid for exports to several different destinations. The aggregates cover the financial years 1998 until 2001 and the details shown in that listing for the units of measurement are indicated as reported by the Member States.

Until financial year 2001, Commission Regulation (EC) No 2390/1999 (2) did not impose any standard codes to be used by the Member States for the units of measurement reported to the Commission. For that period, the CATS database thus contains the units of measurement as internally used by the Member States in their own computer systems, with the significance given at the national level for each financial year.

Confronted with this large variety of non standardised codes used by the Member States, the Commission has introduced standard codes for the unit of measurement when updating Regulation (EC) No 2390/1999 for financial year 2002. From financial year 2002 onwards, the Commission requires the following standard codes:

| Character | Significance |
| --- | --- |
| K | Kilogram |
| L | Litre |
| P | Piece |

Character

Significance

K

Kilogram

L

Litre

P

Piece

---

(1)  OJ C 137 E, 12.6.2003, p. 172.

(2)  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.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/224 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/224

---

(2004/C 78 E/0228)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3124/03

by Cristiana Muscardini (UEN) to the Commission

(22 October 2003)

Subject:   Working languages

EU enlargement is making the language issue a topic of increasing concern, both from the point of view of the institutions (which require translation and interpretation services, working documents and official publications in order to be able to function smoothly without undermining the dignity of any individual EU language or denying it equal treatment) and in terms of the choice and the use of working languages by staff within the institutions. For the purposes of internal work organisation it would appear that there is an increasing trend towards the exclusive use of English at the expense even of French, which has traditionally been the primary working language.

| 1. | Can the Commission confirm this trend? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Can the Commission confirm this trend?

| 2. | If it can, does it not think that, by following such a trend, its staff are contravening both the letter and the spirit of the Treaties? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If it can, does it not think that, by following such a trend, its staff are contravening both the letter and the spirit of the Treaties?

| 3. | Can the Commission establish objective criteria for the selection of working languages with due regard (amongst other factors) to demographics — a criterion which should not be ignored? What action does the Commission intend to take in order to re-establish language equality for all the Member States, whose languages are the finest expression of their dignity and of their identity? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Can the Commission establish objective criteria for the selection of working languages with due regard (amongst other factors) to demographics — a criterion which should not be ignored? What action does the Commission intend to take in order to re-establish language equality for all the Member States, whose languages are the finest expression of their dignity and of their identity?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(6 January 2004)

| 1. and 2. | The Commission certainly cannot confirm a trend towards the exclusive use of English as a working language for the purposes of internal work organisation.
  On the one hand, according to Council Regulation No 1/58 determining the languages to be used by the European Economic Community (1), all the official languages are also working languages (Article 1) and everybody is fully entitled to use them interchangeably in the institutions.
  Second, for operational reasons it is normal that certain languages should be more widely used than others by Commission staff in the day-to-day running of departments. Nevertheless, the principle that languages are equal as official and working languages is respected. Nor has the Commission any intention of introducing specific arrangements to give preference to the use of one or more particular languages internally.
  As a general condition for recruitment, Article 25 of the Staff Regulations requires applicants to have a thorough knowledge of one of the languages of the Communities and a satisfactory knowledge of another language of the Communities to the extent necessary for the performance of their duties.
  As part of the administrative reform, the Commission has put forward measures to further promote multilingualism: in addition to requiring a second language at the time of recruitment, it takes third languages into account at the time of the first post-recruitment promotion.
  The Commission also points out that it gives top priority to providing intensive language courses so that officials who do not happen to know the languages most widely used for specific training courses (other than language courses) when they join can improve their language skills. |
| --- | --- |

1. and 2.

The Commission certainly cannot confirm a trend towards the exclusive use of English as a working language for the purposes of internal work organisation.

On the one hand, according to Council Regulation No 1/58 determining the languages to be used by the European Economic Community (1), all the official languages are also working languages (Article 1) and everybody is fully entitled to use them interchangeably in the institutions.

Second, for operational reasons it is normal that certain languages should be more widely used than others by Commission staff in the day-to-day running of departments. Nevertheless, the principle that languages are equal as official and working languages is respected. Nor has the Commission any intention of introducing specific arrangements to give preference to the use of one or more particular languages internally.

As a general condition for recruitment, Article 25 of the Staff Regulations requires applicants to have a thorough knowledge of one of the languages of the Communities and a satisfactory knowledge of another language of the Communities to the extent necessary for the performance of their duties.

As part of the administrative reform, the Commission has put forward measures to further promote multilingualism: in addition to requiring a second language at the time of recruitment, it takes third languages into account at the time of the first post-recruitment promotion.

The Commission also points out that it gives top priority to providing intensive language courses so that officials who do not happen to know the languages most widely used for specific training courses (other than language courses) when they join can improve their language skills.

| 3. | As regards communication between Commission departments and administrations in the Member States and the public in general, the Commission abides strictly by the third paragraph of Article 21 of the EC Treaty, which states that every citizen of the European Union can write to the institutions in one of the languages mentioned in Article 314 and have an answer in the same language. This fundamental right has been incorporated into the draft Constitution, not just in Article I-8(2) on citizenship of the European Union, but also in Article II-41(4) in the Charter of Fundamental Rights. |
| --- | --- |

3.

As regards communication between Commission departments and administrations in the Member States and the public in general, the Commission abides strictly by the third paragraph of Article 21 of the EC Treaty, which states that every citizen of the European Union can write to the institutions in one of the languages mentioned in Article 314 and have an answer in the same language. This fundamental right has been incorporated into the draft Constitution, not just in Article I-8(2) on citizenship of the European Union, but also in Article II-41(4) in the Charter of Fundamental Rights.

---

(1)  OJ B 17, 6.10.1958.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/225 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/225

---

(2004/C 78 E/0229)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3126/03

by Astrid Thors (ELDR) to the Commission

(23 October 2003)

Subject:   The cross-border provision of gaming services for humanitarian causes

Although Article 49 of the Rome Treaty guarantees the freedom to provide services throughout the European Union, the European Court of Justice ruled that Member States have a right to impose restrictions on the cross-border provision of gaming services to safeguard their national public order. Nevertheless, this right is not an absolute one, and any restriction imposed must be necessary to achieve the objective pursued and must be proportionate.

In the Gambelli case, which is pending before the European Court of Justice, the Advocate General concluded in its opinion of 13 March 2003 that restrictions imposed on a UK established online bookmaker were discriminatory and not justified.

In light of the foregoing, does the Commission consider that, provided a duly established and licensed EU gaming service provider whose gains are used for humanitarian causes offers all the necessary guarantees in the field of consumer protection and measures against organised crime, cross-border restrictions of online gaming services supplied by it violate Article 49 of the Rome Treaty?

In this particular humanitarian context and considering the de facto cross-border nature of information society services, what initiatives will or can the Commission undertake to safeguard that the rules of the internal market would be applicable to such properly regulated, humanitarian services?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(18 December 2003)

The Commission notes that the European Court of Justice has recently ruled in the Gambelli case (C-243/01) that Member States may impose restrictions on the cross-border provision of services to protect general interest objectives such as the protection of consumers or the maintenance of public order. However, in line with the Court's jurisprudence, such restrictions are compatible with the EC Treaty if they are non-discriminatory and proportionate to these objectives and, in any event, they must serve to limit betting activities in a consistent and systematic way. These considerations made by the Court are general and, therefore, liable to be valid independently of the question whether gains are used for specific purposes and in particular for humanitarian causes. It must also be stressed that the specific distribution of gains could not be considered, per se, as being sufficient reason to consider that all the above-mentioned requirements are automatically met.

The Commission has received a number of complaints from gambling service operators contesting the application of existing national restrictions to cross border services. The Commission will now analyse complaints in this area, in view of the recent ruling of the Court cited above and proceed with appropriate action in order to ensure that the principles provided by the recent ruling of the Court in the area of gambling are respected, including in the area of gaming whose gains are used for humanitarian causes.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/226 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/226

---

(2004/C 78 E/0230)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3130/03

by José Ribeiro e Castro (UEN) to the Commission

(23 October 2003)

Subject:   Fisheries — OASIS — Oceanic Seamounts

The June 2003 third newsletter of ‘OASIS — Oceanic Seamounts: an Integrated Study’ (http://www.rrz.uni-hamburg.de/OASIS) — a study supported by the Commission — the proposal to open up the 200 mile Economic Exclusion Zone around the Azores, Madeira and Canary archipelagos to Community fishing fleets has already led to letters being sent to the Commission from environmental organisations like Greenpeace, Seas at Risk and the World Wildlife Fund, expressing their concern at the possible adoption of such a measure.

OASIS itself says that opening up this zone would pose an immediate threat to the oceanic seamounts (underwater mountains), and directly impact on its scientific work.

The Commission:

| — | can it confirm receipt of the letters referred to; |
| --- | --- |

—

can it confirm receipt of the letters referred to;

| — | what information does it have as to the consequences foreseen by OASIS and the environmental organisations for the area in question, and specifically the foreseeable destruction of habitats, including the seamounts, the decline of stocks of deepwater fish and the destruction of small-scale local fisheries, affecting the lives of the fishermen and their families; |
| --- | --- |

—

what information does it have as to the consequences foreseen by OASIS and the environmental organisations for the area in question, and specifically the foreseeable destruction of habitats, including the seamounts, the decline of stocks of deepwater fish and the destruction of small-scale local fisheries, affecting the lives of the fishermen and their families;

| — | does it agree that the marine ecosystems of the three archipelagos are extremely vulnerable, and require protection? |
| --- | --- |

—

does it agree that the marine ecosystems of the three archipelagos are extremely vulnerable, and require protection?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(25 November 2003)

In July 2003 the Commission received a joint letter from Greenpeace, Seas at Risk and World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) expressing their concern about the proposed modification of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2847/93 of 12 October 1993 establishing a control system applicable to the common fisheries policy (1) (Western Waters) to reduce the 200 nautical mile (nm) exclusion zone around the Azores, Madeira and the Canary Islands.

According to recent scientific reports and, in particular, the reports of the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES), trawling-induced damage to deep-water coral reefs has been proved in several areas. The impact of trawled gear kills the polyps and breaks up the reef structure. Recovery may not be possible or could be seriously impaired. Damage may range from a decrease in the reef size and a consequent decrease in abundance and diversity of associated fauna to a complete disintegration of the reef and its replacement with a low-diversity community.

As for deep-sea fish, ICES has warned that several deep-sea stocks are now heavily exploited and in some cases severely depleted. The Commission knows that these species are particularly vulnerable to overfishing because of their slow ability to reproduce.

Members of Parliament as well as Portuguese local and national authorities have contacted the Commission to express their concerns about the future of local fishing communities. The damage to these habitats are a threat to their survival.

The Commission confirms the extreme vulnerability of seamount ecosystems in the Azores, Madeira and the Canary Islands and the need to provide the necessary protection to these important marine habitats. To this end, the Commission is preparing a draft proposal for a Council Regulation to prohibit the use of bottom trawls in certain areas of the Atlantic Ocean, including the three areas the Honourable Member refers to.

---

(1)  OJ L 261, 20.10.1993.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/227 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/227

---

(2004/C 78 E/0231)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3134/03

by José Ribeiro e Castro (UEN) to the Commission

(23 October 2003)

Subject:   Holland — ‘Ecstasy’

In its answer to Written Question E-2309/03 (1) the Commission confirmed that ‘the Emcdda in its annual report also indicates that the Netherlands is a major site for the production of ecstasy, amphetamines and related drugs’ but adds that ‘evidence of production in other Member States and in east European countries is also reported’, without specifiying the level of production.

On the other hand, some of the questions posed remain unanswered, such as ‘whether it can confirm that most of the drugs come from the Netherlands’ and if so, ‘what measures it has taken or intends to take to prevent drugs being exported from the Netherlands and distributed throughout the EU?’.

The above-mentioned answer also says ‘the Commission has emphasised that the issue of synthetic drugs must remain a top priority for the Union and its Member States. This has also been emphasised by the Justice and Home Affairs Ministers of the EU. Following on from a meeting of Justice and Home Affairs Ministers in September 2002 an implementation plan on actions to be taken in regard to the supply of synthetic drugs has been adopted by the Council.’

Can the Commission therefore say:

| — | whether it can confirm that among the Member States the Netherlands is the most important location for the manufacture of ‘Ecstasy’ and also the major source of supply of the drug for the other Member Stastes, in particular Portugal; |
| --- | --- |

—

whether it can confirm that among the Member States the Netherlands is the most important location for the manufacture of ‘Ecstasy’ and also the major source of supply of the drug for the other Member Stastes, in particular Portugal;

| — | for how many years it has been aware of this situation; |
| --- | --- |

—

for how many years it has been aware of this situation;

| — | since it has stated that there is ‘evidence of production in other Member States’, to which countries it is refering and with what degree of intensity and/or risk compared with the Netherlands; |
| --- | --- |

—

since it has stated that there is ‘evidence of production in other Member States’, to which countries it is refering and with what degree of intensity and/or risk compared with the Netherlands;

| — | what measures it has taken or plans to take to prevent drugs from being exported from the Netherlands and distributed throughout the EU; as regards the other EU ‘producer’ countries, whether the levels of risk and ‘marketing’ are similar; |
| --- | --- |

—

what measures it has taken or plans to take to prevent drugs from being exported from the Netherlands and distributed throughout the EU; as regards the other EU ‘producer’ countries, whether the levels of risk and ‘marketing’ are similar;

| — | what it thinks of the implementation plan for the actions to be taken as regards the supply of synthetic drugs, adopted at the meeting of EU Justice and Home Affairs Ministers held in September 2002; whether it considers the measures which the plan proposes for tackling the supply of synthetic drugs adequate and appropriate? |
| --- | --- |

—

what it thinks of the implementation plan for the actions to be taken as regards the supply of synthetic drugs, adopted at the meeting of EU Justice and Home Affairs Ministers held in September 2002; whether it considers the measures which the plan proposes for tackling the supply of synthetic drugs adequate and appropriate?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(5 December 2003)

Each year the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (EMCDDA) and the European Police Office (Europol) produce, on the basis of information and statistical data provided by the national authorities of the Member States, a report on the state of the drugs problem in the European Union and the candidate countries as regards drugs production, trafficking and consumption. In response to a number of concerns expressed by the Member States, the 2001 report identified the European Union as the main source of ecstasy.

EMCDDA's 2003 annual report on the state of the drugs problem in the European Union and Norway stated that the number of production sites for synthetic drugs discovered each year in the EU is constant at around 50 to 70. The Netherlands and Belgium are the main production sites for ecstasy, amphetamines and related drugs, but production is also reported in other Member States including Spain, France and the United Kingdom and in candidate countries (Estonia, Lithuania, Poland and the Czech Republic).

This state of affairs is confirmed by the 2003 annual report on the state of the drugs problem in the acceding and candidate countries in the European Union, which states that synthetic drugs such as amphetamines and ecstasy are produced in illegal laboratories in the Baltic States, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic and Hungary for domestic consumption.

As regards the measures taken to prevent drugs being exported from the Netherlands and distributed throughout the EU, no Member State can, on the face of it, be regarded as ‘clean’ when it comes to drugs production and trafficking. All the Member States have signed the United Nations conventions and are active participants in the early-warning system set up as part of the Joint Action of June 1997. As the European Union's main instrument in the war against drug trafficking, Europol shares its expertise on a regular basis with Member States to help them combat criminal gangs and shut down illegal laboratories involved in producing synthetic drugs.

Under the 2000-04 Action Plan the Commission, together with the Member States and Europol, undertook to put in place tougher measures to combat drug trafficking. It will also help the Member States to step up police, customs and judicial cooperation and to develop expertise in controlling the trade in chemical precursors.

In addition, the Commission hopes that the Council will shortly reach a political agreement on the framework decision laying down minimum provisions on criminal acts and penalties in the field of drug trafficking.

The implementation plan outlining action to be taken in relation to synthetic drugs calls on Member States, Europol and EMCDDA to take specific measures to combat diversion of precursors, illegal laboratories and distribution networks. It will be examined as part of the final assessment of the 2000-04 Action Plan.

With a view to tightening legislation on synthetic drugs, the Commission has presented a proposal for a Council Decision on the information exchange, risk-assessment and the control on new narcotic drugs and new synthetic drugs which will replace the Joint Action of June 1997. Parliament will also have the opportunity to express its opinion on this subject.

---

(1)  OJ C 70 E, 20.3.2004, p. 83.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/229 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/229

---

(2004/C 78 E/0232)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3151/03

by Herman Schmid (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(23 October 2003)

Subject:   The perception of quality of life in the EU

There are many ways of measuring quality of life. The OECD's league table measures the GNP of the private products and services market. By this yardstick Sweden lies in 17th place.

Another measurement method, devised by the US Department of Labour, looks at the development of industrial productivity (International comparisons of manufacturing productivity and unit labour cost trends 2002, Newsletter 9 September 2003 — Bureau of Labour Statistics, Washington DC). Here the figures show that the increase in productivity development in 2002 was higher in Sweden than in any other country. Accordingly Sweden took 1st place in this table.

It is clear that different measurement systems yield different results. Therefore it is interesting to ask the Commission whether it considers that any of these systems can give a reliable, usable and fair picture of the quality of life in a Member State. Do they not in fact present too narrow a view of quality of life in the EU, whose identity claims to be built on the European welfare model, a balance between competition and social responsibility?

There are also other scales which raise their sights above the measurement of mere economic and statistical figures. These arose because the bodies which commissioned them, including the UN, considered that quality of life must include citizens' perception of their situation. Increased standards of living for the few or for the many need not automatically lead to better quality of life. Citizens must first give their assessment of how a better economy has improved their quality of life as a nation or as individuals. And for this, more advanced measuring criteria are needed.

Measurement methods have been developed which include length of life, a good environment and legal certainty. One international index based on 40 quality of life indicators is called WISP, the Weighted Index of Social Progress. This scale includes variables such as education, health, equality, social economy, demography, environment, social chaos (political rights, corruption, victims of war) etc. On this measurement Sweden again comes in first place.

Does the Commission consider that WISP and similar measuring schemes should be used more often in the EU when comparing EU Member States with each other? Might the balance between competition and the social dimension, to which the EU undertook to aspire under the Lisbon strategy, risk being distorted by more competition and less social responsibility, if the only quality of life scale used in the EU is the OECD's? That being so, should WISP (or similar EU quality of life indices) always complement the OECD's quality of life league table (or similar EU indices for measuring productivity) when quality of life is measured in the EU?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(20 November 2003)

Many separate but related factors contribute to the quality of life, and this makes defining and measuring the ‘quality of life’ a complex and rather subjective matter.

The level of production of goods and services in a country — measured as the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) — is a measure of material well-being, which would generally be considered as an important component of the overall quality of life. However, quality of life is clearly about more than material well-being, and the Commission has never presented estimates of levels or growth in GDP as being equivalent to a measure of the quality of life.

The question refers specifically to the Weighted Index of Social Progress (WISP). This is one of a number of similar measures that have been developed in recent years to try to capture the broader aspects of quality of life. Examples include the Environmental Sustainability Index and the Human Wellbeing Index. There are two critical stages in the construction of these indices: first, a set of variables must be chosen, and second, these must be aggregated to produce a single number, which is called the index of social progress, or environmental sustainability, or human wellbeing, and so on, depending on the compiler of the index.

Both of these stages — selecting the variables, and deciding how they are to be added together — involve a considerable degree of subjectivity, and this is a major drawback to all such synthetic indices. By changing the set of variables, or the weighting method, different measures and thus different rankings of countries may be calculated, so that it is questionable whether such indices are more robust measures of the quality of life than conventional statistics.

Rather than trying to compress a multi-dimensional subject such as the quality of life into a single number, it may be more appropriate to use a range of measures that reflect this multi-dimensionality and avoid the subjectivity that is an inevitable weakness of index-based approaches. Indeed, this is the approach that international organisations such as the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) and the United Nations have adopted to address issues related to sustainable development, by devising sets of sustainable development indicators. Eurostat has adapted the United Nations set of indicators to Member States — see the publication ‘Measuring progress towards a sustainable Europe’ — and is currently developing a set of indicators that can be used to monitor progress in implementing the Union sustainable development strategy.

This method has also been adopted to monitor the Lisbon strategy, for example, where the Commission and the Council have agreed a set of structural indicators that relate to the various elements of the strategy, and the Commission has developed a database containing additional data relevant to the strategy. In this way, progress towards each of the Lisbon objectives is measured, allowing a balanced picture of overall developments to be formed.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/230 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/230

---

(2004/C 78 E/0233)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3155/03

by Mogens Camre (UEN) to the Commission

(23 October 2003)

Subject:   Competition-distorting customs duties on fish imported from Norway to Denmark

The competitiveness of Danish firms in the fish processing industry is being hit by the EU's customs policy. The EU reference prices for raw herring are higher than the Norwegian prices. Danish firms are consequently unable to buy Norwegian herring as cheaply as Norwegian firms can. In addition there is a difference in the rates of customs duty: the duty is 15 % on raw fish but only 6 % on processed fish.

Despite the fact that the current rules were intended to protect firms in the EU, they are having a disastrous effect on the competitiveness of Danish businesses.

Firms in Skagen and other towns in Jutland, which normally purchase considerable quantities of Norwegian fish, are currently dismissing most of their employees. They are unable to purchase the necessary quantities of herring within the EU.

Will the Commission please investigate ways of counteracting the harmful effect of these customs duties?

What opportunities does the Commission have to change this competition-distorting state of affairs, whereby unprocessed herring imported to Denmark from Norway is subject to a 15 % customs duty, while the duty on processed fish imported to Denmark from Norway is only 6 %?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(19 November 2003)

The Commission is well aware of the concerns which the Honourable Member expresses about the situation of supplies of herring as raw material for the Danish processing industry. However, there are a number of factors other than tariff rates which may have an impact on the competitiveness of the processing industry. In this regard, it appears that the supply situation in certain Member States is related more to the practice of Community fishing vessels landing their catches of herring in Norwegian ports than to the present tariff situation. This practice is due to the geographical particularities of the fisheries on Atlanto-Scandian herring in the Northeast Atlantic.

The Honourable Member will recall that the import duties for fishery products originating in Norway were set as a result of an international agreement between the Community and that country. Therefore, the Community cannot change these tariffs on an unilateral basis.

As for possible short-term measures, the Commission is currently preparing a proposal for a new multi-annual tariff quota system for the period 2004 to 2006 in consultation with Member States. This proposal will need to take into account not only the interests of the fish processing sector in the Community but also those of other sectors having a direct interest in the harvest of pelagic fish stocks.

In addition to the above, the attention of the Honourable Member is drawn to the improved stock situation for North Sea herring. The emergency measures, to which this stock has been subject over the past years, are now starting to pay off. Thus, the availability of herring in the Community can be expected to substantially increase in the years to come, with a positive impact on the supplies of the Community's processing industry.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/231 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/231

---

(2004/C 78 E/0234)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3160/03

by Ioannis Averoff (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(20 October 2003)

Subject:   Authorisation for the construction of a landfill site in the prefecture of Ioannina

Through its decision No 364/22.8.2003 the region of Epirus gave a favourable opinion on the implementation of the project to construct a landfill site in Geroplatanos-Phteri, in the municipality of Kalpakion, Ioannina prefecture. A supplementary opinion (No 3989/1.10.2003) places the landfill site in Kidonies, in the parish of Vassilikon, which falls within the municipality of Ano Pogoniou.

The proposed project lacks public acceptance for the following reasons:

| — | the preliminary environmental assessment shows that from the hydrogeological point of view this site is the least favourable of all the sites considered (high soil permeability and possible link with the rivers Aoo and Kalama, as well as the closed basin of the Pamvotida lake); |
| --- | --- |

—

the preliminary environmental assessment shows that from the hydrogeological point of view this site is the least favourable of all the sites considered (high soil permeability and possible link with the rivers Aoo and Kalama, as well as the closed basin of the Pamvotida lake);

| — | there is a fissure at the site, and the study stated that its dynamics could not be documented. It might be pointed out that the region is situated in a category I seismic zone, and not in a category II zone as stated in the study; |
| --- | --- |

—

there is a fissure at the site, and the study stated that its dynamics could not be documented. It might be pointed out that the region is situated in a category I seismic zone, and not in a category II zone as stated in the study;

| — | the requisite opinion of the Ioannina forestry commission (2606/14.8.2003) clearly states that the study cannot be considered definitive, given that the preparatory documentation did not include the necessary topographical charts; |
| --- | --- |

—

the requisite opinion of the Ioannina forestry commission (2606/14.8.2003) clearly states that the study cannot be considered definitive, given that the preparatory documentation did not include the necessary topographical charts;

| — | the site is located a very short distance away from the Vikos-Aoos, a Natura 2000 area, and comprises protected woodland; |
| --- | --- |

—

the site is located a very short distance away from the Vikos-Aoos, a Natura 2000 area, and comprises protected woodland;

| — | the proposed site is 55 kilometres away from the area where the waste will be produced. |
| --- | --- |

—

the proposed site is 55 kilometres away from the area where the waste will be produced.

In this context, and bearing in mind that funding has been requested for this project from the Cohesion Fund, can the Commission say whether Directives 1999/31/EC (1) on the landfill of waste, 75/442/EEC (2) and 97/11/EC (3) have been complied with in the above case?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(12 November 2003)

Based on a considerable number of complaints concerning the operation in Greece of illegal or uncontrolled landfills, where waste disposal endangers human health and harms the environment, the Commission initiated an infringement procedure against Greece under Article 226 of the EC Treaty. The Greek authorities recognised that 1399 illegal or uncontrolled landfills were still operating at the end of 2002, and they declared that all illegal landfills would be closed by the end of 2007 and would be replaced by permanent waste management installations. Since Greece had failed to comply with the Community legislation on waste, the Commission decided on 9 July 2003 to bring the matter before the European Court of Justice.

Although Member States are obliged, under Council Directive 75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975 on waste as amended by Council Directive 91/156/EEC of 18 March 1991 (4), to ensure that waste is recovered or disposed of without endangering human health and without harming the environment, the selection of disposal methods and of suitable disposal sites or installations is a matter for the competent national authorities. In particular, the landfilling of waste must be done in accordance with the technical standards and procedures laid down by Council Directive 1999/31/EC of 26 April 1999 on the landfill of waste.

The construction of landfills is subject to development consent being granted and an assessment of their impact on the environment. This should be carried out following the requirements 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 (5), as amended by Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997. This Directive sets out a series of procedures for projects requiring an environmental impact assessment, mainly the preparation of an environmental impact study, the information of the public and consultations with the public and other competent authorities.

On the basis of the existing information, it appears that the environmental assessment of the project is ongoing. The construction of the landfill will be subject to the approval of the competent national authorities, which will either reject the project or will approve it subject to environmental conditions and restrictions on the performance of the activity, particularly with regard to location, scale, type, technology used and general technical characteristics. Therefore, the Commission considers that, at this stage, there is no infringement of Community environmental legislation, since the project is not yet approved and its authorisation is ongoing.

Regarding the Cohesion Fund, to date the Commission has received no request for cofinancing for this project from the competent Greek authorities. If such a request were submitted in the coming weeks or months, it would be examined in accordance with the rules and procedures in force.

---

(1)  OJ L 182, 16.7.1999, p. 1.

(2)  OJ L 194, 25.7.1975, p. 39.

(3)  OJ L 73, 14.3.1997, p. 5.

(4)  OJ L 78, 26.3.1991.

(5)  OJ L 175, 5.7.1985.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/233 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/233

---

(2004/C 78 E/0235)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3165/03

by Chris Davies (ELDR) to the Commission

(20 October 2003)

Subject:   Spanish Hydrological Plan (Pyrenees)

In reaching decisions regarding the application of environmental legislation and the rules concerning the approval of bids for structural funding, does the Commission accept that plans for dam projects in the Pyrenees — particularly the Yesa Dam enlargement and construction of new dams at Biscarruès, Santaliestra, Itoiz and Rialp — should be considered as part of the overall Spanish Hydrological Plan, in that they are essential to the water transfers proposed?

Have formal requests for structural fund assistance towards the cost of any of these projects yet been submitted by the Spanish authorities?

Is the Commission aware that work on the Santaliestra dam has been suspended due to failure by those involved to take full account of the need for comprehensive environmental risk assessments?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(11 November 2003)

Concerning the proposed dams in the Pyrenees in the catchment of the river Ebro, the Commission understands from the Spanish authorities that these dams do not have any connection with the proposed Ebro transfer foreseen in the Spanish National Hydrological Plan and that they will not be used to regulate the flow in the lower river. The Commission further understands from the Spanish authorities, that only the existing Mequinenza and Ribarroja/Flix dams in the lower reaches of the Ebro catchment will be used to regulate the flow at the abstraction point foreseen for the proposed transfer.

The Commission has requested information from the Spanish authorities regarding Community financing of these projects. In their reply, the Spanish authorities inform that none of these projects are included in the relevant Objective 2 Single Programming Documents, neither is there financing through the Cohesion Fund.

With regard to the suspension of work on the Santaliestra dam, the Commission was aware of the fact that work had been suspended.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/234 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/234

---

(2004/C 78 E/0236)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3169/03

by Michl Ebner (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(27 October 2003)

Subject:   Ban on dangerous dog breeds

Unfortunately, my previous questions concerning a ban on dangerous dogs have had no effect. It is true that one or two Member States, Italy and Austria for example, have already taken measures against violent and aggressive dogs by making muzzles compulsory in public places, such as bus stops and parks, and introducing training schools for puppies, but these measures do not go far enough. Recently, we have again been confronted with terrible headlines about pitbulls attacking children and adults. It is not enough that individual Member States or regions tackle the behaviour of some breeds of dog. There must be a European directive banning dangerous dog breeds.

How many more people need to be bitten to death or mutilated in the Commission's opinion?

How much longer must we wait before action is finally taken at Community level?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(16 December 2003)

The legal basis for Community action in the area of human health protection is Article 152 of the EC Treaty. The first paragraph of this article stipulates that where Community action complements national policies, the principle of subsidiarity applies. According to this principle, which is set out in Article 5 of the EC Treaty, in areas which do not fall within its exclusive competence, the Community shall take action only where the objectives of the proposed action can be better achieved by the Community.

In the case mentioned by the Honourable Member, the Commission does not have a sufficiently sound and conclusive scientific basis to propose European legislation on this subject itself, rather than leaving it to the Member States.

It is up to the Member States to adopt the necessary measures at national level in order to prevent accidents of this kind.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/234 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/234

---

(2004/C 78 E/0237)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3174/03

by Charles Tannock (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(27 October 2003)

Subject:   European film-making

What is the European Union doing through the MEDIA Programme to improve the quality of scripts for European films? If a scriptwriter wishes to copyright his or her work can he or she do so at a pan-European level, and, if so, is this form of copyright fully respected in other states including the US?

Given the fact that many European films which receive either national or EU assistance are art-house productions or near-equivalents, does the Commission believe it would be helpful in terms of improved access and larger audiences if English subtitles were added to the sub-titles of the language of the host country, i.e. that a German film shown in Italy would have both English and Italian subtitles?

Finally, does the Commission believe that European films which might otherwise have some commercial success are being crowded-out by the dominance of Hollywood distributors, and, if so, what remedies does the Commission believe might be applicable?

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(19 December 2003)

The Honourable Member has asked what the Union is doing through the MEDIA Programme to improve the quality of scripts for European films. The Union, through the MEDIA programmes, has adopted a series of measures aimed at supporting the European film industry, focusing on certain key activities, such as training, development, distribution and promotion. One of the areas specifically addressed by the training action line is that of scriptwriting. In respect of copyright, at an international level, all parties to the Berne Convention for the protection of literary and artistic works, are bound by the provisions of Article 5, which states that: ‘Authors shall enjoy, in respect of works for which they are protected under this Convention, in countries of the Union other than the country of origin, the rights which their respective laws do now or may hereafter grant to their nationals, as well as the rights specially granted by this Convention’. The Convention applies to all the Member States, and other countries, including the United States, that are parties to the Convention.

The Commission is currently preparing a proposal for a new generation of programmes for the European audiovisual sector. The issue of subtitling is one of the issues being discussed as a means of promoting cultural diversity. However, this question concerns the use of subtitling as opposed to dubbing. Requests can be made under the current scheme for subtitling in English. The Commission does not however consider that the inclusion of English subtitles would have a positive effect on circulation.

The Commission is concerned by the limited circulation of non-national European films outside their own territory and to this end has set up a number of different schemes to address this problem. The MEDIA Programme supports the distribution and broadcasting of audiovisual works (fiction, documentary, animation, and interactive programmes) and of European films in cinemas, on video, on DVD and on television. It also provides support to networks of cinemas presenting a common strategy for the promotion and marketing of European films.

The MEDIA Plus programme includes schemes both for cinema films (schemes for distributors — automatic and selective support — for sales agents and for exhibitors) and for television and DVD and Video.

In respect of distributors: The aim of the ‘automatic’ support scheme is to encourage and support the wider transnational distribution of recent non-national European films by providing funds to operators for further investment in such films based upon their record of generating an audience for European films. This also encourages the development of links between the production and distribution sector thus improving the competitive position of non-national European films. The ‘selective’ support scheme also aims to encourage the establishment and consolidation of co-operation networks between European distributors, as well as co-operation between distributors, Sales Agents and/or producers.

In respect of Sales Agents: The aim of the support scheme is to encourage and support the wider transnational distribution of recent European films by providing funds to sales agents, based upon their performance on the market, for further reinvestment in new European films.

In respect of exhibitors: The aim is to encourage the networking of European première cinemas and the screening of non-domestic European films by these cinemas.

In respect of television: The scheme is aimed at European companies, whose activities contribute to the promotion and the circulation of European television programmes produced by independent companies within and outside the Community. It encourages co-operation between broadcasters on the one hand and independent European distributors and producers on the other hand. The support scheme's aim is to encourage independent production companies to produce works (fiction, documentary and animated films) involving no less than two broadcasters, preferably more, who participate or co-operate in several Member States and belong to different language zones.

In respect of DVD and Video: The scheme is aimed at European companies, whose activities contribute to the strengthening of the distribution sector for European works on media intended for private use. It encourages publishers to invest in digital technology and the promotion of non-domestic European works on video and DVD.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/236 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/236

---

(2004/C 78 E/0238)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3178/03

by Rosa Miguélez Ramos (PSE) to the Commission

(20 October 2003)

Subject:   Damage caused by the Prestige: fresh evaluation and the Solidarity Fund

On 9 October, the EP authorised the Commission to mobilise the Solidarity Fund at the urging of the Italian, Portuguese and Spanish Governments in respect of earthquakes, forest fires and the Prestige disaster respectively. The Commission proposed percentages in terms of the requests submitted by the various governments and their own damage estimates, namely EUR 436 million in the case of the ‘Prestige’; Spain was awarded EUR 8,6 million, while Italy was awarded EUR 46,7 million and Portugal, EUR 48,5 million.

The Portuguese Government had submitted an initial estimate of EUR 509 million, and later submitted an additional estimate raising this to EUR 718 million. The Spanish Government, however, despite the fact that the Prestige disaster is not over, stuck to its initial estimate, made a mere two months after the disaster had begun, showing no concern thereafter to make any supplementary evaluation of the damage.

Only five days after the EP approved these subsidies, the Spanish Government announced, in the Chamber of Deputies, an evaluation which put the damage at EUR 700 million, EUR 264 million more than the figure supplied to the Commission. If the Spanish authorities had submitted a supplementary estimate to the Commission which reflected this revision, the Solidarity Fund allocation for Spain, under identical conditions, would have been EUR 13,86 million, i.e. EUR 5 234 million more than was actually awarded.

Has the Spanish Government, like the Portuguese Government, submitted a further evaluation in addition to its initial request?

Would the Commission be prepared to review the amount granted to Spain, should the Spanish Government submit a supplementary estimate, so that those hit by the ‘Prestige’ disaster could receive the aid they rightly deserve from the Solidarity Fund?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(25 November 2003)

The initial Spanish application to mobilise the European Union Solidarity Fund for the Prestige disaster was received on 13 January 2003, containing preliminary estimates of the costs for cleaning up the coastline, cleaning and restoration of the Atlantic Islands national park, operations at sea and other related operations. The estimates did not include those relating to finding a permanent solution for the wreck.

Further information was transmitted by the Spanish authorities on 13 May 2003, 13 June 2003 and 17 June. It was on the basis of this information that the Commission proposed a grant to Spain under the Solidarity Fund that was based on the latest figures received. As explained in more detail in the explanatory memorandum to draft amending budget, the original figure had to be adjusted to exclude certain indirect damage, on the one hand and, to include the estimated cost of the permanent solution to the wreck on the other hand.

The Commission has no knowledge on how the estimate for damage presented to the Spanish parliament of EUR 700 million was calculated, nor whether this amount contains any damage not eligible under the Solidarity Fund.

In the event of a continuation of damage from the wreck, the Commission can accept new evidence up until the moment it makes its proposal for an amending budget to Parliament and the Council. Further updating, while the budgetary procedure is in progress, is possible only if the two branches of the budgetary authority agree. The Solidarity Fund regulation does not, however, allow the amount to be raised once the grant has been made available.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/237 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/237

---

(2004/C 78 E/0239)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3187/03

by Geoffrey Van Orden (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(27 October 2003)

Subject:   Free movement of bankrupt persons in the EU

A person who has been declared bankrupt in the UK is free to live anywhere they wish in the UK.

Is a person who has been declared bankrupt in the UK free to live anywhere they wish in the EU in the same way that a citizen not declared bankrupt would be able to?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(17 December 2003)

A Union citizen who has been declared bankrupt in the United Kingdom is free to live anywhere he/she wishes in the territory of the Union if he/she fulfils the conditions applying to the right of residence under Community legislation, i.e. being a worker or self-employed person or having adequate resources and sickness insurance.

In this respect, Community legislation does not provide any specific limitation to the right of free movement.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/237 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/237

---

(2004/C 78 E/0240)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3192/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(28 October 2003)

Subject:   Eurostat: clarification of President Prodi's powers of intervention

The statements made by former Eurostat Director-General Yves Franchet about the recent events which revealed serious irregularities in the running of Eurostat contracts suggest that Commissioners Solbes, Kinnock and Schreyer were to blame since they were aware of possible cases of fraud.

Mr Franchet claims to have informed the Commissioners and President Prodi of his suspicions of maladministration within the Statistical Office in September 2002. In any case, at the hearing before the Conference of Presidents on 25 September 2003, Mr Prodi stated that he was informed of the seriousness of the situation in May 2003.

The affair is now being investigated by OLAF, the French courts and the Commission itself with a view to obtaining reliable evidence and establishing who was responsible.

Under new Article 217(4) of the Treaty of Nice, the power to ask a Commissioner to resign lies with the President of the Commission.

Quite apart from their actual responsibility which remains to be proven, the conduct of the above-mentioned Commissioners has been called into question, at least in terms of ‘maladministration’ and ‘negligence’, as defined in the ‘First report on allegations regarding fraud’ submitted by the EP's Committee of Independent Experts on 15 March 1999 at the time of the Santer scandal.

Following that scandal, the Santer Commission considered it politically appropriate to resign as a body on the sole grounds that it was suspected of irregularities.

In view of the above:

| 1. | does the Commission not consider that President Prodi should, with reference to the present Eurostat case, take action against the relevant Commissioners in accordance with Article 217? |
| --- | --- |

1.

does the Commission not consider that President Prodi should, with reference to the present Eurostat case, take action against the relevant Commissioners in accordance with Article 217?

| 2. | does the failure to take such action not constitute an infringement of the moral duties arising from Article 213(2) of the Treaty and incumbent upon all Members of the Commission? |
| --- | --- |

2.

does the failure to take such action not constitute an infringement of the moral duties arising from Article 213(2) of the Treaty and incumbent upon all Members of the Commission?

| 3. | should the decision merely to replace Eurostat's Director-General in July 2003 not be deemed insufficient to preserve the EU's image and integrity? |
| --- | --- |

3.

should the decision merely to replace Eurostat's Director-General in July 2003 not be deemed insufficient to preserve the EU's image and integrity?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(19 December 2003)

| 1. | When addressing the Conference of Presidents and the members of the Committee on Budgetary Control (Cocobu) of the European Parliament on 25 September last, the President of the Commission stated that he had at his disposal the necessary instruments under Article 217 of the Nice Treaty to make an individual Commissioner assume political responsibility should that be necessary. He also explained at some length why, in the light of the evidence available, he could see no reason for asking any Member of the Commission to resign. |
| --- | --- |

1.

When addressing the Conference of Presidents and the members of the Committee on Budgetary Control (Cocobu) of the European Parliament on 25 September last, the President of the Commission stated that he had at his disposal the necessary instruments under Article 217 of the Nice Treaty to make an individual Commissioner assume political responsibility should that be necessary. He also explained at some length why, in the light of the evidence available, he could see no reason for asking any Member of the Commission to resign.

| 2. | The moral obligations for Members of the Commission expressly referred to in Article 213 as quoted by the Honourable Member require them to perform their duties in complete independence and in the general interest of the Community, to neither seek nor take instructions, not to engage in any other occupation and to behave with integrity and discretion.
  It would not appear that any Member of the Commission failed to respect any of these obligations in the Eurostat affair.
  It is clear in the Eurostat affair that, as soon as the Commission received the information which previously had not reached that level, important decisions were taken to put right the malfunctioning. At the same time, and in addition, the analysis of information flows and mechanisms in force was pursued in depth in order to strengthen vertical and horizontal communication and to achieve greater transparency in a tighter internal control environment. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The moral obligations for Members of the Commission expressly referred to in Article 213 as quoted by the Honourable Member require them to perform their duties in complete independence and in the general interest of the Community, to neither seek nor take instructions, not to engage in any other occupation and to behave with integrity and discretion.

It would not appear that any Member of the Commission failed to respect any of these obligations in the Eurostat affair.

It is clear in the Eurostat affair that, as soon as the Commission received the information which previously had not reached that level, important decisions were taken to put right the malfunctioning. At the same time, and in addition, the analysis of information flows and mechanisms in force was pursued in depth in order to strengthen vertical and horizontal communication and to achieve greater transparency in a tighter internal control environment.

| 3. | The Commission has done more than just replace the Director-General of Eurostat; the measures taken to reorganise Eurostat are much more far-reaching and complex than simply replacing the Director-General, and they were spelled out by the President of the Commission on 18 November 2003 when addressing Cocobu and the plenary session.
  The Director-General of Eurostat has indeed been replaced. All the posts of operational Directors have been made vacant and advertised both inside and outside the institution. The post of Resources Director has been filled by transfer. The organisation chart has been completely reviewed in order to take back some tasks that had been outsourced. Priorities have been re-set, with the focus being placed on Eurostat's core business. Finally, there has been a large degree of mobility at Unit Head level. Reorganisation has thus been on a very large scale in a bid to speed up the change in culture in Eurostat. The Commission President has also presented to Parliament the broad lines of the plan of action which should be adopted shortly by the Commission. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The Commission has done more than just replace the Director-General of Eurostat; the measures taken to reorganise Eurostat are much more far-reaching and complex than simply replacing the Director-General, and they were spelled out by the President of the Commission on 18 November 2003 when addressing Cocobu and the plenary session.

The Director-General of Eurostat has indeed been replaced. All the posts of operational Directors have been made vacant and advertised both inside and outside the institution. The post of Resources Director has been filled by transfer. The organisation chart has been completely reviewed in order to take back some tasks that had been outsourced. Priorities have been re-set, with the focus being placed on Eurostat's core business. Finally, there has been a large degree of mobility at Unit Head level. Reorganisation has thus been on a very large scale in a bid to speed up the change in culture in Eurostat. The Commission President has also presented to Parliament the broad lines of the plan of action which should be adopted shortly by the Commission.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/239 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/239

---

(2004/C 78 E/0241)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3198/03

by Olivier Dupuis (NI) to the Commission

(30 October 2003)

Subject:   Further camp closures and expulsions of refugees in Ingushetia

According to ‘Médecins sans frontières’, another camp was emptied in Ingushetia on 1 October, a few days after the elections in Chechnya. MSF also reports that the 168 last remaining families in the camp were luckier than the others because they were rehoused in tents provided by the Office of the High Commissioner for Refugees (HCR) in a neighbouring camp. Such alternative facilities were not provided for families expelled from the same camp before September, nor for those living in other camps and increasingly threatened with expulsion. MSF considers that this is an exception to the forced repatriation policy which continues to be the rule for Chechen refugees in Ingushetia. According to a survey conducted by MSF among all the refugees accommodated in tent camps in Ingushetia and published last spring, 90 % did not wish to return to Chechnya, where abductions, murders, torture and cleansing operations are daily occurrences.

Is the Commission aware of these latest forced expulsions of Chechen refugees from the camps in Ingushetia? What was its response to this blatant violation by the Russian authorities of the relevant international conventions and of their undertakings vis-à-vis the international community in general and the European Union in particular? How long is the Commission prepared to tolerate the Russian authorities' disregard for and violation of international law and their own undertakings?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(5 December 2003)

The Commission is closely following recent developments in Chechnya.

The Commission supports a political solution to the conflict, which respects Russia's territorial integrity, as well as all genuine efforts to bring about a lasting peace. The Commission had hoped that the constitutional referendum in March 2003 would lead to a peaceful, political settlement to the conflict by providing a platform for genuine dialogue, the restoration of the rule of law and the protection of human rights. As part of this settlement, it was in its view essential that the population of Chechnya recognise the legitimacy of the Presidential elections held on 5 October 2003. However, the conduct of the elections raised many questions regarding, amongst others, due process and access to the media.

The Commission is aware of disturbing reports of continuing human rights violations in Chechnya and of the closure of camps for internally displaced persons in Ingushetia. The authorities, by closing down these camps without authorising the international community, and primarily the Humanitarian Aid Office (ECHO), to build decent alternative shelter for those who want to stay, leave internally displaced persons no option but to return to Chechnya. This, despite the fact that the security situation in Chechnya has, if anything, deteriorated since the constitutional referendum in March 2003 and Presidential elections in October 2003 and notwithstanding the poor humanitarian situation in Chechnya. It is all the more regrettable, then, that Russia has not responded in any concrete way to repeated requests by the Commission to facilitate the provision of humanitarian aid, by authorising the construction of alternative shelter in Ingushetia, by providing non-governmental organisations (NGOs) with access to United Nations very high frequency (VHF) communications, by ensuring security for aid workers and by allowing ECHO to open an office in Nazran, Ingushetia.

These concerns were raised by the Commission at the Union/Russia Summit on 6 November 2003. The Commission will continue to use Union/Russia political dialogue meetings to call on the Russian authorities to improve all aspects of the situation in Chechnya.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/240 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/240

---

(2004/C 78 E/0242)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3201/03

by Antonio Tajani (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(23 October 2003)

Subject:   Search at the ‘Il Giornale’ head office in Rome: violation of freedom of the press in Italy

On Friday 17 October 2003, the head office of the leading Italian daily newspaper ‘Il Giornale’, which is investigating the purchase of Telekom Serbia by Telecom Italia, was searched by order of the Court of Perugia. At the end of this search, which was carried out by the police and lasted a good 13 hours, a large quantity of material belonging to the journalist Gian Marco Chiocci was confiscated. It appears that the only crime he is alleged to have committed is that of defaming a Rome judge in the press.

Does the Commission not consider the decisions taken to represent a blatant violation of the freedom of the press and the freedom of expression?

Does it not feel that these decisions violate the recommendations made by the Council of Ministers of the EU to the Member States on 8 March 2003, according to which interception, surveillance, searches and confiscation should not be used to circumvent the right of journalists not to reveal their sources?

Does it not consider the decisions by the Court of Perugia to run contrary to the renowned Goodwin ruling handed down by the Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, which gave legal substance to journalists' right to the professional secret.

Does it not consider the decisions by the Court of Perugia also to run contrary to ruling No 33400/96 of the Strasbourg court, which deems searches conducted with the intention of discovering journalists' sources to be an outright violation of the freedom of expression?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(2 December 2003)

The search carried out at the head office of ‘Il Giornale’ by order of the Perugia public prosecutor's office is the sole responsibility of the national authorities responsible for organising the justice system in Italy. Given that Community law is not at issue here, the Commission takes the view that it is not in a position to answer the questions raised by the Honourable Member.

It should be noted that anybody who considers that his fundamental rights have been infringed may take the matter to the European Court of Human Rights once all domestic legal remedies have been exhausted.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/240 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/240

---

(2004/C 78 E/0243)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3219/03

by Christopher Heaton-Harris (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(31 October 2003)

Subject:   Recognition of fire regulations in the EU

With regard to the fireproofing of fabrics there seems to be confusion over the recognition of different standard marks from EU countries.

Would the Commission confirm that the British standard mark number for the fireproofing of fabric, BS5867 PART 2B, is equivalent to the French mark number M1?

Is the British standard mark legally acceptable in France?

Could the Commission give details of the legislation within the EU that concerns this?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(10 December 2003)

There is currently no Community legislation harmonising the standards for the fireproofing of fabrics. Accordingly, Member States are free to adopt their own standards. However, the free movement of fabrics between Member States is nevertheless assured to a considerable extent by the principle of mutual recognition, derived from the jurisprudence of the European Court of Justice, in particular on the basis of Articles 28 and following of the EC Treaty.

This principle obliges a Member State to permit the placing on its market of a product lawfully manufactured or sold in another Member State unless it can show that the product does not afford a degree of protection of a legitimate public interest equivalent to that guaranteed by its own legislative or administrative requirements.

Therefore, if the French authorities decide not to permit the placing on the market in France of products complying with the British standard, it is for them to justify such refusal by demonstrating that the products do not afford sufficient protection of the consumer.

A lack of appropriate justifications may entail the breach of the EC Treaty as interpreted by the Court of Justice.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/241 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/241

---

(2004/C 78 E/0244)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3231/03

by Dorette Corbey (PSE) to the Commission

(31 October 2003)

Subject:   Allocation of subsidies under the fifth and sixth framework programmes

The projects funded with help from the fifth and sixth framework programmes are generally held in high esteem. They are often innovative and the mere requirement that the partners/bodies working together must come from several different countries generates positive synergy which can help to create Community value.

Unfortunately, reports of problems have also come to my attention, problems which, in some cases, are so serious as to undermine the positive impact of programmes and projects. In many cases, these problems lead to disillusionment and a reluctance to submit fresh proposals.

Above all, the complaints concern the administration of the programmes:

| — | The administrative arrangements are complex, anything but transparent and require the investment of an unreasonable amount of time, money and effort. |
| --- | --- |

—

The administrative arrangements are complex, anything but transparent and require the investment of an unreasonable amount of time, money and effort.

| — | In the case of smaller bodies, the administrative burden has become an insurmountable obstacle and the percentage of funding granted to cover overheads is too low. Unfortunately, this also applies to many bodies from the applicant countries. |
| --- | --- |

—

In the case of smaller bodies, the administrative burden has become an insurmountable obstacle and the percentage of funding granted to cover overheads is too low. Unfortunately, this also applies to many bodies from the applicant countries.

| — | In some cases, additional information is requested at the very last moment before a time-limit runs out. This results in enormous delays in processing applications and making payments. |
| --- | --- |

—

In some cases, additional information is requested at the very last moment before a time-limit runs out. This results in enormous delays in processing applications and making payments.

| — | Proposals for projects seem to be assessed in an arbitrary manner. High quality in terms of substance and presentation does not necessarily lead to approval, whereas low quality does not always result in rejection. |
| --- | --- |

—

Proposals for projects seem to be assessed in an arbitrary manner. High quality in terms of substance and presentation does not necessarily lead to approval, whereas low quality does not always result in rejection.

Naturally enough, I realise that meticulous procedures are needed in order to prevent fraud and the misuse of Community funds.

Nevertheless, I should like to put the following questions:

| 1. | Does the Commission acknowledge the problems outlined above? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Does the Commission acknowledge the problems outlined above?

| 2. | Have its relevant departments set up procedures for dealing with reports of problems? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Have its relevant departments set up procedures for dealing with reports of problems?

| 3. | What measures have the relevant Commission departments taken with a view to improving and/or simplifying administrative procedures? |
| --- | --- |

3.

What measures have the relevant Commission departments taken with a view to improving and/or simplifying administrative procedures?

| 4. | What measures does the Commission plan to take? |
| --- | --- |

4.

What measures does the Commission plan to take?

Answer given by Mr Busquin on behalf of the Commission

(16 December 2003)

The Commission acknowledges that certain organisations face some problems relating to issues identified in this written question. However, it should be noted that great efforts have been made to improve the transparency and availability of the information available to potential proposers, including information of networks of national contact points and training and information sessions that should help to relieve the administrative tasks relating to applications for research funding. Specifically with respect to the percentage of funding granted to cover overheads there should be no problem for any organisation to charge its real overheads related to any project. There are only some particular instruments where the overhead rates are limited and this is because of the nature of those instruments and the fact that they reimburse 100 % of eligible costs.

As mentioned, every effort is made to ensure that all information is available well in advance and that no last-minute requests for additional information are required. During negotiation of projects it is possible that further information is required because of something that is discovered in the initial stages of the negotiation. But in most cases the time limits are sufficient to allow the potential contractors to provide such information within the delays.

The Commission cannot agree with the statement that proposals are assessed in an arbitrary manner. On the contrary, the evaluation of research proposals is based on the principle of ‘peer review’ generally accepted and applied in scientific institutions worldwide and the procedures and criteria used are made widely available. The Commission uses the help of independent experts, to evaluate proposals against the various criteria set out in the legal texts governing the framework programme. In particular, scientific and technological excellence is a sine qua non for a proposal to be accepted under the Sixth Framework Programme (FP6). The high quality of the evaluation process, the experts used, as well as the selected proposals have all been confirmed by the observations and reports of independent observers who attend the evaluations, national contact points and fellow evaluators. Poor quality proposals are not funded; however it is the case that not all high quality projects submitted can be funded, due to budget limitations.

Each report of a problem is dealt with seriously and attentively and investigated to determine whether it is well founded or based on misunderstandings of the basic principles. Where there are real problems, efforts are made to correct them. A number of measures have been taken, particularly with the FP6, in order to ensure that research consortia take more responsibility for the management of their own projects and are more engaged in the scientific and research aspects rather than being obliged to follow primarily administrative aspects. This has been reflected in the Rules for Participation and the model contract for FP6.

It is not estimated that any general measures need to be taken at this time, except for the constant general aim of improving the quality of information available to potential contractors.

In addition, it should be noted that a specific interservice Task Force has been established since the beginning of FP6 in order to monitor the implementation of the FP6 instruments, in particular the new ones (Integrated Projects and Networks of Excellence). In parallel, a number of interservice Working Groups continuously monitor FP6 progress in different domains (evaluation, guidelines for proposers or evaluators, etc.) and accordingly react by resolving any identified issue and updating the corresponding documentation.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/243 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/243

---

(2004/C 78 E/0245)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3255/03

by Marie Isler Béguin (Verts/ALE) and Yves Piétrasanta (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(3 November 2003)

Subject:   Respect for rights and justice following the Bhopal tragedy in India

The industrial disaster at the Union Carbide (UC) factory in Bhopal (India) in December 1984 led to the release of 40 tonnes of toxic substances into the air, causing 20 000 deaths and poisoning half a million people.

The management of UC pursued a policy of miserly restrictions on safety equipment, training and staffing. In addition, withholding of information by UC management on the nature and toxicity of the chemicals released into the atmosphere at the time of the explosion hampered decisions on evacuation and urgent medical intervention.

The lasting and unyielding legacy of this contamination of the environment has been serious illness for 120 000 people, and there are around 10 deaths every month.

The UC management's strategy of dodging legal action took a further turn in 2001 when the company merged with the industrial group Dow.

Does the martyred earth at Bhopal not encourage the Commission to mobilise as a matter of urgency all the means available to it and to Member States to put a stop to such environmental, health and medical disasters and to provide epidemiological care for the population forced to live in the area affected?

Will the scandalous denial of justice following this industrial tragedy encourage the Commission to commit itself, on the basis of its prerogatives and of those of Member States, to re-establishing victims' rights, compensating them and prosecuting those responsible for this disaster, making public the causes as well as Union Carbide's environmental track record and failings in terms of the environment in its activities throughout the world?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(5 December 2003)

The Commission is deeply concerned about the humanitarian, ecological and medical consequences of the Bhopal gas tragedy in India. The Commission is an active donor in India and plans to contribute to an India-wide programme for disaster preparedness and mitigation. While this programme will mainly focus on natural disasters, it will be targeting Community based emergency plans that should help the country to better face disasters as and when they occur.

The Commission is also supporting a large number of non-governmental organisations (NGOs), some of which are dealing with national human rights issues and public interest litigation.

It is also worth emphasising that, since Bhopal, the Government of India has put in place more stringent environmental legislation.

The Commission is engaged in a dialogue on environmental issues with the Government of India and a high-level working group with representatives from both sides meets on a regular basis to monitor progress.

The Commission can therefore assure the Honourable Members that it follows the Bhopal tragedy as well as other issues related to the regulatory framework and environmental concerns closely in its cooperation activities with India.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/244 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/244

---

(2004/C 78 E/0246)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3258/03

by María Ayuso González (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(28 October 2003)

Subject:   Garlic import scheme

In 2001 the European Union introduced a garlic import scheme with a view to placing permanent restrictions on imports from third countries and preventing the irregularities which have been detected for years in Chinese garlic sales. Within the World Trade Organisation it negotiated a 38 379-tonne ad valorem duty-payable quota which was split between Argentina, China and other countries. The new scheme permanently replaced the successive safeguard clauses which had been introduced in order to prevent fraudulent exports of Chinese garlic. The initiative has produced satisfactory results, since a significant reduction in the number of irregularities has been achieved.

Nonetheless, shortcomings still exist, as is apparent from the complaints submitted by Spanish garlic growers to OLAF.

Would the Commission say whether it intends to introduce internal improvements in order to prevent the problems which have given rise to the above complaints?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(19 November 2003)

The Commission shares the Honourable Member's opinion on the importance of policing import arrangements, including those for garlic. It has received complaints from Spanish garlic growers and passed them on to the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) to be examined and dealt with.

As she will doubtless agree, if these claims are correct false certificates of origin are being used, possibly with the connivance of exporting countries' authorities.

Fraud of this type does not call into question the present policing system and attempts to perpetrate it are liable to be made regardless of the checks that the importing country can put in place.

To minimise the risk involved Commission officials regularly conduct retrospective examinations of operation of the garlic scheme.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/244 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/244

---

(2004/C 78 E/0247)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3260/03

by Michel Hansenne (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(4 November 2003)

Subject:   Approving the setting up of a driving school

The royal decree adopted by Belgium on 23 March 1998 sets out the arrangements for approving the opening of a driving school in Belgium. It would seem that, in practice, this decree prevents the setting up of any new driving school.

By taking this step, is Belgium not in breach of EU law, particularly competition law? If so, what does Belgium have to do to conform with EU rules?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(22 December 2003)

The situation described by the Honourable Member does not appear to fall within the scope of the rules of Community competition law.

The Belgian Royal Decree of 23 March 1998 is a State measure.

The rules of Community competition law which are not addressed to undertakings but to the Member States, are the rules regarding State Aid (Articles 87 and 88, EC Treaty) and public or privileged undertakings (Article 86, EC Treaty). The provisions of the relevant Royal Decree do not appear to fall within the scope of those rules.

However, in certain cases Community competition law can also be applied to State measures if these measures impose or induce anti-competitive behaviour by undertakings. It is, therefore, required that the undertakings concerned adopt an anti-competitive behaviour which in itself constitutes a violation of Community competition rules. The requirements for the accreditation of driving schools, laid down in the Royal Decree, do not appear to impose or induce anti-competitive behaviour of driving schools.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/245 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/245

---

(2004/C 78 E/0248)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3262/03

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(4 November 2003)

Subject:   Exclusion of persons who are nationals of another Member State from the right to purchase soft drugs or to be members of a users' association

| 1. | Is the Commission aware that the selling of soft drugs in Netherlands ‘coffee shops’, allowed in practice since the 1970s, follows the basic principle that the sale of such drugs should be refused to those who are under age, but not to those who are not Netherlands nationals? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is the Commission aware that the selling of soft drugs in Netherlands ‘coffee shops’, allowed in practice since the 1970s, follows the basic principle that the sale of such drugs should be refused to those who are under age, but not to those who are not Netherlands nationals?

| 2. | Is the Commission aware of the joint press conference held on 22 October 2003 in Berlin by the German Interior Minister and the Netherlands Justice Minister, at which, inter alia, statements were made which could lead to a policy based on different treatment of EU residents depending on their nationality or the country where they are resident? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Is the Commission aware of the joint press conference held on 22 October 2003 in Berlin by the German Interior Minister and the Netherlands Justice Minister, at which, inter alia, statements were made which could lead to a policy based on different treatment of EU residents depending on their nationality or the country where they are resident?

| 3. | Would it be permissible, on the basis of the current European Treaties, for the sale of the soft drugs sold in Netherlands ‘coffee shops’ to be refused in future to those who are not Netherlands nationals or citizens? If not, will the Commission be informing the Member States of this? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Would it be permissible, on the basis of the current European Treaties, for the sale of the soft drugs sold in Netherlands ‘coffee shops’ to be refused in future to those who are not Netherlands nationals or citizens? If not, will the Commission be informing the Member States of this?

| 4. | Would it be permissible, on the basis of the current European Treaties, for the sale of soft drugs in Netherlands ‘coffee shops’ to be limited in future to closed users' associations that must refuse membership to those who are not Netherlands nationals or citizens? If not, will the Commission be informing the Member States of this? |
| --- | --- |

4.

Would it be permissible, on the basis of the current European Treaties, for the sale of soft drugs in Netherlands ‘coffee shops’ to be limited in future to closed users' associations that must refuse membership to those who are not Netherlands nationals or citizens? If not, will the Commission be informing the Member States of this?

| 5. | Would a possible alternative to discrimination based on nationality and citizenship be for the authorities wishing to combat the use of soft drugs on their territory to start from the basic principle that consumption must take place in the country of purchase, similarly to the way in which Netherlands nationals may purchase dangerous fireworks or firearms but may not import such products into the Netherlands? |
| --- | --- |

5.

Would a possible alternative to discrimination based on nationality and citizenship be for the authorities wishing to combat the use of soft drugs on their territory to start from the basic principle that consumption must take place in the country of purchase, similarly to the way in which Netherlands nationals may purchase dangerous fireworks or firearms but may not import such products into the Netherlands?

Source: Netherlands newspaper NRC-Handelsblad, 23.10.2003.

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(11 December 2003)

The Commission is aware of the debate that is taking place in the Netherlands regarding national policy on cannabis, in particular relating to ‘coffee shops’.

In line with the subsidiarity principle, it would not be appropriate for the Commission to participate or intervene in debates taking place at national level regarding Member States' policies on this subject.

The Commission will, however, undertake the appropriate action in case of a possible infringement of the Treaties.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/246 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/246

---

(2004/C 78 E/0249)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3268/03

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(4 November 2003)

Subject:   Commission employees

Will the Commission state the proportion of employees by nationality in each of the top ten grades within the Commission establishment plan?

Will it further state the number of employees by nationality in each of the top ten grades within the Commission establishment plan?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(8 December 2003)

The Commission interprets the question as referring to the entire A category (grades 8 to 1) and the two highest grades in the Β category (grades 1 and 2) to be the ‘top ten’ grades of its career system.

Table 1 which is sent direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat shows the number of personnel in the A category together with the two highest grades of the Β category by nationality. Table 2 which is also sent direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat gives the proportion of this personnel against the total of each grade within the establishment plan for operation and research budgets.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/246 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/246

---

(2004/C 78 E/0250)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3273/03

by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(5 November 2003)

Subject:   Emissions of refrigerant gases from (Dutch) ships

On 27 August 2003 the Netherlands Ministry of Spatial Planning, Housing and the Environment (VROM) presented a study on leakage of refrigerant gases from cutters and trawlers (http://www.vrom.nl/docs/ milieu/koudemiddelen_het_schip_in_juni2003.pdf). These are said to leak ten times as many such gases as refrigeration systems on land. The refrigerant gases attack the ozone layer and contribute to the greenhouse effect.

The study shows that on average, refrigeration systems on trawlers lose half their refrigerant gases each year. In the case of cutters the rate is as high as 80 %. This is far more than the average leakage rate of 4,5 % from refrigeration systems on land. In comparison with refrigeration systems on land, therefore, shipping generates a disproportionately high proportion of refrigerant gas emissions, with all that this implies. Refrigeration systems on ships represent only 5 % of the total quantity of cooling agents in the Netherlands, but are responsible for 35 % of total leakage.

Can the Commission say whether this problem is confined to the Netherlands fleet, or whether it also occurs in other Member States?

Does the Commission consider that adequate measures have been taken in the case of shipping with regard to emissions of the greenhouse gases mentioned in the annex to the Kyoto Protocol — carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs) and sulphur hexafluoride (SF6)? To what extent do the VROM's measurements indicate that Article 17 (‘Leakages of controlled substances’) of Regulation (EC) 2037/2000 is being violated?

What steps will the Commission take to reduce emissions of ozone-degrading substances and greenhouse gases in CO2 equivalent from shipping?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(22 December 2003)

The Commission welcomes the study undertaken by the Netherlands on leakage rates of refrigeration fluids from cutters and trawlers, especially if it is the basis for further action to prevent emissions of refrigerants. Under Article 17 of Regulation (EC) No 2037/2000 of the Parliament and of the Council of 29 June 2000, on substances that deplete the ozone layer (1), Member States have the responsibility to take ‘All precautionary measures practicable to prevent and to minimise leakages of controlled substances. In particular, fixed equipment with a refrigerating fluid charge of more than 3 kg shall be checked for leakages annually.’

The Commission does not have information at this stage on the leakage rates from refrigeration and air-conditioning equipment installed in similar vessels that are operated in other Member States. There are no standards relating to specific leakage rates of ozone depleting substances from such equipment in Regulation (EC) No 2037/2000, although there are provisions in the Regulation establishing minimum qualification requirements for personnel dealing with such equipment. The Commission believes that using qualified personnel to service refrigeration and air-conditioning equipment can be an important element in Member States' efforts to minimise leakages of ozone depleting substances. Moreover, Member States have the obligation to report to the Commission on initiatives put in place to minimise leakages of ozone depleting substances. On the basis of accurate information on Member States' programmes, that could include leakage rates of ozone depleting substances from air-conditioning and refrigeration equipment, the Commission will be in a better position to promote European standards regarding leak rates in equipment in accordance with the provisions of Article 17 of Regulation (EC) No 2037/2000.

The Commission, under Article 17 of Regulation (EC) 2037/2000, is taking a number of steps to reduce emissions of ozone depleting substances from shipping. In this area the most effective mechanism is to phase out the use of such substances. Commercial shipping in the Union can no longer install air-conditioning and refrigeration equipment using chlorofluorcarbons (CFCs) or service their air-conditioning and refrigeration equipment using CFCs. Existing leaky equipment using CFCs would, therefore, necessarily have to be replaced when it ceases to function due to lack of refrigerant. Furthermore, the Union shipping industry while they can continue to service air-conditioning and refrigeration equipment using virgin hydrofluorcarbons (HCFCs), a temporary replacement for CFCs, up to 2010 and recovered up to 2015, there is a use ban on the installation of new equipment using HCFCs. Possibly more important, given their high ozone depleting potential, is the phasing out of halons in fire-fighting equipment in ships. Fire protection systems containing halon have to be decommissioned before the 31 December 2003 and the halon recovered in accordance with Article 16 of the Regulation.

More generally, as regards reducing ship emissions of greenhouse gases listed in the Kyoto Protocol, the Commission believes that much remains to be done. A recent ship emissions quantification study for the Commission estimated that ships in Union seas emitted 157 million tonnes of carbon dioxide in the year 2000 — more than land-based emissions in nine individual Member States. The Kyoto Protocol does not directly address emissions from shipping, instead its Article 2.2 calls for parties to pursue the limitation or reduction of greenhouse gas emissions from international ships' bunker fuels working through the International Maritime Organization (IMO).

The IMO has, therefore, taken responsibility for this issue, and its Maríne Environment Protection Committee has finalised a draft resolution on an IMO Greenhouse Gas strategy, which will be considered at the 23rd IMO Assembly in December 2003. The Union Council of Ministers has urged the IMO to adopt a concrete, ambitious strategy on greenhouse gases, and the Commission and a number of Member States, including the Netherlands, are actively participating in discussions on the IMO resolution, with a view to ensuring the resulting strategy is indeed concrete and ambitious.

As regards Union measures to reduce emissions of greenhouse gas emissions from shipping, the 6th Environment Action Programme requests the Commission to identify and undertake specific actions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from marine shipping if no such action is agreed within the International Maritime Organization by 2003. This commitment is echoed in the Commission's more recent Communication to the Parliament and to the Council on a European Union Strategy to reduce atmospheric emissions from seagoing ships (2), which proposes an Union objective to reduce ships' unitary emissions of carbon dioxide, and which commits the Commission to consider Union action to reduce ship greenhouse gas emissions if no concrete measures are agreed at the IMO in 2003.

---

(1)  OJ L 244, 29.9.2000.

(2)  COM(2002) 595 final, Vol I.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/248 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/248

---

(2004/C 78 E/0251)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3278/03

by José Ribeiro e Castro (UEN) to the Commission

(5 November 2003)

Subject:   Macao — Forum for Economic and Trade Cooperation

The Ministerial Meeting of the Forum for Economic and Trade Cooperation between China and Portuguese-speaking Countries was held in Macao on 12, 13 and 14 October this year.

It was referred to explicitly in the EP resolution, adopted on 8 April 2003, on the report from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament on the Macao Special Administrative Region: First and Second Annual Reports, in which the EP pointed out that ‘Macao, because of its history and longstanding links with Europe, in particular through Portugal, is well placed to act as a bridge between the European Union and the People's Republic of China (PRC)’ and that ‘the governments of the MSAR and the PRC have both recently laid down and have been implementing a policy seeking to capitalise on Macao's position as a hub for China's relations with the entire Portuguese-speaking world’.

According to the information available the meeting went well and was most promising.

These developments are of major importance for Europe in general and the EU in particular, since they create a new opportunity for two-way international cooperation with China, based on the third most important European language spoken worldwide, Portuguese, and with Macao as the hub.

Can the Commission therefore say:

| — | whether it sent any representatives or observers to the meeting; |
| --- | --- |

—

whether it sent any representatives or observers to the meeting;

| — | what information it has gathered and what conclusions it has drawn; |
| --- | --- |

—

what information it has gathered and what conclusions it has drawn;

| — | what effect these matters will have on enhanced European cooperation with Macao, as mentioned in the EP resolution adopted on 8 April 2003? |
| --- | --- |

—

what effect these matters will have on enhanced European cooperation with Macao, as mentioned in the EP resolution adopted on 8 April 2003?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(11 December 2003)

The Commission was not invited to participate in the first forum for economic and trade cooperation between China and Portuguese-speaking countries held in Macao on 12, 13 and 14 October. It was therefore not represented at this meeting.

Nonetheless, it has taken note of the signing of an action plan for economic and trade cooperation between China and the seven Portuguese-speaking countries and of the ‘hub’ role for relations between the two parties assigned to Macao by the forum's participants. The Commission also notes with interest the Special Administrative Region's designation as the forum's permanent secretary for the organisation of a second meeting in 2006.

The Commission notes that these fresh developments follow on from its own communication on Macao dating back to 1999 (1), which states that in the EU's view Macao has a key role to play as a bridge between Asia and Europe. That role is reflected in current cooperation between the Commission and the Special Administrative Region of Macao.

---

(1)  COM(1999) 484 final.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/249 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/249

---

(2004/C 78 E/0252)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3279/03

by Maurizio Turco (NI) to the Commission

(30 October 2003)

Subject:   Quality checks by the Commission on the Clearance Audit Trail System (CATS) database

Knowing that:

| (a) | Extracts from the European Commission's Clearance Audit Trail System (CATS) database, which contains data from the Member States on refunds for exports of Community agricultural products to third countries, were annexed to the supplementary answer to Written Question P-3202/02 (1). |
| --- | --- |

(a)

Extracts from the European Commission's Clearance Audit Trail System (CATS) database, which contains data from the Member States on refunds for exports of Community agricultural products to third countries, were annexed to the supplementary answer to Written Question P-3202/02 (1).

| (b) | The supplementary answer to Written Questions E-1477/03-1480/2003 (2) stated:






  — | that the Commission was carrying out a set of quality checks (on the code lists, tallying of overall amounts with annual declarations, compliance with the rules and completeness of the data); |
| --- | --- | --- |

(b)

The supplementary answer to Written Questions E-1477/03-1480/2003 (2) stated:

—

that the Commission was carrying out a set of quality checks (on the code lists, tallying of overall amounts with annual declarations, compliance with the rules and completeness of the data);

| — | that the quality of the data was generally adequate for clearance of accounts purposes and; |
| --- | --- |

—

that the quality of the data was generally adequate for clearance of accounts purposes and;

| — | that no errors had been committed by any Member State when indicating the unit of measurement for the amounts exported (kilograms rather than tonnes), but that there had been some easily-identifiable oversights. |
| --- | --- |

—

that no errors had been committed by any Member State when indicating the unit of measurement for the amounts exported (kilograms rather than tonnes), but that there had been some easily-identifiable oversights.

| (c) | The issue of the correct use of the code lists (quality check) is addressed in Written Question E-3113/2003 (3). |
| --- | --- |

(c)

The issue of the correct use of the code lists (quality check) is addressed in Written Question E-3113/2003 (3).

| (d) | Examination of the CATS database in relation to refunds on exports to the Vatican City State, Switzerland, Andorra, Liechtenstein and San Maríno in the years 1998-2001 shows that out of a total of EUR 639 421 671,77 refunded for the export of Community products:






  — | EUR 9 067 116,01 were paid in the absence of any indication of the product and the unit of measurement; |
| --- | --- | --- |

(d)

Examination of the CATS database in relation to refunds on exports to the Vatican City State, Switzerland, Andorra, Liechtenstein and San Maríno in the years 1998-2001 shows that out of a total of EUR 639 421 671,77 refunded for the export of Community products:

—

EUR 9 067 116,01 were paid in the absence of any indication of the product and the unit of measurement;

| — | EUR 14 173 353,56 were paid in the absence of any indication of the product; |
| --- | --- |

—

EUR 14 173 353,56 were paid in the absence of any indication of the product;

| — | and EUR 74 115 436,13 were paid in the absence of the unit of measurement; |
| --- | --- |

—

and EUR 74 115 436,13 were paid in the absence of the unit of measurement;

making a total of EUR 97 355 905,7 or 15,23 % of the total volume of export refunds, bearing in mind that this examination did not look into ‘errors’.

In the light of the above, can the Commission indicate:

| 1. | how and by whom the set of quality checks is conducted, or in other words whether it is satisfied with the checks carried out; |
| --- | --- |

1.

how and by whom the set of quality checks is conducted, or in other words whether it is satisfied with the checks carried out;

| 2. | whether it genuinely considers — as it has stated — that the quality of the data is generally adequate for clearance of accounts purposes, or in other words whether it bases clearance activities solely on the declarations made by Member States; |
| --- | --- |

2.

whether it genuinely considers — as it has stated — that the quality of the data is generally adequate for clearance of accounts purposes, or in other words whether it bases clearance activities solely on the declarations made by Member States;

| 3. | whether any investigations into export refunds are currently being conducted by the Court of Auditors and/or OLAF? |
| --- | --- |

3.

whether any investigations into export refunds are currently being conducted by the Court of Auditors and/or OLAF?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(4 December 2003)

The Commission refers the Honourable Member to its answers to his Written Questions E-1477/03 to E-1480/03 (4) and to its answers to his Written Questions E-3113/03 (3) and P-3202/02.

The Honourable Member claims to base the figures in his written question on an answer given to Written Question P-3202/02. Unfortunately, the Honourable Member has not correctly quoted from this answer since he refers e.g. to an amount of EUR 639 421 671,77 instead of the correct figure of EUR 321 711 242,39 which is the total amount of the refunds paid for exports during the period 1998-2001 in the said countries (5). 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.

The Commission considers that this fact might have an impact on the assessment of the Honourable Member and have an influence on the purpose of his questions.

In light of the above:

| 1. | The Commission receives computer files each year from the Member States concerning details of all individual payments made to the beneficiaries pursuant to Commission Regulation (EC) No 2390/1999 (6). The detailed information is stored in the CATS (7) database.
  CATS is a huge and very detailed database, containing over 137 million data records and around 4,09 billion related number of fields (8). Obviously it is not possible to check all these individual fields. In order to improve the data quality, the Commission has continuously refined the CATS database since its creation, as well as the corresponding Regulation. Data quality is a constant concern and, as a result of the yearly checks, the quality of the computer files is steadily improving.
  As for the specific controls of the data from the financial year 2000 onwards the Commission examines four different quality aspects of the computer files received from the Member States pursuant to Commission Regulation (EC) No 2390/1999.
  Each year, the Commission undertakes a reconciliation of the amounts declared from the Member States with the respective annual declarations. Possible differences need to be justified.
  The second aspect is the respect of code lists. Commission Regulation (EC) No 2390/1999 requires standard codes for a certain number of fields. From the financial year 2002 onwards, compliance with the code lists is automatically checked during the transmission of the computer data to the Commission.
  The third quality aspect includes the completeness of the data supplied by the Member States in respect of the budget posts. From the financial year 2002 onwards, some data elements are already checked during the transmission process.
  The last item within the quality control is the respect of the deadline of 10 February for sending the computer data to the Commission.
  Each year, the Commission communicates the conclusions and findings made in the quality checks to the Member States in order to improve the quality of the computer data for the next financial year. This feedback also allows Member States to adapt their computer systems before sending the computer files for the next financial year. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The Commission receives computer files each year from the Member States concerning details of all individual payments made to the beneficiaries pursuant to Commission Regulation (EC) No 2390/1999 (6). The detailed information is stored in the CATS (7) database.

CATS is a huge and very detailed database, containing over 137 million data records and around 4,09 billion related number of fields (8). Obviously it is not possible to check all these individual fields. In order to improve the data quality, the Commission has continuously refined the CATS database since its creation, as well as the corresponding Regulation. Data quality is a constant concern and, as a result of the yearly checks, the quality of the computer files is steadily improving.

As for the specific controls of the data from the financial year 2000 onwards the Commission examines four different quality aspects of the computer files received from the Member States pursuant to Commission Regulation (EC) No 2390/1999.

Each year, the Commission undertakes a reconciliation of the amounts declared from the Member States with the respective annual declarations. Possible differences need to be justified.

The second aspect is the respect of code lists. Commission Regulation (EC) No 2390/1999 requires standard codes for a certain number of fields. From the financial year 2002 onwards, compliance with the code lists is automatically checked during the transmission of the computer data to the Commission.

The third quality aspect includes the completeness of the data supplied by the Member States in respect of the budget posts. From the financial year 2002 onwards, some data elements are already checked during the transmission process.

The last item within the quality control is the respect of the deadline of 10 February for sending the computer data to the Commission.

Each year, the Commission communicates the conclusions and findings made in the quality checks to the Member States in order to improve the quality of the computer data for the next financial year. This feedback also allows Member States to adapt their computer systems before sending the computer files for the next financial year.

| 2. | CATS was created to assist the Commission in the context of the Clearance of Accounts procedure. CATS has been operational since the financial year 2000. The auditors of the Commission are using it to prepare and perform their European Agriculture Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) Guarantee expenditure related audits. This database is thus primarily and above all an audit tool helping to carry out audits.
  According to Commission Regulation (EC) No 2390/1999 Member States make available to the Commission all the information by budget item in respect of each individual operation making up the payments by and the receipts of the EAGGF Guarantee Section. Firstly, the quality of the data depends on the information supplied once a year by the Member States which are the suppliers of this data. Secondly, the Commission undertakes specific quality controls, as mentioned under question 1., to improve steadily the data quality. Therefore, the Commission has a reliable tool to be used in their audits of the agricultural expenditure carried out in the Member States. That part of the data, which undergoes more in depth controls in the context of the audits and enquiries, is correlated by the findings made in the Member States. Despite the fact that it is not possible to check every element of each computer record, the data quality is in general adequate for the use in this Clearance of Accounts activity.
  As a result, since CATS has been created and designed as an audit tool, it is therefore only of limited use for providing statistical and analytical information. It is important to stress that parameters which are important for the controls prevail, and most importantly the expenditure is cross-checked and confirmed by the monthly declarations of the Member States. |
| --- | --- |

2.

CATS was created to assist the Commission in the context of the Clearance of Accounts procedure. CATS has been operational since the financial year 2000. The auditors of the Commission are using it to prepare and perform their European Agriculture Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) Guarantee expenditure related audits. This database is thus primarily and above all an audit tool helping to carry out audits.

According to Commission Regulation (EC) No 2390/1999 Member States make available to the Commission all the information by budget item in respect of each individual operation making up the payments by and the receipts of the EAGGF Guarantee Section. Firstly, the quality of the data depends on the information supplied once a year by the Member States which are the suppliers of this data. Secondly, the Commission undertakes specific quality controls, as mentioned under question 1., to improve steadily the data quality. Therefore, the Commission has a reliable tool to be used in their audits of the agricultural expenditure carried out in the Member States. That part of the data, which undergoes more in depth controls in the context of the audits and enquiries, is correlated by the findings made in the Member States. Despite the fact that it is not possible to check every element of each computer record, the data quality is in general adequate for the use in this Clearance of Accounts activity.

As a result, since CATS has been created and designed as an audit tool, it is therefore only of limited use for providing statistical and analytical information. It is important to stress that parameters which are important for the controls prevail, and most importantly the expenditure is cross-checked and confirmed by the monthly declarations of the Member States.

| 3. | The previous general enquiries that were carried out by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) in this matter were conducted on its behalf by the Italian authorities as detailed in the answer given to the Honourable Member's Written Question E-2299/02 (9).
  Currently, OLAF does not have any specific cases of investigation into the export of agricultural products to the states listed by the Honourable Member.
  As for the Court of Auditors, the question must be addressed directly to this institution. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The previous general enquiries that were carried out by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) in this matter were conducted on its behalf by the Italian authorities as detailed in the answer given to the Honourable Member's Written Question E-2299/02 (9).

Currently, OLAF does not have any specific cases of investigation into the export of agricultural products to the states listed by the Honourable Member.

As for the Court of Auditors, the question must be addressed directly to this institution.

---

(1)  OJ C 137 E, 12.6.2003, p. 172.

(2)  OJ C 70 E, 20.3.2004, p. 45.

(3)  See page 223.

(4)  OJ C 70 E, 20.3.2004, p. 45.

(5)  Swiss Confederation, the Principality of Andorra, the Principality of Liechtenstein, the Republic of San Marino and the Vatican State City.

(6)  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. Annexes I, II and III of this Regulation are updated annually.

(7)  ‘Clearance Audit Trail System’.

(8)  Each payment record can contain up to 128 different data fields.

(9)  OJ C 110 E, 8.5.2003.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/252 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/252

---

(2004/C 78 E/0253)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3280/03

by Maurizio Turco (NI) to the Commission

(5 November 2003)

Subject:   Lack of specific monitoring of product quantities exported from Member States to the Vatican City State under the export refund system

Knowing that:

| (a) | Extracts from the European Commission's Clearance Audit Trail System (CATS) database, which contains data from the Member States on refunds for exports of Community agricultural products to third countries, were annexed to the supplementary answer to Written Question P-3202/02 (1). |
| --- | --- |

(a)

Extracts from the European Commission's Clearance Audit Trail System (CATS) database, which contains data from the Member States on refunds for exports of Community agricultural products to third countries, were annexed to the supplementary answer to Written Question P-3202/02 (1).

| (b) | Consultation of the CATS database shows that in the period 1998-2001:






  — | 321 711 242,39 euro were refunded for exports to the Vatican; |
| --- | --- | --- |

(b)

Consultation of the CATS database shows that in the period 1998-2001:

—

321 711 242,39 euro were refunded for exports to the Vatican;

| — | 281 866 767,22 euro were refunded for exports to Switzerland; |
| --- | --- |

—

281 866 767,22 euro were refunded for exports to Switzerland;

| — | 35 414 204,76 euro were refunded for exports to Andorra; |
| --- | --- |

—

35 414 204,76 euro were refunded for exports to Andorra;

| — | 429 415,48 euro were refunded for exports to Liechtenstein; |
| --- | --- |

—

429 415,48 euro were refunded for exports to Liechtenstein;

| — | and 41,92 euro were refunded for exports to San Maríno. |
| --- | --- |

—

and 41,92 euro were refunded for exports to San Maríno.

| (c) | The supplementary answer to Written Questions E-1477/03-E-1480/03 (2) states 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. |
| --- | --- | --- |

(c)

The supplementary answer to Written Questions E-1477/03-E-1480/03 (2) states 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

| (d) | 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’. |
| --- | --- |

(d)

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’.

In the light of the above, can the Commission indicate:

| — | 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?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(16 December 2003)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to his Written Question P-3202/02 (3) which include a listing with aggregated refunds paid for various destinations including the Vatican State City (VA).

The Honourable Member wrongly quotes from this answer. The correct amount for the Vatican State City (VA) is EUR 4 000 813,01 and not EUR 321 711 242,39 as claimed by the Honourable Member.

In the light of the exact amount (EUR 4 000 813,01) for the Vatican State City (VA) the Commission considers the questions to be without relevance.

---

(1)  OJ C 137 E, 12.6.2003, p. 172.

(2)  OJ C 70 E, 20.3.2004, p. 45.

(3)  OJ C 137 E, 12.6.2003.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/253 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/253

---

(2004/C 78 E/0254)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3281/03

by Bartho Pronk (PPE-DE), Maria Martens (PPE-DE) and Albert Maat (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(5 November 2003)

Subject:   Follow-up to question E-1740/02 on the free movement of captains

On 30 September 2003 the European Court of Justice gave his decision in the Anave case (C-405/01). This case concerned the relationship between Article 39 of the Treaty and the free movement of captains. The Commission deferred answering Written Questions E-1022/02 (1) and E-1740/02 (2) pending the outcome of the case.

| 1. | Now that the Commission knows the Court's decision in the Anave case, can it provide detailed answers to questions E-1022/02 (and the associated question E-2069/01 (3)) and E-1740/02? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Now that the Commission knows the Court's decision in the Anave case, can it provide detailed answers to questions E-1022/02 (and the associated question E-2069/01 (3)) and E-1740/02?

| 2. | Does the Commission not also consider that the position it expressed in answer to Written Question E-2069/01, namely the obligation to sail under a captain of the same nationality as the flag does not violate Community rules on the free movement of workers, is no longer tenable following the Court's judgment in the Anave case? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Does the Commission not also consider that the position it expressed in answer to Written Question E-2069/01, namely the obligation to sail under a captain of the same nationality as the flag does not violate Community rules on the free movement of workers, is no longer tenable following the Court's judgment in the Anave case?

| 3. | What measures will the Commission take in response to this judgment? Is the Commission planning to bring infringement proceedings against countries, such as Germany, where laws maintain nationality requirements for captains? |
| --- | --- |

3.

What measures will the Commission take in response to this judgment? Is the Commission planning to bring infringement proceedings against countries, such as Germany, where laws maintain nationality requirements for captains?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(23 December 2003)

| 1 and 2. | On 30 September 2003, the Court rendered two judgements concerning the question whether it is compatible with the rules on free movement of workers that the posts of masters and chief mates are restricted to nationals of the State whose flag the ship flies (Case C-47/02 Albert Anker, Klaas Ras, Albertus Snoek v. Bundesrepublik Deutschland and case C-405/01 Colegio de Oficiales de la Marína Mercante Española v. Administración del Estado). Case C-47/02 concerned German vessels engaged in small-scale deap-sea fishing (Kleine Seeschifffahrt); case C-405/01 concerned Spanish merchant ships.
  The Court decided that Article 39(4) of the EC Treaty must be construed as allowing a Member State to reserve for its own nationals the posts of master of vessels flying its flag engaged in small scale maritime shipping (Kleine Seeschifffahrt) and the posts of master and chief mate of merchant ships flying its flag only if the rights under powers conferred by public law on masters and chief mates of such ships are actually exercised on a regular basis and do not represent a very minor part of their activities.
  The Court refers to its case-law on the interpretation of Article 39(4) of the EC Treaty: the concept of public service within the meaning of Article 39(4) of the EC Treaty (under which free movement of workers does not apply to employment in the public service) covers posts which involve direct or indirect participation in the exercise of powers conferred by public law and duties designed to safeguard the general interests of the State or of other public authorities and thus presume on the part of those occupying them, the existence of a special relationship of allegiance to the State and reciprocity of rights and duties which form the foundation of the bond of nationality.
  The fact that masters are employed by a private natural or legal person is not, as such, sufficient to exclude the application of Article 39(4) of the EC Treaty since it is established that, in order to perform the public functions which are delegated to them, masters act as representatives of public authority in the service of the general interest of the flag State.
  However, recourse to the derogation from the freedom of movement of workers provided for by Article 39(4) of the EC Treaty cannot be justified solely on the ground that rights under powers conferred by public law are granted by national law to holders of the posts in question. It is also necessary that such rights are, in fact, exercised on a regular basis by those holders and do not represent a very minor part of their activities.
  The Court also stated that the nationality condition cannot be justified by Article 39(3) of the EC Treaty: in this regard, it is sufficient to recall that the right of Member States to restrict the free movement of persons on grounds of public policy, public security or public health is not intended to exclude economic sectors such as fishing or occupations, such as master of fishing vessels, from the application of that principle as regards access to employment, but to allow Member States to refuse access to their territory or residence there to persons whose access or residence would in itself constitute a danger for public policy, public security or public health
  In reference to Written Question E-1022/02 by the Honourable Member and others, the Commission would like to express that Article 39(4) of the EC Treaty does not oblige Member States to restrict specific posts to their own nationals, but it gives the possibility if the conditions are fulfilled. Therefore, Member States rules may lead in certain areas to differences of application.
  In relation to question 5 of Written Question E-1022/02, the Commission would like to express that it is aware that in a number of Member States there are serious shortages of captains. It is confident that on the basis of the judgements of the Court this situation should be improved via cross-border mobility.
  In relation to Written Question E-2069/01 by Mr Martens and others, the Commission would like to express that, very recently, its attention was drawn to a possible new problem of recognition of diplomas of masters. On the basis of requested additional information the Commission will assess this issue. If the Honourable Members have additional information about this aspect, they are invited to send it to the Commission. |
| --- | --- |

1 and 2.

On 30 September 2003, the Court rendered two judgements concerning the question whether it is compatible with the rules on free movement of workers that the posts of masters and chief mates are restricted to nationals of the State whose flag the ship flies (Case C-47/02 Albert Anker, Klaas Ras, Albertus Snoek v. Bundesrepublik Deutschland and case C-405/01 Colegio de Oficiales de la Marína Mercante Española v. Administración del Estado). Case C-47/02 concerned German vessels engaged in small-scale deap-sea fishing (Kleine Seeschifffahrt); case C-405/01 concerned Spanish merchant ships.

The Court decided that Article 39(4) of the EC Treaty must be construed as allowing a Member State to reserve for its own nationals the posts of master of vessels flying its flag engaged in small scale maritime shipping (Kleine Seeschifffahrt) and the posts of master and chief mate of merchant ships flying its flag only if the rights under powers conferred by public law on masters and chief mates of such ships are actually exercised on a regular basis and do not represent a very minor part of their activities.

The Court refers to its case-law on the interpretation of Article 39(4) of the EC Treaty: the concept of public service within the meaning of Article 39(4) of the EC Treaty (under which free movement of workers does not apply to employment in the public service) covers posts which involve direct or indirect participation in the exercise of powers conferred by public law and duties designed to safeguard the general interests of the State or of other public authorities and thus presume on the part of those occupying them, the existence of a special relationship of allegiance to the State and reciprocity of rights and duties which form the foundation of the bond of nationality.

The fact that masters are employed by a private natural or legal person is not, as such, sufficient to exclude the application of Article 39(4) of the EC Treaty since it is established that, in order to perform the public functions which are delegated to them, masters act as representatives of public authority in the service of the general interest of the flag State.

However, recourse to the derogation from the freedom of movement of workers provided for by Article 39(4) of the EC Treaty cannot be justified solely on the ground that rights under powers conferred by public law are granted by national law to holders of the posts in question. It is also necessary that such rights are, in fact, exercised on a regular basis by those holders and do not represent a very minor part of their activities.

The Court also stated that the nationality condition cannot be justified by Article 39(3) of the EC Treaty: in this regard, it is sufficient to recall that the right of Member States to restrict the free movement of persons on grounds of public policy, public security or public health is not intended to exclude economic sectors such as fishing or occupations, such as master of fishing vessels, from the application of that principle as regards access to employment, but to allow Member States to refuse access to their territory or residence there to persons whose access or residence would in itself constitute a danger for public policy, public security or public health

In reference to Written Question E-1022/02 by the Honourable Member and others, the Commission would like to express that Article 39(4) of the EC Treaty does not oblige Member States to restrict specific posts to their own nationals, but it gives the possibility if the conditions are fulfilled. Therefore, Member States rules may lead in certain areas to differences of application.

In relation to question 5 of Written Question E-1022/02, the Commission would like to express that it is aware that in a number of Member States there are serious shortages of captains. It is confident that on the basis of the judgements of the Court this situation should be improved via cross-border mobility.

In relation to Written Question E-2069/01 by Mr Martens and others, the Commission would like to express that, very recently, its attention was drawn to a possible new problem of recognition of diplomas of masters. On the basis of requested additional information the Commission will assess this issue. If the Honourable Members have additional information about this aspect, they are invited to send it to the Commission.

| 3. | As a follow-up to the judgements of the Court, the Commission intends to monitor closely the correct application of this jurisprudence by Member States, including where appropriate by bringing matters before the Court on the basis of Article 226 of the EC Treaty. |
| --- | --- |

3.

As a follow-up to the judgements of the Court, the Commission intends to monitor closely the correct application of this jurisprudence by Member States, including where appropriate by bringing matters before the Court on the basis of Article 226 of the EC Treaty.

---

(1)  OJ C 229 E, 26.9.2002, p. 170.

(2)  OJ C 301 E, 5.12.2002, p. 220.

(3)  OJ C 40 E, 14.2.2002, p. 177.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/255 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/255

---

(2004/C 78 E/0255)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3283/03

by Francesco Speroni (NI) to the Commission

(30 October 2003)

Subject:   Bananas

A type of fruit called ‘bananito’ is on the market in Padania (and probably in other places in the EU). According to the website ‘www.baby-banana.com’ indicated on the packages, this fruit belongs to a species of banana no greater than ten centimetres in length.

Could the Commission indicate whether or not this type of fruit is governed by Regulation 2257/94 (1)?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(19 November 2003)

The Commission can inform the Honourable Member that the products to which he refers, the so-called ‘bananitos’ or ‘baby bananas’, are bananas 8 to 12 cm long belonging to the subgroups Sweet Fig (AA) and Fig Apple and Apple-Prata (AAB). Varieties of these subgroups are not covered by the quality standards set out in Annex I to Commission Regulation (EC) No 2257/94 of 16 September 1994 laying down quality standards for bananas. These apply only to bananas of varieties of the Musa (AAA) spp subgroups Cavendish and Gros Michel. For bananas of other varieties it is only the general foodstuff marketing requirements that have to be observed (plant and public health standards, labelling rules etc.).

---

(1)  OJ L 245, 20.9.1994, p. 6.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/255 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/255

---

(2004/C 78 E/0256)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3293/03

by Claude Moraes (PSE) to the Commission

(7 November 2003)

Subject:   Structural Funds

Does the Commission keep records or have a breakdown of the amount and type of Structural Funding allocated to EU constituencies, regions or cities that can be made available to MEPs? Are there, for example, centrally kept records for such funds for London in the UK, specifically for the London Boroughs of Islington, Hackney and Waltham Forest?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(19 December 2003)

Of the programmes financed under the Structural Funds for the period 2000-2006, it is principally those that are cofinanced under Objectives 1 and 2 that are targeted geographically. Under Objective 2, which intervenes in London, assistance is concentrated on the worst-affected areas at sub-regional level. In the case of London, the Objective 2 programme covers 95 wards in 13 London Boroughs, including parts of Waltham Forest and Hackney. No areas in the London Borough of Islington are covered under the Objective 2 programme.

In accordance with General Regulation 1260/99 (1), the Objective 2 programme is subject to management and control, monitoring and evaluation as a single entity and, accordingly, the Commission has no information on the break-down of the Structural Funds between the Boroughs concerned.

The Honorable Member may wish to contact the Management Authority for the London Objective 2 programme (2) in order to explore the possibility of obtaining financial data at sub-programme level.

---

(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.

(2)  Government Office for London European Unit, Riverwalk House, 157/161 Millbank, London SW1P 4RR, tel. 0044-207-217-3067, fax 0044-207-217-3461.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/256 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/256

---

(2004/C 78 E/0257)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3304/03

by Claude Moraes (PSE) to the Commission

(10 November 2003)

Subject:   Monitoring racial and ethnic discrimination at border controls

Could the Commission please tell me whether there has been any discussion on border controls and the monitoring of racial and ethnic discrimination at border controls? If not, could the Commission initiate such a study?

Can the Commission tell me if the European Union Monitoring Centre has any remit to examine this issue?

There is much prima facie evidence that people of non-white racial or ethnic origin are stopped more often at border controls. I have been contacted by a constituent who has been stopped and treated unfairly at the airport in Tallinn. Does the Commission agree that this issue is particularly important with the enlargement of the European Union?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(19 December 2003)

Until now, specific monitoring of racial and ethnic discrimination in the context of border controls has not taken place. The Commission deals with individual complaints concerning such alleged discrimination on a case by case basis.

Should it prove necessary, for instance due to an increase in the number of complaints, the Commission would certainly consider initiating a study to analyse the incidence of racial and ethnic discrimination in the context of border controls in the Union.

Studying this issue would clearly fall under the remit of the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia. Article 3 of Regulation (EC) No 1035/97 of 2 June 1997 (1) establishing this centre, expressly provides that free movement of persons is one of the fields in which the Centre shall collect information and data and conduct surveys and studies on phenomena of racism and xenophobia.

The Commission has received a number of complaints on incidents of alleged racial and ethnic discrimination in the context of border controls and has each time taken contact with the Member State involved to remind it that such discrimination is contrary to fundamental rights and that it is the Member States' responsibility to ensure that their officials do not behave in a racist way in the exercise of their functions and that they respect fundamental rights as protected by the Treaty on European Union as general principles of Community law, and as reaffirmed in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

The Commission believes that the respect of the prohibition of discrimination on the grounds of race and ethnic origin in the exercise of border controls is a very important issue for all Member States. It does not believe that enlargement will be cause for particular concern in this regard. The Commission will continue to monitor the situation in all Member States.

---

(1)  OJ L 151, 10.6.1997.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/257 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/257

---

(2004/C 78 E/0258)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3317/03

by Íñigo Méndez de Vigo (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(10 November 2003)

Subject:   Cross-border payments

I have been informed that a Spanish citizen has been charged EUR 12 for transferring EUR 30 to Germany.

Does the Commission believe that this charge complies with Regulation (EC) 2560/2001 (1) on cross-border payments? Does the Commission believe that consumers' rights are adequately guaranteed? Are consumers properly informed about the fact that this Regulation has come into force?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(16 December 2003)

According to Regulation (EC) No 2560/2001 of the Parliament and of the Council of 19 December 2001 on cross-border payments in euro, charges levied by a financial institution for cross-border payments in euro shall be the same as the charges it levies in respect of corresponding national 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 since 1 July 2002 and to credit transfers since 1 July 2003.

In Spain, charges for ‘standard’ credit transfers are well below EUR 12. However, ‘special credit transfers’ (i.e. transfers that are urgent or are made without indication of the IBAN (2) and BIC (3), etc.) can bear higher charges. Therefore, as long as, respectively, ‘standard’ and ‘special’ credit transfers in euro are subject to the same charges whether in Spain or cross-border, the principle established in Article 3 of the Regulation (equality of charges for ‘corresponding payments’) is in principle respected. In the case reported by the Honourable Member, it is unfortunately not clear whether the credit transfer is ‘special’ or ‘standard’. More detailed information would be needed to establish whether or not the charge of EUR 12 is in compliance with the Regulation.

As regards the enforcement of the Regulation, national authorities must guarantee that it is applied adequately and consistently. Article 7 of the Regulation provides that the compliance shall be guaranteed by effective, proportionate and deterrent sanctions. The Commission wrote to all Member States in September 2003 requesting the name of the competent national authority and the implementing measures taken by Member States.

As regards the level of information of citizens concerning the entry into force and content of the Regulation, financial institutions have to make available to their customers prior information on the charges levied for cross-border and national payments, and to communicate to each customer upon request his IBAN and BIC (Articles 4 and 5 of the Regulation). According to information available to the Commission, this information has been disseminated, despite a number of complaints by citizens regarding lack of clarity of the information provided by some banks. The Commission continues to closely monitoring the issue.

---

(1)  OJ L 344, 28.12.2001, p. 13.

(2)  International Bank Account Number.

(3)  Bank Identifier Code.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/258 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/258

---

(2004/C 78 E/0259)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3320/03

by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission

(10 November 2003)

Subject:   Transit visas in the EU

In reference to answer E-2738/03 (1), would the Commission care to comment on whether or not an expensive transit visa, not for landing but for transit only, imposed by a Member State would be likely to distort travel patterns of passengers as they move through the EU?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(15 December 2003)

With regard to the question of airport transit visas (ATVs) raised by the Honourable Member, the Commission would like to make the following points:

| — | As a general rule, travellers passing through the international transit area of an airport without actually entering the national territory of the country concerned do not need to be in possession of a visa. The Chicago Convention of 7 December 1944 on International Civil Aviation, and in particular Annex 9 thereof, establishes the principle of free transit passage through the international areas of airports. Exceptions may nevertheless be made to this general principle by notifying the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO), which means that nationals of certain third countries may be required to be in possession of airport transit visas. The decision to require nationals of certain third countries to hold an ATV is prompted by considerations to do with the control of illegal immigration and national security. |
| --- | --- |

—

As a general rule, travellers passing through the international transit area of an airport without actually entering the national territory of the country concerned do not need to be in possession of a visa. The Chicago Convention of 7 December 1944 on International Civil Aviation, and in particular Annex 9 thereof, establishes the principle of free transit passage through the international areas of airports. Exceptions may nevertheless be made to this general principle by notifying the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO), which means that nationals of certain third countries may be required to be in possession of airport transit visas. The decision to require nationals of certain third countries to hold an ATV is prompted by considerations to do with the control of illegal immigration and national security.

| — | As far as the Member States are concerned, Joint Action 96/197/JHA of 4 March 1996 (2) established, in the Annex thereto, a joint list of third countries whose nationals must be in possession of an ATV. The countries are Afghanistan, Ethiopia, Eritrea, Ghana, Iraq, Iran, Nigeria, Somalia, Sri Lanka and Zaire. The Joint Action does not contain any provision relating to the fees to be charged for the issue of visas of this type. |
| --- | --- |

—

As far as the Member States are concerned, Joint Action 96/197/JHA of 4 March 1996 (2) established, in the Annex thereto, a joint list of third countries whose nationals must be in possession of an ATV. The countries are Afghanistan, Ethiopia, Eritrea, Ghana, Iraq, Iran, Nigeria, Somalia, Sri Lanka and Zaire. The Joint Action does not contain any provision relating to the fees to be charged for the issue of visas of this type.

| — | The Member States which apply the Schengen ‘acquis’ in full (3) subsequently harmonised their policy in this area, adding two more countries (Bangladesh and Pakistan) to the joint list and providing that holders of travel documents issued by third countries included in the joint list are also subject to that requirement (4). Conversely, where the nationals in question hold a residence permit issued by a Member State of the European Economic Area or by certain other third countries (5), they are exempted from the ATV requirement. |
| --- | --- |

—

The Member States which apply the Schengen ‘acquis’ in full (3) subsequently harmonised their policy in this area, adding two more countries (Bangladesh and Pakistan) to the joint list and providing that holders of travel documents issued by third countries included in the joint list are also subject to that requirement (4). Conversely, where the nationals in question hold a residence permit issued by a Member State of the European Economic Area or by certain other third countries (5), they are exempted from the ATV requirement.

| — | The Schengen States have also harmonised the fee to be charged for processing applications for ATVs, which is currently EUR 10 (6). Council Decision 2003/454/EC of 13 June 2003 (7), which Member States must apply from 1 July 2005 at the latest, raised the fee to EUR 35. According to the information in the Commission's possession, only France has so far applied the Decision (since 1 October 2003). |
| --- | --- |

—

The Schengen States have also harmonised the fee to be charged for processing applications for ATVs, which is currently EUR 10 (6). Council Decision 2003/454/EC of 13 June 2003 (7), which Member States must apply from 1 July 2005 at the latest, raised the fee to EUR 35. According to the information in the Commission's possession, only France has so far applied the Decision (since 1 October 2003).

| — | In the case of nationals of third countries not on the joint lists, Member States remain free to decide whether or not to require an ATV. |
| --- | --- |

—

In the case of nationals of third countries not on the joint lists, Member States remain free to decide whether or not to require an ATV.

| — | The Commission is aware that certain Member States have recently made the ATV compulsory for nationals of several third countries that do not appear on the joint lists. It notes that the introduction of visas of this type was prompted by the need to step up action to combat illegal immigration and avert threats to law and order and security. |
| --- | --- |

—

The Commission is aware that certain Member States have recently made the ATV compulsory for nationals of several third countries that do not appear on the joint lists. It notes that the introduction of visas of this type was prompted by the need to step up action to combat illegal immigration and avert threats to law and order and security.

---

(1)  OJ C 65 E, 13.3.2004.

(2)  OJ L 63, 13.3.1996.

(3)  All Member States except the United Kingdom and Ireland.

(4)  Annex 3, Part I, of the Common Consular Instructions (CCI), OJ C 313, 16.12.2002.

(5)  In particular Andorra, Canada, Japan, Monaco, San Marino, Switzerland and the United States: Annex 3, Part III, of the CCI, ibidem, pp. 33-34.

(6)  Annex 12 of the CCI, ibidem, p. 65.

(7)  Council Decision 2003/454/EC amending Annex 12 of the Common Consular Instructions and Annex 14a of the Common Manual on visa fees, OJ L 152, 20.6.2003.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/259 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/259

---

(2004/C 78 E/0260)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3323/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(5 November 2003)

Subject:   Suspected infringement of the rules on public contracts by ATAC in Rome

On 30 June 1998 the public transport corporation of Rome, ATAC, issued a call to tender, via resolution No 162, for the design, construction and installation of a new system of machinery for dispensing and validating tickets. The requirements turned out to be particularly difficult to meet, as regards both the technical specifications, which were way above normal market standards, and the extremely short deadlines for completion, impossible for any of the candidates to meet using current technologies. The penalty clauses for delayed completion were also unrealistic. For these reasons none of the firms invited to tender did so, except for TSF, which was excluded by the contracting entity, and ERG Motorola, which was thus awarded the contract. Can the Commission say whether it considers that this procedure complied with the provisions of Directive 93/38/EEC (1), Article 18(5) of which stipulates ‘technical specifications which mention goods of a specific make or source or of a particular process, and which have the effect of favouring or eliminating certain undertakings shall not be used’? Can it also say whether it considers that the call to tender complies with Article 23(5) of the same directive which states that the selection criteria must be ‘clear and non-discriminatory’ and ‘sufficient to ensure genuine competition’?

After the contract was awarded to ERG the specifications were radically altered by decision No 11 of 25 August 1999 issued by ATAC's sole administrator, whereby the above-mentioned conditions were cancelled and replaced by contractual terms favourable to the contractor as regards both the technical characteristics and completion dates, as well as the amount of the penalty. Furthermore, the specifications of the machinery finally delivered by ERG do not in any way match those described in the call to tender of 1998. Does the Commission not consider that this behaviour infringes the rules on competition laid down in Article 81 (d) of the Treaty?

The contract for maintaining the machines was subsequently also awarded to ERG without a public tendering procedure. This private arrangement was justified by the claim that the maintenance contract was inseparable from the other one. ‘Expert’ opinions of dubious origin were used as documentation in support of this argument. Can the Commission, within the scope of its competences, ensure that the matter is investigated more thoroughly?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(27 November 2003)

The Commission does not, at present, have the necessary information to assess whether the award of the public contract by the ATAC public corporation mentioned by the Honourable Member was carried out in accordance with Community law.

The Commission will therefore contact the Italian government to obtain the information required in order to ascertain whether ATAC complied with Community rules and principles on public procurement in the case in question. On the basis of the information provided by the Honourable Member, the Commission will, in particular, check whether the procedures followed by ATAC on this occasion comply with Council Directive 93/38/EEC of 14 June 1993 coordinating the procurement procedures of entities operating in the water, energy, transport and telecommunications sectors, which applies to public contracts awarded by contracting entities which operate public urban transport networks. It will also check whether they comply with the rules and principles in the EC Treaty relating to the completion of the internal market.

On the other hand, given that the question relates to public contract award procedures and not to agreements which may be anti-competitive under competition law, the Commission does not consider that Article 81 of that Directive is applicable in this particular case.

---

(1)  OJ L 199, 9.8.1993, p. 138.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/260 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/260

---

(2004/C 78 E/0261)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3327/03

by Albert Maat (PPE-DE) and Jan Mulder (ELDR) to the Commission

(12 November 2003)

Subject:   Histomoniasis (blackhead)

At present, various European countries are affected by outbreaks of blackhead (histomoniasis). Infection with this disease causes serious suffering to turkeys and ultimately massive mortality among them. As the disease is not classified as an ‘A’ disease, there are no European rules on combating it and paying compensation. However, there are European rules concerning possible prophylactics or treatments. Yet since 31 March 2003, the last remaining remedy against the disease has been prohibited.

| 1. | In view of the possible cross-border impact of blackhead, will the Commission introduce European provisions regulating measures against the disease? |
| --- | --- |

1.

In view of the possible cross-border impact of blackhead, will the Commission introduce European provisions regulating measures against the disease?

| 2. | Will the Commission under certain conditions (e.g. additional scientific information) temporarily permit the use of the prophylactic Nifursol again? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Will the Commission under certain conditions (e.g. additional scientific information) temporarily permit the use of the prophylactic Nifursol again?

| 3. | In the United States, Nitarsone (Histostat-50) is used to prevent blackhead. Will the Commission shorten the test phase procedure for this new medicine so that, if the results are favourable, it can be used as soon as possible? If so, when might it be possible for this product to be used? |
| --- | --- |

3.

In the United States, Nitarsone (Histostat-50) is used to prevent blackhead. Will the Commission shorten the test phase procedure for this new medicine so that, if the results are favourable, it can be used as soon as possible? If so, when might it be possible for this product to be used?

| 4. | Is the Commission aware that the antibiotic Metronidazole is currently approved for the treatment of parasitic infections in human beings but its use is not permitted in veterinary medicine? Will the Commission authorise the use of Metronidazole to treat the disease? If not, why not? |
| --- | --- |

4.

Is the Commission aware that the antibiotic Metronidazole is currently approved for the treatment of parasitic infections in human beings but its use is not permitted in veterinary medicine? Will the Commission authorise the use of Metronidazole to treat the disease? If not, why not?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(18 December 2003)

| 1. | At present the Commission does not intend to present any proposal concerning the control of Histomoniasis (blackhead) in the Community due to the following reasons:






  (a) | Histomoniasis is not an epidemic disease; |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

At present the Commission does not intend to present any proposal concerning the control of Histomoniasis (blackhead) in the Community due to the following reasons:

(a)

Histomoniasis is not an epidemic disease;

| (b) | no international standards on trade are established by the Office International des Epizoozies in relation to this disease; |
| --- | --- |

(b)

no international standards on trade are established by the Office International des Epizoozies in relation to this disease;

| (c) | the Commission considers that the control of diseases fulfilling the above criteria should be a primary responsibility of the farmers; |
| --- | --- |

(c)

the Commission considers that the control of diseases fulfilling the above criteria should be a primary responsibility of the farmers;

| (d) | the veterinary authorities of the Member States do not apply national rules to control this disease and have never indicated that it should be subjected to Community harmonised legislation. |
| --- | --- |

(d)

the veterinary authorities of the Member States do not apply national rules to control this disease and have never indicated that it should be subjected to Community harmonised legislation.

| 2. | Nifursol was banned as feed additive with effect from 31 March 2003 in order to protect consumers and following the opinion of the Scientific Committee on Animal Nutrition.
  By case law T-392/02, the European Court of First Instance recently determined that the decision of the Commission, which is at the basis of Council Regulation (EC) No 1756/2002 of 23 September 2002 amending Directive 70/524/EEC concerning additives in feedingstuffs as regards withdrawal of the authorisation of an additive and amending Commission Regulation (EC) No 2430/1999 (1), was well founded and did not find any grounds to suspend or change such measure. Under these conditions, the Commission will not permit the use of Nifursol without guarantee that the substance is safe. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Nifursol was banned as feed additive with effect from 31 March 2003 in order to protect consumers and following the opinion of the Scientific Committee on Animal Nutrition.

By case law T-392/02, the European Court of First Instance recently determined that the decision of the Commission, which is at the basis of Council Regulation (EC) No 1756/2002 of 23 September 2002 amending Directive 70/524/EEC concerning additives in feedingstuffs as regards withdrawal of the authorisation of an additive and amending Commission Regulation (EC) No 2430/1999 (1), was well founded and did not find any grounds to suspend or change such measure. Under these conditions, the Commission will not permit the use of Nifursol without guarantee that the substance is safe.

| 3. | Veterinary medicinal products intended for use in the Union must be authorised in accordance with Directive 2001/82/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to veterinary medicinal products (2) for applications made by pharmaceutical companies to the competent authorities of the Member States or in accordance with Council Regulation (EEC) No 2309/93 of 22 July 1993 (3) for applications for Community authorisations made to the European Agency for Evaluation of Medicinal Products. The Commission is not aware of any application submitted concerning any product containing Nitarsone. In that case, such an application would be made by the company that owns this product, a prerequisite for such an application is that maximum residue limits are established in accordance with Council Regulation (EEC) No 2377/90 of 26 June 1990 (4). No such application has been received to date. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Veterinary medicinal products intended for use in the Union must be authorised in accordance with Directive 2001/82/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to veterinary medicinal products (2) for applications made by pharmaceutical companies to the competent authorities of the Member States or in accordance with Council Regulation (EEC) No 2309/93 of 22 July 1993 (3) for applications for Community authorisations made to the European Agency for Evaluation of Medicinal Products. The Commission is not aware of any application submitted concerning any product containing Nitarsone. In that case, such an application would be made by the company that owns this product, a prerequisite for such an application is that maximum residue limits are established in accordance with Council Regulation (EEC) No 2377/90 of 26 June 1990 (4). No such application has been received to date.

| 4. | The Commission is aware that medicinal products containing Metronidazole are authorised for use for particular indications for treatment of human beings and possibly also companion animal species. Metronidazole is, however, included in Annex IV of Regulation (EEC) No 2377/90, i.e. forbidden for use in veterinary medicinal products intended for use in food producing animal species since 1998. The substance is genotoxic and residues in food from treated animals might constitute a hazard to the health of the consumer at whatever limit.
  The benefit/risk assessment made for use of substances in human medicine is not applicable in the same way for veterinary medicinal products, where residues may be considered harmful for the consumer. As Metronidazole is forbidden for use in food producing animal species, the Commission can under no circumstances authorise such use in the Union. |
| --- | --- |

4.

The Commission is aware that medicinal products containing Metronidazole are authorised for use for particular indications for treatment of human beings and possibly also companion animal species. Metronidazole is, however, included in Annex IV of Regulation (EEC) No 2377/90, i.e. forbidden for use in veterinary medicinal products intended for use in food producing animal species since 1998. The substance is genotoxic and residues in food from treated animals might constitute a hazard to the health of the consumer at whatever limit.

The benefit/risk assessment made for use of substances in human medicine is not applicable in the same way for veterinary medicinal products, where residues may be considered harmful for the consumer. As Metronidazole is forbidden for use in food producing animal species, the Commission can under no circumstances authorise such use in the Union.

---

(1)  OJ L 265, 3.10.2002.

(2)  OJ L 311, 28.11.2001.

(3)  OJ L 214, 24.8.1993.

(4)  OJ L 224, 18.8.1990.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/262 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/262

---

(2004/C 78 E/0262)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3332/03

by Herbert Bösch (PSE) to the Commission

(6 November 2003)

Subject:   Export refunds for live cattle

The Commission's 2002 annual report on the protection of the Communities' financial interests and the fight against fraud mentions 561 cases of irregularities involving live animals.

Can the Commission state how many of these irregularities related to shipments of breeding cattle and also indicate the amount of money involved? How many cases relate to cattle intended for slaughter?

How many animal shipments that benefited from export refunds in 2002 were checked (in absolute and relative figures)?

Can the Commission name the ten undertakings that received most export refunds for live animal shipments in 2002? What amount did each of these undertakings receive under this budget heading?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(17 December 2003)

The Commission's 2002 annual report on protection of the Community's financial interests and the fight against fraud mentions 561 irregularity cases involving live animals (Chapter 01 of the Combined Nomenclature). Cattle accounted for 444 cases (amount involved EUR 4,7 million) and sheep for 117 cases (EUR 1,5 million). Of the cattle cases 262 were straight export refund frauds.

Article 3 of Regulation (EC) No 595/91 (1) requires the Member States to provide particulars of irregularity cases but the information received by the Commission does not enable it to distinguish between breeding animals and those intended for slaughter.

The legislation in force requires Member States to check all cattle leaving the Community for which an export refund is claimed. Regulation (EC) No 615/98 (2) made payment of the refund conditional on compliance with Directive 91/628/EEC (3) and required bovine animals to be inspected by a veterinarian at the point where they left the Community's customs territory. It also required a check when the animals were unloaded in the country of final destination in cases where the means of transport was changed after departure from the Community and in cases where the veterinarian at the exit point from the Community considered that one should be made. This Regulation was recently replaced by Regulation (EC) No 639/2003 (4) applying to export declarations accepted from 1 October 2003. The new Regulation requires veterinary inspection of all consignments at the point of exit from the Community's customs territory at any point outside the Union where the means of transport is changed and at the place where the animals are unloaded in the country of final destination.

In reply to the Honourable Member's third question (the identity of the top ten companies for live animal export refunds in 2002 and the amount received by each), Article 2(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2390/1999 (5) states that the Commission is to ensure that the information it receives under that Regulation is kept confidential. Thus it cannot provide the name of any recipient of aid from the EAGGF Guarantee Section.

It can however provide aggregate figures. In the 2002 EAGGF financial year (16 October 2001 to 15 October 2002) EUR 56 million was paid out in live animal export refunds to 98 recipients. The ten biggest of these accounted for 80 % of this amount.

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 595/91 of 4 March 1991 concerning irregularities and the recovery of sums wrongly paid in connection with the financing of the common agricultural policy and the organisation of an information system in this field and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 283/72, OJ L 67, 14.3.1991.

(2)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 615/98 of 18 March 1998 laying down specific detailed rules of application for the export refund arrangements as regards the welfare of live bovine animals during transport, OJ L 82, 19.3.1998.

(3)  Council Directive 91/628/EEC of 19 November 1991 on the protection of animals during transport and amending Directives 90/425/EEC and 91/496/EEC, OJ L 340, 11.12.1991.

(4)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 639/2003 of 9 April 2003 laying down detailed rules pursuant to Council Regulation (EC) No 1254/1999 as regards requirements for the granting of export refunds related to the welfare of live bovine animals during transport, OJ L 93, 10.4.2003.

(5)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 2390/1999 of 25 October 1999 laying down detailed rules on 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.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/263 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/263

---

(2004/C 78 E/0263)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3334/03

by Cristiana Muscardini (UEN) to the Commission

(6 November 2003)

Subject:   Politically absurd opinion polls

On 3 November the Italian press gave prominence to the results of an opinion poll, requested by the Commission's Directorate-General for Press and Communication, asking which country is the greatest threat to peace.

Irrespective of the objective reliability of the answers (it is a known fact that much depends on how a question is asked), can the Commission say:

| 1. | what prompted it to ask such a question, who devised this part of the poll and on the basis of what criteria; |
| --- | --- |

1.

what prompted it to ask such a question, who devised this part of the poll and on the basis of what criteria;

| 2. | whether it was aware that such a question is provocative; |
| --- | --- |

2.

whether it was aware that such a question is provocative;

| 3. | how it can equate democracies such as the United States and Israel with totalitarian regimes which suppress fundamental freedoms and human dignity, such as North Korea; |
| --- | --- |

3.

how it can equate democracies such as the United States and Israel with totalitarian regimes which suppress fundamental freedoms and human dignity, such as North Korea;

| 4. | whether it realises that to treat the subject of peace in this way shows a total lack of diplomacy; |
| --- | --- |

4.

whether it realises that to treat the subject of peace in this way shows a total lack of diplomacy;

| 5. | how much the poll cost, what budget line was used to pay for it and what the point of such expenditure is for the EU? |
| --- | --- |

5.

how much the poll cost, what budget line was used to pay for it and what the point of such expenditure is for the EU?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(19 December 2003)

The Commission would remind the Honourable Member that on 3 November 2003, while in New York, Mr Prodi made a statement concerning the Eurobarometer Flash 151 survey in which he voiced concern at the findings. He took the step of organising for the first half of 2004 a seminar with the organisations representing the Jewish communities in Europe to study the role of Judaism in the construction of Europe and the relations between European public opinion, Judaism, the State of Israel, and the Near and Middle East.

The Commission would stress that the Eurobarometer findings in no way reflect its own positions, that it does not base its action on the findings of surveys and that it condemns outright any form of antisemitism.

| 1. | The purpose of the Eurobarometer Flash 151 survey was to gauge people's attitudes towards the
  reconstruction process in Iraq, peace in the world and the role of the Union on the international stage,
  particularly in the Near and Middle East. Among the many questions asked, one concerned the level of
  threat perceived in the case of certain countries.
  The list of countries included, in addition to the Union, a number of third countries that had been discussed in the media in previous months and met one or more of the following criteria:






  — | countries that are major actors in areas exposed to regional conflict; |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

The purpose of the Eurobarometer Flash 151 survey was to gauge people's attitudes towards the

reconstruction process in Iraq, peace in the world and the role of the Union on the international stage,

particularly in the Near and Middle East. Among the many questions asked, one concerned the level of

threat perceived in the case of certain countries.

The list of countries included, in addition to the Union, a number of third countries that had been discussed in the media in previous months and met one or more of the following criteria:

—

countries that are major actors in areas exposed to regional conflict;

| — | countries that had developed, or had the capacity to develop, nuclear programmes for military purposes; |
| --- | --- |

—

countries that had developed, or had the capacity to develop, nuclear programmes for military purposes;

| — | countries with possible links to international terrorism. |
| --- | --- |

—

countries with possible links to international terrorism.

The questionnaire was prepared jointly by the Press and Communication Directorate-General and by our contractor, TNS Sofres, whose coordination centre for the Eurobarometre Flash 151 survey is EOS Gallup Europe.

| 2. | The Commission had no intention of conducting a provocative survey. It neither determines nor controls the content of public opinion. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The Commission had no intention of conducting a provocative survey. It neither determines nor controls the content of public opinion.

| 3. | This question was concerned not with the level of democracy in the countries tested but solely with how individuals perceived any threat to peace. The criteria for selecting the countries to be included in the list are spelt out above. |
| --- | --- |

3.

This question was concerned not with the level of democracy in the countries tested but solely with how individuals perceived any threat to peace. The criteria for selecting the countries to be included in the list are spelt out above.

| 4. | By virtue of its very nature, an opinion poll is not necessarily ‘diplomatic’ since its purpose is to capture the state of public opinion and by no means to represent the position of a particular institution. In order to be understood by the majority, any question asked in an opinion poll proceeds by simplification. The question on countries that could pose a threat to world peace needs to be seen in the wider context of this study, of which it was only one aspect among many others. |
| --- | --- |

4.

By virtue of its very nature, an opinion poll is not necessarily ‘diplomatic’ since its purpose is to capture the state of public opinion and by no means to represent the position of a particular institution. In order to be understood by the majority, any question asked in an opinion poll proceeds by simplification. The question on countries that could pose a threat to world peace needs to be seen in the wider context of this study, of which it was only one aspect among many others.

| 5. | The cost of the study on Iraq and world peace (preparation, fieldwork, processing of statistics and drafting of the report) was EUR 150 098,34, financed out of budget line B-3-300. The opinion poll contained fifteen or so questions on the reconstruction of Iraq (administration, financing, political transition, security, military aspects, humanitarian aid), on the Union's role on the international stage (impact of the war in Iraq, peace process in the Middle East, development of cultural relations with the Arab world, closeness to the foreign policy of the United States) and on the perception of certain risks (terrorism, countries regarded as posing a threat to peace). This opinion poll captures the attitudes of individuals in the Union to these various aspects. The findings, broken down by country and by socio-demographic variable, have been made available to decision-makers, journalists, the scientific community and any interested individual. |
| --- | --- |

5.

The cost of the study on Iraq and world peace (preparation, fieldwork, processing of statistics and drafting of the report) was EUR 150 098,34, financed out of budget line B-3-300. The opinion poll contained fifteen or so questions on the reconstruction of Iraq (administration, financing, political transition, security, military aspects, humanitarian aid), on the Union's role on the international stage (impact of the war in Iraq, peace process in the Middle East, development of cultural relations with the Arab world, closeness to the foreign policy of the United States) and on the perception of certain risks (terrorism, countries regarded as posing a threat to peace). This opinion poll captures the attitudes of individuals in the Union to these various aspects. The findings, broken down by country and by socio-demographic variable, have been made available to decision-makers, journalists, the scientific community and any interested individual.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/264 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/264

---

(2004/C 78 E/0264)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3335/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(12 November 2003)

Subject:   Editorial offices of the daily newspaper ‘Il Giornale’ searched

On 17 October last the head office of the daily newspaper ‘Il Giornale’ in Rome was subjected to a seven-hour search ordered by the Public Prosecutor of Perugia in the context of investigations into the ‘Telekom Serbia’ case.

The newspaper had been conducting a detailed inquiry into the growing scandal involving the former State-owned company Telecom Italia, which purchased the Serbian company in 1997, and a number of politicians in the government at the time. The inquiry had recently revealed new aspects of the case and evidence submitted by some individuals acquainted with the facts had been published.

The editor Maurizio Belpietro and the correspondent Gianmarco Chiocci were notified of charges of defamation and violation of confidentiality by the Public Prosecutor, and Chiocci's computer was sealed.

The episode is particularly unpleasant because it constitutes a serious violation of press freedom and freedom of information, as well as the professional freedom of those subjected to the search. These principles are recognised as fundamental by the national constitutions of all democratic countries, as well as by the Council of Europe which, in Recommendation R(200)7 of 8 March 2000, stressed that the interception of communications, surveillance and judicial search and seizure are unacceptable if their purpose is to circumvent the right of journalists to information. Article 11 of the European Charter of Fundamental Rights considers this right to be inalienable and the European Court of Human Rights has on several occasions expressed views on the subject. Recently (judgment of 15 July 2003 in Case No 33400/96, Ernst v. Belgium) it established, in a similar case, that the investigators' aim of identifying those responsible for leaks of information from legal departments did not justify searching the workplace of journalists in order to discover their sources of information.

In the light of all these considerations can the Commission say:

| 1. | whether it considers that the episode mentioned constitutes a serious violation of the principles and provisions mentioned; |
| --- | --- |

1.

whether it considers that the episode mentioned constitutes a serious violation of the principles and provisions mentioned;

| 2. | how the European Union might act to sanction such restrictions on freedom of the press; |
| --- | --- |

2.

how the European Union might act to sanction such restrictions on freedom of the press;

| 3. | whether it intends to make a statement on the issue? |
| --- | --- |

3.

whether it intends to make a statement on the issue?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(16 December 2003)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to written P-3201/03 by Mr Tajani (1)

---

(1)  See page 240.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/265 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/265

---

(2004/C 78 E/0265)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3336/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(12 November 2003)

Subject:   Suspected violation of the rights of the employees of Alcatel Italia S.p.A.

With reference to the answer of 23 October 2003 given by the Commissioner Mrs Diamantopoulou to question P-2897/03 (1), it should be noted that the restructuring plan would lead to the fragmentation of a well-established industrial centre with ultra-modern structures and equipment and highly specialised workers. Furthermore, there would be serious social repercussions, since a large percentage of the workforce are women and young people.

Finally, it appears that Alcatel has obtained substantial funding from the Region of Lazio and the Italian government in the past.

In view of all this, can the Commission say:

| 1. | whether it does not consider that the plan is contrary to the procedures laid down in Directive 2001/23/EC (2) and Directive 2000/78/EC (3); |
| --- | --- |

1.

whether it does not consider that the plan is contrary to the procedures laid down in Directive 2001/23/EC (2) and Directive 2000/78/EC (3);

| 2. | what steps should be taken to safeguard the jobs of women and young people? |
| --- | --- |

2.

what steps should be taken to safeguard the jobs of women and young people?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(23 December 2003)

Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishes a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation. It prohibits discrimination in employment on the grounds of religion or belief, age, disability or sexual orientation. The Member States must implement it in their national law by 2 December 2003 at the latest. Member States may request an additional period of up to three years to implement the provisions of the Directive on age and disability discrimination. Differences of treatment on grounds of age may be justifiable if they are objectively and reasonably justified by a legitimate aim, such as employment or labour market policy (article 6). Directive 2000/78/EC does not set out special procedures concerning corporate restructuring.

The facts mentioned by the Honourable Member do not appear to come under the scope of Directive 2001/23/EC (4). Thus, Article 1 of this Directive states that it applies to any transfer of an undertaking, business or part of an undertaking or business to another employer as a result of a legal transfer or merger. Under the terms of the Directive, a transfer means a transfer of an economic entity which retains its identity, meaning an organised grouping of resources which has the objective of pursuing an economic activity, whether or not that activity is central or ancillary.

This particular case seems to concern restructuring leading to job losses but not involving the transfer of an undertaking, business or part of an undertaking or business to another employer.

---

(1)  OJ C 65 E, 13.3.2004.

(2)  OJ L 82, 22.3.2001, p. 16.

(3)  OJ L 303, 2.12.2000, p. 16.

(4)  Council Directive 2001/23/EC of 12 March 2001 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the safeguarding of employees' rights in the event of transfers of undertakings, businesses or parts of undertakings or businesses, OJ L 82, 22.3.2001.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/266 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/266

---

(2004/C 78 E/0266)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3339/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(12 November 2003)

Subject:   Possibility of funding for the health authority of Fiumicino — Rome XIII

The area including the municipality of Fiumicino and Rome's municipal district XIII is an area at risk for two different kinds of reasons, firstly because of its environmental characteristics, and secondly because it is the location of places which could easily become terrorist targets.

It includes an area below sea level at risk of flooding, the largest pine forest in Europe, which was already severely damaged by a devastating fire in the summer of 2001, a coastline visited by almost one million tourists in summer; Leonardo da Vinci international airport; the military air base of Pratica di Mare; the summer residence of the President of the Republic and the Finance Police training college.

For all these reasons ASL RM D, the health authority responsible for the area, may devise measures to protect the population against natural hazards and possible terrorist acts, in order to prevent or effectively tackle potentially dangerous situations.

In view of this, can the Commission say:

| 1. | whether there is any funding, under either the Structural Funds or other Community programmes, that the European Union might provide for these kinds of projects; |
| --- | --- |

1.

whether there is any funding, under either the Structural Funds or other Community programmes, that the European Union might provide for these kinds of projects;

| 2. | whether the health authority, as an entity in which the Lazio Region has a majority holding, is eligible for such forms of funding or at least some of them? |
| --- | --- |

2.

whether the health authority, as an entity in which the Lazio Region has a majority holding, is eligible for such forms of funding or at least some of them?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(23 December 2003)

Assistance from this Fund can be granted only in socio-economic conversion areas determined on the basis of the criteria in Article4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 of 21 June 1999 laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds (1). As a result of the Italian authorities' proposals, the areas to which the Honourable Member refers are not covered by this programme for the 2000-06 period and cannot therefore be part-financed from the European Regional Development Fund.

Natural-hazard prevention measures of the kind to which the Honourable Member refers are eligible under the European Regional Development Fund.

---

(1)  OJ L 161, 26.6.1999.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/267 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/267

---

(2004/C 78 E/0267)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3342/03

by Mogens Camre (UEN) to the Commission

(12 November 2003)

Subject:   Financial aid to Danish immigrant associations

In questions Nos. E-3162/03 (1) and E-3211/03 (2) to the Commission, I described how ‘Paraplyorganisation for de Etniske Mindretal’ (umbrella organisation for ethnic minorities — POEM) swindled money from the Danish government and the European Social Fund. POEM is an umbrella organisation for between 21 and 32 different organisations and associations for ethnic minorities (there is a good deal of confusion as to the exact number of members). The chairman of POEM, Bashy Qureishy, is also chairman of two of those associations — Fair Play and Etnisk Debatforum.

Both of these organisations have received financial aid from the EU Information Board in Denmark, which comes under the Danish Ministry of Education. These two associations received a total of Dkr 179 800 in 2002 and 2003 from the EU Information Board (the Board does not receive funding from the EU but is financed solely through the Danish budget).

In the light of the above-mentioned swindle involving financial aid to POEM, will the Commission say whether the two associations, Fair Play and Etnisk Debatforum, have received any form of financial contribution under EU aid schemes, including the European Social Fund, since 1998? If those associations have received funding, will the Commission say under which programmes/schemes the aid was granted, what sum was involved and whether the Commission has checked that the funding was used for the purposes for which it was granted?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(10 December 2003)

In accordance with Structural Funds Regulations, the main responsibility for managing European Social Fund (ESF)-funds lies with the national managing authority, in casu Erhvervs- og Boligstyrelsen (EBST). As such, the Commission does not have a detailed list of all organisations receiving ESF funding under the different programmes.

Upon receipt of the Honourable Member's written question, the Commission has contacted the national authorities at EBST and requested it the information concerning the two associations, Fair Play and Etnisk Debatforum. EBST confirms that a search in the project database OPUS demonstrates that, to date, neither of these two organisations has received any ESF-funds under the Danish Objective 2, Objective 3 or EQUAL programme (2000-2006), nor in the previous ESF programming period (1994-1999).

The Commission is closely monitoring the follow-up to the findings and allegations concerning POEM by the Danish Managing Authority and its control service.

---

(1)  OJ C 70 E, 20.3.2004, p. 227.

(2)  OJ C 70 E, 20.3.2004, p. 240.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/268 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/268

---

(2004/C 78 E/0268)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3348/03

by Johanna Boogerd-Quaak (ELDR) to the Commission

(13 November 2003)

Subject:   Project Gutenberg — making digital copies of books whose copyright has expired

| 1. | Is the Commission aware of Project Gutenberg? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is the Commission aware of Project Gutenberg?

| 2. | Does it consider this a laudable initiative, preserving an important part of European history and culture and making it available to all Europeans? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Does it consider this a laudable initiative, preserving an important part of European history and culture and making it available to all Europeans?

| 3. | Is the Commission aware that the volunteers working on Project Gutenberg are experiencing great difficulties specifically with the European version of Project Gutenberg because copyright laws are not harmonised in the EU? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Is the Commission aware that the volunteers working on Project Gutenberg are experiencing great difficulties specifically with the European version of Project Gutenberg because copyright laws are not harmonised in the EU?

| 4. | What steps could the Commission take to support Project Gutenberg's volunteers in their work, which is of great importance to European culture? |
| --- | --- |

4.

What steps could the Commission take to support Project Gutenberg's volunteers in their work, which is of great importance to European culture?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(18 December 2003)

| 1. | The Commission is aware of the Gutenberg project. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The Commission is aware of the Gutenberg project.

| 2. | The Commission favours initiatives that contribute to the preservation and dissemination of European history and culture, in particular by re-using works that either have fallen into the public domain or where dissemination has been authorised. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The Commission favours initiatives that contribute to the preservation and dissemination of European history and culture, in particular by re-using works that either have fallen into the public domain or where dissemination has been authorised.

| 3. | The Union is made up of 15, and soon 25, countries with many different traditions in the cultural field. These different traditions are also reflected in the national laws governing the protection of copyright and related rights.
  To tackle some of these differences, the Commission has carried out several exercises over the past ten years to harmonise certain aspects of copyright in the internal market, and some of these efforts, like the harmonisation of the terms of protection (Council Directive 93/98/EEC of 29 October 1993 harmonising the term of protection of copyright and certain related rights (1)) have certainly made it easier for those involved in the Gutenberg project.
  In Article 1 of this Directive, the rights of an author of a literary or artistic work run for the life of the author and for 70 years after his death, irrespective of the date when the work is lawfully made available to the public.
  In the case of a work of joint authorship, the term referred to in Article 1 is calculated from the death of the last surviving author.
  The only exceptions to this harmonisation that stand today concern Spain and France for a very limited set of authors. This exception is allowed via Article 10 of the Directive, providing that Member States with terms of protection longer than 70 years at the time of the adoption of Directive 93/98/EEC are entitled to keep them. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The Union is made up of 15, and soon 25, countries with many different traditions in the cultural field. These different traditions are also reflected in the national laws governing the protection of copyright and related rights.

To tackle some of these differences, the Commission has carried out several exercises over the past ten years to harmonise certain aspects of copyright in the internal market, and some of these efforts, like the harmonisation of the terms of protection (Council Directive 93/98/EEC of 29 October 1993 harmonising the term of protection of copyright and certain related rights (1)) have certainly made it easier for those involved in the Gutenberg project.

In Article 1 of this Directive, the rights of an author of a literary or artistic work run for the life of the author and for 70 years after his death, irrespective of the date when the work is lawfully made available to the public.

In the case of a work of joint authorship, the term referred to in Article 1 is calculated from the death of the last surviving author.

The only exceptions to this harmonisation that stand today concern Spain and France for a very limited set of authors. This exception is allowed via Article 10 of the Directive, providing that Member States with terms of protection longer than 70 years at the time of the adoption of Directive 93/98/EEC are entitled to keep them.

| 4. | The Commission supports initiatives in the cultural sector in the framework of the ‘Culture 2000’ programme and in the context of the IST programme. The ‘Culture 2000’ programme has been set up to support projects which are co-produced and co-financed by at least three operators who are nationals of at least three countries which participate in the programme. Further information if required can be found on the following web site: (http://europa.eu.int/comm/culture/c2000).
  The IST programme supports research in the area of Information Society Technologies and one specific priority within this programme supports access to cultural heritage under the so-called DigiCult activity: Digital Heritage and Cultural content. Additional information can be found on the following web site: (http://www.cordis.lu/ist/directorate_e/digicult/index.htm). |
| --- | --- |

4.

The Commission supports initiatives in the cultural sector in the framework of the ‘Culture 2000’ programme and in the context of the IST programme. The ‘Culture 2000’ programme has been set up to support projects which are co-produced and co-financed by at least three operators who are nationals of at least three countries which participate in the programme. Further information if required can be found on the following web site: (http://europa.eu.int/comm/culture/c2000).

The IST programme supports research in the area of Information Society Technologies and one specific priority within this programme supports access to cultural heritage under the so-called DigiCult activity: Digital Heritage and Cultural content. Additional information can be found on the following web site: (http://www.cordis.lu/ist/directorate_e/digicult/index.htm).

---

(1)  OJ L 290, 24.11.1993.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/269 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/269

---

(2004/C 78 E/0269)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3351/03

by Christoph Konrad (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(13 November 2003)

Subject:   Obstacles to the free movement of workers in the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

| 1. | The Grand Duchy of Luxembourg provides regular information, for example to German businesses, on the conditions which must be complied with while posting workers in Luxembourg. These conditions are set out in communications from the Luxembourg Labour Inspectorate, and include the appointment of an authorised representative, notification by registered mail of all forthcoming work in Luxembourg and the disclosure of detailed information on all posted workers.
  Does the Commission view this complicated list of conditions as an obstacle to the free movement of workers in the internal market? If so, what action has it taken against the Luxembourg Government? If not, why not? |
| --- | --- |

1.

The Grand Duchy of Luxembourg provides regular information, for example to German businesses, on the conditions which must be complied with while posting workers in Luxembourg. These conditions are set out in communications from the Luxembourg Labour Inspectorate, and include the appointment of an authorised representative, notification by registered mail of all forthcoming work in Luxembourg and the disclosure of detailed information on all posted workers.

Does the Commission view this complicated list of conditions as an obstacle to the free movement of workers in the internal market? If so, what action has it taken against the Luxembourg Government? If not, why not?

| 2. | Do the conditions of the Luxembourg Law of 20 December 2002 comply with Directive 96/71/EC (1) of the European Parliament and the Council of 16 December 1996 concerning the posting of workers in the framework of the provision of services? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Do the conditions of the Luxembourg Law of 20 December 2002 comply with Directive 96/71/EC (1) of the European Parliament and the Council of 16 December 1996 concerning the posting of workers in the framework of the provision of services?

| 3. | Under current legislation, businesses which are based outside Luxembourg have to submit a great deal of information on their workers to the Luxembourg Labour Inspectorate within a short space of time. How does the Commission view the fact that these elaborate requirements place businesses from outside Luxembourg at a disadvantage in terms of competition policy? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Under current legislation, businesses which are based outside Luxembourg have to submit a great deal of information on their workers to the Luxembourg Labour Inspectorate within a short space of time. How does the Commission view the fact that these elaborate requirements place businesses from outside Luxembourg at a disadvantage in terms of competition policy?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(19 December 2003)

Community law does not stop a Member State imposing an obligation to provide certain information on the conditions for posted workers in the Member State of posting, in particular their working and employment conditions as provided for in Directive 96/71/EC, as long as this information is justified from a worker protection perspective or by other pressing reasons of general interest and to the extent that they guarantee the implementation of the objective pursued and do not go beyond what is required to achieve this objective. Certain measures of this kind may even prove necessary to comply with the obligations of Article 5 of this Directive.

The Commission is following the implementation of Directive 96/71/EC very closely and recently finished the final stage of a general evaluation of it. In July 2003, the Commission adopted a Communication (2) whose main objective was to identify persistent problems in the transposition and application of this Directive. In this context, it was found that improving the practical cooperation between the authorities responsible for supervising working and employment conditions could not only increase compliance with the provisions of the Directive but also render superfluous a certain number of national information and document-keeping obligations in the host Member State. A group of government experts was therefore created, at the Commission's initiative. This group is currently examining these questions in more detail.

At the same time, the Commission is very concerned about the transposition and implementation problems associated with Directive 96/71/EC in the Member States, including the Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg, of which it has been informed. It will be paying particular attention to the requirements mentioned by the Honourable Member and will be taking the necessary measures in its capacity as ‘Guardian of the Treaties’.

---

(1)  OJ L 18, 21.1.1997, p. 1.

(2)  COM(2003) 458 final.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/270 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/270

---

(2004/C 78 E/0270)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3352/03

by Roger Helmer (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(13 November 2003)

Subject:   Single Market rules

You will be familiar with the plans of the British Government to ban hunting with hounds in England and Wales (a ban of sorts already exists in Scotland). The likely effect of such a ban would be to drive hunt followers to visit other EU countries where fox-hunting is still legal, for example Ireland, to pursue their sport.

Given the considerable commercial implications of country sports like fox-hunting, there appears to be a ‘prima facie’ case that a hunting ban in England and Wales would create a serious distortion of trade, both in tourism and in the equestrian business, and thus breach the spirit if not the letter of the Single Market.

Please may I have the Commission's views on this question?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(17 December 2003)

On the basis of the information provided by the Honourable Member in his question, the Commission does not see how any future decision by the British Government to ban hunting with hounds in England and Wales would be incompatible with Single Market rules.

More specifically, the mere fact that this type of activity is legal in other Member States and the economic repercussions that such a decision could have are not, as such, sufficient to identify an infringement of the Treaty in this instance.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/271 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/271

---

(2004/C 78 E/0271)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3353/03

by Hiltrud Breyer (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(13 November 2003)

Subject:   Equal treatment of men and women in sport

Men and women are treated differently in a number of different sports: for example, female boxers are not allowed to compete at the Olympic Games.

Does the Commission feel that this unequal treatment on the basis of gender is compatible with EU law?

If not, what legislation should be used to prevent discrimination in sport?

If it does, is the Commission thinking of closing the loopholes in the law, with, for example, the planned directive on equality between men and women outside the workplace?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(6 January 2004)

The European Union already has substantial legislation on gender equality in employment.

Council Directive 76/207/EEC of 9 February 1976 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 (1) guarantees equal treatment for men and women in sport, provided they are professional sportspeople and fall within the definition of a ‘worker’.

In addition, on 5 November 2003 the Commission adopted a proposal for a Council Directive (2) implementing the principle of equal treatment for women and men outside the labour market. The aim of this Directive is the progressive implementation of equal treatment.

With regard to women's competitions at the Olympic Games, the Commission is unable to comment on a matter which is not within its jurisdiction. The International Olympic Committee (IOC), which organises the competition, is a private body whose job it is to organise the event not only according to sporting criteria but also in line with commercial criteria. The rules for participation in the Games are decided jointly by the International Olympic Committee and international sports federations.

---

(1)  OJ L 39, 14.2.1976.

(2)  COM(2003) 657 final.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/271 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/271

---

(2004/C 78 E/0272)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3360/03

by Jean-Maurice Dehousse (PSE) to the Commission

(14 November 2003)

Subject:   Free movement of persons

In closing with its frontier with Gibraltar, Spain has established a barrier to the freedom of movement of persons within the territory of the European Community.

In order for this border closure to comply with the principle of freedom of movement, it needs to be based on one or more specific, legal provisions concerning derogation.

Can the Commission state what the condition(s) is/are in this case? Are they furthermore applicable in the Community, and under what conditions? Are there furthermore other provisions of the same kind, i.e. capable of producing the same effects?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(7 January 2004)

The Honourable Member is invited to refer to the reply given by the Commission to oral question H-0668/03 by Glyn Ford during question time at Parliament's plenary session of November 2003 (1).

---

(1)  Written reply, 18.11.2003.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/272 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/272

---

(2004/C 78 E/0273)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3362/03

by Koenraad Dillen (NI) to the Commission

(14 November 2003)

Subject:   Development of new nuclear power stations

Commenting on the recent power failure in Italy, European Energy Commissioner Loyola de Palacio has stated that the failure was partly due to Italy's decision to close three nuclear power stations. As part of the liberalisation of the energy market within the EU, the Commission evidently wishes to encourage a further expansion of nuclear power in the Member States (La Quinzaine européenne, 3 November 2003). The former President of the European Parliament, Nicole Fontaine, in her present capacity as France's Minister of Industry, advocates the further development of the third-generation EPR (European pressurised reactor) type of reactor. Unlike most Member States, France and Finland in particular have opted not to ‘freeze’ their nuclear power. On the other hand, the previous Belgian government (1999-2003) decided that ultimately Belgium should cease to produce nuclear power.

Does not the Commission consider that a moratorium on nuclear power or a phasing-out of the existing power stations conflicts with the proposed liberalisation of energy? What position will the Commission adopt with regard to Member States which wish to close their power stations?

Does the Commission consider that new power stations may be built on condition this is, if necessary, accompanied by the introduction of more flexible environmental regulations?

With a view to the forthcoming liberalisation of energy, will the Commission in due course propose uniform environmental regulations applicable in all Member States which will give Member States the option of building/authorising new nuclear power stations if they so wish?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(15 December 2003)

The debate opened up by the Commission following the adoption on 29 November 2000 of the Green Paper ‘Towards a European strategy for the security of energy supply’ has revived discussion of energy options for the Member States and for the enlarged Union as a whole. The final report on the Green Paper (1), adopted on 26 June 2002, which identifies the conclusions to this wide-ranging debate stresses the need to keep all options open as regards energy production.

The reactions to the Green Paper have shown clearly that the nuclear factor remains an inseparable part of the debate. Nuclear power accounts for around 35 % of electricity production in the Union thus reducing its dependence on fossil fuels.

The use of nuclear power to produce electricity is entirely a matter for the Member States. Each Member State retains its sovereignty in relation to the means to be used to achieve security of energy supply. A major lesson of the debate on the Green Paper as regards nuclear energy is that the future of that sector depends on finding a clear and unequivocal answer to the question of the processing of radioactive waste and that a high level of nuclear safety must be ensured.

The Union has committed itself on a number of occasions, including the Laeken Summit in December 2001, to maintaining a high level of nuclear safety on its territory. For this reason, the Commission adopted, on 30 January 2003, two proposals for Council directives in the field of nuclear safety and management of radioactive waste (2). These two proposals, the legal basis of which is the Euratom Treaty, are currently being discussed within the Council. In accordance with Article 31 of that Treaty, the opinion of Parliament has been sought.

The approach adopted by the Commission in its two legislative proposals is legal and political rather than normative. The intention is to take internationally agreed principles and give them force of Community law. The implementation of these principles within a Community framework will make it possible to ensure that all nuclear operators obey the same rules and are subject to the same constraints. Such an approach will help to ensure healthy competition on the internal electricity market.

---

(1)  COM(2002) 321 final.

(2)  COM(2003) 32 final.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/273 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/273

---

(2004/C 78 E/0274)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3372/03

by Mogens Camre (UEN) to the Commission

(14 November 2003)

Subject:   Denmark's prospects of renegotiating Protocol 16

Several countries — Sweden, Austria, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, Cyprus etc. — expressed their desire during accession negotiations for a similar arrangement to that which Denmark has under Protocol 16 concerning the acquisition of holiday homes. They were all refused a permanent arrangement such as Denmark has but were granted temporary transitional arrangements as set out, for example, in draft law L 222 on enlargement to the east, pages 26 and 27. Will the Commission say whether any countries have already argued, or are expected to argue during the forthcoming renegotiation of the protocols, that it is unacceptable for Denmark to have a permanent arrangement while they themselves were refused one?

Further to my question concerning the legal implications of ratification of the EU's draft constitution, what is the Commission's assessment of Denmark's prospects of renegotiating Protocol 16 at the Intergovernmental Conference so as to retain its derogation concerning the right of EU citizens to purchase holiday homes in Denmark?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(18 December 2003)

Danish restrictions on the purchase of second homes are the only country specific exception to the free movement of capital within the Community. The Protocol on the acquisition of property in Denmark is an integral part of the EC Treaty, following the entry into force of the Treaty on European Union, and, unlike certain other temporary exceptions, such as transitional measures granted in the context of accession negotiations, there are no time limits set on its duration. As the Honourable Member is aware, any changes in this particular provision would require a modification to the EC Treaty agreed by all Member States, including Denmark.

As regards Candidate Countries, the Treaty of Accession to the European Union 2003, signed in Athens on 16 April 2003 and currently being ratified by Member States, includes a special permanent arrangement for Malta for the purchase of secondary residences (Protocol No 6) as well as transitional arrangements for other candidates.

The Honourable Member may already know that the Commission participates in the group of legal experts of the Intergovernmental Conference whose task is, among others, to adapt the Treaties' Protocols to the new legal environment provided for by the draft Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe. In this sense, the Commission can confirm that, following the adaptation, the content of the aforementioned Protocol is substantially the same.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/274 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/274

---

(2004/C 78 E/0275)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3378/03

by Marianne Thyssen (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(14 November 2003)

Subject:   European financial assistance to European contact points

On 29 September 2003, the Commission's Directorate-General for Press and Communication informed the host institutions of the Info-Points Europe and the Carrefours throughout the European Union of the decision that, as from 1 January 2004, operating subsidies to these regional European information centres would cease. In practice this means that each centre will lose some EUR 20 000 per annum in subsidy.

The importance of these European information centres would be hard to overestimate, and in the present political context it would even be fair to describe them as essential. The forthcoming historic enlargement of the EU and the June 2004 European elections are just two of the many European developments about which the public need to be informed in their own region. If the Commission wishes to encourage public involvement in European affairs, it should also ensure that the requisite information is made available.

Without the European financial support on which they depend, the European contact points cannot possibly survive, and this will mean that the gulf between the European institutions and the citizens of the EU will grow yet further.

| 1. | What are the grounds for the unexpected and ill-considered decision by DG Press and Communication to cut the operating subsidy to the European contact points? |
| --- | --- |

1.

What are the grounds for the unexpected and ill-considered decision by DG Press and Communication to cut the operating subsidy to the European contact points?

| 2. | Will the Commission revoke the decision by DG Press and Communication and investigate how extra European funding can be provided for the Info-Points and Carrefours, in view of their great importance to the public in Europe? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Will the Commission revoke the decision by DG Press and Communication and investigate how extra European funding can be provided for the Info-Points and Carrefours, in view of their great importance to the public in Europe?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(29 January 2004)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to written E-3007/03 by Mr Santini (1)

---

(1)  OJ C 70 E, 20.3.2004, p. 191.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/275 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/275

---

(2004/C 78 E/0276)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3381/03

by David Martin (PSE) to the Commission

(14 November 2003)

Subject:   Transportation of horses from Romania to Italy

Would the Commission explain why in the light of its own findings of violations of the law and great cruelty to the animals involved in the transportation of horses from Romania to Italy it does not suspend this trade until certain legal requirements are met?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(22 December 2003)

The Commission shares the concerns expressed by the Honourable Member regarding the findings of the Food and Veterinary Office (FVO) missions carried out in Romania in November 2002 and June 2003 (1) on the operation of controls on the export of live horses to the Union.

In the light of these findings, the Commission took urgent contact with the Romanian authorities to agree the corrective actions required to remedy the deficiencies identified. On two occasions in 2003, the Deputy Director- General for Health and Consumer Protection met a representative of the Mission of Romania to the Union. At each meeting, the question of Romanian horses exported to the Union was raised.

It should be noted that the Commission has presently no legal basis to intervene in the welfare conditions in which horses are kept and transported in Romania. However, the Commission is committed to take all possible actions in this regard to remedy the most critical situations reported.

Concerning the veterinary certification of horses exported to the Union, a mission to Romania took place from 6 to 10 October 2003. The preliminary findings of this mission indicate that progress is under way as regards the identification of horses infected by Equine Infectious Anaemia and that the Romanian authorities are continuing to make real efforts to correct the deficiencies identified.

The number of FVO missions to Romania performed in relation to animal health issues indicates the degree to which the Commission is committed to rapidly improve the current situation.

The Commission will continue to collaborate closely with the Romanian authorities to ensure that any remaining deficiencies are addressed and that measures are taken to avoid a recurrence of such problems. The need for further action, such as evoked by the Honourable Member, will be considered in the light of progress achieved by the Romanian authorities.

---

(1)  Inspection reports are registered under DG (SANCO)/8675/2002 and DG(SANCO)9226/2003.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/275 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/275

---

(2004/C 78 E/0277)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3385/03

by Karin Junker (PSE) to the Commission

(17 November 2003)

Subject:   Use of metal detectors in archaeology

The use of metal detectors in the field of archaeology, controversial among experts, is subject to different rules in the various EU Member States. With the entry of a further 10 countries in May 2004, the differences will be even greater. In some Member States, it is already an offence to possess some kinds of metal probes, while in others it is not, leading to differing legal situations in the individual Member States.

What are the various rules in the Member States? Does a Community legal basis exist in this area? If not, does the Commission feel it necessary, bearing in mind the subsidiarity principle, to assess the situation with the aim of harmonising the rules in the Member States by means of European rules? If not, why not?

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(22 December 2003)

The Commission has no competence regarding the use of metal-detectors in the field of archaeology. In order to obtain information on the use of these devices in the various Member States, the Honourable Member should therefore contact the competent national authorities directly.

At Community level, the EC Treaty does not provide any legal basis for the adoption of rules on the use of metal-detectors in the field of archaeology.

The Commission therefore does not intend to consider and/or propose any provisions at European level to regulate this field of activity.

Article 151 of the EC Treaty empowers the Community to encourage cooperation between Member States in the field of culture but specifically rules out ‘any harmonisation of the laws and regulations of the Member States’.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/276 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/276

---

(2004/C 78 E/0278)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3388/03

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(17 November 2003)

Subject:   The gradual downgrading of the role played by national central banks following the establishment of the ECB and the implications for the prevention of the production and distribution of counterfeit money

| 1. | Can the Commission confirm that in the 12 EU Member States which have introduced the euro as legal tender the number of people employed by national central banks, which were previously responsible for matters relating to the circulation of currency, has fallen substantially since 1998 and is set to fall much further over coming years? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Can the Commission confirm that in the 12 EU Member States which have introduced the euro as legal tender the number of people employed by national central banks, which were previously responsible for matters relating to the circulation of currency, has fallen substantially since 1998 and is set to fall much further over coming years?

| 2. | What percentage of these lost jobs are being transferred to the European Central Bank, what percentage are being transferred to private firms or firms set to be privatised, and what percentage are disappearing completely as a result of the hiving-off of tasks or computerisation? |
| --- | --- |

2.

What percentage of these lost jobs are being transferred to the European Central Bank, what percentage are being transferred to private firms or firms set to be privatised, and what percentage are disappearing completely as a result of the hiving-off of tasks or computerisation?

| 3. | Can the Commission state what tasks national central banks will still be responsible for performing in, respectively, 2010, 2015 and 2020 and what tasks they will then no longer be required to carry out? How will the latter tasks be taken care of? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Can the Commission state what tasks national central banks will still be responsible for performing in, respectively, 2010, 2015 and 2020 and what tasks they will then no longer be required to carry out? How will the latter tasks be taken care of?

| 4. | Will this downgrading of the role played by national central banks ultimately leave them as nothing more than local branches of the ECB? When does the Commission expect this process to be completed? |
| --- | --- |

4.

Will this downgrading of the role played by national central banks ultimately leave them as nothing more than local branches of the ECB? When does the Commission expect this process to be completed?

| 5. | Does the ECB or do other institutions compare national central banks with each other in terms of their staffing levels, and is this leading to competition to determine which bank can manage with the smallest possible staff? Do these comparisons take account of the volume of tasks performed thus far by national central banks, which differs from Member State to Member State? |
| --- | --- |

5.

Does the ECB or do other institutions compare national central banks with each other in terms of their staffing levels, and is this leading to competition to determine which bank can manage with the smallest possible staff? Do these comparisons take account of the volume of tasks performed thus far by national central banks, which differs from Member State to Member State?

| 6. | In the future, will the ECB issue invitations to tender in connection with the printing of banknotes, rather than retaining the existing system whereby quotas are allocated to national central banks and fulfilled by specialist firm which in the past printed national banknotes? |
| --- | --- |

6.

In the future, will the ECB issue invitations to tender in connection with the printing of banknotes, rather than retaining the existing system whereby quotas are allocated to national central banks and fulfilled by specialist firm which in the past printed national banknotes?

| 7. | Will responsibility for monitoring measures to prevent the production and distribution of counterfeit money also be taken out of the hands of national central banks and shared in future between the ECB and private companies providing cash services? |
| --- | --- |

7.

Will responsibility for monitoring measures to prevent the production and distribution of counterfeit money also be taken out of the hands of national central banks and shared in future between the ECB and private companies providing cash services?

| 8. | Can the Commission be sure that no bancomat machines anywhere are supplying the public with counterfeit euro banknotes? If it is unable to guarantee this, what steps are being taken to ensure that this money withdrawal system does not lead to a proliferation of counterfeit money in the future? |
| --- | --- |

8.

Can the Commission be sure that no bancomat machines anywhere are supplying the public with counterfeit euro banknotes? If it is unable to guarantee this, what steps are being taken to ensure that this money withdrawal system does not lead to a proliferation of counterfeit money in the future?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(16 January 2004)

| 1. and 2. | The Commission is not in the possession of statistical information on the number of national central bank (NCB) staff and its evolution over time. It cannot therefore confirm the presumption that the number of staff in euro area central banks has decreased since 1998, neither can it provide indications on possible job losses at NCBs resulting from transfers to the European Central Bank (ECB) or to the private sector. |
| --- | --- |

1. and 2.

The Commission is not in the possession of statistical information on the number of national central bank (NCB) staff and its evolution over time. It cannot therefore confirm the presumption that the number of staff in euro area central banks has decreased since 1998, neither can it provide indications on possible job losses at NCBs resulting from transfers to the European Central Bank (ECB) or to the private sector.

| 3. | In accordance with Article 105(2) of the EC Treaty and Article 3(1) of the European System of Central Banks (ESCB)/ECB Statute, the ESCB, which is composed of the ECB and the NCBs, performs several tasks:






  — | to define and implement the monetary policy of the Community; |
| --- | --- | --- |

3.

In accordance with Article 105(2) of the EC Treaty and Article 3(1) of the European System of Central Banks (ESCB)/ECB Statute, the ESCB, which is composed of the ECB and the NCBs, performs several tasks:

—

to define and implement the monetary policy of the Community;

| — | to conduct foreign exchange operations; |
| --- | --- |

—

to conduct foreign exchange operations;

| — | to hold and manage the official foreign reserves of the Member States; |
| --- | --- |

—

to hold and manage the official foreign reserves of the Member States;

| — | to promote the smooth operation of payment systems. |
| --- | --- |

—

to promote the smooth operation of payment systems.

Moreover, Article 3(3) of the ESCB/ECB Statute specifies that the ESCB shall contribute to the smooth conduct of policies carried out by the competent authorities related to the prudential supervision of credit institutions and the stability of the financial system. Within the framework of the ESCB, the NCBs are, moreover, carrying out a variety of additional tasks such as: the collection of statistical information, the printing of banknotes and the bringing into circulation of banknotes and coins, the conduct of various financial market operations in the framework of the ESCB's monetary policy, the conduct of economic research, etc.

In addition, as provided in Article 14(4) of the ESCB/ECB Statute, NCBs are allowed to carry out tasks going beyond these statutory requirements. These tasks vary considerably from country to country, depending on existing practices and traditions in each of them.

| 4. | The EC Treaty and the ESCB/ECB Statute lay down the objectives, the structure and the tasks of the ESCB. The Commission disagrees that any downgrading of the NCBs is involved, since both the ECB and the NCBs play an essential role in the successful functioning of the ESCB and in the achievement of its objectives. |
| --- | --- |

4.

The EC Treaty and the ESCB/ECB Statute lay down the objectives, the structure and the tasks of the ESCB. The Commission disagrees that any downgrading of the NCBs is involved, since both the ECB and the NCBs play an essential role in the successful functioning of the ESCB and in the achievement of its objectives.

| 5. | The Commission is not aware of any comparisons between NCBs as regards their staffing levels. Since the tasks to be fulfilled by the NCBs may vary considerably from country to country, such comparisons would be difficult to perform. |
| --- | --- |

5.

The Commission is not aware of any comparisons between NCBs as regards their staffing levels. Since the tasks to be fulfilled by the NCBs may vary considerably from country to country, such comparisons would be difficult to perform.

| 6. | The ECB has carried out an in-depth analysis of future procedures for the procurement of banknotes in the Eurosystem. Among others, the question of whether tendering procedures might be applied in the medium term for raw materials and the printing of euro banknotes was considered. On 10 July 2003 the Governing Council decided that from 2008 onwards NCBs without in-house/public printing works will have recourse to common tendering procedures. NCBs with in-house/public printing works may apply this scheme if they wish.
  Up until 2012 a common competitive scheme with tendering procedures will be fully implemented. NCBs with in-house/public printing works will be allowed to opt out from this scheme. |
| --- | --- |

6.

The ECB has carried out an in-depth analysis of future procedures for the procurement of banknotes in the Eurosystem. Among others, the question of whether tendering procedures might be applied in the medium term for raw materials and the printing of euro banknotes was considered. On 10 July 2003 the Governing Council decided that from 2008 onwards NCBs without in-house/public printing works will have recourse to common tendering procedures. NCBs with in-house/public printing works may apply this scheme if they wish.

Up until 2012 a common competitive scheme with tendering procedures will be fully implemented. NCBs with in-house/public printing works will be allowed to opt out from this scheme.

| 7. | Community legislation, notably Council Regulation (EC) No 1338/2001 (1), among others provides for a number of responsibilities at National and Community levels. National authorities have been designated in each of the Member States, among others National Central Banks. These authorities have been assigned with specific responsibilities with respect to the fight against euro counterfeiting and cooperate closely with each other and with the European institutions (ECB, Commission and Europol). Particularly, ensuring continued public confidence in circulating euro banknotes is a crucial part of the public task entrusted to the Eurosystem. There is no intention to share this with private cash service companies. |
| --- | --- |

7.

Community legislation, notably Council Regulation (EC) No 1338/2001 (1), among others provides for a number of responsibilities at National and Community levels. National authorities have been designated in each of the Member States, among others National Central Banks. These authorities have been assigned with specific responsibilities with respect to the fight against euro counterfeiting and cooperate closely with each other and with the European institutions (ECB, Commission and Europol). Particularly, ensuring continued public confidence in circulating euro banknotes is a crucial part of the public task entrusted to the Eurosystem. There is no intention to share this with private cash service companies.

| 8. | The Commission is collaborating with Member States in the preparation of legislation aimed at the timely detection of counterfeits, so as to maximise the protection of the public and ensure the authenticity of the circulating euro banknotes and coins. Some Member States have initiated specific legislative measures aimed at detecting counterfeit banknotes before they enter into circulation, to complement the Article 6 of Regulation (EC) No 1338/2001, and a number of National Central Banks have issued legal acts which clarify the obligations of and provide guidance to professional cash handlers on acceptable standards for the sorting of euro banknotes. In addition, the National Central Banks have all — depending on the situation in their respective Member States — taken other appropriate measures, such as providing training for the staff of professional cash handlers.
  The ECB has issued Terms of Reference for customer-operated cash recycling machines requiring that such machines be able to register/identify counterfeit and suspect counterfeit banknotes, as well as the respective account holder to help with retraceability of attempted deposits of counterfeits. In line with these, National Central Banks have taken appropriate measures aimed at ensuring that such dispensing machines check each banknote for authenticity and fitness, thus contributing to the detection of euro counterfeits before they reach the public. |
| --- | --- |

8.

The Commission is collaborating with Member States in the preparation of legislation aimed at the timely detection of counterfeits, so as to maximise the protection of the public and ensure the authenticity of the circulating euro banknotes and coins. Some Member States have initiated specific legislative measures aimed at detecting counterfeit banknotes before they enter into circulation, to complement the Article 6 of Regulation (EC) No 1338/2001, and a number of National Central Banks have issued legal acts which clarify the obligations of and provide guidance to professional cash handlers on acceptable standards for the sorting of euro banknotes. In addition, the National Central Banks have all — depending on the situation in their respective Member States — taken other appropriate measures, such as providing training for the staff of professional cash handlers.

The ECB has issued Terms of Reference for customer-operated cash recycling machines requiring that such machines be able to register/identify counterfeit and suspect counterfeit banknotes, as well as the respective account holder to help with retraceability of attempted deposits of counterfeits. In line with these, National Central Banks have taken appropriate measures aimed at ensuring that such dispensing machines check each banknote for authenticity and fitness, thus contributing to the detection of euro counterfeits before they reach the public.

---

(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.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/278 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/278

---

(2004/C 78 E/0279)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3395/03

by Olivier Dupuis (NI) to the Commission

(17 November 2003)

Subject:   Freedom of movement for Kosovo citizens in the EU and the final status of Kosovo

Under EU legislation, Kosovo citizens have no legal means of moving, whether short term or long term, within the territory of the Union's Member States in search of employment. (The Western Balkans and the European Union: Liberalising Movement of Persons', ILPA, Immigration Law Practitioners' Association, UK, March 2003). This means that there is no short-term prospect of resolving the problem of the powder keg represented by mass unemployment in Kosovo.

In this connection, the former Special Representative of the UN Secretary-General in Kosovo, Michael Steiner, has stated that the astronomical unemployment rate and devastating poverty in Kosovo are obstacles to lasting peace in the region. (SRSG, 2002).

The distinguished Balkan specialist, Misha Glenny, wrote in the Guardian of 9 September 2003 that unless we find a way, as a matter of extreme urgency, of achieving controlled release of the pressure which has been building in Kosovo since 1999, we will be facing a very real danger of explosion in the near future.

While the final constitutional status of Kosovo remains, unfortunately, in suspense, no outside investment in the Kosovo economy is possible. (From this point of view, the impasse in which the EU and the UN find themselves with regard to the chaotic situation of legislation on property rights is only the most recent example of these difficulties (Institute of War and Peace Reporting, October 2003). These factors, in combination with the drastic reduction in opportunities of finding employment in the EU, condemn Kosovo to destitution on an indefinite basis. Under these circumstances, the EP resolution of 5 June 2003, expressing Parliament's lively concern regarding the economic and social situation in the Western Balkans, and calling for maximum priority to be given to eliminating the visa obligations for the EU, is quite particularly urgent in the case of Kosovo.

What are the Commission's proposals with regard to getting rid of visa obligations for the citizens of Kosovo, a small country devastated by war? What are the Commission's proposals with regard to Kosovo's final constitutional status?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(21 January 2004)

Since June 1999, Kosovo is under interim United Nation administration pursuant to the United Nation Security Council Resolution 1244.

As regards (short-term) Schengen-visas nationals of all countries in the region except Croatia are subject to the visa obligation in accordance with Council Regulation 539/2001. It should be underlined that short-term-Schengen-visas are not issued for immigration purposes in the Schengen States. Kosovar citizens, who hold travel documents issued by the United Nations Mission in Kosovo (which is a travel document recognised by all Schengen states) can apply for a Schengen visa for a short stay visit. In order to obtain a Schengen visa, they have to fulfil all the relevant conditions laid down in the ‘acquis’ (in particular in the Common Consular Instructions part III).

As regards the possibility to move ‘to take up employment in the Member States’, this requires a work permit. The Commission has made a proposal (directive) on the conditions of entry and residence of third-country nationals for the purpose of paid employment and self-employed activities — this draft is still being discussed in the Council. At present, Member States decide alone about the conditions to grant a work permit to third country nationals (except in specific cases: e.g. third country national is a member of the family of an Union citizen exercising his/her right of family reunification).

As regards the ‘final constitutional status of Kosovo’, the strategy followed by the international community is the United Nations ‘standards before status’ policy, according to which no discussion for the settlement of the final status can start unless Kosovo has attained a number of standards (e.g. functioning of democratic institutions, rule of law, freedom of movement, sustainable return of displaced people and minority rights).

Currently, the United Nations Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo (Unmik) is trying — with the support of the international community, including the Union — to establish a work plan and a timetable for the implementation and close monitoring of the standards. The Contact Group has made it clear that final status discussions could begin by mid 2005 provided sufficient progress has been made on this work plan by then.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/279 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/279

---

(2004/C 78 E/0280)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3397/03

by Cristiana Muscardini (UEN) to the Commission

(17 November 2003)

Subject:   Dental instruments and risk of infections

Numerous studies carried out in Italy and worldwide have shown that infections, including those of a severe nature, can be caused by dental instruments. The water and air tubes often go unchanged for years: a biofilm forms inside them which creates a favourable breeding-ground for bacterial and viral colonies. The tubes which hold an aspirator a few centimetres away from an open cavity are infected throughout with incrustations left by saliva, blood, plaque, filings and remains of metal, and this can go on for days, months or years. There are 170 million hepatitis C sufferers worldwide, and it now has to be admitted that some of these have been infected in the course of dental treatment.

In the light of EU Directive 93/42/EEC (1), which concerns biological risks from electromedical instruments and is based on statistical studies:

| 1. | Is the Commission aware of these risks? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is the Commission aware of these risks?

| 2. | Is the Commission in possession of studies concerning the incorporation of Directive 93/42/EEC and the results obtained in the Member States? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Is the Commission in possession of studies concerning the incorporation of Directive 93/42/EEC and the results obtained in the Member States?

| 3. | Does the Commission not consider it desirable to urge the health ministries in the Member States to ensure that this directive is applied in full? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Does the Commission not consider it desirable to urge the health ministries in the Member States to ensure that this directive is applied in full?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(23 December 2003)

The Commission is aware of risks of contamination associated with the use of medical devices. In this respect, a distinction must be made between medical devices themselves and the use which is made of devices.

Medical devices Directives, in particular Council Directive 93/42/EEC of 14 June 1993, define the essential requirements devices have to meet in terms of quality, safety and performance to be put on the market and into service. The devices in question are assessed by a third party, the ‘Notified Body’, and only those that meet the state of the art requirements are CE marked and available for health care purposes. An essential element of the Directives concerns the instructions for use, in particular re-sterilisation and replacement.

The question to know to what extent health care providers properly implement instructions for use when using medical devices, is a different one, that falls with national health policies based in Article 152 of the EC Treaty. According to this Article, the 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.

The Commission would welcome every initiative that, at national level, Member States may implement to increase the degree of safety and health protection of patients.

---

(1)  OJ L 169, 12.7.1993, p. 1.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/280 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/280

---

(2004/C 78 E/0281)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3406/03

by Antonios Trakatellis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(17 November 2003)

Subject:   Installation and operation of mobile telephone antennae in Chortiatis

Over the last few years it has been noted that in Chortiatis in Thessaloniki and many other regions of Greece mobile telephone antennae have been set up and are operating very close to residential areas and even in close proximity to school buildings and hospitals.

Bearing in mind all the charges made concerning this specific question and the Greek Ombudsman's report on this matter, will the Commission say:

| 1. | What action does it intend to take in response to the above complaints by citizens demanding that preventive measures be taken to limit the threat of exposure to electromagnetic radiation, particularly in view of the advent of third-generation mobile telephony, so as to ensure compliance with the precautionary principle which covers protection not only of the environment, but also of human health? |
| --- | --- |

1.

What action does it intend to take in response to the above complaints by citizens demanding that preventive measures be taken to limit the threat of exposure to electromagnetic radiation, particularly in view of the advent of third-generation mobile telephony, so as to ensure compliance with the precautionary principle which covers protection not only of the environment, but also of human health?

| 2. | To what extent are the above installations in breach of Article 6 TEU on environmental legislation? |
| --- | --- |

2.

To what extent are the above installations in breach of Article 6 TEU on environmental legislation?

| 3. | What does it intend to do to protect public health if antennae are located less than 300 metres from residential areas? |
| --- | --- |

3.

What does it intend to do to protect public health if antennae are located less than 300 metres from residential areas?

| 4. | What measures does it intend to take against those responsible for locating antennae in areas where they pose a public health threat, so as to prevent any violation of the precautionary principle and Council recommendation 1999/519/EC (1)? |
| --- | --- |

4.

What measures does it intend to take against those responsible for locating antennae in areas where they pose a public health threat, so as to prevent any violation of the precautionary principle and Council recommendation 1999/519/EC (1)?

| 5. | What does it intend to do about authorisations to locate mobile telephone antennae which fail to meet legal requirements and pose a public health risk? |
| --- | --- |

5.

What does it intend to do about authorisations to locate mobile telephone antennae which fail to meet legal requirements and pose a public health risk?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(8 January 2004)

The attention of the honourable MEP is first of all drawn to the replies of the Commission to numerous other questions on this issue. An overview of these questions is given on (http://europa.eu.int/comm/ enterprise/rtte/questions.htm).

In response to the specific questions the following can be added:

| 1. | Based on the best scientific advice available to date, exposures which are below those recommended in Council Recommendation 1999/519/EEC of 12 July 1999 on the limitation of exposure of the general public to electromagnetic fields (0 Herz (Hz) to 300 Gigaherz (GHz)) provide for a high protection of safety and health of its citizens against all known effects. For this reason, the Greek authorities should ensure that the public is not exposed above these limits. Measurements of exposure in other Member States have demonstrated that exposure is greatly (a factor of 1 000-100 000) below the recommended values. Only in the close vicinity (i.e. a few meters) of the antenna may the exposure exceed the limits and authorities should in this case prevent access to the public. In most cases this zone is by default not accessible, certainly where antennas are mounted on high masts. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Based on the best scientific advice available to date, exposures which are below those recommended in Council Recommendation 1999/519/EEC of 12 July 1999 on the limitation of exposure of the general public to electromagnetic fields (0 Herz (Hz) to 300 Gigaherz (GHz)) provide for a high protection of safety and health of its citizens against all known effects. For this reason, the Greek authorities should ensure that the public is not exposed above these limits. Measurements of exposure in other Member States have demonstrated that exposure is greatly (a factor of 1 000-100 000) below the recommended values. Only in the close vicinity (i.e. a few meters) of the antenna may the exposure exceed the limits and authorities should in this case prevent access to the public. In most cases this zone is by default not accessible, certainly where antennas are mounted on high masts.

| 2. | Provided that these installations do not expose the public beyond the limits recommended in the above-mentioned Council Recommendation, one must assume there is no breach of Article 6 of the Treaty on the European Union on environmental legislation. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Provided that these installations do not expose the public beyond the limits recommended in the above-mentioned Council Recommendation, one must assume there is no breach of Article 6 of the Treaty on the European Union on environmental legislation.

| 3. | The distance between a residential area and an antenna is not a proper indicator of its effect on the overall exposure of the public and scientific evidence does not support the assumption according to which an antenna within 300 metres would have adverse effects on public health. As long as factual exposure remains below the recommended levels, the health of the citizens is to our best knowledge well protected. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The distance between a residential area and an antenna is not a proper indicator of its effect on the overall exposure of the public and scientific evidence does not support the assumption according to which an antenna within 300 metres would have adverse effects on public health. As long as factual exposure remains below the recommended levels, the health of the citizens is to our best knowledge well protected.

| 4. | It is up to Member States to implement Recommendation 1999/519/EEC into national legislation, and to ensure that this is implemented. As set out above, on the basis of current scientific knowledge, the exposure levels set out in the Recommendation are adequate to protect the public. |
| --- | --- |

4.

It is up to Member States to implement Recommendation 1999/519/EEC into national legislation, and to ensure that this is implemented. As set out above, on the basis of current scientific knowledge, the exposure levels set out in the Recommendation are adequate to protect the public.

| 5. | The surveillance of whether mobile telephone antennae do not respect the legal requirements falls under the responsibility of Member States. Under Directive 1999/5/EC (2), a Member State should not allow the putting into service of antennas that would expose the public to levels beyond those set by the Council Recommendation. |
| --- | --- |

5.

The surveillance of whether mobile telephone antennae do not respect the legal requirements falls under the responsibility of Member States. Under Directive 1999/5/EC (2), a Member State should not allow the putting into service of antennas that would expose the public to levels beyond those set by the Council Recommendation.

---

(1)  OJ L 199, 30.7.1999, p. 59.

(2)  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.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/282 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/282

---

(2004/C 78 E/0282)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3412/03

by Olivier Dupuis (NI) to the Commission

(18 November 2003)

Subject:   EU funding of independent NGO projects in Tunisia

The Tunisian authorities have decided to forbid the Tunisian Human Rights League to receive funding from the Commission, in the second block of funding for a project already concluded by the League and approved by the Commission in 2002, within the framework of the European Initiative for Democracy and Human Rights. Last August, the Tunisian Interior Ministry's political affairs director summoned the League's Chairman to inform of the government's decision, on the basis of ‘legal provisions on associations’. Some days later, the bank for where the League has one of its accounts sent a letter to League officials saying that a deposit had been made by Brussels on behalf of the League, but access to these funds was dependent on the submission of ‘the requisite authorisations, pursuant to Law No. 154 of 7 November 1959, and particularly the provisions of Articles 8 and 14 thereof’ (i.e. the law on associations). Tunisian legislation does not, in fact, contain any provision of a nature such as to oblige the League to request authorisation in order to receive funding. Article 8 specifically and exclusively refers to charity and aid associations. Article 14 obliges ‘associations recognised as being of national interest’ — which is not the case of the Tunisian Human Rights League — to obtain authorisation from the Minister of the Interior in order to ‘accept donations and legacies’. The funding obtained in 2002 by the League falls within the EU — Tunisian Association Agreement, Article 2 whereof obliges the parties to respect the principles of democracy and human rights. The conditions imposed by the Tunisian authorities are yet another instance of the hindrances and harassment the League and its members are subjected to.

What was the Commission's initial reaction to the manoeuvres of the Tunisian authorities to prevent the Commission funding a Tunisian Human Rights League project? What initiatives did the Commission take or will it take to convince the Tunisian authorities to change their legally unjustifiable attitude to the funding of the League's project? More generally, what measures does the Commission intend to take to convince the Tunisian authorities to stop hindering the League's activities and those of the very few non governmental organisations which are truly independent of the ruling RCD, party?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(9 January 2004)

The Tunisian League for the Defence of Human Rights Human Rights (LTDDH), beneficiary of project EIDHR 2002/3485 to restructure the LTDDH, has informed the Commission of the facts referred to by the Honourable Member.

As a follow-up to the LTDDH's communication, the Commission has raised this matter at a high level with the Tunisian authorities in order to clarify the grounds for applying Law No 154 to the Tunisian League for the Defence of Human Rights in connection with the second instalment of funds for this project, now at its half-way stage.

The Tunisian authorities say that the Law applies to all Tunisian NGOs receiving funding from abroad, but that ‘for reasons of tolerance and conciliation’ the Law had not been applied to the first instalment paid by the Commission for this project. The authorities also point out that the LTDDH was the subject of a court ruling which limits its activities to preparing for the upcoming general assembly and re-election of its board.

Although apparently administrative in nature, the problems encountered by the LTDDH illustrate the general difficulties surrounding this type of decentralised cooperation in Tunisia. Without commenting on the legal basis cited by the Tunisian authorities on their territory in support of their request, the Commission prefers a political solution to this problem.

The Commission would remind the Honourable Member that it is also seeking to support Tunisian reforms in the fields of freedom of association and independence of the judicial system in a more structured way. The Commission regrets that it is not been possible to carry out the MEDA programme for Tunisian civil society, which was also meant to include information and training activities aimed at the Tunisian administration concerned. The Commission and the Tunisian authorities are pushing ahead with preparations for the programme to support the modernisation of the Tunisian judicial system, also as part of the MEDA programme.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/283 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/283

---

(2004/C 78 E/0283)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3434/03

by Stavros Xarchakos (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(20 November 2003)

Subject:   Protection of the Bauhaus style of architecture

There are still numerous examples in Europe of the famous Bauhaus style of architecture. There are fewer examples of the style in Athens, though there are a number, particularly in the city centre. However, these buildings are deteriorating at an ever-increasing rate.

Is there any Community legislation to protect examples of this architectural style in the Member States? Are the creations of outstanding architects (such as Horta in Brussels, for example) protected by means of Community funding to preserve them? Can the Commission make representations to the Greek authorities to enhance their awareness of the need to protect the Bauhaus style of architecture in Athens?

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(19 December 2003)

| 1. | The competence conferred on the Community under Article 151 (ex 128) of the EC Treaty extends no further than encouraging cooperation between Member States in the field of culture. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The competence conferred on the Community under Article 151 (ex 128) of the EC Treaty extends no further than encouraging cooperation between Member States in the field of culture.

| 2. | On this basis, the Commission adopted the ‘Culture 2000’ programme, which is the single financing and programming instrument for cultural cooperation within the Union. Within the framework of this programme, and in line with the selection criteria laid down therein, the Commission may support projects co-produced and co-financed by at least three promoters from at least countries participating in the programme.
  The Honourable Member will find additional information on the website (http://europa.eu.int/comm/culture/c2000). |
| --- | --- |

2.

On this basis, the Commission adopted the ‘Culture 2000’ programme, which is the single financing and programming instrument for cultural cooperation within the Union. Within the framework of this programme, and in line with the selection criteria laid down therein, the Commission may support projects co-produced and co-financed by at least three promoters from at least countries participating in the programme.

The Honourable Member will find additional information on the website (http://europa.eu.int/comm/culture/c2000).

| 3. | The final aspect of the question raised by the Honourable Member does not fall within the Community's competence. By virtue of the principle of subsidiarity, it falls within the sole competence of the Member State. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The final aspect of the question raised by the Honourable Member does not fall within the Community's competence. By virtue of the principle of subsidiarity, it falls within the sole competence of the Member State.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/284 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/284

---

(2004/C 78 E/0284)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3438/03

by Koenraad Dillen (NI) to the Commission

(20 November 2003)

Subject:   Renovation of the Berlaymont building

The renovation of the Berlaymont building on Place Schuman in Brussels has been in progress for several years. Because of extensive asbestos contamination, it was necessary to almost completely demolish the whole building.

Can the Commission state definitely when the renovation work will be completely finished?

When was it originally expected that the project would be completed?

What was the cost initially estimated when the contract for the project was awarded?

What firms ultimately participated in the renovation work?

Does the Commission now know what the final full cost of renovating the Berlaymont building will be?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(20 January 2004)

On 13 November 2002, the Commission signed a contractual Convention with the Belgian Government which established fixed delivery dates of:

| — | 31 December 2003 for the main part (Tower); |
| --- | --- |

—

31 December 2003 for the main part (Tower);

| — | 31 March 2004 for the meeting room of the Commission and associated interpretation facilities (13th floor); and |
| --- | --- |

—

31 March 2004 for the meeting room of the Commission and associated interpretation facilities (13th floor); and

| — | 30 June 2004 for the multimedia zone (Press centre). |
| --- | --- |

—

30 June 2004 for the multimedia zone (Press centre).

The responsibility for the renovation works lies entirely with the Belgian Government (SA Berlaymont 2000).

It has become clear in the most recent meetings that the Vice-President of the Commission in charge of Personnel and Administration has had with the Belgian Minister of Finance M. Didier Reynders that, despite advances with the works, the effective delivery date for the main part of the building (Tower) will be the end of April 2004, and for the meeting room of the Commission (13th floor) and the multimedia zone it will be the end of June 2004. As the Commission announced in its public press briefing on 16 December 2003, delivery of the building within this schedule would enable the new President of the Commission and the relevant staff to occupy the Berlaymont in good time before the new Commission takes up office on November 1st 2004. No further delay will, however, be acceptable.

As the Honourable Member may also be aware, from 1 January 2004 and until the Berlaymont is delivered, the Belgium government is liable for the full rental cost of the substitution buildings occupied by the Commission in lieu of the Berlaymont. Delays in completion of the 13th floor (containing the Commission room) beyond 1 April 2004 will also result in the payment of financial penalties to the Commission. There would be similar penalties for non-delivery of the multimedia zone by 1 July 2004.

The estimated cost for the renovation of the Berlaymont was given by the Commission in answer to Written Question E-3439/01 by Mr Vanhecke (1). That answer referred to the figure of BEF 13,1 billion (EUR 324 million) which was set down in the 1997 protocole d'accord between the Belgian Government and the Commission. The cost estimate provided by Berlaymont 2000 SA in its annual report for 2000 (published in June 2001) was for BEF 20,2 billion (EUR 500 million).

The cost of acquisition of the Berlaymont by the Commission after renovation as defined in the contractual Convention is EUR 553 million which includes EUR 503,3 million for the Commission's share in the renovation cost and EUR 49,6 million for the value of the building before renovation. However, detail of the real and/or final costs of the renovation is not available to the Commission because these figures are only available to the Belgian Government. It is clear, meanwhile, that delay in the execution of the works has added substantially to any final cost. According to a report submitted by Ernst and Young to the Commission dated 16 July 2002, the full cost of renovation could amount to BEF 29 044 billion (EUR 719 million).

The Berlaymont renovation is lead by a consortium called EuroConstruct which is composed of two companies: Bouygues (Fr) and Strabag (D).

---

(1)  OJ C 160 E, 4.7.2002.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/285 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/285

---

(2004/C 78 E/0285)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3445/03

by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(20 November 2003)

Subject:   Support for non-autonomous handicapped people

Relatives of highly dependent, non-autonomous handicapped people have alerted me to the fact that the situation in Portugal is extremely bad, with pensions for severe dependency being extremely low and major shortcomings in the provision of public support. Private ‘social solidarity’ institutions working in the field, which play a very important role, encounter many difficulties and enormous restrictions, since there is a lack of adequate residential accommodation for these people.

Can the Commission answer the following:

| 1. | What aid is earmarked to help and guarantee the viability of institutions looking after non-autonomous handicapped citizens, such as the mentally handicapped, and specifically for residential accommodation and for teaching and recovery techniques? |
| --- | --- |

1.

What aid is earmarked to help and guarantee the viability of institutions looking after non-autonomous handicapped citizens, such as the mentally handicapped, and specifically for residential accommodation and for teaching and recovery techniques?

| 2. | What measures are envisaged to make progress towards bringing pensions for handicapped people into line amongst the various Member States, given that in Portugal, the monthly pension for highly dependent people is a mere EUR 225? |
| --- | --- |

2.

What measures are envisaged to make progress towards bringing pensions for handicapped people into line amongst the various Member States, given that in Portugal, the monthly pension for highly dependent people is a mere EUR 225?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(6 January 2004)

The level of social benefits, the conditions for their granting and the organisation of social protection systems fall within the competence of the Member States. A legislative harmonisation of benefits for people with disabilities is not foreseen.

However, since the Lisbon European Council in March 2000, the Union has put in place enhanced cooperation between the Member States in the field of social protection by applying the open method of coordination first to questions of social inclusion and, subsequently, to pensions. The extension of this open method of coordination to health care and long-term care is also foreseen.

The open method of coordination is based on the definition of common objectives — which are legally non-binding, however — and indicators for measuring Member States' progress towards these objectives.

In terms of social inclusion, two objectives cover people with disabilities:

| — | to prevent the risk of exclusion, the Member States are called on to exploit fully the potential of the knowledge-based society and of new information and communication technologies and to ensure that no-one is excluded, taking particular account of the needs of people with disabilities; |
| --- | --- |

—

to prevent the risk of exclusion, the Member States are called on to exploit fully the potential of the knowledge-based society and of new information and communication technologies and to ensure that no-one is excluded, taking particular account of the needs of people with disabilities;

| — | to help the most vulnerable, the Member States should promote the social integration of women and men at risk of facing persistent poverty, for example because they have a disability or belong to a group experiencing particular integration problems, such as immigrants. |
| --- | --- |

—

to help the most vulnerable, the Member States should promote the social integration of women and men at risk of facing persistent poverty, for example because they have a disability or belong to a group experiencing particular integration problems, such as immigrants.

The Commission is currently preparing a draft joint report on social inclusion. This report will assess the Member States' national action plans for social inclusion for 2003 and address the situation of people with disabilities. The Commission's draft report will form the basis for the joint report that will be adopted by the Council and the Commission for submission to the Spring European Council in March 2004. The national action plans are already available at the following address: (http://europa.eu.int/comm/ employment_social/soc-prot/soc-incl/index_en.htm).

In the context of the European Year of People with Disabilities (2003), the Commission is funding a study of the situation of people with disabilities in institutions in Europe, including in the accession and candidate countries. The results are expected by the end of 2004.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/286 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/286

---

(2004/C 78 E/0286)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3450/03

by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(20 November 2003)

Subject:   Criteria for fisheries sector structural actions

Commissioner Fischler, in his reply of 7.2.2002 to my question E-3593/01 (1) concerning the fixed premiums for fishermen who had worked in the fleet operating off Morocco, stated that ‘It was felt more appropriate to direct Community funding towards measures to adjust fleet capacity in line with resources’, adding that, with regard to Council Regulation EC No 2792/1999 (2) of 17 December 1999, ‘the Member States can introduce additional conditions in their national legislation, provided that they conform with the Community rules and regulations on assistance’.

According to the ‘Southern Fisheries Workers’ trade union, the Portuguese Government has not responded to requests for assistance from the fishermen of Sesimbra, who worked on the vessels ‘Anacleto António’, ‘Castelo Manuel’ and ‘José Leste’, which came under the modernisation/conversion process, and had submitted their respective applications for fixed individual premiums well before the closing date in 2002, but who have not yet been informed of the contents of the decision which has apparently been taken on their applications.

Given the desperate plight of these fishermen, who are still not in receipt of the individual fixed premiums under the Regulation in question, will the Commission tell me what measures it intends to take to make good this injustice, and deal with the serious social problems of these Portuguese fishermen?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(12 December 2003)

The previous written question related to Article 12(3)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 2792/1999 (3), which does not apply to vessels affected by the non-renewal of the agreement with Morocco because they do not meet the requirements regarding the permanent cessation of fishing activities within the meaning of Article 7 of that Regulation.

The owners of the vessels referred to in this new question submitted proposals on modernisation and conversion of activities and these were approved by the Portuguese authorities on 30 June 2003. Also, the fishermen who worked on board those vessels have submitted applications for individual compensatory payments.

As pointed out above, payments for fishermen affected by the permanent cessation of vessel activities are only eligible for aid from the Financial Instrument for Fisheries Guidance (FIFG) under the conditions laid down in Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 2792/1999, i.e. under fishing activity reduction programmes. At the present time they do not qualify for the special measures under Council Regulation (EC) No 2561/2001 (4) either, but an amendment of that Regulation is currently being discussed by the Council and it is possible that some provisions may be changed and become more advantageous for them.

---

(1)  OJ C 160 E, 4.7.2002, p. 150.

(2)  OJ L 337, 30.12.1999, p. 10.

(3)  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.

(4)  Council Regulation (EC) No 2561/2001 of 17 December 2001 aiming to promote the conversion of fishing vessels and of fishermen that were, up to 1999, dependent on the fishing agreement with Morocco, OJ L 344, 28.12.2001.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/287 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/287

---

(2004/C 78 E/0287)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3458/03

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(21 November 2003)

Subject:   The final destruction of tropical rainforests and measures to prevent overlogging and imports of timber without an ecolabel

| 1. | Is the Commission aware that in recent years the destruction of tropical rainforests in Brazil, central Africa, Indonesia and Malaysia as a result of fires and clear-cut logging has speeded up very considerably and that the laws enacted in those countries to protect rainforests are repeatedly circumvented by powerful corporations or army units which have an interest in timber exports and in gaining possession of deforested land for other purposes? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is the Commission aware that in recent years the destruction of tropical rainforests in Brazil, central Africa, Indonesia and Malaysia as a result of fires and clear-cut logging has speeded up very considerably and that the laws enacted in those countries to protect rainforests are repeatedly circumvented by powerful corporations or army units which have an interest in timber exports and in gaining possession of deforested land for other purposes?

| 2. | Does the Commission realise that Europe will also feel the impact of the climate change partly caused by this deforestation, so that Europe has a stake in bringing overlogging to an end? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Does the Commission realise that Europe will also feel the impact of the climate change partly caused by this deforestation, so that Europe has a stake in bringing overlogging to an end?

| 3. | Does the Commission recall that efforts have been made to ensure the availability of tropical hardwoods by means of planned logging combined with replanting; the timber produced is given an ecolabel, the aim being to ensure that tropical rainforests and these types of timber will continue to exist and be available in the future? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Does the Commission recall that efforts have been made to ensure the availability of tropical hardwoods by means of planned logging combined with replanting; the timber produced is given an ecolabel, the aim being to ensure that tropical rainforests and these types of timber will continue to exist and be available in the future?

| 4. | Is the Commission aware that, according to Greenpeace, a major proportion (i.e. 50-80 %) of the tropical hardwood currently imported into the EU has no ecolabel and is thus in all likelihood the product of overlogging and that most firms which import tropical hardwoods into the EU are not able or willing to end this practice as long as their competitors continue to flout statutory import bans? |
| --- | --- |

4.

Is the Commission aware that, according to Greenpeace, a major proportion (i.e. 50-80 %) of the tropical hardwood currently imported into the EU has no ecolabel and is thus in all likelihood the product of overlogging and that most firms which import tropical hardwoods into the EU are not able or willing to end this practice as long as their competitors continue to flout statutory import bans?

| 5. | Why has the EU market not already been completely closed to tropical hardwoods without an ecolabel? |
| --- | --- |

5.

Why has the EU market not already been completely closed to tropical hardwoods without an ecolabel?

| 6. | Is the Commission prepared to take measures in the immediate future in order to prevent further imports into the EU of tropical hardwoods with no ecolabel? |
| --- | --- |

6.

Is the Commission prepared to take measures in the immediate future in order to prevent further imports into the EU of tropical hardwoods with no ecolabel?

Source: Nederland 1 television station, Netwerk, 10 November 2003.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(20 January 2004)

| 1. | The Commission is aware of current deforestation trends in tropical forest areas and agrees that the reasons for such deforestation include those mentioned by the Honourable Member. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The Commission is aware of current deforestation trends in tropical forest areas and agrees that the reasons for such deforestation include those mentioned by the Honourable Member.

| 2. | The impact of such rapid deforestation on climate change is a serious concern for Europe, though not the only concern — biodiversity loss being another serious consequence. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The impact of such rapid deforestation on climate change is a serious concern for Europe, though not the only concern — biodiversity loss being another serious consequence.

| 3. | The Commission has promoted the conservation and sustainable management of forests through development co-operation programmes for a number of years, including projects in the countries and regions mentioned by the Honourable Member. It has, since 1992, managed a budget line specifically aimed at tropical forests and forests in developing countries. The Commission also participates together with Member States in global processes aimed at promoting sustainable forest management such as the United Nations (UN) Forum on Forests and the International Tropical Timber Organisation. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The Commission has promoted the conservation and sustainable management of forests through development co-operation programmes for a number of years, including projects in the countries and regions mentioned by the Honourable Member. It has, since 1992, managed a budget line specifically aimed at tropical forests and forests in developing countries. The Commission also participates together with Member States in global processes aimed at promoting sustainable forest management such as the United Nations (UN) Forum on Forests and the International Tropical Timber Organisation.

| 4. | The Commission considers that the estimate of the proportion of tropical hardwood entering the Union market without an eco-label may well be correct. There is, however, no statutory ban on the importation of tropical hardwood (with or without ecolabel) as the question suggests, other than the current ban on the importation of Liberian timber resulting from UN Security Council Resolution 1478/2003. |
| --- | --- |

4.

The Commission considers that the estimate of the proportion of tropical hardwood entering the Union market without an eco-label may well be correct. There is, however, no statutory ban on the importation of tropical hardwood (with or without ecolabel) as the question suggests, other than the current ban on the importation of Liberian timber resulting from UN Security Council Resolution 1478/2003.

| 5. | The Community market has not been closed to tropical hardwoods without an eco-label for various reasons, amongst them:






  — | there has been no global intergovernmental agreement on the definition of sustainable forest management — so the technical basis for such a ban would be disputed; |
| --- | --- | --- |

5.

The Community market has not been closed to tropical hardwoods without an eco-label for various reasons, amongst them:

—

there has been no global intergovernmental agreement on the definition of sustainable forest management — so the technical basis for such a ban would be disputed;

| — | the Commission considers existing ecolabel schemes used to identify forest produce from sustainably managed forests (forest certification) as voluntary market-based instruments which provide information to the consumer, not as a basis for trade bans; |
| --- | --- |

—

the Commission considers existing ecolabel schemes used to identify forest produce from sustainably managed forests (forest certification) as voluntary market-based instruments which provide information to the consumer, not as a basis for trade bans;

| — | tropical countries argue that the complexity of natural tropical forests makes it more difficult to certify such forests compared to temperate forests with a limited number of species — hence such a ban could be considered discriminatory from this perspective; |
| --- | --- |

—

tropical countries argue that the complexity of natural tropical forests makes it more difficult to certify such forests compared to temperate forests with a limited number of species — hence such a ban could be considered discriminatory from this perspective;

| — | a ban which only applied to tropical hardwoods would be discriminatory — for it not to be so, it would need to be applied to imports from all countries ie. including temperate and boreal countries. |
| --- | --- |

—

a ban which only applied to tropical hardwoods would be discriminatory — for it not to be so, it would need to be applied to imports from all countries ie. including temperate and boreal countries.

| 6. | The Commission does not intend to take measures to prevent imports into the Union of tropical hardwoods with no eco-label. Its approach is rather to encourage demand for forest products labelled as being from sustainably managed forests through a voluntary approach, as stated in the Sixth Environment Action Programme (1). The Commission has, however, proposed measures which would enable the elimination of illegally harvested timber from the Union market in its Communication on Forest Law Enforcement Governance and Trade (2). |
| --- | --- |

6.

The Commission does not intend to take measures to prevent imports into the Union of tropical hardwoods with no eco-label. Its approach is rather to encourage demand for forest products labelled as being from sustainably managed forests through a voluntary approach, as stated in the Sixth Environment Action Programme (1). The Commission has, however, proposed measures which would enable the elimination of illegally harvested timber from the Union market in its Communication on Forest Law Enforcement Governance and Trade (2).

---

(1)  Decision No 1600/2002/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 22 July 2002, OJ L 242, 10.9.2002.

(2)  COM(2003) 251 final.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/288 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/288

---

(2004/C 78 E/0288)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3461/03

by Peder Wachtmeister (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(21 November 2003)

Subject:   Corruption scandal within the Swedish retail monopoly undertaking Systembolaget AB

During the negotiations before Sweden's accession to the European Union, the Commission permitted Sweden to retain its State monopoly on the sale of alcohol, while stressing that all discrimination between national goods and goods imported from other EU Member States must be eliminated.

At present a corruption scandal is being exposed within the Swedish retail monopoly undertaking Systembolaget AB. 35 managers have been given notice that they are under suspicion of involvement in serious corruption. Three suppliers are the subject of a criminal investigation, one of them on suspicion of bribery. It is thought that over a long period certain suppliers have received preferential treatment in return for trips and gifts.

Will the Commission, in response to this, review Sweden's retail monopoly, and will the exclusive rights to the retail sale of alcohol in Sweden be questioned?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(8 January 2004)

When Sweden became a member of the Union, it agreed with the Commission that its competition authority (Konkurrensverket) would see to it that Systembolaget would operate its retail monopoly in a non-discriminatory way.

This monitoring arrangement remains valid today. However, the Commission will continue to keep close and constant liaison with the Swedish authority in order to satisfy itself that no discrimination in violation of the EC Treaty will occur.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/289 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/289

---

(2004/C 78 E/0289)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3469/03

by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE), Phillip Whitehead (PSE), Catherine Stihler (PSE) and Margrietus van den Berg (PSE) to the Commission

(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 Commission 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? |
| --- | --- |

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?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(22 December 2003)

| 1. | Information on incidence of post-polio syndrome, treatments and patient groups is available through projects supported under the Community public health programmes. The Parliament and Council adopted a Programme of Community Action for rare diseases on 29 April 1999 (1). Twenty-four 24 projects have been conducted under this former programme. These can be found at the Europa Website: (http://europa.eu.int/comm/health/ph_projects/rarediseases_project_en.htm).
  Decision No 1786/2002/EC of the Parliament and Council of 23 September 2002 adopting a programme of Community action in the field of public health (2003-2008) (2) includes addressing rare diseases as an important objective. Rare diseases are defined as of genetic origin, life-threatening or of a chronically debilitating nature which are of such low prevalence that special combined efforts are needed to address them. As a guide, low prevalence is taken as prevalence of less than 5 per 10 000 in the Community.
  As regards rare disease projects, that programme prioritises actions of a generalist nature that result in the centralisation of information on many rare diseases and not just on a specific group of diseases or single diseases.
  Unfortunately, and it is the case for the majority of the single rare diseases, no registers or regular surveys exist which routinely give information on the incidence or prevalence of the post-polio syndrome in the Member States. The studies used by the Commission suggest that 20 % to 40 % of people who recover from polio go on to develop post-polio syndrome (PPS). The incidence is estimated as 0,12/10 population with case rates (PPS/polio survivors). Experts appear to be unable to establish a firm incidence rate for the whole population. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Information on incidence of post-polio syndrome, treatments and patient groups is available through projects supported under the Community public health programmes. The Parliament and Council adopted a Programme of Community Action for rare diseases on 29 April 1999 (1). Twenty-four 24 projects have been conducted under this former programme. These can be found at the Europa Website: (http://europa.eu.int/comm/health/ph_projects/rarediseases_project_en.htm).

Decision No 1786/2002/EC of the Parliament and Council of 23 September 2002 adopting a programme of Community action in the field of public health (2003-2008) (2) includes addressing rare diseases as an important objective. Rare diseases are defined as of genetic origin, life-threatening or of a chronically debilitating nature which are of such low prevalence that special combined efforts are needed to address them. As a guide, low prevalence is taken as prevalence of less than 5 per 10 000 in the Community.

As regards rare disease projects, that programme prioritises actions of a generalist nature that result in the centralisation of information on many rare diseases and not just on a specific group of diseases or single diseases.

Unfortunately, and it is the case for the majority of the single rare diseases, no registers or regular surveys exist which routinely give information on the incidence or prevalence of the post-polio syndrome in the Member States. The studies used by the Commission suggest that 20 % to 40 % of people who recover from polio go on to develop post-polio syndrome (PPS). The incidence is estimated as 0,12/10 population with case rates (PPS/polio survivors). Experts appear to be unable to establish a firm incidence rate for the whole population.

| 2. | Available information related to treatment, rehabilitation strategies, aetiology and diagnostic methods for persons suffering the post-polio syndrome in the Member States may be found in the Orphanet database: (http://www.orpha.net/).
  It may be noted that Article 152 of the EC Treaty provides 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.’ |
| --- | --- |

2.

Available information related to treatment, rehabilitation strategies, aetiology and diagnostic methods for persons suffering the post-polio syndrome in the Member States may be found in the Orphanet database: (http://www.orpha.net/).

It may be noted that Article 152 of the EC Treaty provides 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.’

| 3. | The Commission's Directorate-General for Research (RTD) has supported research on poliomyelitis essentially through the Fourth Framework Programme. Actions were focused on molecular diagnostics, on optimisation of prevention and surveillance, and in a more global context, on legal and social aspects of vaccine research and vaccination policies in Europe.
  No particular project has been funded on post-polio syndrome, since this is more of a social and public health issue. A project proposal covering this topic was received during the Fifth Framework Programme (FP5), in the area ‘chronic and degenerative diseases’. It was evaluated by independent experts but was not deemed of sufficient quality to be funded by the Community.
  The Directorate-General for Research has in the past funded several projects related to disabilities, either in the field of rehabilitation technologies in the Biomed 1 (FP3) and Biomed 2 (FP4) Programmes. More recently, in the Quality of Life Programme (under FP5), 16 projects were funded in a specific action line on ‘Research Relating to Persons with Disabilities’. In FP6, the theme is covered under Priority No 8 ‘Support to policies’. Moreover, the Directorate-General for Information Society, through its TIDE Programmes (Telematics Initiative for the Disabled and Elderly, in FP3 and FP4) and its subsequent activities in the IST Programme (FP5) and the e-inclusion action of Priority 2 of the Sixth Framework Programme, has funded a large number of research projects aimed at facilitating integration and rehabilitation of the disabled. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The Commission's Directorate-General for Research (RTD) has supported research on poliomyelitis essentially through the Fourth Framework Programme. Actions were focused on molecular diagnostics, on optimisation of prevention and surveillance, and in a more global context, on legal and social aspects of vaccine research and vaccination policies in Europe.

No particular project has been funded on post-polio syndrome, since this is more of a social and public health issue. A project proposal covering this topic was received during the Fifth Framework Programme (FP5), in the area ‘chronic and degenerative diseases’. It was evaluated by independent experts but was not deemed of sufficient quality to be funded by the Community.

The Directorate-General for Research has in the past funded several projects related to disabilities, either in the field of rehabilitation technologies in the Biomed 1 (FP3) and Biomed 2 (FP4) Programmes. More recently, in the Quality of Life Programme (under FP5), 16 projects were funded in a specific action line on ‘Research Relating to Persons with Disabilities’. In FP6, the theme is covered under Priority No 8 ‘Support to policies’. Moreover, the Directorate-General for Information Society, through its TIDE Programmes (Telematics Initiative for the Disabled and Elderly, in FP3 and FP4) and its subsequent activities in the IST Programme (FP5) and the e-inclusion action of Priority 2 of the Sixth Framework Programme, has funded a large number of research projects aimed at facilitating integration and rehabilitation of the disabled.

---

(1)  OJ L 155, 22.6.1999.

(2)  OJ L 271, 9.10.2002.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/290 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/290

---

(2004/C 78 E/0290)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3480/03

by Catherine Stihler (PSE) to the Commission

(24 November 2003)

Subject:   Civil rights of disabled people

Can the Commission outline what measures it is taking to progress the civil rights of disabled people?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(6 January 2004)

Articles 21 and 26 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union makes specific reference to the rights of people with disabilities.

Community action for people with disabilities follows a rights based approach aiming at achieving equal opportunities. The various measures undertaken by the Commission thus contribute directly or indirectly to the protection and promotion of the rights of people with disabilities. The Commission's Communication ‘Equal opportunities for people with disabilities: A European Action Plan (1)’ reflects this approach.

More specifically, the rights of people with disabilities are directly concerned in relation to a number of Community measures:

| — | In the area of anti-discrimination, Article 13 of the Amsterdam Treaty is the basis for taking ‘appropriate action to combat discrimination based on sex, racial or ethnic origin, religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation.’ The Article is not specially designed for people with disabilities but takes a horizontal approach with regard to measures against discrimination. Within this framework, the Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation (2) as well as Council Decision 2000/750/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a Community action programme to combat discrimination (2001 to 2006) were adopted (3). The Commission intends to launch a public consultation (Green Paper) in Spring 2004 on the future strategy to combat discrimination. |
| --- | --- |

—

In the area of anti-discrimination, Article 13 of the Amsterdam Treaty is the basis for taking ‘appropriate action to combat discrimination based on sex, racial or ethnic origin, religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation.’ The Article is not specially designed for people with disabilities but takes a horizontal approach with regard to measures against discrimination. Within this framework, the Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation (2) as well as Council Decision 2000/750/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a Community action programme to combat discrimination (2001 to 2006) were adopted (3). The Commission intends to launch a public consultation (Green Paper) in Spring 2004 on the future strategy to combat discrimination.

| — | The Council Decision 2001/903/EC of 3 December 2001 on the European Year of People with Disabilities 2003 (4) stipulates in Article 2 its objectives as — inter alia — ‘to raise awareness of the rights of people with disabilities to protection against discrimination and to full and equal enjoyment of their rights.’ |
| --- | --- |

—

The Council Decision 2001/903/EC of 3 December 2001 on the European Year of People with Disabilities 2003 (4) stipulates in Article 2 its objectives as — inter alia — ‘to raise awareness of the rights of people with disabilities to protection against discrimination and to full and equal enjoyment of their rights.’

| — | Through its Communication ‘Towards a United Nations legally binding instrument to promote and protect the rights and dignity of persons with disabilities’ (5), the Commission has underlined its support for further progress regarding the rights of people with disabilities. |
| --- | --- |

—

Through its Communication ‘Towards a United Nations legally binding instrument to promote and protect the rights and dignity of persons with disabilities’ (5), the Commission has underlined its support for further progress regarding the rights of people with disabilities.

---

(1)  COM(2003) 0650 final.

(2)  OJ L 303, 2.12.2000.

(3)  OJ L 303, 2.12.2000.

(4)  OJ L 335, 19.12.2001.

(5)  COM(2003) 0016 final.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/291 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/291

---

(2004/C 78 E/0291)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3483/03

by Richard Corbett (PSE) to the Commission

(24 November 2003)

Subject:   Use of documents as evidence of criminal activity

If, in the course of an investigation of a cartel arrangement, the Commission finds evidence of unrelated criminal activity or links between the company concerned and organised crime, can it notify the relevant judicial or police authorities?

If not, will the Commission put forward proposals to change the law in order to enable it to do so?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(16 December 2003)

During company inspections ordered by Commission decision pursuant to Article 14(3) of Regulation No 17 (1), the national competition authorities cooperate and lend their assistance where necessary to the Commission officials. In certain countries, national procedures also require police officers to be present during the proceedings.

If a criminal activity were to be discovered during the inspection, the representatives of the national authorities would report the matter to the judicial or police authorities of the country concerned in accordance with the applicable national procedures. In certain countries, where CID officers attend the Community inspections, these could take immediate action under national law.

In view of the foregoing, there is therefore no need for changes to be made to the rules governing the involvement of Community officials in company inspections.

---

(1)  Council Regulation No 17 of 6 February 1962: First Regulation implementing Articles 85 and 86 of the Treaty, OJ P 13, 21.2.1962.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/292 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/292

---

(2004/C 78 E/0292)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3489/03

by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(24 November 2003)

Subject:   Stepping up supplies to the Sinaga's sugar production units — Azores Autonomous Region

The Sinaga — Sociedade de Indústrias Agrícolas Açorianas, S.A. — has informed me that in July 2003, the Azores Autonomous Region (AAR) asked for a 3 000 tonne increase in supplies of white sugar obtained from refining raw sugar. This sugar is essential to keep the company working and save the hundred plus jobs it provides. The increase in the quota represents less than 0,0016 % of Community production, and is vital to the AAR, an ultraperipheral region which is one of the poorest in the EU; the social and economic fabric is weak, and there are no real or economic alternatives.

Sinaga says that the request has not yet been answered by the Community authorities, and that it had no reply to its letter of 7 October 2003 to Commissioner Fischler. As the request is for 2003, it is urgent that a reply be given.

Will the Commission tell me where this request has got to? Does the Commission not think that given the AAR's ultraperipheral status, the quota increase requested should be provided?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(6 January 2004)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to written P-3166/03 by Mr Casaca (1).

---

(1)  OJ C 70 E, 20.3.2004, p. 229.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/292 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/292

---

(2004/C 78 E/0293)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3492/03

by José Ribeiro e Castro (UEN) to the Commission

(17 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.

Can the Commission answer the following:

| — | How does the Commission view the initiative taken by its 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? How does it guarantee the impartiality of its political guidelines and interventions, which are legally the responsibility of its President? Specifically, how does it assess it in the light of the principles of separation of powers, independence, and general interest of the Community? How does it define and delimit what counts as ‘intervention in the internal politics’ of the Member State? |
| --- | --- |

—

How does the Commission view the initiative taken by its 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? How does it guarantee the impartiality of its political guidelines and interventions, which are legally the responsibility of its President? Specifically, how does it assess it in the light of the principles of separation of powers, independence, and general interest of the Community? How does it define and delimit what counts as ‘intervention in the internal politics’ of the Member State?

| — | Is Romano Prodi going to resign as President of the Commission in order to pursue his party political intervention in Italian politics? Or does the Commission feel comfortable with a President who appears to have stepped directly into the disputed leadership of the left in Italy? How does it intend to guarantee the impartiality of its acts and opinions from now on? |
| --- | --- |

—

Is Romano Prodi going to resign as President of the Commission in order to pursue his party political intervention in Italian politics? Or does the Commission feel comfortable with a President who appears to have stepped directly into the disputed leadership of the left in Italy? How does it intend to guarantee the impartiality of its acts and opinions from now on?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(16 December 2003)

The Honourable Member is referred to the discussions that took place during the debate on the Commission's work programme at Parliament's November 2003 part-session and to the remarks made by the Commission President on the matter at hand.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/293 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/293

---

(2004/C 78 E/0294)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3498/03

by José Ribeiro e Castro (UEN) to the Commission

(24 November 2003)

Subject:   Iran — nuclear energy

In a communiqué of 10 November 2003, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) announced that the Iranian Government had accepted an Additional Protocol, granting the Agency additional powers and inspection facilities, and had decided to suspend work on enriching and processing uranium.

The IAEA report on this issue indicates that for years, the Iranian regime disguised part of its research programmes for years, and explored every possible avenue that would allow it to acquire nuclear weapons, specifically by enriching uranium by centrifuge or laser, and separating plutonium, with the help of four unidentified countries.

The Commission:

| — | Does it believe that Iran meets the obligations incumbent on it as a signatory of the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty? |
| --- | --- |

—

Does it believe that Iran meets the obligations incumbent on it as a signatory of the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty?

| — | How does it view the information provided to the IAEA by the Iranian regime? Does it believe that the control measures agreed between the IAEA and Iran are adequate? |
| --- | --- |

—

How does it view the information provided to the IAEA by the Iranian regime? Does it believe that the control measures agreed between the IAEA and Iran are adequate?

| — | Does it believe that there is a need for more and better information? Does it have any further data on nuclear activity on Iranian soil? Does it know the identity of the countries which cooperated with Iran on nuclear programmes, and does it intend to do anything about these countries? |
| --- | --- |

—

Does it believe that there is a need for more and better information? Does it have any further data on nuclear activity on Iranian soil? Does it know the identity of the countries which cooperated with Iran on nuclear programmes, and does it intend to do anything about these countries?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(20 January 2004)

The meeting of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Board of Governors on 26 November 2003 based its discussions on the third report by Director-General El Baradei. Both the report and the resolution adopted by the Board, confirmed a past pattern of concealment and irregularities by Iran. At the same time, progress on outstanding issues and recent cooperation with the IAEA, were noted. The visit of the Foreign Ministers of the United Kingdom, France and Germany and the resulting Tehran ‘Agreement’ of 21 October 2003, were welcomed.

The Commission, for its part, believes that the IAEA has managed to shed light on a number of failures and breaches by Iran in relation to its implementation of the (Nuclear) Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) safeguards agreement. It, nonetheless, appreciates that Iran appears to have entered into a new and improved phase of cooperation with the Agency.

The Commission has no reason to believe that the information collected by the Director-General as a basis for the Board's discussions and the resulting resolution, has not been adequate. It appreciates that Iran has invited the IAEA to set up relevant verification mechanisms, a process the Commission believes is of utmost importance and which will have to be followed closely.

The Commission notes that the Director-General of the IAEA is scheduled to deliver another report by mid February 2004. It has no specific additional information about further nuclear activity on Iranian soil. The Commission is aware of information relating to certain countries believed to have cooperated with Iran on its nuclear programme. It is, at this stage, not yet in a position to be able to comment in any greater detail on this matter, but looks forward to the results of the further investigations carried out by the IAEA.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/294 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/294

---

(2004/C 78 E/0295)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3503/03

by Emmanouil Bakopoulos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(24 November 2003)

Subject:   Stray dogs and the Olympic Games

According to information released by the Associated Press, last August in the Attiki region alone 3 000 stray dogs were killed in order to ‘clean up’ streets in preparation for the 2004 Olympic Games. It is the third time this year, following the campaigns launched at the beginning of the year and in April, that such barbarous acts have been committed.

Does the Commission intend to take action at some point to ensure adequate long-term protection for stray domestic animals in Greece?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(22 December 2003)

The Commission would refer to its answer given on 27 February 2003 to Written Question E-0177/03 of Mr Papayannakis (1) on the same issue.

For the additional information of the Honourable Member, the Commission is also able to state that during a mission of the Food and Veterinary Office to Greece in September 2003, the competent authorities indicated that there was now an official programme to deal with the stray animal problem in Athens in a manner which respected their welfare.

---

(1)  OJ C 161 E, 10.7.2003, p. 189.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/294 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/294

---

(2004/C 78 E/0296)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3509/03

by Helmuth Markov (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(18 November 2003)

Subject:   Interreg IIIA: Future funding of Euroregion offices

Euroregion offices have to date been funded under the Technical Assistance' component of the Interreg IIIA programme. The Spree-Neisse-Bober Euroregion office has however recently learnt by means of an oral communication from the Ministry of Economic Affairs that as of 2004 Euroregion offices will no longer be funded under the ‘Technical Assistance’ component of the Interreg IIIA programme, but under the programme's cooperation funds. In addition, as of 2005 the level of funding will gradually decrease. According to the Ministry, the reason for the change in funding arrangements is a request from the Commission. This change in funding arrangements would cause particular problems for the Spree-Neisse-Bober Euroregion, which includes only one administrative district in Germany. It would be impossible to increase the membership fees of this district sufficiently to fund the office.

Has the Commission asked for the Euroregion offices to no longer be funded under the ‘Technical Assistance’ component of the Interreg IIIA programme, but under the programme's cooperation funds;

What are the Commission's general thoughts on the future work of the Euroregions, in particular in the area concerned, which is located on a border between the EU and the accession countries?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(23 December 2003)

The Community Initiative Interreg is implemented in accordance with the Guidelines adopted by the Commission on 28 April 2000 after consultation with the European Parliament (1). The Guidelines do not identify the potential final beneficiaries under Interreg, although they provide a number of opportunities for organisations such as the Euroregion offices to participate in the pursuit of the objectives of the individual programmes.

One such possibility arises under technical assistance for preparatory, monitoring, evaluation and checking measures necessary for implementing Interreg programmes. Euroregions can obtain support under technical assistance insofar as they are responsible for executing such measures. It is, however, entirely a matter for the Member States to decide how technical assistance resources are used. The Commission is informed that Euroregion offices are not at present engaged under technical assistance under the Interreg III programme Brandenburg-Lubuskie, although they provide advice to potential project partners.

Euroregion offices can also bid for support from Interreg III in other ways such as under the Micro Project Facility for small projects promoting cross-border integration between peoples. In many border areas, Euroregions are involved in such actions that also allow for support to be granted towards the costs of Euroregion offices.

The Commission will present proposals for the future of actions to promote cooperation in the Third Report on economic and social cohesion which will be presented to the Parliament and to the Council at the beginning of 2004. It is therefore too early at this stage to speculate on future policy in this field.

---

(1)  OJ C 143, 23.5.2000.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/295 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/295

---

(2004/C 78 E/0297)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3530/03

by Claude Moraes (PSE) to the Commission

(28 November 2003)

Subject:   Health and safety for the elderly and disabled

It has been brought to my attention that there is little provision to ensure health and safety for elderly and disabled people in hotel bathrooms.

One of my constituents has highlighted the need for grab rails at elbow height, for example.

Could the Commission please state what measures, if any, are in place to ensure the health and safety of elderly and disabled people in public places across the EU?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(16 January 2004)

The primary responsibility in the area of accessibility to the public built environment belongs to Member States and most actions in the field of accessibility are effectively dealt with at national level. Nevertheless, the Union can be a driving force for change, encouraging and pushing the public authorities in the Member States to seize new opportunities.

The Commission has, therefore, given priority to improving ‘Accessibility to the public built environment’ in its Communication ‘Equal opportunities for people with Disabilities: A European Action Plan’ (1) adopted on 30 October 2003.

The Commission undertakes, inter alia, to promote Design for All, which is a concept that takes into consideration — with accessibility as a general objective — questions related to health and safety. Further measures are related to the development of adequate European standards in all areas related to the built environment, including planning, design, construction and use of buildings, and safety evacuation procedures for people with disabilities. In addition, it is foreseen to review the essential requirements laid down in 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 (2) to include provisions on accessibility for all.

Furthermore, the Commission recently set up an expert group to examine aspects of accessibility in the Member States. The report of this group, entitled ‘2010: A Europe Accessible for All’ has been published and is available on the Commission's website: (http://europa.eu.int/comm/employment_social/index/ final_report_ega_en.pdf).

---

(1)  COM(2003) 650 final.

(2)  OJ L 40, 11.2.1989.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/296 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/296

---

(2004/C 78 E/0298)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3534/03

by José Ribeiro e Castro (UEN) to the Commission

(28 November 2003)

Subject:   Portuguese workers abroad

The Portuguese press claims that a growing number of Portuguese workers are being tricked by temporary job agencies, who place them abroad in exploitative situations.

The UK is apparently one of the first Member States where these problems came to light. Since then, there have been accusations of exploitation of Portuguese workers in the Spanish farming industry, in floriculture and the building and machine industry in the Netherlands, in Italian shipyards, in France, and most recently, in Iceland, in tunnel and dam building projects.

Apparently promises of higher salaries and good working conditions are used to lure ‘taxi’ companies, so called because they appear and quickly vanish, without giving the Portuguese General Labour Inspectorate time to react.

Despite a substantial stepping up of General Labour Inspectorate activity, the belief is that the transnational network modus operandi of many ‘taxi companies’ means that there needs to be better coordination and exchange of information and experience between similar services in the countries of origin and the host countries.

The Commission:

| — | What information does it have about the exploitation of Portuguese workers abroad? |
| --- | --- |

—

What information does it have about the exploitation of Portuguese workers abroad?

| — | Is it weighing the possibility of providing any special aid for potential more serious human situations? |
| --- | --- |

—

Is it weighing the possibility of providing any special aid for potential more serious human situations?

| — | What steps has it taken or will it take to guarantee the correctness of the contracts binding these workers, and the quality of their working conditions concerned? |
| --- | --- |

—

What steps has it taken or will it take to guarantee the correctness of the contracts binding these workers, and the quality of their working conditions concerned?

| — | Has it made any contact with the host countries, with a view to alerting them to the possibility that these workers may be in exploitative situations? |
| --- | --- |

—

Has it made any contact with the host countries, with a view to alerting them to the possibility that these workers may be in exploitative situations?

| — | How does it intend to help fight the proliferation of ‘taxi companies’ illegally recruiting workers, which are competing unfairly with legal temporary job companies? |
| --- | --- |

—

How does it intend to help fight the proliferation of ‘taxi companies’ illegally recruiting workers, which are competing unfairly with legal temporary job companies?

| — | Is it considering adopting any new ways of alerting European workers to the inherent risks of being recruited for temporary work by illegal agencies? |
| --- | --- |

—

Is it considering adopting any new ways of alerting European workers to the inherent risks of being recruited for temporary work by illegal agencies?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(12 January 2004)

The Commission deplores the fraud described by the Honourable Member, which, it has recently learned, seems to be on the increase in relation to Portuguese workers. However, the Commission must point out that monitoring compliance with working and employment conditions is primarily the responsibility of the national authorities.

It is not clear from the question whether the situations described fall within the scope of Directive 96/71/EC (1) concerning the posting of workers in the framework of the provision of services. Insofar as this is the case, the system of cooperation on information established by Article 4 of this Directive applies. Such cooperation consists in particular of replying to requests from monitoring authorities for information on the transnational hiring-out of workers, including abuses or possible cases of unlawful transnational activities. The Commission facilitates this process with its own resources by linking the various monitoring authorities. To this end, and in order to solve the practical problems encountered by the national authorities in this area, a group of government experts has been set up at the initiative of the Commission to examine these questions in greater detail. It is also looking at ways of gaining easier access to information on the working and employment conditions applicable in the host country.

---

(1)  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, OJ L 18, 21.1.1997.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/297 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/297

---

(2004/C 78 E/0299)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3535/03

by José Ribeiro e Castro (UEN) to the Commission

(28 November 2003)

Subject:   Humana Milchunion — infant health

The Israeli press reports that the German company Humana Milchunion, which manufactures a soya-based milk substitute for babies for the Israeli company Remedia, has acknowledged its responsibility for vitamin B1 deficiencies and mistakes in the quality control process for the product. The Israeli Health Ministry believes that the lack of vitamin B1 killed three infants and damaged the central nervous system of several more. For the moment, some 20 children in total are believed to be affected.

The same source reports that Humana Milchunion has acknowledged that an independent laboratory demonstrated that their ‘Super Soya 1’ formula contained only 29 to 37 micrograms of vitamin B1 per 100 g of product, although the label stated that the vitamin B1 content was 385 micrograms; furthermore, Humana Milchunion was apparently cooperating fully with the Israeli-German investigation of the case, and wished to see those responsible for the mistakes duly punished.

Remedia claims that the change in the formula must have been due to the mistaken conclusion that the soya itself must already contain sufficient quantities of vitamin B1, and that no further B1 needed to be added.

Apparently, the problem was initially detected in Israel, because Human Milchunion, despite planning to make the same change to the formula for all its products, began the changeover with their line of kosher products destined for the Israeli market, since they were particularly popular amongst orthodox Jews.

In view of the Israeli revelations, the German authorities have apparently already begun their own investigations of Humana Milchunion and the consumers its supplies.

The Commission:

| — | What information does it have as to the continued presence of this product on the European market? |
| --- | --- |

—

What information does it have as to the continued presence of this product on the European market?

| — | What measures has it taken or will it take to alert consumers to the possible risks they may be running, with particular reference to Jewish communities in which consumption of products of this kind is standard practice? |
| --- | --- |

—

What measures has it taken or will it take to alert consumers to the possible risks they may be running, with particular reference to Jewish communities in which consumption of products of this kind is standard practice?

| — | What contact has it established with the Israeli Government and the companies in question? |
| --- | --- |

—

What contact has it established with the Israeli Government and the companies in question?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(16 January 2004)

The Commission has received information from the German food authorities that the product concerned was exported only to Israel. In addition, the Commission contacted the Israeli authorities via the Commission Delegation in order to obtain from them information regarding possible redistribution of the product from Israel to Member States.

On the basis of this information the Commission has no indication that the product concerned was ever present on the Community market.

Even though the product concerned was not distributed in the Union, the Commission informed the Member States of this issue, thus allowing them to take the appropriate measures to inform consumers if necessary.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/298 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/298

---

(2004/C 78 E/0300)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3545/03

by Alexander de Roo (Verts/ALE), Karl-Heinz Florenz (PPE-DE) and Chris Davies (ELDR) to the Commission

(28 November 2003)

Subject:   Transposition of the directive on waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE) in France

France is the first EU country that has prepared an ‘official’ draft of the WEEE transposition. An English translation has been provided by the Ministry of Ecology and Sustainable Development. The intention is to have a final text in December.

Unfortunately this draft deviates from the WEEE Directive (2002/96/EC (1)) in many aspects, most notably on the individual producer responsibility for future products. Instead a collective responsibility is proposed.

Please compare the WEEE directive Article 8.2: ‘For products put on the market later than 13 August 2005, each producer shall be responsible for financing the operations referred to in paragraph 1 relating to the waste from his own products’with this wording of Article 15 of the French draft decree: ‘The producers having put the household electric and electronic equipments on the market during the current year assure the financing of the obligations which fall to them the same year in conformance with Articles 21-25 of the present decree for the household electric and electronic equipments. These obligations are distributed between the producers by type of equipments such as listed in the order mentioned in the 1 st article, in proportion to the household electric and electronic equipments launched on the market during the current year.’ This is a very similar formulation as for historical waste in the WEEE directive (Article 8.3).

The French draft gives companies the possibility of setting up their own recycling operations, but a possibility for a certain recycling set-up is NOT a legal producer responsibility. Apart from the drawbacks of collective responsibility, a situation would occur where companies would not have to make reservations and guarantees for products sold in France, but would need to make reservations and give guarantees for products sold in other countries (e.g. Germany) where an individual producer responsibility has been introduced according to the directive. This would distort the common market. Another major deviation is a requirement for a mandatory fixed visible fee (Article 16), whereas the WEEE directive (Article 8.3) says it should be possible for producers to decide if they want to show the cost.

Is the European Commission prepared to point out to the French Government that they are on the wrong track?

Is the Commission aware that there is a significant risk that other Member States will be tempted to follow the French example?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(13 January 2004)

Pursuant to Article 17 of Directive 2002/96/EC (2) Member States shall bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with the directive by 14 August 2004. They shall immediately inform the Commission thereof.

Since France has not yet notified the Commission of any national measures transposing this Directive, the Commission is presently not in a position to evaluate them.

With a view to ensuring the correct application of the Directive the Commission regularly discusses implementation issues with Member States in the framework of the Committee referred to in Article 7 of the Directive. In case of incorrect implementation of the Directive, the Commission will, of course, address this with the Member State concerned, in line with the powers conferred to it by the EC Treaty.

---

(1)  OJ L 37, 13.2.2003, p. 24.

(2)  Directive 2002/96/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 27 January 2003 on waste electrical and electronic equipment, OJ L 37, 13.2.2003.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/299 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/299

---

(2004/C 78 E/0301)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3556/03

by Rosa Miguélez Ramos (PSE) to the Commission

(1 December 2003)

Subject:   Projects co-funded by the ERDF in Lobios in Ourense, Spain

The ERDF provides funding for the Prisma/SP1.E76 and Miliaria/SP1.E6 projects through the Galicia-Northern Portugal subprogramme of the Community initiative Interreg III. With both projects, the Autonomous Government of Galicia, is aiming to fully restore the deserted village of Outeiro, situated in the municipality of Lobios in Ourense. The restoration will be carried out by young people with various problems and the village is intended to become a rural tourist attraction in the future.

However, local people are unhappy about the lack of information from the authorities responsible and have also expressed astonishment at the opaque way in which Community funds are managed.

Can the Commission provide detailed information about these two projects co-funded by the European Community?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(9 January 2004)

The Commission can confirm that under the Interreg IIIA Community Initiative Spain/Portugal the ERDF is supporting the programmes in question.

The contribution to Miliaria/SP1.E6 is EUR 1 600 451,75 out of a total cost of EUR2 133 935,67 and that to Prisma/SP1.E76 EUR 1 767 366 out of a total cost of EUR 2 356 488.

Given the volume of the detailed information we have for the Honourable Member on the two projects we shall send it separately to her and to Parliament's Secretariat.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/300 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/300

---

(2004/C 78 E/0302)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3588/03

by José Ribeiro e Castro (UEN) to the Commission

(5 December 2003)

Subject:   Mozambique — elections

On 19 November 2003, local elections took place in Mozambique.

Arão Litsure, the chairman of the National Election Committee, claims that the elections took place satisfactorily, despite sporadic difficulties.

However, Renamo, the major opposition party, had apparently earlier voiced suspicions of possible electoral fraud.

These elections mark a new era in Mozambique's political life, given that the first proper sharing of democratic political power between Frelimo and Renamo could become a reality.

These local elections are, furthermore, seen as a preparation for the 2004 presidential elections.

The Commission:

| — | What information does it have as to just how free and fair the local election process in Mozambique was? |
| --- | --- |

—

What information does it have as to just how free and fair the local election process in Mozambique was?

| — | Does it intend to support and, if so, how? the forthcoming presidential elections with material, technical and human resources? |
| --- | --- |

—

Does it intend to support and, if so, how? the forthcoming presidential elections with material, technical and human resources?

| — | Is it prepared to encourage the training of electoral staff in Mozambique, both professional and voluntary, and likewise to make the population (particularly schoolchildren) aware of the rules and values of democracy? What instruments and programmes would it use to this end? |
| --- | --- |

—

Is it prepared to encourage the training of electoral staff in Mozambique, both professional and voluntary, and likewise to make the population (particularly schoolchildren) aware of the rules and values of democracy? What instruments and programmes would it use to this end?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(26 January 2004)

The Union has observed the Municipality elections of 19 November 2003. The Union Election Observation Mission was led by Chief Observer Mr José Maria Mendiluce (Spain), a Member of the European Parliament (MEP) and of the Joint Parliamentary Assembly of the ACP-EU. The Mission comprises a Core Team of six experts, 14 Long Term Observers (LTO) and 41 Short Term Observers (STO) belonging to 14 Member States. In addition, Switzerland provided 4 STOs.

In his Preliminary Statement, the Union Chief Observer stated that both the electoral campaign and the Election Day took place in a calm atmosphere free from intimidation, without any serious incidents or irregularities to remark. The media covered the electoral contest in an adequate manner. Nevertheless, some shortcomings in the administration of the elections should be addressed. In particular, the handling of the voters' lists, the way CNE operates, and complaint and appeals mechanisms.

The Commission is providing, through the European Development Fund (EDF), support to both elections i.e. Municipal with EUR 4,4 million and General and Presidential foreseen for 2004 with EUR 12,4 million. The Community support is being monitored by an expert financed by Sweden and Ireland. This support is provided through the National Budget subject to the fulfilment of conditions. The Commission is also supporting voters with civic education for the local elections and next years' elections through a specific programme with non-governmental organisations (NGOs) funded with EUR 720 000 from the European Initiative for Democracy and Human Rights.

Furthermore, the Union is providing assistance through its Member States for programmes related to civic education, training of electoral staff and regional authorities. Assistance was given by Member States as well as to the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) to monitor the elections and provide training programmes.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/301 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/301

---

(2004/C 78 E/0303)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3595/03

by Claude Moraes (PSE) to the Commission

(1 December 2003)

Subject:   Disability

I have been asked by a number of London-based disability NGOs, including SCOPE London, based in Islington, about possible progress towards a horizontal directive on disability.

Also, could the Commission please give its view on the success of the European Year of People with Disabilities, as we move towards its completion?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(7 January 2004)

The Commission understands the calls for a new directive in areas other than employment, but it believes for a number of reasons that it would not be appropriate at this time for the Commission and the Member States to launch themselves into the process of a new piece of legislation.

Its current focus must remain the correct transposition and implementation by Member States of the provisions of the Equal Treatment in Directive 2000/78/EC (1) into their national legislation. The deadline for this was 2 December 2003. This Directive will involve major changes to existing rules in certain Member States and, when correctly transposed, will provide people with disabilities with a very clear legal framework to protect them from unfair treatment.

Any new initiative needs to be the result of a wider reflection on the various instruments which already exist at Community level 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 Union 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 Union and will help to map out the way ahead for Union action on its policies against discrimination over the next five years or more.

The Commission has asked Member States, in the context of the reports on the application of the Directive which they must provide to the Commission by December 2005, to examine the issue of disability discrimination outside the employment field.

The European Year of People with Disabilities (EYPD) itself was designed as a very inclusive process and structured in a unique way so that disabled people themselves were able to input into defining the concept of the Year, and their organisations had a critical role in shaping the corresponding campaign at Union and national levels, through their involvement in national co-ordinating bodies, designing the key messages of the EYPD, choosing its logo and slogan, etc.

Overall, the awareness-raising campaign that was a key objective for the EYPD has had very positive effects, not least among employers and the media. One notable success in this context, was an initiative taken by the Greek Presidency, in co-operation with the Commission and organisations of people with disabilities. This was the organisation of a European Year conference on the critical issue of overcoming stereotypes of disabled people. As a result of this event, a ‘European Declaration on Media and Disability’ was approved in June 2003. The decision was also taken to establish a European network on media and disability to continue improving the image of disabled people in the media, the levels of employment, and access to the media.

Thousands of events have been held throughout the participating countries to promote the rights of people with disabilities and to raise awareness of the barriers they face daily in society. Actions took place simultaneously at European, national, regional and local level involving a great diversity of stakeholders: people with disabilities, their families and their representative organisations, non-disabled people, decisionmakers at all levels, the social partners and relevant stakeholders from the public and private sector.

The exceptional mobilisation of stakeholders throughout the Year has demonstrated a broad desire for a change of gear in achieving equal opportunities and the EYPD has induced a new political impetus to promote the further integration of people with disabilities. Apart from the transposition of the Community Directive establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation, new policy developments have been announced and are currently taking place in the Member States. These do not only concern the updating of existing laws and the passing of new ones, but also promote new approaches, innovative methods and positive measures.

On 30 October 2003, the Commission adopted a communication entitled ‘Equal opportunities for people with disabilities: a European Action Plan’ (2), which sets out how the Commission plans to follow up on the EYPD (Action Plan, mainstreaming, biennial report, etc.). The communication describes, inter alia, the main achievements of the Year so far.

---

(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.

(2)  COM(2003) 650 final.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/302 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/302

---

(2004/C 78 E/0304)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3610/03

by Jan Mulder (ELDR) to the Commission

(5 December 2003)

Subject:   Circumvention of sugar import tariffs

It was recently reported (in the Dutch newspaper De Telegraaf, 30 September 2003) that, by importing the semi-finished product tomato sugar (consisting of sugar, vinegar and tomato extract) from Switzerland, companies based in the EU are taking advantage of the low world market price of sugar. Producers in Switzerland import European ‘C sugar’ for this purpose, thereby avoiding high sugar prices. The same process is used in the production of soft drinks.

| 1. | Does the Commission view this as an unwanted development? If so, what does the Commission intend to do about it? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Does the Commission view this as an unwanted development? If so, what does the Commission intend to do about it?

| 2. | Is the Commission aware of situations involving other third countries or other products where the same problem exists or could arise? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Is the Commission aware of situations involving other third countries or other products where the same problem exists or could arise?

| 3. | Does the Commission feel that such imports, which from 1 May 2004 will be directed principally towards the new Member States, are desirable? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Does the Commission feel that such imports, which from 1 May 2004 will be directed principally towards the new Member States, are desirable?

| 4. | Does the Commission share the view that the problem outlined above could be solved by setting import quotas on such products? |
| --- | --- |

4.

Does the Commission share the view that the problem outlined above could be solved by setting import quotas on such products?

| 5. | Does the Commission share the view that the problem of the circumvention of rules of origin, which has occured with regard to the Balkans and which, it is feared, may occur in the case of the ‘Everything But Arms’ group of countries, could also be solved by setting import quotas? |
| --- | --- |

5.

Does the Commission share the view that the problem of the circumvention of rules of origin, which has occured with regard to the Balkans and which, it is feared, may occur in the case of the ‘Everything But Arms’ group of countries, could also be solved by setting import quotas?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(23 January 2004)

Under the 1972 Agreement the preferential treatment granted to Switzerland includes customs duty exemption for her exports to the Community of certain processed products, such as soft drinks, that may contain sugar.

Whether European sugar or sugar bought on the world market is used when these products are made in Switzerland is of no real importance. This is so for both the cost price of the sugar used and the origin of the finished product.

We are well aware of the impact on the Community sugar market that can be made by imports from various countries of sugar and products containing relatively high proportions of sugar.

Importation taking advantage of preferential rights granted by the Community is of course encouraged by the existence of a Community sugar price that is generally three times higher than the world price.

These issues are one aspect of a situation that has resulted in a Commission Communication to the Council and Parliament (1) setting out three policy options for the sugar organisation. The first is retention of quotas, the second achievement of market balance through lower prices and the third liberalisation of the market. Once discussion of the Communication is over the Commission will submit a proposal on the future organisation for sugar.

---

(1)  COM(2003) 554 final.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/303 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/303

---

(2004/C 78 E/0305)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3618/03

by Stavros Xarchakos (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(1 December 2003)

Subject:   Building cooperatives in Greece

Commissioner Byrne gave me a polite reply to my question No E-2850/03 (1), indicating that the issue it touched on was a ‘private matter’, and at the same time providing a brief analysis of timeshare leases which, however, have no connection with the issue which I raised in my question.

I would like to return to the subject I initially raised, which affects at least 500 000 Greek citizens (as many leading Greek newspapers have been pointing out) and which consists of the following totally unacceptable situation: there are building cooperatives in Greece which were founded up to 38 years ago (such as the Medical Staff Summer Property Cooperative situated in Athens which owns land in Saronida, Attica, and many other plots), whose members have been paying their annual and additional contributions for decades, but nobody is giving them any information on when they will receive the plots to which they are entitled.

The Greek press has reported that associations of cooperative members are already making moves in the direction of an appeal to the Court of Justice of the European Communities. Is it consistent with EU legislation that thousands of Greek nationals (EU citizens) have been paying subscriptions — for decades! — without so far receiving any assets? Which provision in EU legislation might they invoke in support of their claims?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(15 January 2004)

On the basis of the information provided by the Honourable Member, it does not appear that the situation described is covered by a specific consumer protection Community legislation.

For the rest, and although it sympathises with the predicaments of the people affected by such a difficult situation, the Commission is not empowered to take action in the case of private disputes between companies/professionals and consumers.

This matter, being an internal issue and taking into account the principle of subsidiarity, appears to be solely for the national authorities concerned and in particular the national jurisdictions. If, at a later stage, a national jurisdiction considers that the case raises a question of Community law and encounters problems of interpretation, it can make use of the preliminary ruling procedure and bring its questions before the Court of justice.

---

(1)  See page 179.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/304 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/304

---

(2004/C 78 E/0306)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3637/03

by Torben Lund (PSE) to the Commission

(9 December 2003)

Subject:   Working environment for employees handling preservatives

The EU has in many areas helped secure a better working environment in European companies. Unfortunately, problems still exist because the rules are not obeyed, are inadequate or because there is a lack of knowledge about risks in particular sectors, e.g. in industries producing foodstuffs and preservatives.

In this connection, can the Commission disclose its knowledge of health hazards in the workplace for employees working with preservatives and does it have knowledge of incidents where the employer has not implemented existing safety provisions in this sector? Does it have knowledge of surveys of this area or does it have plans to carry out new surveys of the working environment in this sector? Lastly, can it state when it plans to submit new proposals for improving the working environment for the benefit of the health of employees?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(15 January 2004)

The Commission agrees with the Honourable Member on the importance of preventing possible occupational hazards in the food industry. In this line, Council Directive 89/391/EEC of 17 June 1989 on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health of workers at work (1) imposes on the employer the obligation to be in possession of an assessment of the risks to safety and health at work. In carrying out this obligation, the employer shall take the measures necessary for the safety and health protection of workers, including prevention of occupational risks and provision of information and training, as well as provision of the necessary organisation and means.

Directive 89/391/EEC also establishes an employer obligation to draw up, for the responsible authorities and in accordance with national laws and/or practices, reports on occupational accidents suffered by their workers. Member States shall report to the Commission every five years on the practical implementation of the provisions of this Directive, indicating the points of view of employers and workers. No reporting has been made by Member States to the Commission on incidents where the employer has not implemented existing safety provisions in industries using preservatives.

Another health and safety Community initiative, Council Directive 98/24/EEC of 7 April 1998 on the protection of the health and safety of workers from the risks related to chemical agents at work (2), may have amongst others a role in controlling the potential risks from food preservatives in the workplace.

The Commission considers that these directives provide adequate protection for the health of employees in the food industry. As the Honourable Member is aware, Union Directives on health and safety at work have to be transposed into national law. It is the responsibility of national authorities to ensure adequate controls and supervision of the implementation of the national legislation.

A recent initiative to raise awareness on the risk of dangerous substances at the workplace has been the European Week for Safety and Health at Work 2003 co-ordinated by the European Agency for Health and Safety at Work. Events were organised in all Member States and the Agency has produced information materials that are available from its website: http://osha.eu.int/ew2003.

Finally, the Commission announced in its Communication Adapting to change in work and society: a new Community strategy on health and safety at work 2002-2006' (3) that the European Agency for Health and Safety at Work will set up a ‘risk observatory’, based on examples of good practice collected from firms or specific branches of activity.

---

(1)  OJ L 183, 29.6.1989.

(2)  OJ L 131, 5.5.1998.

(3)  COM(2002) 118 final.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/305 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/305

---

(2004/C 78 E/0307)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3639/03

by Michl Ebner (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(9 December 2003)

Subject:   Pollution in Wipp and Eisack valleys (Austria and Italy)

Fine dust particles are known to be especially damaging to human health and to the natural environment. A representative example of a now widespread phenomenon is that motorway traffic in North and South Tyrol accounts for half the level of particle emissions for the entire region. The Brenner motorway, a major north-south axis, cuts a wide gash through the narrow Wipp and Eisack valleys. It is responsible for 30 % of hazardous emissions, and by releasing 13 000 tonnes of combustion residues annually, places these valleys under enormous strain. The frequent and sustained temperature inversions and persistent periods of low wind velocity that result from the geological structure of the Alpine valleys tend to impede or even prevent the dispersal and dilution of such particles. The serious impact on human beings and the natural environment of pollution from noise and hazardous particles generated by the enormous traffic volumes cannot be underestimated.

The Commission is asked:

| — | Is it proposed that more stringent standards will be introduced for motor-vehicles and their exhaust emissions, and if so in what form? |
| --- | --- |

—

Is it proposed that more stringent standards will be introduced for motor-vehicles and their exhaust emissions, and if so in what form?

| — | What measures are being taken to improve vehicle performance in the road-haulage industry? |
| --- | --- |

—

What measures are being taken to improve vehicle performance in the road-haulage industry?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(14 January 2004)

Directive 1999/96/EC (1) introduced new emission requirements for new heavy-duty vehicles in two stages. The Euro 4 stage, due to be mandatory from October 2006 for all new heavy-duty vehicles, will lower the emissions of Nitrogen oxides (NOx) by some 30 % over the present legal requirements while the emission of particulates will be lowered by some 80 %. A second mandatory stage (Euro 5) will apply to all new heavy-duty vehicles from October 2009 and this will result in a lowering of NOx by a total of 60 % over the present legal requirements. Now, the Commission is investigating a further stage of emission reductions for new heavy-duty vehicles (Euro 6 in the timeframe 2012-2013), concentrating on the primary pollutants NOx and particulates.

In addition, the Commission is also investigating a further stage of emission reductions for new passenger cars and light commercial vehicles (Euro 5 in the timeframe 2010), also concentrating on the primary pollutants NOx and particulates.

With respect to improving vehicle performance in the road-haulage industry, stricter checks of emissions are being supplemented by the introduction of new technical measures for on-board diagnostic (OBD) systems on heavy-duty vehicles. OBD is to be a part of the Euro 4 stage from 2006. OBD will monitor non-compliance of emissions in real-time and inform the driver and repair garage if there is a problem with the emission control systems that needs attention.

The Commission is also working on a new method for checking the in-use conformity of heavy-duty vehicles in service through the use of portable emission monitoring systems (PEMS) which will supplement the technical measures of the Euro 4 stage.

Older heavy-duty vehicles used in the road haulage industry can be retro-fitted with filters to reduce the emissions of particulates. However, retro-fitting is not dealt with at a European level but rather at a national or local level, usually encouraged through fiscal incentives. Such filters show an immediate and drastic cut in emissions of exhaust particulates.

---

(1)  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, OJ L 44, 16.2.2000.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/306 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/306

---

(2004/C 78 E/0308)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3642/03

by Baroness Sarah Ludford (ELDR) to the Commission

(9 December 2003)

Subject:   Eurobarometer poll

Can the Commission explain the reasoning behind section 2.2 of the latest Eurobarometer Flash Survey (No 151) in which respondents were asked whether or not they consider certain countries to pose a threat to world peace?

What is the purpose of this section given that evaluating perceptions of future threats to world peace is not mentioned as one of the underlying objectives of the survey and also that the responses are not even mentioned in the conclusion of the Flash Survey?

Can the Commission explain how the countries featuring in this survey were selected, and what steps will be taken to ensure that the methodology of any similar future exercise is improved?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(23 December 2003)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to written P-3334/03 by Mrs Muscardini (1)

---

(1)  See page 263.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/307 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/307

---

(2004/C 78 E/0309)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3658/03

by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission

(9 December 2003)

Subject:   Ban Bullying Day — future action

Given that bullying at work is an increasing problem for workers in many Member States, the trade union Amicus has for the past ten years been campaigning and seeking legislation in the UK and Ireland to protect workers from the various forms of ill-treatment which constitute bullying. I believe that the decision of Amicus and several other organisations in the United Kingdom to declare Thursday 16 October 2003 (during European Safety Week) Ban Bullying Day was a step in the right direction.

Will the Commission investigate the extent of the problem of workplace bullying across the EU and the existence of legal and other protective measures in the various Member States with a view to bringing forward a report and proposals for action, taking into particular consideration the views of Amicus and the European Agency on Safety and Health, reporting back to Parliament with a timetable for action?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(16 January 2004)

In its communication Adapting to change in work and society: a new Community strategy on health and safety at work 2002-2006 (1), the Commission announced that it would ‘examine the appropriateness and the scope of a Community instrument on psychological harassment and violence at work’.

The Commission is at present gathering and reviewing the information available in this field. This review covers, among other things, the legislative initiatives and/or rules adopted or envisaged in the Member States.

Against that background, Parliament's resolution on harassment at the workplace (2) and the opinion adopted on violence at work by the Advisory Committee on Safety, Hygiene and Health Protection at Work (3), plus the information available through the European Agency for Health and Safety at Work, will also be taken into account. The Commission will also be mindful of specific experience in the area of violence at work, such as that mentioned in your written question.

Using the above as a basis, the Commission plans to consult the social partners in the course of 2004 on the possible direction of Community action in this field. Such consultation was included in the Commission's work programme for 2004 (4).

The Commission considers that bullying, harassment and intimidation are specific instances of violence at the workplace. In principle, it is planned that the consultation of the social partners will cover all forms of violence which could affect workers' health, physical and psychological integrity, and dignity.

---

(1)  COM(2002) 118 final.

(2)  A5-0283/2001 du 19.9.2001.

(3)  COM(2003) 346 final.

(4)  COM(2003) 645final.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/308 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/308

---

(2004/C 78 E/0310)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3659/03

by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission

(9 December 2003)

Subject:   Free movement of goods and services

Whilst I fully support the idea that the free movement of goods and services requires common European rules and regulations governing large companies which export their products to other countries, does the Commission not feel that some of the burden should be lifted from small companies with low turnovers which operate locally and regionally within one Member State? Does the Commission have any idea of the costs which such SMEs incur as a result of regulation of the single market and does the Commission have any plans to exempt such companies, given that local knowledge is a sufficient safeguard of reliability to the public?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(26 January 2004)

The Commission believes that the Internal Market offers considerable opportunities for small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). It believes that in certain fields the lack of an integrated European regulatory framework prevents SMEs from being able to grow and extend their activities across Internal Market borders (1).

The Commission fully agrees with the Honourable Member's view that Internal Market harmonisation should not give rise to excessive compliance costs. Internal Market harmonisation always has as its primary objective the facilitation of free movement. Where national restrictions applied to incoming firms or products are disproportionate, that free movement is achieved by applying the principle of mutual recognition whereby the firm from the country of origin can supply its goods and services to the host country on the basis of its own domestic rules. Such application of Internal Market principles does not add to the business compliance burden. On the contrary, it reduces it significantly since the cross-border operator only has to work to one rather than two to fifteen (soon to be twenty five) sets of rules.

When Community harmonisation is required to protect, for example, consumers and the environment, it must also comply with the principle of proportionality. In other words, it must take the form of provisions that ensures the required high common level of protection in the least trade-restrictive manner. Such harmonisation does not necessarily add new rules to national operators but typically modifies existing rules such that they achieve their desired public interest objectives effectively whilst allowing for free movement.

In order to ensure that this principle of proportionality is adhered to, proper assessment of compliance costs and administrative burdens of Community intervention is essential. Although the Commission has no systematic information on compliance costs and administrative burdens relating to older Community legislation, the assessment of these costs and burdens plays an important role in the new impact assessment procedure put in place by the Commission (2). The new impact assessment procedure will integrate into a single system all existing impact assessment mechanisms in the Commission, including the business impact assessments which the Commission has conducted on its legislative proposals since 1986. The new impact assessment procedure provides, for each proposal concerned, a systematic analysis of the problem being addressed, the objective, the alternative options to reach the objective and their likely impacts. Consultation of stakeholders including SMEs on major proposals will form an important part of the process.

In conclusion, in pursuing the goal of achieving a smoothly functioning Internal Market, the Commission aims to account fully for business compliance costs. The Commission, therefore, cannot agree with the Honourable Member's suggestion that small firms should be allowed to deviate from harmonisation provisions seeking to attain the required high levels of protection of public interest objectives such as the protection of public health, consumers or the environment. This would not only undermine the protection of valid public interest objectives to the detriment of Union citizens but would also undermine trust and confidence in the operations of Union SMEs in general.

---

(1)  For example, in its report on the State of the Internal Market in services [COM(2002)441 final], the Commission identified SMEs as the main victims of the current fragmented European regulatory framework.

(2)  COM(2002)278 final. See http://europa.eu.int/comm/governance/suivi_lb_en.htm.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/309 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/309

---

(2004/C 78 E/0311)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3662/03

by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission

(9 December 2003)

Subject:   Botswanan beef, wildlife and sustainable development

It has been brought to my attention by a constituent that the Botswana Government is considering fencing in areas of land in an effort to increase the country's production of beef, most of which I understand is intended for the EU. The impact on local wildlife, communities and the tourism industry would be huge.

Can the Commission confirm that this would go against the EU's environmental and social standards, and, given that the EU is a major importer of Botswanan beef, will it put pressure on the authorities in Botswana to reconsider their options?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(26 January 2004)

The Commission is aware both of the Government of Botswana's intention to alter its existing network of cattle/wildlife fences in Ngamiland, and of the recent developments on this matter. These would include the erection of a new veterinary fence, with the purpose to extend the country area free from Foot and Mouth Disease.

While, however, there is no direct link between the intended fences and the European Development Fund/budget lines projects currently funded in Botswana, the Commission and its Delegation in Botswana, conscious of the issues at stake, maintain contacts with the various stakeholders, including the nongovernmental organisation ‘Environmental Investigation Agency’. There is also a regular dialogue with the Government of Botswana in the area of conservation of natural resources.

The Botswana/DFID (Department for International Development, United Kingdom) funded ‘Environmental assessment of veterinary fences in Ngamiland’ report outlines various technical options, and constitutes a solid preliminary information base on environmental impact for the Okavango delta. To the Commission's knowledge, the Government of Botswana has not taken a decision on a particular option to follow; the Commission however understands that a number of complementary studies (in particular on socio economic impact) are planned by the Government of Botswana, following the report recommendations. The Delegation expects that the matter will be resolved through the local consultations that have been reinitiated, as well as by a policy dialogue between the Botswana stakeholders.

The importance of livestock for the livelihoods of Ngamiland cannot be underplayed. It should be noted that, unlike other Southern African countries, most Botswana meat for export comes from smallholders, who benefit from Foot and Mouth Disease control even if no exports are taking place. Foot and Mouth Disease control has therefore a positive impact on poverty alleviation. The control is possible through a range of techniques, the erection of fences (with different modalities) being one of them.

In more general development terms, the debate illustrates the importance of land use planning, particularly for pastoral areas and also for Botswana. Persistent persuasion, resources and action are required to define and build a viable interface between cattle and wildlife, and strike the right balance between divergent interests respectively favouring wildlife and livestock.

The Commission will continue to closely monitor the situation. It has recently met with the nongovernmental organisation ‘Environmental Investigation Agency’ to listen to their point of view and to obtain further information.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/310 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/310

---

(2004/C 78 E/0312)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3664/03

by Glenys Kinnock (PSE) to the Commission

(9 December 2003)

Subject:   Women's reproductive health

UNFPA reported a large number of deaths of women in Liberia as a result of treatable reproductive tract infections and from pregnancy-related complications. There is also a high incidence of HIV/AIDS among Liberian women, contracted as a result of widespread rape during the civil war and a lack of safe blood supplies for transfusions.

In light of this, would the Commission outline what measures it is taking to support women's reproductive health programmes in Liberia?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(8 January 2003)

Through its local representative and various field missions, the Commission is fully aware of the situation of women in Liberia. The Commission had its concern by this situation and also in the tremendous impact the civil war has on women's health either directly through all sorts of abuse and rape or indirectly through displacement, widespread poverty and absence of a health system to cover basic health needs.

All interventions supporting the restoration of a peaceful environment and the application of the rule of law therefore have an impact on women's health. The programme, currently under implementation, to support the peacekeeping forces from Ecowas (EUR 8 million) is designed to build the suitable peaceful environment, together with other bilateral and multilateral donors. However some of the interventions are specifically designed to provide support to the rehabilitation of the health services and to provide direct health support.

The ‘Reintegration programme for returnees and displaced people in Liberia’ (EUR 25 million) under implementation since 2001, has a strong health component. The purpose is the improved delivery of basic health services through the County Health Teams assisted by non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and improved access to good quality and cheaper drugs through improvements in the functioning of the nongovernment National Drug Service.

The ‘Post Conflict Rehabilitation and Capacity Building Programme’ (EUR 40 million) has been recently decided. Its purpose is to facilitate and support the initiatives of peace and national reconciliation contained in the Accra Peace Agreement, in order to ease socio-political tensions and ensure reconciliation (demobilization and economic and social reinsertion of the fighters) at the national and community levels (re-establishment and functioning of key public Ministries and key other Institution). Notably its purpose is also to encourage and accelerate the process of social and economic rehabilitation of the affected populations (particularly at the community level) and to contribute to the physical rehabilitation of basic infrastructure and services (public and other), including the availability of health services, medicines, education and water.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/311 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/311

---

(2004/C 78 E/0313)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3666/03

by Mario Mantovani (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(2 December 2003)

Subject:   Health services and free movement of patients

In the Müller-Fauré/Van Riet judgment (C-385/99), the Court of Justice drew a clear distinction between out-patient treatment and hospital treatment, stipulating that requests for prior authorisation are contrary to the principle of the freedom to provide services only in the case of out-patient treatment provided in another Member State by a non-contracted provider. In its report on the future of health care (December 2002 — A5-0452/2002), for which I was rapporteur, the European Parliament pointed out that the achievement of the objectives of sustainability, accessibility and quality of health services requires inter alia the creation of an internal market in health services and products which must guarantee high quality health care accessible to, and affordable for, all, taking into account the viability and capacity of the Member States' systems and guaranteeing both free movement of citizens and access to services in all countries of the Union, with due regard for the principle of subsidiarity.

Why did the Court's ruling not follow these principles, with regard to hospital treatment?

Will the Commission answer the following questions, in particular:

| — | how can it reconcile this ruling with the rights of European citizens, whose right to health care is now guaranteed only in the case of out-patient treatment, and not hospital treatment, a measure based purely on economic grounds? |
| --- | --- |

—

how can it reconcile this ruling with the rights of European citizens, whose right to health care is now guaranteed only in the case of out-patient treatment, and not hospital treatment, a measure based purely on economic grounds?

| — | how can it reconcile this ‘dual’ regime, where there is freedom of choice for out-patient treatment, but a requirement for prior authorisation for hospital treatment, with the guarantee of a high level of health protection provided for in the Treaties? |
| --- | --- |

—

how can it reconcile this ‘dual’ regime, where there is freedom of choice for out-patient treatment, but a requirement for prior authorisation for hospital treatment, with the guarantee of a high level of health protection provided for in the Treaties?

| — | how can the exercise of free choice by European citizens jeopardise the financial balance of a national system, when it does not pay a higher rate of reimbursement for services provided in another Member State than it does under its own system? |
| --- | --- |

—

how can the exercise of free choice by European citizens jeopardise the financial balance of a national system, when it does not pay a higher rate of reimbursement for services provided in another Member State than it does under its own system?

| — | given that, under the terms of Regulation No 1408/71 (1) on the application of social security schemes to employed persons and their families moving within the Community, the Member States have already introduced mechanisms for subsequent reimbursement of treatment provided in another Member State, how can it justify the technical problems placed in the way of reimbursement between Member States in cases where European citizens have exercised their freedom to choose the location of hospital treatment? |
| --- | --- |

—

given that, under the terms of Regulation No 1408/71 (1) on the application of social security schemes to employed persons and their families moving within the Community, the Member States have already introduced mechanisms for subsequent reimbursement of treatment provided in another Member State, how can it justify the technical problems placed in the way of reimbursement between Member States in cases where European citizens have exercised their freedom to choose the location of hospital treatment?

| — | the requirement to request prior authorisation for hospital treatment not a means of denying freedom of choice to patients on the basis of quality and accessibility to all, thereby discriminating against citizens who cannot afford to side-step the required authorisation and obtain the treatment they need without delay? |
| --- | --- |

—

the requirement to request prior authorisation for hospital treatment not a means of denying freedom of choice to patients on the basis of quality and accessibility to all, thereby discriminating against citizens who cannot afford to side-step the required authorisation and obtain the treatment they need without delay?

| — | given that completion of the internal market requires full recognition of the four basic freedoms, when will everyone be able to benefit from the freedom to provide services (both patients and providers)? |
| --- | --- |

—

given that completion of the internal market requires full recognition of the four basic freedoms, when will everyone be able to benefit from the freedom to provide services (both patients and providers)?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(15 January 2004)

The Commission has already replied to the Honourable Member's Oral Question H-763/03 on the same subject during question time at the December 2003 session (2). In answering this Written Question, the Commission will be able to provide more details.

As stated by the Honourable Member, in the Müller-Fauré/Van Riet judgment (3), the Court of Justice ruled on the question of authorising the reimbursement of health care provided in another Member State. This judgment follows a series of others which have been delivered by the Court on this issue since 1998 (4). It should also be pointed out that the Court has delivered another ruling on this matter in the Inizan case (5). It is on the basis of this body of case-law that the questions put to the Commission should be examined.

In these judgments, the Court recognised the right of patients to receive reimbursement of the costs incurred for medical care in another Member State. However, the Court attached to the exercise of this right conditions aimed at protecting the financial balance of the social security system and ensuring a high level of health protection. These considerations lie behind the distinction drawn by the Court between non-hospital and hospital treatment. It should, however, be emphasised that even in the case of hospital treatment where the Court felt that reimbursement was justified, it nonetheless considered that there was no proper justification for this requirement in cases where the patient faced excessive waiting times given the state of his/her health. The Court therefore gave priority to protecting the health of the patient over purely economic considerations which, moreover, according to settled case-law, cannot justify a barrier to the fundamental principle of freedom to provide services.

With regard to non-hospital care, the Court recognised that patients had freedom of choice in stating that the requirement for prior authorisation for reimbursement was not justified and should be removed. The Court confirmed that, in order not to jeopardise the financial balance of the social security system in the Member State of affiliation, reimbursement of these costs should be within the limits of the cover received by patients under the sickness insurance scheme of their Member State of affiliation. Thus, the Member State of affiliation is only obliged to reimburse the cost of health care provided in another Member State insofar as this same health care is reimbursed by its social security system when the treatment is provided on its own territory, these costs are reimbursed at the rates of the Member State of affiliation, and the conditions imposed by Member States on according non-hospital care on their territory, such as the requirement to consult a general practitioner prior to consulting a specialist doctor, remain applicable for health care provided in another Member State.

With regard to hospital care, the Court acknowledged that the requirement for authorisation was justified by the Member States' planning needs. The aim is to allow them to ensure that there is sufficient and permanent accessibility to a balanced range of high-quality hospital treatment on their territory, as well as to help them control costs and prevent, as far as possible, any wastage of technical and human resources. Retaining the requirement for authorisation in this case is, therefore, in the interests of patients who should be able to receive appropriate treatment in their own Member State. The Court also stated that if this was not the case, perhaps because there are waiting lists on the national territory to receive the care required by the patient's state of health, a refusal to authorise treatment in another Member State would not be justified. The Court did, in fact, emphasise 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 on the national territory. It ruled that ‘in order to determine whether such treatment could be obtained without undue delay, 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.’ Thus, citizens can now obtain financial reimbursement of the hospital care costs required by their state of health, even in cases where this care is provided in another Member State. The possibility of seeking health care abroad is no longer therefore solely restricted to those patients with sufficient financial resources to bear the cost of these medical expenses without assistance from the social security system.

Regulation 1408/71 (6), which supports and facilitates the freedom to provide services under Article 49 of the EC treaty, aims to grant assured persons the right to benefits in kind provided in the Member State of stay on behalf of the competent institution in accordance with the legislation of the Member State in which the benefits are provided, as though the insured person were insured with it. In this respect, Community law does not detract from the powers of the Member States to organise their social security systems and, in the absence of harmonisation at Community level, it is for the legislation of each Member State to determine, first, the conditions concerning the right or duty to be insured with a social security scheme and, second, the conditions for entitlement to benefits.

Article 22 of Regulation 1408/71 has in fact made provision for a mechanism for the reimbursement of expenses for treatment which patients have been authorised to undergo in another Member State, particularly for hospital care. Article 36 of the Regulation organises the practical conditions for this reimbursement between social security institutions. With regard to treatment which a person intends to undergo in another Member State, the aforementioned Article 22 sets out cases in which Member States cannot refuse authorisation for the financial reimbursement of treatment abroad. It therefore leaves the Member States every opportunity to determine other circumstances in which authorisation can be accorded under their national legislation. The problems to which the Honourable Member refers have been raised by Member States with regard to the reimbursement of hospital care obtained directly in another Member State under the freedom to provide services and not under Regulation 1408/71. This does, in fact, require prior authorisation for hospital care, which the Court feels is justified. This instrument does therefore contain technical and administrative solutions for the reimbursement of patients in another Member State under guaranteed conditions, provided that the Member States use it more broadly and more transparently.

---

(1)  OJ L 149, 5.7.1971, p. 2.

(2)  Written answer of 17.12.2003.

(3)  V.G. Müller-Fauré v. Onderlinge Waarborgmaatschappij OZ Zorgverzekeringen UA and E.E.M. van Riet v. Onderlinge Waarborgmaatschappij ZAO Zorgverzekeringen judgment. Case C-385/99 of 13.05.03, ECR 2003 p. I-04509.

(4)  Kohll judgment, Case C-155/96 of 28.04.98, ECR 1998 p. I-1931, Decker judgment, Case C-120/95 of 28.04.98, ECR 1998 p. I-1831, Smits and Peerbooms judgment, Case C-157/99 of 12.07.01, ECR 2001 p. I-05473, Vanbraekel judgment, Case C-368/98 of 12.07.01, ECR 2001 p. I-05363.

(5)  Patricia Inizan/Caisse Primaire d'Assurance Maladie des Hauts de Seine judgment, Case C-56/01 of 23.10.03 (not yet published).

(6)  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, version updated by Regulation 118//97, OJ L 28, 30.1.1997.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/313 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/313

---

(2004/C 78 E/0314)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3693/03

by Armin Laschet (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(2 December 2003)

Subject:   Unpublished study on anti-Semitism drawn up by the EUMC

| 1. | Can the Commission say whether it agrees with the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia (EUMC) that the study drawn up by the Centre for Research on Anti-Semitism at the Technical University in Berlin in October 2002 should not be published? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Can the Commission say whether it agrees with the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia (EUMC) that the study drawn up by the Centre for Research on Anti-Semitism at the Technical University in Berlin in October 2002 should not be published?

| 2. | If so, for what reasons? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If so, for what reasons?

| 3. | If not, whether it will try to ensure that the study drawn up by the Centre for Research on Anti-Semitism at the Technical University in Berlin is published as soon as possible? |
| --- | --- |

3.

If not, whether it will try to ensure that the study drawn up by the Centre for Research on Anti-Semitism at the Technical University in Berlin is published as soon as possible?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(13 January 2004)

The report on anti-Semitism to which the Honourable Member refers was carried out by the Berlin Technical Institute under contract to the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia (EUMC) and not the Commission. A statement by the EUMC issued on 26 November 2003 rejects the allegations that the report was ‘shelved’. In this statement, the Chair of the Management Board stated that the members of the Management Board ‘considered the work undertaken by the contractors to be of poor quality and lacking in empirical evidence’. The Chair also made clear his regret that a ‘collective decision of the Board based purely on the insufficient quality of the research carried out by the Berlin Centre has been used to discredit the important work which the EUMC has to do in the fight against racism and xenophobia in Europe’.

The Management Board of the EUMC which took the collective decision on the quality of the research is composed of 15 independent and eminent experts in the field of racism, xenophobia and anti-Semitism as well as a representative of the Commission, the Council of Europe and the Parliament.

The research in question has now been published on the EUMC website at the following address: http://www.eumc.eu.int/eumc/index.php.

The report is accompanied by a statement setting out why the Management Board deemed the research to be of insufficient quality.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/314 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/314

---

(2004/C 78 E/0315)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3696/03

by Anna Karamanou (PSE) to the Commission

(3 December 2003)

Subject:   Balanced participation of women and men in the decision-making process

Council recommendation 96/694/EC (1) of 2 December 1996 calls on the Commission to submit to the Parliament (inter alia) a report on its implementation ‘on the basis of the information provided by the Member States and the institutions, subsidiary bodies and decentralised bodies of the European Communities’, for the first time three years after adoption of the recommendation and thereafter annually. Only the first of these reports has so far been transmitted to the European Parliament in 2000.

When is the Commission intending to transmit the annual reports which should have followed? Have the questionnaires been sent to the Member States (and those states and institutions concerned by the recommendation) in order to gather and assimilate information on progress achieved in the implementation of the recommendation? Why has the Commission not yet complied with its obligation under the Council recommendation?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(27 January 2004)

A balanced participation between women and men in decision-making is a subject to which the Commission attaches much importance.

Council recommendation 96/694/EC on the balanced participation of women and men in decision making was followed up by a report by the Commission in 2000. The report concluded that the policies implemented since 1996 have had a positive effect overall. However, original expectations had not been met and further follow up has taken place.

The Commission has been following the situation in regard to gender equality in decision- making in its annual reports on Equal Opportunities for Women and Men. The reports produced from 2000 onwards have provided selected figures in the field and also described trends in the development of legislation in Member States concerning gender balanced political participation.

Since 1999 the Council of Ministers has adopted conclusions on indicators for monitoring progress in policy areas related to the Beijing Platform for Action. A set of indicators and statistics focusing on women in economic decision-making was adopted at the meeting of the Council on 1 December 2003.

Under the framework of the 4th Union Action Programme on Equal Opportunities, the Commission funded the ‘European Database Women in Decision-Making’. The balanced participation of women and men in decision making in all spheres of life was the central theme of programme activities for grants in 2003 within the 5th Action Programme. The Commission will fund some 20 transnational projects which will contribute to the promotion of women in decision-making.

Based on an analysis of these different initiatives, the Commission has decided to establish the database ‘Women and men in decision-making’ which is forward looking in its approach and scope. With information gathered from a broad range of actors the database will be a continuous source of information on progress achieved for the balanced participation of women and men in decision-making in the political, public, judicial, social and economical domains.

---

(1)  OJ L 319, 10.12.1996, p. 11.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/315 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/315

---

(2004/C 78 E/0316)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3761/03

by Astrid Thors (ELDR) to the Commission

(5 December 2003)

Subject:   Obligation to destroy horses where nandrolon has been used

A case has recently come to light in Finland of a trotting horse being doped by the injection of nandrolon. The regional veterinary officer in the area in question claims that the law classifies all trotting horses as working animals and concludes that doped animals ought to be put down immediately and thus be prevented from ending up on the dining table despite the fact that the horse was never intended to enter the food chain. However, the relevant legislation is not clear since it is stated that the horse ‘can’ be destroyed. The law makes reference to EU Directives 96/22 (1) and 96/23 (2).

Does the Commission consider the regional veterinary officer's interpretation of Directives 96/22 and 96/23 to be correct and that this trotting horse needed to be destroyed immediately?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(27 January 2004)

Directive 96/22/EC (3), as amended by Directive 2003/74/EC (4) and Directive 96/23/EC (5), in particular Article 23(2) thereof, could be construed to require that a horse, doped by injection with the hormone nandrolone, should be immediately sent to a designated slaughterhouse or knacker's yard.

However, this does not apply if the owner of the horse excludes the animal definitively from slaughter for human consumption according to the control mechanisms laid down in Decisions 93/623/EEC (6) and 2000/68/EC (7).

Art 23(2) of Directive 96/23 provides:

| 2. | After sampling has been carried out in accordance with Article 17, if there is confirmation of a case of illegal treatment, the animal or animals found to be positive shall be slaughtered immediately on the spot or taken immediately to the designated slaughterhouse or to the knacker's yard under cover of an official veterinary certificate in order to be slaughtered there. Animals so slaughtered shall be sent to a high-risk processing plant as defined by Directive 90/667/EEC (21). |
| --- | --- |

2.

After sampling has been carried out in accordance with Article 17, if there is confirmation of a case of illegal treatment, the animal or animals found to be positive shall be slaughtered immediately on the spot or taken immediately to the designated slaughterhouse or to the knacker's yard under cover of an official veterinary certificate in order to be slaughtered there. Animals so slaughtered shall be sent to a high-risk processing plant as defined by Directive 90/667/EEC (21).

The context of this provision clarifies that the objective pursued by this destruction of the animal subsequent to its slaughtering is to ensure that its meat will not enter the food chain, and it can therefore be construed to require that a horse, doped by injection with the hormone nandrolone, should be immediately sent to a designated slaughterhouse or knacker's yard, whenever additional official control mechanisms are not available to the Competent Authority for securing this public health objective.

Such additional control mechanisms include the identification of registered horses as provided for by Decisions 93/623/EEC (8) and 2000/68/EC.

---

(1)  OJ L 125, 23.5.1996, p. 3.

(2)  OJ L 125, 23.5.1996, p. 10.

(3)  OJ L 125, 23.5.1996.

(4)  Directive 2003/74/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2003 amending Council Directive 96/22/EC concerning the prohibition on the use in stockfarming of certain substances having a hormonal or thyrostatic action and of beta-agonists, OJ L 262, 14.10.2003.

(5)  Council Directive 96/23/EC of 29 April 1996 on measures to monitor certain substances and residues thereof in live animals and animal products and repealing Directives 85/358/EEC and 86/469/EEC and Decisions 89/187/EEC and 91/664/EEC, OJ L 125, 23.5.1996.

(6)  OJ L 298, 3.12.1993.

(7)  2000/68/EC: Commission Decision of 22 December 1999 amending Commission Decision 93/623/EEC and establishing the identification of equidae for breeding and production, OJ L 23, 28.1.2000.

(8)  OJ L 298, 3.12.1993.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/316 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/316

---

(2004/C 78 E/0317)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3764/03

by Alexander de Roo (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(11 December 2003)

Subject:   Spanish Hydrological Plan: cost of water transferred, and the recovery of funding

The Commission is aware the Spanish Government is devoting a significant part of the Community funding it receives to co-funding water regulation schemes. Spanish legislation demands that those benefiting from publicly funded water schemes meet a set of regulations designed to compensate for the costs of public investment (Article 114 of Royal Legislative Decree of 20 July 2001, No 1/2001, adopting the revised text of the Law on Water, Spanish Official Journal 24.7.2002). Recently, the chairman of the Júcar Hydrographical Confederation, José María González Ortea, said that those using the new water infrastructure should not be responsible for bringing back the European funding allocated to water schemes of Community interest (Provincias, 13.11.2003).

Having regard to Community law, and particularly the obligation to maintain transparency in managing and applying European funds (recitals 26 and 57, and Articles 17 to 19, 34, 36 and 46 of Regulation 1260/1991 (1)), the ban on distorting competition within the internal market by means of state aids (Article 87 of the EC Treaty), the protection of the Community's financial interests (Article 280 of the EC Treaty), and the obligation to take account of the principle of recovering costs of water-related services (Article 9 of Directive 2000/60/EC (2)), does the Commission believe that the Spanish Government should provide clear and specific precise information on the following points when requesting Community funding for a water regulation project:

| — | who are to be the beneficiaries and destinees of the regulated water? |
| --- | --- |

—

who are to be the beneficiaries and destinees of the regulated water?

| — | how are these beneficiaries going to contribute to recovering the costs of public investment? |
| --- | --- |

—

how are these beneficiaries going to contribute to recovering the costs of public investment?

| — | is different treatment to be given to recovering public funds contributed by the state and those contributed by the Community? |
| --- | --- |

—

is different treatment to be given to recovering public funds contributed by the state and those contributed by the Community?

| — | is it going to exonerate the beneficiaries in some way from contributing to the recovery of Community funding? |
| --- | --- |

—

is it going to exonerate the beneficiaries in some way from contributing to the recovery of Community funding?

Specifically, with regard to the Júcar-Vinalopó water transfer scheme, does the Commission believe that it has been provided with sufficient information for it to determine who are the beneficiaries of the work concerned, whether they will be able to contribute to the recovery of the costs, and whether all beneficiaries, or a group of beneficiaries, are going to be exonerated from contributing to this recovery of costs?

Has the Spanish Government informed the Commission of its intention of exonerating, in any way, all or some of the beneficiaries from contributing to the recovery of costs?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(3 February 2004)

The Commission is collecting the information it needs to answer the question. It will communicate its findings as soon as possible.

---

(1)  OJ L 161, 26.6.1999, p. 1.

(2)  OJ L 327, 22.12.2000, p. 1.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/317 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/317

---

(2004/C 78 E/0318)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3765/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(11 December 2003)

Subject:   Update on the use of funds from the Leonardo programme for the Carrara municipality

In response to my previous question E-1063/03 (1) asking whether the Carrara municipality had submitted projects and obtained funding under the Leonardo programme, the Commission stated on 8 May 2003 that Carrara had not applied for such funding.

Will the Commission state, again in respect of centrally managed funds, whether any projects were submitted subsequently and, if so, what decision has been taken on them?

---

(1)  OJ C 268 E, 7.11.2003, p. 151.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/317 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/317

---

(2004/C 78 E/0319)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3766/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(11 December 2003)

Subject:   Update on the use of funds from the Leonardo programme for the Florence municipality

In response to my previous question E-1064/03 (1) asking whether the Florence municipality had submitted projects and obtained funding under the Leonardo programme, the Commission stated on 8 May 2003 that Florence had not applied for such funding.

Will the Commission state, again in respect of centrally managed funds, whether any projects were submitted subsequently and, if so, what decision has been taken on them?

---

(1)  OJ C 268 E, 7.11.2003, p. 151.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/318 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/318

---

(2004/C 78 E/0320)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3767/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(11 December 2003)

Subject:   Update on the use of funds from the Leonardo programme for the Livorno municipality

In response to my previous question E-1065/03 (1) asking whether the Livorno municipality had submitted projects and obtained funding under the Leonardo programme, the Commission stated on 8 May 2003 that Livorno had not applied for such funding.

Will the Commission state, again in respect of centrally managed funds, whether any projects were submitted subsequently and, if so, what decision has been taken on them?

---

(1)  OJ C 268 E, 7.11.2003, p. 151.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/318 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/318

---

(2004/C 78 E/0321)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3768/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(11 December 2003)

Subject:   Update on the use of funds from the Leonardo programme for the Macerata municipality

In response to my previous question(E-1066/03 (1) asking whether the Macerata municipality had submitted projects and obtained funding under the Leonardo programme, the Commission stated on 8 May 2003 that Macerata had not applied for such funding.

Will the Commission state, again in respect of centrally managed funds, whether any projects were submitted subsequently and, if so, what decision has been taken on them?

---

(1)  OJ C 268 E, 7.11.2003, p. 151.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/318 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/318

---

(2004/C 78 E/0322)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3769/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(11 December 2003)

Subject:   Update on the use of funds from the Leonardo programme for the Massa municipality

In response to my previous question E-1067/03 (1) asking whether the Massa municipality had submitted projects and obtained funding under the Leonardo programme, the Commission stated on 8 May 2003 that Massa had not applied for such funding.

Will the Commission state, again in respect of centrally managed funds, whether any projects were submitted subsequently and, if so, what decision has been taken on them?

---

(1)  OJ C 268 E, 7.11.2003, p. 151.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/319 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/319

---

(2004/C 78 E/0323)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3770/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(11 December 2003)

Subject:   Update on the use of funds from the Leonardo programme for the Perugia municipality

In response to my previous question (E-1068/03 (1)) asking whether the Perugia municipality had submitted projects and obtained funding under the Leonardo programme, the Commission stated on 8 May 2003 that Perugia had not applied for such funding.

Will the Commission state, again in respect of centrally managed funds, whether any projects were submitted subsequently and, if so, what decision has been taken on them?

---

(1)  OJ C 268 E, 7.11.2003, p. 151.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/319 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/319

---

(2004/C 78 E/0324)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3771/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(11 December 2003)

Subject:   Update on the use of funds from the Leonardo programme for the Pistoia municipality

In response to my previous question (E-1071/03 (1)) asking whether the Pistoia municipality had submitted projects and obtained funding under the Leonardo programme, the Commission stated on 8 May 2003 that Pistoia had not applied for such funding.

Will the Commission state, again in respect of centrally managed funds, whether any projects were submitted subsequently and, if so, what decision has been taken on them?

---

(1)  OJ C 268 E, 7.11.2003, p. 151.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/319 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/319

---

(2004/C 78 E/0325)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3772/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(11 December 2003)

Subject:   Update on the use of funds from the Leonardo programme for the Prato municipality

In response to my previous question (E-1072/03 (1)) asking whether the Prato municipality had submitted projects and obtained funding under the Leonardo programme, the Commission stated on 8 May 2003 that Prato had not applied for such funding.

Will the Commission state, again in respect of centrally managed funds, whether any projects were submitted subsequently and, if so, what decision has been taken on them?

---

(1)  OJ C 268 E, 7.11.2003, p. 151.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/320 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/320

---

(2004/C 78 E/0326)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3773/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(11 December 2003)

Subject:   Update on the use of funds from the Leonardo programme for the Siena municipality

In response to my previous question (E-1073/03 (1)) asking whether the Siena municipality had submitted projects and obtained funding under the Leonardo programme, the Commission stated on 8 May 2003 that Siena had not applied for such funding.

Will the Commission state, again in respect of centrally managed funds, whether any projects were submitted subsequently and, if so, what decision has been taken on them?

---

(1)  OJ C 268 E, 7.11.2003, p. 151.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/320 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/320

---

(2004/C 78 E/0327)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3774/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(11 December 2003)

Subject:   Update on the use of funds from the Leonardo programme for the Terni municipality

In response to my previous question (E-1074/03 (1)) asking whether the Terni municipality had submitted projects and obtained funding under the Leonardo programme, the Commission stated on 8 May 2003 that Terni had not applied for such funding.

Will the Commission state, again in respect of centrally managed funds, whether any projects were submitted subsequently and, if so, what decision has been taken on them?

---

(1)  OJ C 268 E, 7.11.2003, p. 151.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/320 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/320

---

(2004/C 78 E/0328)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3775/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(11 December 2003)

Subject:   Update on the use of funds from the Leonardo programme for the Ancona municipality

In response to my previous question (E-1062/03 (1)) asking whether the Ancona municipality had submitted projects and obtained funding under the Leonardo programme, the Commission stated on 8 May 2003 that Ancona had not applied for such funding.

Will the Commission state, again in respect of centrally managed funds, whether any projects were submitted subsequently and, if so, what decision has been taken on them?

---

(1)  OJ C 268 E, 7.11.2003, p. 151.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/321 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/321

---

(2004/C 78 E/0329)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3793/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(11 December 2003)

Subject:   Update on funding for the city of Pisa under the Leonardo programme

In reply to my earlier question E-1070/03 (1) asking whether the city of Pisa had submitted projects and obtained funding under the Leonardo programme, the Commission said on 8 March 2003 that the city had not submitted any application.

As regards the proportion of funds managed centrally, can the Commission say whether any new projects have been submitted since that date and what the outcome was?

Joint answer

to Written Questions E-3765/03, E-3766/03, E-3767/03, E-3768/03, E-3769/03, E-3770/03, E-3771/03, E-3772/03, E-3773/03, E-3774/03, E-3775/03 and E-3793/03

given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(15 January 2004)

Some of the funds awarded under the Leonardo da Vinci programme are managed decentrally by national agencies, in particular the transnational mobility projects, whose total budget takes up almost 40 % of the annual budget for the programme.

The Honourable Member should contact the national agency in Italy for further information on these projects: ISFOL, Via G.B. Morgagni 30/e, I-00161 Roma, tel. (+39-06) 44.59.01 fax (+39-06) 44.59.04.75.

With regard to the funds managed centrally by the Commission (pilot projects, thematic actions, language skills, transnational networks, reference tools), the search check for the municipalities of Ancona, Carrara, Firenze, Livorno, Macerata, Massa, Perugia, Pisa, Pistoia, Prato, Siena e Terni showed that none of them presented any proposals in the context of the 2003 Leonardo da Vinci call for proposals (selection completed in July 2003).

---

(1)  OJ C 268 E, 7.11.2003, p. 151.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/321 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/321

---

(2004/C 78 E/0330)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3794/03

by Chris Davies (ELDR) to the Commission

(11 December 2003)

Subject:   Fisheries certification

Has the Commission any plans to establish a transparent and comparable method of determining which EU fisheries are being managed in a sustainable manner; for example, along similar lines to the certification scheme established by the Maríne Stewardship Council?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(14 January 2004)

The consolidation of last year's reform of the Common Fisheries Policy will make it necessary to properly address the issue of eco-labelling at this juncture. To this end, the Commission intends to present in the first half of 2004 the Council and the Parliament with a communication, the purpose of which should be to consider available options and, thus, to launch an in-depth debate with all interested parties.

It is worth recalling that this topic has given rise to much controversy in international fora. Mainly developing States have taken a very reserved stance on this. In these circumstances, the Commission will draw upon both the experience gathered with existing certification schemes as well as ongoing conceptual work within the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations (FAO).

A Community initiative should have the potential for bridging gaps and it should be capable of counteracting an increasing number of biased or poorly controlled private labelling programmes. Ecolabelling schemes should be accessible to all operators on a non-discriminatory basis, be adapted to the needs of small and medium-size enterprises in terms of the costs involved and be fully consistent with relevant World Trade Organisation (WTO) rules.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/322 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/322

---

(2004/C 78 E/0331)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3798/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(11 December 2003)

Subject:   Update on use of funding from the Culture 2000 programme by the municipality of Ancona

In its answer to question E-0978/03 (1), which asked whether the municipality of Ancona had submitted projects or secured funding under the Culture 2000 programme, the Commission stated, on 30 July 2003, that the municipality had not submitted any projects by 2002. Can the Commission say if this has been the case subsequently and up to the present?

---

(1)  OJ C 242 E, 9.10.2003, p. 200.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/322 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/322

---

(2004/C 78 E/0332)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3799/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(11 December 2003)

Subject:   Update on use of funding from the Culture 2000 programme by the municipality of Pisa

In its answer to question E-0986/03 (1), which asked whether the municipality of Pisa had submitted projects or secured funding under the Culture 2000 programme, the Commission stated, on 30 July 2003, that the municipality had not submitted any projects by 2002. Can the Commission say if this has been the case subsequently and up to the present?

---

(1)  OJ C 242 E, 9.10.2003, p. 200.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/322 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/322

---

(2004/C 78 E/0333)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3800/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(11 December 2003)

Subject:   Update on use of funding from the Culture 2000 programme by the municipality of Pistoia

In its answer to question E-0987/03 (1), which asked whether the municipality of Pistoia had submitted projects or secured funding under the Culture 2000 programme, the Commission stated, on 30 July 2003, that the municipality had not submitted any projects by 2002. Can the Commission say if this has been the case subsequently and up to the present?

---

(1)  OJ C 242 E, 9.10.2003, p. 200.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/323 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/323

---

(2004/C 78 E/0334)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3801/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(11 December 2003)

Subject:   Update on use of funding from the Culture 2000 programme by the municipality of Prato

In its answer to question E-0988/03 (1), which asked whether the municipality of Prato had submitted projects or secured funding under the Culture 2000 programme, the Commission stated, on 30 July 2003, that the municipality had not submitted any projects by 2002. Can the Commission say if this has been the case subsequently and up to the present?

---

(1)  OJ C 242 E, 9.10.2003, p. 200.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/323 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/323

---

(2004/C 78 E/0335)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3802/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(11 December 2003)

Subject:   Update on use of funding from the Culture 2000 programme by the municipality of Siena

In its answer to question E-0989/03 (1), which asked whether the municipality of Siena had submitted projects or secured funding under the Culture 2000 programme, the Commission stated, on 30 July 2003, that the municipality had not submitted any projects by 2002. Can the Commission say if this has been the case subsequently and up to the present?

---

(1)  OJ C 242 E, 9.10.2003, p. 200.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/323 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/323

---

(2004/C 78 E/0336)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3803/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(11 December 2003)

Subject:   Update on use of funding from the Culture 2000 programme by the municipality of Terni

In its answer to question E-0990/03 (1), which asked whether the municipality of Terni had submitted projects or secured funding under the Culture 2000 programme, the Commission stated, on 30 July 2003, that the municipality had not submitted any projects by 2002. Can the Commission say if this has been the case subsequently and up to the present?

---

(1)  OJ C 242 E, 9.10.2003, p. 200.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/323 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/323

---

(2004/C 78 E/0337)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3804/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(11 December 2003)

Subject:   Update on use of funding from the Culture 2000 programme by the municipality of Perugia

In its answer to question E-0984/03 (1), which asked whether the municipality of Perugia had submitted projects or secured funding under the Culture 2000 programme, the Commission stated, on 30 July 2003, that the municipality had not submitted any projects by 2002. Can the Commission say if this has been the case subsequently and up to the present?

---

(1)  OJ C 242 E, 9.10.2003, p. 200.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/324 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/324

---

(2004/C 78 E/0338)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3805/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(11 December 2003)

Subject:   Update on use of funding from the Culture 2000 programme by the municipality of Carrara

In its answer to question E-0979/03 (1), which asked whether the municipality of Carrara had submitted projects or secured funding under the Culture 2000 programme, the Commission stated, on 30 July 2003, that the municipality had not submitted any projects by 2002. Can the Commission say if this has been the case subsequently and up to the present?

---

(1)  OJ C 242 E, 9.10.2003, p. 200.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/324 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/324

---

(2004/C 78 E/0339)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3806/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(11 December 2003)

Subject:   Update on use of funding from the Culture 2000 programme by the municipality of Florence

In its answer to question E-0980/03 (1), which asked whether the municipality of Florence had submitted projects or secured funding under the Culture 2000 programme, the Commission stated, on 30 July 2003, that the municipality had not submitted any projects by 2002. Can the Commission say if this has been the case subsequently and up to the present?

---

(1)  OJ C 242 E, 9.10.2003, p. 200.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/324 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/324

---

(2004/C 78 E/0340)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3807/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(11 December 2003)

Subject:   Update on use of funding from the Culture 2000 programme by the municipality of Livorno

In its answer to question E-0981/03 (1), which asked whether the municipality of Livorno had submitted projects or secured funding under the Culture 2000 programme, the Commission stated, on 30 July 2003, that the municipality had not submitted any projects by 2002. Can the Commission say if this has been the case subsequently and up to the present?

---

(1)  OJ C 242 E, 9.10.2003, p. 200.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/324 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/324

---

(2004/C 78 E/0341)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3808/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(11 December 2003)

Subject:   Update on use of funding from the Culture 2000 programme by the municipality of Macerata

In its answer to question E-0982/03 (1), which asked whether the municipality of Macerata had submitted projects or secured funding under the Culture 2000 programme, the Commission stated, on 30 July has been the case subsequently and up to the present?

---

(1)  OJ C 242 E, 9.10.2003, p. 200.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/325 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/325

---

(2004/C 78 E/0342)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3809/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(11 December 2003)

Subject:   Update on use of funding from the Culture 2000 programme by the municipality of Massa

In its answer to question E-0983/03 (1), which asked whether the municipality of Massa had submitted projects or secured funding under the Culture 2000 programme, the Commission stated, on 30 July 2003, that the municipality had not submitted any projects by 2002. Can the Commission say if this has been the case subsequently and up to the present?

Joint answer

to Written Questions E-3798/03, E-3799/03, E-3800/03, E-3801/03, E-3802/03, E-3803/03, E-3804/03, E-3805/03, E-3806/03, E-3807/03, E-3808/03 and E-3809/03

given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(26 January 2004)

The Commission, as the Honourable Member correctly states, answered a previous question on this subject on 30 July 2003 (2).

The situation since July 2003 has been as follows: the call for proposals for projects taking place in 2004 under the Culture 2000 programme closed on 31 October 2003 (for annual projects) and 15 November 2003 (for multiannual projects).

Consequently, the projects submitted are still being examined and — at this stage — the Commission must abide by the rules of confidentiality which prohibit it from giving any information on projects submitted or the cultural operators that submitted them.

As already stated in its previous answer, all the information on the projects selected will be available on the Internet once the selection procedure has finished, at: (http://europa.eu.int/comm/culture/eac/index_fr.html).

---

(1)  OJ C 242 E, 9.10.2003, p. 200.

(2)  Written question E-0830/03, joined to the Honourable Member's Written Questions E-892/03 and E-0978/03 to E-0990/03, OJ C 242 E, 9.10.2003, p. 200.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/325 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/325

---

(2004/C 78 E/0343)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3810/03

by Mogens Camre (UEN) to the Commission

(5 December 2003)

Subject:   EU rules on discarding healthy fish

The EU's quota arrangements for fishing by the Member States compel Danish fishermen each year to throw back into the North Sea approximately 500 000 tonnes of top-quality dead fish to the tune of EUR 25 million. This includes 45 000 tonnes of cod, which corresponds to approximately 14 million top-quality Danish codfish.

Recent weeks alone have seen 40 tonnes of sole discarded in the Danish sector of the Kattegat. Because of the existing rules the entire EU fishing fleet is discarding healthy fish in the North Sea to the tune of close on EUR 1 billion. Apart from cod and sole this also includes large quantities of lobster, turbot and plaice.

Firstly, this is an immoral waste of food, secondly, discarding dead fish in this way is environmental pollution and, thirdly, it renders all of the EU's attempts to limit the exploitation of fish stocks entirely absurd. The fish perish and fish stocks and their reproduction are harmed.

Where there is a need to restrict the exploitation of fishery resources, this could be done by limiting the number of fishermen's sea days once they have landed the quantity of fish which it is deemed reasonable to catch.

At the same time as resources are being destroyed in this absurd way, the EU allows fishermen from Norway and the Baltic countries that are not yet members of the EU to land substantial quantities of fish in Danish ports. It is said that the fisheries inspection checks on these non-EU fishing vessels are far laxer than the checks on landings from Danish fishing vessels.

The EU's amateurish attempts at controlling fishing are giving rise to widespread annoyance with the EU as a whole and create the impression of bureaucratic interference that runs directly counter to the stated objective.

What action does the Commission intend to take to prevent the wastage of fish and the destruction of the fishing industry as a result of the discarding of healthy fish?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(8 January 2004)

The Commission shares the Honourable Member's belief that the discard problem is a serious one in fishery management and has devoted a number of reports and studies to it. A very recent Communication (1) points up not only the magnitude of the problem but the complexity of the reasons for discarding. Regulatory constraints as mentioned by the Honourable Member account for quantities that while not negligible are only a fraction by comparison with the amount discarded for economic reasons. It also makes clear that while there are various ways of securing reductions in discards there is no single solution to the entire problem. We agree that greater restriction of fishing effort is an effective tool but others can and must be considered.

We are concerned not to stop at findings, useful though they may be, but are firmly intent on obtaining a significant reduction and have therefore undertaken to identify fisheries for which concrete provisions will be brought into force. In addition to the hoped-for benefits to these fisheries themselves, practical experience will be gained of what the various tools available can do. The Fisheries Directorate-General is at the moment engaged in widespread consultation in order to find definite practical projects.

We are also aware that the CFP rules can be seen as resulting in constraints on fishermen, but do not share the Honourable Member's opinion that these rules are both too timid and needlessly bureaucratic. On the contrary we promote action that is as vigorous as possible, although our proposals are not always followed by the other CFP players. But at the same time we are assiduous in simplifying the rules as much as possible so that they are confined to what is strictly necessary and are preparing for further action to that end to be launched under the forthcoming Dutch Presidency. But, and this is particularly so in the present context of overexploitation of major resources and excess catch capacity, effective management requires various restrictions, including restrictions on catches. The resulting quotas can lead to discards, particularly if action is not taken to ensure that the quotas for the various species are used up in a well-managed way. It is our earnest wish that, without waiting for conclusions from the pilot projects indicated above, the national authorities in consultation with the fishermen bring in provisions that will secure a reduction in discards, beginning with better management of quota depletion for the various species and better spatial and chronological distribution of fishing effort.

On landing checks in Danish ports on non-Community vessels, the fishery policing rules enable the Danish authorities to take rigorous action against landing of catches that have been made in breach of the rules recognised internationally, by Norway and the Baltic countries alike, and we have no indication that the Danish authorities do not make good use of the powers on these matters that the CFP gives them.

---

(1)  COM(2002) 656 final.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/327 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/327

---

(2004/C 78 E/0344)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3835/03

by Mihail Papayannakis (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(8 December 2003)

Subject:   Implementation of Directive 89/48/EEC

What action does the Commission intend to take in order to ensure that all EU Member States, including Greece, implement Directive 89/48/EEC (1), bearing in mind also the recent judgements of the Court of Justice of the European Communities in cases C-153/02 and C-313/01?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(15 January 2004)

In the Néri judgment (C-153/02) of 13 November 2003, the Court of Justice ruled that ‘an administrative practice under which degrees awarded by a university of one Member State cannot be recognised in another Member State when the courses of preparation for those degrees were provided in the latter Member State by another educational establishment in accordance with an agreement made between the two establishments, is incompatible with Article 43 EC’.

The issue at stake here is that of so-called ‘franchise agreements’.

The Commission has started several infringement proceedings, one against Italy and two against Greece, in which one of the objections raised is the fact that degrees awarded under franchise agreements are not recognised.

Another infringement proceeding is also under way against Germany for its refusal to authorise the use of university qualifications awarded under franchise agreements.

The Commission will examine how it can best make use of the Néri judgment in each of these procedures.

In the Morgenbesser judgment (C-313/01), also of 13 November 2003, the Court delivered its judgment on the rules which apply to access to the activity of ‘praticante avvocato’ (trainee lawyer), i.e. to the period of practical training which must be carried out before taking the aptitude test to practise as a lawyer in Italy. For admission to this activity, Italian law requires prior academic recognition of legal qualifications obtained in other Member States. The Court ruled that this requirement was incompatible with Community law when this period of practice comprised the pursuit of remunerated activities. The Court stated that in this case the principles to be applied are those arising from its own case-law based on Articles 39 and 43 of the EC Treaty. The national authorities are therefore obliged to compare the applicant's professional knowledge, as certified by his/her qualifications or acquired through professional experience, either in the Member State of origin or in the host Member State, with the professional knowledge certified by the qualifications required by national law. If the comparison reveals that these correspond only partially, the host Member State is entitled to require the person concerned to show that he/she has acquired the knowledge which is lacking.

The Commission will ensure that Italy complies with the Court of Justice case-law. The Commission is, of course, always prepared to examine any information on the existence of comparable situations in other Member States.

---

(1)  OJ L 19, 24.1.1989, p. 16.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/328 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/328

---

(2004/C 78 E/0345)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3838/03

by Emmanouil Bakopoulos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(12 December 2003)

Subject:   Stray animals in Greece

The press has reported the promulgation in Greece of a law (No 3170/03) laying down government policy for dealing with strays in view of the Olympic Games. It provides, inter alia, that stray animals shall be rounded up by the municipalities, which shall receive EUR 1 million for the construction of animal shelters. Sick animals shall be put to sleep. However, the above procedure arbitrarily allows all stray animals to be put down without distinction.

A more viable solution would be to set up clinics for pets providing veterinary services under the supervision of specialists, which could operate to control the population of strays. Will the Commission say whether, given such a scenario, it would help protect stray animals in Greece by releasing funds for such clinics to be set up?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(27 January 2004)

The welfare of stray dogs and cats is a matter which falls entirely within the responsibility of the Greek authorities and the Commission has no legal basis for intervention with the authorities of this Member State about the matter. As a consequence no specific Community aids can be envisaged.

As was indicated in its reply to the Honourable Member's Written Question E-3503/03 (1), the Commission's Food and Veterinary Office did learn on the margins of a mission to Greece in September 2003 that considerable efforts were being put into finding a solution to this problem which respected the welfare needs of the animals concerned. The Commission would hope that all decisions concerning the future of these animals will be made after competent veterinary opinion has been obtained.

---

(1)  See page 294.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/328 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/328

---

(2004/C 78 E/0346)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3867/03

by Richard Corbett (PSE) to the Commission

(16 December 2003)

Subject:   Timeshare and holiday club study

Is the Commission aware of the UK Citizens' Advice Bureau's study entitled ‘Paradise Lost’ on citizens' experiences of timeshare and holiday clubs?

Is the Commission willing to review the Timeshare Directive with a view to including purchases of holiday club scheme membership and timeshare in boats, removing the 36-month minimum contract criteria, increasing the minimum cooling-off period to 14 days and requiring all companies engaged in the timeshare market or resale of timeshares to register in the Member States in which they operate?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(15 January 2004)

The United Kingdom Citizens' Advice Bureau was kind enough to send the Commission a number of copies of the study ‘Paradise Lost’. The study, in fact, is based on the report ‘The Problems of Products Resembling Timeshare in Europe; the experience of European Consumer Centres’, which was made public in November 2002 by the European Consumer Centres.

The Commission is aware that despite the adoption of Directive 94/47/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 26 October 1994 on the protection of purchasers in respect of certain aspects of contracts relating to the purchase of the right to use immovable property on a timeshare basis (1) and its subsequent transposition by Member States, consumer complaints still arise. Complaints have been sent to the Commission directly by the complainants, via the Parliament, by the European Consumer Centres (2) or the European Extra Judicial Network (3).

A Commission Report (4) identifying a number of these problems was published in 1999. It drew conclusions on possible adaptations or amendments to the Directive. A Parliament Resolution (5) and Council Conclusions (6) were adopted pursuant to this report.

The Member of the Commission responsible for Health and Consumer protection outlined a broad strategy to tackle outstanding problems in the timeshare sector in the debate in the Parliament in July 2002 on the adoption of the Resolution.

In order to address the most urgent problems, links between leading consumer associations and members of the Timeshare Industry have been established to make self-regulation more effective. The Industry is currently developing a Code of Conduct which will be used to raise standards and to address those unfair and opaque practices not caught by the Directive. Negotiations are currently under way so that consumers' views are taken into account in the development of this code.

In addition to this, the Commission has drawn on the experience of the European Consumer Centres and has worked with the newly established Clearing Houses of the European Extra-judicial Network, as well as with the International Consumer Protection Enforcement Network (7) (ICPEN) to address current outstanding problems and to encourage a more systematic co-operation between the industry and the relevant contact points in the Member States.

Furthermore, two legislative proposals aiming at protecting consumers' interests have recently been adopted by the Commission.

First, a proposal for a framework Directive concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices (8) was adopted by the Commission in June 2003. Certain unfair marketing practices which are commonly used by rogue traders operating in the timeshare industry (e.g. practices involving the use of coercion), are included in the proposal.

A second proposal for a Regulation on cooperation between national authorities responsible for the enforcement of consumer protection laws (9) was adopted by the Commission in July 2003. This proposal aims to establish effective and rapid cooperation between national authorities responsible for the enforcement of consumer protection laws.

Furthermore in accordance with the Consumer Policy Strategy 2002-2006, the Commission is reviewing existing Community legislation relating to consumer protection. This review will cover a number of directives, including Directive 94/47/EC on timeshare. The Commission plans to present the strategy for the review of the consumer protection ‘acquis’ in the 2nd quarter of 2004.

---

(1)  OJ L 280, 29.10.1994.

(2)  The role of the ECC Network (or ‘Euroguichets’) is to help European consumers understand better how to make the Internal Market work for them and to provide advice if they encounter a problem.

(3)  The role of the EEJ-Net, a network of contact points or ‘Clearing Houses’, is to provide consumers with information on available Alternative Dispute Resolution schemes, as well as practical help in pursuing a complaint by this means.

(4)  SEC(1999) 1795 final.

(5)  European Parliament Resolution on the monitoring of Community policy on the protection of purchasers of the right to use immovable properties on a timeshare basis (Rapport Medina Ortega), adopted on 4 July 2002 (Doc PE 298410).

(6)  2255th Council meeting of 13.4.2000 (point 9.2).

(7)  The International Consumer Protection Enforcement Network is a worldwide network of national authorities with the aim of strengthening and improving the enforcement of consumer protection legislation. (except product safety and the prudential regulation of financial institutions). It meets to discuss these enforcement issues, exchange information and improve international cooperation between the countries involved. A sub-group ‘Europe’ has been set up by the Commission to improve European co-operation and prepare for the global meetings.

(8)  COM(2003) 356 final.

(9)  COM(2003) 443 final.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/330 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/330

---

(2004/C 78 E/0347)

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?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(30 January 2004)

The Commission is collecting the information it needs to answer the question. It will communicate its findings as soon as possible.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/331 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/331

---

(2004/C 78 E/0348)

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?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(29 January 2004)

The Commission is collecting the information it needs to answer the question. It will communicate its findings as soon as possible.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/331 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/331

---

(2004/C 78 E/0349)

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?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(29 January 2004)

The Commission is collecting the information it needs to answer the question. It will communicate its findings as soon as possible.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/332 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/332

---

(2004/C 78 E/0350)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3890/03

by Stavros Xarchakos (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(10 December 2003)

Subject:   Recognition in Greece of diplomas of Community universities

Thousands of Greek students study at (state and other recognised) universities in many EU countries. These students are awarded diplomas which are recognised in Greece only after being submitted to and approved by the Inter-University Centre for the Recognition of Foreign Qualifications (DI.K.A.T.S.A.). This entails long delays (owing to bureaucracy and the number of diplomas submitted) and substantial costs for applicants.

Are Member States obliged under Community legislation to have bodies such as DI.K.A.T.S.A. to which diplomas from Community universities are submitted? Do such bodies exist in all the other Member States as a result of this obligation?

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(14 January 2004)

There are two types of procedures for recognition of qualifications and they have different objectives: the academic recognition procedure and the professional recognition procedure.

Academic recognition aims to allow people to pursue their studies in another Member State.

Professional recognition aims to facilitate the free movement of workers within the Union. It concerns the recognition of qualifications required for access to the professions in different Member States and is governed by Community law (Directives 89/48/EEC (1) and 92/51/CEE) (2).

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 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 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.

In most Member States the higher education institutions take their own decisions on the admission of foreign students. Some Member States have set up bodies responsible for the academic recognition of diplomas, similar to Dikatsa.

As regards recognition for professional purposes, the different Member States have set up competent authorities dealing with the professional recognition of diplomas.

In the countries participating in the Socrates programme a network of national information centres for the recognition of diplomas (NARIC) operates, which provides information on national recognition procedures. Most NARICs do not take decisions but offer on request information and advice on foreign education systems and qualifications.

The Commission is aware of the problem of the excessively long delays and other malfunctions of the academic recognition procedure in Greece.

Although, as stated above, the academic recognition of diplomas falls within the competence of the Member States, the Commission is of the opinion that the delays caused by purely administrative reasons in the academic recognition procedure in Greece can discourage students from exercising their right to free movement. The excessive length of the administrative procedure can raise obstacles to the free movement of students.

The Commission has already contacted the Greek authorities asking what are the reasons that justify the delays in the academic recognition procedure. The Greek authorities have informed the Commission that the delays were in part due to the large number of applications received by Dikatsa. In order to expedite the process of recognition, the Greek authorities have reviewed the relevant national regulations and proposed to put new procedures in place. Dikatsa has been restructured in order to be able to deal with the large number of applications effectively.

The Commission continues to follow the evolution of the process of academic recognition in Greece.

---

(1)  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.

(2)  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.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/333 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/333

---

(2004/C 78 E/0351)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3892/03

by Nicole Thomas-Mauro (UEN) to the Commission

(10 December 2003)

Subject:   Opinion of AFSSA

In its opinion of 3 December 2003 the French Food Safety Agency (Agence française de sécurité sanitaire des aliments — AFSSA) expressed serious reservations about BT 11 maize and took the view that the tests carried out on animals by the Swiss firm Syngenta, which is presenting the application, were insufficient.

The matter was referred to the agency by the French Government on 18 November, in advance of the European vote, in which France will be taking part in Brussels on Monday, to decide whether or not to authorise importation of this tinned maize for human consumption. The opinion of AFSSA was of course sought on a consultative basis.

This is the third time that the food safety agency has delivered an opinion on this subject. It has twice issued unfavourable opinions, on 21 July 2000 and 20 March 2001, stressing the inadequacy of the tests carried out on animals.

The Commission wishes to authorise BT 11 maize, but what account does it take of the opinions of the national agencies working with EFSA, including the abovementioned opinion?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(14 January 2004)

The first opinion of the French Food Safety Agency (AFSSA) on the genetically modified sweet maize, BT 11, delivered on 21 July 2000, was submitted to the Commission in the context of reasoned objections by France to the initial assessment report of sweet maize BT 11 carried out by the competent authorities of the Netherlands under Article 4 of the Novel Food Regulation (EC) No 258/97 (1).

These objections, and those raised by other Member States, were referred by the Commission to the Scientific Committee on Food (SCF). The subsequent AFSSA opinion, of 20 March 2001, was also transmitted to the SCF for consideration.

On 17 April 2002, the SCF delivered its opinion that BT 11 sweet maize, is as safe for human food use as its conventional counterparts. This opinion focused, as requested by the Commission, on the issues raised in the comments made by Member States' authorities, namely: the scope of the request, molecular characterisation, compositional analysis on BT 11 sweet maize, toxicity studies and labelling.

The data provided by the applicant and the safety assessment of the product carried out followed the criteria and requirements laid down in Commission Recommendation 618/97/EC (2). The methodology used for the safety assessment of BT 11 was also in line with the recent guidelines prepared by the Scientific Steering Committee concerning the assessment of genetically modified organism (GMOs), GM food and GM feed (3) and with the Codex Principles and Guidelines on Foods Derived from Biotechnology (4). The concerns raised in the two above-mentioned AFSSA opinions, which were again reiterated in another AFSSA opinion of 3 December 2003, do not bring any new scientific elements in addition to the initial assessment of sweet maize BT 11 carried out by the competent authorities of the Netherlands. These concerns were duly considered by the SCF in its opinion of 17 April 2002, which confirmed the findings of the initial assessment carried out by the competent authorities of the Netherlands that BT 11 sweet maize is as safe for human food use as conventional maize.

---

(1)  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.

(2)  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)  ‘Guidance Document for the Risk Assessment of Genetically Modified Plants and Derived Food and Feed’ Joint Working Group on Novel foods and GMOS, 6-7 March 2003. http://europa.eu.int/comm/food/fs/sc/ssc/out327_en.pdf.

(4)  Codex Alimentarius Commission, 2003. Codex Principles and Guidelines on Foods Derived from Biotechnology. Joint FAO/WHO Food Standards Programme, Food and Agriculture Organisation: Romeftp://ftp.fao.org/codex/standard/en/CodexTextsBiotechFoods.pdf.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/334 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/334

---

(2004/C 78 E/0352)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3901/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(17 December 2003)

Subject:   President Prodi's involvement in Italian politics

On 12 November 2003 the President of the Commission, Romano Prodi, published a long letter under the title ‘Europe: the dream; the options’, which he sent to the parties in the Italian centre-left coalition. The letter contains a fully-fledged political manifesto, touching upon issues such as justice, peace, the environment, economic growth, education, the welfare state and immigration and putting forward proposals to be taken up by reformist parties with a view to offering solutions at European level.

The ‘letter’ is thus, in all senses of the term, a manifesto for the forthcoming European elections, as can be seen from statements such as ‘we can put forward a strong political programme’ (paragraph 4 of the document) or ‘looking to Italy and the forthcoming spring elections to the European Parliament, I have suggest to all reformists that they join together on a single list’ (paragraph 4), or again ‘however, the underlying ideas remain those which first gave birth to the Ulivo’ (paragraph 5). The arguments used in connection with all the issues covered are based on Mr Prodi's experience as President of the Commission, his intention being, it would appear, to make use of the authority conferred on him by his position to support the electoral campaign of the coalition to which he belongs in Italy. The letter gave rise to serious concern among Members of the European Parliament, including those belonging to the PSE Group, of which the Italian parties Mr Prodi was addressing are members.

Given the above, would the Commission:

| 1. | not agree that its President should remain neutral, should abstain from taking an active part in national political activities, should not express any preference and should stay as far away as possible from internal issues? |
| --- | --- |

1.

not agree that its President should remain neutral, should abstain from taking an active part in national political activities, should not express any preference and should stay as far away as possible from internal issues?

| 2. | take the view that it forms part of the President's remit to take part in the political debate in a Member State on major EU issues, or that in this instance Romano Prodi has misused the position he holds within the EU institutions? |
| --- | --- |

2.

take the view that it forms part of the President's remit to take part in the political debate in a Member State on major EU issues, or that in this instance Romano Prodi has misused the position he holds within the EU institutions?

| 3. | state whether Mr Prodi's behaviour is in keeping with Article 213 of the Treaty, which reads: The Members of the Commission shall, in the general interest of the Community, be completely independent in the performance of their duties. In the performance of these duties, they shall neither seek nor take instructions from any government or from any other body'? |
| --- | --- |

3.

state whether Mr Prodi's behaviour is in keeping with Article 213 of the Treaty, which reads: The Members of the Commission shall, in the general interest of the Community, be completely independent in the performance of their duties. In the performance of these duties, they shall neither seek nor take instructions from any government or from any other body'?

| 4. | consider, given that the President of the Commission is elected by the European Parliament as a whole, irrespective of its Members' political affiliations, that he is entitled to take part in an electoral campaign as the leading candidate of a political movement, or, conversely, that he should resign before doing so? |
| --- | --- |

4.

consider, given that the President of the Commission is elected by the European Parliament as a whole, irrespective of its Members' political affiliations, that he is entitled to take part in an electoral campaign as the leading candidate of a political movement, or, conversely, that he should resign before doing so?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(30 January 2004)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to written P-3492/03 by Mr Ribeiro e Castro (1)

---

(1)  See page 292.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/335 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/335

---

(2004/C 78 E/0353)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3911/03

by María Valenciano Martínez-Orozco (PSE) to the Commission

(11 December 2003)

Subject:   Discrimination against minors with regard to access to sporting federations in Spain

Article 2 of the Convention on the rights of the child lays down that children must be protected against all forms of discrimination in terms of their parents' or families' legal status and activities. Article 31 recognises the right of children to take part in cultural and recreational life on equal terms.

Article 24 of the EU's Charter of Fundamental Rights establishes the right of minors to protection and to the care necessary for their wellbeing.

Furthermore, the protection of the rights of children is enshrined as one of the objectives of the European Union in Article 3(4) of Title I of our future European Constitution.

In Spain, with a steadily rising immigrant population with minors of school age, for whom sport can provide an excellent means of integration into Spanish society, 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, because the situation of their families is irregular or is in the process of being regularised.

What is the Commission's view of this serious infringement of the fundamental rights of children discriminated against in terms of access to Spain's sporting federations?

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(16 January 2004)

The Commission is fully aware of the difficulties mentioned by the Honourable Member concerning access for foreign children to sporting activities organised by certain federations not only in Spain but also in other Member States.

As some aspects mentioned by the Honourable Member come under Community law, the Commission is currently examining the regulations of sporting federations in all Member States in order to check whether they comply with the principle of non-discrimination. In fact, significant differences exist and the role given to the federations by the public authorities varies greatly from one Member State to another. It should be noted, however, that Community legislation concerning conditions of entry and residence (Directive on the status of long-term residents, adopted on 25 November 2003) is intended to grant equal treatment in terms of access to goods and services to third-country nationals legally resident in the European Union. This does not apply to foreigners in an illegal situation.

Once it has examined these regulations, the Commission will announce what action is to be taken if discrimination that is incompatible with Community law, and with the Charter of Fundamental Rights to which the Honourable Member refers, is taking place in a number of Member States.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/336 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/336

---

(2004/C 78 E/0354)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3925/03

by Raina Echerer (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(16 December 2003)

Subject:   Cat and dog furs — internal market

Given the fact that there is no official production and marketing of cat and dog furs in the EU Member States, will the Commission propose a European ban on the domestic production, marketing and use of dog and cat furs? If not, can the Commission explain what would prevent such an initiative?

Is the Commission aware of the fact that one Member State has recently introduced a national ban on trade in dog and cat furs, and nine Member States have expressed their wish to introduce this ban given that currently those products are available, unregulated, on the EU market?

In relation to the concern about possible WTO consequences, is the Commission aware of the fact that the US has already introduced such a ban covering domestic trade, production, and imports from third countries?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(27 January 2004)

The Commission has been made aware of the possible importation of cat and dog furs into the Community. The Commission has also been informed about measures taken by some Member States and the United States to ban the trade in, and importation of, such furs.

The issue was also raised in the Agriculture Council on 17 November 2003. In replying to the request from Member States to come forward with proposals for Community rules, the Member of the Commission responsible for Health and Consumer Protection made clear that States are entitled, while respecting the general rules laid down in the EC Treaty, to introduce their own measures. The Commission is monitoring the situation in order to evaluate the possibility to take initiatives to address the issue at Community level.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/337 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/337

---

(2004/C 78 E/0355)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-4008/03

by Fernando Fernández Martín (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(22 December 2003)

Subject:   Powerline Communications Systems

The rapid development of communications in recent years has stimulated detailed research with a view to ensuring the rational ordering of the radioelectric spectrum with a view to best use. In parallel, a number of operators have tried to exploit the possibilities of ‘Powerline Communications Systems’ (PLC), which permit the use of existing electricity networks for the transmission of other types of signal. However, this option is not without its disadvantages, especially regarding the generation of signals disturbing and interfering with the activities of other radioelectric spectrum users, especially for short-wave frequencies. This is already happening in numerous EU Member States.

Is the Commission aware that Powerline Communications Systems (PLC) can generate interference and emit undesirable radiation?

What precautionary measures could be adopted by the Commission or are under consideration by it to prevent the emission of signals that cause interference and pollute the radioelectric spectrum?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(26 January 2004)

All networks that use copper cabling, whether they use telephone cables (Asymmetric Digital Subscriber Line (ADSL), Very-High-Data-Rate Digital Subscriber Line (VDSL)), television distribution networks, special cables (Local Area Networks-LAN) or electricity cables (Power Line Communications or PLC) are a source of electromagnetic disturbance, the level of which depends on many factors. Market penetration is an important factor, although technical factors such as cable length, signal power levels and the location of radio receivers also determine whether there is interference.

All such networks are subject to Directive 89/336/EEC (1), which requires them to ensure that electromagnetic disturbance does not exceed a level allowing radio and telecommunications equipment and other apparatus to operate as intended. In order to ensure a common application of the Directive for telecommunication networks, the Commission mandated in 2001 the European Standardisation Organisations (ETSI) and the European Committee for Electrotechnical Standardization (Cenelec) to draft a standard covering electromagnetic emission and immunity characteristics of telecommunication networks, including PLC.

Due to the inherent complexity of the task, no standard has yet been finalised. In contrast to the millions of ADSL and LAN connections that are operational in the Union, there are currently only around 6000 PLC lines, which employ a variety of technologies and which are still being improved.

In developing a standard, the Union must be careful not to stifle innovation. The Commission is of course aware of the concerns of radio users on the effects of this specific technology and their call for absolute and unconditional protection of radio services using short wave bands. Such concerns bear relevance to many other technologies. Electromagnetic compatibility is about seeking the right balance between the various interests: on the one hand, the interests of certain operators to compete with other telecommunications operators in the local loop, thereby providing real user choice in broadband telecommunication services; on the other hand, the interests of radio users to be able to receive signals, even in the worst propagation conditions.

Since the technologies used for PLC are still being improved and the deployment of the technology is still in its infancy, it is too early to draw any definitive conclusions on this issue. Regulators in the Union should allow, and are allowing, a deployment of networks under the condition that operators avoid interference where it may occur. In the case of Spain, the regulator has licensed a number of networks. The licence requires a resolution of interference problems, where they exist. Such an approach is fully compatible with the Directive 89/336/EEC and will allow for a better-informed debate on standards.

The Commission is considering adopting a recommendation that will enable the Community to deal with this issue in a balanced and informed way.

---

(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.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/338 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/338

---

(2004/C 78 E/0356)

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 (2) 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) (3) that the figures represent the general total — the questioner acknowledges that the correct amount of export refunds for the period 1998-2001 is EUR4000 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 (4) 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 (4) 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?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(16 January 2004)

The Commission is collecting the information it needs to answer the question. It will communicate its findings as soon as possible.

---

(1)  See page 249.

(2)  See page 252.

(3)  OJ C 137 E, 12.6.2003, p. 172.

(4)  OJ C 70 E, 20.3.2004, p. 45.

---

WRITTEN QUESTIONS WITH ANSWER (Part 2)

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/340 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/340

---

(2004/C 78 E/0357)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1653/01

by Professor Sir Neil MacCormick (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(11 June 2001)

Subject:   Restitution of property in the applicant countries

I refer to my Written Question E-0998/00 (1) to the Council. Recent developments in Poland appear to have blocked the possibility of assets being restored to Jewish and other émigrés from Poland. Will the Commission please state whether it believes that to be the case and, if so, what bearing the Commission considers this to have on the eligibility of Poland for early accession to the Union?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(24 July 2001)

The Polish law on the restitution of property has been vetoed by the President and there was an insufficient majority in the Polish Parliament to overturn the veto when the law was returned for the vote.

In issuing his veto, the President made clear that claimants were in a position to seek compensation, as the existing legal framework in Poland allows for such cases to be heard by the courts.

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to the answer to his Written Question E-998/00 (2). In this instance there is no specific ‘acquis’ relating to the question raised by the Honourable Member.

The Commission will continue to monitor closely the applicant countries' compliance with the principle of non-discrimination, enshrined in the treaties.

---

(1)  OJ C 81 E, 13.3.2001, p. 13.

(2)  OJ C 81 E, 13.3.2001, p. 13.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/340 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/340

---

(2004/C 78 E/0358)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1721/01

by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(6 June 2001)

Subject:   Net budget transfers

On 31 January 2001 the Commission submitted its second report on economic and social cohesion, in which it concluded that Portugal was a net contributor to the CAP. In answer to my Written Question P-0897/01, the Commission supplied the study on which it had based that conclusion, taking into account the effects of agricultural trade within the Community and with non-Community partners. The same reasoning could be applied to the budget overall, allowing for the financial balances and the effects of trade as a whole within the Community and with non-Community partners.

Could the Commission therefore specify:

| — | the overall budget balance (net contributors and recipients) for each of the Member States from 1994 to 2001 (estimated), at constant prices; and |
| --- | --- |

—

the overall budget balance (net contributors and recipients) for each of the Member States from 1994 to 2001 (estimated), at constant prices; and

| — | the financial balance for the same period, offset against the gains/losses in trade flows within the Community and with non-Community partners (imports and exports) for each Member State? |
| --- | --- |

—

the financial balance for the same period, offset against the gains/losses in trade flows within the Community and with non-Community partners (imports and exports) for each Member State?

Answer given by Mrs Schreyer on behalf of the Commission

(17 July 2001)

The Commission would inform the Honourable Member that the Member States' overall budgetary balances for the years 1993-1999, determined according to the standard method used by the Commission (net operational balance after UK correction), can be found in terms of current prices and percentage of GDP in the statistical annex to the report ‘Allocation of 1999 EU operating expenditure by Member State’, table 6 (last table in the report) (1).

The report for 2000 should normally be ready before August 2001 (1).

These reports are based on actual implementation. The Commission does not publish simulations for Member States' future net balances.

For details of the method of calculating net balances, please refer to point 4.1. of Annex 3 to the report ‘Financing the European Union’, which is available at the same site.

With regard to your second question concerning net balances ‘offset against the gains/losses in trade flows within the Community and with non-Community partners’, the Commission would point out that it does not carry out such calculations.

Nevertheless, in the context of enlargement, its departments commissioned two studies (2) on the effects of enlargement on two existing Member States, Germany and Austria, which also seek to take account of the effects of trade flows in an enlarged Community.

---

(1)  http://europa.eu.int/comm/budget/en/agenda2000/a2000rp.htm

(2)  http://europa.eu.int/comm/budget/en/financementbudget/elargissement_etude.htm

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/341 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/341

---

(2004/C 78 E/0359)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1746/01

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(15 June 2001)

Subject:   Completion of construction of hospitals at Katerini, Pyrgos and Corfu

In its answer to my question No E-3160/00 (1) concerning the delay in the construction of the hospitals at Katerini, Pyrgos and Corfu, the Commission states that it is ‘disappointed that projects of such importance for Greece's socio-economic development should be so far behind schedule. It will ask the Greek authorities to supply detailed information on the reasons for the delay and the prospects for completing the projects and it will not shirk from taking corrective financial measures, if necessary.’ It continues ‘as the various OPs are currently being negotiated, it is not yet possible to state whether these projects will be part-funded under the CSF for the current programming period (2000-2006)’.

| 1. | Has the Commission been informed by the Greek authorities of the reasons for the delay and the prospects for completing the projects? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Has the Commission been informed by the Greek authorities of the reasons for the delay and the prospects for completing the projects?

| 2. | What funds were spent from 1994 to 1999 on each of these three projects? |
| --- | --- |

2.

What funds were spent from 1994 to 1999 on each of these three projects?

| 3. | Will these projects finally be completed by means of funding from the 3rd Community Support Framework? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Will these projects finally be completed by means of funding from the 3rd Community Support Framework?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(7 August 2001)

In a letter dated 19 October 2000 under Article 24 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2082/93 of 20 July 1993 (2), the Commission asked the Greek authorities for further information about the time lost in the construction of the three hospitals referred to by the Honourable Member and the outlook for their completion.

According to information received from them on 19 January 2001, the construction of the Pirgos hospital is behind schedule because of geological complications while the hold-ups affecting the Katerini and Corfu hospitals should be blamed on the co-contracting party of the public undertaking in charge of building them. The Commission is currently considering what action to take in this matter.

The Community contribution to the construction of the three hospitals in the 1994-99 programming period amounts to EUR 16,6 million for Corfu, EUR 13 million for Katerini and EUR 14,1 million for Pirgos.

Responsibility for selecting the three projects for part-financing under the Community Support Framework (CSF) for the 2000-06 programming period rests first of all with the management authority for each Operational Programme. According to information received from those authorities, there is provision in the CSF for 2000-06 for part-financing to complete all three hospitals.

---

(1)  OJ C 151 E, 22.5.2001, p. 84.

(2)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 2082/93 of 20 July 1993 amending Regulation (EEC) No 4253/88 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 193, 31.7.1993.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/342 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/342

---

(2004/C 78 E/0360)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1897/01

by Charles Tannock (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(27 June 2001)

Subject:   The legal basis for the Commission's proposals on the setting-up and funding of pan-European political parties

Could the Commission state which articles in the Consolidated Treaties constitute the legal basis for the Commission's proposals on the setting-up and funding of pan-European political parties?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(11 July 2001)

The Commission proposal is based on Article 308 of the EC Treaty.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/343 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/343

---

(2004/C 78 E/0361)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2120/01

by Hans Modrow (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(9 July 2001)

Subject:   Extradition of Milosevic to the Hague tribunal

In his recent speech to the European Parliament, President Kostunica of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia declared his commitment to democracy and the rule of law as the way in which his country should develop. What view are we to take of his statement that the Djindjic Government's extradition of former President Milosevic in defiance of the ruling by the Constitutional Court was a violation of his country's laws?

Did the European Union or its Member States promise the Djindjic Government advantages in return for surrendering Milosevic to the tribunal in The Hague?

What are the Commission's views on the danger of a further disintegration of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia in this connection?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(26 July 2001)

The Commission, and the Union, warmly welcomed the decision by Belgrade to comply with its international obligations in handing over another indictee (ex-President Milosevic) to the International Criminal Tribunal for former Yugoslavia (ICTY) at the Hague.

Cooperation with ICTY is an international obligation on all United Nations (UN) Member States and on the signatories of the Dayton Agreement. As such, neither the Union, its Member States, nor the Commission made any promise to any state in relation to their compliance with such international obligations. Cooperation with ICTY, like respect for other international obligations (Dayton, UNSCR 1244, obligations of membership of international organisations) is, furthermore, one of many conditions set out in the Union Stabilisation and Association process and as such has an effect on the development of political relations and the delivery of Community or Member States' assistance. The Commission and the World Bank had already decided to organise a Donors' Conference for the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (FRY), held in Brussels on 29 June 2001. Participants welcomed the fact that the Belgrade authorities had decided to comply with their international obligations by transferring Mr Milocevic to the Hague.

Regarding the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, Union policy was clearly stated in the Conclusions of the General Affairs Council on 22 January 2001, where the Union urged Belgrade and Podgorica to agree on an open and democratic process, within an overall Federal framework, to decide on a new constitutional arrangement for relations between the components of the Federation, acceptable to all the parties, and reaffirmed that this must be consistent with the internal stability of the FRY and the regional stability of SouthEastern Europe. The Union will continue to develop its relations with the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/343 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/343

---

(2004/C 78 E/0362)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3711/01

by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(16 January 2002)

Subject:   New trade agreement with the USA

In spring 1998, plans for a new trade agreement between the European Union and the USA were put on ice, partly owing to protests by France.

Is the Commission currently taking soundings with a view to drawing up a new trade agreement, or have the negotiations on a new trade agreement stopped completely?

Answer given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(5 March 2002)

It is assumed that the Honourable Member's written question refers to a possible Free Trade Agreement between the Community and the United States. In such a case, it should be noted that while this is an idea that periodically comes up, no mandate for such negotiations with the United States has ever been sought, nor (of course) have any such negotiations taken place. The Commission, moreover, has no plans to seek any mandate. However, it should be noted that in 1998, the Community and the United States launched the Transatlantic Economic Partnership to give a further impetus to the Community-United States trade and investment relationship. Since then bilateral co-operation has increased to currently cover virtually all trade and investment areas and thereby reinforce the largest bilateral trading relationship world-wide.

Both administrations have made some important progress, such as on the guidelines for regulatory co-operation. The Community and the United States have virtually completed a Mutual Recognition Agreement on marine equipment. However, such progress has often lacked political visibility. Some thought should be given as to what more can be done: how the Union and the United States can constructively address their differences and develop their co-operation, as long as it is compatible with the Doha Development Agenda negotiations, and both side's other trade partnerships, notably with developing countries.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/344 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/344

---

(2004/C 78 E/0363)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0684/02

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(11 March 2002)

Subject:   Moldova — the poorest country in Europe — and the striking difference in its treatment by the EU in comparison with the Baltic States

| 1. | Can the Commission confirm that Moldova, which lies between Romania and Ukraine and has a population of more than 4 million, is now the poorest country in Europe, as evidenced ‘inter alia’ by the fact that wages there are between four and seven times lower than in Romania, every child is born with a statistical State debt of USD 600, 70 % of the State budget has to be spent on redeeming foreign debt incurred through the purchase of natural gas, many hospitals are closed and the remainder no longer have heating or medicines; gas, electricity and water supplies have virtually ceased in rural areas; roads are no longer passable for vehicles and, on account of poverty, thousands of people have sold one of their kidneys for transplantation in Turkey? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Can the Commission confirm that Moldova, which lies between Romania and Ukraine and has a population of more than 4 million, is now the poorest country in Europe, as evidenced ‘inter alia’ by the fact that wages there are between four and seven times lower than in Romania, every child is born with a statistical State debt of USD 600, 70 % of the State budget has to be spent on redeeming foreign debt incurred through the purchase of natural gas, many hospitals are closed and the remainder no longer have heating or medicines; gas, electricity and water supplies have virtually ceased in rural areas; roads are no longer passable for vehicles and, on account of poverty, thousands of people have sold one of their kidneys for transplantation in Turkey?

| 2. | Is there an agreement between the EU and the Russian Federation and/or Ukraine which obliges the EU not to concern itself with the future or the economic development of Moldova or with human rights there? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Is there an agreement between the EU and the Russian Federation and/or Ukraine which obliges the EU not to concern itself with the future or the economic development of Moldova or with human rights there?

| 3. | Since the mid-1990s, has the Commission discouraged Moldova from applying for membership of the EU or seeking other forms of rapprochement to it? Is this a punishment for Moldova's failure, so far, to merge with the candidate country Romania again, a possibility which has been under discussion since the early 1990s? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Since the mid-1990s, has the Commission discouraged Moldova from applying for membership of the EU or seeking other forms of rapprochement to it? Is this a punishment for Moldova's failure, so far, to merge with the candidate country Romania again, a possibility which has been under discussion since the early 1990s?

| 4. | Why is the EU treating Moldova — a territory which was detached from Romania on 28 June 1940 — differently from other small States, such as Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, which were likewise incorporated into the Soviet Union at the beginning of the Second World War on the basis of an agreement between Hitler and Stalin and which, since independence, have been treated as candidates for accession to the EU, with the prospect of accession in 2004? Does the difference in these countries' importance to the economies of the present Member States have anything to do with it? |
| --- | --- |

4.

Why is the EU treating Moldova — a territory which was detached from Romania on 28 June 1940 — differently from other small States, such as Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, which were likewise incorporated into the Soviet Union at the beginning of the Second World War on the basis of an agreement between Hitler and Stalin and which, since independence, have been treated as candidates for accession to the EU, with the prospect of accession in 2004? Does the difference in these countries' importance to the economies of the present Member States have anything to do with it?

Source: De Volkskrant, 31 December 2001 and 25 February 2002.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/345 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/345

---

(2004/C 78 E/0364)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0685/02

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(11 March 2002)

Subject:   Adverse impact on the EU Member States of constant discrimination against Moldova and its exceptional status

| 1. | As of 1 January 2002, visa requirements were abolished for people of Romanian nationality, in anticipation of Romania's possible accession to the EU, while the majority of residents of the neighbouring state of Moldova likewise have a right to Romanian nationality because their parents or grandparents were born before 28 June 1940 in what was then Romanian territory. What consequences will this have? Will it result in mass migration by Romanians from the far poorer Moldova to future EU territory? |
| --- | --- |

1.

As of 1 January 2002, visa requirements were abolished for people of Romanian nationality, in anticipation of Romania's possible accession to the EU, while the majority of residents of the neighbouring state of Moldova likewise have a right to Romanian nationality because their parents or grandparents were born before 28 June 1940 in what was then Romanian territory. What consequences will this have? Will it result in mass migration by Romanians from the far poorer Moldova to future EU territory?

| 2. | In the future, if and when Romania becomes an EU Member State, will it be obliged to introduce a visa requirement for all other Moldovans? Is this likely to cause tension between Moldovans who hold Romanian nationality documents and those who do not? |
| --- | --- |

2.

In the future, if and when Romania becomes an EU Member State, will it be obliged to introduce a visa requirement for all other Moldovans? Is this likely to cause tension between Moldovans who hold Romanian nationality documents and those who do not?

| 3. | Is it acceptable that, because of neglect by the outside world, a situation should arise in Moldova comparable to that in Belarus, where parliamentary democracy and the concomitant freedom of association and assembly are no longer functioning? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Is it acceptable that, because of neglect by the outside world, a situation should arise in Moldova comparable to that in Belarus, where parliamentary democracy and the concomitant freedom of association and assembly are no longer functioning?

| 4. | Is it acceptable that Moldova should degenerate into an island of poverty, creating a breeding ground for internal ethnic conflicts between the Romanian-speaking majority and the Slav minority, or for externally directed terrorist adventurism comparable to that which arose in Afghanistan under the Taliban? |
| --- | --- |

4.

Is it acceptable that Moldova should degenerate into an island of poverty, creating a breeding ground for internal ethnic conflicts between the Romanian-speaking majority and the Slav minority, or for externally directed terrorist adventurism comparable to that which arose in Afghanistan under the Taliban?

| 5. | What will the Commission do to help put an end to discrimination against Moldova as soon as possible, bearing in mind that in future it will border directly on the EU? |
| --- | --- |

5.

What will the Commission do to help put an end to discrimination against Moldova as soon as possible, bearing in mind that in future it will border directly on the EU?

Source: De Volkskrant, 31 December 2001 and 25 February 2002.

Joint answer

to Written Questions E-0684/02 and E-0685/02

given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(24 April 2002)

The Commission is very concerned about the level of poverty in Moldova. The country is indeed among the poorest in Europe and poverty can aggravate ethnic conflicts and other security threats like terrorism. Moldova urgently needs to come to an agreement with the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) that would open the way to further financial assistance. Her economic problems are also partly related to the unresolved relations with the Transdniestria province where most of the industrial activity is located.

EU-Moldova relationships are governed by the Partnership and Cooperation Agreement (PCA) which entered into force in 1998. The PCA provides for regular political dialogue, trade liberalisation and wide ranging cooperation, based on respect of democratic principles and human rights. The importance which the Union attaches to Moldova has also been reflected in the decision of the Gothenburg European Council (15/16 June 2001) to invite the country together with Ukraine to the next European Conference.

Community assistance has amounted to EUR 120 million of technical assistance and EUR 87 million of macro-financial assistance over the last ten years. The European Humanitarian Office (ECHO) had provided some EUR 5,5 million in order to cushion the adverse humanitarian impact of the 1998 Russian financial crisis. In accordance with its core mandate (emergency relief in the immediate aftermath of natural or man made disasters) ECHO has phased out its activities in Moldova in 2001. In March 2001, the Commission started the Food Security Programme (EUR 5,5 million for the 2002 budgetary year).

Nothing in the Union relations with Russia or Ukraine obliges the Union not to concern itself with developments in Moldova. On the contrary, the situation in Moldova is a regular topic in the EU's political dialogue with Russia and Ukraine, with a view to improving common understanding on the root causes of the country's problems, and in order to find solutions in the Transdniestria in particular where the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) also has a key role to play.

Concerning possible EU membership for Moldova, the Commission acts strictly in accordance with the basic criteria for Union accession as laid down by the European Council of Copenhagen in 1993 as well as the decision of the Luxembourg European Council in 1997 as regards the countries which participate in the current accession process. Economic or cultural links with present Member States have no bearing in the situation.

Whether or not an individual possesses the nationality of a Member State, or the right to obtain it, is a matter for the national law of the Member State concerned. After accession, it would still be within the competence of Romania to grant nationality to residents of Moldova. People with double Moldovan/Romanian nationality would have visa-free access to Romania or any other Member State. The Commission does not have any basis for estimating the migration flows that may result from such developments.

As a general rule, upon accession to the Union, Romania will have to introduce a visa requirement for nationals of those third countries listed in Annex I of Council Regulation (EC) No 539/2001 (1), as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 2414/2001 of 7 December 2001 (2). Possible exceptions from the general visa requirement would be subject to the relevant provisions of these regulations.

The Commission hopes that Moldova will be able to avoid political developments similar to those in Belarus, and is ready to do its part, together with the international community, to try to ensure this.

---

(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)  OJ L 327, 12.12.2001.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/346 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/346

---

(2004/C 78 E/0365)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3467/02

by Graham Watson (ELDR) to the Commission

(6 December 2002)

Subject:   Effective treatment of tuberculosis — progress

In the Commission's answer to my previous written parliamentary question E-1238/01 (1) regarding action against major communicable diseases including TB, I was reassured that a Framework for Action had been produced outlining the Commission's Stop TB initiative.

Could the Commission provide a progress report on the initiative so far? How much funding is being directed towards control of these diseases? Does the development of new diagnostics, drugs and vaccinations remain a priority of the programme? Are we yet achieving developmental results?

Does the Commission envisage an increase in European funding directed at the Global Plan to Stop TB?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(16 January 2003)

The Commission will present a progress report on its Programme for action on communicable diseases in the context of poverty reduction to Parliament and Council in early 2003. The average annual Community aid in the past eight years (1994-2001) to ‘health’ is over EUR 400 million (2), not including research and humanitarian aid funds. The majority of the Community support to health outcomes is not targeting specific diseases but rather strengthening health systems through partnership with developing countries, which are crucial to respond to these diseases. At present, human immunodeficiency virus/acquired immune deficiency syndrome (HIV/AIDS) malaria and tuberculosis (TB) in developing countries receive Community funding mainly through indicative country and regional programmes, non-governmental organisation co-financing, the 5 and 6 research framework, the special budget lines on HIV/AIDS and reproductive health, and the contribution to the Global Fund to fight AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria. Overall, the total estimated allocation to Community programmes targeting specifically these diseases in the last eight years (1994-2001) has been EUR 660 million, that is an average of EUR 82,5 million per year. The research and development of new diagnostics, drugs and vaccines are included in the programme for action targeted at the three diseases.

The international targets towards TB control were agreed at the Amsterdam Conference in April 2000 and endorsed by the World Health Assembly, creating the Stop TB Initiative. These targets are 70 % case detection and 85 % DOTS (Directly Observed Treatment-Short regime) coverage by 2005, which could effectively halve TB deaths by 2010. The global picture two years later is not of success: an annual increase of 2 % in incidence and overall 27 % DOTS coverage (some three million cases). It is clear that DOTS needs scaling up and additional funds. The Commission is currently also funding research under the 5th Framework programme — International cooperation programme with developing countries — on how to improve DOTS efficiency in Africa.

The Stop TB Partnership has presented the Global Plan to Stop TB in which it describes the strategies and resources needed over the next five years to expand, adapt, and improve DOTS — meeting the 2005 global targets and setting the world on the road to the elimination of TB. USD 9 billion are needed to fulfill the objectives of the Plan, with a present gap of nearly USD 4 billion.

The Commission supports the Global Fund to fight AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis which includes TB control. Several proposals target tuberculosis control programmes, including scaling up DOTS. The Commission has committed EUR 120 million for year 2002 to the Global Fund to fight AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis, and is a member of the Board. An annual contribution through the Budget Line on the Programme for Action is currently being discussed with the Budgetary Authority.

---

(1)  OJ C 350 E, 11.12.2001, p. 97.

(2)  Thematic evaluation of population and development oriented programmes in EC external co-operation, September 2002.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/348 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/348

---

(2004/C 78 E/0366)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3561/02

by Chris Davies (ELDR) to the Commission

(12 December 2002)

Subject:   Bush meat

The dramatic increase in hunting of forest species and particularly of the great apes in West and Central Africa is threatening these species with extinction in the near future.

At the ACP-EU Joint Parliamentary Assembly which took place in March 2002 in Cape Town, South Africa, the following Resolutions were adopted: ACP-EU/3391/02/fin on trade, ACP-EU/3393/02/fin on health, ACP-EU/3394/02/fin on sustainable development.

Resolution 3391/02 (1) calls for measures to control the bush meat trade, to stop the illegal consumption of great apes and to inform the public in ACP and EU countries of the high public health and conservation risks.

Resolution 3393/02 (2) recommends that the European Commission work with EU Member States with due diligence on the public health threat posed by bush meat.

Resolution 3394/02 (3) urges the Commission to continue and extend the Ecofac Programme, safeguarding important African ecosystems and biodiversity, including threatened species, for the next ten years and recommends that the Commission and EU Member states evaluate the public health threat posed by the illegal consumption of bush meat and take measures to restrict it.

Can the Commission indicate how it is responding to each of these specific demands in the Resolutions and outline the measures it has already taken and will take to address the current bush meat crisis?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(17 February 2003)

| 1. | Measures to control the bush meat trade, to stop the illegal consumption of great apes and to inform the public in African, Caribbean and Pacific States (ACP) and Member States of the high public health and conservation risks:






  — | One of the possibilities to control the bush meat trade is through development co-operation with the countries where bushmeat trade takes place. In this context, the Commission has developed a new Environment Integration Manual, presently still in draft form, and to be finalised in 2003. The draft manual contains specific guidance for inclusion of biodiversity aspects in environmental assessments for development projects. For example, there should be ‘no net loss’ of genetic diversity, species populations or at ecosystem level. With respect to transport projects (one of the most important areas of concern with respect to bushmeat trade), the guidance notes of the environmental integration manual state that ‘the best mitigation measure is to route roads to avoid protected and vulnerable areas altogether’. Secondly, better national legislation and adherence to the law in the developing countries concerned can improve the bushmeat situation. In the case of Cameroon, the government has committed itself in Annexe IV of the recently signed Country Strategy Paper to stop the illegal exploitation of forests (with an indirect beneficial effect on control of bushmeat). In Gabon, an important objective of the Community Country Support Strategy is to improve the conservation and sustainable management of the forest resources (including wildlife). The regional 9th European Development Fund (EDF) for Central Africa envisages assistance to efforts to eradicate poaching through protection legislation, monitoring and surveillance, community based natural resource management, training and research. Here the key to sustainability is a change in attitude of people and governments and support to local efforts to change the situation. |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

Measures to control the bush meat trade, to stop the illegal consumption of great apes and to inform the public in African, Caribbean and Pacific States (ACP) and Member States of the high public health and conservation risks:

—

One of the possibilities to control the bush meat trade is through development co-operation with the countries where bushmeat trade takes place. In this context, the Commission has developed a new Environment Integration Manual, presently still in draft form, and to be finalised in 2003. The draft manual contains specific guidance for inclusion of biodiversity aspects in environmental assessments for development projects. For example, there should be ‘no net loss’ of genetic diversity, species populations or at ecosystem level. With respect to transport projects (one of the most important areas of concern with respect to bushmeat trade), the guidance notes of the environmental integration manual state that ‘the best mitigation measure is to route roads to avoid protected and vulnerable areas altogether’. Secondly, better national legislation and adherence to the law in the developing countries concerned can improve the bushmeat situation. In the case of Cameroon, the government has committed itself in Annexe IV of the recently signed Country Strategy Paper to stop the illegal exploitation of forests (with an indirect beneficial effect on control of bushmeat). In Gabon, an important objective of the Community Country Support Strategy is to improve the conservation and sustainable management of the forest resources (including wildlife). The regional 9th European Development Fund (EDF) for Central Africa envisages assistance to efforts to eradicate poaching through protection legislation, monitoring and surveillance, community based natural resource management, training and research. Here the key to sustainability is a change in attitude of people and governments and support to local efforts to change the situation.

| 2. | The public health threat posed by bush meat:






  — | Community law requires that imported meat satisfy minimum animal health and hygiene standards. Bushmeat, being largely obtained through hunting in uncontrolled conditions, often being species which are not recognised as food animals in the Union, and coming from countries not approved to send meat, will not meet Community food safety and animal conditions, and therefore cannot be legally imported. |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

The public health threat posed by bush meat:

—

Community law requires that imported meat satisfy minimum animal health and hygiene standards. Bushmeat, being largely obtained through hunting in uncontrolled conditions, often being species which are not recognised as food animals in the Union, and coming from countries not approved to send meat, will not meet Community food safety and animal conditions, and therefore cannot be legally imported.

| — | A new Commission Decision came into effect from 1 January 2003 (4) which although taken for animal health reasons should have a profound impact on stopping the illegal introduction of meat including ‘bush meat’ into the Community. Tighter Community rules on personal imports of meat and milk products entered into force. Travellers entering the Community from certain third countries are no longer allowed to bring in personal imports of meat, meat products, milk or milk products, on their person or in their luggage, unless accompanied by official veterinary documentation. |
| --- | --- |

—

A new Commission Decision came into effect from 1 January 2003 (4) which although taken for animal health reasons should have a profound impact on stopping the illegal introduction of meat including ‘bush meat’ into the Community. Tighter Community rules on personal imports of meat and milk products entered into force. Travellers entering the Community from certain third countries are no longer allowed to bring in personal imports of meat, meat products, milk or milk products, on their person or in their luggage, unless accompanied by official veterinary documentation.

| 3. | Continue and extend the Ecofac Programme, safeguarding important African ecosystems and biodiversity, including threatened species, for the next ten years:






  — | In the respective Country and Regional Support Strategies, provision is made for continuation of Ecofac and safeguarding African ecosystems and biodiversity. Also, the Commission approved in 2002 from the budgetline for Environment in developing countries, a project by World Wildlife Fund-Central African Regional Programme for the Environment (WWF-CARPO) in Gabon for hunting and conservation at village level developing a way to manage fauna in Central African forests. This project directly tackles trade in bushmeat in co-operation with the private sector. Furthermore, the Commission approved projects for conservation of biodiversity in Central Africa (Flagship species project) for a total of EUR 848 269 and will contribute an amount of EUR 500 000 to the African Forest Law Enforcement and Governance Ministerial process. These projects address poaching and bushmeat issues at the level of law enforcement in several African countries. Through the Ecofac program a campaign of information/awareness raising took place in North Congo Brazzaville, during the Ebola outbreak, in 2002. |
| --- | --- | --- |

3.

Continue and extend the Ecofac Programme, safeguarding important African ecosystems and biodiversity, including threatened species, for the next ten years:

—

In the respective Country and Regional Support Strategies, provision is made for continuation of Ecofac and safeguarding African ecosystems and biodiversity. Also, the Commission approved in 2002 from the budgetline for Environment in developing countries, a project by World Wildlife Fund-Central African Regional Programme for the Environment (WWF-CARPO) in Gabon for hunting and conservation at village level developing a way to manage fauna in Central African forests. This project directly tackles trade in bushmeat in co-operation with the private sector. Furthermore, the Commission approved projects for conservation of biodiversity in Central Africa (Flagship species project) for a total of EUR 848 269 and will contribute an amount of EUR 500 000 to the African Forest Law Enforcement and Governance Ministerial process. These projects address poaching and bushmeat issues at the level of law enforcement in several African countries. Through the Ecofac program a campaign of information/awareness raising took place in North Congo Brazzaville, during the Ebola outbreak, in 2002.

| — | In 2001, the Commission approved, also from the environment budgetline, funding for the CyberTracker programme, an innovative tool for monitoring natural resources. Working in and around a network of protected areas in key areas of biodiversity in Africa, the specific objective of the project is to support and co-ordinate a series of pilot natural resource monitoring programmes, and thus clearly demonstrate the effects of poaching. The target groups, and principal beneficiaries of the CyberTracker technology, will be local communities, national research institutes and scientists, and the national agencies and departments responsible for protected area management. |
| --- | --- |

—

In 2001, the Commission approved, also from the environment budgetline, funding for the CyberTracker programme, an innovative tool for monitoring natural resources. Working in and around a network of protected areas in key areas of biodiversity in Africa, the specific objective of the project is to support and co-ordinate a series of pilot natural resource monitoring programmes, and thus clearly demonstrate the effects of poaching. The target groups, and principal beneficiaries of the CyberTracker technology, will be local communities, national research institutes and scientists, and the national agencies and departments responsible for protected area management.

---

(1)  OJ C 231, 27.9.2002, p. 44.

(2)  OJ C 231, 27.9.2002, p. 57.

(3)  OJ C 231, 27.9.2002, p. 63.

(4)  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.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/350 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/350

---

(2004/C 78 E/0367)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3630/02

by Bill Newton Dunn (ELDR) to the Commission

(17 December 2002)

Subject:   Limit to the number of cigarettes one may take out of Spain

My constituent and his partner were on holiday last May in Spain. At the end, they left from Malaga airport, where the local Customs said they could not take more than four cartons of cigarettes out of Spain. A friend in Spain was obliged to come to the airport to collect their remaining 32 cartons of cigarettes. They were obliged to sign a form in Spanish which they did not understand in order to be able to catch their plane at the last moment.

Now they have received in the mail a document in Spanish which mentions a figure of EUR 601 and which they suspect might be a fine.

Is it legal, under EU law and under the principle of free movement of people and goods, for Malaga Customs to impose a limit on how many local cigarettes a visitor may take out of Spain?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(30 January 2003)

The Commission would like to inform the Honourable Member that it has received complaints relating to seizure of tobacco products by Spanish authorities from outbound travellers. The Commission is investigating these complaints to ensure that Spanish law and practice are in line with Community single market law and, in particular, with Council Directive 92/12/EEC of 25 February 1992 on the general arrangements for products subject to excise duty and on the holding, movement and monitoring of such products (1).

---

(1)  OJ L 76, 23.3.1992.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/350 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/350

---

(2004/C 78 E/0368)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3647/02

by Hanja Maij-Weggen (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(17 December 2002)

Subject:   UPDF prisoners in Uganda

As the Commission is aware, the human rights situation in Uganda is worrying.

Is the Commission aware that, since March 2002, the Uganda People's Defence Forces (UPDF) have been holding in Gulu prison 21 people who were involved in the election campaign of an opposition candidate in the local elections in Gulu?

Is the Commission also aware that on 16 September the UPDF murdered one of these people, Peter Oloya?

Will the Commission take action and bring pressure to bear on the authorities there to secure a lasting improvement in the human rights situation?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(3 March 2003)

In the recent years, the European Union has been involved with the Government of Uganda in a strong political dialogue, in which respect for human rights and the democratisation process are both high priorities. This is conducted in the framework of the Cotonou Partnership Agreement in which respect for human rights, democratic principles, rule of law and good governance are essential elements.

Furthermore, under the 8th European Development Fund (EDF) the Commission is funding a EUR 5 million programme in support of rule of law, good governance and human rights, for which implementation started in July 2001. Among the components of this programme are support to the Ugandan Human Rights Commission for a more comprehensive monitoring and analysis of the human rights situation in Uganda, support to civil society organisations to increase demand for human rights and rule of law, support to civic education activities, support for community service as an alternative to prison through National Community Service, strengthening of the role of parliament as well as support to the Amnesty Commission for the implementation of the Amnesty Act.

Under the 9th EDF, approximately EUR 18 million will be allocated to support capacity building for good governance. Two specific programmes are foreseen, one in support of the decentralisation policy and one in support of the democratisation process and development of a human rights culture. In a separate programme the Union will provide support to capacity building for non-state actors.

Regarding the specific question on the situation of the UPDF prisoners, the Ugandan Human Rights Commission (UHRC) has informed the Commission that the prisoners are now being held in the Government administered ‘Kigo’ prison on Entebbe Road in Kampala. The prisoners have twice received visits from the Ugandan Human Rights Commission, according to which some of the prisoners have asked to be granted amnesty, while others have sought more speedy trials. It appears that so far no formal accusation has been introduced.

The Commission as well as the Member States represented in Uganda are monitoring the situation and are satisfied that the prisoners are now being treated according to normal judicial procedures after having been transferred from army custody.

Regarding the death of one of the prisoners, the Commission has been informed that an Ugandan Member of Parliament (MP) has filed a complaint on behalf of the family with the courts, the course of which should be awaited.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/351 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/351

---

(2004/C 78 E/0369)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3769/02

by Caroline Lucas (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(16 December 2002)

Subject:   GATS

Can the Commission confirm whether the EC has made any requests of least developed countries relating to environmental services and, if so, can the Commission give an indication of the target and scope of these requests?

The EC has listed a horizontal limitation relating to the provision of public services. This is essentially an ‘exemption’ from the rules that applies across all sectors. The limitation reads as follows: ‘In all EC Member States, services considered as public utilities at a national or local level may be subject to public monopolies or to exclusive rights granted to private operators.’ As potentially the most important issue facing European services in these negotiations, why did the Commission not refer to, or seek views on, this limitation in its consultation document? Does the fact that it listed this horizontal limitation indicate that it does not have confidence that Article 1.3 was sufficiently robust to defend public services; and if it does think it sufficiently robust, why was the extra horizontal limitation required?

Answer given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(20 January 2003)

The Commission can confirm that the initial requests addressed by the Community to a number of Least Developed Countries (LDCs) did, in some cases, also cover environmental services. In those cases the LDCs were invited to ‘to consider taking commitments’ in mode 3 and mode 4 with reference to horizontal request (i.e. intra-corporate transferees (ICTs) and business visitors). In line with the Community's classification proposal the invitations covered water collection, purification and distributions services, and waste water services; waste management services, protection of ambient air and climate, remediation and cleanup of soil and water. It should however be pointed out that such requests were only addressed to 7 out of the 30 LDCs that are members of the World Trade Organisation (WTO) and where EC believed that opening those sectors to foreign delivery would clearly be beneficial for their economic development by allowing better access to foreign capital and know-how.

The horizontal limitation addresses those areas which fall under the scope of the agreement, and thus outside the exemption provided for by Article 1.3 GATS. In particular this covers the situations where services are offered under commercial conditions, for example in the case of waste management, but where Member States, due to the specific organisation of that market, have decided to limit the provision of those services within a specific area to only one service supplier.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/352 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/352

---

(2004/C 78 E/0370)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3863/02

by Graham Watson (ELDR) to the Commission

(10 January 2003)

Subject:   North Korean refugees

Is the Commission aware that North Korean refugees in China are being forcibly repatriated to North Korea by Chinese authorities even though they are likely to face prison sentences or even execution?

Is the Commission also aware that the Chinese authorities have arrested and put on trial several people for assisting North Korean refugees?

Given that the Chinese authorities are denying the United Nations High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR) access to the North Korean refugees, and in doing so are violating the UNHCR-China bilateral treaty and breaking international law, what pressure will the Commission bring on the Chinese authorities to put an end to forced repatriation and respect the terms of the treaty?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(29 January 2003)

The Commission is aware of the situation of North Korean Refugees in China and shares the Honourable Member's concern.

The Union has raised the issue on every possible occasion both with the Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea (DPRK) and China. In particular within the framework of the bilateral Union-China dialogue on human rights, the Union has urged China to respect international humanitarian norms and to grant access to the Office of the High Commissioner for Refugees to assess the situation of North Koreans in the border area.

Furthermore, the Union called on China to refrain from repatriating North Koreans until satisfactory assurances could be obtained from North Korean authorities that punishments had ceased. The treatment of North Korean refugees in China and the Union's corresponding demands have been reiterated during the last session of the Union-China bilateral Human Rights dialogue held 13/14 November 2002 in Beijing.

The Commission will continue to monitor the situation of refugees from North Korea with particular attention and raise the issue in its contacts with the DPRK and the Chinese authorities.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/353 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/353

---

(2004/C 78 E/0371)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3882/02

by Helle Thorning-Schmidt (PSE) to the Commission

(13 January 2003)

Subject:   Mexico's free-trade agreement and violation of human rights

On 8 December 1997, the EU and Mexico signed a free-trade agreement which entered into force on 1 October 2000. This agreement is based on democratic principles and respect for human rights. Moreover, the Commission's strategy paper for Mexico 2002-2006 states that one of the Union's objectives is to ensure respect for human rights.

Several human rights organisations such as Amnesty International have put a question mark over the situation in Mexico. By all accounts, torture continues to be widespread and critics of the current regime are constantly persecuted or disappear. Amnesty has also pointed out that, in ratifying The Inter-American Convention on the Forced Disappearance of Persons, Mexico had reservations about Article IX which states that military personnel who have been involved in ‘disappearances’ can be tried in a civilian court and will not be able to invoke special privileges such as immunity.

Has the Commission initiated any investigations into the human rights situation in Mexico? If so, what are their findings? If not, does the Commission intend to investigate the matter in more detail?

Should it prove to be the case that human rights are continually violated in Mexico, what measures does the Commission intend to take and how would that affect the EU's trade agreement with Mexico?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(4 February 2003)

The Commission would like to reassure the Honourable Member that the Agreement on Economic Partnership, Political Co-ordination and Co-operation, (Global Agreement), which came into force on 1 October 2000 and which is founded on three pillars: political, co-operation and trade, includes the ‘democratic clause’ as a central part of Union-Mexico relations. It also contains a ‘fulfilment of obligations’ clause which enables the Union to take into account the evolution of human rights in Mexico and the Member States as an essential part of its relations, and establishes a mechanism for the Parties to react in case of failure to comply with the objectives laid down in the Agreement.

Since the ratification of the Agreement on Economic Partnership, Political Co-ordination and Co-operation, (Global Agreement), the Commission has followed developments in Mexico even more closely because the Agreement institutionalises a process of fluent and fructiferous political dialogue, conducted through the Joint Council and Joint Committee, whereby each party can exchange information on the current situation with a view to ensuring better practice.

The Commission is aware of the Mexican Government's reservation over Article IX of the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons. The decision by the Mexican government to adopt a reservation concerning Article IX refers to the Mexican Constitution's recognition of military jurisdiction when a member of the armed forces commits an illicit act. However, the Commission has been encouraged by the attempts of President Fox to bring issues of human rights to the forefront of his political agenda and to bring those accountable for past crimes to justice. Whereas the Commission recognises certain shortcomings in the judicial system, the Commission will endeavour to support, where possible, any reform that establishes a more credible, transparent and functioning judicial system. In this area, a Union co-operation project of the reform of the judicial system in Mexico was approved in September 2002.

It is hoped that greater political dialogue and focussed co-operation with Mexico, at all levels, will ensure that Mexico's ongoing struggle to reform is successful.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/354 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/354

---

(2004/C 78 E/0372)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3900/02

by Lennart Sacrédeus (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(14 January 2003)

Subject:   Treatment and life situation of girls and women in Afghanistan

Under the rule of the Islamic Taliban regime in Afghanistan, girls were not allowed to go to school to be educated. The Taliban's discrimination against women was all-embracing, systematised and part of Islamic, male-dominated ideology. Since the fall of the Taliban dictatorship, a great deal of disturbing information has continued to come out of Afghanistan — the CNN report of 22 October being one instance — that girls and women are still treated badly in many parts of the country, examples of which are child labour, being denied access to schooling or being sold into virtual slavery through the practice of marrying off young girls as a means of repaying debts.

What measures is the Commission currently taking to promote equal, unique and inviolable human dignity for girls and women in present-day Afghanistan? Is it possible for the Union, through having representatives on the spot, to ensure that the rights and the precarious life situation of girls and children in general are improved?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(4 February 2003)

The Commission is promoting change through its aid programme to Afghanistan. In 2002, specific projects for women were funded including the rehabilitation of women's baths and a park for women in Kabul. The Commission has also financed several initiatives to promote civil society and encourage advocacy for disadvantaged and minority groups, including women. Similar projects are planned for the future.

More broadly, the Commission alongside the international community, must ensure that the rights and roles of women are a key element of recovery and reconstruction. From facilitating their access to basic healthcare and education to pushing for their inclusion in all aspects of the policy making process. The Commission is a leading donor in the health sector where tackling child and maternal mortality as well as reproductive health issues are key priorities.

The Afghanistan Transitional Authority has set up two Advisory Groups on Gender and Human Rights as part of the Consultative Group Structure tasked with taking forward recovery and reconstruction. The meeting of the Afghanistan Development Forum in March 2003 will enable the international community to monitor progress, and to keep these issues at the heart of the Government's approach to development.

The international community must also work with the Government to ensure that the new Constitution enshrines Human Rights for all, including women, and that these are enforced through the judicial system. The Commission is contributing to the Law and Order trust fund which will help to finance judicial reform and to ensure that laws are implemented effectively.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/354 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/354

---

(2004/C 78 E/0373)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0327/03

by Helena Torres Marques (PSE) to the Commission

(5 February 2003)

Subject:   Implementation of Regulation (EC) No 2560/2001 on crossborder payments in euro

Implementation of Council and European Parliament Regulation (EC) No 2560/2001 (1) is causing a number of problems with particular regard to the drawing of money within the euro zone by means of cards issued in Portugal which are both credit and debit cards.

In Portugal the use of such a card in order to draw money attracts no charge, yet the act of drawing EUR 100 in Brussels (for example) incurs EUR 1,83 in commission paid to third parties, EUR 3 in commission paid to the Portuguese bank which issued to the card and EUR 0,19 in stamp duty.

Can the Commission answer the following:

| — | given that Regulation (EC) No 2560/2001 exists, is such a situation legal; |
| --- | --- |

—

given that Regulation (EC) No 2560/2001 exists, is such a situation legal;

| — | is it possible for two separate bank commissions to be levied in respect of one and the same transaction; |
| --- | --- |

—

is it possible for two separate bank commissions to be levied in respect of one and the same transaction;

| — | if such a practice is illegal, what sanctions can be imposed (and by whom?) on the perpetrators thereof? |
| --- | --- |

—

if such a practice is illegal, what sanctions can be imposed (and by whom?) on the perpetrators thereof?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(11 March 2003)

Regulation (EC) No 2560/2001 (2) establishes the principle of equality of charges between national payments and cross-border payments in euro. This applies to electronic payment transactions in euro up to EUR 12 500 as of 1 July 2002 and will apply to credit transfers from 1 July 2003 onwards.

Article 3 of the Regulation specifies that charges for cross border payments have to be the same as those for ‘corresponding national payments’. This means that, if one takes the example of a debit card, the same charges shall apply to a payment made in the Member State where the issuing bank is located and a payment made in another Member State.

In the case of a multi-functional card (e.g. both credit and debit operations are possible) the reasoning is the same. For the same function (e.g. debit or credit), the use of such a card should attract the same charges as those in the Member State where it has been issued. However, the Honourable Member does not give sufficient information in order to establish whether, in this case, there is an incorrect application of the Regulation.

In case of non-respect of the Regulation, Article 7 foresees that there should be ‘effective, proportionate and deterrent’ sanctions, which naturally have to be applied by the national bodies having such competence. As regards the competent body in Portugal, the Commission has requested this information but has not yet received a reply.

---

(1)  OJ L 344, 28.12.2001, p. 13.

(2)  Regulation (EC) No 2560/2001 of the Parliament and of the Council of 19 December 2001 on cross-border payments in euro.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/355 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/355

---

(2004/C 78 E/0374)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0426/03

by Anna Karamanou (PSE) to the Commission

(18 February 2003)

Subject:   Violation of human rights in Chechnya

With a Council of Europe resolution on Chechnya in view, three international organisations have made a joint statement calling on the Council of Europe to consider the following issues:

| — | the fact that those responsible for acts of violence against civilians on both sides have not been called to account or brought to justice, |
| --- | --- |

—

the fact that those responsible for acts of violence against civilians on both sides have not been called to account or brought to justice,

| — | the practice of both sides in the conflict of making targets of civilians in violation of international humanitarian law, |
| --- | --- |

—

the practice of both sides in the conflict of making targets of civilians in violation of international humanitarian law,

| — | the Russian Government's suspension of the OSCE support group in Chechnya on 31 December 2002 and the continued refusal to publish the reports by the European Commission for the Prevention of Torture on the situation in the Russian Federation. |
| --- | --- |

—

the Russian Government's suspension of the OSCE support group in Chechnya on 31 December 2002 and the continued refusal to publish the reports by the European Commission for the Prevention of Torture on the situation in the Russian Federation.

Does the Commission concur with the above statements and what measures will it take towards safeguarding human rights in the region and, in particular, lifting the ban on the access of international observers to Chechnya and putting an end to the lack of transparency surrounding the information available concerning violations?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(19 March 2003)

The Commission is 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 Commission underlines that the implementation of shared values in the fields of democracy and human rights underpin the Union-Russia Agreement on Partnership and Cooperation and are central elements in the Union-Russia partnership. 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 the 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 continue to raise the issue of respect for human rights within the framework of the Union's bilateral political dialogue with Russia. While the Commission condemns terrorism in all its forms, it will continue to press Russia to investigate all allegations of human rights abuses in a prompt, independent and impartial manner. Those responsible should be prosecuted. The Commission also hopes that Russia will permit publication of the Council of Europe report on torture in Chechnya and allow the United Nations' rapporteurs on torture and on summary executions to report on the situation.

The Commission regrets Russia's decision not to extend the mandate of the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) Assistance Group. The Commission believes that it is in the interest of Russia to maintain a continued OSCE field presence in Chechnya with a meaningful mandate. It therefore supports the Dutch OSCE chairman in office's attempts to engage Russia to make progress on this matter.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/356 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/356

---

(2004/C 78 E/0375)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0521/03

by Miet Smet (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(24 February 2003)

Subject:   Women's rights in Pakistan

In 2001 the European Union and Pakistan signed a cooperation agreement. Article 1 of that agreement contains a clause relating to respect for human rights and democratic principles.

In spite of the fact that Pakistan subscribes to these principles, the rights of women in Pakistan are not always respected. AFP, Reuters and the New York Times report that some Pakistani women have been the victims of violence as a result of blood feuds, including rape, burning, murder etc. Blood feuds can be decreed by local councils.

Has the EU yet reacted to these grave infringements of women's rights? If not, does it intend to do so?

Is there any provision for a mechanism to systematically monitor and enforce respect for women's rights in Pakistan? Is there provision for the possibility of suspending cooperation between Pakistan and the EU if women's rights, and human rights in general, are continually violated in Pakistan?

If not, will the EU make provision in future for such possibilities?

If there is provision for the monitoring and enforcement of respect for human rights and for the possible suspension of cooperation between Pakistan and the EU, does this apply to all the countries which have signed a similar agreement (i.e. a 3rd generation agreement containing explicit references to human rights) with the EU?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(26 March 2003)

The Commission and Member States Embassies in Islamabad remain seriously concerned by the human rights situation in Pakistan and continue to draw the attention of the Pakistan authorities to these issues at every appropriate opportunity.

On 7 February 2003 the Union Troika in Islamabad carried out an official démarche to the Government underlining Union concerns about a number of human rights related questions, including the situation of women in Pakistan. More specifically, the démarche emphasised that some pieces of legislation, notably the Hudood Ordinances, have an ‘obvious’ gender-biased nature. The same applies to laws on inheritance, custody of children and rules of testimony. Individual cases were also brought to the attention of the Government. The Union démarche also referred to practices in Pakistan that are clearly in violation of the Constitution of Pakistan, which forbids discrimination against women. Such practices include honour killings, difficult access to a fair trial and lack of respect for their legal security. The Member of the Commission in charge of External Relations also raised the matter of human rights with President Musharraf on the occasion of his visit to Islamabad last 23 May 2002.

The Commission also addresses human rights issues through its co-operation projects in the country. Women's rights remain a cross-cutting theme in all projects undertaken by the Commission in the social sector such as health, education, water and sanitation. Thus, when choosing the projects and during their implementation, the Commission pays particular attention to gender equity, women empowerment and participation, in particular through the European Initiative for Democracy and Human Rights (EIDHR) where women's rights remain a key concern. Furthermore, the Delegation of the Commission in Pakistan will be able in the near future to fund directly human rights micro-projects implemented by nongovernmental organisations (NGOs), where women's rights will be one of the priority areas.

With regard to provisions to monitor and enforce respect for women's rights in Pakistan, the Honourable Member may be interested to know that the Delegation of the Commission in Pakistan follows closely local initiatives intended to address women's issues.

Some of these can be summarised as follows:

| — | Pakistan has established a National Plan of Action, which was prepared by the Ministry of Women Development and Empowerment. A co-ordinator was also appointed to monitor the implementation of the plan and to co-ordinate the work between the different ministries, which are asked to address women-related issues within their own area. |
| --- | --- |

—

Pakistan has established a National Plan of Action, which was prepared by the Ministry of Women Development and Empowerment. A co-ordinator was also appointed to monitor the implementation of the plan and to co-ordinate the work between the different ministries, which are asked to address women-related issues within their own area.

| — | The Government of Pakistan has also set up a National Commission for the Status of Women, which is tasked to monitor the violations of women's rights and report directly to the Ministry of Women Development and Empowerment. This National Commission can also suggest reforms of the legislation. |
| --- | --- |

—

The Government of Pakistan has also set up a National Commission for the Status of Women, which is tasked to monitor the violations of women's rights and report directly to the Ministry of Women Development and Empowerment. This National Commission can also suggest reforms of the legislation.

| — | There is an important number of local NGOs working in the field of women's rights, which have proved to be particularly well organised. They have set up the Women Action Forum (WAF), which not only monitors the situation concerning women's rights but also plays an advocatorial role with the relevant authorities. |
| --- | --- |

—

There is an important number of local NGOs working in the field of women's rights, which have proved to be particularly well organised. They have set up the Women Action Forum (WAF), which not only monitors the situation concerning women's rights but also plays an advocatorial role with the relevant authorities.

| — | The new 3rd generation Co-operation Agreement which the Honourable Member is referring to was signed with Pakistan on 24 November 2001 but has not yet entered into force. The Commission hopes that the Agreement will offer the possibility to re-establish the full co-operation dialogue with Pakistan, including on sensitive human rights issues. Other similar 3d generation agreements with third countries have already opened this possibility to the Union. |
| --- | --- |

—

The new 3rd generation Co-operation Agreement which the Honourable Member is referring to was signed with Pakistan on 24 November 2001 but has not yet entered into force. The Commission hopes that the Agreement will offer the possibility to re-establish the full co-operation dialogue with Pakistan, including on sensitive human rights issues. Other similar 3d generation agreements with third countries have already opened this possibility to the Union.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/358 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/358

---

(2004/C 78 E/0376)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0586/03

by Stavros Xarchakos (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(28 February 2003)

Subject:   Reduction of VAT on CDs

A reduction of VAT on CDs would be a significant boost to the music industry in Europe, which is currently plagued by piracy. A significant reduction in the price of CDs produced by record companies would also simultaneously increase sales and government revenue for every Member State. In Greece, CDs are in fact subject to the highest rate of VAT (18 %).

What is the Commission's position on this subject? What measures will it take to reduce VAT in the Member States? What are its views on the idea put forward by organisations in the music industry that the rate should be harmonised with the VAT applying to books and cinema tickets?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(9 April 2003)

The Honourable Member is referred to the Commission's answers to Written Questions E-1553/02 from Mrs Angelilli (1) and E-3841/02 from Mr Veltroni (2).

---

(1)  OJ C 28 E, 6.2.2003, p. 120.

(2)  OJ C 161 E, 10.7.2003, p. 153.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/358 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/358

---

(2004/C 78 E/0377)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0819/03

by Ole Krarup (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(17 March 2003)

Subject:   GM crops and liability

How does the Commission assess the position in the WTO on the introduction of a liability clause for patent holders and/or producers of GM crops in the event of GMO contamination of conventionally or organically cultivated farmland?

More particularly, what initiatives has it taken to encourage a process at the WTO which will in the future mean that WTO rules incorporate provisions on the liability of patent holders and/or producers of GM crops to pay damages in the event of their product contaminating conventionally or organically cultivated crops?

Answer given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(16 May 2003)

The Honourable Member has raised the complex issue of liability in the case of GM crops spreading into conventional or organic crops, should this cause damage to conventional or organic producers.

The issue is related to intentional and non-intentional spread of GMOs into the environment and to the co-existence of different agricultural production systems and is in particular a matter of gene flow. Gene flow between crops related to production methods in the country of origin and is therefore not a trade issue per se. The Commission therefore does not consider that the WTO is the appropriate international forum to discuss gene flows between GM crops and conventional crops and a liability regime.

Liability is normally addressed in international conventions dealing with particular issues. In the case of GMOs, the Commission is currently involved in the on-going discussions on liability and redress in the context of the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety to the Convention on Biological Diversity. Such discussions are, however, at a very early stage and the formal negotiating process on this matter will only be launched at the First Meeting of the Parties to the Biosafety Protocol which is due to take place in April 2004.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/359 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/359

---

(2004/C 78 E/0378)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0906/03

by José Ribeiro e Castro (UEN) to the Commission

(24 March 2003)

Subject:   Cuba; Cotonou Agreement; Human rights

In view of the fact that:

| (a) | Commissioner Paul Nielsen is currently visiting Cuba for the opening of the Commission delegation's office there; |
| --- | --- |

(a)

Commissioner Paul Nielsen is currently visiting Cuba for the opening of the Commission delegation's office there;

| (b) | Cuba has expressed its desire to accede to the Cotonou Agreement; |
| --- | --- |

(b)

Cuba has expressed its desire to accede to the Cotonou Agreement;

| (c) | the European Union has been Cuba's most important trading partner; |
| --- | --- |

(c)

the European Union has been Cuba's most important trading partner;

| (d) | according to Common Position 96/697/CFSP (1) the Union's policy with regard to Cuba is based on dialogue designed to encourage transition to pluralist democracy; |
| --- | --- |

(d)

according to Common Position 96/697/CFSP (1) the Union's policy with regard to Cuba is based on dialogue designed to encourage transition to pluralist democracy;

| (e) | the Member States have systematically condemned Cuba in the UN Commission on Human Rights; |
| --- | --- |

(e)

the Member States have systematically condemned Cuba in the UN Commission on Human Rights;

| (f) | in 1999 the EU presidency expressed deep concern at certain provisions of the amendments incorporated into Cuban criminal law, which restrict even further the exercise of citizens' rights; |
| --- | --- |

(f)

in 1999 the EU presidency expressed deep concern at certain provisions of the amendments incorporated into Cuban criminal law, which restrict even further the exercise of citizens' rights;

| (g) | on 16 December 2002 Oswaldo José Paya Sardinas, the 2002 Sakharov prize winner, told the European Parliament that some of his friends were being ‘victimised and subjected to real acts of terror’ and that if the Government decided to sign the Cotonou Agreement, the issue of human rights would have to be dealt with in accordance with the clause included in the Agreement itself, |
| --- | --- |

(g)

on 16 December 2002 Oswaldo José Paya Sardinas, the 2002 Sakharov prize winner, told the European Parliament that some of his friends were being ‘victimised and subjected to real acts of terror’ and that if the Government decided to sign the Cotonou Agreement, the issue of human rights would have to be dealt with in accordance with the clause included in the Agreement itself,

Can the Commission say:

| — | whether there are changes in the behaviour of the political leadership in Cuba to justify closer relations with the European Union, in particular that country's accession to the Cotonou Agreement? What tangible results the European Union's policy towards Cuba has already achieved with regard to transition to democracy? Whether it is developing a policy to promote Cuba's accession to the Agreement and what results it expects to achieve and when? How the Commission classifies Cuba, with reference to its political system and the regime's behaviour? |
| --- | --- |

—

whether there are changes in the behaviour of the political leadership in Cuba to justify closer relations with the European Union, in particular that country's accession to the Cotonou Agreement? What tangible results the European Union's policy towards Cuba has already achieved with regard to transition to democracy? Whether it is developing a policy to promote Cuba's accession to the Agreement and what results it expects to achieve and when? How the Commission classifies Cuba, with reference to its political system and the regime's behaviour?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(17 June 2003)

The respect of fundamental freedoms and political rights in Cuba remains a cause of serious concern for the Union. Some positive signs were noted by the Member States during the 11th and 12th evaluations of the Common Position last year, but major changes to promote respect for human rights and real progress towards pluralist democracy were still lacking.

Developments in Cuba have since taken a very negative turn with the large scale arrest of dissidents between 18 and 25 March, the unfair trials and the arbitrary and excessive sentences imposed on them, as well as, with the end of the ‘de facto’ moratorium on the death penalty, the execution of three people convicted of hijacking a Cuban ferry in the beginning of April.

Those events have prompted a swift reaction from the Union. The Parliament, the Council and the Commission strongly condemned the situation. The European Parliament, in its resolution of 10 April, as well as the Council in its resolutions of 26 March and 14 April, have established a link between the prisoners' release and Cuban accession to Cotonou.

The Commission decided on 30 April to defer the examination of the Cuban application for accession of the Cotonou Agreement, signalling that these recent developments are not conducive to co-operation between the European Union and Cuba.

The Cuban authorities decided on 16 May to withdraw their application.

As far as the last question is concerned, the Commission considers that the current regime in Cuba — one of the world's last Communist states- is not a democratic one nor does it promote a market-based economy. It is, therefore, a regime with which a reinforced dialogue needs to be pursued, in order to encourage a process of peaceful transition to pluralist democracy, respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, as well as a sustainable economy and improvement in the living standards of the Cuban people.

---

(1)  OJ L 322, 12.12.1996, p. 1.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/360 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/360

---

(2004/C 78 E/0379)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1141/03

by Stavros Xarchakos (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(1 April 2003)

Subject:   Infrastructural damage caused by landslides in Greece

Enormous infrastructural damage has been caused recently by widespread landslides in different parts of Greece, including the large scale destruction of homes and farmland, together with unexpectedly severe damage to recently constructed roads (for example, the new Corinth-Tripoli motorway).

The landslides could be connected with geological shifts affecting Greece as a whole, resulting from a number of factors, possibly including intense seismic activity. Has the Commission received any information from the Greek authorities regarding these landslides? What measures will the Commission take to establish the reasons for the continuing damage to infrastructural projects co-funded by the EU in Greece?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(15 May 2003)

The Commission refers the Honourable Member to its responses to written questions E-0492/03 by Mr Hatzidakis (1), E-0657/03 by Mr Alavanos (2) and E-0910/03 by Mr Trakatellis (3).

---

(1)  OJ C 242 E, 9.10.2003, p. 136.

(2)  OJ C 268 E, 7.11.2003, p. 116.

(3)  OJ C 11 E, 15.1.2004, p. 154.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/361 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/361

---

(2004/C 78 E/0380)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1143/03

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(1 April 2003)

Subject:   Accessibility of digital services for the visually impaired

| 1. | What measures has the Commission taken to ensure accessibility of digital communication services to the blind and partially sighted? |
| --- | --- |

1.

What measures has the Commission taken to ensure accessibility of digital communication services to the blind and partially sighted?

| 2. | Will the Commission ensure that legislation regarding the manufacturing of equipment to access digital services does not limit the inclusive design of such equipment for the needs of the visually impaired? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Will the Commission ensure that legislation regarding the manufacturing of equipment to access digital services does not limit the inclusive design of such equipment for the needs of the visually impaired?

| 3. | Will the Commission also ensure that such legislation does not inhibit the ability of European manufacturers to market such products on the world market? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Will the Commission also ensure that such legislation does not inhibit the ability of European manufacturers to market such products on the world market?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(22 May 2003)

| 1. | The Commission has taken action in this direction from many fronts.
  First within Union Research and Technology Development Programmes, several projects have been addressing the issue during the last years in order to contribute to the availability of technical solutions to provide access of digital communication and services to blind and partially sighted persons. Examples of those projects were dealing with access to electronic documents, web accessibility, access to mathematics in electronic form, access to music files, access to electronic school material for children and many more. More detailed information on these projects can be found in (http://www.cordis.lu/ist/kal/special_needs/).
  Second through the standardisation work. Detailed information is available at (http://www.eeurope-standards.org/activities_e-accessibility.htm). It should be noted that, in the Information and Communications Technologies (ICT) area, the ICT Standards Board has set up the Design for All and Assistive Technologies Standardisation Co-ordination Group (DATSCG), to bring together the various bodies working on relevant standardisation activities in Europe, including CEN, Cenelec and ETSI (1), together with representatives of disabled groups and other groups that are active in ICT-related standardisation. In particular, DATSCG is promoting the Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI) guidelines, which aim at increasing accessibility of the web for people with disabilities. A resolution of the Parliament has recommended them for use by public web sites, Union's Institutions and Member States. More information on DATSCG is available at (http://www.ict.etsi.org/DATSCG/DATSCG_home.htm).
  Third, the Commission is consulting and inviting organisations of people with disabilities and in particular blind persons to participate in several working groups where new legislative measures are being developed or applied. This is the case of work in the area of accessibility of electronic Communication services, Digital Right Management, Digital Television ... that are dealt with the Inclusive Communications (INCOM) working group and reported to the Communications Committee (COCOM) of the Framework 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 (2). |
| --- | --- |

1.

The Commission has taken action in this direction from many fronts.

First within Union Research and Technology Development Programmes, several projects have been addressing the issue during the last years in order to contribute to the availability of technical solutions to provide access of digital communication and services to blind and partially sighted persons. Examples of those projects were dealing with access to electronic documents, web accessibility, access to mathematics in electronic form, access to music files, access to electronic school material for children and many more. More detailed information on these projects can be found in (http://www.cordis.lu/ist/kal/special_needs/).

Second through the standardisation work. Detailed information is available at (http://www.eeurope-standards.org/activities_e-accessibility.htm). It should be noted that, in the Information and Communications Technologies (ICT) area, the ICT Standards Board has set up the Design for All and Assistive Technologies Standardisation Co-ordination Group (DATSCG), to bring together the various bodies working on relevant standardisation activities in Europe, including CEN, Cenelec and ETSI (1), together with representatives of disabled groups and other groups that are active in ICT-related standardisation. In particular, DATSCG is promoting the Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI) guidelines, which aim at increasing accessibility of the web for people with disabilities. A resolution of the Parliament has recommended them for use by public web sites, Union's Institutions and Member States. More information on DATSCG is available at (http://www.ict.etsi.org/DATSCG/DATSCG_home.htm).

Third, the Commission is consulting and inviting organisations of people with disabilities and in particular blind persons to participate in several working groups where new legislative measures are being developed or applied. This is the case of work in the area of accessibility of electronic Communication services, Digital Right Management, Digital Television ... that are dealt with the Inclusive Communications (INCOM) working group and reported to the Communications Committee (COCOM) of the Framework 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 (2).

| 2. | There is no intention from the Commission to develop legislation regarding manufacturing of equipment that could limit the inclusive design of such equipment. On the contrary the Commission is actively promoting the importance of inclusive design or design for all in the Information Society products and services. |
| --- | --- |

2.

There is no intention from the Commission to develop legislation regarding manufacturing of equipment that could limit the inclusive design of such equipment. On the contrary the Commission is actively promoting the importance of inclusive design or design for all in the Information Society products and services.

| 3. | Specific legislation exists outside the Union that concerns the development of accessible products and services. In the United States there is legislation under section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act that requires Federal agencies to make their electronic and information technology accessible to people with disabilities following some specific standards. At this moment there is no such situation in Europe. However, there is already Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation (3), dealing with equal access to employment that refers to the accessibility of ICT equipment in the workplace. The Directive applies the principle of reasonable accommodation. Also the Framework Directive refers to accessibility of products and services but does not dictate the way in which this would happen. Actions are planned to implement the goals of this Directive but there is no intention in any way to inhibit the European manufactures to market products in the world market. On the contrary it is recognised in the world market, in countries like United States, Canada, Australia that accessibility is a feature that adds value in the market. Furthermore, as mentioned before only accessible products can be sold to the United States administration and this is the largest purchaser of ICT products and services in the world. The Commission is firmly convinced that developing accessible products in Europe will enlarge their market possibilities. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Specific legislation exists outside the Union that concerns the development of accessible products and services. In the United States there is legislation under section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act that requires Federal agencies to make their electronic and information technology accessible to people with disabilities following some specific standards. At this moment there is no such situation in Europe. However, there is already Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation (3), dealing with equal access to employment that refers to the accessibility of ICT equipment in the workplace. The Directive applies the principle of reasonable accommodation. Also the Framework Directive refers to accessibility of products and services but does not dictate the way in which this would happen. Actions are planned to implement the goals of this Directive but there is no intention in any way to inhibit the European manufactures to market products in the world market. On the contrary it is recognised in the world market, in countries like United States, Canada, Australia that accessibility is a feature that adds value in the market. Furthermore, as mentioned before only accessible products can be sold to the United States administration and this is the largest purchaser of ICT products and services in the world. The Commission is firmly convinced that developing accessible products in Europe will enlarge their market possibilities.

---

(1)  CEN: European Committee for Standardisation Cenelec: European Committee for Electrotechnical Standardisation ETSI: European Telecommunications Standards Institute.

(2)  OJ L 108, 24.4.2002.

(3)  OJ L 303, 2.12.2000.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/362 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/362

---

(2004/C 78 E/0381)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1230/03

by Freddy Blak (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(2 April 2003)

Subject:   Enhanced legal cooperation

Following a visit to a Danish national who is imprisoned in Spain, I now realise that European legal cooperation leaves much to be desired. The person concerned has been in prison since 28 November 2001 accused of murder. On 14 January 2002, the accused's lawyer sent an international court order to the Spanish Ministry of Justice, to be forwarded in turn to the Danish Ministry of Justice, with a view to summoning a witness for questioning. More than a year later, this international court order has still not left the Spanish Ministry of Justice.

It is appalling that such sluggish procedures can delay and prolong legal cases. To date, no formal charge has yet been made against the accused.

Will the Commission therefore say what initiatives it intends to take to enhance European cooperation in this field?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(15 May 2003)

The Commission has no competence to intervene with regard to the detention by the Spanish authorities of a Danish citizen accused of murder to which the Honourable Member refers in his question, which falls entirely within the responsibility of the Member States concerned.

In the event that an excessive length of detention is regarded by the individual as a possible breach of his or her rights under the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR), he or she has — after all domestic remedies have been exhausted — the right to make an application to the European Court of Human Rights.

It should, also, be noted that the Commission currently is considering the question of pre-trial detention and alternatives to such detention at a European level. This initiative is based on the Programme of measures to implement the principle of mutual recognition of decisions in criminal matters (1). A Green Paper on this issue will be published later in 2003.

On 19 February 2003 the Commission also published a Green Paper on Procedural Safeguards for Suspects and Defendants in Criminal Proceedings throughout the Union (2). The Green Paper on Procedural Safeguards focuses on the right to legal assistance and representation, the right to a competent, qualified interpreter and/or translator, proper protection for especially vulnerable categories, consular assistance and the knowledge of the existence of rights (‘letter of rights’).

The 2000 Union Convention on mutual assistance in criminal matters will certainly contribute to the improvement of the transmission and execution of letters rogatory. It has, however, so far only been ratified by two Member States. It will enter into force after eight ratifications.

---

(1)  In particular measures 9 and 10, OJ C 12, 15.1.2001.

(2)  COM(2003) 75 final.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/363 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/363

---

(2004/C 78 E/0382)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1232/03

by Nicholas Clegg (ELDR) to the Commission

(2 April 2003)

Subject:   Member States' policies on airport expansion

Could the Commission provide a summary of the principal airport expansion plans in Member States of which it is aware, and give its opinion on whether it considers that the plans are:

| 1. | sufficiently co-ordinated across the EU; |
| --- | --- |

1.

sufficiently co-ordinated across the EU;

| 2. | adequate to deal with the projected increase in air passenger demand over the next 40 years? |
| --- | --- |

2.

adequate to deal with the projected increase in air passenger demand over the next 40 years?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(15 May 2003)

The Commission does not systematically compile or administer information on expansion of Union airports and, as a result, does not have a comprehensive overview of such current or planned expansion as the subject of airport management and planning falls under the responsibility of Member States.

The Commission recognises that the long term growth of air transport has important implications for the provision of air transport infrastructure. The Commission White Paper of September 2001 (1) identified capacity constraints in the air and on the ground as key obstacles to economic growth. In its work programme for 2003, the Commission has included the publication of a Communication on airport capacity. In this context, preparations for the definition of a Community policy on airport capacity and airport efficiency are in progress. As indicated in the White Paper, and in the light of reactions to it, the Commission examines whether the revision of the existing guidelines on the Trans-European Network for Transport aiming at concentrating on the most important infrastructure for international traffic and cohesion on the European continent, may be part of this policy.

---

(1)  ‘White Paper — European transport policy for 2010: Time to decide’, European Communities September 2001.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/363 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/363

---

(2004/C 78 E/0383)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1272/03

by Hanja Maij-Weggen (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(3 April 2003)

Subject:   Discrimination in the treatment of citizens of EU Member States by the Turkish government

Is the Commission aware that there is discrimination between Netherlands and German citizens with regard to the fee charged for a residence permit in Turkey, i.e. EUR 277 for by Netherlands citizens and EUR 60 for Germans for the same permit?

Does the Commission know how much the Turkish government charges citizens of other EU Member States for a residence permit?

If the Commission prepared to bring pressure to bear on the Turkish authorities with a view to ending this discrimination against Netherlands citizens, and possibly citizens of other EU Member States?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(16 May 2003)

The Commission is aware that different fees are charged for residence permits according to the nationality of Union citizens and intends to take this issue up in the context of its regular contacts with the Turkish authorities.

A new law on Work Permit for Foreigners' was adopted by the Turkish Parliament on 27 February 2003. The law states that Union citizens will be granted a work permit without any time limitation in Turkey. Union citizens with a work permit will automatically be granted a residence permit covering the same period. The law also sets fixed fee rates for work permits to be issued to all foreigners (regardless of their nationality). The provisions in the recently adopted law may have implications on fee rates applied for residence permits.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/364 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/364

---

(2004/C 78 E/0384)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1278/03

by Dana Scallon (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(4 April 2003)

Subject:   Uniates in Romania

On 7 February 2002, after having gained legal title in the courts, the Greek Catholic minority (also called Eastern Rite Catholic, or Uniates) Church of Ocna Mures, Transylvania, Romania, could recover their church. A few weeks later, on 16 March 2002, they were driven out of their church by a mob led by three orthodox priests, aided and abetted by the local police.

Another case happened a few years ago: in the town of Ardud, the police warned the Greek Catholic priest that he would be arrested then called the members of the congregation one by one and told them the same.

In 1995, in the city of Craiova, the orthodox bishop had the Greek Catholic church demolished, with the help of the army and the police.

Is the Commission aware of any discrimination against the Uniate minority in Romania?

Could you please tell me what action the Commission has taken or is aiming to take in order to avoid religious persecution within applicant countries? In this case, in what way? Could the Commission detail the action taken or to be taken?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(16 May 2003)

The Commission is aware of the allegations of discrimination against the Greek Catholic Romanian Church United with Rome raised by the Honourable Member.

Respect of human rights, including the freedom of religion, is one of the basic criteria for accession to the Union and is as such closely monitored by the Commission. The results of this monitoring exercise are published annually, and in its 2002 Report on Romania's Progress to Accession (Regular Report) the Commission concluded that:

| | Freedom of religion is guaranteed by the Constitution and is observed in practice. The Government does not restrict the observance of religious belief, although human rights organisations have reported cases of Orthodox clergy, sometimes working with local officials, restricting the religious activities of other churches. |
| --- | --- |

Freedom of religion is guaranteed by the Constitution and is observed in practice. The Government does not restrict the observance of religious belief, although human rights organisations have reported cases of Orthodox clergy, sometimes working with local officials, restricting the religious activities of other churches.

There is no evidence that discriminatory actions against any religious group are systematically applied nor are part of a deliberate policy of the Romanian government. The appropriate course of action would be to use the Romanian legal system to challenge any illegal actions against church property.

At the same time the Commission is aware that the legal framework covering the return of confiscated churches is as yet incomplete and the Commission has therefore urged the Romanian authorities to introduce legislation that explicitly covers the restitution of churches. On this subject the 2002 Regular Report noted:

| | In July 2002, Parliament adopted legislation that clarified the process of restituting property confiscated from churches. The legislation extends the scope of the previous law in several important respects. However, only church property is covered and there is presently no legal framework for the restitution of actual churches. This is a particularly important issue for the Greek-Catholic Church which had a large number of properties confiscated by the Communist regime but still has no legal redress. The Government has committed itself to producing specific legislation on this issue but delays in preparing such a law means that there has been no substantial progress. |
| --- | --- |

In July 2002, Parliament adopted legislation that clarified the process of restituting property confiscated from churches. The legislation extends the scope of the previous law in several important respects. However, only church property is covered and there is presently no legal framework for the restitution of actual churches. This is a particularly important issue for the Greek-Catholic Church which had a large number of properties confiscated by the Communist regime but still has no legal redress. The Government has committed itself to producing specific legislation on this issue but delays in preparing such a law means that there has been no substantial progress.

In conclusion, this is a matter that the Commission takes very seriously. However, it is important to note that the Commission cannot judge if specific cases constitute violations of the freedom of religion. Romania is a signatory to the European Convention on Human Rights, Article 9 of which sets out basic rights concerning ‘freedom of thought, conscience and religion’. This means that once domestic remedies have been exhausted a complaint can be addressed to the European Court on Human Rights in Strasbourg in order that it may assess these questions.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/365 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/365

---

(2004/C 78 E/0385)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1322/03

by José Ribeiro e Castro (UEN) to the Commission

(8 April 2003)

Subject:   Zimbabwe: land, violence and nepotism

Last week saw the first anniversary of the murder of the Zimbabwean farmer Terry Ford, on his own Gowrie Farm, in the Norton District to the west of Harare.

A report published in The Independent of 23 March 2003 states that Sabina Mugabe, the Zimbabwean President's elder sister, a ZANU (PF) MP for Zvimba South and a member of the Ad Hoc Parliamentary Committee on the Indigenisation of the Economy, has reserved the Norton District farms for her own family; they occupy some of the country's prime land. Some dozen farms around Lake Darwendale have already been occupied, including Terry Ford's.

Local bodies had apparently described these farms as being reserved for the ‘royal family’.

The farmers believe that as things die down, the ‘war veterans’ deployed to occupy the farms will be driven out and the farms will be taken over and run by members of the President's family and other high ranking government and ZANU (PF) officials. Leo Mugabe, the President's cousin, apparently holds Diandra Farm (500 hectares), while it is believed that Sabina has demanded Audley End Farm (1 000 hectares) for herself.

At the time of Terry Ford's brutal murder, Sabina Mugabe was immediately singled out as one of the alleged instigators of the crime.

Can the Commission answer the following:

| — | now that a year has gone by, what information does the Commission have about these events; |
| --- | --- |

—

now that a year has gone by, what information does the Commission have about these events;

| — | can the Commission confirm the existence of nepotism in the way that the ‘indigenisation’ of Zimbabwe's economy is being carried out; |
| --- | --- |

—

can the Commission confirm the existence of nepotism in the way that the ‘indigenisation’ of Zimbabwe's economy is being carried out;

| — | what up-to-date details does the Commission have about the results obtained by the new ways of operating farms; |
| --- | --- |

—

what up-to-date details does the Commission have about the results obtained by the new ways of operating farms;

| — | does it intend to take fresh measures to tackle the constant violation of human rights in Zimbabwe? |
| --- | --- |

—

does it intend to take fresh measures to tackle the constant violation of human rights in Zimbabwe?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(16 May 2003)

The Commission is aware of the information reported by the media on the subject but does not have detailed information on the particular cases of abuse raised by the Honourable Member.

Widespread nepotism and cronyism is believed to have taken place in the ‘fast track’ land reform process. However, as there has been no independent audit of the process to date the Commission does not have firm evidence regarding the details and extent of the abuse. The Minister of Land Reform, Ms Flora Bhuka, carried out her own audit in late 2002 which has remained confidential but details leaked to the press show a number of leading Zanu Patriotic Front (PF) related persons to own several farms. To date there has been no government move to release this report to the public but instead it appears to intend to launch a further internal audit. The Commission position is that only an independent audit carried out under the auspices of a body such as the United Nations can form a credible basis for a review of the process to date and the righting of the injustices that have occurred.

With regard to any form of nepotism in the ‘indigenisation’ of Zimbabwe's economy the Commission cannot confirm specific cases.

The main information the Commission has on the negative effects of the land reform relates to the current drop in output and comes from the commercial farming sector. As of February 2003, 73 % of the Commercial Farming Union's membership (representing the majority of the commercial farmers) are no longer farming. Maize production by commercial farmers had fallen from 810 000 tonnes in 2000 to an estimated 80 000 tonnes in 2003. Soya-beans from 162 000 tonnes in 2001 to 30 000 tonnes in 2003. Tobacco production has also been seriously reduced and beef and milk production has seriously declined. This in turn has had a knock on effect on the food processing industry.

The current critical state of the Zimbabwean economy is well known. The lack of foreign exchange for essential imports is also a direct result of the decline of the commercial farming sector, in particular the tobacco sector which was responsible for approximately 40 % of Zimbabwean export earnings. As yet, there is no information available on any positive effects of the reform.

The Commission shares the Honourable Member's deep concern on the human rights situation and is taking every opportunity to convey to the Government of Zimbabwe its anxiety in relation to increasing political violence and ill-treatment of the opposition and civil society. The Council Presidency has, on 20 February 2003 and 28 March 2003, issued declarations expressing its concern over the recent arbitrary arrests, inhuman treatment and torture of members of the opposition and civil society organisations. The Union has called on the government of Zimbabwe to end all harassment, intimidation and violence against them. It urges the government and all political stakeholders to open serious dialogue to overcome the current overwhelming problems facing Zimbabwe on the humanitarian, social and economic fronts.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/367 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/367

---

(2004/C 78 E/0386)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1364/03

by Maurizio Turco (NI) to the Commission

(10 April 2003)

Subject:   Exploitation of Community citizens by the Vatican City State

In view of the fact that:

| — | the Vatican City State receives around EUR 9 million per year (EUR 6 million in 2002 and EUR 12 million in the Jubilee year) from the sale of gifts and souvenirs; |
| --- | --- |

—

the Vatican City State receives around EUR 9 million per year (EUR 6 million in 2002 and EUR 12 million in the Jubilee year) from the sale of gifts and souvenirs;

| — | around 50 European citizens of Italian nationality are employed in the sale of these articles; |
| --- | --- |

—

around 50 European citizens of Italian nationality are employed in the sale of these articles;

| — | these people work on commission on the basis of an ‘oral contract’ for percentages that vary from 2-3 % to 8-10 % and for between 8 and 10 hours every day with a 30-minute break for lunch. At the end of the day after having loaded away the goods and emptied the cash boxes, for which they are jointly responsible, they are paid cash in hand; |
| --- | --- |

—

these people work on commission on the basis of an ‘oral contract’ for percentages that vary from 2-3 % to 8-10 % and for between 8 and 10 hours every day with a 30-minute break for lunch. At the end of the day after having loaded away the goods and emptied the cash boxes, for which they are jointly responsible, they are paid cash in hand;

| — | this has been going on since 1976; |
| --- | --- |

—

this has been going on since 1976;

| — | despite the undertakings made to regularise their situation, a private company is soon to be made responsible for managing their stalls, and would immediately ‘regularise’ the position of these ‘clandestine’ workers by depriving them of any rights; |
| --- | --- |

—

despite the undertakings made to regularise their situation, a private company is soon to be made responsible for managing their stalls, and would immediately ‘regularise’ the position of these ‘clandestine’ workers by depriving them of any rights;

| — | in the eyes of the Italian Republic these people are unemployed, and therefore benefit from public services, including health care; |
| --- | --- |

—

in the eyes of the Italian Republic these people are unemployed, and therefore benefit from public services, including health care;

| — | what action will the EU take with regard to a State which is exploiting Community citizens? |
| --- | --- |

—

what action will the EU take with regard to a State which is exploiting Community citizens?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(16 May 2003)

The current legal instruments at the Commission's disposal make no provision for Community action in situations similar to those described in the written question.

The Commission will transmit a copy of the written question and the corresponding Commission reply to the Mission of the Holy See to the Union Institutions for its information and follow-up as appropriate.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/367 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/367

---

(2004/C 78 E/0387)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1416/03

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(23 April 2003)

Subject:   Bank sentenced to pay compensation to clients for having provided information to the tax authorities of their Member State

| 1. | Is the Commission aware of the ruling handed down by a Luxembourg court which sentenced the Kredietbank Luxembourg (KBL) to pay compensation of EUR 25 000 to each of five Belgian former clients who had brought an action against the bank on the grounds that it had failed to prevent the Belgian tax authorities from identifying them? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is the Commission aware of the ruling handed down by a Luxembourg court which sentenced the Kredietbank Luxembourg (KBL) to pay compensation of EUR 25 000 to each of five Belgian former clients who had brought an action against the bank on the grounds that it had failed to prevent the Belgian tax authorities from identifying them?

| 2. | Does the Commission deem it acceptable that a situation may arise in the EU where persons guilty of tax evasion may receive compensation from organisations which have failed to keep secret their liability to punishment? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Does the Commission deem it acceptable that a situation may arise in the EU where persons guilty of tax evasion may receive compensation from organisations which have failed to keep secret their liability to punishment?

| 3. | Is the Commission aware that the Netherlands Inland Revenue Service identified 6 000 Dutch tax evaders who held accounts with the KBL in the early 1990s in the same way and that they had to pay additional taxes as a result? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Is the Commission aware that the Netherlands Inland Revenue Service identified 6 000 Dutch tax evaders who held accounts with the KBL in the early 1990s in the same way and that they had to pay additional taxes as a result?

| 4. | What impact does the Commission foresee if, after the first five successful parties in a court action, thousands of other tax evaders also succeed in having their claims for compensation upheld in court? Will that result in increasing pressure on the governments of the Member States in which banking secrecy still operates to tighten up measures to combat and punish the provision of information to other Member States? |
| --- | --- |

4.

What impact does the Commission foresee if, after the first five successful parties in a court action, thousands of other tax evaders also succeed in having their claims for compensation upheld in court? Will that result in increasing pressure on the governments of the Member States in which banking secrecy still operates to tighten up measures to combat and punish the provision of information to other Member States?

| 5. | Does the Commission expect that actions brought by tax evaders against banks may become an appropriate method whereby banks which claim that the accounts held with them may remain secret are saddled with costs that are so heavy that they would have to give up banking secrecy once and for all on the grounds of self-preservation? |
| --- | --- |

5.

Does the Commission expect that actions brought by tax evaders against banks may become an appropriate method whereby banks which claim that the accounts held with them may remain secret are saddled with costs that are so heavy that they would have to give up banking secrecy once and for all on the grounds of self-preservation?

| 6. | In what way can these disputes inside the EU be terminated when tax evasion is not only not punished but actually rewarded and banks are given an incentive to withhold tax revenues? |
| --- | --- |

6.

In what way can these disputes inside the EU be terminated when tax evasion is not only not punished but actually rewarded and banks are given an incentive to withhold tax revenues?

Source: the edition dated 3 April 2003 of ‘de Volkskrant’ a Dutch newspaper.

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(27 May 2003)

The Commission is aware of the decision of the Luxembourg Court to which the Honourable Member refers. National judicial proceedings and decisions of independent national judicial authorities in this area belong to the internal competencies of Member States. The Commission does not wish to speculate on the possible consequences of a particular national court decision for other similar cases or indeed for the legislation of the Member State concerned.

The Commission agrees with the Honourable Member that the problem of tax fraud and evasion gives cause for concern. The Commission is convinced that its policy which aims at increased co-operation and exchange of information between the competent authorities of Member States can assist Member States in tackling this problem more effectively. In recent years, the Commission has made a number of proposals to improve the administrative assistance between Member States in the area of direct and indirect taxes.

In July 2001 the Commission presented a proposal for a Directive (1) on taxation of savings income which provides for the automatic exchange of information between tax authorities with respect to interest paid to individuals resident in other Member States. Although this proposal provides for transitional arrangements for Belgium, Luxembourg and Austria, all Member States will ultimately be expected to participate in the automatic exchange of information. The discussions on this proposal are at an advanced stage and the Commission hopes that it will be adopted shortly. The Commission is convinced that this Directive will enable Member States to fight cross-border tax evasion more effectively.

---

(1)  Proposal for a Council Directive to ensure effective taxation of savings income in the form of interest payments within the Community, OJ C 270 E, 25.9.2001.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/368 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/368

---

(2004/C 78 E/0388)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1418/03

by Maria Carrilho (PSE) to the Commission

(23 April 2003)

Subject:   Revision of the Europe-Asia strategic framework

It is a well-known fact that the deepening of relations between the European Union and Asia is of major importance to both parties. These relations have been stepped up, especially since the mid-1990s, through structures and fora, such as ASEAN-EC/EU meetings (which began in 70s), ASEM, the EU's participation in the ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF), as well as the EU-China, EU-India, EU-Japan and, more recently, EU-Korea summits. To give European action more coherence, the Commission published a communication in 1994, entitled ‘Towards a new strategy for Asia’. This framework was reviewed in 2001, even before the events of 11 September, resulting in the Commission communication on ‘Europe and Asia: A strategic framework for enhanced partnerships’ (1). The European Parliament, for its part, adopted a resolution on 5 September 2002, endorsing much of the Commission communication, whose broad lines continued to be adequate.

However, following major events such as those of 11 September 2001 and the war in Iraq, with all their implications, would the Commission not consider it appropriate to bring the revision scheduled for 2004 forward to the second half of 2003?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(4 June 2003)

The Commission shares the view expressed by the Honourable Member on the importance of deepening relations between the Union and Asia. Accordingly, it has contributed to enhancing these relations through various exchanges and fora as stated by the Honourable Member.

The Commission likewise acknowledges the changes resulting from the events of 11 September 2001 that happened only a few days after the publication of the Communication ‘Europe and Asia: A Strategic Framework for Enhanced Partnerships’.

However, the six general principles set out in this Communication on the Asia Strategy which were endorsed in the Council Decision of 27 December 2001 (2), remain valid and have also covered the priority subsequently given by the Union to Afghanistan. Furthermore, the Resolution of Parliament of 5 September 2002 welcomed the Commission's Asia Strategy and the consistent emphasis it attached to the Union's relations with Asia. This is also reflected in the Commission's current work in co-operation with its delegations in the region in monitoring the results of the actions proposed in the strategy paper. First indications from this exercise suggest positive results.

In addition to this monitoring of the Asia Strategy of 2001, the Commission is now in the process of preparing a Communication on a Strategy for Southeast Asia, which will certainly take account of recent developments. The cross-fertilisation of the monitoring and the work on the new Southeast Asia Strategy will then greatly contribute to the review of the overall Asia Strategy and allow the Commission to maintain its calendar for a thorough preparation of its update in 2004.

---

(1)  COM(2001)469.

(2)  OJ L 344, 28.12.2001.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/369 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/369

---

(2004/C 78 E/0389)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1451/03

by Hiltrud Breyer (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(28 April 2003)

Subject:   Cooperation with the Slovak Institute of Metrology

There is evidence which would appear to point to significant shortcomings in terms of the quality of research results, health protection and also of staff at the Slovak Institute of Metrology (SMU) in Karlova Ves.

Such concerns have been voiced, ‘inter alia’, by the national institute of health of the Slovak Republic and, following a petition from a citizen, by the committee on health of the Slovak parliament (in its 65th session of 11 July 2002), as well as by Mr Gabris of the dosimetry laboratory of the Austrian federal office of metrology (BEV) in Seibersdorf.

In particular, serious irregularities have been reported in connection with the project for the building of the cyclotron centre. The Euromet 526 project carried out in cooperation with the Physikalisch-Technische Bundesanstalt (PTB) in Braunschweig, Germany was so seriously affected that the SMU's involvement in the project had to be terminated.

| 1. | What financial and other EU support does the Slovak Institute of Metrology receive/has it received overall and within the framework of Euromet? |
| --- | --- |

1.

What financial and other EU support does the Slovak Institute of Metrology receive/has it received overall and within the framework of Euromet?

| 2. | In what specific ways, and by whom, has the use of resources and research, measurements and equipment (for example apparatus, quality of staff employed, health protection) been monitored and examined? |
| --- | --- |

2.

In what specific ways, and by whom, has the use of resources and research, measurements and equipment (for example apparatus, quality of staff employed, health protection) been monitored and examined?

| 3. | What is the Commission's view of the above serious concerns and criticisms expressed regarding research and management at the Slovak Office of Standards, Metrology and Testing (UNMS SR) and the SMU? |
| --- | --- |

3.

What is the Commission's view of the above serious concerns and criticisms expressed regarding research and management at the Slovak Office of Standards, Metrology and Testing (UNMS SR) and the SMU?

| 4. | What conclusions does the Commission intend to draw with regard to further cooperation? |
| --- | --- |

4.

What conclusions does the Commission intend to draw with regard to further cooperation?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(11 June 2003)

The cyclotron and Euromet 526 projects referred to in the question of the Honourable Member have not been supported by Community Funds. The Slovak Institute of Metrology (SMU) was, however, a beneficiary of a 1999 PHARE Twinning project aimed at improving the overall administrative infrastructure in the internal market area. In particular, the SMU received a one-off assistance supporting the introduction of a quality management system meeting ISO 9001-2000. This was provided primarily through the provision of expert advice from Member State experts. A total of EUR 179 245 was budgeted for the provision of this support to the SMU. In September 2002, the main objective of this assistance was met as the SMU received ISO 9001-2000 accreditation.

SMU is also a beneficiary of three research projects, within the specific research programme ‘Competitive and sustainable growth’ of the Community's 5th Framework Programme for Research and Technological Development. More information on these projects is available on the Cordis data base at (http://www.cordis.lu/growth/src/projects.htm).

In the course of the Commission's monitoring of Slovakia's preparations for accession and the ability to fulfil the requirements of the ‘acquis’, the Commission has generally found the Slovak Office of Standards, Metrology and Testing (UNMS) to be functioning well, although further improvements could be made. In view in particular of the Comprehensive Monitoring Report that the Commission will produce this Autumn on the acceding countries preparation for accession, the Commission particularly welcomes hearing the views of all stakeholders in order that these can be taken into account. The Commission will continue to co-operate with the Slovak bodies concerned to identify shortcomings, including any of the nature mentioned by the Honourable Member, and in order to support efforts aimed at further improvements.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/370 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/370

---

(2004/C 78 E/0390)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1517/03

by Glenys Kinnock (PSE) to the Commission

(6 May 2003)

Subject:   Economic Partnership Agreements

Information and training sessions on how to facilitate non-state actors' participation in dialogue on EPAs are being prepared for EU Delegations. Would the Commission agree that, as ACP Parliaments should be kept informed on such issues and be encouraged to scrutinise the process, these training sessions should also be extended to ACP Parliaments?

Answer given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(26 May 2003)

The Commission has repeatedly stressed that Economic Partnership Agreements (EPA) negotiations will need to be accompanied by comprehensive consultations with ‘non-state actors’ in both the Union and African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) States. This process has already started, but communication and consultations in the ACP States will be enhanced as soon as negotiations on the regional level have started. Commission Delegations will have an important role to play in this context.

The target groups of these activities will vary among countries and regions, and should include business and employer associations, trade unions, farmers associations, consumer groups, non governmental organisations (NGOs), etc. The involvement of trade experts in ACP universities and research institutions will be important as well, especially also in the context of the Sustainability Impact Assessment.

ACP parliaments, and notably those parliamentarians who focus in their work on trade and regional integration, should be fully associated with this process and will have the opportunity to form part of informal contact groups the Commission is going to establish on a regional basis. Indeed, parliamentarians should be in the best position to contribute to the negotiations, as they can make use of official ACP channels, the ACP-EU Joint Parliamentary Assembly and the informal consultation networks which will be established.

The Parliament, and first of all the European members of the ACP-EU Joint Parliamentary Assembly, could be very helpful in identifying appropriate ACP parliamentarians for this purpose. First contacts on this have been made and the Commission would welcome close co-operation in this regard.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/371 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/371

---

(2004/C 78 E/0391)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1526/03

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(6 May 2003)

Subject:   Failure to remove blue and brown asbestos from contaminated flats, workshops and other buildings in EU accession State Hungary

| 1. | Is the Commission aware that at least 400 000 square metres of sprayed asbestos containing the most carcinogenic blue asbestos were used in the building of large estates of flats in Hungary in the 1960's, 1970's and 1980's and that particles of this material are released after between 10 and 15 years, as a result of which they spread inside and outside the blocks of flats and that it would cost between EUR 65 and 130 million to clean up the contamination? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is the Commission aware that at least 400 000 square metres of sprayed asbestos containing the most carcinogenic blue asbestos were used in the building of large estates of flats in Hungary in the 1960's, 1970's and 1980's and that particles of this material are released after between 10 and 15 years, as a result of which they spread inside and outside the blocks of flats and that it would cost between EUR 65 and 130 million to clean up the contamination?

| 2. | Is the Commission also aware that these flats, which were initially rented out to residents by the State, were sold to the occupants before it became known in Hungary that a clean-up operation is required in the interests of both the survival of the residents and the obligation to comply with the Community ‘acquis’ but that the removal of one square metre of asbestos costs between EUR 160 and 190, which is more than a resident's average weekly salary? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Is the Commission also aware that these flats, which were initially rented out to residents by the State, were sold to the occupants before it became known in Hungary that a clean-up operation is required in the interests of both the survival of the residents and the obligation to comply with the Community ‘acquis’ but that the removal of one square metre of asbestos costs between EUR 160 and 190, which is more than a resident's average weekly salary?

| 3. | Can the Commission confirm that the Hungarian government has no financial resources available or earmarked for making a start on the removal of these large quantities of asbestos from residential buildings and that it was only in March 2003 that an investigation began into the scale of the problem and the implications for public health? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Can the Commission confirm that the Hungarian government has no financial resources available or earmarked for making a start on the removal of these large quantities of asbestos from residential buildings and that it was only in March 2003 that an investigation began into the scale of the problem and the implications for public health?

| 4. | Is brown asbestos still being used in Hungary in garden sheds, hen houses, cellars and garages, partly because of the lack of adequate information? |
| --- | --- |

4.

Is brown asbestos still being used in Hungary in garden sheds, hen houses, cellars and garages, partly because of the lack of adequate information?

| 5. | Is there no legislation in Hungary requiring firms and organisations to remove any asbestos present within certain period? Is this about to change, and if so when? |
| --- | --- |

5.

Is there no legislation in Hungary requiring firms and organisations to remove any asbestos present within certain period? Is this about to change, and if so when?

| 6. | What is the Commission doing to encourage the removal of the barriers that have hitherto prevented Hungary from complying fully with the Community acquis? |
| --- | --- |

6.

What is the Commission doing to encourage the removal of the barriers that have hitherto prevented Hungary from complying fully with the Community acquis?

Source: Netherlands newspaper, Het Financieele Dagblad, 14 April 2003.

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(10 June 2003)

| 1. | The Hungarian Ministry of Interior confirmed upon request of the Commission that asbestos was used in cellar ceilings in multifamily houses built during the time period mentioned. According to information from the Hungarian Government, it intends to undertake the following measures to rectify the situation: The asbestos in the most dangerous houses will be temporarily covered. This action has already been partially carried out. A recent decree introduced further measures to remove the asbestos from residential areas as of 2004 as part of the National Environmental Programme. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The Hungarian Ministry of Interior confirmed upon request of the Commission that asbestos was used in cellar ceilings in multifamily houses built during the time period mentioned. According to information from the Hungarian Government, it intends to undertake the following measures to rectify the situation: The asbestos in the most dangerous houses will be temporarily covered. This action has already been partially carried out. A recent decree introduced further measures to remove the asbestos from residential areas as of 2004 as part of the National Environmental Programme.

| 2. | Yes, according to the same source of information, some flats in these houses were owned by the inhabitants already before the political changes. Others were let out at a very low rent not covering the actual cost for normal maintenance and therefore sold to the tenants at a very low price corresponding to 5 to 10 % of the market price. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Yes, according to the same source of information, some flats in these houses were owned by the inhabitants already before the political changes. Others were let out at a very low rent not covering the actual cost for normal maintenance and therefore sold to the tenants at a very low price corresponding to 5 to 10 % of the market price.

| 3. | No, according to our information investigations have started several years ago, and considerable amounts have already been spent on these investigations. As mentioned under 1., further funding for measures is foreseen as of 2004 as part of the National Environmental Programme. |
| --- | --- |

3.

No, according to our information investigations have started several years ago, and considerable amounts have already been spent on these investigations. As mentioned under 1., further funding for measures is foreseen as of 2004 as part of the National Environmental Programme.

| 4. | According to information available to the Commission there is no domestic manufacturing of products containing asbestos, but a small part of roofing products made from asbestos-cement has remained on the market, which is imported from Romania and the Ukraine. These products are less costly than asbestos-free substitutes. It is, therefore, considered by the Hungarian Ministry of the Interior that there is no lack of information but rather a lack of financial resources. |
| --- | --- |

4.

According to information available to the Commission there is no domestic manufacturing of products containing asbestos, but a small part of roofing products made from asbestos-cement has remained on the market, which is imported from Romania and the Ukraine. These products are less costly than asbestos-free substitutes. It is, therefore, considered by the Hungarian Ministry of the Interior that there is no lack of information but rather a lack of financial resources.

| 5. | According to our information, there is currently no legislation in force, but two decrees covering this issue are under preparation. |
| --- | --- |

5.

According to our information, there is currently no legislation in force, but two decrees covering this issue are under preparation.

| 6. | The Commission is carefully monitoring Hungary to ensure that it adopts and implements the entire EU environmental ‘acquis’ by the date of accession. Hungary's preparations are overall quite advanced compared with other new Member States. Also, considerable financial resources have been made available for environmental projects both under the PHARE and ISPA programmes. |
| --- | --- |

6.

The Commission is carefully monitoring Hungary to ensure that it adopts and implements the entire EU environmental ‘acquis’ by the date of accession. Hungary's preparations are overall quite advanced compared with other new Member States. Also, considerable financial resources have been made available for environmental projects both under the PHARE and ISPA programmes.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/372 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/372

---

(2004/C 78 E/0392)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1540/03

by Proinsias De Rossa (PSE) to the Commission

(7 May 2003)

Subject:   Trade in equipment which could be used for torture or capital punishment

Could the Commission indicate which, if any, items covered by the proposal for a Regulation concerning trade in certain equipment which could be used for torture or capital punishment (1) are also covered by the (EC) Regulation adopted by the Council on 21 January 2003 suspending duties on weapons and military equipment (150/2003 (2))?

---

(1)  COM(2002) 770.

(2)  OJ L 25, 30.1.2003, p. 1.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/373 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/373

---

(2004/C 78 E/0393)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1541/03

by Proinsias De Rossa (PSE) to the Commission

(7 May 2003)

Subject:   Outlawing the production of equipment for capital punishment and torture

The Commission's proposal for a Council Regulation concerning trade in certain equipment and products which could be used for capital punishment, torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment (1) does not impose any restrictions on the use, production, marketing and sales within the internal market of the equipment and products concerned.

Given that capital punishment is banned under EU Treaties, why did the Commission not include proposals to outlaw the production of equipment that can be used for such purposes in the EU in this proposed regulation?

---

(1)  COM(2002)770.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/373 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/373

---

(2004/C 78 E/0394)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1542/03

by Proinsias De Rossa (PSE) to the Commission

(7 May 2003)

Subject:   Control of trade in products that may be used to inflict torture

Annex II of the proposal for a Council Regulation concerning trade in certain equipment and products which could be used for capital punishment or torture (1) allows Member States to control trade in listed products that may be used to inflict torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. How much such equipment or products are produced in EU Member States, where and by whom?

---

(1)  COM(2002)770.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/373 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/373

---

(2004/C 78 E/0395)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1543/03

by Proinsias De Rossa (PSE) to the Commission

(7 May 2003)

Subject:   Production of equipment and products for capital punishment or torture

Annex I of the proposal for a Council Regulation concerning trade in certain equipment and products which could be used for capital punishment or torture (1) introduces an export ban for equipment and products that can only be used to inflict capital punishment or torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. How much such equipment or products are produced in EU Member States, where and by whom?

Joint answer

to Written Questions E-1540/03, E-1541/03, E-1542/03 and E-1543/03

given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(13 June 2003)

The Commission has made a proposal for the Community to impose restrictions on trade in certain equipment which could be used for capital punishment, torture or other cruel, degrading or inhuman treatment or punishment (2). This initiative responds to calls for action by the Parliament and the Council.

The proposal reflects the Union's strong opposition to the application of the death penalty and the use of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. The Union adopted policy guidelines in 1998 and 2001. Furthermore, the Union has supported international conventions, treaties and mechanisms addressing these issues. Moreover, the proposal responds to the resolutions on torture adopted by the United Nations (UN) Commission on Human Rights (including at this year's 59th session) which call, ‘inter alia’, for UN Member States to take action, including legislative measures, to prevent and prohibit the export of equipment designed to inflict torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. The UN Special rapporteur on torture, Mr Theo van Boven, highlighted the Commission proposal in his recent report on this subject.

A study entitled ‘Crowd Control Technologies’ (June 2000), which was carried out for the Parliament, gives some insight into the production of and trade in some of the equipment and products included in the annexes to this proposal.

The Guidelines to the Union's Policy toward third countries, on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, foresee that measures to prevent the use and production of the equipment concerned should also be taken. However, unlike the trade restrictions, such measures do not fall under the exclusive competence of the Community granted by Article 133 of the EC Treaty. For the time being, the Commission considers that, in view of the principle of subsidiarity, measures to prevent the use and production of the equipment concerned should be taken by Member States.

Council Regulation (EC) No 150/2003 of 21 January 2003 suspending import duties on certain weapons and military equipment, provides for a suspension of import duties, if the weapons or equipment concerned are used by, or on behalf of the military forces of a Member State. Some of the equipment and products included in Annex I to the proposed Regulation, such as electric-shock belts and automatic drug injection systems designed or modified for the purpose of execution of human beings, has a CN code falling within the broader chapters of the Nomenclature included in the Annexes to Regulation (EC) No 150/2003. The Commission proposal shows, however, that the use of the equipment included in Annex I, which has no, or virtually no, practical use other than for the purpose of capital punishment or for the purpose of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment is not in line with Union policy and relevant international legal instruments and is therefore illegal. Moreover, with the adoption of the Regulation set out in COM(2002) 770, the suspension of import duties for the materials concerned will no longer apply since their importation itself will be illegal.

---

(1)  COM(2002)770.

(2)  COM(2002) 770.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/374 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/374

---

(2004/C 78 E/0396)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1594/03

by Emilio Menéndez del Valle (PSE) to the Commission

(6 May 2003)

Subject:   EC-Israel trade agreement

On 17 May 2001 the European Parliament said ‘whereas Israel's improper implementation of its trade-related agreements is causing the benefits of Community preferences to accrue illegally to goods produced in illegal settlements’ and called on ‘the Commission and the Member States to take decisive measures to correct any violation of rules of origin by Israel under the trade agreement with the EU and to inform Parliament, so as to avoid any indirect complicity in illegal settlements’ (European Parliament resolution on the situation in the Middle East (1)).

Is Israel continuing to establish the origin of its exports without making a distinction between those produced in Israel itself and those produced in its illegal settlements?

Does the Commission consider that Israel is currently violating the Protocol on Rules of Origin to the EC-Israel Association Agreement?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(5 June 2003)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to the joint reply it gave to oral questions H-0266/03, H-0268/03, H-0270/03, H-0272/03, H-0278/03, H-0283/03, H-0287/03 by Mr Lipietz, Mrs Banotti, Mr Cushnahan, Mrs Morgantini, Mr Pronk, Mr Dhaene and Mrs Sandbaek during question time at Parliament's May 2003 session (2).

---

(1)  OJ C 34 E, 7.2.2002, p. 356.

(2)  Written reply of 13.5.2003.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/375 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/375

---

(2004/C 78 E/0397)

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?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(20 June 2003)

The Commission is still conducting an investigation of the problem raised by the Honourable Member and will inform her of the outcome as soon as possible.

---

(1)  See page 354.

(2)  OJ L 318, 22.11.2002, p. 17.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/375 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/375

---

(2004/C 78 E/0398)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1632/03

by Renato Brunetta (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(12 May 2003)

Subject:   Sale of the ‘Vittoriosa Gaming’ company by the ‘Casinò Municipale di Venezia’

According to reports in the Venetian press, the ‘Casinò Municipale di Venezia SpA’, an entirely public company of which the Venice municipality is the main shareholder, has been involved in a major transaction to sell its holding in ‘Vittoriosa Gaming Ltd’ (which runs the Casino in Malta).

It has also been reported that the ‘Meliorbanca’ bank acted as advisors in this transaction.

Will the Commission ascertain:

| — | whether this transfer has been carried out and, if so, on what terms, given that until recently the mere intention was denied and/or ruled out? |
| --- | --- |

—

whether this transfer has been carried out and, if so, on what terms, given that until recently the mere intention was denied and/or ruled out?

| — | whether the transaction advisor was selected on the basis of a public tender procedure or, at least, a public selection procedure? |
| --- | --- |

—

whether the transaction advisor was selected on the basis of a public tender procedure or, at least, a public selection procedure?

| — | whether, if it is true that Mr Ferruccio Piantini, son of Mr Giorgio Piantini, chairman of the ‘Casinò Municipale di Venezia SpA’ company, is vice-chairman of Meliorbanca, this is not tantamount to an unacceptable ‘conflict of interests’, especially if the contract is awarded by the Casinò di Venezia company to the Meliorbanca bank by direct private negotiation? |
| --- | --- |

—

whether, if it is true that Mr Ferruccio Piantini, son of Mr Giorgio Piantini, chairman of the ‘Casinò Municipale di Venezia SpA’ company, is vice-chairman of Meliorbanca, this is not tantamount to an unacceptable ‘conflict of interests’, especially if the contract is awarded by the Casinò di Venezia company to the Meliorbanca bank by direct private negotiation?

| — | whether such sales transactions are being conducted in compliance with Community and national (Maltese and Italian, in particular) law? |
| --- | --- |

—

whether such sales transactions are being conducted in compliance with Community and national (Maltese and Italian, in particular) law?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(12 June 2003)

At this stage, the Commission is unable to determine whether the transaction in question has indeed taken place and whether it has been carried out in compliance with relevant Community rules.

The Commission invites the Honourable Member to provide further information on this issue, bearing in mind however that the Commission is only competent to monitor the application of Community law and will consequently not be able to answer any question related to the correct application, by the Italian bodies involved, of the relevant Italian and Maltese legislation.

With regard to the specific issue of whether the ‘Casinó municipale de Venise SpA’ company complied with the Community rules on public procurement when choosing the ‘advisor’ for the sales transaction in question, the Commission does not yet have the information required in order to answer the question asked by the Honourable Member.

The Commission will therefore contact the Italian authorities to obtain the information required in order to ascertain, first of all, whether the ‘Casinó municipale de Venise SpA’ company can be defined as a contracting authority under the terms of the Community public procurement directives and if it is thus obliged to apply the aforementioned rules. Should these rules apply, the Commission will investigate whether they have been observed in the choice of ‘advisor’ for the share transfer transaction mentioned by the Honourable Member.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/376 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/376

---

(2004/C 78 E/0399)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1636/03

by Bartho Pronk (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(15 May 2003)

Subject:   Sixth VAT Directive

The Sixth VAT Directive (Directive 77/388/EEC (1) on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment) covers immovable property among other things. In Ireland stamp duty is frequently levied on newly built properties in addition to VAT. It is doubtful whether the uniform basis of assessment within the meaning of the Sixth VAT directive is applied when stamp duty is levied.

| 1. | Does the Commission consider that the simultaneous imposition of stamp duty and VAT is in breach of the VAT Directive? Is there any case law relating to this matter? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Does the Commission consider that the simultaneous imposition of stamp duty and VAT is in breach of the VAT Directive? Is there any case law relating to this matter?

| 2. | Are such taxes compatible with other European legislation on freedom of movement? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Are such taxes compatible with other European legislation on freedom of movement?

Answer given by M. Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(19 June 2003)

The ‘stamp duty’ to which the Honorable Member refers is a tax on documents. For the most part, these are legal documents used in the transfer of property or are documents which create rights for the parties concerned. Where documents are not properly stamped, they cannot be used in court proceedings. If a document records the transfer of ownership of a newly-built property, then that property cannot be registered unless the correct stamp duty is paid.

Whether or not stamp duty is payable on a document recording the transfer of a new property depends on the value of the property and whether or not the purchaser is a first time buyer, where the property is residential.

| 1. | According to article 33 of the sixth VAT Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (2), Member States are allowed to maintain or introduce, among other taxes, stamp duties, provided that they are not characterised as turnover taxes.
  In practice, a charge can be characterised as a turnover tax if it exhibits the same essential features as VAT which, according to the case law of the Court of Justice, can be outlined as follows:






  — | VAT is generally applied to transactions relating to goods or services; |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

According to article 33 of the sixth VAT Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (2), Member States are allowed to maintain or introduce, among other taxes, stamp duties, provided that they are not characterised as turnover taxes.

In practice, a charge can be characterised as a turnover tax if it exhibits the same essential features as VAT which, according to the case law of the Court of Justice, can be outlined as follows:

—

VAT is generally applied to transactions relating to goods or services;

| — | it is proportional to the price of those goods or services; |
| --- | --- |

—

it is proportional to the price of those goods or services;

| — | it is charged at each stage of the production and distribution process; |
| --- | --- |

—

it is charged at each stage of the production and distribution process;

| — | it is imposed on the added value of goods and services. |
| --- | --- |

—

it is imposed on the added value of goods and services.

In the judgement of 16 December 1992 (case C-208/91 Beaulande (3)), the Court of Justice analysed the specific case of stamp duty imposed by France in addition to VAT on the acquisition of building land. The judgement held that a charge of this kind did not have the essential characteristics of VAT as described above. In this regard, the Court established that the levy of both this tax and of VAT was not contrary to the Sixth VAT Directive.

In particular, the Court stated that ‘stamp duty is not a general tax, as it is not intended to apply to all economic transactions. Secondly, no production and distribution process is involved, as the stamp duty is charged only when the real estate passes into the ownership of the final consumer. Furthermore, it is not deductible from duty of the same kind paid on subsequent conveyances. Finally, the levying of such duty does not take account of the added value but is based on the full value of the property’ (points 16 to 18).

| 2. | In the field of taxation, a general principle establishes that the taxation of immovable property falls within the competence of the State where the property stands. Therefore, it is not clear how the stamp duty imposed in Ireland would be contrary to the freedom of movement. |
| --- | --- |

2.

In the field of taxation, a general principle establishes that the taxation of immovable property falls within the competence of the State where the property stands. Therefore, it is not clear how the stamp duty imposed in Ireland would be contrary to the freedom of movement.

---

(1)  OJ L 145, 13.6.1977, p. 1.

(2)  OJ L 145, 13.6.1977. Directive as last amended by Council Directive 2002/92/EC. OJ L 331, 7.12.2002.

(3)  Case C-208/91 Raymond Beaulande v. Directeur des services fiscaux de Nantes [1992] ECR I-6709.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/378 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/378

---

(2004/C 78 E/0400)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1647/03

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(16 May 2003)

Subject:   Way in which EU funds for integrating Roma in Bulgaria and improving their living conditions are used and managed

| 1. | Is the Commission aware that questions have been raised concerning the use of PHARE funds for the benefit of the Roma population in Bulgaria, in particular the work by the EU delegation in Sofia on the setting up of non-governmental organisations and the way in which funds are being used in the city of Plovdiv where there is the highest concentration of Roma, including in the district of Stolipinovo with its 40 000 inhabitants? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is the Commission aware that questions have been raised concerning the use of PHARE funds for the benefit of the Roma population in Bulgaria, in particular the work by the EU delegation in Sofia on the setting up of non-governmental organisations and the way in which funds are being used in the city of Plovdiv where there is the highest concentration of Roma, including in the district of Stolipinovo with its 40 000 inhabitants?

| 2. | The following projects receive financial support from the EU:






  — | PHARE BG9907.01.01 Access to Education’: EUR 200 000; |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

The following projects receive financial support from the EU:

—

PHARE BG9907.01.01 Access to Education’: EUR 200 000;

| — | PHARE BG9907.01.02 ‘Urbanisation of Roma Neighbourhoods’: EUR 257 000; |
| --- | --- |

—

PHARE BG9907.01.02 ‘Urbanisation of Roma Neighbourhoods’: EUR 257 000;

| — | PHARE BG0104.01.01 ‘Roma Population Integration’: EUR 765 000; |
| --- | --- |

—

PHARE BG0104.01.01 ‘Roma Population Integration’: EUR 765 000;

| — | PHARE BG0104.01.02 ‘Roma Population Integration’: EUR 1 350 000; |
| --- | --- |

—

PHARE BG0104.01.02 ‘Roma Population Integration’: EUR 1 350 000;

| — | PHARE BG0104.01.03 ‘Roma Population Integration’: EUR 210 000; |
| --- | --- |

—

PHARE BG0104.01.03 ‘Roma Population Integration’: EUR 210 000;

| — | PHARE BG0102.06 ‘Social Integration of Roma’: EUR 2 299 000; |
| --- | --- |

—

PHARE BG0102.06 ‘Social Integration of Roma’: EUR 2 299 000;

| — | PHARE BG0104.02 ‘Access of Roma to Healthcare’: EUR 1 000 000; |
| --- | --- |

—

PHARE BG0104.02 ‘Access of Roma to Healthcare’: EUR 1 000 000;

| — | PHARE 2001 ‘Study of the Housing Conditions of the Roma Population’: EUR 160 000. |
| --- | --- |

—

PHARE 2001 ‘Study of the Housing Conditions of the Roma Population’: EUR 160 000.

Could the Commission state, on the basis of qualitative and quantitative indicators, what contribution each of these projects has actually made to improving conditions for Roma?

| 3. | How is transparency ensured in respect of these and future projects with regard to the integration of Roma? |
| --- | --- |

3.

How is transparency ensured in respect of these and future projects with regard to the integration of Roma?

| 4. | What steps are being taken to ensure participation by Roma themselves in these projects and to prevent large numbers of decisions from being taken over their heads? |
| --- | --- |

4.

What steps are being taken to ensure participation by Roma themselves in these projects and to prevent large numbers of decisions from being taken over their heads?

| 5. | What improvements does the Commission consider need to be made in order to achieve better results than at present? |
| --- | --- |

5.

What improvements does the Commission consider need to be made in order to achieve better results than at present?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(16 June 2003)

The Commission has been supporting projects in favour of the Roma Community in Bulgaria since 1999. The city of Plovdiv and its district Stolinpinovo are among the beneficiaries, as the Roma population there is rather high. Some of the projects, so-called micro-projects under the Access programme, have in fact funded Roma Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs) in the Stolipinovo quarter. These projects had the objective of encouraging the inclusion and participation of individuals and groups who risk being economically, socially or politically marginalised in the transformation process. However, the Commission itself has not set up any of these NGOs.

As regards the PHARE projects mentioned in the written question, so far only one has been finalised. The project (BG 9907 ‘Promotion of Integration of Roma’) has achieved good results. Under the component ‘Access to education and training for Roma representatives to work in public administration and police structures’ Roma policemen have been trained, a practical guide on Roma language and two elementary textbooks (including teacher guides) on Roma culture and history have been published, the textbooks have been distributed to a number of schools and teachers have been trained to use them etc. Under the component ‘Urbanisation of Roma neighbourhoods’, the infrastructure of Roma quarters was improved. The other PHARE projects are ongoing and it would be too early to assess their impact at this stage.

PHARE Projects for Roma are generally implemented in close co-operation with Roma representatives. A National Steering Committee, composed of the National Council on Ethnic and Demographic Issues and 35 Roma NGOs is responsible for overall coordination. The Commission's Delegation provides observers in the meetings of the National Steering Committee. Transparency is ensured through the obligation to publish all projects and strategies on the web pages of the relevant Ministries and the National Council on Ethnic and Demographic Issues (NCEDI), as well as through the media.

Proper involvement of Roma and their representative organisations in identification of the needs, the project design preparation and implementation is crucial to the success of these projects. To the extent possible, Roma advisers in the national administrations and governmental structures in charge of Roma or minority issues are therefore regularly consulted during the programming process. Funding priorities are discussed in the context of the frequent contacts the Commission maintains with the National Council for Ethnic and Demographic Issues which is the mandated body to co-ordinate government policies, programmes and funds related to ethnic issues, and to facilitate the dialogue and interaction between ethnic minorities, government and civil society in Bulgaria. Representatives of numerous ministries, governmental institutions as well as representatives of thirty-five non-governmental organisations of ethnic minorities are members of this body. The priorities are in line with the Framework Programme for Roma Integration adopted by the last two governments and 150 Roma NGOs. In addition consultative bodies involving NGOs are been established on various aspects of the Framework programme.

Despite these efforts, the socio-economic situation and living conditions of the Roma population remain difficult. They also face widespread discrimination. The integration of Roma in society should be the first priority, even if it is difficult to achieve visible results in the short term. This priority should be addressed within all key national policies, such as education, housing, public health and employment and combined with the necessary budgetary means. Moreover, the development of an appropriate legal framework to deal with minority issues will further increase the sustainability of a number of projects. In this context, the adoption of comprehensive anti-discrimination legislation would, for instance, be an important step forward. A very important additional aspect is to further decentralise Roma policy at the regional and national level in line with the principle of subsidiarity. The Commission has invited Bulgaria to address these issues in the framework of the recently revised Accession Partnership.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/379 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/379

---

(2004/C 78 E/0401)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1653/03

by Joost Lagendijk (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(13 May 2003)

Subject:   European Civil Peace Corps — current developments — mainstreaming of conflict prevention in external EU policies

The European Parliament has asked for the establishment of a European Civil Peace Corps several times. So far the other institutions have not followed up on this. What action will the Commission take with regard to the expressed readiness of the Greek Presidency to make progress on EU conflict prevention and the European Civil Peace Corps? How much progress has the Commission made with the establishment of the network of training institutes for civilian crisis management? How does the Commission envisage moving on from this towards a European Civil Peace Corps? As national ministries and institutes each have different rosters, what steps is the Commission going to take to harmonise, or at least promote compatibility of these rosters? Would the Commission be prepared to administer a roster at EU level for EU crisis management operations? How would NGOs and their specialists be part of these rosters?

To what extent is the Commission following up Parliament's proposals for conflict assessments in all EU external policies? What have been the results in the areas of external trade, agriculture policy and environmental policy? Has the Commission achieved its goal of mainstreaming conflict prevention in EU development cooperation policies? In this perspective, has the Commission been able to apply Article 11 of the Cotonou agreement? How much funding under the EDF has been made available for conflict prevention? In which ACP countries does the Commission support conflict prevention programmes with EDF or Community budget funding? Has the Commission been able to make its policies on food security, food aid, infrastructure, water supply and other sectoral aid programmes more conflict-sensitive? If so, in what ways? If not, why not?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(13 June 2003)

European Civilian Peace Corps

Improving the personnel capacities of the Union to address situations of conflict or potential conflict remains one of the key challenges in building a credible and effective operational capacity to support the Union's external policy. There is a clear need to be able to identify at short notice personnel with the experience and training to contribute to the Union's civilian crisis management activities and Community assistance programmes, which are increasingly called to intervene in crisis and post-conflict situations. The Commission's approach to the range of issues this raises is outlined in Annex 1 which is sent direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat.

Mainstreaming Conflict Prevention

The Commission is in agreement with Parliament that a conflict sensitive approach is required in all external assistance programmes, and indeed in other areas such as economic, agriculture, trade and environment policy and diplomatic activity. In parallel, funding is needed for specific activities targeting the prevention or alleviation of conflict situations. The Commission continues to implement this strategy for conflict prevention, which was first set out by the Commission in the April 2001 Communication (1). A summary of progress made is attached in Annex 2 which is sent direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat.

---

(1)  Communication from the Commission on Conflict Prevention, Brussels 11.4.2001 COM(2001)211 final.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/380 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/380

---

(2004/C 78 E/0402)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1661/03

by Luigi Vinci (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(13 May 2003)

Subject:   Trial of Leyla Zana

Knowing that:

| — | I have attended the two sessions held so far of the retrial in Ankara of Leyla Zana and her three colleagues, who have been in prison for some 10 years serving a sentence passed by a tribunal dismissed as unfair by both the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg and the European Parliament. I attended the second session of the trial also in my capacity as a member of the ad hoc delegation of the European Parliament; |
| --- | --- |

—

I have attended the two sessions held so far of the retrial in Ankara of Leyla Zana and her three colleagues, who have been in prison for some 10 years serving a sentence passed by a tribunal dismissed as unfair by both the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg and the European Parliament. I attended the second session of the trial also in my capacity as a member of the ad hoc delegation of the European Parliament;

| — | apart from the absence of a military judge, there is no difference between this trial and that of 1994; |
| --- | --- |

—

apart from the absence of a military judge, there is no difference between this trial and that of 1994;

| — | the rights of the defence continue to be flagrantly breached. The panel of judges has rejected the request by the defence to introduce new witnesses, i.e. witnesses for the defence, none of whom was allowed to testify in the 1994 trial. Moreover, the defence is not allowed to put questions directly to witnesses — all of whom appear for the prosecution — but must submit questions to the president of the panel of judges, who then puts them to the witnesses with modifications of his own; |
| --- | --- |

—

the rights of the defence continue to be flagrantly breached. The panel of judges has rejected the request by the defence to introduce new witnesses, i.e. witnesses for the defence, none of whom was allowed to testify in the 1994 trial. Moreover, the defence is not allowed to put questions directly to witnesses — all of whom appear for the prosecution — but must submit questions to the president of the panel of judges, who then puts them to the witnesses with modifications of his own;

| — | the president of the court has refused to allow witness statements made in 1994 to be read out in court; |
| --- | --- |

—

the president of the court has refused to allow witness statements made in 1994 to be read out in court;

| — | the panel of judges' meetings in camera take place in the presence of counsel for the prosecution; |
| --- | --- |

—

the panel of judges' meetings in camera take place in the presence of counsel for the prosecution;

| — | policemen armed with assault rifles stand facing the public and the accused in the courtroom, and there are policemen armed with pistols in the public gallery; |
| --- | --- |

—

policemen armed with assault rifles stand facing the public and the accused in the courtroom, and there are policemen armed with pistols in the public gallery;

| — | the trial is not open to the public, but admission is allowed or refused at the discretion of the officials in charge of the heavily manned police cordons posted at the entrances to the court. Finally, at the end of both the first and the second sessions, the court refused to allow the accused to be released, even though the fact that a new trial is being held constitutes an admission that the 1994 trial was unfair. |
| --- | --- |

—

the trial is not open to the public, but admission is allowed or refused at the discretion of the officials in charge of the heavily manned police cordons posted at the entrances to the court. Finally, at the end of both the first and the second sessions, the court refused to allow the accused to be released, even though the fact that a new trial is being held constitutes an admission that the 1994 trial was unfair.

In view of the foregoing would the Commission provide an assessment of these facts, which the Community institutions represented at the trial can corroborate? Does the Commission agree that it should draw the Turkish Government's attention very firmly to the fact that the conduct of this trial is inimical to any prospect of Turkey entering the European Union?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(5 June 2003)

The Commission is closely monitoring the proceedings in the retrial of the Sadak, Zana, Dicle and Dogan case. Commission staff have attended the two sessions held so far in Ankara's State Security Court n.1.

The Commission takes note of the concerns expressed by the Honourable Member regarding the procedures and alleged shortcomings of this case. The Commission is aware that a number of these concerns relate to aspects of judicial proceedings that appear to be common to all trials carried out under State Security Courts in Turkey.

In its recently revised Accession Partnership with Turkey, the European Union stressed the need for Turkey to strengthen the independence and efficiency of the judiciary and called for the alignment of the functioning of State Security Courts with European standards.

The Commission will continue to monitor this case in the light of the above mentioned requirements and will make its overall assessment of the proceedings in due time. The Commission will raise this case with the Turkish authorities in the context of its regular dialogue with Turkey.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/381 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/381

---

(2004/C 78 E/0403)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1668/03

by Charles Tannock (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(19 May 2003)

Subject:   Human rights abuses in the Western Sahara

What steps is the Commission taking to implement Article 2 of the Association Agreement between the EC and the Kingdom of Morocco in the light of the alleged human rights violations against the people of the Western Sahara and the disbanding of the Saharawi Human Rights non-governmental organisation Forum for Truth and Justice: Sahara Section?

Will the Commission raise the case of Ali Salem Tamek, an Amnesty International prisoner of conscience, sentenced to two years imprisonment based on confessions which Amnesty International believe were extracted under torture?

Will the European Commission Delegation in Rabat send observers to the trials of human rights activists from the Western Sahara?

Finally, what effect does this unresolved conflict on Morocco's economic and social development, and what efforts have been made by the Commission in assisting the Moroccan government to resolve this longstanding dispute to the benefit of the peoples of Morocco and the Western Sahara?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(16 June 2003)

Respect for human rights is a fundamental concern of the Union in its relations with all third countries. Article 2 of the association agreements provides the Union with the basis for developing productive dialogue and co-operation with the Mediterranean partners in the areas of human rights and fundamental freedoms and the rule of law.

In order to structure this dialogue, on 22 May 2003 the Commission issued a Communication aimed at reinvigorating Union actions on human rights and democratisation with the Mediterranean partners (1), on the basis, among others, of the existing Euro-Med Association Agreements.

This Communication outlines guidelines for the best use of the instruments that are at the disposal of the Union and its Mediterranean partners to effectively implement their common goal of the promotion of democratisation and the promotion and protection of universal human rights and fundamental freedoms. It proposes 10 concrete recommendations to improve the dialogue between the Union and its Mediterranean partners, as well as Community's financial co-operation on human rights issues. Its implementation will be enhanced by three levels of complementarity: between the political dialogue and financial assistance, between the MEDA programme and assistance under the European Initiative for Democracy and Human Rights (EIDHR), and finally between the national and regional dimensions.

The Communication should provide a concrete platform to engage the Mediterranean partners, such as Morocco, on a continuous and substantial dialogue on all the questions of human rights and democratisation including, if appropriate, those dealing with specific cases.

In this respect the Commission would like to reassure the Honourable Member that it is following the specific cases mentioned in his written question. The humanitarian and human rights aspects of the Western Sahara conflict are a continuous and long-standing concern of the Commission and contacts have been established with all parties in the region on this issue.

Clearly the unresolved conflict of Western Sahara places considerable demands on Morocco's human and financial resources that could otherwise be used for different purposes. In addition, it effects the Moroccan political position (whose main objective is the safeguard of what they claim to be their territorial integrity) as well as on the economic policies (the process of regional integration is the major victim).

Finally, the Commission fully supports the efforts deployed by the Secretary General of the United Nations in order to find a mutually acceptable solution for the parties involved in the conflict of Western Sahara.

---

(1)  COM(2003) 294 final.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/382 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/382

---

(2004/C 78 E/0404)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1669/03

by Jean Lambert (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(19 May 2003)

Subject:   Baku-Ceyhun oil pipeline

The Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan (BTC) oil pipeline is a proposed pipeline that would span 1 760 kilometres from the Azerbaijan capital of Baku to the Mediterranean city of Ceyhan, Turkey. A gas pipeline also is planned to follow the same route. British Petroleum (BP) is the lead sponsor; there are nine other participants in the consortium. The BTC consortium is seeking the political and financial support of their countries' export credit agencies, the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development and the International Finance Corporation of the World Bank Group.

A HGA Agreement has been signed by the consortium with the Turkish government which is extremely far-reaching, effectively prohibiting the Turkish government from introducing any laws which might undermine the economic success of the project (e.g. laws to protect the environment or for social goals).

The Agreement also paves the way for the consortium building the pipeline to demand unlimited protection from Turkish security forces, without safeguards against human rights abuses. Under the vague wording of the agreement, paramilitary units could be placed along the pipeline route to pre-empt ‘civil disturbance’ or ‘terrorist’ activities. The record of the Turkish military on human rights — particularly in the Kurdish areas — gives serious cause for concern.

How does the Commission view these security commitments being demanded from the Turkish government, especially given this is an area of Turkey where human rights abuses on the part of the Turkish authorities have been common?

Does the Commission believe that this agreement is likely to call into question the accession conditions laid down in the Copenhagen criteria for democracy, human rights and respect for and protection of minorities?

Does the Commission believe, furthermore, that this excessive interference by corporate bodies in the freedom of action of a sovereign state may result in actions contrary to EU standards on protection of the environment?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(23 June 2003)

The Commission is aware of the proposed construction of the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan (BTC) oil pipeline and of the related Host Government Agreement, signed by the consortium with the Turkish Government. The Commission has received various reports about potentially far reaching effects, and its implications for the environment and for the public.

Any negative development arising from the implementation agreement referred to by the Honourable Member will have to be seen in the light of the Copenhagen criteria for accession, including the political criteria concerning human rights and the protection of minorities.

The Commission will continue to monitor the implementation of this project in respect of accession conditions laid down in the Copenhagen criteria.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/383 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/383

---

(2004/C 78 E/0405)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1689/03

by Anders Wijkman (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(21 May 2003)

Subject:   Bushmeat

The Commission is currently developing a Strategy for Forest Development Co-operation. The Strategy could become a model of best practice for the conservation of the world's forests.

However, the draft strategy does not deal specifically with the very serious issue of the (illegal) use of bushmeat, which is one of the main threats to the survival of many species and which is often directly connected to the development of forest resources.

Is the Commission willing to address the bushmeat issue in the final draft of its Strategy for Forest Development Cooperation and, if not, is the Commission willing to develop a special strategy to help solve the bushmeat problem?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(18 June 2003)

The Commission's draft strategy for forest development co-operation sets out broad parameters for aid interventions in the forest sector. The wide scope of this document makes it an unsuitable platform for detailed policy on many pressing issues in the forest sector. That said, the latest draft of the strategy does note bushmeat as a matter of concern in the forest sector in a number of our partner countries.

The Commission does not intend to augment the draft forest sector strategy with a specific strategy to address the bushmeat problem. That does not mean bushmeat will not continue to be treated as a matter of great importance. Addressing the bushmeat problem is a matter to which considerable resources are already devoted — both through field-level technical co-operation, and in high-level political fora.

Bushmeat issues will be integrated in the manual for ‘Integrating environment concerns into development and economic cooperation’, which is to be reviewed at the end of 2003 — beginning of 2004. In particular, the revised manual will ensure that proper attention is given to bushmeat issues in Strategic Environmental Assessments.

At a political level, Commission support to the African Ministerial Process for Forest Law Enforcement and Governance (AFLEG) is helping to address problems of law enforcement and governance in the forest sector, including issues concerning bushmeat. In the field, technical support to address the bushmeat problem is being provided through a number of Commission-funded initiatives. These initiatives have been supported with funds disbursed through the Tropical Forest Budget Line and regional and national programmes of assistance.

Efforts are also being directed at limiting the trade in illegal bush meat to the Union. For example, a Commission Decision has recently introduced new rules that prevent the personal import of all meat and milk from third countries into the Union. This removes previous derogations that allowed the importation of small consignments of meat and milk for personal use. The introduction of the new rules on personal imports is being supported by a poster campaign in a wide range of languages. The posters are on display at points of entry into the Union to ensure that travellers are made aware of the new rules.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/384 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/384

---

(2004/C 78 E/0406)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1739/03

by Salvador Garriga Polledo (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(26 May 2003)

Subject:   European Union unit to work for the release of kidnapped European tourists

The frequent cases of European tourists being kidnapped in third countries which they are visiting for their historical, cultural and other attractions have highlighted the need for the European Union to have a permanent team of negotiators and mediators to intercede with the relevant national authorities to secure the release of Community nationals who have fallen victim to these inhuman practices at the hands of local terrorists.

In this way, Community negotiators could keep the families of victims better informed than is currently the case with local authorities, which are seeking to cover up the failure of their own efforts.

Will the Commission propose to Member States that permanent Community negotiating teams be set up to secure the release of European tourists who have been kidnapped in third countries for internal political reasons which have nothing to do with them?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(24 June 2003)

Protection of Union citizens is enshrined in article 20 of the EC Treaty, and includes the protection of any Union citizen by diplomatic or consular authorities of any Member State in the territory of a third country in which the Member State of which he is a national is not represented. Under article 20 of the EC Treaty this responsibility relates also to Commission missions.

Within the limits of these provisions, the Commission has in the past cooperated closely with the Member State authorities to resolve situations of crisis or kidnapping of Union citizens. This cooperation has been carried out both in Brussels as well as through the Commission's External Service. However, given that under Article 20 of the EC Treaty consular protection first and foremost remains a responsibility of the Member States, it is currently not planned to set up any specialised Community facility.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/385 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/385

---

(2004/C 78 E/0407)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1763/03

by Torben Lund (PSE) to the Commission

(28 May 2003)

Subject:   Legislation in the EU, the Member States and the applicant countries concerning horse-keeping

In recent years, there have been many examples of cruelty to animals. In some cases, there are no laws to safeguard animal welfare and, in other cases, the laws are not observed. The outcome in all too many cases is gross maltreatment. Unfortunately, the same applies to horses and ponies which are maltreated and often subjected to gross cruelty during rearing, selling and transport.

Will the Commission therefore say what welfare rules apply to horse-keeping in the EU, the Member States and the applicant countries? Does the Commission know of any studies on the welfare of horses and ponies in the EU, the Member States and the applicant countries? What new initiatives does the Commission intend to take to secure the welfare of horses and ponies?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(4 August 2003)

Council Directive 98/58/EC of 20 July 1998 (1) lays down minimum standards for the protection of animals, including equidae, bred or kept for farming purposes. However, Article 1 of the Directive excludes animals intended for use in competitions, shows, cultural or sporting events or activities from its scope. In addition, Council Directive 90/426/EEC of 26 June 1990 (2) details the animal health conditions governing the movement and import from third countries of equidae. Commercial transport of equidae for distances of over 50 kilometres is governed by Council Directive 91/628/EEC of 19 November 1991 concerning the protection of animals during transport (3) as amended by Council Directive 95/29/EC of 29 June 1995 amending Directive 90/628/EEC (4).

Member States may also apply additional national legislative measures concerning animal welfare. The Community ‘acquis’ regarding welfare of equidae will apply from date of accession to the acceding States as agreed in the Accession Treaty. The Commission is intensively monitoring the transposition of the Community legislation and its implementation in the Acceding Countries.

In relation to scientific research the European Commission has supported various animal welfare projects under current and previous Framework Research Programmes. Scientific advice has also been provided by the Scientific Committee on Animal Health and Animal Welfare. The Committee's recent report on the Welfare of Animals during Transport considered in detail the transport of equidae and included a detailed bibliography.

Scientific advice provides a sound basis for the drafting of legislative and policy proposals and the forthcoming legislative proposal on the protection of animals during transport, including horses, is only one example of a Commission initiative aimed at safeguarding the welfare of equidae.

---

(1)  OJ L 221, 8.8.1998.

(2)  OJ L 224, 18.8.1990.

(3)  OJ L 340, 11.12.1991.

(4)  OJ L 148, 30.6.1995.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/386 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/386

---

(2004/C 78 E/0408)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1777/03

by Claude Moraes (PSE) to the Commission

(28 May 2003)

Subject:   Veria Justice and Home Affairs Council

What progress was made at the Veria Justice and Home Affairs Council on implementing the Green Paper on minimum procedural safeguards for defendants and suspects in criminal proceedings adopted by the Commission on 19 February 2003?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(3 July 2003)

The informal Justice and Home Affairs Ministers' Meeting in Veria on 28 March 2003, was in part devoted to a discussion on the Green Paper on procedural safeguards for suspects and defendants in criminal proceedings throughout the Union (1). This meeting was intended as a first exchange of views, and was useful insofar as it provided the Commission with an indication of the views of the Member States on this issue.

At the meeting, the Commission presented the Green Paper and stressed the importance of safeguarding citizens' freedoms. During the course of a round table discussion, that ensued, Member States set out their preliminary thoughts on the procedural safeguards initiative.

The Veria discussion represents an early stage in the course of the Green Paper. A public hearing on the subject was on 16 June 2003. Over 50 replies have been received to the Green Paper and these will be taken into account. The Commission, after those wide consultations with experts and interested parties, intends to present a proposal for a Framework Decision on this subject in October 2003, in line with its annual work programme for 2003.

---

(1)  COM(2003) 0075 final.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/386 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/386

---

(2004/C 78 E/0409)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1827/03

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(2 June 2003)

Subject:   Reduced VAT on the rent or purchase of video cassettes and DVDs

Video cassette and DVD purchases have greatly stimulated the dissemination of culture, benefiting in particular the European film industry, since high-quality reproduction can be obtained from equipment which is reliable, easy to use and inexpensive.

The vitality of this sector is reflected by a 20 % increase in demand for rent or purchase in 2002 compared with the previous year. Despite the high level of demand for cultural products of this nature, further expansion is being hampered by high VAT rates with no reductions as is the case with cinema entrance tickets and pay television, for example.

Does the Commission intend to extend Annex H of the sixth VAT directive (Directive 77/388/EEC (1), as amended by Directive 2001/4/EC (2)), removing or reducing VAT on video cassette and DVD-related goods and services so as to support the European film industry?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(9 July 2003)

Under the Sixth VAT Directive (3) as it stands, all Member States must apply the standard rate to rentals and purchases of video cassettes and DVDs. This ensures that taxes on these products are to some degree harmonised throughout the Community (though the standard rate varies between Member States from 15 % to 25 %). Reduced rates are optional for Member States and introducing this option for video cassettes and DVDs would only increase the differences in rates applied across the Community.

The Commission intends to present a proposal for a Directive on reduced VAT rates before the summer of 2004. The primary purpose of the proposal will be to improve the functioning of the single market by rationalising the way Member States use reduced rates. The aim is to avoid potential distortions in competition by giving all Member States the same opportunity to apply reduced rates.

In the lead-up to the forthcoming revision of reduced rates, the case for extending their scope will be carefully examined.

---

(1)  OJ L 145, 13.6.1977, p. 1.

(2)  OJ L 22, 24.1.2001, p. 17.

(3)  Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes, OJ L 145, 13.6.1977, as last amended by Council Directive 2002/92/EC of 3 December 2002, OJ L 331, 7.12.2002.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/387 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/387

---

(2004/C 78 E/0410)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1832/03

by Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(2 June 2003)

Subject:   Substandard workmanship in Greece

From the Commission's answer to my Question (E-0807/03) (1) I gather that the problem of substandard workmanship in Greece continues to exist and that it is not always clear what steps have been taken by the authorities in response to this.

Since 31 May 2003 is the final date for settlement of amounts due under the second CSF, can the Commission indicate its general position regarding the problem of substandard workmanship affecting projects receiving funding under the second CSF in Greece and say what measures it will take to resolve the matter under the relevant European Union rules?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(5 August 2003)

The Commission refers the Honourable Member to its reply to his previous question E-0807/03 (2).

In addition at the appropriate moment in time, a closure proposal will be made to the Greek authorities on the basis of the information made available by these authorities to the Commission services. It should be noted that the date of 31 May 2003 refers to the deadline to be respected as a general rule. The experience from the closure procedure for the majority of programmes in almost all the Member States has shown that this deadline will be difficult to comply with in view of the quantity and quality of the dossiers submitted by the Member States. The closure proposal for Greece will take account, in due time, of the findings of Espel concerning any sub-standard works, and the extent to which the required remedial works are certified by the Greek authorities as having been subsequently carried out.

---

(1)  OJ C 11 E, 15.1.2004, p. 122.

(2)  OJ C 11 E, 15.1.2004, p. 122.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/388 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/388

---

(2004/C 78 E/0411)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1838/03

by Roger Helmer (PPE-DE), Charles Tannock (PPE-DE), Sir Robert Atkins (PPE-DE), Giles Chichester (PPE-DE), Hartmut Nassauer (PPE-DE) and Jules Maaten (ELDR) to the Commission

(3 June 2003)

Subject:   Free Trade Agreement between Singapore and the EU

Does the Commission recognise the substantial mutual benefits that could result from an Free Trade Agreement between the EU and Singapore? Does the Commission share our concern that Singapore either has, or is negotiating, FTAs with surrounding countries including Japan, China and India, and that the EU may therefore be disadvantaged in dealing with Singapore unless we too have an FTA? Does the Commission agree that Singapore's status as a country with tiny agricultural production makes it a particularly straightforward country with which to negotiate an FTA?

We understand that tentative offers of an FTA from the EU to Singapore have been linked to rather specific conditions, for example that the FTA should apply to at least two countries from ASEAN, Singapore and at least one other. Would the Commission not agree that, given the benefits to the EU, we should seek to make the offer as easy as possible for Singapore to accept? Would the Commission agree that the wide variations in economic and political development between ASEAN countries might make the ‘Two Countries’ criterion very difficult for Singapore to fulfil, and might prove an unnecessary and counter-productive barrier to an FTA?

Answer given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(24 June 2003)

The priority for Union attention and resources remains the multilateral negotiations in the World Trade Organisation (WTO) under the Doha Development Agenda.

The Commission, nevertheless, follows closely and with interest the development of various regional economic integration initiatives currently taking place within East Asia, including the Free Trade Area (FTA) negotiations which Singapore has already concluded with Japan, New Zealand, the European Free Trade Association (EFTA), Australia, and the United States, and is currently pursuing with India, Canada, and Mexico.

Singapore has also made a proposal to enter into negotiations on a FTA with the Union. Singapore, as a trading nation with a very small domestic market, is widely recognised to be one of the most open economies in the world, with very few existing barriers to trade. Negotiating any FTA requires substantial resources and effort, which must be justified in terms of the associated political and economic benefits. This would be true even for a country such as Singapore, whose lack of an agricultural sector could be expected to facilitate certain areas of negotiations.

In this instance, in order to have a clearer understanding of the possible benefits to the Union from such an agreement, in terms of specific market access barriers or other regulatory practices in Singapore which are of the greatest importance to European business, the Commission requested several European business organisations to collect information from their members. Until now, neither Singapore nor interested parties in Europe have presented convincing evidence that the Union would draw any substantial benefit from a FTA with Singapore or that an agreement would promote a stronger trade and economic relationship with the other countries of the Association of South-East Asian Nations (ASEAN) or elsewhere in the region. Furthermore, the Union business sector has yet to indicate that there are areas where it feels that Singapore's bilateral FTAs have placed it at a disadvantage.

At this time, the Commission has not made any proposal — tentative or otherwise — of a FTA to Singapore, nor has it stated any specific conditions or preconditions for a potential future FTA. The Commission is developing other avenues besides a Free Trade Agreement to enhance or trade and investment relations with ASEAN as a whole, by developing more effective co-operation on regulatory issues.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/389 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/389

---

(2004/C 78 E/0412)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1839/03

by Ilka Schröder (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(26 May 2003)

Subject:   EU relations with Syria and association agreement

Given that the EU is Syria's most important trading partner and that EU-Syria negotiations on the conclusion of an association agreement, most recently in March 2003, are making further headway, how does the Commission view the possible successful conclusion of such an agreement in view of Syria's provision of infrastructure support for the PFLP-GC, PFLP, Hamas and Islamic Jihad organisations? Is the Commission's policy to be taken as a statement opposing the European Council's list of terrorist organisations, which includes the organisations referred to? During the negotiations, has Syria's support for those organisations and for Hizbollah in Lebanon been raised? Given the Syrian President's restatement, as recently as this month, of continued support for Hizbollah, does the Commission view continued support and encouragement of organisations whose policy is to murder Israeli civilians as a reason for the conclusion of an association agreement not to go ahead? Is the Commission considering inducing Syria to end its support for those organisations? How does the Commission view the continued deployment of Syrian troops in Lebanon and their support for Hizbollah, which is continuing to mount attacks on Israeli territory, though the UN has officially established that, in withdrawing its troops from southern Lebanon in May 2000, Israel has made its contribution towards complying with UN Resolution 425? Against the backdrop of international efforts to renew peace negotiations between Syria and Israel, does the Commission think it helpful for the Syrian President to announce, as he did on 27 March 2003 in the Lebanese newspaper ‘Al-Safir’, that Israel would never be recognised as a state and would constitute a threat to Syria for as long as it existed and that, as he said in May 2001, the Jews were to blame for Jesus' crucifixion? How does the Commission view the continued circulation of inflammatory anti-Semitic material by members of the Syrian Government, e.g. by Mustafa Tlass, Minister of Defence and Deputy Prime Minister for many years, whose book ‘The Matzah of Zion’ containing the claim that Jews bake matzah from Christians' blood, is now in its eighth print run?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(19 June 2003)

The Commission is acting under directives from the Council of Ministers to negotiate an Association Agreement with Syria. Negotiations are still ongoing and it is too early to judge the prospects for the successful conclusion of the negotiations. The Association Agreement, such as foreseen in the Council's negotiating directives, will cover a wide range of issues. For the political dialogue issues and the principles guiding the Association, negotations are followed by the Member States and these are consulted regularly in the relevant Council working group. As for all mixed agreements, once negotiations have been concluded, the full text will be submitted to the Council and to the Parliament for ratification.

The Council's negotiating directives were extended in 2001 to include provisions on cooperation on counter-terrorism. In the course of negotiations on the text of this article, the Commission has expressed to Syrian authorities its position against terrorism and has condemned all attacks on civilians.

The Euro-Mediterranean Association Agreements do not include positions or statements on individual political conflicts or issues, but contain provisions for long-term stable relationships based on a number of basic and general principles.

More generally, the Union has encouraged Syria to take an active part in relaunching the Middle East Peace Process in the framework of the road map prepared by the Quartet. A natural part of such a step is for Syria to cease links with organisations that do not accept Israel's right to exist, in particular those listed as terrorist organisations by the Council. In this context, we welcome the recent closure of the offices of rejectionist Palestinian organisations in Syria. In line with the road map's point on this, the Member fo the Commission in charge of External Relations also raised the issue of stopping Arab countries' support to terrorist organisations during the Euro-Mediterranean Mid-Term Meeting of Foreign Minister's on Crete on 26/27 May 2003.

The road map clearly refers to the need to relaunch the Lebanese and Syrian tracks and it mentions the Saudi peace initiative recognising Israel's right to exist within the 1967 borders. Syria accepted this by voting in favour of the Beirut Declaration of the Arab League in 2002. This recognition is further confirmed by the apparent resumption of contacts between Syria and Israel.

Regarding the presence of Syrian troops in Lebanon, these were invited by Christian factions at the start of the civil war in 1976. The 1989 Ta'if Agreement, which ended the civil war, provided for initial redeployment of the Syrian troops from Lebanese cities to the Beka'a valley. The timetable for their final withdrawal was to be agreed between the Syrian and Lebanese governments. Lebanon has not yet requested this. Since the Israeli withdrawal from Southern Lebanon, calls in Lebanon for Syrian withdrawal have become more vocal, and a partial Syrian retreat has taken place in the last two years.

The Commission deplores any publication of anti-Semitic literature. It may be noted that under the future Association Agreement's human rights clause, the EU will be in a stronger position to raise issues of this kind with Syria.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/390 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/390

---

(2004/C 78 E/0413)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1854/03

by Stavros Xarchakos (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(3 June 2003)

Subject:   Landslides in Greece and infrastructural damage

In my Written Question E-1141/03 (1) I asked the Commission whether landslides in Greece (causing unprecedented damage in many cases to infrastructures which had been completed only a few months previously) were linked to geological upheavals which could be caused by intense seismic activity affecting Greece as a whole.

The reply by Commissioner Barnier was not entirely satisfactory since he referred me to replies from his colleagues, omitting any mention of my query regarding the connection between landslides and seismic activity in Greece. Can the Commission reply to this question and say whether it has carried out surveys of seismic activity in the south-east Mediterranean containing forecasts or conclusions regarding the possible future intensification of this phenomenon?

Answer given by Mr Busquin on behalf of the Commission

(23 July 2003)

It is well known that certain landslides in Greece like the Malakassa slide in 1995 provoked the disruption of road and railway links between Athens and Northern Greece for about four days. The risk of landslides as a research issue was recognised in the 4th and 5th Community Research and Technological Development (RTD) Framework Programmes and led to the funding of research projects under the theme ‘natural hazards’. The Sixth framework Programme foresees the continuation of funding research on landslides under the priority ‘Global Change and Ecosystems’. Landslide research focuses on risk assessment and mitigation with the aim of evaluating strategies for disaster reduction, while integrating the social and economic impacts of disasters. One of the main aims of the Community funded research projects is the study of the mechanisms provoking landslides; another objective is the monitoring of landslides using remote sensing techniques and comparing them with infield information; there are also ongoing geotechnical investigations which study the subsidence problems.

In this context, the Community funded project ‘Segrodi’, which studied displacements of slopes caused by earthquakes, is worth mentioning. It seems that important earthquakes can also cause slope slides. However, for the time being, there is no clear evidence of any forecast capability regarding the intensification of the links between landslides and earthquakes in Greece.

At present, there are some relevant studies being supported under the Environment Programme of the 5th RTD Framework Programme, the results of which are foreseen to be presented at the next Euro Mediterranean Disaster Information Network (EURO-MEDIN) Forum which is expected to be held around the end of 2004.

---

(1)  See page 360.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/391 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/391

---

(2004/C 78 E/0414)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1869/03

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(6 June 2003)

Subject:   Pension losses

Is the Commission able to estimate the number of contributors to funded pension schemes who have been adversely affected by employer decisions either to terminate such schemes entirely, or to fail to make up the necessary level of contributions to assure defined benefits? Does the Commission believe that additional measures to safeguard pension provision are necessary, and does the extension of the single market mean that these should be at European level?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(15 July 2003)

As this is a matter that falls within the responsibilities of the Member States and the two sides of industry, the Commission does not have estimates of the number of contributors to funded pension schemes who have been adversely affected by employer decisions either to terminate such schemes entirely, or to fail to make up the necessary level of contributions to assure defined benefits. Such data is also likely to be difficult to obtain at the national level.

The Union has no powers that would allow it to restrict the freedom of employers and workers to change occupational pension arrangements. Community legislation only requires Member States: ‘to ensure that the necessary measures are taken to protect the interests of employees and of persons having already left the employer's undertaking or business at the date of the onset of the employer's insolvency in respect of rights conferring on them immediate or prospective entitlement to old-age benefits, including survivors’ benefits, under supplementary company or inter-company pension schemes outside the national statutory social security schemes.' (Article 8 of Council Directive 80/987/EEC of 20 October 1980 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer (1)). This does not prevent employers and workers to renegotiate pension entitlements and their accrual.

As to the recently adopted Council Directive 2003/41/EC of 3 June 2003 on the activities and supervision of institutions for occupational retirement provision (2), it requires institutions to have sufficient and appropriate assets to cover their technical provisions. The minimum amount of technical provisions must be sufficient both for pensions and benefits already in payments and to reflect the commitments which arise out of members' accrued pension rights. The Directive, nevertheless, authorises Member States to allow institutions to operate with some underfunding provided they adopt a concrete and reasonable recovery plan to return to a level of full funding.

Member States will have 24 months after the publication in the Official Journal to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive.

---

(1)  OJ L 283, 28.10.1980.

(2)  OJ L 235, 23.9.2003.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/392 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/392

---

(2004/C 78 E/0415)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1873/03

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(6 June 2003)

Subject:   Listing requirements

Has the Commission made any proposal, or does it intend to make any proposal, that will limit the ability of Member States to legislate for higher corporate governance or transparency requirements than in EU directives and regulations if companies are to be listed on exchanges in their territory? Similarly, does the Commission propose or intend to propose any measure that would circumscribe the listing requirements to be imposed on companies from third countries?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(7 July 2003)

The question raised by the Honourable Member is very similar to the one he already raised as Written Question P-2561/02 (1).

The reply given by the Commission to that previous question is also fully applicable to the present one. In addition, the Commission wishes to make the following remarks:

As regards corporate governance, the Communication on Company Law and Corporate Governance adopted by the Commission on 21 May 2003 (2) outlines the approach that the Commission intends to follow in these areas. It includes an Action Plan, prioritised over the short, medium and long term, without pre-empting the approach that will be applied — as a result of the consultation opened until 31 August 2003 — to each initiative announced, this Action Plan concerns directly only European companies.

As regards transparency requirements, the Commission assumes that the Honourable Member refers to the recent Commission proposal for a Directive on the harmonisation of transparency requirements with regard to information about issuers whose securities admitted to trading on a regulated market in Member States (3). This proposal covers requirements in relation to the disclosure of periodic and ongoing information about such issuers. It would allow the issuer's home Member State to impose more stringent requirements in this respect, but not the host Member State. With regard to the majority of the bond markets, and with regard to third country issuers of shares or bonds, the home Member State would be the one where the company's bonds are admitted to trading on a regulated market. For the remaining, the home Member State will be the one where the issuer has its registered office, in practice very often the one where the issuer's securities are also admitted to trading on a regulated market. The proposal is currently discussed in the Parliament and in the Council.

---

(1)  OJ C 222 E, 18.9.2003, p. 10.

(2)  COM(2003) 284 final.

(3)  COM(2003) 138 final.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/393 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/393

---

(2004/C 78 E/0416)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1882/03

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(6 June 2003)

Subject:   Trade impact of euro

Will the Commission state the proportion of GDP of each Member State traded with euro and non-euro EU Member States in each year for the last five years? Will it give the figures using trade in goods, trade in services and trade in goods and services? Will it further as a memo item give the figure for investment income broken down in the same way?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(17 July 2003)

Table 1 (a, b) presents each Member State's share of total imports and exports of goods as a percentage of gross domestic product (GDP); this is sent direct to the Honourable Member and to the Parliament's Secretariat. In particular, figures for each individual Member State distinguish between trade with eurozone, and trade with non-eurozone Member States respectively. Note that this trade data has been obtained from Trade Statistics of New Cronos (Eurostat), where imports are calculated using c.i.f. (cost, insurance & freight) values, i.e. figures are inclusive of transport and insurance costs.

Balance of payments statistics are the only sources available for trade in services and income investment figures, and are an alternative source for trade in goods. For goods and services, as stated in the reply by the Commission to the Honourable Member's written questions E-2464/02 (1), E-2465/02 (2) and E-1349/03 (3), the data provided by Member States to the Commission (Eurostat) to compile the Balance of Payments of the Union are based on a different methodology (principle of consignment) from that used by Member States for compiling and publishing their national Balance of Payments (principle of origin). In response to question E-1349/03, the Commission provided information on exports and imports of services between each Member State and the EU15, including bilateral details for those countries for which this information was available. EU15 aggregates are reproduced here in table 2 (a-d), sent direct to the Honourable Member and to the Parliament's Secretariat. Regarding investment income, due to the difficulties faced by Member States to correctly identify the residency of the holder of the securities, it may not be possible to compile the corresponding payments providing a geographical breakdown (4).

The European Central Bank (ECB) is responsible for producing and publishing aggregated balance of payments figures for the eurozone. Euro area Member States transmit data on the contributions of the euro area balance of payments to the ECB [i.e. extra euro area flows, as regards goods, services and investment income], under the agreement that only the euro area aggregate would be made available to the public. Indeed, these are the only meaningful figures for policy purposes. Methodological differences do not allow us to produce eurozone (and EU non-eurozone) aggregates comparable to ECB aggregates.

As regards trade plus services data, information from tables 1 and 2 cannot be added because table 1 includes c.i.f. data, and therefore addition would imply double counting of those costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 28 E, 6.2.2003.

(2)  OJ C 28 E, 6.2.2003.

(3)  OJ C 268 E, 7.11.2003, p. 188.

(4)  For further details see ECB Monthly Bulletin — euro area statistics, Methodological Notes, Chapter 8, page 4, http://www.ecb.int/stats/mb/ecb_bull_8note.pdf

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/394 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/394

---

(2004/C 78 E/0417)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1979/03

by Ian Hudghton (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(10 June 2003)

Subject:   Synthetic progestins in contraceptive pills and Hormone Replacement Therapy

There is growing concern amongst users of oral contraceptives and HRT treatments which contain synthetic progestins following reports on possible links between synthetic progestins and breast cancer, as well as other health risks. Synthetic progestins are known to lead to oestrogen dominance which is, in turn, linked with breast cancer.

Can the Commission indicate what research is being undertaken to establish whether women are at risk from synthetic progestins; what guidance is being given to medical practitioners about using products containing synthetic progestins while the safety of these products is in doubt; and what public information is being provided to EU citizens to enable them to make informed choices about pharmaceutical products containing synthetic progestins?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(2 July 2003)

The Commission is aware of the concern amongst users of combined oral contraceptives (COCs) and Hormone Replacement Therapy (HRT).

The European Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal Products (EMEA) Committee for Proprietary Medicinal Products (CPMP) on 28 September 2001 adopted a Public Assessment Report on ‘Combined oral contraceptives and venous thromboembolism’ and a Position statement after its assessment of ‘third generation combined contraceptives containing the progestins desogestrel or gestodene and the risk of venous thromboembolism.’

In this report the CPMP considers that the Summaries of Products Characteristics (SPC) (i.e. the scientific documentation related to the products) and the User Package Leaflets should reflect the precautions for use of these products and should be communicated to the prescribers of COCs as well as the women in need of contraceptive therapy.

Last December 2002 the Member States medicine authorities adopted a core SPC for HRT with information on the risk of cardiovascular disease and cancer.

On the other hand in order to assess the raised pharmacovigilance signals on venous thromboembolism, COCs and HRT are involved in a specific study and review at the Pharmacovigilance working group of the CPMP. There is not yet a definitive scientific position as the evaluation is going on.

In addition, the Commission is financing the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and nutrition (EPIC). This study might also contribute to unravelling an increased or decreased, but so far unknown, relative risk for breast cancer linked to COC and/or HRT.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/395 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/395

---

(2004/C 78 E/0418)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2121/03

by Isabelle Caullery (UEN) to the Commission

(25 June 2003)

Subject:   Developing infrastructure and promoting employment in Madagascar

Can the Commission inform us of the various types of aid, measures, programmes and/or budget lines that can be used for development measures in Madagascar, particularly:

| 1. | in the renewable energy sector (including wind energy), in a country which depends essentially on hydrocarbon imports; |
| --- | --- |

1.

in the renewable energy sector (including wind energy), in a country which depends essentially on hydrocarbon imports;

| 2. | for promoting reafforestation (given that the country has seen 65 % of its forests disappear); |
| --- | --- |

2.

for promoting reafforestation (given that the country has seen 65 % of its forests disappear);

| 3. | for building rural villages, using bricks as the raw material, an activity which creates a great many jobs and whose objective is to establish populations in their place of origin in the best possible conditions; |
| --- | --- |

3.

for building rural villages, using bricks as the raw material, an activity which creates a great many jobs and whose objective is to establish populations in their place of origin in the best possible conditions;

| 4. | for building tourist villages or complexes which could generate employment and steady incomes for local populations? |
| --- | --- |

4.

for building tourist villages or complexes which could generate employment and steady incomes for local populations?

Can the EDF (European Development Fund) be called upon to contribute to such projects, and in accordance with which procedures?

Can the Commission also tell us what facilities are offered by the EIB to promote all or some of these projects?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(4 August 2003)

The Community has allocated, in the framework of the 9th European Development Fund (EDF), development aid to Madagascar for a total amount of EUR 327 million for the period 2002-2007. Main sectors of intervention, agreed with the Madagascar Government, are transport, rural development and food security, macro-economic support and good governance, with particular attention to actions aimed at strengthening civil society by developing representation and legitimacy.

EDF development aid is complemented by yearly contributions from the Community budget, particularly for food aid.

| 1. | There is not an explicit policy on promoting renewable energy in the present country co-operation strategy. However in the past, some micro hydro-electrical plants have been financed. Besides, there are not initiatives in this specific sector at national level or promoted by other donors and windmills and solar energy would require substantial investments, which the target group is not able to sustain at this stage. |
| --- | --- |

1.

There is not an explicit policy on promoting renewable energy in the present country co-operation strategy. However in the past, some micro hydro-electrical plants have been financed. Besides, there are not initiatives in this specific sector at national level or promoted by other donors and windmills and solar energy would require substantial investments, which the target group is not able to sustain at this stage.

| 2. | Reforestation is foreseen in the framework of the 9th EDF rural development programme in the context of watershed development interventions. In addition, in the context of the budget line Tropical Forests', community-based management of plantation forests is promoted. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Reforestation is foreseen in the framework of the 9th EDF rural development programme in the context of watershed development interventions. In addition, in the context of the budget line Tropical Forests', community-based management of plantation forests is promoted.

| 3. | Through its micro-projects/decentralised co-operation, the Commission has been funding housing for homeless people. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Through its micro-projects/decentralised co-operation, the Commission has been funding housing for homeless people.

| 4. | The Commission finances an integrated tourist/rural development programme for the Bemahara Park, which includes promoting local capacity of tourist guides and tourist services.
  Regarding employment, its generation is linked to the overall re-activation of the economy, which is supported by all the programmes foreseen by the 9th EDF development aid.
  Concerning EDF programmes and projects, the Madagascar Government presents detailed proposals to the Commission for approval and funding within the above-mentioned sectors agreed as part of the country strategy for the EDF.
  Concerning the European Investment Bank (EIB), Madagascar, as well as other African, Caribbean and Pacific States (ACP), will benefit from the new EUR 2,4 billion Investment facility recently launched. EIB intends to promote, through this instrument, the private sector and to fight poverty in the beneficiary countries. |
| --- | --- |

4.

The Commission finances an integrated tourist/rural development programme for the Bemahara Park, which includes promoting local capacity of tourist guides and tourist services.

Regarding employment, its generation is linked to the overall re-activation of the economy, which is supported by all the programmes foreseen by the 9th EDF development aid.

Concerning EDF programmes and projects, the Madagascar Government presents detailed proposals to the Commission for approval and funding within the above-mentioned sectors agreed as part of the country strategy for the EDF.

Concerning the European Investment Bank (EIB), Madagascar, as well as other African, Caribbean and Pacific States (ACP), will benefit from the new EUR 2,4 billion Investment facility recently launched. EIB intends to promote, through this instrument, the private sector and to fight poverty in the beneficiary countries.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/396 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/396

---

(2004/C 78 E/0419)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2123/03

by Isabelle Caullery (UEN) to the Commission

(25 June 2003)

Subject:   Promotion of renewable energy sources and waste processing in Mauritius

Can the Commission inform us of the various types of aid, measures, programmes and/or budget lines that can be used to promote the development of renewable energy sources, particularly wind energy, in Mauritius? Can the EDF (European Development Fund) be called upon to contribute, and in accordance with which procedures?

Since landfill no longer seems to be a viable long-term solution for Mauritius, can the Commission answer the same questions with regard to encouraging the installation of waste incinerators that produce clean energy?

With regard to both renewable energy sources and waste incinerators, can the EIB's traditional and new instruments be brought into play to promote non-polluting and sustainable development in Mauritius?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(1 August 2003)

Since the 5th European Development Fund (EDF) several programmes have been implemented regarding renewable energy sources for Mauritius and the island countries of the South Indian Ocean region. As part of the Denroi (Développement des énergies renouvelables pour la zone Océan Indien) regional project. A wind energy pilot programme was financed in Mauritius in the late eighties. This pilot project suffered from a lack of ownership and maintenance; ultimately the units were damaged during the cyclone seasons.

The private sector has been hesitant about setting up wind energy farms. It is understood that this is due to exposure of the island to cyclone-force winds during an almost half-year long season.

More successful has been the generation of electricity from thermal plants fuelled by bagasse, a natural by-product of sugar cane. Currently this technology, operated fully by the private sector, is providing around 30 % of energy delivered to the grid and there are plans to replace fossil-fuel powered plants by this mode to account for up to 50 % of the national energy requirements. The European Investment Bank (EIB) is the primary financing partner of these private-sector initiatives.

The Commission financed studies of solid waste management in Mauritius which led to a National Solid Waste Management Plan (NSWMP) with clear strategies in the short, medium and long term. Whilst the short term strategy maintained the usage of dump sites, for the long term strategy the Community-financed study has indeed proposed the construction of a large incinerator (≈ 220 000 tonne/annum) in the western part of the island and a medium one (≈ 74 000 tonne/annum) in the northern part. The study recommended that the incinerators be built on a design, build, finance and operate basis (DBFO) considering on potential revenues from sales of electricity generated by the incinerator plant (estimate of 106 Gigawatt hours (GWh)/year). The World Bank is currently supporting the solid waste sector in Mauritius and additional funding, (via a public expenditure reform loan), may be provided allowing installation of a solid waste incinerator. Within the 9th EDF, the Commission is concentrating its support to the implementation of the Mauritius National Sewerage Programme.

The European Investment Bank (EIB) assigns a high priority to the expansion of its lending for renewable energy projects and other projects supporting an environmentally sustainable development, both inside the Union and in Partner Countries. In the framework of the Cotonou Agreement under which the Bank operates in Mauritius — as under its predecessor the Lomé Convention — the EIB is mandated to support economically, financially, technically and environmentally viable projects in all key sectors of the economy, including renewable energy and waste incineration.

In Mauritius, the EIB has contributed significantly to the diversification of the country's electricity production away from oil-fired generation and towards the use of bagasse — a source of renewable energy the country abounds in — by part-financing the construction of a base-load coal/bagasse fired power station situated in the north of the island. The project was completed on schedule and has started commercial operations in 2000. The Bank would be prepared to look at other viable renewable energy propositions in the future.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/397 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/397

---

(2004/C 78 E/0420)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2143/03

by Gabriele Stauner (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(26 June 2003)

Subject:   Commission contracts with the Planistat Group

According to the information provided on its own website (www.planistat.fr), Planistat Europe SA has contracts with the Commission for a ‘value added statistical information service’ (service d'information statistique à valeur ajoutée) dating back to 1996 and due to run until the end of 2003. Can the Commission say how many contracts have been concluded in this connection and supply me with copies of the texts?

Can the Commission specify for each individual contract what award procedure was used, whether there were tenders from other tenderers, what procedures were used to assess the tenders, and why Planistat won the contracts? Can it supply copies of the supporting documents that provided the justification for the appropriate Eurostat authorising officers to sign the contracts?

Can the Commission produce a complete detailed list of the payments that it has made in connection with these contracts? Can it supply me with copies of Planistat records indicating what income the firm has earned by marketing and selling Eurostat data?

When and how has the Commission examined the truth of the firm's statements on the above subject? Have contracts also been concluded with other firms for the purpose of marketing Eurostat data, and, if applicable, can the Commission send me copies of those contracts?

Does the Commission still think it proper and necessary that the statistics which it compiles as a public institution can be marketed by private firms for profit?

When answering my question, can the Commission pay full heed to Article 197, third paragraph, and Article 287 of the EC Treaty?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(5 September 2003)

The Honourable Member's request to access the documents to which she refers will be treated in accordance with European Parliament and Council Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (1).

Since the contracts in question were concluded with Planistat as part of a ‘value added statistical information service’, it is important to emphasise that they have been or are still the subject of various audits and controls conducted by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF), the Commission's Internal Audit Service and Eurostat's internal auditing capacity. This answer is based therefore on current knowledge of the situation and is given without prejudice to any new facts that the investigations in progress might reveal or to future developments to which they could give rise.

As part of the ‘value added statistical information service’, six contracts were concluded with Planistat between 1996 and 1999 and four framework contracts between 1999 and 2003. In each case, the contract was awarded through competitive tendering.

With regard to the tender issued in 1995, ten bids were submitted for lot 1 (services supplied in connection with the management of Data Shop Luxembourg) and seven for lot 2 (services supplied in connection with the management of Data Shop Brussels and information about the Data Shop network). The contract was awarded to the bid judged to be the economically most advantageous in terms of technical merit and price. In both cases, Planistat's bid had the most technical merit and was also the lowest. The bid received a favourable opinion from the Advisory Committee on Procurements and Contracts (ACPC). In accordance with the tender specifications, the contract was renewed twice for each of the two lots and thus covered a total period of three years.

In 1999 a new tender was issued. Two bids were submitted for lot 1 (services supplied in connection with the management of Data Shop Luxembourg), two for lot 2 (services supplied in connection with the management of Data Shop Brussels), one for lot 3 (services supplied in connection with the management of Data Shop Madrid), and one for lot 4 (support for the Data Shop network). The company accepted for the four lots was Planistat, which had submitted the bid considered to be the most economically advantageous. Since this decision had received an unfavourable opinion from the ACPC, inasmuch as the category of service and the description of the subject of the contract did not correspond to the exact nature of the services and hence made it impossible to attract the interest of bidders who could meet the requirements, a second tender was published in 1999. The new tender notice and the specifications were submitted for the prior approval of the ACPC. The first three lots (Data Shops in Luxembourg, Brussels and Madrid) were amalgamated, and the second lot concerned support. For each lot there was a single bid, which came from Planistat. The bids were accepted on the basis of the quality of services offered and because they were considered economically advantageous. The ACPC delivered a favourable opinion concerning the award of the contract.

With regard to the tender in 2002, a single bid was submitted for each lot (lot 1: services supplied in connection with Data Shop management; lot 2: network support). Although there was only a single bid, the technical and financial analysis and the market assessment indicated that it was acceptable. The main reasons are as follows: appropriate specifications and advertising (a survey conducted prior to the ACPC decision among the companies which had requested the specifications but had not put in a bid showed that the reasons for not replying did not concern the specifications); good-quality technical offers; and an acceptable financial offer compared with the previous contract. The ACPC delivered a favourable opinion concerning the award of the contract.

Concerning the sale of publications (paper and CD-ROM), each publication ordered by the contractor from the Publications Office was systematically invoiced to it. As regards the database extraction service or the sales of files in PDF format, Planistat provided Eurostat, every month from 2000, with the extracts from the sales journal together with the invoices arranged in sequence. The list of payments made in connection with these contracts and the details of the revenue amounts as described in the monthly reports on the contract are being sent direct to the Honourable Member and Parliament's Secretariat.

Lastly, with regard to the dissemination of statistical information and, in particular, possible participation in it by commercial firms, it should be emphasised that, since dissemination is an integral part of the production of Community statistics as defined in Article 2 of Council Regulation (EC) No 322/97 of 17 February 1997 on Community Statistics (2), it falls within a strategy worked out in close coordination with the Member States and especially with national statistical institutes.

The Data Shops thus contribute directly to Eurostat's fulfilment of its public distribution service remit, within the framework of the agreement for the distribution of statistics. They have to supply a suitable answer to any requests submitted to them and are required to provide all Eurostat information on an impartial basis. Agreements on the distribution of statistics have been signed with national statistical institutes in many European countries, and an agreement has been drawn up entrusting a company with the management of the Data Shop in New York.

Licences for the redissemination of data for commercial purposes have been signed with a series of firms specialising in the information market. The distribution of certain data for commercial purposes in connection with the supply of value-added information products is designed to satisfy other considerations: its aim is to serve certain groups of special users who require Eurostat data with added value. These specialised, professional information services are clearly not part of Eurostat's general statistical distribution remit. This approach is consistent with that set out in the Commission's communication ‘eEurope 2002: Creating an EU framework for the exploitation of public sector information’ (3) and with the proposal for a European Parliament and Council Directive on the re-use and commercial exploitation of public sector documents (4).

---

(1)  OJ L 145, 31.5.2001.

(2)  OJ L 52, 22.2.1997.

(3)  COM(2001) 607 final.

(4)  COM(2002) 207 final.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/399 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/399

---

(2004/C 78 E/0421)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2173/03

by Paulo Casaca (PSE) to the Commission

(30 June 2003)

Subject:   Compliance with EU legislation on asbestos

In its reply to Written Question E-1551/03 (1) the Commission stated that it intended to contact the Portuguese authorities with a view to ensuring that appropriate action is taken in order to enforce Community legislation on asbestos — thereby justifying the concern felt by the author of this question.

Would the Commission say when it intends to ‘ensure that the Portuguese authorities] take the necessary measures to enforce the Directive in question’?

Supplementary answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(9 December 2003)

As indicated in its initial reply, the Commission has contacted the Portuguese authorities in order to check the allegations concerning a possible labelling error on items placed on the Portuguese market containing chrysotile asbestos (which was added intentionally).

After conducting an investigation of the sector concerned, the Portuguese authorities have informed the Commission that they have not discovered any asbestos-based items on the Portuguese market which have been wrongly labelled or whose labels infringed the Community provisions in force.

As a result, on the basis of the information in its possession, the Commission cannot at present support the argument that Portuguese items containing chrysotile asbestos have been incorrectly labelled.

---

(1)  See page 37.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/400 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/400

---

(2004/C 78 E/0422)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2211/03

by Claude Moraes (PSE) to the Commission

(2 July 2003)

Subject:   Progress on asylum at Thessaloniki

Will the Commission 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?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(25 July 2003)

The Commission regrets that the deadline (June 2003) for adoption of 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 (1), set out at the Seville European Council (21/22 June 2002), has not been met. Therefore, it welcomes the re-affirmation by the Thessaloniki European Council of its determination to ensure adoption, before the end of 2003, of this legislation. It also warmly welcomes the confirmation of the deadline for adoption before the end of 2003, of a Council Directive on asylum procedures.

The Commission fully shares the urgency expressed by Heads of State and Governments for the Union for finalising the first phase of the establishment of a Common European Asylum System. The Commission will co-operate with the Presidency and the Member States' delegations to ensure that the deadline is met. The Commission also notes that the Council and the Commission have been invited to examine the possibilities to further reinforce asylum procedures with a view to accelerating as much as possible the processing of non-international protection-related applications.

The Commission is pleased with the request to explore all parameters in order to ensure more orderly and managed entry in the Union of persons in need of international protection and to examine ways and means to enhance the protection capacity of regions of origin. A comprehensive report will be brought forward before June 2004 as invited by the European Council. To prepare this report, the Commission will draw on its March 2003 Communication on the common asylum policy and the Agenda for protection (2) and its June 2003 Communication: ‘Towards more accessible, equitable and managed asylum systems’ (3).

The Commission will also bear in mind conclusion No 11 of the conclusions on migration and development adopted by the General Affairs and External Relations Council of 19 May 2003, where it was invited to consider ways to strengthen the reception capacity of developing countries, taking account of both their financial and institutional capacities and of the fact that refugees can put considerable strain on their social and political structures, and to elaborate further on the use of development cooperation in the search of durable solutions for refugees, in voluntary return and reintegration as well as local integration, and to develop concrete proposals on how more aid could be directed towards assisting refugees in the region, while targeting poverty reduction in host communities. In doing so, the Commission will pay particular attention to the implementation of the UNHCR Agenda for Protection adopted in October 2002 with a view to strengthen and modernise international protection and focus on three priorities: access to protection, durable solutions and better responsibility sharing with third countries.

In its various Communications, the Commission has stated that a legal base was needed for the proper implementation of Budget line ‘Co-operation with Third Countries in the area of Migration (B7-667)’. The Commission has brought forward a proposal for a Regulation of the Parliament and the Council to that end which would establish a programme for financial and technical assistance to third countries in the area of migration and asylum (4). The Commission recommends the Parliament examine this proposal as soon as possible.

---

(1)  OJ C 51 E, 26.2.2002.

(2)  COM(2003) 152 final.

(3)  COM(2003) 315 final.

(4)  COM(2003) 355 final.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/401 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/401

---

(2004/C 78 E/0423)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2212/03

by Piia-Noora Kauppi (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(2 July 2003)

Subject:   Increasing EU citizens' opportunities for influence and participation through interactive information technology

During its Presidency, the Greek government has successfully promoted interactive eDemocracy by means of its eVote initiative. 170 000 citizens expressed their views by eVote on how they thought the European Union should develop. One particularly positive feature of this eVote initiative was that the Greek government, current holders of the Presidency, are incorporating feedback from citizens into their everyday business. Citizens' opinions and suggestions will flow directly and immediately to EU-level meetings, negotiations and decision-making.

It would be a pity if the eVote initiative did not continue in one form or another in years to come. Hence my question to the Commission:

Has the Commission considered how the eVote initiative could become a regular way of collecting citizens' opinions on EU issues, thus giving decision-makers direct knowledge of EU citizens' hopes and initiatives?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(1 August 2003)

The eVote initiative of the Greek Presidency reflects a common endeavour to involve citizens in shaping European decisions which impact them, by making full use of new communication technologies. The Commission has actively pursued such involvement, for example, through ‘Your Voice in Europe’ (1) which is a ‘single access point’ for European citizens for consultations, discussions and other participation tools such as Citizen Signpost Service. This portal was developed under the Interactive Policy Making (IPM) initiative and launched on the 16 January 2003, further to the White Paper on Governance (2) and as part of the e-Commission initiative. It also contributes to the implementation of the Commission's ‘General Principles and minimum standards for the consultation of interested parties’ (3).

This ‘one-stop shop’ allows citizens:

| — | to participate in all Commission wide open consultations (including on-line consultations); |
| --- | --- |

—

to participate in all Commission wide open consultations (including on-line consultations);

| — | to participate in on-line debates on the Union, discuss issues directly with Union leaders, and exchange views (chat) with other citizens interested in the same topic; |
| --- | --- |

—

to participate in on-line debates on the Union, discuss issues directly with Union leaders, and exchange views (chat) with other citizens interested in the same topic;

| — | to contact an expert, who can provide advice on all aspects of Union citizens' rights. These networks of experts also indirectly provide the Commission with feedback on citizens' experiences. |
| --- | --- |

—

to contact an expert, who can provide advice on all aspects of Union citizens' rights. These networks of experts also indirectly provide the Commission with feedback on citizens' experiences.

The Parliament has participated in the promotion of the IPM initiative (e.g. during the Euro Info Centres (EIC) General conference 2002 and the European Economic and Social Committee (EESC) — Open Dialogue Conference in November 2002).

The multilingual Futurum (4) website offers various discussion spaces for citizens on the Future of the Union process.

The Commission is also committed to supporting Best Practices in e-democracy. The Commission has organised the 2003 eEurope Awards in eGovernment, where 65 applications representing ‘the best practices of public administrations in Europe’ — amongst which several related to ‘eDemocracy’ including eVote — have been selected for exhibition at the Union's Ministerial Conference eGovernment 2003, held on 7/8 July 2003, in Italy.

---

(1)  http://europa.eu.int/yourvoice/index_en.htm

(2)  OJ C 287, 12.10.2001.

(3)  COM(2002) 704 final.

(4)  http://europa.eu.int/futurum/index_en.htm

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/402 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/402

---

(2004/C 78 E/0424)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2293/03

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(11 July 2003)

Subject:   Discontinuation of cross-border night-trains within the EU, in response to free market pressures, leading to high ticket prices for journeys using the rail networks of other Member States

| 1. | Is the Commission aware that at the end of 2003 the Belgian national rail company NMBS/SNCB is discontinuing its night-train services to foreign destinations in order to save EUR 15 million per year, a move which will seriously restrict the scope for passenger rail transport to the south of France, Germany, Switzerland and Austria? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is the Commission aware that at the end of 2003 the Belgian national rail company NMBS/SNCB is discontinuing its night-train services to foreign destinations in order to save EUR 15 million per year, a move which will seriously restrict the scope for passenger rail transport to the south of France, Germany, Switzerland and Austria?

| 2. | Is the Commission aware, further, that the reason for this decision is that NMBS/SNCB regards the tariffs which it has been required to pay, since the opening-up of the European market, to use other countries' rail networks as too high, a situation at odds with its duty to supply all services other than domestic passenger transport on a strictly commercial basis? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Is the Commission aware, further, that the reason for this decision is that NMBS/SNCB regards the tariffs which it has been required to pay, since the opening-up of the European market, to use other countries' rail networks as too high, a situation at odds with its duty to supply all services other than domestic passenger transport on a strictly commercial basis?

| 3. | Does the Commission recognise the danger that in future in the EU the only night-trains will be domestic services within larger Member States, such as Germany and France, and that cross-border services will continue to exist only as long as, in particular, the Spanish, Polish, Hungarian and Romanian railways are willing and able to operate them, in keeping with vital national interests and by virtue of low wage costs? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Does the Commission recognise the danger that in future in the EU the only night-trains will be domestic services within larger Member States, such as Germany and France, and that cross-border services will continue to exist only as long as, in particular, the Spanish, Polish, Hungarian and Romanian railways are willing and able to operate them, in keeping with vital national interests and by virtue of low wage costs?

| 4. | How does the contrast between the continuing availability of domestic rail services and the ever greater restrictions on cross-border services sit with the Commission's transport policy, which is geared towards European integration and, as outlined in its White Paper on a transport policy for the year 2010, sees an important role for the railways in competition with air and road transport? |
| --- | --- |

4.

How does the contrast between the continuing availability of domestic rail services and the ever greater restrictions on cross-border services sit with the Commission's transport policy, which is geared towards European integration and, as outlined in its White Paper on a transport policy for the year 2010, sees an important role for the railways in competition with air and road transport?

| 5. | Is the Commission's Rail Market Monitoring System (RMMS) taking note of the increase in and the disparities between average railway infrastructure charges? Is the Commission taking measures to correct this trend? |
| --- | --- |

5.

Is the Commission's Rail Market Monitoring System (RMMS) taking note of the increase in and the disparities between average railway infrastructure charges? Is the Commission taking measures to correct this trend?

| 6. | Is the Commission prepared to take active steps to enable the railways to continue to provide existing night-train services and to create the conditions needed for the long-term provision and the possible expansion of cross-border night services? |
| --- | --- |

6.

Is the Commission prepared to take active steps to enable the railways to continue to provide existing night-train services and to create the conditions needed for the long-term provision and the possible expansion of cross-border night services?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(12 September 2003)

The Commission is aware of the reduction in the number of international night and car-sleeper services from Belgium as of December 2003. The Commission considers that a further opening of the market for international passenger services by rail will allow new railway undertakings to offer new and competitive services, which satisfy the requirements of the passengers, and would like to refer the Honourable Member to the replies on his previous questions, notably E-1699/03 (1), E-1721/03 (2) and E-1722/03 (3).

Further to the requirements of Directive 2001/12/EC (4), the Commission has started to monitor market developments in the railway sector. The monitor of the rail market shall be comprehensive, and shall therefore include as many aspects as possible, one of them being the level of infrastructure charges. The determination of the level of these charges does not belong to the competences of the Commission. However, the verification of the compliance of national provisions adopted for the implementation of Directive 2001/14/EC (5) -which determines the framework conditions for rail infrastructure access and charges, as well as the creation of a Regulatory Body (6) — is carried out by the Commission, bearing in mind that the levels of these charges are set by the Infrastructure Managers.

---

(1)  OJ C 51 E, 26.2.2004, p. 128.

(2)  OJ C 33 E, 6.2.2004, p. 158.

(3)  OJ C 58 E, 6.3.2004, p. 88.

(4)  Directive 2001/12/EC of the 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.

(5)  Directive 2001/14/EC of the 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.

(6)  Article 30 of Directive 2001/14/EC.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/403 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/403

---

(2004/C 78 E/0425)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2405/03

by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(21 July 2003)

Subject:   Motor-vehicle insurance

On 19 June 2003, the Belgian Insurance Ombudsman presented her annual report. In the evaluation of her report, the Ombudsman was reported in the newspaper ‘De Standaard’ to have noted that young people, above all, as well as elderly drivers were being systematically refused insurance or that their policies were being swiftly cancelled if they made a claim.

In its answer to Oral Question H-0525/02 (1), the Commission stated that free trade in insurance products was in the interests of the vast majority of motorists who could choose the insurance company which rewarded good drivers by charging lower premiums.

With a view to ensuring that drivers in general and young drivers in particular may secure affordable third-party liability insurance cover, the new Belgian Government is proposing that insurance companies should be required to offer new drivers policies valid for a period of five years or longer.

Does the Commission acknowledge that this refusal of cover for principally young drivers but also for elderly drivers is in breach of the spirit of Article 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and of the virtually identical Article II-21 of the Draft Treaty establishing a European Constitution? If so, what measures will it take to prevent such discrimination? If not, what arguments can it put forward in support of this manifest discrimination on the ground of age?

Does the Commission acknowledge that young and elderly drivers find it particularly difficult to secure motor-vehicle insurance and that the free trade in insurance products does not, therefore, benefit this considerable group of motorists? If so, what measures will it take on behalf of consumers? If not, what arguments can it put forward to underpin its divergent point of view?

Is the Commission aware of the Belgian Government's intention to require insurers to offer new drivers policies valid for five years or more? Is that requirement in compliance with Community law? If not, what alternatives will the Commission propose so that young drivers in particular may nevertheless secure affordable (compulsory) third-party liability insurance?

---

(1)  Oral answer given on 3 September 2002.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/404 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/404

---

(2004/C 78 E/0426)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2406/03

by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(21 July 2003)

Subject:   Motor-vehicle insurance

On 19 June 2003, the Belgian Insurance Ombudsman presented her annual report. The report indicates that, as from 1 January 2004, the no-claims bonus system will be replaced by a ‘claims history certificate’.

The annual report of the Joint Motor Vehicle Insurance Fund for 2001 shows that, between 1997 and 2001, the number of accidents involving uninsured vehicles increased by 70 % — from about 4 950 to about 8 450. The Joint Motor Vehicle Insurance Fund compensates the victims of uninsured drivers. It makes such payments from funds contributed by the insurance companies, i.e. ‘inter alia’ by drivers who properly insure themselves and their vehicles.

On a more general level, the number of uninsured drivers in Belgium is estimated at 100 000. A large proportion of that number are drivers who can no longer secure cover with proper insurance companies because of their history of making claims: either specific insurance companies are no longer willing to insure them or else the premiums are so high as to be unaffordable. As from 1 November 2003, such drivers in Belgium will be able to receive assistance from what is known as the ‘Rating Office’. Any losses would then be borne by all the insurance companies combined, i.e. ‘inter alia’ by drivers who properly insure themselves and their vehicles.

In its answer to Oral Question H-0525/02 (1), the Commission said that only those who caused damage should be required to pay compensation for such damage. In its answer, the Commission also took the view that obligatory no-claims bonus systems were prohibited. The Commission also stated that free trade in insurance products was in the interests of the vast majority of motorists who could choose the insurance company which rewarded good drivers by charging lower premiums.

Does the Commission share the view that the ‘claims history certificate’ is nothing more than a disguised no-claims bonus system? If not, why not? If so, what alternative can it propose in this instance?

Does the Commission share the view that, by virtue of their contribution to the Joint Motor Vehicle Insurance Fund or to the Rating Office, good drivers are in one way or another indirectly footing the bill for damage caused by the ‘accident-prone’ persons referred to in the Commission's answer of 3 September 2002? How does it justify that situation? What alternative can it propose?

Although third-party liability insurance is compulsory, the number of uninsured drivers is increasing daily. What measures is the Commission proposing which it or the Member States must take in order to (a) significantly reduce that number and (b) simultaneously ensure that every driver may have access to affordable third-party liability insurance?

---

(1)  Oral answer given on 3 September 2002.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/405 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/405

---

(2004/C 78 E/0427)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2407/03

by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(21 July 2003)

Subject:   Motor-vehicle insurance

On 19 June 2003, the Belgian Insurance Ombudsman presented her annual report. The report states that there were so many wholesale cancellations, which, in only very few cases, were obviously justified, that the question arises whether an insurance company, which initially entices clients only to abandon them subsequently without giving the slightest reason for so doing, is not abusing the law. After all, insurers may cancel a policy every twelve months without further ado, provided that it gives due notice to the policy-holder.

The information set out in the Ombudsman's report shows that insurers are allowed to refuse to give to clients who are involved in a liability claim any cover other than the obligatory third-party liability insurance, even if the person involved was not at fault or if no third party was involved.

Does the Commission share my view that it should not be possible for insurers without further ado to refuse cover for certain risks to drivers involved in an accident where they were not themselves at fault or where no third party was involved, if only on the grounds that it is fairly pointless to insure oneself against something if large numbers of insurers refuse to pay out claims for damages made in good faith? If not, why not? If so, what measures will it take on behalf of the consumers involved?

Is it indeed an abuse of the law for insurers to entice clients and subsequently to abandon them without reason? If, so what measures will the Commission take? If not, what arguments can the Commission put forward to allay the suspicions of the Belgian Insurance Ombudsman?

Joint answer

to Written Questions E-2405/03, E-2406/03 and E-2407/03

given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(4 September 2003)

The Commission is following with some concern the situation in a number of Member States where increases in the cost of compulsory insurance may have the perverse effect of impeding or actually preventing freedom of choice for individuals (and, in particular, young people and the elderly) between the different means of transport available to them (private vehicle or public transport). It would refer the Honourable Member to its answers to Written Questions Nos 592/02 (1) and 1522/03 (2) by Marianne Thyssen and Armando Cossutta respectively.

However, the Commission remains attached to the principle of freedom to set premiums advocated by the Third Insurance Directives, particularly in the case of civil liability motor-vehicle insurance despite the fact that the compulsory nature of such insurance has been recently confirmed by the Court of Justice (see in particular the ruling of 25 February 2003 (3)). This is because competitive pressures benefit consumers.

The Honourable Member mentions the spirit of Article 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and of Article II-21 of the Draft Treaty establishing a European Constitution. The Commission would point out that differential treatment does not necessarily constitute discrimination based on the age of the policyholder where such treatment can be justified by objective factors reflecting objective underlying circumstances when it comes to determining the level of the policyholder's premiums. For instance, it must be borne in mind that companies set their premiums ‘inter alia’ on the basis of average claims frequency. Depending on their assessment of the risk, they are free to decide to adjust their offer or even to leave certain domestic niche markets to competitors. In any event, the Commission has a duty to point out that segmentation is in no way a result of European regulation but is instead a technique for setting premiums that more closely reflect the situation on each local market: different premiums are applied to individuals in respect of whom different costs are incurred. To that extent, segmentation would seem to be consistent with Community law, provided that it corresponds to different customer categories whose risks can be assessed by appropriate and objective statistical analyses.

In his Written Question E-2406/03, the Honourable Member raises the problem of a policyholder's history of making claims. The Commission would remind him that the abandonment of the uniform compulsory no-claims bonus system in Belgium is the direct result of the action that it took back in 1996 and that led ultimately in 2002 (4) to the introduction of measures separating the scale from the premium. Companies will thus have greater freedom to treat policyholders differently on the basis of their actual claims history and to offer their customers more competitive premiums.

The Honourable Member also refers in that question to the measures inserted into Belgian legislation by Article 2 of the Law of 2 August 2002 (‘Loi Monfils’ (5)). This provision allows any individual to contact the Rating Office if at least three insurance companies contacted by him have refused to provide cover. It should be pointed out that the proposal for a premium exceeding a threshold determined by multiplying by five the lowest premium of the insurance company's scale for a motor vehicle identical to that for which cover is being sought is regarded as a refusal under that provision. It is clear that, in accordance with the European regulatory framework, the national authorities have sole responsibility for introducing the appropriate mechanisms to ensure that policyholders comply with the requirement to take out compulsory civil liability insurance. Accordingly, the Commission could not comment on measures such as these or such as that mentioned in Written Question No E-2407/03 that fall within the remit of the Belgian institutions responsible for the monitoring and commercial policy of companies. It does though warmly welcome the measure to combat the failure to take out insurance that is contained in those provisions and is, in its view, perfectly compatible with the objective pursued by the civil liability motor-vehicle insurance directives.

For its part, the Commission has taken the initiative of proposing as part of the modernisation of the civil liability motor-vehicle insurance directives a number of measures aimed at making it easier for individuals wishing to change their insurance company (requirement on the insurer to issue a claims history certificate) so as to benefit from the best policy conditions available at any time (6). In this connection, it would, of course, welcome any transparency measure that would reduce the information imbalance existing between the insurer and the policyholder.

The Commission is also convinced that the way to reduce the cost of civil liability motor-vehicle insurance inevitably involves improvements in road safety: in 2002 road accidents caused the death of 41 761 people (of whom 1 470 in Belgium) and injured more than 1,7 million people in the European Union. Between 1991 and 2001 16 918 people were killed on Belgian roads (7). To put a stop to this, the European Union is conducting a very ambitious road safety campaign that will also bring financial benefits for policyholders since any decline in the accident rate is bound to be reflected in the level of the premium.

Lastly, as for the Belgian Government's plan for the period of validity of insurance policies covering the civil motor-vehicle liability of young drivers mentioned in Written Question E-2405/03, it is not for the Commission to comment on hypothetical draft national rules.

---

(1)  OJ C 301 E, 5.12.2002.

(2)  OJ C 33 E, 6.2.2004, p. 128.

(3)  Case C-59/01 Commission v Italian Republic, and in particular paragraph 29.

(4)  With the adoption of the Royal Decree of 16 January 2002 amending the Royal Decree of 22 February 1991 laying down general rules for the control of insurance companies and the Royal Decree of 14 December 1992 on the standard compulsory liability insurance contract for motor vehicles, published in the Belgian Gazette of 14 February 2002.

(5)  Published in the Belgian Gazette of 30 August 2002.

(6)  COM(2002) 244 final.

(7)  According to CARE, the Community Road Accident Database, http://europa.eu.int/comm/transport/home/care/index_en.htm

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/407 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/407

---

(2004/C 78 E/0428)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2460/03

by Patricia McKenna (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(16 July 2003)

Subject:   Anti-competitive actions of the Irish State in the electricity market

The Irish State has announced the results of the latest AER support scheme for renewable energy. The main beneficiaries are subsidiaries of the national electricity utility ESB and their partner companies.

Given that the ESB is absolutely dominant in the Irish electricity market, with enormous resources at its disposal, does the Commission consider that permitting ESB subsidiaries to participate in the AER competition constitutes a distortion of the market? Does it further amount to a discrimination, given the fact that it can use the extensive resources it has accumulated under State ownership, with its State backing, to undercut independent producers?

Is the Commission willing to instruct the Irish State to halt the awards to ESB subsidiaries and partners while it investigates the foregoing questions in relation to this competition?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(3 September 2003)

The Commission state aid decision regarding the rural electrification scheme (AER) (1) does not impose any requirement as to the nature of bidders. It is designed to increase the volume of electricity produced from renewable sources of energy in Ireland and there is nothing to prevent subsidiaries of the Electricity Supply Board (ESB) from participating in this increase provided that they satisfy the necessary conditions for bidding successfully.

The Commission takes the view that, as the majority shareholder in ESB, the Irish State is free to manage the company's capital as it sees fit, provided that it complies with the market-economy investor principle. In the case at issue, the Commission does not possess any information suggesting that ESB subsidiaries receive aid from their parent company in the form of, say, supplies at lower-than-market prices.

The Commission has no intention, therefore, of amending its above decision so as to exclude ESB subsidiaries from the AER scheme or of intervening in the awarding of contracts to ESB or its partners.

---

(1)  Commission decision in Case N 553/01, OJ C 45, 19.2.2002.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/407 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/407

---

(2004/C 78 E/0429)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2537/03

by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(29 July 2003)

Subject:   Net contribution to the common agricultural policy

In the second report on economic and social cohesion in the EU the Commission stated that Portugal was a net contributor to the common agricultural policy (CAP).

In answer to my Written Question P-0897/01 (1) the Commission produced the figures on which it had based that assertion. According to the Commission, Portugal's net contribution to the CAP between 1989 and 1998 amounted to EUR 2 000 m, in other words over EUR 260 per inhabitant.

That being the case, can the Commission say whether Portugal is still a CAP net contributor? Using the same method as for the period between 1989 and 1998, can it supply updated figures for the period between 1998 and 2002?

Supplementary answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(29 October 2003)

With regard to the methodology for measuring the impact on Portugal of the agricultural price and market policy, which therefore does not consider rural development policy (second pillar), as used in the second cohesion report, it should be noted that this method takes into account welfare effects not only on agricultural producers and food processors, but also on consumers and taxpayers. In that sense, it differs from calculations based on net budget position but gives a more complete picture of the position of Portugal, with regard to the cost or gain to the Portuguese economy from the agricultural market policy (first pillar).

For the calculation of those figures, the Commission has focussed his efforts on compiling the data requested by the Honourable Member for the period 2000 to 2002, in order to monitor the changes as from the time of the implementation of the Agenda 2000.

Using the same method as for the period 1989 to 1998, the Commission can report that the annual net effect in that period, at current prices, is given as follows:

| (million euros) |
| --- |
| | 2000 | 2001 | 2002 |
| Net effect for Portugal | –227,1 | +4 | –108,7 |

(million euros)

2000

2001

2002

Net effect for Portugal

–227,1

+4

–108,7

In terms of budget transfer, calculated on the basis of the gain or loss from the European Agriculture Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) — Guarantee budget relative to the percentage contribution to the total Union budget, the net position of Portugal, which has been positive since 1994, has had the following recent evolution:

| (million euros) |
| --- |
| | 2000 | 2001 | 2002 |
| Net budget transfer for Portugal | +74,7 | +221,6 | +115,8 |

(million euros)

2000

2001

2002

Net budget transfer for Portugal

+74,7

+221,6

+115,8

---

(1)  OJ C 261 E, 18.9.2001, p. 213.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/408 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/408

---

(2004/C 78 E/0430)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2580/03

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(6 August 2003)

Subject:   Expectations of an increase in the production of counterfeit euro bank notes in thinly-populated countries where the euro is important as a parallel currency

| 1. | Can the Commission confirm that, to date, the production of counterfeit money in the euro zone has been concentrated in thinly-populated areas in France and Spain and that this has resulted in losses of EUR 16 million for consumers and business? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Can the Commission confirm that, to date, the production of counterfeit money in the euro zone has been concentrated in thinly-populated areas in France and Spain and that this has resulted in losses of EUR 16 million for consumers and business?

| 2. | Do new technologies where, for example, computer printers replace offset presses increase the potential for producing counterfeit bank notes which are difficult to distinguish from genuine ones, despite the use of watermarks, holograms and metal strips? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Do new technologies where, for example, computer printers replace offset presses increase the potential for producing counterfeit bank notes which are difficult to distinguish from genuine ones, despite the use of watermarks, holograms and metal strips?

| 3. | What is current ratio of counterfeit euros to the other widely used currency, the US dollar? Is the counterfeiting of euros moving towards the dollar level? |
| --- | --- |

3.

What is current ratio of counterfeit euros to the other widely used currency, the US dollar? Is the counterfeiting of euros moving towards the dollar level?

| 4. | Does the Commission share Europol's expectation that the combination of the enlargement of EU territory and easily crossed frontiers, together with the increasingly important role of the euro as a parallel currency in countries with low incomes and high unemployment, increases the likelihood of a sharp increase in the near future of the production of counterfeit euros in thinly-populated areas and the transport thereof to densely-populated areas? |
| --- | --- |

4.

Does the Commission share Europol's expectation that the combination of the enlargement of EU territory and easily crossed frontiers, together with the increasingly important role of the euro as a parallel currency in countries with low incomes and high unemployment, increases the likelihood of a sharp increase in the near future of the production of counterfeit euros in thinly-populated areas and the transport thereof to densely-populated areas?

| 5. | How will the Commission duly protect consumers and business in the future from the risk that they may unwittingly come into the possession of counterfeit bank notes which, on discovery, will not have the face value ascribed to them when they were accepted? |
| --- | --- |

5.

How will the Commission duly protect consumers and business in the future from the risk that they may unwittingly come into the possession of counterfeit bank notes which, on discovery, will not have the face value ascribed to them when they were accepted?

Source: The 18 July 2003 edition of ‘Rotterdams Dagblad’, a Dutch newspaper

Supplementary answer given by Mrs Schreyer on behalf of the Commission

(28 October 2003)

There are no indications that the production of counterfeit money is concentrated in thinly populated areas in any of the Member States. According to information from the European Central Bank (ECB) the number of counterfeit euro banknotes withdrawn from circulation was 167 118 in 2002 and 230 534 in the first half of 2003. In face value, this represents about EUR 8,5 million in 2002 and EUR 11,5 million in the first half of 2003.

In comparison to the EUR 8 billion genuine banknotes currently in circulation, the above number of counterfeit banknotes is very small.

The number of counterfeit euro coins detected in circulation amount to 2 339 pieces in 2002 and 7 875 in the first half of 2003 for a corresponding amount of EUR 3 355 and EUR 13 036,50 respectively. Overall, with more than EUR 45 billion coins in circulation the number of counterfeit euro coins is very small.

Modern technology, like computer printers, provides the possibility for persons with no or little knowledge in printing to produce counterfeit banknotes. The quality of these more recent types of counterfeits is generally low. Thus it is generally easier to detect counterfeits produced with these new technologies than those that are printed on offset presses.

The level of euro counterfeiting is by far lower than the counterfeiting of United States dollars.

There is no indication currently that the level of counterfeit euros is moving towards the counterfeit United States dollar level.

The Commission is not aware of any specific indication for the likelihood of a sharp increase. However, the larger the financial area where a currency is used the higher the risk of counterfeiting that currency. It is also known that counterfeiters from countries outside the Union are targeting the euro. The competent authorities in the Member States and at European level (Europol, ECB, Commission) are taking all appropriate measures, in collaboration with the authorities of third countries, to prevent euro counterfeiting.

These include:

| — | enhanced collaboration between all authorities competent in the fight against counterfeiting (law enforcement, central banks, Finance Ministries, etc.); |
| --- | --- |

—

enhanced collaboration between all authorities competent in the fight against counterfeiting (law enforcement, central banks, Finance Ministries, etc.);

| — | intense training, general and specialised, at national, Union and international level, of which the main vehicle is the specific programme Pericles for exchange, assistance and training, managed by the Commission; |
| --- | --- |

—

intense training, general and specialised, at national, Union and international level, of 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;

| — | specialised information campaigns, mainly carried out by the ECB. |
| --- | --- |

—

specialised information campaigns, mainly carried out by the ECB.

With regard to citizens, the increase in police cooperation, with the contribution of Europol, has raised the guarantees offered to the public. It is also important that the public should be familiar with the security features of the genuine euro banknotes. In this respect, the ‘look — feel — tilt’ method of checking the euro banknotes' authenticity, described in the information material of the ECB, has proved to be an effective means of detecting counterfeits.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/410 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/410

---

(2004/C 78 E/0431)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2601/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(20 August 2003)

Subject:   Refurbishment of the historic town centre of Rieti

Rieti, one of the main towns in the province of Lazio, has a rich heritage in the form of historically and artistically significant buildings and the town council is now endeavouring to implement a refurbishment and restoration plan with a view to preserving that heritage.

The aim is to highlight the importance of the town as an historic monument, but also to restore it to its role as a cohesive, properly functioning community by means of a wide range of measures, including street repairs, improved street lighting, better road access to the historic town centre, restoration of the medieval walls, replacement of the signs identifying buildings in the medieval town centre, etc.

The town council therefore needs to secure very substantial funding for this town-planning and restoration work, drawing on all the available sources, including, in particular, EU grants.

Given that the second Urban programme, which is designed to provide funding for this type of work, has already been completed, can the Commission state:

| 1. | whether a third Urban programme is scheduled for 2004 or thereafter or whether fresh calls for proposals are to be issued? |
| --- | --- |

1.

whether a third Urban programme is scheduled for 2004 or thereafter or whether fresh calls for proposals are to be issued?

| 2. | whether there are other programmes which could provide Rieti with the funding it needs to carry out the work outlined above? |
| --- | --- |

2.

whether there are other programmes which could provide Rieti with the funding it needs to carry out the work outlined above?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(16 October 2003)

As regards the Community initiative programme Urban II, the choice of towns to receive assistance in Italy was proposed by the Italian Ministry of Infrastructure and Transport in accordance with the procedure published in Italian Official Gazette No 168 of 20 July 2000. No provision is made for further funding for other towns up to the end of 2006.

As regards other sources of possible funding, the town of Rieti is partly eligible under Objective 2, as set out in the Commission Decision of 27 July 2000 (1).

Measure III.2 in the single programming document (SPD) for the Lazio Region, which governs European Regional Development Fund assistance in this respect, allows funding for measures to promote the development of areas, in particular historic centres, of significance in terms of tourism, culture or the environment.

However, it is for the managing authority responsible for the SPD (in this case the Regione Lazio — Economy and Finance Department) to examine whether particular measures may receive Community funding.

In addition to the funding possibilities provided under the Structural Funds on the basis of the above, the Commission may support initiatives in the cultural sector under and in accordance with the selection criteria for the ‘Culture 2000’ programme, which is the single financing and programming instrument for cultural cooperation in the European Union.

This programme is designed to support projects co-produced and part-financed by at least three promoters from at least three countries participating in the programme. The Honourable Member will find further details at the following address: (http://europa.eu.int/comm/culture/c2000).

---

(1)  2000/530/EC: Commission Decision of 27 July 2000 listing the areas of Italy eligible under Objective 2 of the Structural Funds for the period 2000 to 2006 (notified under document number C(2000) 2327) (Only the Italian text is authentic), OJ L 223, 4.9.2000.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/411 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/411

---

(2004/C 78 E/0432)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2649/03

by Paul Rübig (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(10 September 2003)

Subject:   Comparison of electricity network tariffs in the Commission's second benchmarking report

The Commission's ‘Second benchmarking report on the implementation of the internal electricity and gas market’ (Brussels, 7 April 2003) shows the differing rates of progress towards liberalisation in the individual Member States.

The report is available on the following Internet site: (http://europa.eu.int/comm/energy/electricity/ benchmarking/doc/2/sec_2003_448_en.pdf).

Table 1 ‘Implementation of the Electricity Directive’ on page 4 of the report (column headed ‘Overall network tariffs’) reveals that Austria, Germany and Luxembourg have above-average network tariffs.

What data and/or studies were used as the basis for ascertaining the level of network tariffs?

Who supplied the data?

On what consumption indicators and parameters is the analysis based?

How was European comparability ensured (differences in pattern of consumption, security of supply, topology, etc.)?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(13 October 2003)

The study was based on information submitted by national Ministries and electricity and gas regulatory authorities. In some cases analysis from industry associations was used, for example the ‘Verband der Elektrizitätswirtschaft’ (VdEW) and ‘Verband der Netzbetreiber’ (VdN) in Germany. This is explained in more detail in Section 2 of the Annex to the document.

Standard customer types based on the price information collected by Eurostat were used, in particular:

| — | large industrial user 24 Gigawatt hour (GWh) per year; |
| --- | --- |

—

large industrial user 24 Gigawatt hour (GWh) per year;

| — | small commercial user 50 Megawatt hour (MWh) per year; |
| --- | --- |

—

small commercial user 50 Megawatt hour (MWh) per year;

| — | domestic user 3500 Kilowatt (KWh) per year. |
| --- | --- |

—

domestic user 3500 Kilowatt (KWh) per year.

The three Member States mentioned by the Honourable Member have above average network tariffs for the customer types used.

Generally speaking, it is considered that national regulators are best placed to make the final decision on the appropriateness or otherwise of network access charges. It is true that topology may explain some differences but the other factors identified (security of supply, consumption patterns) are not so different on an individual Member State basis. As noted in the report, the lack of effective regulation in certain Member States and an inadequate level of unbundling are also likely explanations of these differences.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/412 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/412

---

(2004/C 78 E/0433)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2650/03

by Theresa Villiers (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(10 September 2003

Subject:   Working Time Directive

| 1. | Has the Commission carried out any studies of the impact of the Working Time Directive (93/104/EC (1)) on provision of health services? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Has the Commission carried out any studies of the impact of the Working Time Directive (93/104/EC (1)) on provision of health services?

| 2. | Does the Commission recognise the difficulties caused by the Working Time Directive to health service provision? In particular, hospitals in the United Kingdom such as Barnet and Chase Farm General Hospital have reported considerable difficulties in fixing nursing rosters that comply with the directive. In particular, the rules on night working make it difficult for hospitals to fix family-friendly working times, which suit nurses with children who want to be available to pick them up and drop them off at school. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Does the Commission recognise the difficulties caused by the Working Time Directive to health service provision? In particular, hospitals in the United Kingdom such as Barnet and Chase Farm General Hospital have reported considerable difficulties in fixing nursing rosters that comply with the directive. In particular, the rules on night working make it difficult for hospitals to fix family-friendly working times, which suit nurses with children who want to be available to pick them up and drop them off at school.

| 3. | Does the Commission have any plans to revise the directive to allow more flexibility for health services to deal with these problems? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Does the Commission have any plans to revise the directive to allow more flexibility for health services to deal with these problems?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(15 October 2003)

Although Council Directive 93/104/EC of 23 November 1993 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time lays down minimum working time requirements it allows, however, for a considerable degree of flexibility as regards, inter alia, ‘activities involving the need for continuity of service ... particularly ... services relating to the reception, treatment and/or care provided by hospitals or similar establishments ...’ (Article 17.2.1 (c) (i)).

This provision is intended to cater for the needs mentioned by the Honourable Member.

On the other hand, the Directive itself provides for a re-examination, within a period of seven years from November 1996, of two of its provisions: the option not to apply Article 6 of the Directive where an individual worker agrees to work more than the maximum average of 48 hours (the opt-out) and derogations regarding the reference period. In both instances, the Directive provides that the Council shall re-examine these provisions and decide on what action to take on the basis of a Commission proposal accompanied by an appraisal report.

Before the end of 2003, the Commission will adopt a Communication on the revision of the Working Time Directive.

Whether the Working Time Directive will be revised depends on the outcome of the discussions on the consultative Communication and on the future consultation with European Social Partners.

---

(1)  OJ L 307, 13.12.1993, p. 18.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/413 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/413

---

(2004/C 78 E/0434)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2662/03

by Ian Hudghton (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(10 September 2003)

Subject:   Ozone-depleting substances

With reference to your answer dated 22 March 2002 to written question P-0595/02 (1), when only two Member States had reported on the mechanisms they had in place for the recovery and destruction of ozone-depleting substances, and when the Commission committed itself to a comprehensive overview of the situation throughout the EU, can the Commission now provide an update of the situation in each of the Member States?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(21 October 2003)

To date all Member States except Ireland have responded.

Most Member States have reported on the following: safety and quality standards for equipment that contains ozone-depleting substances (ODS); inspection procedures for installations containing ODS, record keeping and reporting requirements; ODS recovery methods; mobile and fixed ODS destruction equipment; quantities of ODS recovered, recycled, reclaimed and destroyed during 1999, 2000 and 2001; the minimum qualification standards for technicians involved in ODS recovery, recycling, reclamation and destruction and efforts undertaken to make the public and industry aware of the requirements of the Regulation that include articles in the news media, workshops and information on official websites.

The Commission has undertaken evaluations and has, so far, identified four Member States that are not in compliance with Article 16(5) (2) and 16(6) (3) of Regulation (EC) No 2037/2000 of the Parliament and of the Council of 29 June 2000 on substances that deplete the ozone layer (4). Therefore, the Commission took a decision on 9 July 2003 to take Ireland to the Court of Justice for not reporting. In addition, three infringement procedures are under way against Greece, Spain and Portugal for insufficient reporting and implementation of the Regulation. For detailed overview of the state of play on recovery and destruction a table is sent direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat.

---

(1)  OJ C 205 E, 29.8.2002, p. 168.

(2)  Member States shall take steps to promote the recovery, recycling, reclamation and destruction of controlled substances and shall assign to users, refrigeration technicians or other appropriate bodies responsibility for ensuring compliance with the provisions of paragraph 1.

(3)  Member States shall report to the Commission by 31 December 2001 on systems established to promote the recovery of used controlled substances, including the facilities available and the quantities of used controlled substances, recovered, recycled, reclaimed or destroyed.

(4)  OJ L 244, 29.9.2000.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/413 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/413

---

(2004/C 78 E/0435)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2666/03

by Jean Lambert (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(10 September 2003)

Subject:   Recycling print catridges

Directive 2002/96/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council on waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE) aims to reduce the amount of electrical and electronic waste disposed of in landfills and incinerators by establishing separate collection and recycling systems for such waste. By making manufacturers responsible for the disposal of electronic goods at the end of their useful lives, WEEE gives producers incentives to improve the recyclability of these products.

However, should consumable goods used by electric or electronic equipment be excluded from the Directive, printer cartridges could be exempt. This is despite an amendment added to the Directive specifically designed to apply to printer cartridges in order to ensure that products were not designed in such a way as to prevent reuse.

Many of the latest generation of cartridges are fitted with ‘smart chips’ and other devices, which have the effect of preventing their reuse, or making it difficult or expensive to do so, meaning that unless printer cartridges are included in the Directive, many cartridges currently being reused would be destined for landfill too. This would severely damage the developing cartridge recycling industry. Again, an article was specifically inserted in the text of the Directive in order to avoid the use of technical design features that would prevent equipment from being reused.

Therefore, given that WEEE was clearly intended to encourage reuse and recycling of both durable and consumable electronic goods:

| — | would the Commission deem Member State Government plans to exclude consumable goods used by electric or electronic equipment from the Directive to be in breach of the WEEE Directive? |
| --- | --- |

—

would the Commission deem Member State Government plans to exclude consumable goods used by electric or electronic equipment from the Directive to be in breach of the WEEE Directive?

| — | would cartridges fitted with smart chips be considered electrical or electronic in nature and therefore fall under the WEEE Directive's recycling requirements? |
| --- | --- |

—

would cartridges fitted with smart chips be considered electrical or electronic in nature and therefore fall under the WEEE Directive's recycling requirements?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(5 November 2003)

Directive 2002/96/EC (2) (the WEEE Directive) includes requirements for electrical and electronic equipment both before and after it becomes waste.

Before it is waste, electrical and electronic equipment (EEE) has to comply with the Directive's requirements for product design, information and reporting (3). Waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE) is subject to the Directive's requirements on separate collection, treatment, recovery, reuse and recycling as well as its financing- and information provisions (4).

Article 3(a) of the WEEE Directive defines EEE as ‘equipment which is dependent on electric currents or electronic-magnetic fields in order to work properly and equipment for the generation, transfer and measurement of such currents and files falling under the categories set out in Annex IA and designed for use with a voltage rating not exceeding 1 000 Volt for alternating current and 1 500 Volt for direct current.’ The Directive defines WEEE as ‘electrical or electronic equipment which is waste within the meaning of Article 1(a) of Directive 75/442 (5), including all components, subassemblies and consumables which are part of the product at the time of discarding’.

According to the definition of EEE there is no doubt that a printer itself is EEE because a printer falls under category 3 of Annex IB to the Directive. It is equally clear that if a printer is discarded, it becomes WEEE. The ink cartridge inside a printer which is discarded also becomes part of the WEEE due to the fact that it is a consumable which is part of the printer at the time of discarding. It would thus in these situations not be compatible with the Directive to exclude consumables, such as ink cartridges, from the scope of the Directive.

Plans to exclude consumable goods used by electric or electronic equipment from the Directive would therefore be in breach of the WEEE Directive if they would exclude consumables as part of waste equipment when it is returned. However, when put on the market as new items, consumables are not covered by the scope of the WEEE Directive. Therefore, plans to exclude them from the scope in this context are not in breach of the WEEE Directive.

Furthermore, Article 4 of the Directive requires Member States to:

| | encourage the design and production of electrical and electronic equipment which take into account and facilitate dismantling and recovery, in particular the reuse and recycling of WEEE, their components and materials. In this context, Member States shall take appropriate measures so that producers do not prevent, through specific design features or manufacturing processes, WEEE from being reused, unless such specific design features or manufacturing processes present overriding advantages, for example, with regard to the protection of the environment and/or safety requirements. |
| --- | --- |

encourage the design and production of electrical and electronic equipment which take into account and facilitate dismantling and recovery, in particular the reuse and recycling of WEEE, their components and materials. In this context, Member States shall take appropriate measures so that producers do not prevent, through specific design features or manufacturing processes, WEEE from being reused, unless such specific design features or manufacturing processes present overriding advantages, for example, with regard to the protection of the environment and/or safety requirements.

It would be expected that Member States, when implementing the Directive, would take the necessary steps to encourage the producers to adopt a design or manufacturing process for printers which would facilitate the reuse of printers or at least would not prevent the reuse without relevant justification to do so. The national measures have to comply with the provisions of the EC Treaty, inter alia, those ensuring the free movement of goods.

A cartridge fitted with smart chips would not fall within the definition of electrical and electronic equipment in Article 3(a) of the WEEE Directive, irrespective of its electrical and electronic content, should it be considered as a consumable, since consumables are outside the scope of that provision. This point is currently being discussed with Member States in the Technical Adaptation Committee in order to find a common understanding of the scope of the WEEE Directive.

---

(1)  OJ L 37, 13.2.2003, p. 24.

(2)  Directive 2002/96/EC of the Parliament and of the Council on waste electrical and electronic equipment, OJ L 37, 13.2.2003.

(3)  Articles 4 and 12.

(4)  Articles 5-11.

(5)  Council Directive 75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975 on waste, OJ L 194, 25.7.1975.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/415 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/415

---

(2004/C 78 E/0436)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2670/03

by Giovanni Pittella (PSE) to the Commission

(10 September 2003)

Subject:   Ban on simultaneous enrolment at several institutes of higher education

The quality of education throughout the European Union is a priority for all the Member States. To 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’ is the European Union's new strategic goal announced at the European Council meeting in Lisbon.

In Italy, Article 142 of the unified text of Royal Decree No 1592 of 31 August 1933 bans simultaneous enrolment at more than one university, institute of higher education, faculty or school in the same university or institute or for more than one degree or diploma course in the same faculty or school.

Can the Commission express its views on this ban on simultaneous enrolment for several university courses laid down by Italian law?

Answer given by Ms Reding on behalf of the Commission

(10 October 2003)

The matter of the ban on simultaneous enrolment at several higher education institutions raised by the Honourable Member concerns the organisation of education systems and, as such, under Article 149 (1) of the EC Treaty, falls within the competence of the Member States and not of the Community.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/416 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/416

---

(2004/C 78 E/0437)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2672/03

by Chris Davies (ELDR) to the Commission

(2 September 2003)

Subject:   Allocation of slots at airports

When will the Commission conclude its consultations on proposed revisions to the 1993 regulation on the allocation of slots at Community airports, when does it expect to publish its proposals, and is it the Commission's intention to address the issue of major airlines exercising grandfather rights to the detriment of the development of regional airports and free competition between airlines?

Article 9 of the existing regulation gives Member States the option to reserve slots for regional routes. What is the maximum and minimum percentage of slots so reserved at airports across the EU, and under what circumstances can the Commission intervene to prevent, or to insist on, slots being so allocated?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(26 September 2003)

The Commission has adopted a proposal to modify the current rules on airport slot allocation on 20 June 2001 (1). Following the opinion of the Parliament in First Reading (2) the Commission modified its initial proposal on 7 November 2002 (3). The Council has yet to produce a Common Position on that proposal. Therefore, the conclusion of consultations on proposed revisions depend on the adoption of the Common Position.

Also, as announced in the explanatory memorandum to its initial proposal, the Commission has launched a study to assess the effects of different slot allocation schemes. This study has yet to be finalised. On the basis of this study and further consultation with the industry and Member States, the Commission will consider how to further possibly modify the current system of slot allocation based on the principle of grandfather rights.

As far as the application of Article 9 of the current Regulation (4) is concerned, there are no minimum or maximum amounts for slots which Member States have the right to reserve at fully coordinated airports for the purpose of regional services. However, Member States have to communicate to the Commission the routes for which slots have been reserved. This should ensure that reserved slots correspond effectively to routes to a peripheral development region, and/or routes where public service obligations have been imposed.

---

(1)  OJ C 270 E, 25.9.2001.

(2)  A5-0186/2002, rapporteur Stockmann of 10 June 2002.

(3)  COM(2002) 623 final.

(4)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 95/93 of 18 January 1993 on common rules for the allocation of slots at Community airports, OJ L 14, 22.1.1993.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/416 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/416

---

(2004/C 78 E/0438)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2689/03

by Toine Manders (ELDR) to the Commission

(10 September 2003)

Subject:   GSM roaming tariffs

The Commission has possibly been asked many questions on this subject. Given that, despite previous efforts, an internal market for mobile phone communications has, unfortunately, still not been established, I wish to put the following further question.

Many people using their mobile phone during a stay in a foreign country are later faced with excessively high bills for international calls. Disproportionately high ‘roaming’ tariffs are applied by telecommunications operators for use of a host network.

Taking account of the geographical distances involved, mobile phone calls from, for example, the south of France to northern France cannot, and should not, be more expensive from a technical point of view than mobile phone calls between two neighbouring border areas in two different countries. It is possible to conclude from this that the prices which consumers are required to pay for using a foreign host network are not at all compatible with market conditions. That smacks of misuse of their dominant position by telecommunications operators.

Completion of the internal market is high on the political agenda. Given that mobile phone communications are generally regarded as a service, I take the view that this situation distorts the functioning of the internal market.

| 1. | Is the Commission aware of the exorbitant tariffs charged by telecommunications operators for international mobile phone calls? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is the Commission aware of the exorbitant tariffs charged by telecommunications operators for international mobile phone calls?

| 2. | Does the Commission agree that the prices imposed are not compatible with market conditions? If not, what is the basis for the Commission's view? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Does the Commission agree that the prices imposed are not compatible with market conditions? If not, what is the basis for the Commission's view?

| 3. | Does the Commission intend to investigate more closely the aforementioned disruption of the internal market? If not, why not? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Does the Commission intend to investigate more closely the aforementioned disruption of the internal market? If not, why not?

| 4. | Is the Commission prepared to take steps in the short-term to optimise the way in which the internal market functions in relation to international provision of mobile phone services? If so, by what date, if not, why not? |
| --- | --- |

4.

Is the Commission prepared to take steps in the short-term to optimise the way in which the internal market functions in relation to international provision of mobile phone services? If so, by what date, if not, why not?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(1 December 2003)

The Commission publishes surveys of the tariffs applied by telecommunications operators in the Union on a regular basis, the last of which can be found at the following Internet address: (http://europa.eu.int/ information_society/topics/telecoms/regulatory/studies/documents/tariff_report_2002_12.pdf).

Moreover, the Commission is currently enquiring about the level of tariffs applied on intra-Union mobile phone calls in the context of investigations regarding the application of competition rules laid down in the EC Treaty. These investigations include the analysis of tariffs and costs borne by telecommunications operators for international mobile phone calls, including in the context of international roaming.

The very fact that several investigations are ongoing indicates the Commission's determination to ensure that telecommunications operators fully comply with competition rules. However, it is not necessarily contrary to such rules that tariffs applied to domestic calls within a national market such as France differ from tariffs applied to cross-border calls, in particular, when the costs borne by network operators differ, as is the case with national and intra-Union calls.

These investigations are being treated with a high level of priority, owing inter alia, to numerous complaints and concerns expressed by consumer circles. The Commission is, indeed, prepared to bring to an end to any infringement to competition rules if the level of tariffs under investigation proved to be contrary to them. However, the Commission would like to stress that an investigation in no way prejudges either the substance of the Commission's eventual conclusions, or the parties' right of defence in this respect. As is customary with ongoing cases of application of competition rules, the Commission is, therefore, not in a position to further comment on/or qualify the level of tariffs to which the Honourable Member refers.

In principle, the outcome of the investigations should determine the kind of action which the Commission would envisage. Should competition rules not prove appropriate, the Commission will examine whether alternative courses of action would be possible.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/418 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/418

---

(2004/C 78 E/0439)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2711/03

by Kathleen Van Brempt (PSE) to the Commission

(11 September 2003)

Subject:   Free-base nicotine

American scientists from the University of Oregon (Oregon Health and Science University) have measured the free-base nicotine content of cigarettes. The tobacco industry has so far refused to make these figures public. Free-base nicotine causes the addiction to cigarettes. The higher the free-base nicotine content, the quicker smokers get their nicotine kick. According to the researchers, some brands are up to 20 times more addictive than others. The American brand American Spirit, for instance, contains 36 % of free-base nicotine. The Marlboro brand contains 10 % free-base nicotine, Gauloises Blondes 7,5 % and in Camel cigarettes researchers found 2,7 % free-base nicotine.

Is the Commission aware of this research?

What conclusions does it draw from this new data?

What does the Commission think of the Netherlands proposal that tobacco manufacturers should be required to publish all their ingredients? Does the Commission support the proposal that cigarette packets should indicate which ingredients are addictive?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(22 October 2003)

Yes, the Commission is aware of the tobacco industry's pursuit to invent new ingredients and additives for tobacco products in order to make them more addictive.

The issue is dealt with in Directive 2001/37/EC of the Parliament and the Council of 5 June 2001 on the approximation of laws, regulations and administrative provisions of Member States concerning the manufacture, presentation and sale of tobacco products (Tobacco Products Directive) (1). The provisions of the Directive address the issues raised by the Honourable Member.

First, Article 12 of the Directive establishes that the Commission is invited to submit to the Parliament and to the Council a proposal for a common list of ingredients authorised for tobacco products, taking into account, inter alia, their addictiveness. This proposal is due by the end of 2004.

Second, according to Article 11, the Commission shall submit to the European Parliament, the Council and the Economic and Social Committee a report on the application of the Directive. The report should, among other things, include an evaluation of the addictive effects of those ingredients which encourage addiction. The first report is due by the end of 2004.

Third, according to Article 6, the Member States shall require manufactures and importers of tobacco products to submit them a list of all ingredients, and quantities thereof, used in the manufacture of those tobacco products by brand name and type. The Member States must ensure the dissemination of this information with a view to informing consumers. In doing this, trade secrets must be protected.

Four, according to Article 5, cigarette packets must indicate the tar, nicotine and carbon monoxide yields. The issue of what kind of information on ingredients should be placed on cigarette packets is a very controversial one taking into account, inter alia, the fact that there are more than 600 different ingredients in a cigarette. The Commission intends to make careful analysis of the situation before submitting a proposal providing for a common list of ingredients authorised for tobacco products.

Finally, the Commission would like to draw the attention of the Honourable Member to the fact that also the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC) includes provisions on the issue that are quite similar to those of the Tobacco Products Directive.

---

(1)  OJ L 194, 18.7.2001.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/419 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/419

---

(2004/C 78 E/0440)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2716/03

by Kathleen Van Brempt (PSE) to the Commission

(11 September 2003)

Subject:   Radar detectors

A whole range of detector systems for speed checks are available on the European market. One of these is the British RoadPilot, a new high-tech GPS receiver which warns motorists when they are approaching an unmanned camera and tells them whether or not they need to reduce their speed. Unlike all other detectors, the RoadPilot is not banned in Belgium because it does not detect police radar which is illegal in Belgium. However, Belgians can acquire police radar detectors in the Netherlands where they are legal. As a result, many motorists are driving around with radar detection systems.

Road safety experts have drawn attention to the dangers of detection systems of this kind. They point out that there are drivers who brake suddenly when they receive a signal and then speed up again once they have passed the speed detection device.

What is the Commission's attitude to radar detectors?

Is the Commission aware of the commercial success of these speed camera detector systems?

Does it not agree that radar detectors are dangerous for road safety?

Does it intend to draw up European regulations on this matter?

Supplementary answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(20 January 2004)

The Commission agrees with those experts on road safety who highlight the risk of sudden braking brought about by radar detectors. Moreover, these detectors can undermine or make ineffective the operation of speed control radar devices which aim to improve road safety. People making use of these detectors normally do not intend to stick to the speed limit. They want to know when they run a risk of being fined, so that they can continue speeding between the speed control checks. Speeding is the most important cause of road fatalities — about one third of all fatal and serious accidents are caused by speeding drivers.

The radar detecting systems that can be legally acquired in the Netherlands are systems which warn the driver when there are radar devices installed for speed control. However, the Dutch government has presented to its Parliament draft legislation to include a ban on the use of such systems, as the use of systems that hinder speed control by disturbing radar signals are already forbidden.

In terms of the commercial success of these radar detectors available in the Netherlands, it is estimated that several hundred thousand drivers at least are using such systems, most of who drive for business purposes.

For the reasons set out above the Commission considers speed radar detector systems dangerous for road safety. In its recently published Recommendation on enforcement in the field of road safety (1) it recommends among other things that Member States should ensure that sanctions applicable to speeding, drink-driving and non-use of seat belts are effective, proportionate and dissuasive and that acts which aim at hindering or circumventing enforcement of such infractions should be subject to sanctions based on the same principles (Recommendation 8). The Commission considers that making use of speed radar detectors is an act covered by this recommendation, as it seeks to circumvent enforcement. The Commission has committed itself, should insufficient improvements in road safety be made within three years following publication of this Recommendation to achieve the Union objective of reducing the annual number of road deaths in the Union by 50 % in the year 2010, to submit a proposal for a Directive to achieve this 50 % reduction.

---

(1)  COM(2003) 628 final.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/420 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/420

---

(2004/C 78 E/0441)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2722/03

by Joan Colom i Naval (PSE) to the Commission

(3 September 2003)

Subject:   Application of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2158 on protection of the Community's forests against fire

This summer, large areas of the southern EU countries have been seriously affected by raging fires. Council Regulation (EEC) No 2158/92 (1) of 23 July 1992 on protection of the Community's forests against fire expired nine months ago. Can the Commission give details of the commitment and payment appropriations applying whilst the regulation was in force? Furthermore, do other Community-funded measures to prevent fires exist? If so, what have the respective commitment and payment appropriations been?

Can the Commission provide information about the distribution of appropriations for each Member State for at least the previous five years, including, for Spain, a breakdown for each of the Autonomous Communities, with regard to both Council Regulation (EEC) No 2158/92 and any other Community-funded measure for preventing fires?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(26 September 2003)

As the Honourable Member points out, Council Regulation (EEC) No 2158/92 of 23 July 1992 on protection of the Community's forests against fire expired on 31 December 2002.

During the 11 years of its period of application (1992 to 2002), 798 individual projects plus 18 national programmes enabled the Community to provide part-financing of EUR 263,6 million, i.e. the total amount invested in protection measures in the six Member States with land presenting a fire risk (Germany, Greece, France, Italy, Portugal and Spain) in the areas of information campaigns and the causes of fires, monitoring, installation of tracks, firebreaks and water supply points, training specialised personnel, and the introduction of pilot measures. Limited to 50 % in high-risk areas and 30 % in medium-risk areas, Community commitment appropriations accounted for EUR 123,6 million or 47 % of the total cost.

The table below shows the distribution by Member State of commitment and payment appropriations under Regulation (EEC) No 2158/92 for the period 1992 to 2002.

| (million euros) |
| --- |
| Member State | Commitment appropriations | Payment appropriations |
| Germany | 6,4 | 3,3 |
| Greece | 25,2 | 20,3 |
| Spain | 22,6 | 14,2 |
| France | 23,5 | 14,4 |
| Italy | 24 | 7,5 |
| Portugal | 21,9 | 11,4 |
| Total | 123,6 | 71,1 |

(million euros)

Member State

Commitment appropriations

Payment appropriations

Germany

6,4

3,3

Greece

25,2

20,3

Spain

22,6

14,2

France

23,5

14,4

Italy

24

7,5

Portugal

21,9

11,4

Total

123,6

71,1

However, only part of the forest fire protection measures were funded under Regulation (EEC) No 2158/92.

The Structural Funds, in the form of operational programmes (EAGGF Guidance Section) and rural development programmes (EAGGF Guarantee Section) account for a major part of Community financing for forest fire prevention measures.

Here the appropriations available are much higher and the Community contribution rates can be as much as 80 % of total funding in certain Objective 1 regions.

The information which the Commission has on the Structural Funds relates to appropriation forecasts for the period 2000 to 2006 and budget implementation in the period from 2000 to the first half of 2003.

They do not cover forest fire prevention measures alone, but all ‘forestry’ measures as provided for in Article 30 of Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999 (2), with the exception of afforestation of farmland, operational programmes and rural development programmes.

However, it is safe to assume that a large part of the forestry measures carried out (not including afforestation) under those programmes covering high- and medium-risk areas relate to forest fire prevention.

Thus the tables sent directly to the Honourable Member and to the Parliament Secretariat give the following information for Spain, by Autonomous Community:

| — | the breakdown of commitment appropriations and appropriation forecasts for the period 2000 to 2006 (2000 to 2002 in the case of Regulation (EEC) No 2158/92), |
| --- | --- |

—

the breakdown of commitment appropriations and appropriation forecasts for the period 2000 to 2006 (2000 to 2002 in the case of Regulation (EEC) No 2158/92),

| — | the breakdown of payment appropriations and appropriation execution for the period 2000 to the first half of 2003. |
| --- | --- |

—

the breakdown of payment appropriations and appropriation execution for the period 2000 to the first half of 2003.

It should be noted that most of the appropriations allocated to Spain under Regulation (EEC) No 2158/92 related to national measures (campaigns to inform and educate the public and surveillance) submitted by the Ministry of the Environment.

Unlike the Structural Funds, and as was the case with the other Member States concerned by this Regulation, public part-financing was not compulsory, and private funding could be sufficient.

The Honourable Member will note that the Spanish regions relied heavily on the Structural Funds. Only the Basque Country made significant use of Regulation (EEC) No 2158/92.

---

(1)  OJ L 217, 31.7.1992, p. 3.

(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.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/421 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/421

---

(2004/C 78 E/0442)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2746/03

by Luigi Vinci (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(10 September 2003)

Subject:   Infringements of European legislation on special conservation areas and sites of Community importance and the use of European funding for the reforestation of the Alta Murgia (Bari)

Knowing that:

| — | by Ministerial Decree of 24 December 1998 the Minister for the Environment declared the Alta Murgia, a densely forested area, a site of Community importance (Directive 92/93/EEC (1)) and a special protection area (Directive 79/409/EEC (2)) and in order to implement Directive 92/93 Presidential Decree No 357 of 8 September 1997 set up a special committee to assess the environmental impact of projects on sites of Community importance. |
| --- | --- |

—

by Ministerial Decree of 24 December 1998 the Minister for the Environment declared the Alta Murgia, a densely forested area, a site of Community importance (Directive 92/93/EEC (1)) and a special protection area (Directive 79/409/EEC (2)) and in order to implement Directive 92/93 Presidential Decree No 357 of 8 September 1997 set up a special committee to assess the environmental impact of projects on sites of Community importance.

| — | the Alta Murgia is affected by an environmental disaster caused by unlawful quarries excavated without authorisation or using illegal procedures via the Mining Office of the Apulia Region, in contravention of the provisions on environmental impact assessment laid down in the Presidential Decree of 12 April 1996 and the permits concerning the landscape and the environment issued by the Region itself. |
| --- | --- |

—

the Alta Murgia is affected by an environmental disaster caused by unlawful quarries excavated without authorisation or using illegal procedures via the Mining Office of the Apulia Region, in contravention of the provisions on environmental impact assessment laid down in the Presidential Decree of 12 April 1996 and the permits concerning the landscape and the environment issued by the Region itself.

| — | the Region of Apulia is turning the Alta Murgia from a forest into a tufa-quarrying area and then, after filling the quarries with waste of all kinds — thereby infringing Italian and European legislation — wants to convert the area into fields for intensive arable farming, thereby damaging the environment and endangering public health. |
| --- | --- |

—

the Region of Apulia is turning the Alta Murgia from a forest into a tufa-quarrying area and then, after filling the quarries with waste of all kinds — thereby infringing Italian and European legislation — wants to convert the area into fields for intensive arable farming, thereby damaging the environment and endangering public health.

| — | although the Region of Puglia sanctioned conservation of the area by virtue of Regional Law No 19 of 1997, it is about to pass a law exonerating those responsible for environmental crime, thereby infringing Italian and European laws. |
| --- | --- |

—

although the Region of Puglia sanctioned conservation of the area by virtue of Regional Law No 19 of 1997, it is about to pass a law exonerating those responsible for environmental crime, thereby infringing Italian and European laws.

| — | the Italian Court of Appeal has stressed that Article 30 of Law No 394 of 6 December 1991 applies to violations of protected areas, |
| --- | --- |

—

the Italian Court of Appeal has stressed that Article 30 of Law No 394 of 6 December 1991 applies to violations of protected areas,

| — | in January 2001 the environmentalist organisation ‘Verdi Ambiente e Società’, during its work to safeguard the environment, ascertained that there are serious infringements in the Alta Murgia affecting fauna and the environment and violations of Legislative Decree No 22/97 implementing Directives 91/156/EEC (3) on waste, 91/689/EEC (4) on hazardous waste and 94/62/EC (5) on packaging and packaging waste. |
| --- | --- |

—

in January 2001 the environmentalist organisation ‘Verdi Ambiente e Società’, during its work to safeguard the environment, ascertained that there are serious infringements in the Alta Murgia affecting fauna and the environment and violations of Legislative Decree No 22/97 implementing Directives 91/156/EEC (3) on waste, 91/689/EEC (4) on hazardous waste and 94/62/EC (5) on packaging and packaging waste.

| — | it forwarded the allegations to the Public Prosecutor's Office in Trani (BA), which tries to restore legality by criminal proceedings on the basis of Council Decision 2003/80/JHA (6) of 27 January 2003 on the protection of the environment through criminal law. |
| --- | --- |

—

it forwarded the allegations to the Public Prosecutor's Office in Trani (BA), which tries to restore legality by criminal proceedings on the basis of Council Decision 2003/80/JHA (6) of 27 January 2003 on the protection of the environment through criminal law.

| — | the European Court of Justice issued judgments C-143/02 and C-378/01 on 20 March 2003. |
| --- | --- |

—

the European Court of Justice issued judgments C-143/02 and C-378/01 on 20 March 2003.

Can the Commission say:

| 1. | whether the Region of Apulia has obtained funding for the reforestation of the Alta Murgia and, if so, how much; |
| --- | --- |

1.

whether the Region of Apulia has obtained funding for the reforestation of the Alta Murgia and, if so, how much;

| 2. | whether, in the light of the above, it intends for the time being to freeze the LIFE funding allocated to the Region of Apulia; |
| --- | --- |

2.

whether, in the light of the above, it intends for the time being to freeze the LIFE funding allocated to the Region of Apulia;

| 3. | whether it therefore considers that there are grounds for bringing infringement proceedings against Italy? |
| --- | --- |

3.

whether it therefore considers that there are grounds for bringing infringement proceedings against Italy?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(14 October 2003)

| 1. | In the Apulia Region, the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guarantee and Guidance Fund (EAGGF) contributes to the co-funding of the rural development plan for the period 2000-2006, which was approved by Commission Decision No C(2001)479 of 2 March 2001. This programme provides, among other things, for a measure concerning the reforestation of agricultural land. The rural development plan covers the entire regional territory, but gives priority, in particular as regards the reforestation of agricultural land, to sites of Community importance (SCI) and special protection areas (SPA) and to other protected areas. For the period 2000-2006, guaranteed EAGGF co-funding of EUR 11 million is planned for this measure. Farmers in the Alta Murgia were able and still can submit projects under this measure.
  The Guidance Section of the EAGGF contributes to the co-funding of the regional operational programme (ROP) and the Community initiative Leader+ programme for the period 2000-2006.
  Under the ROP, which was approved by Commission No C(2000)2349 of 8 August 2000, the Apulia Region plans, in the framework of measure 1.7, to carry out activities for the forestation and reforestation of woodland for environmental purposes in particular. The measure covers the entire regional territory, but gives priority to the SCI and SPA areas and other protected areas. For this programme, foresters and other aid recipients in Alta Murgia may also submit reforestation projects in response to the invitations for tender issued by the Region. EAGGF co-funding of EUR 31 million is scheduled for this measure.
  With regard to the Community initiative Leader+ programme for the period 2000-2006, which was approved by Commission Decision No C(2002)171 of 29 January 2002, no specific EAGGF Guidance Section funding is planned for forestation in the Apulia Region.
  The Commission has approved the above programmes after verifying that they conform with the relevant Community provisions. Local management is the responsibility of the Member States, at the most appropriate geographical level. The programmes must be implemented by the competent national and/or regional authorities, which must in particular ensure that projects are selected from among those proposed by potential recipients which fulfil the eligibility requirements and apply for support. The Commission is kept informed, in the framework of the partnership, about the detailed arrangements for using the funds by means of programme implementation reports and by Monitoring Committees in which the Member States participate. The information, which is in the form of financial and physical monitoring indicators, and the assessment factors do not concern specific areas such as the Alta Murgia or individual cases in which support is given, since in conformity with the principle of subsidiarity the Commission is not competent to express an opinion on them.
  The Commission would therefore ask the Honourable Member to contact the Apulia Region Assessorato all'Agricoltura for information about funding for reforestation in the specific area of Alta Murgia in the framework of the above programmes. |
| --- | --- |

1.

In the Apulia Region, the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guarantee and Guidance Fund (EAGGF) contributes to the co-funding of the rural development plan for the period 2000-2006, which was approved by Commission Decision No C(2001)479 of 2 March 2001. This programme provides, among other things, for a measure concerning the reforestation of agricultural land. The rural development plan covers the entire regional territory, but gives priority, in particular as regards the reforestation of agricultural land, to sites of Community importance (SCI) and special protection areas (SPA) and to other protected areas. For the period 2000-2006, guaranteed EAGGF co-funding of EUR 11 million is planned for this measure. Farmers in the Alta Murgia were able and still can submit projects under this measure.

The Guidance Section of the EAGGF contributes to the co-funding of the regional operational programme (ROP) and the Community initiative Leader+ programme for the period 2000-2006.

Under the ROP, which was approved by Commission No C(2000)2349 of 8 August 2000, the Apulia Region plans, in the framework of measure 1.7, to carry out activities for the forestation and reforestation of woodland for environmental purposes in particular. The measure covers the entire regional territory, but gives priority to the SCI and SPA areas and other protected areas. For this programme, foresters and other aid recipients in Alta Murgia may also submit reforestation projects in response to the invitations for tender issued by the Region. EAGGF co-funding of EUR 31 million is scheduled for this measure.

With regard to the Community initiative Leader+ programme for the period 2000-2006, which was approved by Commission Decision No C(2002)171 of 29 January 2002, no specific EAGGF Guidance Section funding is planned for forestation in the Apulia Region.

The Commission has approved the above programmes after verifying that they conform with the relevant Community provisions. Local management is the responsibility of the Member States, at the most appropriate geographical level. The programmes must be implemented by the competent national and/or regional authorities, which must in particular ensure that projects are selected from among those proposed by potential recipients which fulfil the eligibility requirements and apply for support. The Commission is kept informed, in the framework of the partnership, about the detailed arrangements for using the funds by means of programme implementation reports and by Monitoring Committees in which the Member States participate. The information, which is in the form of financial and physical monitoring indicators, and the assessment factors do not concern specific areas such as the Alta Murgia or individual cases in which support is given, since in conformity with the principle of subsidiarity the Commission is not competent to express an opinion on them.

The Commission would therefore ask the Honourable Member to contact the Apulia Region Assessorato all'Agricoltura for information about funding for reforestation in the specific area of Alta Murgia in the framework of the above programmes.

| 2. | Under the current LIFE III Programme, projects are the responsibility of individual beneficiaries and not of a region. It is not possible to freeze funding to all beneficiaries in a region indiscriminately. Funding can only be revoked where a beneficiary is in infringement of Community rules. The Apulia Region is not a current LIFE beneficiary: however, infringement of Community rules in the Region could be taken into account if the Region itself were to propose a LIFE project in the 2004 round. This is the last round of the LIFE III Programme, which expires on 31 December 2004. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Under the current LIFE III Programme, projects are the responsibility of individual beneficiaries and not of a region. It is not possible to freeze funding to all beneficiaries in a region indiscriminately. Funding can only be revoked where a beneficiary is in infringement of Community rules. The Apulia Region is not a current LIFE beneficiary: however, infringement of Community rules in the Region could be taken into account if the Region itself were to propose a LIFE project in the 2004 round. This is the last round of the LIFE III Programme, which expires on 31 December 2004.

| 3. | The Commission has registered a complaint on the issues raised by the Honourable Member for poor application of Directives 79/409/EEC on the conservation of wild birds and 92/43/EEC (7) on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora. This complaint is under assessment.
  The information given by the Honourable Member has been added to the above- mentioned complaint file.
  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 Treaty, to take ali necessary measures, including opening infringement procedures under Article 226 of the EC Treaty, in order to ensure compliance with the relevant Community law. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The Commission has registered a complaint on the issues raised by the Honourable Member for poor application of Directives 79/409/EEC on the conservation of wild birds and 92/43/EEC (7) on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora. This complaint is under assessment.

The information given by the Honourable Member has been added to the above- mentioned complaint file.

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 Treaty, to take ali necessary measures, including opening infringement procedures under Article 226 of the EC Treaty, in order to ensure compliance with the relevant Community law.

---

(1)  OJ L 338, 23.11.1992, p. 40.

(2)  OJ L 103, 25.4.1979, p. 1.

(3)  OJ L 78, 26.3.1991, p. 32.

(4)  OJ L 377, 31.12.1991, p. 20.

(5)  OJ L 365, 31.12.1994, p. 10.

(6)  OJ L 29, 5.2.2003, p. 55.

(7)  OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/423 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/423

---

(2004/C 78 E/0443)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2771/03

by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission

(16 September 2003)

Subject:   European Project Funding for Enable project

A representative of Dementia Voice, a partner in the Enable project, funded by the EC has expressed concern about the deficits they have incurred as a result of not yet receiving the balance of their European funding. Despite submitting all their paperwork by the deadline in June this year, they have been informed by the Commission that their project has not yet been processed and they will have to wait until the autumn. They are now in a deficit on this project of about GBP 8 000 which will be reflected in their annual accounts and may have a detrimental effect on applications for other funding.

What plans does the Commission have to improve deficit funding arrangements which are currently making it difficult for small but innovative projects and organisations to manage?

Answer given by Mr Busquin on behalf of the Commission

(29 October 2003)

As far as the Project under consideration is concerned, the payment corresponding to the eligible costs has been made to the project co-ordinator in charge.

The Commission is constantly striving to improve its performance. Within this context and taking into account the strengthened controls put in place in the context of the Reform and the new financial circuits, the Commission is taking substantial measures in order to ensure efficient payment of projects, both in terms of human resources (the services are steadily fulfilling all vacant posts regarding financial management and payments: out of 16 vacant posts, only one still remains vacant) and in terms of rationalisation of the financial management (some measures implemented: on the job intensive training, in addition to the standard requirements; strict implementation of deadlines, both internal and external, i.e. deadlines given to co-ordinators).

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/424 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/424

---

(2004/C 78 E/0444)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2772/03

by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission

(16 September 2003)

Subject:   Levels of professional indemnity cover for small insurance firms

Is the Commission planning to instigate any European lower limits regarding professional indemnity cover? One of my constituents is concerned about the level of EUR 1 million cover he has to pay as a small insurance firm.

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(23 October 2003)

The Honourable Member is most likely referring to Directive 2002/92/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 9 December 2002 on insurance mediation (1). This Directive will establish a legal regime, which ensures a high level of professionalism for insurance intermediaries and reinforces the information requirements to be provided to customers. Customers will therefore be better protected.

The Directive requires that any insurance intermediary shall be registered with a competent authority in his home Member State, provided that he meets strict professional requirements in relation to his professional competence, good repute, professional indemnity cover and, where the insurance intermediary manages funds of his clients, appropriate financial capacity.

The Directive requires that an insurance intermediary shall hold professional indemnity insurance covering the whole territory of the Community or some other comparable guarantee against liability arising from professional negligence, for at least EUR 1 million applying to each claim and in aggregate EUR 1,5 million per year for all claims. This insurance cover or financial guarantee is not required when an insurance undertaking, a reinsurance undertaking or another undertaking on whose behalf the insurance or reinsurance intermediary is acting, takes the full responsibility for the intermediary's actions (in accordance with Article 4 (3) of the Directive).

Once the insurance or reinsurance intermediary has been registered in his home Member State he may conduct business in the entire Community under the freedom of establishment and the free provision of services.

The Directive shall be applied by Member States as of 15 January 2005.

---

(1)  OJ L 9, 15.1.2003.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/425 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/425

---

(2004/C 78 E/0445)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2779/03

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(17 September 2003)

Subject:   Increase in the volume of mail and freight transported by rail in Germany and measures to promote a similar increase in other Member States

| 1. | Is the Commission aware that in various Member States the carriage of large quantities of mail over long distances by rail has been or is being terminated, that special mail trains are being scrapped and replaced by trucks, but that in Germany Deutsche Post, which hitherto has sent mail by rail only between Hamburg and Munich, now intends to use the same method of transport between Cologne and Berlin and on other routes, partly because tolls are being introduced for the use of motorways by trucks? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is the Commission aware that in various Member States the carriage of large quantities of mail over long distances by rail has been or is being terminated, that special mail trains are being scrapped and replaced by trucks, but that in Germany Deutsche Post, which hitherto has sent mail by rail only between Hamburg and Munich, now intends to use the same method of transport between Cologne and Berlin and on other routes, partly because tolls are being introduced for the use of motorways by trucks?

| 2. | Is the Commission also aware that in some Member States national railway companies have contracted out complementary road haulage operations (such as those formerly performed in the Netherlands by Van Gend en Loos) to other companies, but that in Germany Deutsche Bahn now owns the road haulage companies Stinnes Logistics and Schenker, which coordinate their operations with DB-cargo, while the latter provides the rail freight services and, after having taken over this transport in the Netherlands and Denmark, will in future be operating under the name Railion? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Is the Commission also aware that in some Member States national railway companies have contracted out complementary road haulage operations (such as those formerly performed in the Netherlands by Van Gend en Loos) to other companies, but that in Germany Deutsche Bahn now owns the road haulage companies Stinnes Logistics and Schenker, which coordinate their operations with DB-cargo, while the latter provides the rail freight services and, after having taken over this transport in the Netherlands and Denmark, will in future be operating under the name Railion?

| 3. | Are these developments in Germany a promising contribution to the Commission's efforts to restore rail's share of the freight market, which has fallen sharply in the recent past, and to permanently increase it? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Are these developments in Germany a promising contribution to the Commission's efforts to restore rail's share of the freight market, which has fallen sharply in the recent past, and to permanently increase it?

| 4. | What will the Commission do to encourage emulation in other Member States of the German examples, insofar as they strengthen the position of the railways in the transportation of mail and freight? What obstacles still exist to such emulation and how will they be eliminated? |
| --- | --- |

4.

What will the Commission do to encourage emulation in other Member States of the German examples, insofar as they strengthen the position of the railways in the transportation of mail and freight? What obstacles still exist to such emulation and how will they be eliminated?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(4 November 2003)

The Commission monitors closely the situation of the railway market as prescribed by Directive 2001/12/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2001 amending Council Directive 91/440/EEC on the development of the Community's railways (1). It welcomes the success stories like the one mentioned by the Honourable Member, as it regrets decisions of railway undertakings to discontinue services such as international passenger services or postal services. Recent success stories in freight are due to major changes which occurred in the approach by the railway undertakings of the freight market, now acting with a view of the global transport chain and as a business. This is the reason why the Commission pursues a policy of modernising the regulatory framework to enable railway undertakings to provide competitive national and international rail freight services. The Commission is satisfied to see this policy to bear fruit in some Member States and particularly in those having already created new competitive conditions like Germany and the Netherlands.

It seems to be a logical consequence of current demand patterns and customer requirements that railway undertakings develop European business strategies that integrate logistical services in the transport offer to the customers. It is their primary responsibility.

The Commission may only support this development through the establishment of a common European regulatory framework for non-discriminatory market access, safety rules and interoperability requirements. Additionally, Community funds contribute to the development of rail infrastructure needed to provide competitive and customer-oriented rail services, particularly on the trans-European rail network.

---

(1)  OJ L 75, 15.3.2001.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/426 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/426

---

(2004/C 78 E/0446)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2780/03

by António Campos (PSE) to the Commission

(11 September 2003)

Subject:   Forest fires in the Union

This year, parts of the Union were hit by a wave of forest fires; in Portugal these were positively catastrophic.

Given that the Commission spends considerable sums on forest protection plans and forestry measures,

And has the Community information system on forest fires at its disposal.

Can the Commission answer the following questions:

| 1. | What three species were most affected, and what were the surface areas devastated by forest fires, in each of the Member States in the last 10 years? |
| --- | --- |

1.

What three species were most affected, and what were the surface areas devastated by forest fires, in each of the Member States in the last 10 years?

| 2. | What percentage do these species account for in each Member State's woodlands as a whole? |
| --- | --- |

2.

What percentage do these species account for in each Member State's woodlands as a whole?

| 3. | What is the size of the areas covered by these more vulnerable species which have been devastated in the last 10 years? |
| --- | --- |

3.

What is the size of the areas covered by these more vulnerable species which have been devastated in the last 10 years?

| 4. | What measures were taken, as part of the management of the EAGGF Guarantee, to prevent the funding of the more vulnerable species, and what amount of money went into the more fire-resistant species? |
| --- | --- |

4.

What measures were taken, as part of the management of the EAGGF Guarantee, to prevent the funding of the more vulnerable species, and what amount of money went into the more fire-resistant species?

| 5. | If the Commission has a forest tree flammability scale in graded form, would it provide me with the details? |
| --- | --- |

5.

If the Commission has a forest tree flammability scale in graded form, would it provide me with the details?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(8 October 2003)

Under Article 2 of Regulation (EEC) No 2158/92 (1) the Member States classified their territory by degree of fire risk. Some 60 million hectares of forest and other wooded areas (60 % private, 40 % public) in six Member States (France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Portugal, Spain) were classed as high and medium-risk areas. This accounted for 40 % of the total for the fifteen Member States.

Analysis of the Community forest fire information system data for the last 12 years shows that on average 1 % of the forests of the Member States' risk zones has been affected by fire each year but that in some parts of Greece, southern Italy and central and eastern Spain more than 3 % of the forest area has burned.

Analysis of the same data also shows that three big areas have had very large numbers of fires: the northwestern Iberian Peninsula (north half of Portugal, Galicia, Asturias), a Franco-Italian triangle comprising south-eastern France, Corsica, Liguria and Tuscany, and south-western Italy (Sardinia, Sicily, Basilicata, Calabria).

If weather conditions (severe drought, wind) are unfavourable and prevention and surveillance inadequate these large numbers of fires can turn into widespread fires, which is what appears to have happened this summer, at least in south-eastern France and Portugal.

The information provided by the Member States in their forest-fire protection plans shows the species affected as varying from one area to another. In Portugal maritime pine (Pinus nigra) is the most affected species (56 % of the burnt area), ahead of eucalyptus (17 %). In Italy it is chestnut (Castanea sativa) that burns most in Piedmont. Italy also shows that generally speaking broadleafs are more affected by fire than conifers, whereas Germany indicates the reverse. In France the Department of Drôme states that downy oak (Quercus pubescens) is the most affected species and black pine (Pinus nigra) the least.

It may however be pointed out that the worst affected species are undoubtedly in that position because they are the most widespread in the areas concerned.

The forest protection plans in fact make more reference to particular types of stand as being more affected than other types rather than to species.

Thus most of the plans indicate as vulnerable:

| — | young conifer plantations in their first few years (France, Germany), |
| --- | --- |

—

young conifer plantations in their first few years (France, Germany),

| — | coppice and ‘maquis’ (France, Italy, Spain), |
| --- | --- |

—

coppice and ‘maquis’ (France, Italy, Spain),

| — | broadleaf standards (France, Italy), |
| --- | --- |

—

broadleaf standards (France, Italy),

| — | ageing heathland, |
| --- | --- |

—

ageing heathland,

| — | conifer plantations (Germany). |
| --- | --- |

—

conifer plantations (Germany).

The Commission has no detailed figures on the various species burnt each year but in 2000 the Joint Research Centre at Ispra carried out a study that involved comparing the cartographic images of burnt zones obtained by remote sensing from space with the Corine-LandCover map.

It showed that in 2000 29 % of the area burnt had broadleaf cover (forest 5 %, sclerophyllous vegetation 13 %, ‘maquis’ 11 %), 8 % was conifer forest and 6 % mixed broadleaf and conifer forest. The rest consisted of agricultural and agri-forest zones (20 %), natural grassland (10 %), heath, moor and other wasteland 16 % and other ground cover types (11 %).

Before this question is answered something must be said on the meaning of vulnerability to fire.

For a forest species this is a matter of:

| — | its intrinsic flammability, dependent chiefly on its water retention capacity, |
| --- | --- |

—

its intrinsic flammability, dependent chiefly on its water retention capacity,

| — | its combustibility, i.e. its susceptibility to fire given the vegetation structure at the location: the cover afforded by a plant is of varying density and it is associated with various other species of the herbaceous and shrub storey in a stand of a particular type (coppice, maquis, standards) that is exploited or maintained to a greater or lesser extent and is at a particular age (natural regeneration, young plantation, sapling, pole stage etc.), |
| --- | --- |

—

its combustibility, i.e. its susceptibility to fire given the vegetation structure at the location: the cover afforded by a plant is of varying density and it is associated with various other species of the herbaceous and shrub storey in a stand of a particular type (coppice, maquis, standards) that is exploited or maintained to a greater or lesser extent and is at a particular age (natural regeneration, young plantation, sapling, pole stage etc.),

| — | the presence of triggering or aggravating factors in the environment: proximity of inhabited areas, badly protected waste dumps, roads, waterways, railways, electricity cables, weather conditions etc. |
| --- | --- |

—

the presence of triggering or aggravating factors in the environment: proximity of inhabited areas, badly protected waste dumps, roads, waterways, railways, electricity cables, weather conditions etc.

Thus the vulnerability of any particular species depends on its own qualities (flammability), its behaviour given the other plants present and the silvicultural techniques used there (combustibility), and external factors.

The specialists agree in not considering the intrinsic flammability of plants, hence the choice of forest species, to be a determining factor in fire behaviour. What is important is rather the structure of the stand, in other words the type of silvicultural management.

That said, the Commission has no figures on the breakdown by species of burnt plantations. All it knows is that young plantations are very vulnerable, particularly in their first few years, and that they have to be protected.

It is for that reason that Article 29(5) of Regulation (EEC) No 1257/1999 (2) stipulates that when forestry measures are financed by the Community the forest protection plan requirements of Regulation (EEC) No 2158/92 must be met.

The Commission has no specific EAGGF Guarantee provisions to prevent funding for the more vulnerable species. Forestry policies are managed at Member State level.

Since 1992 an amount of EUR 7,2 million has however been spent under Regulation (EEC) No 2158/92 on subsidising preventive work to improve the protection of forests considered to be among the more vulnerable:

| — | improvement of fire resistance for conifer plantations (Germany, Italy, Portugal), |
| --- | --- |

—

improvement of fire resistance for conifer plantations (Germany, Italy, Portugal),

| — | protection of young stands (planted or natural regeneration) (France), |
| --- | --- |

—

protection of young stands (planted or natural regeneration) (France),

| — | stand management to provide closed cover with a single crown level, research on parcelling by ground breaks (France), |
| --- | --- |

—

stand management to provide closed cover with a single crown level, research on parcelling by ground breaks (France),

| — | silvicultural treatment to give vertical discontinuity in stands (regular standards, simple coppice system, introduction of dense cover species) (France), |
| --- | --- |

—

silvicultural treatment to give vertical discontinuity in stands (regular standards, simple coppice system, introduction of dense cover species) (France),

| — | conversion of coppice to standards (Italy), |
| --- | --- |

—

conversion of coppice to standards (Italy),

There have been numerous studies on plant flammability and combustibility throughout the world, including a number part-financed by the Community under the research programmes or Regulation (EEC) No 2158/92.

The Institut national de recherche agronomique (Avignon) and the Instituto de investigaciones agropecuarias (Madrid) have for instance drawn up comparative lists for Mediterranean species flammability and can supply them. A number of the Member States' forestry departments have also drawn up maps of the susceptibility of forest stands to fire and these are used for fire prevention and control purposes.

---

(1)  Regulation (EEC) No 2158/92 of 23 July 1992 on protection of the Community's forest against fire, OJ L 217, 31.7.1992.

(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.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/428 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/428

---

(2004/C 78 E/0447)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2789/03

by Eija-Riitta Korhola (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(19 September 2003)

Subject:   Banking rules in EU emissions trading: Member States' right to bank emission allowances

Under Article 3(13) of the Kyoto Protocol, Parties may bank emission allowances from one period to the next. Under the EU emissions trading directive (not yet published in the Official Journal), decisions may be taken at national level regarding the possibility of banking to be afforded to operators.

Does the Commission consider that Member States are entitled to bank emission allowances which have not been allocated, even though the directive applies only to operators (plants)? Does it believe that Member States will already have that right during the time span covering the EU internal emissions trading period (2005-2007) and the first Kyoto period (2008-2012)?

Should the emissions trading directive be amended in order to bring it into line with the Kyoto Protocol?

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/429 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/429

---

(2004/C 78 E/0448)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2790/03

by Eija-Riitta Korhola (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(19 September 2003)

Subject:   Banking rules in EU emissions trading: invariability of AAU (BSA) amounts

Under the EU emissions trading directive (not yet published in the Official Journal) national decisions concerning the possibility for operators to bank emission allowances will be permitted during the time span covering the EU internal emissions trading period (2005-2007) and the first Kyoto period (2008-2012). In every Member State there may be companies which, prompted by substantial fluctuations in their annual output, for example, might wish to bank emission allowances even if they were prohibited from doing so in their home country. This creates an incentive to transfer the allowances in question temporarily to another Member State.

However, cross-border transfers during the internal emissions trading period will not lead to changes in the emission allowance (AAU or BSA amount) allocated to an individual country, contrary to what will happen from the beginning of the first Kyoto period.

Does the Commission consider it a problem that a transfer to another country purely for banking purposes and back again from that country to the country of origin in the Kyoto period will unfairly alter the aggregate emission allowances of the country which has allowed banking and enable the emission allowance to be doubled in the country of origin as far as the banked amount is concerned? Should the rules on adjustment of AAU and BSA amounts be revised when the EU emissions trading directive is reviewed in 2004 or 2006, before the first transfers are made between Member States for banking purposes?

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/429 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/429

---

(2004/C 78 E/0449)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2791/03

by Eija-Riitta Korhola (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(19 September 2003)

Subject:   Problem of double accounting in emissions trading

From 2008 national AAU (BSA) amount will be adjusted to take account of cross-border transfers of emission allowances so as to ensure that a selling country's AAU (BSA) amount is decreased and that of the buying country increased by the quantity transferred. The selling country's authorities will correspondingly have that much less to allocate in the next emissions trading period. Given that the authorities presumably cannot treat firms differently, according to whether they sell emission allowances within their home country or beyond its borders, a seller's emission allowance in the next period should logically be reduced in every case. This would also be consistent with the principle that emission reductions should be taken into account only once.

However, a firm can choose between the strategies of selling and banking emission allowances so as to derive greatest benefit. If a firm is able to bank its emission allowance in order to secure a better (or unchanged) share in the next period, the authorities should treat firms which have banked emission allowances and firms which have sold them in the same way and hence in both cases deduct the amounts sold or banked from their new initial allocations (unless allowances have been banked purely because of fluctuations in a firm's output for reasons related to the business cycle). Otherwise it would be in a firm's interest to postpone selling and bank emission allowances, in which case it would obtain twice as much to sell in the next period.

Does the Commission see a problem as regards equal treatment of firms? Should the Member States all give instructions for the amounts of emission allowances banked or sold to be deducted from the next allocations for the firms concerned, thus ensuring that the problem of double accounting would not arise? Should this matter be raised when the directive is reviewed?

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/430 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/430

---

(2004/C 78 E/0450)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2792/03

by Eija-Riitta Korhola (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(19 September 2003)

Subject:   Opportunities for aggressive speculation in emissions trading

From 2008, national assigned amount units (AAU or BSA amounts) will be adjusted to take account of cross-border transfers of emission allowances so as to ensure that a selling country's AAU (BSA) amount is decreased and that of the buying country increased by the quantity transferred.

If, however, a cross-border transfer of emission allowances in the period beginning in 2008 is due to the fact that the allowances in question were originally just banked in the country concerned, the country of origin will obtain the amount of banked allowances twice over. Broadening out the problem onto a large scale, it is hard to believe, especially in the light of their governments' action, that the Member States will start to engage in speculative transfers of this kind, but any non-EU Annex I country (if it acceded to the Kyoto Protocol and joined the EU emissions trading scheme before 2007) or a company from such a country would be able, by proceeding as described above, to double the amount of allowances for sale. It will also be possible in a way to exploit market forces if emission allowances have been banked in a rival selling country (for instance in a transfer from Ukraine to Germany). The rival seller's market position will consequently be weakened, whereas the market player in question will benefit twice over.

Another typical form of aggressive speculation could occur if the kind of practice seen on the foreign exchange markets some years ago were to be repeated on the emissions trading market. In theory, a non-EU operator could thus hamper a competitor operating within the EU (and within the emissions trading scheme).

Has the Commission made plans to deal with aggressive speculation of this type in emissions trading? If so, what plans?

Does it still see no need for the idea of employing market intervention (using an EU central register, for example) to stabilise disturbances on the emissions trading market?

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/430 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/430

---

(2004/C 78 E/0451)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2793/03

by Eija-Riitta Korhola (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(19 September 2003)

Subject:   Definition of hot air and ban under the Kyoto Protocol

At present the obstacles to allocation to companies posed by the EU emissions trading directive and the rules on competition laid down in the EC Treaty (Articles 87 and 88) probably go beyond what is necessary. That is why it is considered unlikely that ‘hot air’ (in other words emission allowances whose sale is not due to actual reductions in emissions) will come onto the market. The Kyoto Protocol itself does not prohibit the sale of or define hot air.

Does the EU have any means of preventing Member State governments from selling hot air directly (without first allocating it to companies)?

If not, does the Commission consider it necessary, not least in order to guarantee consistent international practice, to devise a definition of hot air and propose that the Kyoto Protocol be amended in such a way as to incorporate that definition and a ban on the sale of hot air?

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/431 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/431

---

(2004/C 78 E/0452)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2794/03

by Eija-Riitta Korhola (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(19 September 2003)

Subject:   Publication of the EU's Kyoto target as a five-year moving average

The Kyoto Protocol stipulates that compliance with commitments is to be gauged according to the average for the years from 2008 to 2012. This is reasonable because weather conditions, for example, can have a great impact on annual emissions, linked among other things to the small quantities of hydroelectric power generated in dry years. The developments as regards achievement of the Kyoto target by the EU and its Member States have recently been the subject of conflicting assessments stemming in part from weather conditions, as mentioned above. The press, to say nothing of the public at large, cannot understand such fluctuations or ascertain whether the trend after smoothing is encouraging or gloomy.

Has the Commission thought of changing its reporting by publishing, in addition to the annual statistics, an indication of the distance to target, calculated from a five-year moving average? Does it think that this would put the public in a better position to understand the real direction in which developments were moving, viewed over a time span longer than a year?

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/431 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/431

---

(2004/C 78 E/0453)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2795/03

by Eija-Riitta Korhola (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(19 September 2003)

Subject:   Emissions trading: problem of period-based allocation

Under the emissions trading directive a firm's allocation is intended to cover three (first emissions trading period) or five years (second period). It is thus in the firm's interest to refrain from selling its unused portion allowances at the end of an emissions trading period if in that way it can secure an unchanged amount for the whole of the following five-year period. This likewise creates an incentive (unfortunate from the environmental point of view) for the firm to postpone environmental investment until the start of the first period, or beyond the beginning of 2008, to enable it to sell surplus emission allowances in as many years as possible.

Does the Commission consider the allocation rule described above to be compatible with the single accounting principle?

Does it believe that, when the directive is reviewed, the allocation rules should be assessed and, if necessary, amended in such a way as to ensure that the allocation for a firm selling emission allowances is altered without delay, in proportion to the quantity offered for sale, in the year following the sale, even though the emissions trading period might not yet have ended?

Joint answer

to Written Questions E-2789/03, E-2790/03, E-2791/03, E-2792/03, E-2793/03, E-2794/03 and E-2795/03

given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(7 November 2003)

E-2789/03

The Kyoto Protocol's first commitment period is from 2008-2012, and the Protocol provides that Parties may bank assigned amount units from 2008-2012 into the next commitment period in the case that Parties have reached their Kyoto target. The emissions trading Directive (1) is in line with the Kyoto Protocol by providing for banking of allowances by persons from the 2008-2012 period into the next period.

The Kyoto Protocol's quantified emission limitation and reduction requirements do not apply before 2008, and the emissions trading Directive allows Member States to decide individually whether to provide for banking of allowances by operators from the first period, 2005-2007, into the period 2008-2012. Under the emissions trading Directive, operators are allocated allowances, and transfers of allowances from 2008 will be accompanied by corresponding transfers of assigned amount units.

The question is based on a false link between the Kyoto Protocol and the Union emissions trading scheme. Member States do not have to keep trading scheme allowances, they issue them to plant operators when and as appropriate without any formal link to the obligations or the flexibility mechanisms of the Kyoto Protocol.

E-2790/03

The emissions trading Directive provides for transfers of allowances between Member States, in order to achieve cost-effective reductions of greenhouse gas emissions. As transfers of allowances from 2008 will be accompanied by corresponding transfers of assigned amount units, the Commission has explained to Member States the potential effects of allowing banking of allowances from 2005-2007 to 2008-2012. The Council and the Parliament have decided that Member States may allow the banking of allowances from 2005-2007 to 2008-2012, and agreed a recital which indicates how Member States may decide to allow the banking from 2005-2007 to 2008-2012. The Commission does not intend to re-open this issue.

E-2791/03

The Commission does not see a problem of double accounting nor one in respect of the equal treatment of firms. The Assigned Amount of each Party to the Kyoto Protocol is fixed. The addition and subtraction of Kyoto units will be taken into account in the compliance assessment by the Kyoto Protocol's Compliance Committee, but will not change the Assigned Amount of each Party to the Kyoto Protocol. Allocations to operators after 2012 will take into account the commitments of Member States for periods after 2012. Deducting allowances from an operator's subsequent allocation would furthermore imply that banking is de facto not possible.

E-2792/03

The Union emissions trading scheme is designed as a market based instrument to lower compliance cost for participating actors and for society. The nature of a market instrument is to use the individual decisions actors take in their efforts to optimize their profits from the system. As on all markets there may be speculation also on this one. One important issue when designing the scheme was therefore to make this market as broad and stable as possible. As there should be several thousands of actors already from the start this market could be expected to be reasonably stable. Of course, signs of market domination abuse must, as always, be monitored and addressed appropriately.

The rules of the EC Treaty on anti-competitive behaviour apply in any case, and the Commission does not intend to intervene unless those rules are breached.

E-2793/03

Member States can buy and sell assigned amount units in accordance with the rules agreed under the Kyoto Protocol and its implementing provisions. The Commission does not consider it appropriate to propose an amendment to the Kyoto Protocol relating to a definition and a ban on the sale of ‘hot air’.

E-2794/03

The Commission has made its position on reporting clear in its proposal for a Decision on the monitoring of greenhouse gas emissions and the implementation of the Kyoto Protocol (2). The Council and the Parliament are in the process of reaching agreements at first reading on this proposal, and have not proposed that this reporting should take place using the calculation of a five-year moving average.

E-2795/03

The emissions trading Directive has not laid down any specific allocation rule, including the one outlined in the written question.

A Member State has to develop periodically a national allocation plan adhering to the criteria laid down in Annex III of the emission trading Directive.

In the review in mid-2006 the Commission will, on the basis of the experience gathered by then, consider the further harmonisation of the allocation method and the criteria in Annex III.

The Commission disagrees with an allocation rule which would result in the reduction of an operator's allocation within an ongoing trading period after the operator has sold some allowances. Such a rule is not in line with the provisions of the Directive and would not be desirable from an economic point of view either.

---

(1)  Directive 2003/87/EC of 13 October 2003, OJ L 275, 25.10.2003.

(2)  COM(2003) 51 final.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/433 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/433

---

(2004/C 78 E/0454)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2799/03

by Domenico Mennitti (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(17 September 2003)

Subject:   Development of Pan-European corridors

The process of European integration is now reaching its final stage with the accession of ten new countries to the European Union.

There is therefore an urgent need to develop identified infrastructure to foster economic relations within an area that has expanded enormously in size.

Of particular importance among the types of infrastructure envisaged are ‘Pan-European corridors’, which are considered ideal tools for promoting economic exchange and especially trade.

In the light of the above, does the Commission not feel that the priority criteria should be broadened and special attention awarded to Pan-European corridor No 8 as part of the plans to boost the countries bordering the Mediterranean, which should be flanked with the development of adequate infrastructure?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(15 October 2003)

The enlargement of the Union will bring a major change into the corridor concept; two-thirds of the existing Corridors will be within the territory of the Union and only one-third of the corridors will be outside the Union territory. Corridors or axes could be seen both inside and outside of the enlarged Union — inside as a framework to channel the new priority transport routes which are emerging as a result of accelerated economic integration and which are one of the subjects of the ongoing revision of the trans-European transport network (TEN-T) guidelines, and — outside to reflect international trade developments.

However, a fundamental re-assessment of future corridor development and management is needed. The number of corridors should probably remain at a level which is manageable and affordable in terms of financing. These redefined corridors or axes would need close and systematic supervision in order to be realised in a reasonable amount of time. A number of useful management techniques have been developed for the corridors. These structures (Memo of Understandings, Steering committees, etc.) are expected to make progress with the identification of inventories, bottlenecks and priority projects.

In the end, the implementation of the Corridor VIII, which has been signed only recently, depends on the countries concerned in the first place. As the Honourable Member may know, the whole alignment of the Corridor VIII on rail is also mentioned in the Report of the TEN-T High Level Group as an important project for territorial cohesion.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/434 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/434

---

(2004/C 78 E/0455)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2819/03

by Proinsias De Rossa (PSE) to the Commission

(19 September 2003)

Subject:   Environmental impact assessments in Ireland

On 22 July, the Commission announced (IP/03/1070) that it was referring Ireland to the European Court of Justice concerning the possibility, inter alia, that Irish authorities allow a decision to be made before rather than after an environmental impact assessment has been fully assessed in line with the EIA Directive.

What specific cases in Ireland is the Commission concerned about in this regard?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(28 October 2003)

The Commission's concerns derived from its examination of the way in which the impact of the Kildare Bypass motorway project on an internationally important wetland, Pollardstown Fen, and an associated aquifer were assessed.

More specifically, despite advice from the statutory nature conservation authority that the information provided by the developer was seriously deficient, certain important studies on the likely impacts were only undertaken after the decision approving the project was already taken.

Whilst the Commission did not challenge the specific project, it decided to challenge the underlying approach taken on the basis that it was not compliant with the requirements 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).

---

(1)  OJ L 175, 5.7.1985, p. 40.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/434 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/434

---

(2004/C 78 E/0456)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2826/03

by Kathleen Van Brempt (PSE) to the Commission

(23 September 2003)

Subject:   Eco-driving

Introducing a new, more environmentally friendly driving style using electronic equipment in cars, known as ‘eco-driving’, has been a topic of discussion in Europe for some time now. I would like further information from the Commission regarding the practicalities of eco-driving.

Can the Commission state what measures it intends to take to introduce a more environmentally friendly driving style?

What is the Commission's opinion of the proposal by the Netherlands Government that all new cars in Europe be equipped with cruise control and an on-board computer? According to the Netherlands, this could reduce fuel consumption and CO2 emissions by around 10 %. Is this proposal feasible?

Belgium has seen many accidents involving lorries caused by the use of cruise control. Can the Commission provide clarification of the safety guarantees that accompany the installation of electronic equipment, and cruise control in particular, in cars?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(13 November 2003)

There is a wide range of conceivable measures to reduce the environmental impact of road vehicles. In this connection, voluntary agreements on CO2 emissions and technical improvements to vehicles will have an important role to play.

Driving style is an equally important factor. Results show that ecodriving makes it possible to cut fuel consumption by around 10 % and at the same time to reduce accidents and pollution. The Commission has provided its support to a number of projects in this area (see www.ecodrive.org). The STEER programme, which is an element of the Intelligent Energy Europe programme, will offer the possibility of supporting other projects.

In the technological field, a significant number of research projects in progress under the 5th Framework Programme for RTD aim to make vehicles more environmentally friendly. Generally speaking, their main objective is to develop new engine technologies which are both more fuel efficient (CO2) and cleaner. For example, a great deal of work has been carried out in the DEXA (Diesel Engine Exhaust particles After treatment) projects, in order to eliminate particle emissions from diesel engines and in the VCR (Variable compression ratio for CO2 reduction for gasoline engines) project which allows a significant reduction in consumption and hence CO2. This work is continuing in the 6th Framework Programme where new projects should allow further advances, whether for conventional engines or fuel cells in the longer term.

The Commission is planning to propose a Directive on energy services in the months to come. This proposal could require energy suppliers to help their customers to use energy products more efficiently. In the field of transport, customers would be advised on how to manage their energy costs more effectively, check tyre pressures and undergo ecodriving training.

As regards the announcement by the Netherlands of a proposal making it compulsory to fit cruise-control devices, given that the type approval of vehicles is an area where the Community has competence, the Commission would have to receive a specific draft in order to assess its actual impact and the suitability of a proposal with two co-legislators. In any event, this is one of a number of innovative technologies which could improve environmental protection and safety. The effects of the various options will have to be carefully weighed to ensure that the most effective solution is chosen.

Finally, as regards accidents involving heavy goods vehicles equipped with cruise control in Belgium, the Honourable Member is requested to refer to the answer to written question E-l 501/03 (1).

---

(1)  OJ C 70 E, 20.3.2004, p. 48.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/435 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/435

---

(2004/C 78 E/0457)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2827/03

by Kathleen Van Brempt (PSE) to the Commission

(23 September 2003)

Subject:   Isolation units in hospitals

Europe escaped the SARS virus. According to virologists, however, there is a significant risk of a renewed outbreak of the SARS virus before the end of the year. Biological terrorism can also never be ruled out. In order to prevent the spread of viruses such as SARS, work needs to be done on isolation units in hospitals. Now that the threat of the SARS virus appears to have subsided, however, no such work is being carried out in Member States.

Does the Commission agree that European hospitals need to have isolation units?

Does the Commission intend to take action in this area?

How many isolation chambers does the Commision believe hospitals in the EU should have available?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(16 October 2003)

The application of health protection measures, including those undertaken to prevent the spread of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) in hospitals, is the responsibility of the authorities of the Member States.

The Commission has taken, in its areas of competence, a proactive role in responding to SARS and other viral diseases.

This concerns, in particular, co-ordination of surveillance and technical guidance for responding to SARS and other communicable diseases in a coherent way throughout the Union. Details of this work can be found on (http://europa.eu.int/comm/health/index_en.html).

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/436 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/436

---

(2004/C 78 E/0458)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2832/03

by Camilo Nogueira Román (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(23 September 2003)

Subject:   Compliance with of the Stability and Growth Pact

What is the overall situation regarding compliance by the Member States with the Stability and Growth Pact, given the difficulties experienced by large economies like France and Germany in keeping within the 3 % budget deficit limit? How does the Commission view the fact that some countries are succeeding in keeping their deficits within these limits by externalising a significant proportion of state investments through public companies or introducing drastic cuts in welfare spending?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(12 January 2004)

The deterioration in fiscal positions reflects to some extent the present weak economic situation. Gross domestic product (GDP) growth has been more subdued than projected in spring and several countries of the euro area have been in a technical recession. However, an important part of the slippage also derives from past policy inaction or from deficit increasing measures.

The situation in the three Member States that are in the Excessive Deficit Procedure is of particular concern. The Council issued recommendations under Article 104(7) of the EC Treaty to Germany, France and Portugal, setting deadlines for taking corrective action and a deadline for the correction of the excessive deficit of 2003 for Portugal and 2004 for Germany and France. On the basis of the latest data on 2003 budgetary outcome and budgets for 2004, the Commission will have to assess the situation in Portugal. In the second half of this year it has become clear that the action taken by Germany and France would not be sufficient to correct the excessive deficit by 2004- as required by the respective Council recommendations of January 2003 and June 2003 — although Germany complied with the recommendation for 2003. This was due to a large part to a more prolonged slowdown than expected, but also to additional measures taken by governments worsening the situation. That has prompted the Commission to go ahead with the procedures foreseen by the Treaty (Article 104.8 and 104.9) in order to request France and Germany to take the necessary measures. The Commission has taken the latest developments carefully into consideration, and come forward with new recommendations which were based on a balanced view of the actual circumstances. It has therefore recommended to the Council to give an additional year to Germany and France to correct the deficit, while suggesting a credible consolidation step in 2004 in order to bring the deficit below 3 % of GDP in 2005. However, the majority required for the adoption of the Commission recommendations was not reached in the Ecofin Council meeting of 25 November 2003. After this event, the Council decided to take an unprecedented step by finding an agreement outside the Treaty. The Commission has clearly expressed its disagreement with the Council, in particular with the procedure adopted by the Council.

The Commission will continue to apply the Treaty and the Regulations of the Pact. Doing so is the best guarantee that all member States are treated equally and to ensure sound public finances in all countries. The Commission will make sure that procedures are applied in a non-partisan fashion and enforced appropriately.

The interaction between the Union's budgetary rules and public investment has been investigated in detail in the report ‘Public Finances in the Economic and Monetary Union (EMU) 2003’, and its conclusions are reflected in the accompanying Communication from the Commission to the Council and the Parliament (1). It shows that the decline in public investment rates is a long-run tendency that started already in the 1970s, and affected all industrial countries and not just Member States. Declining levels of public investment as a share of GDP have been attributed to several factors, including changing boundaries between public and private investment which is in part linked to the process of privatisation. Some of the decline in public investment appears to be related to efforts to consolidate public finances, which was necessary irrespective of EMU due to high and increasing debt levels. A careful analysis of the data, however, fails to show any clear-cut link between change in investment ratio and the provisions of the Union's framework for fiscal surveillance. Indeed public investment expenditures in many Member States have stopped falling after the beginning of monetary union.

Alternative forms of funding traditional investment might be appropriate, from fully private to mixed forms with the involvement of the public sector. The most known are Public Private Partnerships (PPPs) that have a sound microeconomic rationale as they can shape incentives in such a way as to achieve cost efficiency without compromising public objectives relating to the quality and characteristics of the services provided by the investment. It is important that Member States select projects on the basis of their micro-economic rationale and not solely on their possible implications for public finances.

The choice regarding the composition of public finances (including both investment and welfare spending) is in the hands of the Member States.

However, the Union provides guidance through Union policy co-ordination instruments, in particular through the Broad Economic Policy Guidelines.

The last ones adopted by the Council on 26 June 2003 address the need to:

| (i) | redirect public expenditure towards growth — enhancing cost — effective investment in physical and human capital and knowledge; |
| --- | --- |

(i)

redirect public expenditure towards growth — enhancing cost — effective investment in physical and human capital and knowledge;

| (ii) | ensure long-run sustainability of public finances; and |
| --- | --- |

(ii)

ensure long-run sustainability of public finances; and

| (iii) | ensure social sustainability. |
| --- | --- |

(iii)

ensure social sustainability.

---

(1)  COM(2003) 283 final.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/438 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/438

---

(2004/C 78 E/0459)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2851/03

by Monica Frassoni (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(26 September 2003)

Subject:   Building of a road without an environmental impact assessment in the proposed site of Community interest — the Triassic chalk outcrops in the Tuscan and Emilian Apennines (Villa Minozzo, RE, Italy)

Approval has been given (1) for a project to build a rural secondary road in the area of the Apennines where Triassic chalk outcrops are found along the course of the river Secchia in the municipality of Villa Minozzo (RE). The project entails a large amount of earth-moving, substantial civil engineering works and objectively radical changes to the terrain.

The competent Community, national, regional and local authorities and the environmental organisations Friends of the Earth and the WWF have requested that an environmental impact assessment (2) be carried out, since the area is of considerable environmental and scenic interest and still in a good state of conservation. A note to this effect from the Greens to the municipal council of Reggio Emilia was forwarded to the Commissioner Mrs Wallström as early as 26 May 2000.

The area in question is under a conservation order (3) and constitutes the proposed site of Community importance ‘Gessi Triassici’ (Triassic chalk outcrops) — code number IT403009 (4) and is part of the national park of the Apennines straddling Tuscany and Emilia (5).

The whole road-building project, including the project to alter the course of the river Secchia, was not the subject of any preliminary study or environmental impact assessment prior to the issue of definitive official authorisation.

Work on the new road started on 2 September 2003.

Can the Commission say whether it is aware of all this?

Whether any measures under way or planned (e.g. roads, water supply or sewerage systems) in connection with these works are being funded by the Community.

Whether it intends to take any appropriate measures in response to this serious instance of failure to comply with Directives 97/11/EC (6) and 85/337/EEC (7)?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(6 November 2003)

According to Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985, 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, Member States are obliged to ensure that, before 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 a requirement for development consent and an assessment with regard to their effects. Projects covered by the Directive are identified in the annexes. Under Article 4(1), projects listed in Annex I must be made subject to an environmental impact assessment procedure. Under Article 4(2), for projects listed in Annex II Member States are obliged to determine, through a case-by-case examination or by setting criteria or thresholds, whether a project is to be made subject to an environmental impact assessment procedure. Based on the information given by the Honourable Member, the Commission considers that the work to which the question refers could come under Annex II to Directive 85/337/EEC as amended and, therefore, that it should be made subject to the determination under Article 4(2) of Directive 85/337/EEC as amended.

Under Article 6(3) of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna (8)‘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.’ All authorities of the Member States, at national, regional or local level, have the obligation to apply the abovementioned provision to Sites of Community Importance (SCI) under Council Directive 92/43/EEC and Special Protection Areas (SPA) under Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds (9). In addition, as from 10 June 1998, even in the absence of a list of SCIs, Member States are also obliged to apply it to all the sites which, on the basis of the scientific criteria set out in Directive 92/43/EEC for their selection, deserve to be included on the list of SCIs, and especially as regards sites which contain priority habitat or species. Should the project mentioned by the Honourable Member be likely to have significant effects on the pSCI IT4030009 ‘Gessi triassici’, it should be made subject to the appropriate assessment under Article 6(3) of Directive 92/43/EEC.

The Commission has registered a complaint on the issues raised by the Honourable Member. The information given by the Honourable Member has been added to the complaint file, which is under assessment by the Commission.

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 proceedings under Article 226 of the EC Treaty, in order to ensure the observance of the relevant Community law.

Having checked with the Emilia Romagna Region, the Commission can inform the Honourable Member that the route in the ‘Gessi Triassici’ area (Municipality of Villa Minozzo, Province of Reggio Emilia, Italy) has not received aid from the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) under the current Objective 2 SPD. Nor are such interventions covered by that Programme.

---

(1)  Reggio Emilia Provincial Council Decision No 176 of 24 June 2003.

(2)  Directive 97/11/EC (Annex II, Point 10, (e) and (f)) modifying and supplementing the earlier Directive 85/337/EEC (Annex II, Point 10, (e) and (f)), the Presidential Decree of 12 April 1996 (Articles 5 and 10; Annex B, Point 7(g) and (o)) and Emilia-Romagna Regional Law No 9/99, as subsequently modified and supplemented).

(3)  Article 146(1)(c) and (g) of Legislative Decree No 490/1999.

(4)  Ministerial Decree No 65 of 3 April 2000 of the Minister for the Environment and Conservation and Emilia-Romagna Regional Council Decision No 1242 of 15 July 2002.

(5)  Presidential Decree of 21 May 2001, pursuant to Law No 394/1991, as subsequently modified and supplemented.

(6)  OJ L 73, 14.3.1997, p. 5.

(7)  OJ L 175, 5.7.1985, p. 40.

(8)  OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.

(9)  OJ L 103, 25.4.1979.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/439 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/439

---

(2004/C 78 E/0460)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2853/03

by Richard Corbett (PSE) to the Commission

(26 September 2003)

Subject:   Port Services Directive: attacks on Parliament by Commission official

Is it true that a Commission civil servant, Wolfgang Elsner, speaking at the International Maritime Organisation Congress in Barcelona, attacked the European Parliament decision to exclude pilotage services from the Port Services Directive, describing Parliament as ‘anti-business’?

Did the Commission authorise one of its civil servants to make such a political attack and, if not, what will it do to prevent a re-occurrence of such incidents?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(28 October 2003)

The Honourable Member can be assured that the Commission official he mentioned did not make such comments at the Barcelona International Maritime Organisation Conference.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/440 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/440

---

(2004/C 78 E/0461)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2877/03

by Jan Dhaene (PSE) to the Commission

(29 September 2003)

Subject:   The ‘Sentiers de l'Europe’ international architecture competition and Place Jean Rey

Further to written question E-0405/03 (1):

| 1. | It has been established with reference to the international architecture competition ‘Les Sentiers de l'Europe’ that the requirement of independence was not fulfilled in the case of the chairman of the jury and the second-placed participant, since direct and formal economic links were detected between the two (see Moniteur Belge No 980804 — Atelier Place Léopold S.A.).
  In view of this state of affairs, will the Commission claim reimbursement of the amounts paid in respect of the second-placed participant? |
| --- | --- |

1.

It has been established with reference to the international architecture competition ‘Les Sentiers de l'Europe’ that the requirement of independence was not fulfilled in the case of the chairman of the jury and the second-placed participant, since direct and formal economic links were detected between the two (see Moniteur Belge No 980804 — Atelier Place Léopold S.A.).

In view of this state of affairs, will the Commission claim reimbursement of the amounts paid in respect of the second-placed participant?

| 2. | Can the Commission finally indicate, following its consultations with the Belgian authorities (see Mr Kinnock's answer of 21 May 2003 to written question E-0405/03), whether or not the Belgian authorities' awarding of the service contract for the ‘Place de l'Union Européene’ (Place Jean Rey) to the ODC architects office conformed to the provisions of Council Directive No 92/50/EEC (2) of 18 June 1992 relating to the coordination of procedures for the award of public service contracts? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Can the Commission finally indicate, following its consultations with the Belgian authorities (see Mr Kinnock's answer of 21 May 2003 to written question E-0405/03), whether or not the Belgian authorities' awarding of the service contract for the ‘Place de l'Union Européene’ (Place Jean Rey) to the ODC architects office conformed to the provisions of Council Directive No 92/50/EEC (2) of 18 June 1992 relating to the coordination of procedures for the award of public service contracts?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(11 December 2003)

A complaint procedure concerning the ‘European Footpaths’ international architectural competition was brought to a close by a Commission Decision of 24 April 2002. Contacts are being established between the Commission and the Brussels Region to discuss the reimbursement of the prize awarded to the winner. In the context of these contacts the Commission also intends to discuss the question of the independence of the President of the Jury vis à vis the second winner.

On the public procurement procedure for the study ‘Place de l'Union européenne’, the Honourable Member is referred to the letter sent by the Deputy Director General of Directorate General Internal Market dated 4 August 2003 to the Honourable Member. In this letter, it is explained that the contract had been awarded to ODC in 1986 according to the then existing Belgian law. The Directive 92/50/EC (3), which came into force at a date later than the date the contract was awarded, could therefore not be applied.

---

(1)  OJ C 268 E, 7.11.2003, p. 98.

(2)  OJ L 209, 24.7.1992, p. 1.

(3)  Council Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992 relating to the coordination of procedures for the award of public service contracts.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/440 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/440

---

(2004/C 78 E/0462)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2895/03

by Dana Scallon (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(29 September 2003)

Subject:   Irish sheep farmers

How many Member States insist on the same stocking rate of sheep, for fenced pasture and adjoining commonly-owned unfenced hillside, within the one farm?

Did the Commission ask for the culling of 800 000 sheep for the sake of environmental protection of the hillsides in Ireland?

What number of sheep did the Commission ask to be culled from the hillsides in Ireland?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(4 November 2003)

The situation where a ‘Member State insists on the same stocking rate of sheep, for fenced pasture and adjoining commonly-own unfenced hillside, within the one farm’ does not seem to exist in the other Member States. A provision of the current Article 13 of the Commission Regulation (CE) No 445/2002 of 26 February 2002 (1) laying down conditions for commitments to extensify livestock farming states at point b) that ‘the livestock shall be distributed across the farm in such a way that the whole of the grazed area is maintained, thus avoiding both over-grazing and under-utilisation’.

The Commission did not specifically ask for a cull of 800 000 sheep as mentioned in the second and third part of the question but rather for cross compliance between the Rural Environmental Protection Scheme (Agri-environmental scheme) and Sheep Headage Schemes as well as compliance with Union habitat protection requirements laid down in Directives 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds (2) and 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild flora and fauna (3). On 13 June 2002, Ireland was condemned by the Court of Justice with regard to widespread vegetation loss and erosion linked to excessive sheep stocking levels in the west of Ireland (Case C-117/00). It is obliged to take measures to comply with this Court ruling as soon as possible. In order to address the problem of overgrazing of sheep on commonly owned areas (commonages) and resulting environmental damages in such sensitive areas, destocking measures were deemed necessary. Thus a Supplementary Measure A was approved by the Commission in 1998 under the Rural Environmental Protection Scheme (REPS) to compensate farmers in those areas for following an Agri-environmental plan which would reduce sheep numbers to sustainable stocking density and which would have special conditions to allow for the regeneration of degraded areas. The Agri-environmental plan would conform to framework plans to be drawn up for each commonage.

While the commonage framework plans were defined, interim measures were taken in order to address the problem of overgrazing in six western counties where the environmental damages were more serious. This required the immediate 30 % reduction in sheep number and some 140 000 sheep were permanently removed during the period November/December 1998 from the commonages in these counties. Such a cross compliance measure was put in place before 1998 payments of Sheep Headage Schemes. Payments of 1999 and 2000 sheep headage to farmers was limited to the number applied for subject to an overall ceiling of 70 % of the 1998 entitlement to the scheme.

Full cross-compliance was introduced with effect from 2001. It is a condition of the 2001 headage schemes that farmers with commonage land must participate in an approved REPs plan (including measure A) or a national plan (State Aid scheme approved by the Commission in September 2003) before payment can be made under the Ewe Premium and less favoured areas (LFAs) Compensatory Allowances schemes. Information concerning the reduction of number of sheep due to cross compliance since 2001 is not available.

---

(1)  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.

(2)  OJ L 103, 25.4.1979.

(3)  OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/441 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/441

---

(2004/C 78 E/0463)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2903/03

by Miet Smet (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(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?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(25 November 2003)

The Commission places great emphasis on the human rights clause in agreements of the Community with third countries as a positive instrument to promote human rights and democracy. Structured exchanges on the basis of the clause with third countries offer a more realistic way of realising the goals of the human rights' clause than the application of rigid criteria for the suspension of parts of an agreement. Nevertheless, the Commission agrees that there are circumstances when punitive measures may be required. Where such measures are eventually taken after careful assessment of the prevailing particular situation in a country, it is important that timely consideration is given not only to the impact of the measures but also as to what conditions will govern their lifting.

Since 1996, the human rights clause has been invoked on a number of occasions, including in the case of the countries mentioned by the Honourable Member, for justifying the request for formal consultations with a third country, or suspending cooperation and imposing other sanctions. In all of these cases, the political, democratic and human rights situations in the respective country were carefully assessed. In doing so, the Commission avoided employing any ‘mechanistic’ or ‘typological’ approach, which would have failed to provide the necessary comprehensive appreciation of a precarious situation in third country concerned.

The Commission pursues the same approach in deciding on whether to slow down or suspend negotiations on a bilateral agreement or the signature of such an agreement, as mentioned by the Honourable Member.

---

(1)  OJ C 280 E, 21.11.2003, p. 62.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/442 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/442

---

(2004/C 78 E/0464)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2916/03

by Marianne Thyssen (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(29 September 2003)

Subject:   Community financial assistance for transnational producer organisations

Regulation (EC) 2200/96 (1) provides for Community financial assistance for producer organisations on condition that they have established an operational programme and set up an operational fund.

Operational funds are financed from producer contributions and Community assistance representing a maximum 4,1 % of the producer organisation's sales. The funding ratio is 50 %: 50 % in the case of national measures. That means that in such cases the operational fund represents a maximum 8,2 % of sales.

In the case of transnational measures the funding ratio is 60 %: 40 %. However, a problem arises here in so far as the percentage of assistance remains fixed at a maximum 4,1 %. That means in effect that the operational fund is restricted in the case of transnational cooperation, although it is precisely such cooperation that the regulation seeks to promote.

Does the Commission recognise this problem? If so, will it very shortly be taking measures to rectify this contradiction in the legislation by permitting a derogation from the maximum percentage of assistance of 4,1 % in the case of transnational producer organisations?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(5 November 2003)

In line with the commitments it has made to Parliament in particular the Commission has already devoted a great deal of attention to simplifying and clarifying the implementing rules for common organisation of the market in fruit and vegetables.

It has, in close consultation with Member States and interested parties, identified a number of problems to be tackled, including that raised by the Honourable Member, who correctly states that the present 4,1 % aid ceiling often makes it difficult in practice to apply a Community part-financing rate of 60 %.

The Commission is reflecting on possible solutions. The budgetary implications of various options will be examined and the budget neutrality requirement reflected in the proposal for amendment of Regulation (EC) No 2200/96 (2) that the Commission will be making to the Council in furtherance of the ongoing process of simplifying this particular market organisation.

Simplification will be carried out as quickly as the work programme of the Institutions involved permits.

---

(1)  OJ L 297, 21.11.1996, p. 1.

(2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 2200/96 of 28 October 1996 on the common organisation of the markets in fruit and vegetables.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/443 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/443

---

(2004/C 78 E/0465)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2959/03

by Armando Cossutta (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(8 October 2003)

Subject:   Risks of electricity blackouts

On Thursday, 28 August 2003, parts of southern London were hit by an electricity blackout thanks to which some 250 000 people were immobilised in trains, on the underground, in lifts and at crossroads. A spokesman for the management of National Grid, the British electricity distribution network, claimed this was an ‘unusual occurrence’ which, even in the wake of the recent blackout in the US, he had never thought could happen in the UK.

In Italy, the Ministry for Productive Activities has announced that new infrastructures will be put in place by 2005, while a management spokesman for the national distribution network has warned that there will be more blackouts over the next two years.

| 1. | Does the Commission consider that the privatisation of infrastructures could be the cause of these occurrences? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Does the Commission consider that the privatisation of infrastructures could be the cause of these occurrences?

| 2. | What initiatives will the Commission take to ensure that the infrastructure development plans are compatible with the growth trends of individual countries' productive and social needs? |
| --- | --- |

2.

What initiatives will the Commission take to ensure that the infrastructure development plans are compatible with the growth trends of individual countries' productive and social needs?

| 3. | What initiatives will the Commission take to harmonise security standards with a view to preventing or reducing blackout risks? |
| --- | --- |

3.

What initiatives will the Commission take to harmonise security standards with a view to preventing or reducing blackout risks?

| 4. | What measures have been taken to encourage greater use of new energy sources, especially renewables, given that, as decentralised energy sources, these represent the only guarantee against blackouts? |
| --- | --- |

4.

What measures have been taken to encourage greater use of new energy sources, especially renewables, given that, as decentralised energy sources, these represent the only guarantee against blackouts?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(12 November 2003)

Ownership is not relevant to the question of network failures. Whether networks are owned by private investors or government agencies, it is crucial that appropriate incentives are maintained on the companies concerned and their employees to maintain, operate and develop the network. For the electricity industry, this must be done with the oversight of the national regulatory authorities since they, in effect, control the resources that are available to the transmission and distribution businesses.

Development of transmission infrastructure is, in the main, the responsibility of the Member States concerned. However, the Community does have an interest in ensuring security of supply in the context of the emerging competitive market for electricity. It also wishes to develop competition through cross border exchanges. Accordingly, following the Commission's proposal at the Barcelona European Council (15 and 16 March 2002), the Council has adopted Guidelines for the trans-European network programme, which identifies axes of priority of European interest. Relevant projects are considered favourably for TENs finance.

The Commission has already taken measures on this issue by requesting, via the Florence Electricity Regulators Forum, that the Union for the Co-ordination of Transmission of Electricity (UCTE) develops an Operation Handbook which will consolidate the various guidelines that currently exist. Parts of this Handbook could be made legally binding in the context of Regulation (EC) No 1228/2003 of the Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2003 on conditions for access to the network for cross-border exchanges in electricity (1).

There can never be a 100 % guarantee against blackouts. Having said that, decentralised generation such as renewable energy sources and combined heat and power (CHP) can make a contribution to network security. The Renewables Directive (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 (2)) requires Member States to set targets for the development of renewable energy. A similar proposal relating to CHP generation is currently passing through the legislative process.

---

(1)  OJ L 176, 15.7.2003.

(2)  OJ L 283, 27.10.2001.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/444 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/444

---

(2004/C 78 E/0466)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2966/03

by Brian Simpson (PSE) to the Commission

(8 October 2003)

Subject:   Spanish National Hydrological Plan: the impact of the La Brena dam project on the Iberian lynx and protected raptors

Is the Commission aware of the problems likely to be encountered by the Iberian lynx, the Spanish imperial eagle and other vulnerable species under the Spanish Government's National Hydrological Plan, in particular the La Brena dam project?

Can the Commission outline what plans it has to protect all the species under threat but in particular the Iberian lynx and the Spanish imperial eagle?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(18 November 2003)

The Commission is aware of the La Breña II dam project in the province of Cordoba, in the Autonomous Community of Andalusia, in the South of Spain.

The Commission has opened an infringement procedure in relation to this project in order to ensure that the Community environmental law is properly applied.

The La Breña II dam project has been the subject of various exchanges of information and meetings between the Commission and the Spanish authorities. It should be noted that the Commission has received wide-ranging information in relation to this matter, from the Spanish authorities and different persons, associations and bodies, who have transmitted their points of view both in favour of and against this project.

It is important to note that, in the framework of this case, the Spanish authorities have asked the opinion of the Commission pursuant to Article 6.4 of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992, on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (1). The Commission is currently examining this request. It is foreseen that the Commission will shortly deliver its opinion in relation to this project.

---

(1)  OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/445 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/445

---

(2004/C 78 E/0467)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2975/03

by Freddy Blak (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(6 October 2003)

Subject:   Contracts with CESD

In December 2001 the Commission (EuropeAid) signed a contract worth EUR 999 780 with the firm CESD, which was to help with a census in former Yugoslavia. The fact that this contract was entered into is highly problematic. Firstly, the firm obtained the contract outside the customary tendering procedures. Secondly, it was entered into in spite of the fact that the firm had already been shown to have swindled Eurostat out of more than EUR 3 million.

Between 1996 and 2001, CESD entered into contracts worth EUR 31 655 756 with Eurostat, some of which were awarded outside the customary tendering procedures. Eurostat-CESD contracts not in line with tendering rules have been criticised by the Court of Auditors in its annual reports (1).

Would the Commission state whether it was unaware of the Court of Auditors' criticism or whether it deliberately chose to ignore it?

In a letter (29 September 2003) to Mrs Theato, Commissioner Patten stated that EuropeAid had no knowledge of irregularities and fraud in connection with CESD before July 2003.

Would the Commission explain how it is possible for EuropeAid not to have known about the problems surrounding CESD when the Eurostat audit department had established in two reports, in May and July 2001, that there had been irregularities, fraud and nepotism involving more than EUR 3 million. The problems were so serious that both reports were forwarded to OLAF in November 2001.

Would the Commission explain how it is possible that the Commission's early-warning database had no entry on CESD?

Would the Commission say whether it is standard practice for a directorate-general to enter into new contracts with a firm which has been swindling another directorate-general on a large scale, or whether rules have been broken?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(26 November 2003)

In its Annual Report concerning the financial year 1998, the Court criticised the conclusion of contracts with companies which involved managing special funds; CESD was one of several firms mentioned by the Court in this context. As explained by Mr Patten in his letter of 29 September 2003 to Mrs Theato, this is why the project supervision arrangements for the Former Yugoslavia Republic of Macedonia (FYROM) contract were reinforced. Moreover, the FYROM contract with CESD-Roma was a contract for services, rather than a grant agreement, allowing for closer scrutiny of expenditure, on the basis of costs actually incurred.

In its Annual Report concerning the financial year 1999, the Court covered the statistical support given to the Candidate Countries through the PHARE programme, and questioned the justification for employing CESD as a technical assistance contractor through a direct agreement for an amount of EUR 15 million. The Commission explained in its reply that the decision to award the contract by direct agreement aimed to allow the mobilisation of the essential expertise of the Statistical Institutes of Member States and that, following further analysis in 1997, it was decided, with effect from 1998, to redesign the nature and scope of the tasks outsourced and organise tendering in compliance with standard PHARE procedures.

The Commission (EuropeAid) was aware of criticism by the Court of Auditors of potential problems arising out of the structure of certain contracts with CESD, and took steps to address those criticisms. However, the Court's reports did not indicate any problem of fraud or impropriety in relation to CESD.

The decision to award the contract of EUR 999 000 for the electoral census work contract in FYROM by direct agreement was taken on the basis of the technical advice from Eurostat, and of the need to ensure the success of the census in FYROM, which was at that time expected to begin in 2001. The urgency of implementation of the Lake Ochrid agreement was widely recognised at the time, including by the Council and the Parliament.

EuropeAid, like other services of the Commission, was not aware of the audit reports. Eurostat did not inform EuropeAid about these reports and the results sent to the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) in November 2001. The reasons for this situation have already been described to the Parliament's Budgetary Control Committee (Cocobu) and explained again by the President of the Commission at the 25 September 2003 Conference of Presidents (CdP) extended to Members of Cocobu. The procedures in place at the time did not provide for notification to the Commission as a whole of the concerns set out in the reports. It was only when OLAF had informed the Commission that the necessary conclusions could be drawn (including use of the Early Warning system) in relation to the problems identified. In this case, the first note of substance sent by OLAF to the Secretary-General was in May 2003. EuropeAid was made aware of these reports in July 2003 and the Commission decided in July 2003 to terminate all such contracts with CESD.

The Commission fully accepts that there was a clear lack of communication in this case. In order to prevent such situations in the future, a draft Memorandum of Understanding concerning a code of conduct in order to ensure a timely exchange of information between OLAF and the Commission, with respect to OLAF internal investigations in the Commission, was approved by the Commission on 23 July 2003. Pending final adoption of this code, the Secretary General of the Commission and OLAF have decided to implement the provisions of this code of conduct on an interim basis. Furthermore the Commission took the decision that Commissioners must be informed by their Director General about the results and recommendations of audit reports.

The prevention and control mechanisms adopted by this Commission since 2001, which are progressively coming into force, are designed to avoid such a situation arising in future. The entry into force of the new Financial Regulation (2) will contribute to set out clearer and stricter rules to avoid such practices recurring in the future and further measures have already been introduced in July 2003.

On 18 November 2003 President Prodi presented an action plan to Parliament in order to remedy the shortcomings identified in the Eurostat affair.

---

(1)  OJ C 327, 24.11.1994, OJ C 349, 3.12.1999 and OJ C 342, 1.12.2000.

(2)  Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities, OJ L 248, 16.9.2002.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/447 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/447

---

(2004/C 78 E/0468)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2994/03

by Bernhard Rapkay (PSE) to the Commission

(14 October 2003)

Subject:   EU funding for Nordrhein-Westfalen for the years 2001 and 2002

| 1. | What amounts of European Union funding were paid to Nordrhein-Westfalen in 2001 and 2002 from:






  — | the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF), |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

What amounts of European Union funding were paid to Nordrhein-Westfalen in 2001 and 2002 from:

—

the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF),

| — | the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) — Guidance Section, |
| --- | --- |

—

the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) — Guidance Section,

| — | the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) — Guarantee Section, |
| --- | --- |

—

the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) — Guarantee Section,

| — | the European Social Fund (ESF), |
| --- | --- |

—

the European Social Fund (ESF),

| — | European Community research programmes, |
| --- | --- |

—

European Community research programmes,

| — | European Community programmes for the environment, |
| --- | --- |

—

European Community programmes for the environment,

| — | other European Community programmes? |
| --- | --- |

—

other European Community programmes?

| 2. | Who were the beneficiaries? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Who were the beneficiaries?

| 3. | What amounts were made available by way of co-financing either with the Land of Nordrhein-Westfalen or with the Federal Republic of Germany? |
| --- | --- |

3.

What amounts were made available by way of co-financing either with the Land of Nordrhein-Westfalen or with the Federal Republic of Germany?

Supplementary answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(16 February 2004)

In view of the length of its answer, the Commission is sending it direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/447 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/447

---

(2004/C 78 E/0469)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2996/03

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(14 October 2003)

Subject:   Standardisation of computer dates

Will the Commission state whether there is any EU legislation that sets a standard format for dates in computer software?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(24 November 2003)

The format for dates in computer software has not been regulated by Community legislation.

However, in 1992 the European Committee For Standardization (1) has adopted ISO 8601 under the standard EN 28601 to end the traditional confusion involving periods, slashes, the order of the numbers, and other date formats formerly used throughout Europe.

---

(1)  http://www.cenorm.be/

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/448 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/448

---

(2004/C 78 E/0470)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3007/03

by Giacomo Santini (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(14 October 2003)

Subject:   Role of the European Rural Carrefours in CAP information campaigns

The ‘Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 814/2000 on information measures relating to the common agricultural policy’ (1) expresses satisfaction at the results achieved by the information campaigns conducted in 2000, 2001 and 2002, but also stresses that their impact on the public and their cost-effectiveness could be improved. The Commission states, on the basis of data obtained from ‘flash’ Eurobarometers, that the general public's lack of knowledge about the CAP, WTO, food safety and other issues linked to agricultural policy confirms more than ever the need to step up information measures and improve their impact.

For some years now the European network of Rural Carrefours has been playing a role in informing the public about the common agricultural policy, thanks to the existence of about 140 European rural information and promotion centres supplied with publications, newsletters and websites and staffed by people competent to deal with CAP issues. The European network of Rural Carrefours can make a worthwhile contribution to achieving the objectives of Regulation (EC) No 814/2000 (2), as regards improving both the impact on the general public and cost-effectiveness. In order to achieve this result, the Commission's Agriculture DG should ensure structured involvement of the ‘Carrefours’, in the interests of running information campaigns more efficiently and making the information measures carried out by the Commission more coherent.

One of the measures undertaken by the Commission was, precisely, to train those working in the Rural Carrefours in a number of specific CAP-related subjects, under the auspices of the Agriculture DG, which demonstrated the need for functional links with these centres. The Rural Carrefour network has accompanied Commission staff on information stands at agricultural fairs.

Can the Commission say:

| 1. | whether it intends to broaden its collaboration with the European network of Rural Carrefours in order to carry out activities relating to measures taken on the Commission's initiative; |
| --- | --- |

1.

whether it intends to broaden its collaboration with the European network of Rural Carrefours in order to carry out activities relating to measures taken on the Commission's initiative;

| 2. | what role the European network of Rural Carrefours will play in the measures taken on the Commission's initiative to implement the aforementioned Regulation (EC) No 814/2000? |
| --- | --- |

2.

what role the European network of Rural Carrefours will play in the measures taken on the Commission's initiative to implement the aforementioned Regulation (EC) No 814/2000?

---

(1)  COM(2003) 235 final.

(2)  OJ L 100, 20.4.2000, p. 7.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/448 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/448

---

(2004/C 78 E/0471)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3068/03

by Hugues Martin (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(14 October 2003)

Subject:   Funding of bodies which play host to an Info-Point Europe

According to my sources, following the entry into force, on 1 January 2003, of the new Financial Regulation applicable to all the European institutions (Council Regulation (EC) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 (1)) and its implementing procedures, the operating subsidies hitherto granted to bodies which play host to an Info-Point Europe will henceforth be awarded on the basis of a new procedure. Instead of receiving automatic funding, these information centres will be required to take part in an invitation-to-tender procedure, failing which they will not be eligible for subsidies.

In addition to the operating subsidies, the bodies in question also received logistical support, such as supplies of publications, access to the ‘relays and networks Intranet’, back-up from the relays and networks helpdesk, in the form of documentary and technical assistance, from the meeting of relay heads, etc. It has been decided that bodies which submit an appropriate request will continue to receive this logistical support, on a temporary basis, in 2004.

This new procedure, which is intended to increase transparency in connection with the award of funding, raises three questions to which the European Commission alluded without providing a detailed answer:

| — | What criteria will be used to select the bodies which respond to the invitations to tender? |
| --- | --- |

—

What criteria will be used to select the bodies which respond to the invitations to tender?

| — | Will the logistical support measures continue after 2004? |
| --- | --- |

—

Will the logistical support measures continue after 2004?

| — | In more general terms, the European Commission is now considering new forms of cooperation which will ensure that information is readily available to the public locally, whilst complying with the new rules laid down in the above-mentioned Financial Regulation. Can the Commission be more precise on this point? |
| --- | --- |

—

In more general terms, the European Commission is now considering new forms of cooperation which will ensure that information is readily available to the public locally, whilst complying with the new rules laid down in the above-mentioned Financial Regulation. Can the Commission be more precise on this point?

---

(1)  OJ L 248, 16.9.2002, p. 1.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/449 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/449

---

(2004/C 78 E/0472)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3112/03

by Giacomo Santini (PPE-DE), Elena Paciotti (PSE), Luciana Sbarbati (ELDR), Giovanni Pittella (PSE), Generoso Andria (PPE-DE), Enrico Ferri (PPE-DE), Carlo Fatuzzo (PPE-DE), Gianfranco Dell'Alba (NI), Roberta Angelilli (UEN), Stefano Zappalà (PPE-DE), Paolo Pastorelli (PPE-DE), Antonio Di Pietro (ELDR), Mauro Nobilia (UEN), Sebastiano Musumeci (UEN), Michl Ebner (PPE-DE), Roberto Bigliardo (UEN), Catherine Guy-Quint (PSE), Adriana Poli Bortone (UEN), Fiorella Ghilardotti (PSE), Monica Frassoni (Verts/ALE), Franz Turchi (UEN), Massimo Carraro (PSE), Guido Bodrato (PPE-DE), Francesco Musotto (PPE-DE), Vincenzo Lavarra (PSE), Vitaliano Gemelli (PPE-DE) and Giovanni Fava (PSE) to the Commission

(22 October 2003)

Subject:   EU information policy — legal basis for the European ‘Carrefours ruraux’ and ‘Info-Points Europe’ — urgent need for operational subsidy for 2004

Considering that:

| — | Parliament has on numerous occasions stressed the importance for information and communication policy of the networks created by the EU in the Member States, including the European ‘Carrefours ruraux’ and the ‘Info-Points Europe’ (IPEs); |
| --- | --- |

—

Parliament has on numerous occasions stressed the importance for information and communication policy of the networks created by the EU in the Member States, including the European ‘Carrefours ruraux’ and the ‘Info-Points Europe’ (IPEs);

| — | the position is expressed in communications (1) that the networks' ‘experience, flexibility and immediate proximity to the representatives of civil society and the general public make them invaluable’; |
| --- | --- |

—

the position is expressed in communications (1) that the networks' ‘experience, flexibility and immediate proximity to the representatives of civil society and the general public make them invaluable’;

| — | the Commission has consistently displayed its commitment to this policy, as in President Prodi's reply of 27 September 2002 to a written question by a number of MEPs (E-2357/02 (2)), in which he stated that ‘knowledge and understanding of the policies pursued and projects implemented by the Union are gaining ground thanks to the information networks’. |
| --- | --- |

—

the Commission has consistently displayed its commitment to this policy, as in President Prodi's reply of 27 September 2002 to a written question by a number of MEPs (E-2357/02 (2)), in which he stated that ‘knowledge and understanding of the policies pursued and projects implemented by the Union are gaining ground thanks to the information networks’.

A letter sent out by DG PRESS on 29 September 2003 informed the national organisations that host the networks — contrary to previous announcements — that the renewal of the agreement for 2004 will no longer carry the right to a subsidy; for the future, the Commission will consider new forms of cooperation, in the light of the entry into force on 1 January 2003 of the Financial Regulations 1605/2002 (3) and 2342/2002 (4).

These new and unforeseen circumstances are such as to jeopardise the very survival of the networks, and will, at all events, drastically reduce their capacity to engage in dialogue with the public, at a crucial moment in the Union's history which calls for such capacities to be developed further.

Can the Commission state:

| — | whether it believes it necessary to act as soon as possible in order to prevent the dispersal of the existing fund of relationships, contacts, expertise and material and non-material assets which has been built up over the many years of activity of the EU's information networks, by drawing up a proposal for a legal basis for the granting of legal personality to, or, at least, the recognition of the ‘Carrefours’ and the IPEs as delegated bodies or Community bodies pursuant to Articles 54, 55 or 185 of Council Regulation 1605/02; |
| --- | --- |

—

whether it believes it necessary to act as soon as possible in order to prevent the dispersal of the existing fund of relationships, contacts, expertise and material and non-material assets which has been built up over the many years of activity of the EU's information networks, by drawing up a proposal for a legal basis for the granting of legal personality to, or, at least, the recognition of the ‘Carrefours’ and the IPEs as delegated bodies or Community bodies pursuant to Articles 54, 55 or 185 of Council Regulation 1605/02;

| — | whether it intends, for 2004, to execute the budget heading (16 5 01) traditionally dedicated to the funding of the information points in such a way as to reward, rather than penalise, those who have made a long-term investment in them? |
| --- | --- |

—

whether it intends, for 2004, to execute the budget heading (16 5 01) traditionally dedicated to the funding of the information points in such a way as to reward, rather than penalise, those who have made a long-term investment in them?

---

(1)  COM(2001) 354 and COM(2002) 350.

(2)  OJ C 92 E, 17.4.2003, p. 158.

(3)  OJ L 248, 16.9.2002, p. 1.

(4)  OJ L 357, 31.12.2002, p. 1.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/450 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/450

---

(2004/C 78 E/0473)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3153/03

by Evelyne Gebhardt (PSE) to the Commission

(20 October 2003)

Subject:   EU Info-Points

At the end of September 2003, the Commission informed the EU information centres that from January 2004, under the new Financial Regulation, overheads will no longer be subsidised. This endangers the very existence of the Info-Points and information carrefours that have until now undeniably served citizens, the European Parliament and not least the European Commission well. These Info-Points are essential in building trust between the people of Europe and the European Union institutions.

| 1. | Why did this communication come so late and unexpectedly that those in charge of the Info-Points and carrefours were unable to make the necessary preparations for the new situation when planning their budget for 2004? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Why did this communication come so late and unexpectedly that those in charge of the Info-Points and carrefours were unable to make the necessary preparations for the new situation when planning their budget for 2004?

| 2. | Why was no arrangement made to guarantee the survival of these valuable Info-Points, even though the Financial Regulation the Commission is referring to has been in existence for over a year (since June 2002)? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Why was no arrangement made to guarantee the survival of these valuable Info-Points, even though the Financial Regulation the Commission is referring to has been in existence for over a year (since June 2002)?

| 3. | Is the Commission prepared to introduce transitional measures to ensure the uninterrupted service of Info-Points during 2004? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Is the Commission prepared to introduce transitional measures to ensure the uninterrupted service of Info-Points during 2004?

| 4. | What steps does the Commission intend to take to guarantee the lasting survival of Info-Points and carrefours? |
| --- | --- |

4.

What steps does the Commission intend to take to guarantee the lasting survival of Info-Points and carrefours?

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/450 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/450

---

(2004/C 78 E/0474)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3240/03

by Thierry Cornillet (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(3 November 2003)

Subject:   Abolition of operating grants for Europe Info-Points

The Commission recently decided to abolish the operating grant for Europe Info-Points despite the fact that the present juncture will be decisive for the future of the European Union.

Given the current context, i.e. the Intergovernmental Conference, national campaigns for the adoption of the future Constitution and the forthcoming European elections, is the Commission aware that its decision could not have come at a more inappropriate time?

Does the Commission fully realise how valuable the Europe Info-Points are in terms of providing information and serving as communication channels with a view to bringing Europe closer to its citizens?

Moreover, in view of the new Financial Regulation, as well as the size of the grant allocated by the Commission, why did it not provide for a gradual reduction rather than a sudden stop, which is plunging these offices into financial difficulty, forcing them to reduce staff and, in some cases, to close down?

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/451 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/451

---

(2004/C 78 E/0475)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3265/03

by Maria Sanders-ten Holte (ELDR) to the Commission

(29 October 2003)

Subject:   Info-Points and Carrefours

In its resolution of 13 March 2002 Parliament called on the European institutions to step up and improve support for the existing information networks, including the Info-Points and Carrefours. On 10 April 2003, in a follow-up resolution, Parliament drew attention to the need for extra efforts to be made in 2004 in the area of communication and information about European policies.

The Info-Points and Carrefours are the information centres which are closest to hand for the general public. In view of the elections, the enlargement and the adoption of the new European Constitution, all of which are set to take place in 2004, it is essential that these centres should be working flat out. However, the Commission has decided to abolish the operating subsidies for these centres as from 1 January 2004.

Can the Commission state why the annual operating subsidies for the Info-Points and Carrefours are being discontinued as from 1 January 2004?

Can the Commission give valid reasons for taking this step at such short notice?

Has the Commission made provision for transitional arrangements to help the Info-Points and Carrefours cope with 2004, which will be a difficult year?

When does the Commission plan to put forward practical proposals regarding support for the information centres in the future?

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/451 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/451

---

(2004/C 78 E/0476)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3287/03

by Brice Hortefeux (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(5 November 2003)

Subject:   Europe Houses

The concept of democratic deficit is used mainly to highlight how the European Union suffers from a lack of democracy and appears inaccessible to citizens as a result of the complex way in which it functions. It conveys the feeling that the Community's institutional system is still rather opaque to the uninitiated.

One of the tasks assigned to the Europe Houses on their founding was to dissipate this idea of the distance and inaccessibility of the Community's institutions. Their primary aim was to strive to bring the European people and the institutions closer together by providing information and removing the air of mystery surrounding the working of the Community.

It cannot be denied that, in this sense, they perform this role most worthily on a daily basis, displaying competence and energy. I was all the more amazed to discover, therefore, that the Commission is preparing simply to withdraw their operating grant for 2004, with notice given on 29 September. Aside from the organisational difficulties this cut will bring (particularly with regard to the employment of convinced young Europeans who have invested for years in this great enterprise), thought must also be given to the impact on the European Union's image. As the EU debates its future Constitution (and the procedures for its entry into force) and prepares to welcome 10 new members (whose accession is sometimes a cause of worry among citizens) and Europeans are called upon once again to express their opinions in the European elections next June (and we are all aware of how difficult it is to persuade voters to take part in this ballot), the European Commission is suddenly washing its hands of the EU's largest information network in the Member States.

As the reasons behind this decision are difficult to grasp, can the Commission shed some light on the matter?

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/452 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/452

---

(2004/C 78 E/0477)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3301/03

by Nicole Thomas-Mauro (UEN) to the Commission

(7 November 2003)

Subject:   Info-points Europe

A message has recently been sent to the various Info-points Europe informing them that they were to lose European subsidies.

The Info-points Europe were set up to enable members of the public to obtain information about Europe.

The withdrawal of subsidies manifestly conflicts with the new information strategy adopted in 2002. The Commission seems to take the view that the entry into force of the new Financial Regulation on 1 January 2003 is a sufficient condition for this withdrawal.

What financial support systems does the Commission propose to introduce?

Are any other measures planned to enable these bodies to operate?

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/452 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/452

---

(2004/C 78 E/0478)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3389/03

by John Hume (PSE) to the Commission

(10 November 2003)

Subject:   European Carrefours

Can the Commission explain why the Directorate-General for Press and Communication has announced the sudden termination of operating grants to the 138 members of the European Carrefour Network? Will it reconsider the decision and ensure that funding continues into 2004?

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/452 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/452

---

(2004/C 78 E/0479)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3403/03

by John Cushnahan (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(11 November 2003)

Subject:   Funding for European Carrefour

I understand that DG Press and Communications has recently decided to cancel the current contracts with the European Carrefour organisations and to offer them replacement contracts without the annual operating grant of EUR 20 000 for 2004. I understand that the relevant financial rules have been in force since 1 January 2003, yet the European Carrefour were not informed of this decision until 29 September 2003.

The European Carrefour constitutes an essential source of information about the EU, and it would seem that this is an inopportune moment for such a change in policy, given that they are in the process of preparing public campaigns on enlargement; the new Constitution and the European Parliament elections.

Why was such a decision taken, and how does the Commission envisage that the European Carrefour will be able to function in 2004 with such a reduced budget?

Supplementary joint answer

to Written Questions E-3007/03, P-3068/03, E-3112/03, P-3153/03, E-3240/03, P-3265/03, E-3287/03, E-3301/03, P-3389/03 and P-3403/03

given by Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(29 January 2004)

This answer supplements the first answer which the Commission gave to the Honourable Members' questions on 29 November 2003.

As announced to the House on 20 November by the Member of the Commission with responsibility for Personnel and Administration (1), the Commission would inform the Honourable Members that on 26 November 2003 it decided (2), by way of an exception and for the last year, to award to the host structures of the Info-Points Europe and Rural Information and Promotion Carrefours for 2004 an operating grant of a maximum amount identical to that awarded in 2003. The list of the 266 potential beneficiaries of this grant is annexed to the Commission's decision. The specific conditions and the appropriate control measures will be spelt out in a grant agreement concluded with each beneficiary.

This decision had the backing of a declaration of the Parliament and the Council, adopted at the budgetary conciliation meeting on 24 November 2003 (3).

For 2005 and beyond the Commission asked for ‘a communication to be submitted to it as soon as possible ... on the implementation of the information and communication strategy beyond 2004. ...’ (4). This communication will deal with the new framework for action of the relays and networks in the enlarged Union.

On the matter of the specific role of the European Rural Carrefours as raised in questions E-3007/03, P-3389/03 and P-3403/03, the Commission would point out that in information activities on the common agricultural policy and rural development ‘implemented at the Commission's initiative’, under Council Regulation (EC) No 814/2000, the Rural Carrefours have a special role to play in transmitting and relaying information at local level to civil society, in particular farmers and other rural populations.

The Commission's links with the Rural Carrefours have been strengthened in recent years by means of more sustained contacts and events such as the specific conference organised and financed by the Commission for representatives of the Carrefours on 30 and 31 May 2002; it is now planned to organise an event of this type each year. In 2003 the Rural Carrefours played a large part in the conference on rural development in Salzburg from 12 to 14 November 2003.

Efforts will continue to step up exchanges of information between the Rural Carrefours and the Commission.

---

(1)  See his answer to the oral question by Ms Prets (on behalf of Mr Rocard — O-0086/2003) on the present situation of the European networks and the Info Points and on their future — Report of proceedings, sitting of 20 November 2003, http://www3.europarl.eu.int/omk/omnsapir.so/calendar?APP=CRE&LANGUE=FR

(2)  Commission decision awarding a grant for the year 2004 to the host structures of the Info-Points Europe and Rural Information and Promotion Carrefours, C(2003) 4446 of 26.11.2003.

(3)  Annex 5 to ANNEX ‘Summary of conclusions of the conciliation meeting of 24 November 2003’ to Doc. 15231/03 of the Council, 24.11.2003.

(4)  Draft minutes of the 1636th meeting of the Commission held in Brussels on Wednesday 26 November 2003, PV(2003) 1636, 28.11.2003, item 8, p. 13.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/454 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/454

---

(2004/C 78 E/0480)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3012/03

by Jaime Valdivielso de Cué (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(14 October 2003)

Subject:   Wine

Amidst the tortuous negotiations over alcoholic beverages and foods, has the Commission been able to discuss with the other members of the WTO the list of geographical indications that the European Union would like to see protected internationally?

This list includes several names of wine, such as Rioja, and other food products.

Does the Commission believe that it will be possible to reach an agreement in this area, given the strong resistance shown by countries like the United States, who have grown used to freely misappropriating Community names?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(18 November 2003)

The Community presented its short list of geographical indications in the World Trade Organisation (WTO) agriculture negotiations at the end of August 2003 in Geneva. Given the short term between its submission to the WTO and the Fifth Ministerial Conference, there was no time to discuss the list before Cancun. Unfortunately, due to the course of events in the Conference, it was not possible to discuss it in Cancun.

The Commission considers that this is a very important issue in order to guarantee effective protection of geographical names which are being abused worldwide. It will, therefore, continue asking for this matter to be an integral part of the negotiations in Geneva, though the degree of acceptance of this proposal by other WTO Members appears to be low at this stage.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/454 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/454

---

(2004/C 78 E/0481)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3030/03

by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(17 October 2003)

Subject:   Use of hydraulic dredges in the EU

Hydraulic dredges, wrongly called ‘chupadeiras’ or ‘chuponas’ (suckers), a fishing technique which has profound repercussions in terms of the environment and of conservation of fish stocks, are used for fishing for bivalves; the high-pressure hosing and consequent stirring up of the offshore seabed in order to catch epi-benthic fauna in the dredges has both directly and indirectly destructive effects on the seabed and affects its recolonisation and reconstitution.

Can the Commission answer the following questions:

| — | is this technique being used in the European Union? If so, where and by which parts of the fleet; |
| --- | --- |

—

is this technique being used in the European Union? If so, where and by which parts of the fleet;

| — | what is the Commission's opinion of this technique? Is there any Community legislation in this area? |
| --- | --- |

—

what is the Commission's opinion of this technique? Is there any Community legislation in this area?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(14 November 2003)

The Commission is aware of the use of mechanised dredges in most of Community waters from the Baltic to the Mediterranean sea. This technique is very often used for fishing molluscs and to wash out deeper-sited shells, usually by small vessels fishing near the shore.

The Commission is aware of some studies on the impact of this fishing gear on the environment. Detailed studies on long-term effects of this fishing method are lacking. There is however, some evidence of environmental effects in the short-term.

At present there is no Community legislation in the field of fisheries on the use of mechanised dredges. Where such measures are now applicable, these are established for local fisheries by Member States.

In certain cases, the use of these devices could be restricted on the grounds of Community legislation in the field of nature protection.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/455 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/455

---

(2004/C 78 E/0482)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3037/03

by Hiltrud Breyer (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(8 October 2003)

Subject:   Breach of EU environmental legislation in the expansion of Frankfurt airport

Plans for the expansion of Frankfurt airport clearly contravene EU legislation on the environment in several respects. In particular, the risk of accident posed by a plane crashing onto the Ticona chemical factory is extremely serious.

| 1. | Does the Commission share the view that the EU Seveso II Directive must be applied in connection with plans for the north-west runway, given the close proximity of potentially hazardous sites (e.g. Ticona)? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Does the Commission share the view that the EU Seveso II Directive must be applied in connection with plans for the north-west runway, given the close proximity of potentially hazardous sites (e.g. Ticona)?

| 2. | Does the Commission agree that the EIA Directive must be complied with in the planning phase? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Does the Commission agree that the EIA Directive must be complied with in the planning phase?

| 3. | Does the Commission share the view that the EU Environmental Information, FFH and Birds Directives must be complied with in the procedure? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Does the Commission share the view that the EU Environmental Information, FFH and Birds Directives must be complied with in the procedure?

| 4. | Does the Commission share the view that misleading studies are not suitable for assessing the accident risk posed by a plane crashing onto a chemical factory? |
| --- | --- |

4.

Does the Commission share the view that misleading studies are not suitable for assessing the accident risk posed by a plane crashing onto a chemical factory?

| 5. | What steps will the Commission take to ensure that EU legislation is complied with in connection with the plans for the expansion of Frankfurt airport? |
| --- | --- |

5.

What steps will the Commission take to ensure that EU legislation is complied with in connection with the plans for the expansion of Frankfurt airport?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(20 November 2003)

| 1. | According to Article 12 of the Seveso II — Directive, Member States shall ensure that the objectives of preventing major accidents and limiting the consequences of such accidents are taken into account in their land-use policies. They shall pursue those objectives, amongst others, through controls on new developments such as transport links in the vicinity of existing establishments, where the siting or developments are such as to increase the risk or consequences of a major accident.
  The company Technical Polymers Ticona', situated at one end of the planned runway, is a Seveso top-tier establishment. Therefore, the Commission shares the view that the Seveso II -Directive, and in particular Article 12, must be respected in connection with the extension of Frankfurt Airport.
  Moreover, as Frankfurt Airport itself is a Seveso top-tier establishment, in addition to the requirements relating to land-use planning, possible ‘domino effects’ between Ticona and Frankfurt Airport have to be examined. |
| --- | --- |

1.

According to Article 12 of the Seveso II — Directive, Member States shall ensure that the objectives of preventing major accidents and limiting the consequences of such accidents are taken into account in their land-use policies. They shall pursue those objectives, amongst others, through controls on new developments such as transport links in the vicinity of existing establishments, where the siting or developments are such as to increase the risk or consequences of a major accident.

The company Technical Polymers Ticona', situated at one end of the planned runway, is a Seveso top-tier establishment. Therefore, the Commission shares the view that the Seveso II -Directive, and in particular Article 12, must be respected in connection with the extension of Frankfurt Airport.

Moreover, as Frankfurt Airport itself is a Seveso top-tier establishment, in addition to the requirements relating to land-use planning, possible ‘domino effects’ between Ticona and Frankfurt Airport have to be examined.

| 2. | According to Article 4(2) and Annexes I No 13 and II No 7(a) of the amended EIA-Directive, the extension of airports with a runway length of 2 100 metre (m) or more has to be made subject to an environmental impact assessment (EIA), if the Member States so decide on the basis of an individual assessment or according to national criteria and thresholds. The decision has to be taken in accordance with the criteria laid down in Annex III of the EIA-Directive. However, according to Articles 1 and 4, the EIA-Directive applies only to ‘projects’ and not to ‘plans’. The Commission has, therefore, taken the view that the Directive is only applicable in the permit procedure, not during earlier planning phases of a project. |
| --- | --- |

2.

According to Article 4(2) and Annexes I No 13 and II No 7(a) of the amended EIA-Directive, the extension of airports with a runway length of 2 100 metre (m) or more has to be made subject to an environmental impact assessment (EIA), if the Member States so decide on the basis of an individual assessment or according to national criteria and thresholds. The decision has to be taken in accordance with the criteria laid down in Annex III of the EIA-Directive. However, according to Articles 1 and 4, the EIA-Directive applies only to ‘projects’ and not to ‘plans’. The Commission has, therefore, taken the view that the Directive is only applicable in the permit procedure, not during earlier planning phases of a project.

| 3. | The Commission has not received any information as to the possible relevance of Council Directive 90/313/EEC of 7 June 1990, on the freedom of access to information on the environment (1). The information by the complainants regarding possible violations of the Birds and the Habitats Directives is currently being assessed. The assessment has not yet been completed. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The Commission has not received any information as to the possible relevance of Council Directive 90/313/EEC of 7 June 1990, on the freedom of access to information on the environment (1). The information by the complainants regarding possible violations of the Birds and the Habitats Directives is currently being assessed. The assessment has not yet been completed.

| 4. | According to Article 12 of the Seveso II Directive, Member States shall ensure that all competent authorities and planning authorities, responsible for land-use planning decisions, set up appropriate consultation procedures. These procedures shall be designed to ensure that technical advice, on the risks arising from the establishment, is available, either on a case-by-case or on a generic basis, when decisions are taken. It goes without saying that misleading studies are never suitable for an assessment of accidental risks. |
| --- | --- |

4.

According to Article 12 of the Seveso II Directive, Member States shall ensure that all competent authorities and planning authorities, responsible for land-use planning decisions, set up appropriate consultation procedures. These procedures shall be designed to ensure that technical advice, on the risks arising from the establishment, is available, either on a case-by-case or on a generic basis, when decisions are taken. It goes without saying that misleading studies are never suitable for an assessment of accidental risks.

| 5. | Should the Commission find that Community legislation is being violated, appropriate steps will be taken, e.g. the opening of infringement proceedings against Germany. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Should the Commission find that Community legislation is being violated, appropriate steps will be taken, e.g. the opening of infringement proceedings against Germany.

---

(1)  OJ L 158, 23.6.1990.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/456 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/456

---

(2004/C 78 E/0483)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3059/03

by Avril Doyle (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(17 October 2003)

Subject:   EU funding for marine conservation

Given that Ireland lacks any dedicated facility, in the form of a publicly accessible marine conservation area, through which it can play a full role in an EU network of marine mammal rescue and oil spill response, and given that consequently it is ill-equipped to fulfil its international responsibilities.

Can the Commission advise on whether there are any EU funds available for the purpose of developing such a conservation centre to service the country?

Can the Commission advise on the availability of EU funding to support the work of the Irish Seal Sanctuary, a wildlife conservation NGO run entirely by volunteers for the past 20 years in this area but now without sources of finance to continue its operations?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(27 November 2003)

As the Honourable Member is aware, a number of International and Community measures and policies require Ireland to take adequate provisions to conserve or restore the marine environment. In principle, funds provided by the Community and managed by Ireland could be used to honour these responsibilities, provided that the legal framework allows for this.

There are limited possibilities for direct support from the Commission for nature conservation projects. The key financial instrument is the LIFE Regulation (1) nearly half of which is devoted to nature conservation projects. The key objective of LIFE Nature is to support the establishment of the Natura 2000 network of protected areas.

There are certain rules and criteria that need to be met for LIFE funding. Applications for financial support under LIFE are considered each year and must be submitted via the national authority for nature protection. The deadline for submission of applications to the Commission under the final round of the present LIFE Regulation was the end of October 2003.

Unfortunately, the number of applications received by the Commission considerably exceeds the financial possibilities of this instrument.

In regard to the Structural Funds, the Commission understands that the Irish Seal Sanctuary is currently examining the possibility of seeking funding under the Tourism Measures of the Regional Operational Programmes.

---

(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.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/457 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/457

---

(2004/C 78 E/0484)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3062/03

by Cristiana Muscardini (UEN) to the Commission

(17 October 2003)

Subject:   Improving water networks

This summer's weather conditions demonstrated the great importance of water, as much for people as for agriculture and production in general. The drought suffered by many parts of Europe drew sudden attention to the catastrophic consequences our countries would face in the event of the phenomenon occurring again. One of the most worrying aspects to have emerged from the crisis was the wastage of water brought about by the poor state of the existing canal and river networks. Networks used in agriculture and production and those that provide drinking-water all need to be modernised, which, in some cases, particularly as far as drinking water is concerned, may require the complete replacement of pipes, some of which are still made of lead and will therefore be prohibited on health grounds from 2013 by an EU directive. The total cost of replacing these ancient pipes in France is estimated to be around EUR 18 000 million; in Italy, the situation is not much different. Nevertheless, the current state of the networks exacerbates water wastage, estimated at between 15 and 40 %.

| 1. | Does the Commission not think it advisable to draw Member States' attention to the need for projects to improve or renovate pipes and water networks? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Does the Commission not think it advisable to draw Member States' attention to the need for projects to improve or renovate pipes and water networks?

| 2. | Does the Commission not feel it would be useful to propose a plan to modernise water networks along the same lines as the plan to modernise motorway networks? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Does the Commission not feel it would be useful to propose a plan to modernise water networks along the same lines as the plan to modernise motorway networks?

| 3. | Does the Commission not consider it necessary to put forward a water-saving programme, given that water is a vital and irreplaceable asset for both individuals and society as a whole? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Does the Commission not consider it necessary to put forward a water-saving programme, given that water is a vital and irreplaceable asset for both individuals and society as a whole?

| 4. | Does the Commission not feel it advisable to draft a general water directive, setting objectives, timetables and funding for the modernisation of water networks? |
| --- | --- |

4.

Does the Commission not feel it advisable to draft a general water directive, setting objectives, timetables and funding for the modernisation of water networks?

| 5. | Can the Commission provide information on any projects currently in preparation? |
| --- | --- |

5.

Can the Commission provide information on any projects currently in preparation?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(3 December 2003)

The Commission shares the opinion by the Honourable Member that design, construction and maintenance of water distribution networks present both environmental and economic challenges. This is true in terms of the material used (e.g. lead pipes leading to elevated levels of lead in drinking water), but also leaking and resulting loss of water entailing costs and waste of resources.

The Union has addressed this issue:

| — | on the one hand by environmental legislation such as the Water Framework Directive (1) and the Drinking Water Directive (2); |
| --- | --- |

—

on the one hand by environmental legislation such as the Water Framework Directive (1) and the Drinking Water Directive (2);

| — | on the other hand, bearing in mind the EC Treaty principle (3) that Member States have to finance environmental policy by Community funding mechanisms supporting efforts for improving water distribution networks. |
| --- | --- |

—

on the other hand, bearing in mind the EC Treaty principle (3) that Member States have to finance environmental policy by Community funding mechanisms supporting efforts for improving water distribution networks.

By the Water Framework Directive the Union has recently restructured and expanded its water protection policy, with an obligation to achieve good quality (‘good status’) for all waters by 2015, and provide one coherent managerial frame for the implementation of all water-related Community legislation. This environmental objective and deadline are complemented by mandatory preparatory steps, such as first analysis of pressures and impacts by December 2004, and establishing the necessary measures within a river basin management plan by December 2009. These environmental objectives will be underpinned by charges related to water-related services (such as the provision of water or the collection and treatment of waste water) which reflect the costs entailed, thus also providing an economic incentive for the wise and sustainable use of water resources.

It will be the task of Member States and their regions to identify within this iterative process those areas, installations and distribution networks which contribute to the loss of water, and develop in a transparent process the necessary remediation measures.

In order to ensure a targeted implementation, Commission, Member States, non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and stakeholders (including the European umbrella organisation of water suppliers) are committed to a comprehensive implementation strategy for the Directive, exchanging information, jointly developing guidance for implementation and making best use of available resources.

The Drinking Water Directive referred to by the Honourable Member sets quality standards for drinking water at the tap, including standards for lead. In the case of public drinking water distribution networks with lead piping, this entails the need to replace lead piping by better suited material.

Community funding instruments such as the Cohesion Fund, the ISPA Fund and the Structural Funds have been providing financial support for the necessary planning and reconstruction efforts. Further, Rural Development, the second pillar of the Common Agricultural Policy, provides opportunities e.g. for water-saving irrigation techniques and other sustainable water uses.

---

(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)  Council Directive 98/83/EC of 3 November 1998 on the quality of water intended for human consumption, OJ L 330, 5.12.1998.

(3)  Article 175(4) of the EC Treaty.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/459 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/459

---

(2004/C 78 E/0485)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3069/03

by Luciana Sbarbati (ELDR) to the Commission

(14 October 2003)

Subject:   Adriatic Corridor

The Adriatic Corridor or Corridor 8, defined by the European Council in Essen in 1996, is a transport route crossing all the regions of eastern Italy including the Marches, with Ancona as its hub, and linking central southern Europe with the countries in the eastern Mediterranean and the Middle East.

Corridor 8 is a multi-modal project which would entail substantial transport infrastructure (roads and railways), oil and gas pipelines, telecommunications, etc.

The recent Van Miert plan (priority projects to be made operational by 2020) does not take account of Corridor 8, which is a disastrous, discriminatory and hence unacceptable decision as far as the Marches, the Veneto, Emilia Romagna, Abruzzo, Apulia and Basilicata are concerned.

The 1996 guidelines for the TEN-T need to be revised, both in order to solve the increasingly complex infrastructure problems and with a view to enlargement, but the Van Miert plan cannot be welcomed since it is biased in favour of northern Europe and penalises the south and the Mediterranean, an area which offers a great opportunity — and at the same time a great challenge for Europe — for the economic, cultural and social cohesion of peoples and countries with whom we are to enter into a new dialogue on a broad scale.

If Italy, in its position in the Mediterranean, is thus an important bridge between north and south, east and west, it is hard to understand why both the Adriatic Corridor and the Tyrrhenian Corridor, devised on the basis of the criteria of intermodality and interoperability, have been removed from the list of priority projects. Only the bridge across the Straits of Messina remains, but it will be a dead-end both territorially and logistically if it is not linked up to the transport corridors.

In view of all this, can the Commission say whether it intends to ensure that at least the Adriatic Corridor is reincorporated in the list of essential projects for 2020, not least with a view to the enlargement of the EU to the east and the need to improve the infrastructure of ‘pivotal’ areas such as the Adriatic coast?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(7 November 2003)

Corridor VIII was not defined by the European Council of Essen.

The Pan European Transport Corridors were defined by the Pan-European Conferences of Ministers of Transport in Crete in 1994 and Helsinki in 1997. These corridors, crossing the countries of Central and Eastern Europe and connecting with the network of the Union, made it possible to co-ordinate the interventions of the various authorities, including those of the Community, that already supported the Central and Eastern European countries through the PHARE and ISPA programmes.

The mandate of the High Level Group, chaired by Mr Van Miert, was to identify priority projects on the transeuropean transport network, (TEN-T). Its report, which was advisory, assisted the Commission in its revision of the guidelines of the TEN-T.

As Corridor VIII is located outside the territory of the Union, (with the exception of the ports of Bari and Brindisi) it was not within the mandate of the Group to consider it for inclusion in the list of TEN-T priority projects. By the same logic the Commission did not include it in the recently adopted Decision on the revision of the TEN-T guidelines (1).

---

(1)  Decision No 1229/2003/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2003 laying down a series of guidelines for trans-European energy networks and repealing Decision No 1254/96/EC, OJ L 176, 15.7.2003.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/460 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/460

---

(2004/C 78 E/0486)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3077/03

by Torben Lund (PSE) to the Commission

(14 October 2003)

Subject:   Failure to implement Directive 2000/53/EC on end-of-life vehicles

A number of Member States are, in far too many cases, too slow to implement EU legislation. It also happens that EU directives are not implemented properly. This may be due to problems of interpretation but may also happen in some cases in order to safeguard national interests. The result is often that efforts to improve the environment are undermined and innovative companies that have adapted to the new market circumstances are not provided with the conditions they were told to expect.

This being so, will the Commission provide a progress report on implementation of Directive 2000/53/EC (1) in the Member States and comment on implementation of the Directive's provisions on the dismantling of oil filters and possible ways of preventing the leakage of residues? Does it consider that the latter provision has been implemented in such a way as to eliminate technical barriers and that companies from other Member States that have developed the technology (e.g. oil filter bungs) to prevent oil leakages, etc. are guaranteed genuine free market access?

Has it instituted proceedings against those Member States that have not implemented the Directive properly and, if so, which ones? When are these countries expected to have implemented the Directive properly? Is it planning to take further measures to ensure implementation of this Directive and, if so, what measures?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(12 November 2003)

In line with Article 9 of Directive of the Parliament and of the Council of 18 September 2000 on end-of-life vehicles, the Commission will publish a report on the implementation of this Directive within nine months of receiving the implementation reports from the Member States. Pursuant to Article 9(1) of the Directive, the first implementation report to be submitted by the Member States will cover the period of three years from 21 April 2002.

Article 6 (1) of the Directive requires Member States to take the necessary measures to ensure that all end-of life vehicles are treated in accordance with the minimum treatment requirements set out in Annex I of the Directive. Annex I requires, among others, the removal, separate collection and storage of oil. It should be noted that the Directive addresses the dismantling of oil filters primarily of end-of life vehicles. As regards waste reused parts of vehicles removed when passenger cars are repaired, Article 5 (1) of the Directive provides only that Member States shall set up systems for collection as far as technically feasible.

Up to now, twelve Member States (Belgium, Denmark, Germany, Spain, France, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Austria, Portugal, Finland and Sweden) have officially communicated their transposition measures to the Commission. However, in the cases of Belgium, France and Finland these measures represent an incomplete transposition. Therefore the Commission, pursuant to Article 226 of the EC Treaty, has brought an action before the Court of Justice for non-communication of the national transposition measures or for communication of incomplete measures against Belgium (C-2003/345), Greece (C-2003/246), France (C-2003/331), Ireland (the Commission decision to apply to the Court is presently being executed), Finland (C-2003/292) and United Kingdom (C-2003/277). Pursuant to Article 10 of the EC Treaty, Member States are expected to take the necessary measures to comply with all the obligations laid down in the Directive.

The Commission is currently assessing the communicated national transposition measures, including the transposition of the requirements of Articles 5, 6 and Annex I on their conformity with the Directive. Therefore, at this moment the Commission has no clear overview of the specificities of the collection and dismantling systems set up in each Member State. In case of incorrect implementation, the Commission will address this with the Member State concerned, in line with the powers conferred to it by the EC Treaty.

The Commission regularly discusses the implementation issues related to this Directive with the Member State experts during the Technical Adaptation Committee meetings established on the basis of Article 18 of Council Directive 75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975 on waste (2).

---

(1)  OJ L 269, 21.10.2000, p. 34.

(2)  OJ L 194, 25.7.1975.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/461 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/461

---

(2004/C 78 E/0487)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3086/03

by Bruno Gollnisch (NI) to the Commission

(20 October 2003)

Subject:   Tobacco trade/France

The sharp increases in taxes on manufactured tobacco products in France have transformed the country within a few months from a place of transit for contraband cigarettes to a place of destination for such contraband.

Moreover, authorised traders, especially those working in border areas, are having to face competition from neighbouring countries, where French customers purchase in some cases in excess of their personal needs. However, these 34 000 tobacconists represent an irreplaceable network of local businesses, in particular in rural areas.

Investigations have shown that the trafficking in such products is based essentially in Eastern European countries, including some future EU Member States. The ease with which contraband products can move around the EU illustrates the adverse — and indeed criminal — effects of the absence of checks at internal borders.

With the prospect of EU enlargement in only a few months:

| — | What does the Commission intend to do to ensure that effective and efficient checks are carried out at the EU's external borders? |
| --- | --- |

—

What does the Commission intend to do to ensure that effective and efficient checks are carried out at the EU's external borders?

| — | What action does it intend to take to tackle the unfair competition to which French tobacconists are subjected, especially in border areas? |
| --- | --- |

—

What action does it intend to take to tackle the unfair competition to which French tobacconists are subjected, especially in border areas?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(5 December 2003)

Firstly, it should be noted that the abolition of systematic customs controls at the European Union's internal borders has enabled the customs and excise authorities to focus their attention on the EU's external borders. The combating of cigarette trafficking is an important priority not only because it is a source of unfair competition with legitimate trade but also for budgetary reasons both at EU and Member State level.

Responsibility for combating cigarette trafficking at both individual and collective level lies with the Member States. However, where this illegal trade affects the Community's financial interests, the Community and the Member States share responsibility (Article 280 of the EC Treaty). The Commission, through the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF), plays an active role in coordinating action by Member States. OLAF has established a network of operational contacts in the Member States and the candidate and accession countries to ensure a rapid response in combating cigarette trafficking and the sources of such trafficking. OLAF also has a specialised department providing follow up for the Member States and candidate countries.

Through the Working Party on customs cooperation set up under the Treaty establishing the Europe Union (Third pillar — Justice and Home Affairs) the Member States implement an annual programme of common customs surveillance operations to combat trafficking in illegal goods. These operations frequently target cigarettes, tobacco and alcohol in the European Union. They are co-financed by the Commission under the AGIS programme.

External border controls have always been a priority for the Commission. It recently adopted a Communication on the role of customs in the integrated management of external frontiers (1) which sets out its strategy in this area. Its objective is to ensure greater protection for goods crossing the EU's external borders against environmental, health and public safety risks. The Communication proposes a common risk strategy for all Member States under which controls at the external borders can be prioritised to make them more effective.

The Commission would inform the Honourable Member that the new Customs 2007 programme, like its predecessor Customs 2002, is designed to ensure that all Member States apply customs controls, particularly at the external borders, in the same and most efficient way. One of the principal objectives is to strengthen cooperation between customs authorities in order to more effectively combat fraud. This programme is open to both current and future Member States.

The Commission would also point out that one of the fundamental freedoms of European citizens under the principles governing the Internal Market is to be able to purchase excisable products in one Member State and take them for their personal consumption to the Member State where they reside without having to pay excise duty there.

As things stand at present, Community legislation lays down only minimum rates of excise duty beyond which Member States are allowed to set their own. Under the Directive a proposal by the Commission on these minimum rates of excise duties for manufactured tobacco were recently raised (2) and a minimum level of excise duty expressed in euros was introduced to ensure that a minimum level of excise duty on cigarettes is applied in all Member States.

The Commission is, nevertheless, aware that, if the Member States fail to agree on greater harmonisation of excise duty rates, differences in these rates will create distortions of competition between traders in the Member States, particularly in border areas. The Commission has always taken the view that greater harmonisation of excise duty rates, in particular for manufactured tobaccos, will overcome this problem. The Commission continues to recommend such an approach to improve the functioning of the Internal Market.

---

(1)  COM(2003) 452 final.

(2)  Council Directive 2002/10/EC of 12 February 2002 amending Directives 92/79/EEC, 92/80/EEC and 95/59/EC as regards the structure and rates of excise duties applying to manufactured tobaccos, OJ L 46, 16.2.2002.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/462 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/462

---

(2004/C 78 E/0488)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3087/03

by Bruno Gollnisch (NI) to the Commission

(20 October 2003)

Subject:   Commission criteria on concentrations

In its assessment of the legality of business mergers and concentrations, the Commission seems opposed to the actual establishment of any European dominant position, and not just abuses of dominant position.

What is more worrying, the Commission has on several occasions in the past (ATR-De Havilland, Legrand-Schneider, ...) and event recently (Alcan-Pechiney) given the impression that its decisions systematically sought to penalise mergers in which the dominant company on the world market was European, but were very lenient in the opposite situation.

Will the Commission outline the underlying principles of its policy on concentrations?

Is it clearly opposed to attempts by European companies to become world leaders in their field?

Is it opposed, as a matter of principle, to world-scale industrial poles being run by Europeans?

Will it state whether or not its position is based on a criterion of ‘net benefit’ to the EU or its industrial sectors?

Does its analysis take account of the employment situation in Europe?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(9 December 2003)

In the Commission's view, concentrations (or mergers) are a normal part of business life and, in principle, have a beneficial effect on the economy. Mergers generate economies of scale and increase the competitiveness — and hence performance — of the companies concerned. By virtue of the impact they can have on the competitiveness of industry in the broad sense of the term and on economic growth, mergers are also generally conducive to long-term employment because sustained economic growth provides the best guarantee of high employment. Mergers are, therefore, an essential factor in wealth generation and job creation, contributing to the economic and social dimensions of sustainable development.

However, this virtuous circle presupposes that the productivity gains made by companies as a result of mergers are, at least in part, redistributed to their customers (final or intermediate consumers, the latter being other companies that are often small and medium-sized companies) in the form of lower prices or innovative or better-quality goods or services. In other words, it is most important to ensure that the gains stemming from mergers are not wholly (or largely) retained by the company resulting from the merger for its own benefit.

Only sufficient competitive pressure is capable of ensuring that the company resulting from a merger has the necessary incentives to allow its customers, and consumers in general, to benefit from the productivity and efficiency gains generated by the merger, with the result that these gains are spread throughout the economy.

That is why Council Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 of 21 December 1989 on the control of concentrations between undertakings (1) (‘the Merger Regulation’) seeks to prevent mergers from resulting in the creation of dominant companies, i.e. companies with such economic strength that they can impose unreasonably high prices on customers, erode their purchasing power and, ultimately, deprive the economy of the efficiency and productivity gains associated with mergers.

In short, the fundamental principle underlying the Merger Regulation is that preserving competitive market structures is the best way of maintaining and improving the competitiveness of industry and of the European economy in general and of ensuring solid, lasting growth and, accordingly, a high level of employment in the European Union.

The state of the labour market in Europe is not, therefore, one of the Commission's immediate concerns when vetting a merger, but this aspect is a consideration in terms of competition policy broadly speaking. Under Article 18 of the Merger Regulation, workers' representatives from notifying companies can make their views known in the course of the merger vetting procedure. The Commission is also planning to include in the notification form a reminder to notifying companies that they must meet their obligations under the Community and national social provisions applicable to merger transactions.

Against that background, it should also be noted that other EU policies, in particular employment policy and enterprise policy, also make a major contribution to maintaining high employment and developing the competitiveness of the European economy in accordance with the objectives laid down in the EC Treaty. These various policies are therefore broadly and naturally complementary.

Accordingly, when exercising its powers to scrutinise mergers, the Commission must consider whether the transactions notified to it create or strengthen a dominant position as a result of which effective competition would be significantly impeded in the common market or in a substantial part of it. When carrying out this analysis, the Commission is required under Article 2(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation to take account of technical and economic progress, i.e. efficiency gains which are the direct result of the merger, provided that they are to the consumers' advantage and do not form an obstacle to competition. In practice, taking these efficiency gains into account may produce similar results to applying a ‘net benefit’ criterion, albeit on the understanding that the existence and scope of those efficiency gains are assessed by the Commission as part of a competition analysis and can therefore be taken into account only in so far as they ultimately have a beneficial effect on competition.

It is true that the Merger Regulation is designed to prohibit the creation or strengthening of dominant positions as a result of which effective competition would be significantly impeded in the common market, and this as opposed to Article 82 of the EC Treaty, which refers only to abuse by companies already in a dominant position. This reflects the different, complementary natures of these two legal instruments: whereas the former introduces a priori checks which are preventive in nature, the latter consists of ex-post checks which are punitive in nature. The attraction of a priori merger supervision lies in the fact that it is more efficient to maintain a situation of effective competitive situation on the markets concerned than to take steps subsequently against anti-competitive abuse by companies which have acquired or strengthened a dominant position as the result of a merger.

In thirteen years of implementing the Merger Regulation, the Commission has examined more than 2 300 merger transactions only 18 of which were prohibited. Many of the mergers authorised by the Commission have allowed powerful European groups to emerge which are themselves world leaders or able to challenge world leaders on their respective markets. Examples include the groups which resulted from the decisions concerning Carrefour/Promodes, TotalFina/Elf Volvo/Renault, Framatome/Siemens, Usinor/Arbed/Aceralia (merged as Arcelor) and Aérospatiale/DaimlerChrysler Aerospace/Centre for Advanced Spatial Analysis (CASA) (merged as the European Aeronautic, Defense and Space Company (EADS)). The Air Liquide/Brin's Oxygen Company (BOC) merger would be another example if that particular transaction had not been abandoned after the US authorities had indicated that it would very probably be banned. Prohibited mergers (or mergers abandoned in the course of in-depth investigations by the Commission) include those designed to establish both European (e.g. Volvo/Scania) and non-European (e.g. General Electric (GE)/Honeywell) groups.

It is thus clear that the Commission exercises its merger supervision powers in a perfectly neutral fashion as regards the identity and nationality of the companies involved or their shareholders and that this is not incompatible with the objectives of making European industry and the European economy in general more competitive, maintaining high employment and guaranteeing solid, lasting growth in the European Union.

---

(1)  OJ L 395, 30.12.1989; corrected version: OJ L 257, 21.9.1990.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/464 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/464

---

(2004/C 78 E/0489)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3099/03

by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(20 October 2003)

Subject:   Aid for the farming of mussels

The eutrophication of our coastal seas continues to be a major environmental problem even though certain measures have been taken on land to reduce the leakage of nutrients into the sea. Eco-systems adjust to some extent to the growing quantity of vegetable plankton caused by eutrophication through a sharp increase in the number of mussels and other organisms that act as filters. These filters are of crucial importance in reducing plankton biomass in coastal seas. The risk of harmful plankton efflorescence is reduced in areas with many filters. In some areas there are good opportunities for biological manipulation of fjord systems as it were by increasing the number of filters with the aid of mussel farming.

Today mussels are already being farmed in coastal areas including Bohuslän in Sweden, but attempts to expand such farming have entailed major problems. Mussel farming is hampered by long periods when harvesting has to stop because of toxic algae that make mussels poisonous.

How does the Commission assess the strategic role of mussel farming as a way of reducing the incidence of eutrophication and what measures are being taken to ensure that this industry can survive commercially?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(16 December 2003)

The Commission is certainly aware of the problems caused by eutrophication to the marine ecosystem.

The causes of this problem are diverse and their interrelation complex. However, a high level of nutrients in the water appears to be a condition sine qua non for the development of eutrophication episodes.

For that reason, Community action in this field mainly aims at reducing the input of nutrients to the marine waters, independently of their origin.

Aquaculture activities, both in freshwater and in the marine, are in some cases at the origin of effluents rich in nutrients to the sea. For that reason, the use of farmed mussels as natural fighters against eutrophication should be carefully assessed before its possible implementation. Moreover, as toxin-producing algae are often carried from offshore to inshore waters by currents, they can be harmful irrespective of the level of filter feeders near the coast.

Farming of mussels and other bivalves may enjoy, as many other forms of aquaculture, the measures foreseen in Council Regulation (EC) No 2792/1999 laying down the detailed rules and arrangements regarding Community structural assistance in the fisheries sector (1).

---

(1)  OJ L 337, 30.12.1999.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/465 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/465

---

(2004/C 78 E/0490)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3106/03

by María Bergaz Conesa (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(22 October 2003)

Subject:   The Júcar-Vinalopó water diversion project

The Júcar-Vinalopó water diversion project is a massive scheme (total cost over EUR 50 million) which forms part of the Spanish National Hydrological Plan, and was submitted for Community funding in October 2002. The technical features of the scheme mean that the diverting of water from the Júcar to the Vinalopó is intrinsically linked up with diverting water from the Ebro, a project not yet forwarded to the Commission. The National Hydrological Plan confirms this, by providing for the delivery of 63 hectolitres3 in the vicinity of the Tous dam so as to make the diversion from the Júcar to the Vinalopó possible (see Analysis of the Precedents and Water Transfers Raised by the National Hydrological Plan p. 170).

The scheme is being subjected to detailed analysis by the Commission (DG Environment) from an environmental impact point of view, and the European Investment Bank is carrying out a feasibility study whose results have not been made public.

Independent experts claim that the scheme is neither economically nor environmentally viable, and suffers from major shortcomings from a technical standpoint, such as the absence of a precise, updated and complete environmental impact assessment. The project's shortcomings have been communicated to both Commission and Parliament in the shape of various complaints from citizens, petitions and parliamentary questions.

Despite all this, the Spanish Government is going ahead with the scheme, and intends to continue with the work, by small units and in sections, according to statements by the Spanish Ministry of the Environment. Such haste could conflict with a proper assessment of the Community complaints submitted.

Could the Commission make the content and conclusions of the EIB study available? Does the Commission believe that the project depends, to a substantive degree, on the transfer of waters from the Ebro? Does the Commission intend to ask the Spanish authorities to update the environmental impact assessment, and provide a cost-benefit assessment, as well as compliance with the other requirements applicable to large-scale projects according to Article 26 of the Regulation on the structural funds (Regulation EC No 1260/1999 (1))? Can the Commission confirm whether the Commissioner has reached an undertaking with the Minister responsible for the report to be published before the end of this year?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(19 December 2003)

The Commission wishes to inform the Honourable Member that it consulted the European Investment Bank (EIB), within the framework of the cooperation agreement with the EIB and the regulatory provisions, in order to have an independent opinion. The Commission asked the EIB for a technical report on the viability of the Júcar-Vinalopó water diversion project. The EIB presented its report on 1 August 2003. The bank concludes that, subject to specific conditions, the project is viable by itself — independently from implementation of the Ebro water diversion project.

It should be pointed out that the Spanish authorities confirm that the option envisaged in the preliminary draft law on the National Hydrological Plan, namely diverting the Ebro to the Júcar and the latter to the Vinalopó, was ultimately not chosen in the version of the document presented for public information from 20 June to 2 August 2003.

The Commission considers that the information at its disposal, re-examined and supplemented by the EIB technical study, is sufficient at this stage for the project to be successfully evaluated in the light of the Structural Funds' regulatory requirements, including the aspects referred to in Article 26 of Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 (2).

The Commission wishes to add that, in order to supplement that information, the conditions stipulated in the EIB report were examined and then passed on to the Spanish authorities. If other information proves necessary in the course of examining the case, the Commission will request it from the relevant authorities. On 20 October 2003 the Spanish authorities formally responded to the conditions drawn up. The Commission is currently evaluating that response.

The Commission is not aware of a formal commitment to publish the report.

To conclude, this is a complex case still under examination and the Commission has not yet taken a final decision on the application for part-financing.

The Honourable Member should also refer to the supplementary answer given by the Commission to written question No E-0419/03 from Ms Gonzalez Alvarez (3).

---

(1)  OJ L 161, 26.6.1999, p. 1.

(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)  OJ C 70 E, 20.3.2004, p. 28.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/467 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/467

---

(2004/C 78 E/0491)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3128/03

by Jaime Valdivielso de Cué (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(23 October 2003)

Subject:   Trade

Some draft conclusions were drawn up in preparation for negotiations on the agriculture chapter at the failed WTO talks in Cancún that would involve cutting back subsidies under the common agricultural policy, which has just been reformed.

Does the European Union intend to accept these new conditions even though no agreement was reached on this matter in Cancún?

What is the European Union's margin for manoeuvre on agriculture for the next multilateral negotiations, without it having to introduce fresh reforms to the CAP?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(25 November 2003)

Due to the course of events in Cancun, Ministers did not have the opportunity to discuss the Agricultural part of the draft Ministerial Declaration submitted by Mr Derbez. This chapter contained some proposals of great concern to the Commission, notably in the pillars of domestic support and export competition. Had the discussion started in Cancun, the Commission would have sought the necessary changes to the text.

The Commission has based its position on the decisions on the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) reform taken in Luxembourg in 2003. The depth and width of the CAP reform will enable the Commission to continue working on this basis in the future so as to maintain the consistency of the World Trade Organisation (WTO) negotiations with the Community's domestic framework.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/467 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/467

---

(2004/C 78 E/0492)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3131/03

by José Ribeiro e Castro (UEN) to the Commission

(23 October 2003)

Subject:   ‘Sorraia’ horses

A race of horses well on its way to extinction, the Iberian horse, popularly known as the ‘Sorraia’ horse, is seen by specialists as possibly the original primitive horse native to the Iberian Peninsula.

Their reasons are that it is faithfully depicted in cave paintings in the Spanish La Pileta cave and the Portuguese Escoural cave. It is believed that this type of horse was used for Roman cavalry, and that it was taken to the Americas during the colonial period, giving rise to the majority of the types of horse now found there. It is apparently also the source of the national races of horse to be found in Spain — the Andalusian horse — and Portugal — the Lusitanian horse.

Portugal is home to the largest population of these ‘Sorraia’ horses, estimated to number fewer than one hundred in 2002.

For these reasons, and others, the ‘Sorraia’ horse represents a unique genetic heritage, in view of its rarity and primitive character.

The Commission:

| — | is it prepared to support measures to preserve the ‘Sorraia’ horse; |
| --- | --- |

—

is it prepared to support measures to preserve the ‘Sorraia’ horse;

| — | what information does it have on the origins and genetic heritage of this horse; |
| --- | --- |

—

what information does it have on the origins and genetic heritage of this horse;

| — | is it prepared to cooperate with local authorities and institutions which are already developing programmes to protect this animal; |
| --- | --- |

—

is it prepared to cooperate with local authorities and institutions which are already developing programmes to protect this animal;

| — | what avenues are open to those who raise these horses in order to obtain Community aid? |
| --- | --- |

—

what avenues are open to those who raise these horses in order to obtain Community aid?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(2 December 2003)

Over the period 1994-1999 the Community supported the conservation of biological and genetic diversity in agriculture by means of Regulation (EC) No 1467/94 (1), which launched a Community programme for the conservation, characterisation, collection and utilisation of genetic resources in agriculture. It added value to the action taken in the individual Member States by promoting transnational cooperation. Any natural or legal person who was a national of a Member State and established in the Community could participate. The Regulation enabled 21 projects to be funded, including four on animal genetic resources. No project for the conservation of the Sorraia horse was proposed.

Over the same period the Community supported the rearing of animals of local breeds in danger of extinction under Regulation (EEC) No 2078/92 (2) (Article 2). Thirty-five animals of the Sorraia breed benefited from aid in Portugal.

Since 2000 the Community has been supporting measures to protect endangered breeds under Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999 (3) (Chapter VI) and its implementing Regulation, Regulation (EC) No 445/2002 (4) (Article 14).

That Article provides that Community support may cover the rearing of ‘farm animals of local breeds indigenous to the area and in danger of being lost to farming’. The breeds must meet the criteria for the thresholds under which a breed is considered to be in danger of being lost to farming laid down in Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 445/2002. If the Member States choose to include such measures in their rural development plans (RDPs), aid is granted to farmers who enter into agri-environmental commitments for a minimum period of five years. Also, Regulation (EC) No 445/2002 applies to farm animals registered in the stud-books of approved organisations. The Portuguese authorities have informed the Commission that the ‘Associação Internacional de Criadores do Cavalo Ibérico de Tipo Primitivo — Sorraia (AICS)’ has been approved under Commission Decision 92/353/EEC (5) for the establishment of a stud-book for Sorraia horses.

In the agri-environmental measure ‘Maintaining native breeds’ in the RDP for mainland Portugal (RURIS), the Portuguese authorities included provisions for the protection of the Sorraia breed. Therefore, since 2000, breeders of this endangered breed qualify for aid under the programme if they meet the terms and conditions laid down in it. Applications for eight Sorraia females were submitted in 2001 and 2002 and they are already receiving funding.

In addition, a new Community programme for the conservation, characterisation, collection and utilisation of genetic resources in agriculture will soon be available, covering the period 2003-2006. The Commission proposal has almost been finalised. Once it has been adopted by the Council, interested parties (national and regional authorities, institutions and private individuals) will be able to respond to calls for proposals for measures launched by the Commission. Projects qualifying for Community part-financing will be selected by independent experts.

The Commission has information on the origins and genetic heritage of the Sorraia horse which is publicly accessible in the FAO database on farm animal genetic resources (http://dad.fao.org) and on the AICS website (www.aicsorraia.fc.ul.pt), among other sources.

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1467/94 of 20 June 1994 on the conservation, characterisation, collection and utilisation of genetic resources in agriculture, OJ L 159, 28.6.1994.

(2)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 2078/92 of 30 June 1992 on agricultural production methods compatible with the requirements of the protection of the environment and the maintenance of the countryside, OJ L 215, 30.7.1992.

(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.

(4)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 445/2002 of 26 February 2002 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999, OJ L 74, 15.3.2002.

(5)  Commission Decision 92/353/EEC of 11 June 1992 laying down the criteria for the approval or recognition of organisations and associations which maintain or establish stud-books for registered equidae, OJ L 192, 11.7.1992.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/469 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/469

---

(2004/C 78 E/0493)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3135/03

by Patricia McKenna (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(17 October 2003)

Subject:   Disposal of toxic ships

Commissioner Wallström will be aware of the current movement of a number of contaminated US navy ships laden with toxic waste from the US to the UK for disposal. These ageing ships will be towed across the Atlantic at great risk to European waters especially to the coastal areas of Britain, France, Belgium and the Netherlands. In view of these facts I would ask the Commission whether these shipments are in keeping with the legislative packages drawn up in light of the ‘Erika’ I and II and ‘Prestige’ disasters and what, if any, measures can be taken to prevent Member States becoming a dumping ground for toxic waste of this sort?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(14 November 2003)

According to the information available to the Commission, the measures already adopted by the Union in the wake of the ‘Erika’ and ‘Prestige’ accidents do not apply to shipments of end-of life ships.

However, the commitment made in Johannesburg to protect our vulnerable marine environment and the experience learned from the ‘Erika’, ‘Prestige’ and Tricolor disasters should lead us to a precautionary approach.

Council Regulation (EEC) No 259/93 of 1 February 1993 on the supervision and control of shipments of waste within, into and out of the European Community applies to all shipments of waste, and thus also to these end-of life ships. According to information submitted to the Commission, the end-of life ships are intended to be recovered in the United Kingdom. According to the Regulation, the countries involved in such a shipment, i.e. the countries of dispatch, destination and transit, all have to consent to the shipment. It thus follows that all the competent authorities involved can oppose the shipment.

A pre-condition to receive a consent from the competent authorities, in particular that of destination, is that the treatment facility is authorised and has adequate technical capacity to treat the waste in question under conditions presenting no danger to human health and to the environment. The Commission has received a complaint in this regard and is investigating the complaint as a matter of urgency with the United Kingdom authorities. The latest information at the Commission's disposal would suggest that the United Kingdom authorities are currently evaluating the situation with regard to the permit of the receiving company.

Finally, should the end-of life ships be intended for disposal, Council Regulation (EEC) No 259/93 provides that the Community only imports the waste concerned if the exporting country does not have the capacity to treat the waste itself.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/470 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/470

---

(2004/C 78 E/0494)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3138/03

by Mihail Papayannakis (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(23 October 2003)

Subject:   Atmospheric pollution in Thessaloniki

According to information recently published by the Greek Ministry for the Environment, Regional Planning and Public Works, levels of nitrogen dioxide and sulphur monoxide were detected in certain parts of Thessaloniki during the past year which exceeded permitted levels on 111 and 105 days, two and a half times the limits set by the EU.

What concrete measures has Greece announced and what concrete steps has it taken up to now in cases where alert thresholds are exceeded, given that, under Articles 4 and 10 of Directives 1999/30/EC (1) (relating to limit values for sulphur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide and oxides of nitrogen, particulate matter and lead in ambient air) and 96/62/EC (2) (on ambient air quality assessment and management), the Member States are required to draw up a plan of action where the alert thresholds are exceeded and to inform the Commission thereof, and to draw up a list of minimum details to be supplied to the public together with the alert thresholds?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(17 December 2003)

Article 10 of Council Directive 96/62/EC of 27 September 1996 on ambient air quality assessment and management requires Member States to forward to the Commission basic information concerning the levels recorded and the duration of the episode(s) of pollution no later than three months following their occurrence. The first Daughter Directive on air quality 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 defines alert thresholds for sulphur dioxide (SO2) (500 microgrammes per cubic metre μg/m3)) and nitrogen dioxide (NO2) (400 μg/m3), based on hourly averages, measured over three consecutive hours. No such reports on exceeding these threshold concentrations were sent to the Commission by Greece in the year 2002.

It is supposed that the concentration levels mentioned, exceeded on 111 and 115 days, refer to limit values set by Directive 1999/30/EC. As part of the annual report, Member States are obliged to report individual cases of excess but only regarding the level of limit value plus a defined margin of tolerance (which decreases yearly reaching zero at the attainment date, which is 2010 for NO2 and 2005 for other components regulated by Directive 1999/30/EC).

No exceeding of limit value plus margin of tolerance for SO2 and NO2 was reported by Greece for 2002. This does not rule out possible exceeding of limit values themselves. Limit values become legally binding at the attainment dates.

---

(1)  OJ L 163, 29.6.1999, p. 41.

(2)  OJ L 296, 21.11.1996, p. 55.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/471 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/471

---

(2004/C 78 E/0495)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3140/03

by Koenraad Dillen (NI) to the Commission

(23 October 2003)

Subject:   Death-penalty-related projects

Statements by senior Commission staff suggest that the European Commission is funding a number of projects in the United States and other countries that apply the death-penalty to raise public awareness of the death-penalty issue in retentionist countries. The statements were issued on World Day against the Death Penalty Friday 10 October. (Source: The European Weekly — New Europe, 12 October, p. 6 ‘Commission seeks abolishment of death penalty’).

Exactly what sorts of projects are involved?

How many of these projects have been launched in United States and in which states of the Union?

What is the overall cost of the projects? Is this the first year in which projects of this kind have been started?

Have similar projects been launched in Cuba and the People's Republic of China? In which countries other than the United States have such projects been set up?

Are these one-off projects or do they run for several years?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(1 December 2003)

The Commission has been funding projects in view of abolition of the death penalty for a number of years. Providing funding for such projects was also re-affirmed as a priority in the Commission's Communication of 8 May 2001 on the Union's role in promoting human rights and democratisation in third countries (1). This Communication specifically indicates that: ‘Support for abolition of the death penalty should include projects intended to reduce its use, for example by promoting debates at government and civil society level on its ineffectiveness in reducing crime.’

The Community funding, provided under the European Initiative for Democracy and Human Rights, covers a wide range of areas such as awareness campaigns in countries where capital punishment is still practised and direct assistance to sentence of prisoners. A specific call for proposals on death penalty projects was launched in 2002. Following this call, projects amounting to a total of EUR 4 897 328 were selected.

Two of the projects selected under this call include activities in the United States:

| — | Capital Punishment activities, informing and supporting strategies to establish alternatives to the death penalty. This project aims to increase awareness of issues surrounding capital punishment and provide support to those engaged in the fight against it. Activities include the establishment of specialised databases to support lawyers engaged in capital litigation, particularly in the United States and the Caribbean, a lecture series on capital punishment, the setting up of a capital punishment studies library, research activities and public awareness raising actions. |
| --- | --- |

—

Capital Punishment activities, informing and supporting strategies to establish alternatives to the death penalty. This project aims to increase awareness of issues surrounding capital punishment and provide support to those engaged in the fight against it. Activities include the establishment of specialised databases to support lawyers engaged in capital litigation, particularly in the United States and the Caribbean, a lecture series on capital punishment, the setting up of a capital punishment studies library, research activities and public awareness raising actions.

| — | A study of How States' Death Penalty systems Comport with Minimum Standards designed to Protect Due Process and Fairness. The overall objective is to convince the 40 American jurisdictions that retain the death penalty to implement a moratorium on executions and to complete thorough, comprehensive studies of their death penalty systems. |
| --- | --- |

—

A study of How States' Death Penalty systems Comport with Minimum Standards designed to Protect Due Process and Fairness. The overall objective is to convince the 40 American jurisdictions that retain the death penalty to implement a moratorium on executions and to complete thorough, comprehensive studies of their death penalty systems.

The total number of running projects promoting the abolition of death penalty worldwide at present amounts to 13, with a maximum total Union contribution of EUR 8 136 217.

As concerns projects in China, one project pertaining to this country was selected under the 2002 call. The title of this project is: ‘Strengthening the defence of death penalty cases in the People's republic of China’. Defence and legal aid for defendants facing the death penalty are provided under this project.

There are currently no specific projects aiming at the abolition on the death penalty in Cuba.

Concerning the last question asked by the Honourable Member, the duration of such projects is usually between 24 and 36 months.

---

(1)  COM(2001) 252.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/472 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/472

---

(2004/C 78 E/0496)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3141/03

by Koenraad Dillen (NI) to the Commission

(23 October 2003)

Subject:   European week against cancer — scientific research

To mark the annual European week against cancer, the European Commission has announced that a number of new projects have been selected for grants from the Sixth Framework Research Programme. The Commissioner responsible for research, Philippe Busquin has issued a statement saying that over the next few years the EU plans to invest EUR 400 million in cancer research. In the first instance 19 projects will receive a sum of approximately EUR 100 million.

Which are the 19 projects concerned and what is the amount of the grant that each of them will receive?

In which Member States will the projects be carried out?

On the basis of what criteria were the projects selected? What is the grant application procedure for firms and research centres?

When grants are allocated for scientific research is a geographical quota applied to ensure that research centres, universities and companies from all Member States have equal access to the funds available?

Answer given by Mr Busquin on behalf of the Commission

(1 December 2003)

As a result of the first call for proposals of the Programme ‘Life Sciences, genomics and biotechnology for health’ (deadline March 2003) within the ‘combating cancer’ area, 19 projects were selected for funding for an overall Community contribution of EUR 100 million.

The selected projects, which are still currently under contract negotiation, are undertaken by large, multidisciplinary and multinational consortia including academia, industry, research organisations and small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) from the Member States as well as associated states, candidate countries and, in some cases, third countries. The titles of the selected projects, the countries of the participants as well as the Community proposed budgetary contribution, are shown in a table which will be sent direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat.

The evaluation and selection of proposals is carried out, with the assistance of independent experts, in compliance with the ‘Guidelines on proposal evaluation and selection procedures’, as foreseen in the ‘Rules for the participation of undertakings, research centres and universities in the implementation of the Sixth Framework Programme’ (1).

The evaluation process rests on a number of established principles such as quality, transparency, equality of treatment, impartiality, efficiency, speed and ethical considerations.

Applications received as a response to the calls for proposals are evaluated according to obligatory criteria:

| (a) | scientific and technological excellence and the degree of innovation; |
| --- | --- |

(a)

scientific and technological excellence and the degree of innovation;

| (b) | ability to carry out the action successfully and ensure its efficient management; |
| --- | --- |

(b)

ability to carry out the action successfully and ensure its efficient management;

| (c) | relevance to the objectives of the specific programme; |
| --- | --- |

(c)

relevance to the objectives of the specific programme;

| (d) | European added value, critical mass of resources mobilised and contribution to Community policies; and |
| --- | --- |

(d)

European added value, critical mass of resources mobilised and contribution to Community policies; and

| (e) | quality of the plan for using and disseminating the knowledge, potential for promoting innovation and clear plans for the management of intellectual property. |
| --- | --- |

(e)

quality of the plan for using and disseminating the knowledge, potential for promoting innovation and clear plans for the management of intellectual property.

Participation in the Sixth Framework Programme is based on the principle of equal access and the eligibility criteria as established in the rules for participation. Therefore, no quota system is applied, but the evaluation and selection procedures are based on independent ‘peer review’ and ‘excellence’ irrespectively of geographical origin or type of participant.

Research institutions, study centres, industry and SMEs are main target groups of the Sixth Framework Programme. Practical rules for application and eligibility criteria are outlined in the calls for proposals and are available at the Cordis website of the Sixth Framework Programme (http://fp6.cordis.lu/fp6/home.cfm). Two further calls for proposals in the area of combating cancer will be launched in 2004-2005.

---

(1)  Regulation (EC) No 2321/2002 of the Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2002 concerning the rules for the participation of undertakings, research centres and universities in, and for the dissemination of research results for, the implementation of the European Community Sixth Framework Programme (2002-2006), OJ L 355, 30.12.2002.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/473 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/473

---

(2004/C 78 E/0497)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3144/03

by Christopher Heaton-Harris (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(23 October 2003)

Subject:   EU funding for the Spanish National Hydrological Plan

Concerns have been expressed that the Spanish National Hydrological Plan will infringe the Habitats, Birds, Environmental Impact Assessment and Water Framework Directives and cause widespread environmental destruction in Spain. It is understood that the Spanish Government will seek to obtain around EUR 8 billion in Structural and Cohesion funds to finance the project.

Will the Commission ensure that no EU funds are allocated to this plan until its compliance with EU environmental legislation has been assured?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(18 December 2003)

The Honourable Member is referred to the Commission's answers to the following oral and written questions: H-211/03 by Mr de Roo during question time at Parliament's April 2003 session (1); H-810/02 by Mr Davies during question time at Parliament's December 2002 session (2); H-678/02 by Mrs Sornosa Martinez during question time at Parliament's October 2002 session (3); H-452/02 by Mr Davies during question time at Parliament's June 2002 session (4); H-444/02 by Mr Marset Campos during question time at Parliament's June 2002 session (5); H-947/01 by Mr Mayol i Reynal during question time at Parliament's December 2001 session (6); H-561/01 by Mrs Sornosa Martinez during question time at Parliament's July 2001 session (7); P-1610/03 by Mr Colom i Naval (8); E-1499/03 by Mr Mendiluce Pereiro (9); P-1171/03 by Mr Davies (10); P-0689/03 by Mrs Gonzalez Alvarez (11); P-0653/03 by Mr Mayol i Raynal (12); P-0638/03 de Mr Mendiluce Pereiro (13), E-0510/03 de Mr Colom I Naval (14), E-0509/03 de Mr Colom I Naval (15), E-2819/02 de Mr Davies (16), E-2708/02 de Mr Davies (17), E-1334/02 de Mrs Sornosa Martinez (18), E-0997/02 de Mr de Roo (19), E-0638/02 de Mr Mayol I Raynal (20), E-3205/01 de Mr de Roo (21), P-2918/01 de Mr Pittella (22), E-2614/01 de Mrs Sornosa Martinez (23), E-2568/01 de Mr Corbett (24), E-2288/01 de Mr de Roo (25), P-1231/01 de Mrs Sornosa Martinez (26), E-811/01 by Mrs Sornosa Martinez (27), E-0645/01 by Mr de Roo (28), E-0004/01 by Mr de Roo (29) and E-0003/01 by Mr de Roo (30).

The Commission will analyse carefully any request submitted by the Spanish authorities for financing of projects included in the Spanish National Hydrological Plan and the approval of such projects will be subject to their strict compliance with all applicable Community legislation and policies, including those relating to the environment.

---

(1)  Oral reply, 8.4.2003.

(2)  Written reply, 17.12.2002.

(3)  Written reply, 22.10.2002.

(4)  Written reply, 11.6.2002.

(5)  Written reply, 11.6.2002.

(6)  Written reply, 11.12.2001.

(7)  Written reply, 3.7.2001.

(8)  OJ C 70 E, 20.3.2004, p. 52.

(9)  OJ C 280 E, 21.11.2003, p. 157.

(10)  OJ C 11 E, 15.1.2004, p. 162.

(11)  OJ C 242 E, 9.10.2003, p. 160.

(12)  OJ C 242 E, 9.10.2003, p. 160.

(13)  OJ C 242 E, 9.10.2003, p. 160.

(14)  OJ C 242 E, 9.10.2003, p. 141.

(15)  OJ C 242 E, 9.10.2003, p. 140.

(16)  OJ C 92 E, 17.4.2003.

(17)  OJ C 92 E, 17.4.2003.

(18)  OJ C 277 E, 14.11.2002.

(19)  OJ C 277 E, 14.11.2002.

(20)  OJ C 277 E, 14.11.2002.

(21)  OJ C 147 E, 20.6.2002.

(22)  OJ C 134 E, 6.6.2002.

(23)  OJ C 134 E, 6.6.2002.

(24)  OJ C 93 E, 18.4.2002.

(25)  OJ C 93 E, 18.4.2002.

(26)  OJ C 318 E, 13.11.2001.

(27)  OJ C 340 E, 4.12.2001.

(28)  OJ C 340 E, 4.12.2001.

(29)  OJ C 235 E, 21.8.2001.

(30)  OJ C 261 E, 18.9.2001.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/474 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/474

---

(2004/C 78 E/0498)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3145/03

by W.G. van Velzen (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(20 October 2003)

Subject:   Batteries in exploding mobile phones

| 1. | Is the Commission aware of incidents in which the batteries of mobile phones being used by individuals have exploded and, in some instances, even caused (serious) bodily injury? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is the Commission aware of incidents in which the batteries of mobile phones being used by individuals have exploded and, in some instances, even caused (serious) bodily injury?

| 2. | If so, does the Commission also know whether the batteries involved were supplied by the mobile phone manufacturer? If not, will the Commission seek immediate information about these incidents which, after all, demonstrate that the safety and health of European citizens is at risk? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If so, does the Commission also know whether the batteries involved were supplied by the mobile phone manufacturer? If not, will the Commission seek immediate information about these incidents which, after all, demonstrate that the safety and health of European citizens is at risk?

| 3. | Is the Commission intending to carry out an investigation into the cause of these explosions, including finding out where the batteries came from and the circumstances in which they exploded? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Is the Commission intending to carry out an investigation into the cause of these explosions, including finding out where the batteries came from and the circumstances in which they exploded?

| 4. | What measures can the Commission take in connection with the incidents referred to above with regard, inter alia, to:






  — | better consumer protection; |
| --- | --- | --- |

4.

What measures can the Commission take in connection with the incidents referred to above with regard, inter alia, to:

—

better consumer protection;

| — | better information and warnings from the authorities and from manufacturers; |
| --- | --- |

—

better information and warnings from the authorities and from manufacturers;

| — | more research into battery safety; |
| --- | --- |

—

more research into battery safety;

| — | better safety provisions and standardisation; |
| --- | --- |

—

better safety provisions and standardisation;

| — | action to counter piracy and counterfeiting? |
| --- | --- |

—

action to counter piracy and counterfeiting?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(11 November 2003)

The Commission is aware of several cases (both in and outside the Union), where batteries used in mobile phones have exploded and have caused, in some cases, serious damage to the users concerned. It is primarily up to national enforcement authorities to investigate the individual cases and where appropriate to take products from the market and inform the Commission and other Member States of such actions. However, the Commission has conducted a first investigation of the case mentioned by the Honourable Member and has contacted national market surveillance authorities to assess the extent of the problem.

Without prejudging on the merits of the cases mentioned, from this research, it seems at first sight that these accidents are due to defective ‘grey’ replacement batteries, which due to an internal shortcut explode. Should this be the case, they do not meet the strict safety standards, which are applied by the manufacturers of the mobile phones. There are, however, no indications that these accidents have occurred because the phones themselves would be unsafe nor that this is a substantial problem.

Mobile phone manufacturers claim that a ‘grey’ market for batteries of mobile phones has developed, where their brand name is being illegally affixed. In that context, the manufacturer of the phone referred to by the Honourable Member has indicated that it is taking the necessary measures to combat counterfeit and piracy of its products and has intensified its own enforcement efforts.

Careless design, an uncontrolled production process or a combination of both can cause an internal short circuit. Batteries and chargers must therefore be designed and manufactured according to stringent safety and quality measures. These include very strict requirements regarding the materials and insulation used inside the batteries as well as continuous production controls and intensive product testing.

Product safety and compensation for damage caused by defective products are obviously social imperatives which must be met within the internal market.

The Union has responded to this by means of several legislative instruments, namely:

| — | 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 (1) (the ‘Product Liability Directive’); |
| --- | --- |

—

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 (1) (the ‘Product Liability Directive’);

| — | Council Directive 92/59/EEC of 29 June 1992 on general product safety (2) (the ‘General Product Safety Directive’), recently amended and recast in Directive 2001/95/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 3 December 2001 (3); |
| --- | --- |

—

Council Directive 92/59/EEC of 29 June 1992 on general product safety (2) (the ‘General Product Safety Directive’), recently amended and recast in Directive 2001/95/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 3 December 2001 (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 (the Low Voltage Directive or LVD) (4); |
| --- | --- |

—

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 (the Low Voltage Directive or LVD) (4);

| — | Council and Parliament Directive 1999/5/EC of 9 March 1999 on radio equipment and telecommunications terminal equipment and the mutual recognition of their conformity (5) (the R&TTE Directive). |
| --- | --- |

—

Council and Parliament Directive 1999/5/EC of 9 March 1999 on radio equipment and telecommunications terminal equipment and the mutual recognition of their conformity (5) (the R&TTE Directive).

The Product Liability Directive establishes the principle of liability without fault, on the part of the producer for damage to persons or any item of property caused by a defect in his product with certain causes for liability exoneration for manufacturers.

Batteries, which are delivered with the mobile phone, are covered by the R & TTE Directive. Replacement batteries, however, are currently not subject to Community legislation, although the Commission has taken initiatives to also cover them as part of the revision of the LVD. The Commission is currently consulting parties on this revision and intends to table a proposal to Council and the Parliament early 2005. Pending this review, the requirements for replacement batteries are not harmonised in the Community and requirements on manufacturers are governed by the General Product Safety Directive, which obliges manufacturers to ensure that products are safe and provides for mechanisms to rapidly exchange information between Member States on unsafe products.

There are no reasons for the Commission to assume that legislation regarding safety, consumer protection or liability would require to be extended, nor that information to users on this topic needs to be intensified or that additional research is required. Within the framework of existing legislation it is important that effective action against these dangerous batteries is taken so as to protect the consumer and instruments to do so are in place.

In its regular contacts with the national enforcement authorities the Commission will continue to monitor the situation.

---

(1)  OJ L 210, 7.8.1985, as amended by Directive 1999/34/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 10.5.1999, OJ L 141, 4.6.1999.

(2)  OJ L 228, 11.8.1992.

(3)  OJ L 11, 15.1.2002. This Directive has to be transposed into national legislation by 15 January 2004.

(4)  OJ L 77, 26.3.1973.

(5)  OJ L 91, 7.4.1999.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/476 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/476

---

(2004/C 78 E/0499)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3152/03

by Elly Plooij-van Gorsel (ELDR) to the Commission

(20 October 2003)

Subject:   Exploding Nokia telephones

Recently, over a short space of time, a number of mobile phones manufactured by the Finnish Nokia company have exploded. Nokia claims that these incidents result from the use of cheap (lithium) batteries not supplied by Nokia.

The telephone and batteries belonging to an inhabitant of Hengelo, who recently suffered an injury when his mobile phone exploded, are currently being investigated by the Netherlands Consumer Association. It claims that the young man from Hengelo was using original batteries. Nokia is aware of the incident but has not yet been able to investigate it. However, it maintains that, from the information currently available, it may be deduced that, once again, a counterfeit battery was the cause of the explosion.

In connection with the foregoing, Nokia advises consumers to use only original Nokia batteries. Nokia declines any liability for the explosions and claims that the Nokia warranty becomes invalid if batteries other than original batteries are used.

| 1. | Is the Commission aware of various incidents involving exploding Nokia telephones? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is the Commission aware of various incidents involving exploding Nokia telephones?

| 2. | Does the Commission take the view that the damage caused thereby is covered by Nokia's product liability? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Does the Commission take the view that the damage caused thereby is covered by Nokia's product liability?

| 3. | Does the Commission take the view that this is a case of customers being obliged to purchase a particular product? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Does the Commission take the view that this is a case of customers being obliged to purchase a particular product?

| 4. | If so, does the Commission take the view that an obligation of this nature is bad for competition and that it may be in breach of competition legislation? |
| --- | --- |

4.

If so, does the Commission take the view that an obligation of this nature is bad for competition and that it may be in breach of competition legislation?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(17 November 2003)

The attention of the Honourable Member is first of all drawn to the Commission's answer to written question P-3145/03 (1) by Mr Van Velzen which provided information about Community legislation and its application to mobile phones and batteries.

The Commission is still waiting for detailed reports from the Member States' enforcement authorities, but as far as it is aware the incidents are due to short circuits in faulty batteries, which were not sold by the mobile phone manufacturer in question. He, therefore, could not be held liable for the damages caused if such batteries explode.

The Council adopted Directive 85/374/EEC on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning liability for defective products (2) (the ‘Product Liability Directive’) on 25 July 1985.

This Directive establishes the principle of liability without fault on the part of the producer for damage to persons or any item of property caused by a defect in his product. Under this Directive the manufacturer of the mobile phone can be exonerated from liability, if the damage is due to a faulty replacement battery.

If however it could be proven, that the short circuit leading to the explosion could have been caused by a defect in the mobile phone itself, it is unlikely that a manufacturer could be exonerated from liability in cases where the replacement battery is found to be safe.

At present, the Commission does not have reason to believe that the manufacturer in question is acting in a way that is bad for competition. His current position seems to be driven by the need to defend himself against allegations regarding the safety of his phones. However, the Commission will raise the matter in its regular dialogue with industry so as to ensure that there is a competitive market in safe replacement batteries for mobile phones.

---

(1)  See page 474.

(2)  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.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/477 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/477

---

(2004/C 78 E/0500)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3156/03

by María Sornosa Martínez (PSE) to the Commission

(24 October 2003)

Subject:   Residential building in the Serra de la Renegà and the Oropesa-Benicàssim SCI (Castellón, Spain)

In the Serra de la Renegà, which lies within the municipal district of Oropesa del Mar (Castellón), the building work which has begun on 1 000 chalets and two hotels will have an irreversible impact on the area's exceptional natural treasures and the ‘Oropesa-Benicàssim’ site of Community interest (SCI) placed on the Natura 2000 network by the Spanish authorities (a marine SCI put forward because of its important posidonia beds), bordering on the Serra de la Renegà.

The sites mentioned are the home of species protected by the Birds Directive (79/409/EEC (1)) such as the peregrine falcon, the grey nightjar, the mountain lark, the wheatear and the long-tailed warbler, and contains ecosystems classed as priorities under the Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC (2)), and particularly, rupicolous calcareous or basophilic grasslands of the Alysso-Sedion albi and pseudo-steppe with grasses and annuals of Thero-Brachypodieta, and thermo-Mediterranean and pre-steppe brush.

Given that under the provisions of the current planning regulations scheme, the entire Serra de la Renegà is designated as ‘building land’:

| — | Could the Commission specify what stage has been reached with the processing of Complaint 2003/4833, SG (2003) A/7394/2, submitted by the Serra de la Renegà Defence Platform? |
| --- | --- |

—

Could the Commission specify what stage has been reached with the processing of Complaint 2003/4833, SG (2003) A/7394/2, submitted by the Serra de la Renegà Defence Platform?

| — | Does the Commission not believe that in order to protect the species covered by Community legislation, it would be advisable to extend the SCI so that it also covers the territory of the Serra de la Renegà? |
| --- | --- |

—

Does the Commission not believe that in order to protect the species covered by Community legislation, it would be advisable to extend the SCI so that it also covers the territory of the Serra de la Renegà?

| — | Does the Commission not believe that the construction of the planned chalets and tourist installations violate both the Bird and Habitats Directives, due to the negative effects that this residential building will have on the protected species? |
| --- | --- |

—

Does the Commission not believe that the construction of the planned chalets and tourist installations violate both the Bird and Habitats Directives, due to the negative effects that this residential building will have on the protected species?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(1 December 2003)

The Honourable Member has expressed her concern regarding the effects of an urban and tourist development project in the Renegà Range, within the Site of Community Importance ES5223037 (‘Costa d'Orpesa-Benicàssim’), proposed by the Spanish authorities in view of the constitution of the Natura 2000 Network.

According to 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, 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, shall be subject to appropriate assessment of its implications for the site in view of the site's conservation objectives. If the conclusions of this assessment reveal themselves to be negative, the authorities shall agree to the project only under certain conditions: absence of alternative solutions, presence of an overriding public interest in carrying out the project and the adoption of all compensatory measures necessary to ensure that the overall coherence of Natura 2000 is protected.

The Commission has made representations to the Spanish authorities in order to ensure that the conditions of Article 6.3 of Council Directive 92/43/EEC are respected in the case of matter.

As for the enlargement of the proposed SCI suggested by the Honourable Member, only two of the three types of habitats of Community importance mentioned by the Honourable Member are, according to the Natura 2000 data base, represented in the Site ES5223037:

| — | Habitat type 6220 *: Pseudo-steppe with grasses and annuals of the Thero-Brachypodietea; |
| --- | --- |

—

Habitat type 6220 *: Pseudo-steppe with grasses and annuals of the Thero-Brachypodietea;

| — | Habitat type 5330: Thermo-Mediterranean and pre-desert scrub. |
| --- | --- |

—

Habitat type 5330: Thermo-Mediterranean and pre-desert scrub.

Within the framework of the analysis of the Spanish proposal of sites of Community importance for the Mediterranean region it has been assessed that habitat type 6110* has been considered as sufficiently represented and no further sites need to be proposed. For habitat types 6220 and 5330 they were assessed as sufficient subject to correction of data.

Therefore, the Commission considers that the Spanish proposal for these types of habitats is sufficient and no further sites need to be proposed by the authorities although some corrections in the Natura Standard form need to be carried out.

---

(1)  OJ L 103, 25.4.1979, p. 1.

(2)  OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/478 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/478

---

(2004/C 78 E/0501)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3157/03

by Monica Frassoni (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(24 October 2003)

Subject:   Enlargement of a military base in the Natura 2000 site of La Maddalena, Sardinia

On 30 September 2003, the Italian Defence Minister authorised the enlargement of the US military nuclear submarine base (project USA No 080-02) in the Sardinian archipelago of La Maddalena, which is on the list of sites of Community importance (code ITB000008, surface area 13 240 ha).

Under the project buildings covering 52 000 m2 will be constructed, as will a new 180-metre dock at Santo Stefano that will consist of an underwater structure 100 metres long and 10 metres wide to which more naval vessels could be moored. There are also plans for a number of other construction works (residential centres, service buildings, sports centres and warehouses) at other sites on La Maddalena island.

The existing base for which enlargement authorisation was requested is located within the La Maddalena National Park, but neither the environmental implications assessment under the Habitats Directive 92/43/EEC (1) nor the environmental impact assessment under Directive 97/11/EC (2) have been carried out.

The base in question is not part of Italy's national defence system and its enlargement is not therefore a work in the public interest.

Is the Commission aware of this situation?

Will it take the appropriate measures in response to this non-application of Directives 97/11/EC, 85/337/EEC (3) and 92/43/EEC?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(10 December 2003)

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, after amendments by Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997, Member States are obliged to ensure that, before 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 a requirement for development consent and an assessment with regard to their effects. Projects covered by the Directive are identified in the Annexes to the Directive.

The project for the enlargement of a military base at La Maddalena, Sardinia, mentioned by the Honourable Member, does not fall in any of the categories of the Annexes to the Directive. Therefore, Directive 85/337/EEC as amended cannot apply to this specific case.

Article 6, paragraph 3 of Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora, provides that ‘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.’ The above-mentioned provision applies to SAC (Special Areas of Conservation) and to SCI (Sites of Community Importance) under Directive 92/43/EEC. As regards pSCI (proposed Sites of Community Importance), Member States have an obligation to act in a way that does not jeopardise the objectives of the Directive and ensure, therefore, that measures are taken to prevent the deterioration of proposed sites. In particular, as from 10 June 1998, the authorities of a Member State have an obligation in relation to all the sites which deserve, on the basis of the scientific criteria set out in Directive 92/43/EEC for their selection, to be included in the list of the SCI, and especially as regards sites which contain priority habitat or species, to apply the principles laid down in Article 6 (paragraphs 2, 3 and 4) so as to avoid the deterioration of natural habitats and the habitats of species as well as disturbance of the species and to ensure that any plan or project not directly connected with or necessary to the management of the site but likely to have a significant effect thereon is made subject to appropriate assessment of its implications for the site.

Should the project mentioned by the Honourable Member be likely to have significant effects on the pSCI ITB010008 Arcipelago La Maddalena, the Italian authorities should have complied with the above-mentioned obligations under Directive 92/43/EEC.

As the Commission is not aware of the specific situation described by the Honourable Member, it will take the appropriate steps to obtain detailed information and to ensure, within the limits conferred on it by the EC Treaty, compliance with Community law.

Should the Commission come to the conclusion that Community law is being breached in this 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 relevant Community law.

---

(1)  OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7.

(2)  OJ L 73, 14.3.1997, p. 5.

(3)  OJ L 175, 5.7.1985, p. 40.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/480 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/480

---

(2004/C 78 E/0502)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3173/03

by Koenraad Dillen (NI) to the Commission

(27 October 2003)

Subject:   Voting rights for immigrants

During a visit to Cairo last week, European Commission President, Romano Prodi, became involved in the debate currently taking place in Italy concerning voting rights for immigrants in local elections. Romano Prodi clearly supported voting rights for non-European citizens in Member States of the European Union.

Was Romano Prodi speaking in his capacity as European Commission President or as an Italian politician? In other words, was Romano Prodi voicing the official position of the current European Commission?

Has the European Commission expressed any official stance on voting rights for foreigners in the European Union in the past? On the basis of what discussions were such positions reached?

More generally, does the European Commission believe that voting rights for non-European citizens in the Member States can be regulated in the same way in all Member States by means of a directive, or does it consider that the organisation of elections and the formalities applying to voting rights/compulsory voting for foreigners should fall exclusively within the jurisdiction of the Member States themselves?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(16 December 2003)

The opinion of the Commission concerning civic citizenship and political rights for third country nationals has been expressed on a number of occasions including by the Commission's President Romano Prodi.

The Tampere European Council (1999) set the guidelines for a common Union asylum and immigration policy. This policy includes the element of fair treatment of third country nationals residing legally on the territory of the Member States. The European Council conclusions state that the legal status of the 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 Union citizens; e.g. right to reside, receive education, and work, as well as the principle of nondiscrimination vis-à-vis the citizens of the State of residence.

This is concretised by the proposed Directive concerning the status of third country nationals who are long-term residents (1), on which the Council reached political agreement on 5 June 2003. In its recent Communication on immigration, integration and employment (2) the Commission suggested that Member States consider granting political rights to long-term residents, in particular at local level, when transposing this Directive into national law.

The Commission has taken measures to achieve the targets set in Tampere. The Commission Communications on a Community immigration policy (3) and on an open method of co-ordination for the Community immigration policy (4) introduced the concept of ‘civic citizenship’ (comprising a common set of core rights and obligations) for third country nationals, as a mean of the common policy for integration of immigrants. The Commission will also take forward the development of this concept in the framework of the exchange of best practices and information in the group of national contact points on integration.

The Commission believes that civic citizenship and granting long-term resident immigrants political rights is important for the integration process and that the future Constitution should provide a legal basis for doing so, which is not the case with the current Treaties. The Commission put forward these objectives in the Convention on the Future of Europe, but they were not taken on board.

---

(1)  OJ C 240 E, 28.8.2001.

(2)  COM(2003) 336 final.

(3)  COM(2000) 757 final.

(4)  COM(2001) 387 final.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/481 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/481

---

(2004/C 78 E/0503)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3182/03

by Paulo Casaca (PSE) to the Commission

(27 October 2003)

Subject:   The air transport company SATA's failure to comply with Community legislation

Article 4(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 295/91 (1) of 4 February lays down the immediate minimum compensation to be paid by air transport companies if they refuse to embark passengers.

The contents of this Regulation are dealt with in Decree-Law 321/89 of 25 September, Portaria No 223/97 of 2 April and Law No 24/96 of 31 July but there are no provisions reflected in Portuguese law corresponding to these particular provisions of the Community Regulation.

Neither does any Portuguese airline apply this Regulation.

On 12 September, the airline SATA Internacional, without providing any explanation or information, and after several hours of waiting, cancelled flight S4 125 from Lisbon to Ponta Delgada, and re-routed the passengers on another flight, S4 221 from Lisbon to Ponta Delgada.

The airline refused to comply with the Community Regulation provisions referred to above.

What measures has the Commission taken to ensure that Community legislation on passengers' rights is transposed into Portuguese law and is respected in Portugal?

When does the Commission believe that Community legislation protecting passengers' rights will be applied in Portugal?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(8 December 2003)

Community legislation on compensation for denied boarding is in the form of a regulation, not a directive. As such, it directly imposes obligations on air carriers and does not have to be transposed into national law in order to apply. There is no need for provisions on denied boarding in national law for the regulation to be binding.

Council Regulation (EEC) No 295/91 (2) only covers denied boarding and not cancellations. It therefore does not oblige air carriers to pay compensation in cases such as that mentioned in the question.

Nevertheless, the Commission believes that passengers should also enjoy rights if they suffer cancellation or long delay of their flights and, in December 2001, presented a proposal for a new regulation covering compensation and assistance in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights (3). This is presently going through the process of conciliation between the European Parliament and the Council, as provided in Article 251 of the Treaty establishing the European Community. On 14 October 2003 the Conciliation Committee adopted a compromise text, on which the European Parliament will vote on 17 December 2003. The Commission strongly hopes that the Parliament will approve the proposal.

---

(1)  OJ L 36, 8.2.1991, p. 5.

(2)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 295/91 of 4 February 1991 establishing common rules for a denied-boarding compensation system in scheduled air transport, OJ L 36, 8.2.1991.

(3)  OJ C 103, 30.4.2002.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/482 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/482

---

(2004/C 78 E/0504)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3183/03

by Paulo Casaca (PSE) to the Commission

(27 October 2003)

Subject:   Calculating the additional levy in the Azores Autonomous Region

The Commission is certainly not unaware that the conditions laid down by Regulation (EEC) No 3950/92 (1) for calculating the additional levy in the milk and milk products sector are complex, and give the Member States considerable latitude in establishing the criteria and methods of calculation.

In the case of the Azores Autonomous Region, the existence of additional mechanisms and conditions laid down under the arrangements established by the Poseima Regulation make their application still more complex.

There is a certain amount of confusion and perplexity in the Azores Autonomous Region, about the results announced by buyers to milk producers, given that the first estimates indicated that the additional levy was non-existent, while the later figures, forwarded to the Commission, indicated that the levy did exist.

I have been asked, as a Member of the European Parliament, to clarify the questions which the affected farmers are asking themselves. I have likewise sought explanations from the Commission services responsible for managing the additional levy on milk systems, who have refused so far to provide me with any explanation, arguing that they are obliged to do so only to the Member State itself.

I would therefore like to know whether the Commission can confirm that this is indeed how it views its responsibility to inform (or not) European citizens, and, in particular, their elected representatives.

If this is not the case, will the Commission please tell me when and how I can obtain the clarifications I have requested.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(17 December 2003)

In answer to the questions of the Honourable Member, the Commission stresses that all Member States are subject to the same rules when it comes to assessing whether their producers have complied with the rules in milk quotas). To establish a possible overrun, the actual quantity of milk produced, under either the national reference quantity for delivery to the processing industry or the national reference quantity for direct sales to consumers, is compared with the respective national reference quantities. In the case of delivery, this quantity is corrected upwards where the fat content of the milk produced exceeds the reference fat content.

In the context of distributing the levy among producers who contributed to the excess, Member States have the option to reduce individual excess of producers by reallocating unused quantities from other producers. If they decide to do so, there are strict rules for such reallocations.

On top of the normal rules, as described above, the Azores have been granted a temporary exemption from the levy within the limit of a maximum of 73 000 tonnes/year. In a case where producers exceed their reference quantity, this exemption can be used to diminish their overrun (see Article 23 of Regulation (EC) No 1453/2001 (2)).

The Council decided in September 2003 to grant a permanent quota increase of 50 000 tonnes/year for the Azores (see footnote to point b) of Annex I of Regulation (EC) No 1788/2003 (3)) and to decrease the temporary exemption (see Article 147(3)(d) of Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 (4)). The Commission recently made a proposal to grant, in addition to the increase of quota of 50 000 tonnes/year, a permanent exemption for 23 000 tonnes/year to producers having overrun their reference quantity (5).

Portugal, like all other Member States, has communicated the provisional 2002-2003 production figures to the Commission. It appears that it exceeds its national reference quantity for delivery. On the basis of the data received, the Commission is presently seeking additional explanations from the Portuguese authorities.

After having received and evaluated this information, the Commission will inform the Honourable Member.

---

(1)  OJ L 405, 31.12.1992, 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)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1788/2003 of 29 September 2003 establishing a levy in the milk and milk products sector, OJ L 270, 21.10.2003.

(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) 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.

(5)  COM(2003)617 final.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/483 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/483

---

(2004/C 78 E/0505)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3186/03

by Geoffrey Van Orden (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(27 October 2003)

Subject:   Cross-border consumer goods transactions

What safeguards are in place for consumers who buy goods in a different EU country to their home country which then prove to be faulty and require replacement or refunding?

Are procedures in place for the speedy resolution of cross-border disputes over transactions of this kind?

If such procedures are in place, how can EU citizens access information about them?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(25 November 2003)

Consumer Protection legislation has been adopted at European level in order to provide consumers with the same degree of protection whether they purchase goods and services at home or in another Member State. By doing so, the Commission aims to build confidence and encourage consumers to take full advantage of the internal market.

The two main Directives to achieve this end are 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 (1) and 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 (2).

Directive 1999/44/EC provides consumers with protection in the event that they have purchased defective goods or goods that are not in conformity with the terms of the contract. In these instances, consumers can request the repair of the goods, the delivery of new goods, a price reduction or a complete refund of their money if the lack of conformity becomes apparent within two years of taking delivery of the goods. The Directive also requires that commercial guarantees such as manufacturers' guarantees or retailers' guarantees be transparent and clearly drafted (3).

Directive 97/7/EC was introduced to provide a minimum level of consumer protection in respect of distance contracts. These are contracts between consumers and suppliers where there has been no face-to-face contact between the parties prior to entering into the contract. Contracts concluded by telephone, mail, fax, television, Internet and electronic mail are all examples of distance contracts within the meaning of the Directive. The Directive imposes certain information requirements on suppliers and gives consumers the right to withdraw from the distance contract within a cooling-off period of at least seven working days (4).

Although there are no set procedures for the speedy resolution of disputes over cross-border transactions, the Commission has set up, with the help of the Member States, two networks which have created mechanisms to help consumers enforce their rights.

Over the last 10 years, the European Consumer Centres network help European consumers better understand how the internal market works for them and provide assistance to consumers when they encounter problems with cross-border transactions. The European Consumer Centre will notably enter into contact with the trader to try to reach an amicable settlement. There are currently 15 European Consumer Centres established in 13 Member States.

The European Extra Judicial network was launched as a pilot phase in October 2001. 17 Clearing Houses established in each Member State, as well as Iceland and Norway provide dissatisfied consumers with information and support to introduce a case to an appropriate Alternative Dispute Resolution scheme in another country. They also help monitor the case.

The Commission is currently preparing a report reviewing the activities of the network and setting future perspectives for it. This report will be presented to the Parliament and the Council in due course.

Information about these procedures is directly available from the Commission's homepage (European Consumer Centres network (5) and the European Extra Judicial (6)).

---

(1)  OJ L 171, 7.7.1999.

(2)  OJ L 144, 4.6.1997.

(3)  http://europa.eu.int/comm/consumers/cons_int/safe_shop/guarantees/index_en.htm

(4)  http://europa.eu.int/comm/consumers/cons_int/safe_shop/dist_sell/index_en.htm

(5)  http://europa.eu.int/comm/consumers/redress/compl/euroguichet/index_en.htm

(6)  http://europa.eu.int/comm/consumers/redress/out_of_court/index_en.htm

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/484 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/484

---

(2004/C 78 E/0506)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3189/03

by Mario Borghezio (NI) to the Commission

(27 October 2003)

Subject:   Explosion of Nokia mobile phone batteries

In an article which appeared on 16 October 2003, the Brussels daily newspaper ‘La Libre Belgique’ published the results of a survey conducted by the Belgian consumer organisation ‘Test-Achats’ into various incidents in recent months in which the rechargeable batteries of Nokia mobile phones exploded.

These cases occurred mainly in Belgium and the Netherlands and other cases have been reported in Switzerland, Norway and Vietnam. According to the newspaper report a mobile phone exploded in its owner's pocket very recently in the Netherlands.

Is the Commission aware of this problem? What measures does it intend to take to protect European consumers?

Does it not consider it necessary to take precautionary action by suspending sales of these portable phones in the European Union?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(20 November 2003)

The Honourable Member is referred to the Commission's answers to Written Questions P-3145/03 from Mr van Velzen (1) and P-3152/03 from Mrs Plooij-Van Gorsel (2).

---

(1)  See page 474.

(2)  See page 476.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/485 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/485

---

(2004/C 78 E/0507)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3193/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(28 October 2003)

Subject:   Information on the former Director-General of Eurostat

The serious irregularities in the management of Eurostat contracts were only revealed to the general public in May 2003. However, it was made clear on this occasion that the fraudulent operations had already been taking place for several years and that the Commission and OLAF had received complaints on the subject as early as 1999, if not earlier.

Eurostat's Director-General at that time, Yves Franchet, and the sectoral director, Daniel Byk, have stated to the press that they are prepared to testify before the competent institutional bodies that the political authorities were aware of the existing contracts and the suspicions of fraud relating to these contracts. Nonetheless, Franchet and Byk were not replaced until July 2003.

Will the Commission answer the following questions:

| 1. | What form of control is exercised by the political heads of Directorates-General over the running of the administrative areas for which they are responsible? |
| --- | --- |

1.

What form of control is exercised by the political heads of Directorates-General over the running of the administrative areas for which they are responsible?

| 2. | Since when have their been suspicions in relation to Franchet and Byk? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Since when have their been suspicions in relation to Franchet and Byk?

| 3. | When was their responsibility first revealed and established? |
| --- | --- |

3.

When was their responsibility first revealed and established?

| 4. | What measures were taken, and when? |
| --- | --- |

4.

What measures were taken, and when?

| 5. | Do these officials still work, directly or indirectly, for the Commission or another EU institution? |
| --- | --- |

5.

Do these officials still work, directly or indirectly, for the Commission or another EU institution?

| 6. | Can the Commission provide similar information about the other persons involved, whose responsibility in the matter has been established? |
| --- | --- |

6.

Can the Commission provide similar information about the other persons involved, whose responsibility in the matter has been established?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(27 January 2004)

| 1. | Under the Code of Conduct for Commissioners and Departments, which was adopted shortly after this Commission took office, Directors-General are explicitly answerable to their Commissioner for the sound implementation of the policy guidelines laid down by the Commission and the Commissioner. They are responsible for the efficient operation of their Directorate-General in compliance with the distribution of powers and responsibilities laid down in the Staff Regulations, the Financial Regulation (1), the Commission's Rules of Procedure and the rules laid down in SEM 2000 and MAP 2000. They are thus required to provide the Commissioner with information, and report on any important events in departments, or in the Member States or in international bodies, which might have an impact on the management of his or her portfolio or his or her position within the Commission.
  As announced by the Commission President, Mr Romano Prodi, on 18 November 2003, the Commission has decided to amend this Code of Conduct in the wake of the Eurostat case in order to improve the flow of information between heads of service and their Commissioners. The aim of this revision is to establish better arrangements for ensuring the provision of information to Commissioners by Heads of Departments so that Members of the Commission are more able to exercise their political responsibility, not only in respect of their own actions but also in relation to those of their departments.
  The amended Code will provide that as soon as Commissioners take up their posts, and at regular intervals thereafter, their Departments will have to make available all the relevant information so that Commissioners can better supervise the work of those departments and issue general instructions.
  Furthermore, the amended Code will set out a specific procedure for referring matters to the Commissioner, with provision for the Director-General, in person, to immediately and directly draw the Commissioner's attention to any fact or development that might involve his or her own political responsibility or that of the Commission as a whole. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Under the Code of Conduct for Commissioners and Departments, which was adopted shortly after this Commission took office, Directors-General are explicitly answerable to their Commissioner for the sound implementation of the policy guidelines laid down by the Commission and the Commissioner. They are responsible for the efficient operation of their Directorate-General in compliance with the distribution of powers and responsibilities laid down in the Staff Regulations, the Financial Regulation (1), the Commission's Rules of Procedure and the rules laid down in SEM 2000 and MAP 2000. They are thus required to provide the Commissioner with information, and report on any important events in departments, or in the Member States or in international bodies, which might have an impact on the management of his or her portfolio or his or her position within the Commission.

As announced by the Commission President, Mr Romano Prodi, on 18 November 2003, the Commission has decided to amend this Code of Conduct in the wake of the Eurostat case in order to improve the flow of information between heads of service and their Commissioners. The aim of this revision is to establish better arrangements for ensuring the provision of information to Commissioners by Heads of Departments so that Members of the Commission are more able to exercise their political responsibility, not only in respect of their own actions but also in relation to those of their departments.

The amended Code will provide that as soon as Commissioners take up their posts, and at regular intervals thereafter, their Departments will have to make available all the relevant information so that Commissioners can better supervise the work of those departments and issue general instructions.

Furthermore, the amended Code will set out a specific procedure for referring matters to the Commissioner, with provision for the Director-General, in person, to immediately and directly draw the Commissioner's attention to any fact or development that might involve his or her own political responsibility or that of the Commission as a whole.

| 2., 3. and 4. | The Honourable Member is referred to the explanations given by President Prodi to the Conference of Presidents and to the members of the Committee on Budgetary Control (Cocobu) on 25 September 2003, and to the Plenary Session of Parliament on 18 November 2003, relating to the reasons why various indications related to Eurostat that could have given rise to concern had not produced earlier responses.
  On 7 July 2003, the Commission received two reports relating to Eurostat: one was from the Directorate-General for the Budget (DG BUDG), resulting from an investigation mandated by the Commission in May 2003, the other was an interim report of an examination of contracts by the Internal Audit Service, which was mandated by the Commission in June 2003. The investigation and examination were established following the first note of substance from the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) to the Secretary-General of May 2003 and, in the case of the IAS examination, also in response to Parliaments' resolution of April 2003. The two Commission reports were sent to the President of Parliament, to the Chair of Cocobu, and to Mr Casaca and Mr Bösch on 11 July 2003 under Annex III of the Framework Agreement between Parliament and the Commission.
  The reports provided the first substantive prima facie evidence to the Commission that a number of serious breaches of the Financial Regulation had taken place involving staff of the Commission and that the follow-up to several significant aspects of internal audit reports had not shown the necessary breadth and thoroughness or led to the essential action. Accordingly, on 9 July 2003, several actions were taken by the Commission, including the opening of disciplinary procedures against three senior officials of Eurostat for alleged breaches of the Financial Regulation and of the Staff Regulations. Two of these procedures had to be immediately suspended for the legal reason, made clear to Parliament and to the public at the time, that pursuit of such procedures would be concurrent with an ongoing OLAF enquiry concerning the same officials. For the third one, the Commission decided to suspend it, only when it became apparent, on the basis of the information transmitted by OLAF, that OLAF was also investigating this third official.
  Individual responsibilities are now being identified and verified, both under procedures initiated by the French judicial authorities in Paris and under the disciplinary procedures.
  In order to ensure that, in future, all information concerning cases of possible fraud and irregularities can be collected and assessed coherently and expeditiously, President Prodi informed Parliament of his intention to set up structures for this purpose to provide better means of alerting the College and of providing Commissioners with improved opportunities to propose any relevant administrative measures. |
| --- | --- |

2., 3. and 4.

The Honourable Member is referred to the explanations given by President Prodi to the Conference of Presidents and to the members of the Committee on Budgetary Control (Cocobu) on 25 September 2003, and to the Plenary Session of Parliament on 18 November 2003, relating to the reasons why various indications related to Eurostat that could have given rise to concern had not produced earlier responses.

On 7 July 2003, the Commission received two reports relating to Eurostat: one was from the Directorate-General for the Budget (DG BUDG), resulting from an investigation mandated by the Commission in May 2003, the other was an interim report of an examination of contracts by the Internal Audit Service, which was mandated by the Commission in June 2003. The investigation and examination were established following the first note of substance from the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) to the Secretary-General of May 2003 and, in the case of the IAS examination, also in response to Parliaments' resolution of April 2003. The two Commission reports were sent to the President of Parliament, to the Chair of Cocobu, and to Mr Casaca and Mr Bösch on 11 July 2003 under Annex III of the Framework Agreement between Parliament and the Commission.

The reports provided the first substantive prima facie evidence to the Commission that a number of serious breaches of the Financial Regulation had taken place involving staff of the Commission and that the follow-up to several significant aspects of internal audit reports had not shown the necessary breadth and thoroughness or led to the essential action. Accordingly, on 9 July 2003, several actions were taken by the Commission, including the opening of disciplinary procedures against three senior officials of Eurostat for alleged breaches of the Financial Regulation and of the Staff Regulations. Two of these procedures had to be immediately suspended for the legal reason, made clear to Parliament and to the public at the time, that pursuit of such procedures would be concurrent with an ongoing OLAF enquiry concerning the same officials. For the third one, the Commission decided to suspend it, only when it became apparent, on the basis of the information transmitted by OLAF, that OLAF was also investigating this third official.

Individual responsibilities are now being identified and verified, both under procedures initiated by the French judicial authorities in Paris and under the disciplinary procedures.

In order to ensure that, in future, all information concerning cases of possible fraud and irregularities can be collected and assessed coherently and expeditiously, President Prodi informed Parliament of his intention to set up structures for this purpose to provide better means of alerting the College and of providing Commissioners with improved opportunities to propose any relevant administrative measures.

| 5. | On 21 May 2003, the Commission accepted the requests from the officials referred to in the Honourable Member's question to be transferred to new posts for the duration of the investigations. Both persons are temporarily appointed to Advisor functions in the Commission's Directorate-General for Personnel and Administration and are engaged in projects relevant to the work of the Commission. |
| --- | --- |

5.

On 21 May 2003, the Commission accepted the requests from the officials referred to in the Honourable Member's question to be transferred to new posts for the duration of the investigations. Both persons are temporarily appointed to Advisor functions in the Commission's Directorate-General for Personnel and Administration and are engaged in projects relevant to the work of the Commission.

| 6. | As indicated above, the disciplinary procedures opened on 9 July 2003 included a third senior Eurostat official, who has also been transferred to an advisory function. Also this official is in active duty.
  On the same day, a number of Eurostat managers were moved to advisory functions within Eurostat. These transfers were precautionary actions intended to safeguard the interests of the Institution and its staff and are not disciplinary measures.
  To date, no further disciplinary procedures have been opened. If evidence shows that any current or former member of staff may have acted in breach of the Financial Regulations and of the Staff Regulations, disciplinary proceedings will be opened against them in the normal way with the presumption of innocence respected. |
| --- | --- |

6.

As indicated above, the disciplinary procedures opened on 9 July 2003 included a third senior Eurostat official, who has also been transferred to an advisory function. Also this official is in active duty.

On the same day, a number of Eurostat managers were moved to advisory functions within Eurostat. These transfers were precautionary actions intended to safeguard the interests of the Institution and its staff and are not disciplinary measures.

To date, no further disciplinary procedures have been opened. If evidence shows that any current or former member of staff may have acted in breach of the Financial Regulations and of the Staff Regulations, disciplinary proceedings will be opened against them in the normal way with the presumption of innocence respected.

---

(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.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/487 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/487

---

(2004/C 78 E/0508)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3200/03

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(30 October 2003)

Subject:   Racial appearance as a criterion for police or customs checks on individuals crossing an internal EU border

As a result of work in the tunnel between Monaco railway station and the temporary Monte Carlo Country Club station on French territory, through traffic on the route from Genoa (in Italy) and Nice (in France) is barred between September and December 2003 and train passengers are transported by bus. On the evening of Thursday 16 October 2003, between 07.15 and 07.45 p.m., I personally observed how passengers who had taken the IC 346 ‘Riviera dei Fiori’ Basle-Genoa-Nice train were detained for half an hour in the replacement bus on the station square in the Italian border town of Ventimiglia for checks which might normally have taken place on a through train crossing into France. The Italian police's selection process was manifestly racially based, with individuals of African or Asiatic appearance being required to show their travel documents and take their luggage from the baggage compartment, whereas individuals predominantly Caucasian in appearance were left completely alone.

| 1. | Can the Commission say whether this is a customary course of events in line with the intended procedure for random checks at or near the internal EU borders of EU Member States which are parties to the Schengen Agreement? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Can the Commission say whether this is a customary course of events in line with the intended procedure for random checks at or near the internal EU borders of EU Member States which are parties to the Schengen Agreement?

| 2. | Does this mean that non-residents who are not nationals of an EU Member State, but whose skin colour is white, can cross internal EU borders much more easily than residents who are nationals of a Member State, but whose ancestors manifestly came from another part of the world? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Does this mean that non-residents who are not nationals of an EU Member State, but whose skin colour is white, can cross internal EU borders much more easily than residents who are nationals of a Member State, but whose ancestors manifestly came from another part of the world?

| 3. | With regard to this appearance-based selection practice which has apparently arisen, what is it that the Commission would seek to change? What encouragement is being given to ensure that that change actually takes place in the EU? Is it possible for the Commission to bring this about on the basis of the existing Treaty, or does it require further action by the Council? |
| --- | --- |

3.

With regard to this appearance-based selection practice which has apparently arisen, what is it that the Commission would seek to change? What encouragement is being given to ensure that that change actually takes place in the EU? Is it possible for the Commission to bring this about on the basis of the existing Treaty, or does it require further action by the Council?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(24 November 2003)

The Commission has asked the Italian authorities for the information it requires to answer the Honourable Member's question.

It will send him its findings as soon as possible.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/487 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/487

---

(2004/C 78 E/0509)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3204/03

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(30 October 2003)

Subject:   Commercial exploitation of protected wildlife species in Greece

According to reports in the ‘VΙΜΑ’ newspaper (5 October 2003), environmental and scientific organisations have revealed that the Ministry of Agriculture has authorised the capture and commercial exploitation of rare and protected Greek wildlife species (birds, turtles, chameleons, etc.) without any stipulations being imposed regarding their collection, capture, transport and living conditions.

| 1. | What view does the Commission take of this and of the fact that the authorisations issued refer to the species concerned as ‘State property’. |
| --- | --- |

1.

What view does the Commission take of this and of the fact that the authorisations issued refer to the species concerned as ‘State property’.

| 2. | What action is being taken to ensure compliance with Article 5 of Directive 79/409/EEC (1) banning the capture of all types of birds living in the wild, apart from those included on the list of birds, the hunting of which is authorised? |
| --- | --- |

2.

What action is being taken to ensure compliance with Article 5 of Directive 79/409/EEC (1) banning the capture of all types of birds living in the wild, apart from those included on the list of birds, the hunting of which is authorised?

| 3. | Has this matter been brought to the attention of the enforcement group set up under Article 14 of Regulation (EC) No 338/97 (2) (CITES) which is responsible for ensuring implementation of the regulation? Is Greece represented on this enforcement group? Is Article 8(1) of the regulation being enforced? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Has this matter been brought to the attention of the enforcement group set up under Article 14 of Regulation (EC) No 338/97 (2) (CITES) which is responsible for ensuring implementation of the regulation? Is Greece represented on this enforcement group? Is Article 8(1) of the regulation being enforced?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(19 December 2003)

The Commission informs the Honourable Member that, on the basis of a complaint (No 2003/4831) regarding the issue by the Ministry of Agriculture of authorisations to collect and breed a number of Greek wildlife species included in the Annex IV of Council Directive 92/43/EEC (3), it has opened a file in order to examine if this practice complies with the obligations under Articles 12 and 16 of this Directive.

The complaint received was not referring to the capture of bird species, subsequently the complaint case has not yet been related to Council Directive 79/409/EEC (4). However, the Commission will raise this supplementary issue with the Greek authorities and, if authorisations to collect individuals of bird species protected under Directive 79/409/EEC have been issued, an appropriate reference will be made. The Commission would like to assure the Honourable Member that it will continue the investigation of the complaint and will not hesitate to take all necessary measures needed to ensure that Greece acts in conformity with Community Law.

With regard to the possibility of an infringement of Council Regulation (EC) No 338/97 (5) (CITES), Articles 5 and 8 of this Regulation allow commercial trade in the species included in Annexes A, B and C, if these have been legally taken from the wild in the territory of a Member State. Consequently, any breach of this Regulation would only arise in respect of such species listed in the Regulation (not other species) and then only if it can be established that the Greek authorities issued permits for such species in defiance of their own laws or of Council Directive 92/43/EEC.

The Commission will deal with this case through the standard complaints procedure and does not intend to bring it to the attention of the enforcement group set up under Article 14(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 338/97. That group is not a compliance committee where complaints can be brought against Member States for alleged infringements. It is, in fact, a forum for all Member States' enforcement authorities (i.e. police, customs etc.) to discuss and exchange information on technical matters of common concern so as to improve enforcement of CITES Regulations.

---

(1)  OJ L 103, 25.4.1979, p. 1.

(2)  OJ L 61, 3.3.1997, p. 1.

(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.

(4)  Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds.

(5)  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.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/488 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/488

---

(2004/C 78 E/0510)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3207/03

by Alexander de Roo (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(30 October 2003)

Subject:   Peroxide in toothpaste

The Commission is planning to permit an increase in the concentration of peroxide in cosmetic products from 0,1 % to 6 %, with a view to admitting new dental care products onto the market.

Peroxide is inherently dangerous. For that reason, Japan and Brazil recently banned the use of peroxide in this connection, especially since there are safe teeth-whitening alternatives not containing peroxide. The American Dental Association also cautions against the use of products with a high concentration of peroxide, which may damage teeth and cause gastric problems.

The World Health organisation is also concerned about the presence of peroxide in cosmetic products.

Does the Commission not think that, on the basis of the precautionary principle, an increase in the concentration of peroxide is not conducive to (public) health?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(1 December 2003)

One of the main objectives of Council Directive 76/768/EEC (1) is to protect public health. Therefore, the Directive states as a general principle that only cosmetic products that do not cause damage to human health can be put on the market (Article 2 of the Directive). To ensure this, measures have been taken, for example certain ingredients must not form part of a cosmetic product (Annex II of the Directive) or certain substances shall only be used up to a maximum concentration or under certain conditions of use (Annex III of the Directive). Reference number 12 of Annex III regulates hydrogen peroxide, and other compounds or mixtures that release hydrogen peroxide, including carbamide peroxide and zinc peroxide in oral hygiene products up to a maximum authorized concentration of 0,1 %.

The Scientific Committee on Cosmetic Products and Non-Food Products (SCCNFP) is mandated to give its opinion on consumer health and safety issues in the field of cosmetics, based on scientific data. The SCCNFP was asked by the Commission to evaluate, if higher concentrations of hydrogen peroxide and other compounds releasing hydrogen peroxide are safe for use in tooth-whitening products. These products are a different category of cosmetic products than oral hygiene products.

In its opinion adopted during the 21st plenary meeting of 17 September 2002, the SCCNFP stated that ‘the content of hydrogen peroxide in tooth whitening products should not exceed 6 % (present or released) with a limitation of maximum 50 mg hydrogen peroxide per day. The use of tooth whitening products is not recommended prior to or immediately after dental restoration. Conditions such as pre-existing tissue injury or concurrent use of tobacco and/or alcohol may exacerbate the toxic effects of hydrogen peroxide. Overall evidence indicates that the proper use of tooth bleaching agents containing 0,1 to 6,0 % hydrogen peroxide (or equivalent for hydrogen peroxide releasing substances) is safe if used under the supervision of a dentist.’

Based on this opinion the Commission intends to take appropriate steps to adapt Annex III to Directive 76/768/EEC, accordingly.

---

(1)  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.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/489 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/489

---

(2004/C 78 E/0511)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3212/03

by Stavros Xarchakos (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(30 October 2003)

Subject:   British newspaper allegations regarding irregularities in connection with Commission funding

According to the British ‘Daily Telegraph’ newspaper of 24 September 2003, Mr Neil Kinnock, Commission Vice-President, has received a letter informing him that the OLAF has uncovered irregularities concerning Community funding for Greek companies. According to the newspaper's correspondent (Mr Ambrose Evans-Prichard) the ‘letter claimed that alleged abuses at Eurostat were almost insignificant’ by comparison with those uncovered by OLAF regarding the awarding of contracts to a number of Greek companies.

Was such a letter sent to Mr Kinnock? If so, who signed it and what was its exact content? Can the Commission give a breakdown showing the precise amounts involved in these irregularities and which Greek companies (by name) were involved? What action has been taken by the Commission and what immediate measures will it take to elucidate this affair which has shed an unfairly negative light on Greece?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(23 December 2003)

An anonymous letter addressed to an Honourable Member and containing allegations of irregularities was, quite properly, handed to the Member of the Commission in charge of Personnel and Administration, Vice-President Kinnock, by that Honourable Member on 4 September 2003.

On the same day, following the established procedure, Mr Kinnock passed the anonymous letter to Mr Brüner, Director-General of OLAF, for appropriate inquiry and follow-up and then informed the Honourable Member of the action taken. Naturally, the Commission did not communicate the existence of the letter to the press at any time.

OLAF proceeded to carry out an assessment which included — ‘inter alia’ — detailed examination of all the files mentioned in the letter.

The outcome of this assessment by OLAF is that the allegations were unfounded. The Commission considers that no reputation of an individual, or of a company, or — a fortiori — of a Member State should suffer as a result of anonymous allegations of this kind when neither the investigations by OLAF, nor the internal checks carried out by the relevant Directorate-General, have discovered any evidence to substantiate the allegation.

The results of the OLAF examination were conveyed to the Honourable Member who gave the anonymous letter to Mr Kinnock.

All information which might lead to detection of misconduct is treated seriously by the Commission and given to the appropriate investigatory authorities. Misuse of the system for reporting alleged wrongdoing does, however, waste the valuable time of investigators and can discourage those who seek to communicate legitimate concerns in a responsible way.

The Commission would, therefore, be interested in receiving any information which could assist with the discovery of the identity of the anonymous letter writer.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/490 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/490

---

(2004/C 78 E/0512)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3216/03

by Antonios Trakatellis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(31 October 2003)

Subject:   Disposal of hazardous waste in Greece and infringement of environmental legislation

In reply to my question (P-2724/03 (1)) Commissioner Wallström indicated that an annual amount of 392 539 tonnes of hazardous waste was produced in Greece. She also indicated that the Commission did not know where the disposal sites were located. This gives rise to legitimate concerns as to where these hazardous wastes, which are put into temporary storage, are in fact disposed of, given that the accumulated quantities must total over one million tonnes.

| 1. | Which authorities are responsible for issuing permits for the collection, transport and interim storage of hazardous wastes, how many authorisations were issued and for what amounts? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Which authorities are responsible for issuing permits for the collection, transport and interim storage of hazardous wastes, how many authorisations were issued and for what amounts?

| 2. | Have centres been set up for the interim storage, processing, treatment and final disposal of hazardous wastes in accordance with Directive 75/442/EEC (2)? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Have centres been set up for the interim storage, processing, treatment and final disposal of hazardous wastes in accordance with Directive 75/442/EEC (2)?

| 3. | Where are hazardous wastes finally disposed of following interim storage and what measures are being taken to comply with the ban on mixing different categories of hazardous waste or mixing hazardous and non-hazardous waste — in accordance with Directive 91/689/EEC (3), given that Greece does not have suitable centres for the processing or disposal of hazardous wastes? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Where are hazardous wastes finally disposed of following interim storage and what measures are being taken to comply with the ban on mixing different categories of hazardous waste or mixing hazardous and non-hazardous waste — in accordance with Directive 91/689/EEC (3), given that Greece does not have suitable centres for the processing or disposal of hazardous wastes?

| 4. | What steps will the Commission take as guardian of the Treaties and secondary legislation to ensure compliance with Community legislation? How can it monitor disposal sites intended for non-hazardous waste and verify the information provided by the Greek authorities in the light of constant allegations in the Greek press regarding the unsupervised disposal of waste? |
| --- | --- |

4.

What steps will the Commission take as guardian of the Treaties and secondary legislation to ensure compliance with Community legislation? How can it monitor disposal sites intended for non-hazardous waste and verify the information provided by the Greek authorities in the light of constant allegations in the Greek press regarding the unsupervised disposal of waste?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(17 December 2003)

Further to the reply to the Honourable Member's written question P-2724/03 (4), the Commission would like to draw the attention of the Honourable Member to the following:

| 1. | According to the information provided by the Greek Authorities to the Commission in the context of reporting under Council Directive 75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975 on waste, the competent authorities designated for issuing permits for disposal and recovery operations exist at national prefectural level. The questionnaire established for this reporting does not require that the competent authorities for hazardous waste be detailed.
  According to the information, sent by the Greek Authorities to the Commission pursuant to Article 8(3) of Council Directive 91/689/EEC of 12 December 1991 on hazardous waste (5), one installation holds a permit for the processing of 12 000 tonnes per annum (t/a) of waste under Recovery Operation (6) R 13 and one installation holds a permit for Disposal Operation D 15 (20 t/a). The Commission has no information on how many permits were issued for the collection and transport of hazardous wastes. |
| --- | --- |

1.

According to the information provided by the Greek Authorities to the Commission in the context of reporting under Council Directive 75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975 on waste, the competent authorities designated for issuing permits for disposal and recovery operations exist at national prefectural level. The questionnaire established for this reporting does not require that the competent authorities for hazardous waste be detailed.

According to the information, sent by the Greek Authorities to the Commission pursuant to Article 8(3) of Council Directive 91/689/EEC of 12 December 1991 on hazardous waste (5), one installation holds a permit for the processing of 12 000 tonnes per annum (t/a) of waste under Recovery Operation (6) R 13 and one installation holds a permit for Disposal Operation D 15 (20 t/a). The Commission has no information on how many permits were issued for the collection and transport of hazardous wastes.

| 2. | Assessment of the information provided by the Greek Authorities in December 2002 for the year 2000, shows that approximately 230 000 tonnes are temporarily stored at the sites where they are produced, with a view to their disposal or recovery. The Greek Authorities underline that constant state control is applied to ensure that public health and the environment are fully protected. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Assessment of the information provided by the Greek Authorities in December 2002 for the year 2000, shows that approximately 230 000 tonnes are temporarily stored at the sites where they are produced, with a view to their disposal or recovery. The Greek Authorities underline that constant state control is applied to ensure that public health and the environment are fully protected.

| 3. | The Commission holds no information on the final location for the disposal or recovery of hazardous waste currently temporarily stored. Greek legislation on hazardous waste, i.e. Common Ministerial Decision 19396/1546/1997, establishes a number of specific measures for the management of hazardous waste. In particular, it explicitly requires that establishments and undertakings which dispose of, recover, collect or transport hazardous waste, do not mix different categories of hazardous waste or mix hazardous waste with non-hazardous waste. Furthermore, the Greek Authorities have confirmed that management conditions for preliminary storage at the place of production preclude mixing of the waste with other waste (hazardous or non-hazardous). |
| --- | --- |

3.

The Commission holds no information on the final location for the disposal or recovery of hazardous waste currently temporarily stored. Greek legislation on hazardous waste, i.e. Common Ministerial Decision 19396/1546/1997, establishes a number of specific measures for the management of hazardous waste. In particular, it explicitly requires that establishments and undertakings which dispose of, recover, collect or transport hazardous waste, do not mix different categories of hazardous waste or mix hazardous waste with non-hazardous waste. Furthermore, the Greek Authorities have confirmed that management conditions for preliminary storage at the place of production preclude mixing of the waste with other waste (hazardous or non-hazardous).

| 4. | As the Commission received only incomplete information about the measures taken by the Greek Government to comply with the Court judgement of 13 June 2002 (7), it took the view that Greece has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 228(1) of the EC Treaty and addressed a letter of formal notice, in accordance with Article 228(2) of the EC Treaty. In that context, the Commission will investigate any information which gives reason to assume that Greece does not apply Community legislation properly. |
| --- | --- |

4.

As the Commission received only incomplete information about the measures taken by the Greek Government to comply with the Court judgement of 13 June 2002 (7), it took the view that Greece has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 228(1) of the EC Treaty and addressed a letter of formal notice, in accordance with Article 228(2) of the EC Treaty. In that context, the Commission will investigate any information which gives reason to assume that Greece does not apply Community legislation properly.

---

(1)  OJ C 70 E, 20.3.2004, p. 132.

(2)  OJ L 194, 25.7.1975, p. 39.

(3)  OJ L 377, 31.12.1991, p. 20.

(4)  OJ C 70 E, 20.3.2004, p. 132.

(5)  OJ L 377, 31.12.1991.

(6)  Pursuant to Annex II of Directive 75/442/EEC.

(7)  Judgement of 13.6.2002, Commission/Greece, case C-33/01, ECJ Reports p. 5 447.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/492 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/492

---

(2004/C 78 E/0513)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3218/03

by John Bowis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(31 October 2003)

Subject:   Rare diseases: Evans syndrome

Is the Commission aware of the problems of children suffering from Evans syndrome and of the extreme and alarming difficulties faced in financing even modestly budgeted medical research projects for non-genetic rare diseases (including Evans syndrome) in Europe?

Is the Commission prepared to provide financial support to research projects related to the Evans syndrome (including projects sponsored by the ‘Association Française du Syndrome d'Evans (AFSE)’ in France and by ‘People in Search of a Cure for Evans Syndrome’ in the UK)?

Given that the EC Pharmaceutical Policy Regulation on Orphan Drugs requires a prior fundamental understanding of physiopathological aspects of diseases (which is presently absent in the case of the Evans syndrome) and that the Community's action on rare diseases is not linked to criteria such as the mortality rate or the impact of a disease on children (and is in practice too selective, excluding diseases which have not been researched earlier), could the Commission envisage the creation of a ‘universal fund for rare diseases’, such as the one that exists in other sectors, to help guarantee the rights of the weakest?

Answer given by Mr Busquin on behalf of the Commission

(10 December 2003)

Rare diseases research is covered under the Priority 1 Programme ‘Life sciences, genomics and biotechnology for health’ of the 6th Framework Programme. Competitive calls for projects, involving at least three independent legal entities established in three different Member States or associated States, are issued regularly within the context of the work programmes of this priority.

Although this Priority Programme is focused on genomics and biotechnology research, and even though the Evans syndrome seems to have no genetic basis, the disease may benefit from research undertaken in this Priority.

Two calls have already been published in 2003.

Although Evans syndrome has not been specifically mentioned in the work programmes of these two first calls, researchers interested in Evans syndrome may have taken the opportunity to participate in consortia applying for topics relevant to their research field, such as:

| — | co-ordination of rare disease research in Europe, with various stakeholders from research, small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) and patient organisations; |
| --- | --- |

—

co-ordination of rare disease research in Europe, with various stakeholders from research, small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) and patient organisations;

| — | medicines for children; |
| --- | --- |

—

medicines for children;

| — | specific support action to examine the potential and perspectives for cell-based therapies for autoimmune diseases. |
| --- | --- |

—

specific support action to examine the potential and perspectives for cell-based therapies for autoimmune diseases.

Other calls for proposals will be published in 2004 and 2005. The topics for these calls will be elaborated through consultation of the scientific community, with the support of the scientific advisory committee and the Programme Committee of the Priority 1 Programme. Researchers interested in Evans syndrome may check, once the calls will be published, the opportunity for them to participate in projects relevant to their field.

Rare Diseases are also given importance in the new Programme of Community action in the field of Public Health (2003 — 2008). As per Annex 2.3 of the new Programme, activities related to rare diseases include the development of strategies and mechanisms for the exchange of information and prevention. According to the 2003 and 2004 Work Plans, the two main pillars of actions is the exchange of information using a European information network on rare diseases as well as the development of strategies and mechanisms for exchange of information and coordination at Community level to encourage continuity of work and transnational co-operation as such. In this context, projects, which could be relevant to the Evans syndrome community, may also be supported.

The creation of a universal fund for rare diseases is not envisaged by the Commission.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/493 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/493

---

(2004/C 78 E/0514)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3222/03

by Proinsias De Rossa (PSE) to the Commission

(31 October 2003)

Subject:   Missing persons

In its answer to my question E-1932/01 (1) on contact services for missing persons, the Commission said it was at that time (September 2001) concentrating on the situation as regards missing children and teenagers.

What action has been taken on foot of the study (which was due by early 2002) to examine the provisions existing in this field in the Member States?

What action has been taken on foot of the resolution tabled by Belgium calling on the Member States to set up national monitoring centres and other centres to combat the disappearance and sexual exploitation of children?

What action has been taken on foot of the recommendation from 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 recent resolution (2) on the Daphne II programme?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(3 December 2003)

The study referred to by the Honourable Member is now available under the title ‘Child Abuse and Adult Justice. A comparative study of different European Criminal Justice Systems handling of cases concerning Child Sexual Abuse’. It was conducted by Rädda Barnen (Sweden) with a pan-European partnership. A copy of this study is sent direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat.

Concerning the Resolution (3) of the Council inviting the Commission to have a study drawn up on missing or sexually exploited children, an action under the STOP II programme was undertaken in 2002 (4). The first part of the project involves a study on the actual extent of the phenomenon of missing or sexually exploited children. The second part of the project aims to give an overall view on the existence, role and structure of civil society organisations in the Member States actively supporting action on missing or sexually exploited children. The third part of the project examines the legal issues arising from the involvement of civil society organisations in the Member States actively combatting the disappearance and sexual exploitation of children, in particular the issues concerning competent authorities sending confidential information to such organisations. The final report is expected by 31 March 2004.

With regard to 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 people and reiterated by the Parliament in its resolution (5) on the Daphne II programme, a response to this was made in the explanatory memorandum of the amended proposal of the Commission on Daphne II (6). This response was that, in fact, the possibility for searching missing people, and children in particular, already exists in the current Schengen Information System (SIS) (see also Article 97 of the Schengen Convention). Within the development of the second generation of the SIS, this possibility will be maintained. The Commission is therefore of the opinion that, given the current functionalities of the SIS, it is not opportune to examine the creation of an additional specific system that would merely duplicate the current system and would generate significant additional costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 40 E, 14.2.2002, p. 142.

(2)  P5_TA(2003)0366 — A5-0280/2003.

(3)  OJ C 283, 9.10.2001.

(4)  project 2002/STOP II/108.

(5)  P5_TA(2003)0366 — A5-0280/2003.

(6)  COM(2003) 616 final.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/494 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/494

---

(2004/C 78 E/0515)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3226/03

by Felipe Camisón Asensio (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(31 October 2003)

Subject:   Reform of the tobacco sector

The Commission is proposing a considerable reduction in the direct aid received by the Community's tobacco producers, a cutback that is not echoed in any of the sectors recently reformed or awaiting reform. In the case of Spain, those affected calculate that, following this reform, they will receive an average of only 45 % of the total sum of direct aid from which they currently benefit, as the remaining 55 % will end up funding the restructuring measures. This cut in direct aid could threaten not only the survival of many farms, but also the future of tobacco production and the industries that make a living from it, with serious consequences for employment in regions like Extremadura, which are highly dependent on this activity.

The Commission justifies the reform on health grounds, arguing that tobacco consumption must be reduced. Since this is the noble aim of the Community's executive, it would make sense if it had some idea of what the drop in consumption would be following the reform of the sector. Can the Commission provide any rough estimation? Furthermore, given that the reform does not affect tobacco imports, does the Commission intend to introduce any tariff measures, for instance, to restrict imports to the EU?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(6 January 2004)

On 18 November 2003, the Commission adopted the proposal to reform the Common Market Organisation for Tobacco (1).

The reform proposal includes a full decoupling of the present direct aid to tobacco producers in three years.

The proposed reform will begin with the transfer of all or part of the current tobacco premium into entitlements for the single farm payment. This transfer will be complete for producers who have up to 3,5 tons of production, and are the most vulnerable producers with limited possibilities to shift to other crops. For the tranche between 3,5 tons up to 10 tons, 75 % of the current tobacco premium would be incorporated into the single farm payment. The remaining 25 % would feed the proposed restructuring envelope.

When implementing the reform for larger tobacco farms, the current tobacco premium, corresponding to the tranche above 10 tons, will be decreased by one third at each of the first two one-year steps and will at the third step be reduced to 45 % and incorporated into the single payment. In order to avoid major changes in income at agricultural holding level the remaining 55 % would be transferred to the restructuring envelope. Those larger producers will have a partial reduction in aid, but their size has better possibilities for a shift to other crops, and if this is the case they can in their reconversion benefit from the structural envelope.

The budget allocations to the tobacco sector will remain the same and the part which is not distributed as single payments will be transferred to a restructuring envelope. This will be utilised to contribute to improve the infrastructure and support to tobacco producers in particular who want to shift to other crops. In this respect, it should be noted that the funding in the envelope will be used in the tobacco growing regions in those Member States where they are collected.

The foremost justification for the Commission when presenting this reform has been to seek a long term perspective for the tobacco sector within the context of a sustainable agriculture. The 2003 Common agricultural policy (CAP) Reform approach effectively breaks the link between product and support, such that the single farm payment becomes a direct income support tool. On this basis, tobacco aid will be included into the single farm payment along with the premiums for other crops such as hops, olive oil and cotton. However, in addition, the Commission believes that greater coherence is needed, between the CAP and the Union's consumer, and public health policies. While the removal of product-related subsidies may not directly influence the short term prevalence of cigarette smoking, as was the finding of a recent Commission Extended Impact Assessment report (2), it is clear that a better coherence with public health policies is essential to maintain the confidence and trust of Union citizens.

On the question of the possible introduction of tariff measures for tobacco, the Commission has no intention and sees no reason to restrict imports of tobacco to the European Union.

---

(1)  COM(2003) 698 final.

(2)  COM(2003) 554 final also available on http://europa.eu.int/comm/agriculture/capreform

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/495 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/495

---

(2004/C 78 E/0516)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3227/03

by John Bowis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(31 October 2003)

Subject:   Indonesia

Will the Commission press the Indonesian Government to ensure access to national and international observers to allow the UN Special Representative of Human Rights Defenders and the Special UN Rapporteur on Torture access to Aceh, to investigate the disappearance of Abdussalam Muhmad Deli, a volunteer of PB-HAM East Aceh (Pos Bantuan Hukum dan Hak Asasi Manusia, Human Rights and Legal Aid Post) who has been missing since Sunday 11 May 2003, and the killing of Raja Ismail, working in Aceh Tamiang district as a volunteer of PB-HAM East Aceh, and to protect the security of human rights defenders in Aceh and ensure that they can carry out their legitimate and important work free from fear of human rights violations?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(27 November 2003)

The situation in Aceh province is a matter of concern for the Union. In a recent statement, the Union and the Community as ‘Co-Chairs’ of the ‘Tokyo preparatory Conference on Peace and Reconstruction in Aceh’ have expressed their concern for the extension of the state of military emergency in the province, hoping that it will be ended as soon as possible.

The Union position is to encourage the Government during the state of military emergency to carry out its activities with the minimum possible impact on the well-being of the people of Aceh and in an approach that includes humanitarian aid, restoration of civil institutions and upholding the law.

The Commission also hopes that human suffering is minimized and that the transparency of the situation in Aceh is improved. In this regard, the Commission continues to call for access to Aceh by international agencies and relevant non-governmental organisations (NGOs) operating for humanitarian purposes.

While the Community reiterates the commitment to the territorial integrity of Indonesia the Commission is also firmly convinced that the conflict in Aceh can only be ended with a political solution.

In the field, the Commission's Delegation in Jakarta is closely monitoring the evolution of the situation in the Aceh province, in co-ordination with the Member State missions in Indonesia, and despite the difficulties to obtain reliable and verifiable information. In this framework, the Commission has received from PB Ham Aceh Timur and from Kontras, information about the disappearance of Abdussalam Muhamad Deli and the killing of Raja Ismail, after his abduction in May 2003.

Unfortunately, a recently planned mission of political counsellors of several embassies to Aceh was postponed at the last moment by the Indonesian authorities.

The Commission expressed its concern both to the Indonesian Foreign Minister and to President Megawati Soekarnoputri on the occasion of recent meetings in Indonesia, insisting on the need to guarantee a proper humanitarian assistance to the civilian population affected by the conflict. The Commission considers the presence of human rights monitors equally important.

The Commission can assure the Honourable Member that it will continue following very closely the situation. It will keep insisting with the Indonesian authorities to return to the negotiating table as soon as possible and, meanwhile, to allow independent humanitarian aid to operate on the ground.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/496 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/496

---

(2004/C 78 E/0517)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3230/03

by Dorette Corbey (PSE) to the Commission

(31 October 2003)

Subject:   Allocation of subsidies under the Interreg and Urban programmes

The projects funded with help from the Interreg and Urban programmes are generally held in high esteem. They are often innovative and the mere requirement that the partners/bodies working together must come from several different countries generates positive synergy which can help to create Community value.

Unfortunately, reports of problems have also come to my attention, problems which, in some cases, are so serious as to undermine the positive impact of programmes and projects. In many cases, these problems lead to disillusionment and a reluctance to submit fresh proposals.

Above all, the complaints concern the administration of the programmes:

| — | The administrative arrangements are complex, anything but transparent and require the investment of an unreasonable amount of time, money and effort. |
| --- | --- |

—

The administrative arrangements are complex, anything but transparent and require the investment of an unreasonable amount of time, money and effort.

| — | In the case of smaller bodies, the administrative burden has become an insurmountable obstacle and the percentage of funding granted to cover overheads is too low. Unfortunately, this also applies to many bodies from the applicant countries. |
| --- | --- |

—

In the case of smaller bodies, the administrative burden has become an insurmountable obstacle and the percentage of funding granted to cover overheads is too low. Unfortunately, this also applies to many bodies from the applicant countries.

| — | In some cases, additional information is requested at the very last moment before a time-limit runs out. This results in enormous delays in processing applications and making payments. |
| --- | --- |

—

In some cases, additional information is requested at the very last moment before a time-limit runs out. This results in enormous delays in processing applications and making payments.

| — | Proposals for projects seem to be assessed in an arbitrary manner. High quality in terms of substance and presentation does not necessarily lead to approval, whereas low quality does not always result in rejection. |
| --- | --- |

—

Proposals for projects seem to be assessed in an arbitrary manner. High quality in terms of substance and presentation does not necessarily lead to approval, whereas low quality does not always result in rejection.

Naturally enough, I realise that meticulous procedures are needed in order to prevent fraud and the misuse of Community funds.

Nevertheless, I should like to put the following questions:

| 1. | Does the Commission acknowledge the problems outlined above? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Does the Commission acknowledge the problems outlined above?

| 2. | Have its relevant departments set up procedures for dealing with reports of problems? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Have its relevant departments set up procedures for dealing with reports of problems?

| 3. | What measures have the relevant Commission departments taken with a view to improving and/or simplifying administrative procedures? |
| --- | --- |

3.

What measures have the relevant Commission departments taken with a view to improving and/or simplifying administrative procedures?

| 4. | What measures does the Commission plan to take? |
| --- | --- |

4.

What measures does the Commission plan to take?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(13 January 2004)

The Commission welcomes the positive remarks of the Honourable Member concerning projects funded by the Interreg and URBAN Community Initiatives, in particular their innovative nature. There is a high level of interest in both initiatives, demonstrated by the large number of project applications and competition for funding.

As the Community Initiatives form part of the Structural Funds, they operate according to the same rules. This means that the administration of the individual programmes, including calls for projects and the selection procedures are the responsibility of the Member State(s) participating in the programme.

As a result of this decentralisation responsibilities, the procedures and administrative systems for the programmes differ from Member State to Member State. The Commission has encouraged all Member States to simplify the rules regarding the management of the programmes as much as possible. The Commission has also taken other steps in an effort to encourage improvement in implementation.

In response to information received, the Commission can raise matters of concern on management issues informally with the managing authority or secretariat for individual programmes or, more formally in a meeting of the programme's monitoring committee. The Commission's experience is that the authorities in the Member States have responded positively to constructive criticism. The promotion of good practices and exchanges of experience are possible under Interact and Urbact.

The Commission has made significant efforts to simplify programme implementation in the current period. In particular, the Commission adopted a Communication on the Simplification, clarification, co-ordination and flexible management of the structural policies 2000-2006 (1) which introduced a range of actions to streamline programme modification, reporting and monitoring.

The existing legal framework will remain in force until 31 December 2006. In the period beginning in 2007, the Commission intends to bring forward additional proposals for a simplified management of European programmes while respecting the principles of sound and efficient management.

---

(1)  C(2003) 1255 of 25.4.2003.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/498 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/498

---

(2004/C 78 E/0518)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3232/03

by Joan Colom i Naval (PSE) to the Commission

(27 October 2003)

Subject:   Updated budget figures

Can the Commission supply the figures for the following:

| — | the financial perspective ceilings for the years 1988 to 2003 inclusive; |
| --- | --- |

—

the financial perspective ceilings for the years 1988 to 2003 inclusive;

| — | the own resources ceilings expressed in euros, for the same period; |
| --- | --- |

—

the own resources ceilings expressed in euros, for the same period;

| — | and the budget outturn for commitment and payment appropriations for the financial years 1988 to 2002 inclusive? |
| --- | --- |

—

and the budget outturn for commitment and payment appropriations for the financial years 1988 to 2002 inclusive?

These figures should:

| — | be updated to reflect 2004 prices; |
| --- | --- |

—

be updated to reflect 2004 prices;

| — | include, for each figure, for each year, all the changes made to the initial figure, such as technical adjustments, amendments, revisions and mobilisation of the Flexibility Instrument, with the exception of adjustments connected with implementation of heading 2. |
| --- | --- |

—

include, for each figure, for each year, all the changes made to the initial figure, such as technical adjustments, amendments, revisions and mobilisation of the Flexibility Instrument, with the exception of adjustments connected with implementation of heading 2.

Can it also list all the changes made to each financial perspective since 1988, taking the now defunct annual publication ‘The Community Budget: The Facts in Figures’ as a model for this?

Supplementary answer given by Ms Schreyer on behalf of the Commission

(16 January 2004)

The figures requested by the Honourable Member for the period 1988-2003 are given in the tables which are being sent direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/498 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/498

---

(2004/C 78 E/0519)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3236/03

by Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(3 November 2003)

Subject:   Training for public servants in new technologies

In Greece there is a growing conviction that public servants are not sufficiently well versed in new technologies and modern information systems.

Can the Commission provide the following information:

| 1. | What information does it have regarding the use of such technologies by public servants in Greece? How does this compare (in percentage terms) with the use of new technologies by public servants in other Member States and what position is occupied by Greece in this respect? |
| --- | --- |

1.

What information does it have regarding the use of such technologies by public servants in Greece? How does this compare (in percentage terms) with the use of new technologies by public servants in other Member States and what position is occupied by Greece in this respect?

| 2. | What is the per capita outlay in Greece for the introduction of new technologies in the public sector? What position is occupied by Greece compared with other Member States in this respect? |
| --- | --- |

2.

What is the per capita outlay in Greece for the introduction of new technologies in the public sector? What position is occupied by Greece compared with other Member States in this respect?

| 3. | Is the Commission satisfied with this information if not, what measures will it take to help ensure more comprehensive training for public servants and the improvement of computerised public services? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Is the Commission satisfied with this information if not, what measures will it take to help ensure more comprehensive training for public servants and the improvement of computerised public services?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(16 December 2003)

Despite recent improvements, the Commission agrees with the Honourable Member that Greece should deploy additional efforts to promote the use of new technologies and modern information systems in the public service.

According to the information at the Commission's disposal, the main public service in Greece involves about 270 000 civil servants. It is estimated that approximately 20 % are using PCs. In recent years, a great effort has been undertaken in order to improve the situation. 10 000 PCs have been installed in the framework of the TAXIS system and 2 500 through the customs modernisation programme. 3 500 PCs have recently been installed in the Centres for Services to Citizens (KEP). A corresponding number of civil servants has been trained in the use of the new systems.

Also, the European Social Fund provides for financial support in this context. The 2000-2006 Operational Programme ‘Information Society’, contains a priority axe EUR 850 million dedicated to the improvement of the Public Services offered to the citizens through the use of Information and Communication Technologies (ICT). This programme will contribute to increasing the number of public servants using PCs to 70 %. It will also contribute to inter-connect 100 % of the public services, including the local authorities. Another Operational Programme entitled ‘Employment and Vocational training’ has as one of its aims the training of public servants in basic ICT skills.

Finally, there is significant participation of Greek research organisations on e-Government research within the Community supported Information Society Technologies Research Programme. This enables the Greek public sector to stay at the forefront of technological developments in the e-Government area.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/499 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/499

---

(2004/C 78 E/0520)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3237/03

by Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(3 November 2003)

Subject:   Access to Internet for Greek households

Despite the rapid expansion of Internet, relatively few Greek households are linked up to it or have access to it.

What information does the Commission have regarding access or potential access to Internet for Greek households? What is the position of Greece, compared with other Member States regarding Internet access calculated in percentage terms?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(18 December 2003)

Almost all Greek households have the technical infrastructure for internet access. According to the information available to the Commission, 99 % of households have a fixed telephone connection.

However, the number of households linked up to the internet is still fairly low. Greece ranks lowest in the Community (15 Member States) with a figure for households of around 12 % (end 2002), while the Community average is 43 %.

Regarding the total on-line population (households and others), the figure for Greece is around 32 %, the lowest in the Community, along with Portugal (35 %) and France (37 %), the average being 52 %.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/500 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/500

---

(2004/C 78 E/0521)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3239/03

by Martin Callanan (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(3 November 2003)

Subject:   Bird killing in Malta

Given reports of widespread illegal hunting and trapping of birds in Malta, what action is the Commission taking to ensure the full implementation and enforcement of the Birds Directive (79/409/EEC (1)) on the Maltese islands?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(16 December 2003)

As an acceding country, Malta will be required to fully implement and enforce the ‘Birds’ Directive 79/409/EEC (2) on 1 May 2004 with the exception of the transition period that was granted to allow the trapping of seven species of finch until 31 December 2008. The Commission continues to monitor and report on the progress made by Malta in working towards meeting this obligation and the latest state of play was reported in the Comprehensive Monitoring Report (CMR) issued in November 2003.

The CMR concluded that Malta is partially meeting the commitments and requirements in nature protection. It also observed that enhanced efforts are required to prepare the lists of proposed nature protection sites and special bird protection areas, including the completion of the consultation process. Considerable efforts are also needed to ensure better enforcement of Malta's commitments regarding the Birds Directive. Producing an enforcement strategy should be a priority of the national Ornis Committee.

The Commission will continue to monitor the situation in the period before accession.

---

(1)  OJ L 103, 25.4.1979, p. 1.

(2)  Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds, OJ L 103, 25.4.1979.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/500 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/500

---

(2004/C 78 E/0522)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3243/03

by Jan Wiersma (PSE) to the Commission

(3 November 2003)

Subject:   The ‘Buy American Act’ in the American defence budget

Is the Commission 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 Commission's position in relation to the ‘Buy American Act’ that has been incorporated into US Defense Authorization Bill FY 2004?

What efforts has the Commission 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 Commission take if the act is definitively adopted?

Does the Commission 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 Commission consider that adoption of the ‘Buy American Act’ will put the already strained relations with the United States under even more pressure?

Answer given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(23 December 2003)

The Commission has been closely following the draft bill entitled ‘National Defence Authorisation Act for Fiscal Year 2004’ since it was passed by the United States House of Representatives in May 2003. The initial attention of the Commission was brought to this draft law by an unprecedented expansion of ‘Buy American’ provisions into areas that may have violated commitments undertaken by the United States in the World Trade Organisation (WTO) Agreement on Government Procurement.

Matters have evolved in the right direction since the draft was discussed in the House and Senate, where deep disagreement forced a conciliation and the involvement of the United States Administration. The Conciliation Conference Report was finally approved on 11 November 2003 and was passed in the House and Senate immediately after. The bill was presented to President Bush to be enacted into law on 21 November 2003.

Regarding the actions undertaken by the Commission to oppose the initial draft, in early September 2003, the Commission transmitted a ‘note verbale’ to the United States Administration and Congress, raising the Commission's concerns and pointing out that certain provisions contained in the draft law may violate the WTO Agreement on Government Procurement. The Head of the Commission Delegation in Washington wrote to the Secretary of State and selected Representatives from the House and Senate reiterating the Commission's opposition to any extension of ‘Buy American’ provisions. The Member of the Commission responsible for Trade also discussed this issue with the United States Trade Representative, Mr Zoellick. In October 2003, the President of the Commission, Mr Prodi, wrote to the United States President, Mr Bush, requesting he veto the law if adopted by the Congress in its (at the time) current form. The Commission believes that these repeated interventions have been instrumental in removing significant shortcomings contained in the original draft. The overall final result can indeed be considered as largely satisfactory from the Union's perspective, in particular as it avoids an extensive use of waivers or exemptions, which would lead to a considerable degree of legal uncertainty, and left broad scope for the application of discretionary measures.

According to the sponsor of the bill, the Chair of the Armed Services Committee in the House, Mr Hunter (Rep., CA), the chapter on acquisitions contained in the bill originally aimed at strengthening the United States defence industrial base capability and reducing dependency from foreign sources. Amongst other measures, the bill, in its initial version, would have allowed the Department of Defence to ban the purchase of goods manufactured in countries that applied arms exports restrictions or did not support the United States operations in Afghanistan or Iraq. A similar but slightly modified provision is contained in the final version, but now a possible ban on procurement of goods would only apply to countries which apply military export restrictions to the United States for its war against terrorism, in which case these restrictions would be applied after the entry into force of the Act (and not as a consequence of restrictions applied during the United States military operations in Iraq, as initially proposed). Furthermore, the application of this provision is subject to a requirement that the United States Administration ensures that its application is not contrary to any applicable international obligations, including the WTO Agreement on Government Procurement.

Other proposed measures such as the increase of United States content subject to ‘Buy American’ (from the existing 50 % to a higher 65 %) or a ban to import certain goods considered as ‘critical items for national defence’ have been dropped in the final version.

The provision creating incentives for United States contractors to use machine tools or capital assets manufactured in the United States for the production of military equipment and a vague preference for suppliers using these machine tools or assets is maintained in the final version and is the main remaining concern for the Commission. The Commission's concerns on this provision will depend now on how the United States Administration may apply it, and the broader exemption in the act which requires the United States Administration not to apply the provisions of the act in a manner inconsistent with the United States' international obligations, including the WTO Agreement on Government Procurement. The Commission is conscious that European supplies to the United States Department of Defence of civilian and military goods may potentially be subject to this provision, if the exemption is not correctly applied. For that reason, the Commission intends to monitor particularly closely the implementation of these provisions.

As in the past, the Commission will closely monitor the implementation of the National Defence Authorisation Act for Fiscal Year 2004 and will take any action which may be considered appropriate.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/502 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/502

---

(2004/C 78 E/0523)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3250/03

by Ruth Hieronymi (PPE-DE), Christa Prets (PSE), Karin Junker (PSE), Raina Echerer (Verts/ALE) and Maria Sanders-ten Holte (ELDR) to the Commission

(3 November 2003)

Subject:   Assistance by the European Commission to Member States in encouraging the migration to an open interoperable standard in digital television

Mandation is not desirable and should be a means of last resort. In order to avoid mandation we urge the European Commission to explain how it intends to help Member States in their obligation under Article 17(2) of the Framework Directive (Directive 2002/21/EC (1)) to encourage the migration to an open interoperable standard for digital television, such as MHP.

What can the Commission tell us about the Member States' encouragement of interoperability less than nine months before the expiry of the deadline for the implementation of the directive? How far do Member States live up to the strict obligation of the directive?

Can the Commission give a precise date for the publication of its communication on the steps taken by Member States to encourage the migration to an open interoperable standard?

The Commission stated on 26 September 2002 in the plenary debate on interoperability in digital television that it was ‘providing political support for the voluntary application of this standard (MHP) by the sector.’ What have been the concrete measures taken by the Commission to live up to this commitment?

What will the Commission do to overcome the legal uncertainty among national regulatory authorities, broadcasters and viewers that hinders the introduction of digital television? Will it clearly define which national measures aiming at the introduction of digital television it considers unproblematic as far as the rules on state aid are concerned?

When will the Commission publish the criteria it will employ in judging interoperability?

At what point after July 2004 will the Commission start preparing the procedure to mandate standards according to Article 18(3) of the directive in the event that Member States have failed in their obligations? Starting this procedure would bring pressure to bear on Member States to act by signalling that the last resort will indeed be resorted to, if all other options fail.

Or will the Commission remain totally inactive until the expiry of the deadline as it stated on numerous occasions earlier this year risking that mandation will be necessary and ignoring the European Parliament's resolution of 26 September 2002?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(29 January 2004)

In its recently adopted Communication on the transition from analogue to digital broadcasting (2), the Commission sets out the advantages and benefits of digital television. The document is also intended to provide orientations for Member States as they prepare to fulfil the requirement set out in eEurope 2005: an information society for all (3), namely to publish, by end 2003, their intentions regarding a possible switchover. The Communication contributes to enhancing legal certainty through its analysis of how Community law, including rules on state aid, might affect national switchover plans. Member States are already aware of the need to notify initiatives that might give cause for concern under state aid rules. The Commission can confirm that it is already dealing with one notification and a number of complaints in connection with digital television.

In an earlier Communication on barriers to widespread access to new services and applications of the information society through open platforms (4), the Commission set out its vision of a multi-platform world with digital television — cable, satellite and terrestrial — being one of the important platforms. This Communication stressed the need for interoperability and the value of open standards, and pointed out that Community law provides for access to Application Programme Interfaces (API) technology by third parties under the new electronic communications framework. It also indicates that a business choice to migrate to an open second generation API, such as Multi-media Home Platform (MHP), from proprietary technology would need to be based on a sustainable business plan which takes into account existing investment and the evolving needs of customers.

In addition, the Commission has issued Mandate 331 inviting the European Standardisation Organisations to prepare a standardisation workplan in order to support effective implementation of Article 18 of the Framework Directive (5) (on interoperability of digital interactive television services) across Member States'markets. This will provide complementary standards to MHP in support of interoperability and will ‘inter alia’ facilitate migration to MHP.

The forthcoming review of interoperability of interactive TV services stipulated in Article 18.3 of the Framework Directive has also stimulated market players. There is now a standardisation process underway in European Telecommunications Standards Institute (ETSI) for the MHEG5 API (6), which offers both high levels of interoperability with MHP and reduced implementation costs.

These activities are in addition to the other initiatives in support of the interoperability of interactive television that were launched earlier and listed in the response to oral question H-0449/2002 by Mrs Thors during question time at Parliament's June 2002 session (7).

Member States have also declared their support for interoperability and encouraging openness. The Telecoms Council of 20 November 2003 adopted conclusions on open platforms and in digital television and third generation mobile communications, inviting the Member States to support the Commission in its efforts to take forward the standardisation programme and welcomed the Commission's intention to undertake a public consultation on the interoperability of interactive digital TV as part of its examination of the extent to which interoperability and user choice have been achieved for digital television services in Member States.

Member States do have different ideas on how to achieve interoperability. Those Member States with less developed digital television markets favour introduction of MHP. In Member States where there are substantial deployments of earlier API technologies, it is argued that it would be too costly to replace the 32 million set top boxes already deployed across the Union, and that there are other ways to achieve the interoperability necessary to support freedom of choice for users. The standardisation mandate referred to above is leading to further dialogue with industry on ways of achieving service interoperability.

The Commission continues to support the voluntary application of the MHP standard. The Commission considers implementation of the MHP standard to be the most obvious way to achieve interoperability. As stated by the Commission in the Parliament's plenary of 12 December 2001, the Commission will examine whether interoperability and freedom of choice for users have been adequately achieved in the Member States. If that is not the case, the Commission can propose making implementation of relevant European standards mandatory. Regarding criteria for judging interoperability, the Commission will take into account the criteria identified in the Framework Directive 2002/21/EC, as well as the principles of necessity and proportionality. The Commission plans to launch the public consultation in the near future, and to determine a final position by July 2004, in line with its commitment.

---

(1)  OJ L 108, 24.4.2002, p. 33.

(2)  COM(2003) 541 final, sections 2.1.3 and 2.2.1.

(3)  COM(2002) 263 final.

(4)  COM(2003) 410 final.

(5)  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.

(6)  Draft ETSI ES 202184.

(7)  Oral reply, 11.6.2002.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/504 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/504

---

(2004/C 78 E/0524)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3259/03

by Mihail Papayannakis (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(4 November 2003)

Subject:   Unpleasant odours from waste disposal site in Ano Liosia

Not only the local residents but also the municipal authorities of Petroupoli have recently expressed concern regarding unpleasant odours emanating from the Ano Liosia waste disposal site, affecting the surrounding area and in particular the municipality of Petroupoli, causing serious public health hazards and in many ways detracting from the quality of life and development of the locality. The concern felt by local residents is all the greater because of the uncontrolled disposal at Ano Liosia of effluent from the Psyttalia and the Metamorfosi treatment plants, while plans are also being considered for the storage of waste at the Mousama quarry in the immediate vicinity.

Is the Commission aware of the above situation? What action does it intend to take pending the provision of new sanitary legal waste burial sites (HYTA), with a view to resolving the problem?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(17 December 2003)

From the complaints it has received, the Commission has learned of the operation of the landfill site in Ano Liosia and the problem of the disposal of sewage sludge from the urban waste water treatment plant in Psittalia.

The operation of the landfill site in Ano Liosia is directly connected with the discharge on this site of sewage sludge from Psittalia. The Greek authorities have been asked to give the Commission information on the operating conditions at the site and explain why piles of waste collapsed on 10 March 2003. The Commission is still investigating the complaint to check for any incompatibility with Community environmental legislation.

Regarding the treatment of sewage sludge from the Psittalia plant, the Commission does not believe the Greek authorities have taken all necessary measures to ensure that the sludge is reused on the site where it is produced in order to ensure recovery or disposal without endangering human health or harming the environment.

On the grounds that the method of disposing of the sewage sludge from Psittalia, which consists of transferring it to the Ano Liosia landfill site, already almost full to capacity, is not compatible with the requirements of Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991 on urban waste water treatment (1) or of Council Directive 75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975 on waste (2), as amended by Council Directive 91/156/EEC of 18 March 1991 (3), the Commission has initiated infringement proceedings under Article 226 of the EC Treaty. A reasoned opinion was sent to Greece in July 2003. The Greek authorities replied, giving their comments on the Commission's allegations. The reply is now being examined. The Commission will take all the appropriate measures to ensure that Community environmental law is observed.

---

(1)  OJ L 135, 30.5.1991.

(2)  OJ L 194, 25.7.1975.

(3)  OJ L 78, 26.3.1991.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/505 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/505

---

(2004/C 78 E/0525)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3274/03

by Inger Schörling (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(5 November 2003)

Subject:   Impact of the laying of artificial beaches in Caleta de la Guirra in the municipality of Antigua (Fuerteventura, Spain)

Artificial beaches are being laid in Caleta de Guirra (Municipality of Antigua on Fuerteventura) on a publicly-owned stretch of coastline. This has destroyed a seaboard of great natural value with significant marine and fisheries resources (including the species of small crab used as bait for parrot fish). This symbolic area is also used by native and visiting species of birds such as stonechats, Egyptian vultures, trumpeter finches, cream-coloured coursers, plovers, turnstones, dunlins, egrets, herons and flamingos as a stopping-off point, to rest and to nest. In the course of the work a site of great palaeontological importance has been discovered. Reports prepared by respected palaeontologists from Canary Islands universities show this to be the richest and most extensive site found on the island of Fuerteventura to date. It contains a vast quantity and great variety of marine fossils dating back over 100 000 years. Since late 2002, heavy machinery has been destroying the seaboard and ravaging the site day after day, excavating and extracting tonnes of fossil material and carrying it off to an unknown location. The Canary Islands Green Party has filed a complaint with the local and central government authorities of the Canary Islands and applied for suspension of the work pursuant to Law 4/1999 of 15 March 1999 on the Historical Heritage of the Canary Islands. However, the work is continuing, and fresh discoveries are still being made. A complaint and application for suspension of the work have also been filed with the Office of the Public Prosecutor for the Environment and Court of Instruction No 2 in Puerto de Rosario. The Secretary-General for the Environment (see Resolution 7039 in Official State Gazette No 88 of 12 April 2002) exempted the project in La Guirra from an environmental impact statement, ignoring the adverse opinions issued with regard to it during the consultation process. An environmental impact assessment should have been an imperative owing to the presence of a palaeontological site and because the area's natural resources have been undervalued (impact on the halophile coastal vegetation, on Canary tamarisk, and on marine phanerogams in the subtidal zone; destruction of the area in which bait is collected for parrot fish, a species typical to the area and the bait for which is slowly disappearing).

Will the Commission take action to ensure that the impact assessment procedure laid down in Directive 97/11/EC (1) is applied?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(18 December 2003)

The Commission has checked that the area where the project is to be implemented has not been designated by the Spanish authorities as a Special Area of Conservation included in the Natura 2000 Network within the terms of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (2).

The project, as described by the Spanish authorities, consists of coastal works along 600 meter (m) of the shoreline to allow for bathing activities. The main actions considered in the project are the construction of a discontinuous dyke and the deposit of sand in order to build the beach. This kind of project is listed in Annex II — point 1, k) — 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.

Pursuant to Article 4.2 of the above Directive, Member States shall determine, on a case-by-case basis, according to thresholds or criteria, or a combination of both, whether a project listed in Annex II shall be made subject to an assessment in accordance with Articles 5 to 10 of the Directive. For this purpose, Member States shall take into account the selection criteria set out in Annex III of the Directive, which refers to the characteristics of the project, its location and the characteristics of the potential impact. Member States shall ensure that the determination made by the competent authorities is made available to the public.

As stated in the Resolution of 14 March 2002, the Spanish authorities have determined whether this project should be made subject to an impact assessment procedure. This determination has concluded that the project is not likely to have significant effects on the environment and, therefore, no impact assessment should be required.

According to available information, the Commission considers that the Spanish authorities have respected the provisions of the above-mentioned Council Directives concerning the mentioned project.

---

(1)  OJ L 73, 14.3.1997, p. 5.

(2)  OJ L 206, 22.7.1993.

(3)  OJ L 175, 5.7.1985.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/506 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/506

---

(2004/C 78 E/0526)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3275/03

by Caroline Jackson (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(5 November 2003)

Subject:   Destruction of Russian forests

It is reported that the Russian Government plans to sell off a vast proportion of Russia's forests to private logging companies. Such forests act as a giant ‘carbon sink’ second only in importance to the Amazonian rainforests. Is the Commission aware of this situation and, if so, what does it believe that the EU can do to dissuade the Russians from a policy that can have enormously damaging environmental consequences?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(17 December 2003)

The Commission is not aware of any plans on the part of the Government of Russia to sell off a vast proportion of Russia's forests to private logging companies although it has seen press reports regarding the new Russian Forest Code. Concessions granted to companies, private or otherwise, may or may not have an adverse effect on the management of those forests. The Russian Government has expressed its commitment to the sustainable management of its forests in various international fora, among them the Ministerial Conferences on the Protection of Forests in Europe. The Commission expects Russia to live up to those commitments and implement the relevant resolutions.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/507 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/507

---

(2004/C 78 E/0527)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3276/03

by Brian Simpson (PSE) to the Commission

(5 November 2003)

Subject:   Restrictions imposed on flights into Zurich airport

Can the Commission indicate when it will be in a position to report on the complaint submitted by the airline company Swiss against the German authorities in regard to restrictions imposed by them for flights into Zurich airport?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(19 December 2003)

The Commission has indeed received a complaint from the Swiss authorities regarding German measures which could affect certain landing procedures at Zurich airport. The complaint has been examined on the basis of the agreement concluded between the Community and Switzerland, and on 5 December 2003 the Commission has reached a decision on it in accordance with the procedures laid down in the Agreement and in Regulation (EEC) No 2408/92 (1). This decision finds that Germany may continue to apply the 213th regulation for the implementation of German Air Traffic Regulations establishing procedures for instrument-guided landings and takeoffs at Zurich airport as amended by the first amending regulation of 4 April 2003. The Decision of the Commission will be published in the Official Journal in the near future.

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 2408/92 of 23 July 1992 on access for Community air carriers to intra-Community air routes, OJ L 240, 24.8.1992.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/507 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/507

---

(2004/C 78 E/0528)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3284/03

by Lord Inglewood (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(5 November 2003)

Subject:   Overbooking on Air France's flights

Does the Commission consider it unfair and/or unethical commercial practice for airlines to deny access to passengers who have bought a valid ticket, and will it formally enquire into Air France's regular and consistent policy of overbooking on some of its flights from Newcastle?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(16 December 2003)

The Commission is aware of the general frequency of the practice of denied boarding (about one out of one thousand passengers are affected) although it does not possess information on specific flights, such as those of Air France from Newcastle.

The Commission accepts that denial of boarding should be tolerated only with compensation and assistance for passengers prevented from flying. In 1991 the Community adopted Council Regulation (EEC) No 295/91 (1), which obliges air carriers denying boarding at airports in Member States to give passengers financial compensation, the choice between a refund and an alternative flight and meals and hotel accommodation, as appropriate. This was the Community's first step in the protection of passengers.

Ten years later, the Commission reviewed the situation and concluded that the frequency of denied boarding remained too high — around 250 000 passengers where affected each year — and should be reduced. It, therefore, proposed in 2001 a new Regulation (2) designed to cut the frequency of denied boarding. This would oblige air carriers, when expecting to deny boarding, to seek volunteers to give up their reservations in exchange for benefits. Only if too few volunteers came forward, would airlines be allowed to deny passengers boarding against their will. If they did so, they would have to compensate them at an increased rate and assist them as under the present Regulation. This should lead to a considerable fall in the number of passengers denied boarding.

The new regulation would also create rights for passengers whose flights are cancelled or subject to long delays and would cover non-scheduled (charter) flights as well as scheduled flights.

The Commission strongly hopes that the Parliament will vote for the compromise of the Conciliation Committee on this proposal.

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 295/91 of 4 February 1991 establishing common rules for a denied-boarding compensation system in scheduled air transport, OJ L 36, 8.2.1991.

(2)  OJ C 103 E, 30.4.2002.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/508 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/508

---

(2004/C 78 E/0529)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3285/03

by Pierre Jonckheer (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(5 November 2003)

Subject:   Feixolín open-cast coal mine (Valle de Laciana district, Spain)

The company Minero Siderúrgica de Ponferrada S.A. (MSP) started to work the Feixolín open-cast mine in 1995. The mine is situated 2 km from the Fonfría mine — the subject of questions E-1892/02 (1), E-1431/03, E-1432/03 (2) and E-2858/03 (3) — and is thus also home to brown bears. The firm applied to exploit Fonfría on the grounds that Feixolín was exhausted. There was indeed a significant reduction in activity, which even came to a standstill once work started on exploiting Fonfría in early 2002, and the mine was therefore considered to be in the restoration phase. However, MSP resumed intensive exploitation of Feixolín in spring 2003, and the mine continues to be worked at full throttle.

This mine lacks all the requisite permits and statements of environmental compatibility. It was tolerated by local people because they were unaware of its adverse impact on the surrounding countryside and because MSP had undertaken to preserve jobs. This undertaking was broken, since the number of jobs has fallen from around 2 500 to 1 000. In spite of this, MSP continues to threaten local and autonomous community authorities with the definitive cessation of activities if it is not granted authorisation for open-cast mines.

MSP still receives enormous amounts of economic aid to maintain the mine's viability (4), when in fact it is reducing costs by operating open-cast mines and at the same time closing underground mines. The profits obtained both from the reduction in costs and the aid received are channelled to other companies in the same group, through investment in machinery and outsourcing services. This machinery, which is required for open-cast mining, is also used for other types of work not connected with mining such as road-building etc., activities which happen to coincide with the activities of the companies referred to above.

| 1. | How much European aid has MSP received and for what type of activities? Can the Commission investigate whether there has been any illegitimate use of the European aid received by MSP? |
| --- | --- |

1.

How much European aid has MSP received and for what type of activities? Can the Commission investigate whether there has been any illegitimate use of the European aid received by MSP?

| 2. | Does the Commission not believe that the aid granted should be used to make underground mining profitable, as this is the only way of preserving jobs, and also to build up sustainable alternative industries which will guarantee the area's future, action which is not being taken at present? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Does the Commission not believe that the aid granted should be used to make underground mining profitable, as this is the only way of preserving jobs, and also to build up sustainable alternative industries which will guarantee the area's future, action which is not being taken at present?

| 3. | Can the Commission include the Feixolín mine in its investigation into the environmental impact of MSP's mines, bearing in mind that the Valle de Laciana has been designated a biosphere reserve by Unesco? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Can the Commission include the Feixolín mine in its investigation into the environmental impact of MSP's mines, bearing in mind that the Valle de Laciana has been designated a biosphere reserve by Unesco?

Answer given by Ms Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(18 December 2003)

Minero Siderúrgica de Ponferrada S.A. (MSP) receives State aid each year for coal production. This aid is granted by Spain and authorised by the Commission.

Operating aid granted to MSP in recent years amounted to:

| — | ESP 11 014 million for 1998; |
| --- | --- |

—

ESP 11 014 million for 1998;

| — | ESP 9 924,26 million for 1999; |
| --- | --- |

—

ESP 9 924,26 million for 1999;

| — | ESP 9 633,34 million for 2000; |
| --- | --- |

—

ESP 9 633,34 million for 2000;

| — | ESP 8 934,84 million for 2001; |
| --- | --- |

—

ESP 8 934,84 million for 2001;

| — | EUR 48 million (ESP 7 986,44 million) for 2002. |
| --- | --- |

—

EUR 48 million (ESP 7 986,44 million) for 2002.

The Commission authorised this aid after verifying that the company was carrying out a ‘modernisation, rationalisation and restructuring plan’ aimed at improving the economic viability of the company, through a reduction in production costs. MSP receives per tonne one of the lowest amounts of aid in the EU. The Commission is not aware of any unlawful use of this aid, in terms of compliance with the objectives of Decision No 3632/93/ECSC (5).

| 2. | The Commission authorises EU aid for the coal industry in accordance with the existing legislation. In future, such legislation will be based on Regulation (EC) No 1407/2002 (6) which enables production units which offer the best economic prospects to contribute to energy security within the framework of sustainable development. Such an objective can be achieved through both underground mining and opencast mining, provided that national and EU legislation is complied with as regards the ‘pillar’ (social, economic and environmental) objectives relating to sustainable development. The Commission cannot intervene in the choice of mining system by a company, but it does monitor compliance with EU legislation.
  As regards the channelling of aid into the creation of alternative industries, the Commission is in favour of economic diversification programmes in mining regions. However, aid provided for in State aid schemes for the coal industry is intended solely for coal production activity and not for diversification activities. In the case of Spain, the Commission has been informed of its 1998-2005 plan for the alternative development of its mining areas, with the objective of regional development, as proposed by the Honourable Member. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The Commission authorises EU aid for the coal industry in accordance with the existing legislation. In future, such legislation will be based on Regulation (EC) No 1407/2002 (6) which enables production units which offer the best economic prospects to contribute to energy security within the framework of sustainable development. Such an objective can be achieved through both underground mining and opencast mining, provided that national and EU legislation is complied with as regards the ‘pillar’ (social, economic and environmental) objectives relating to sustainable development. The Commission cannot intervene in the choice of mining system by a company, but it does monitor compliance with EU legislation.

As regards the channelling of aid into the creation of alternative industries, the Commission is in favour of economic diversification programmes in mining regions. However, aid provided for in State aid schemes for the coal industry is intended solely for coal production activity and not for diversification activities. In the case of Spain, the Commission has been informed of its 1998-2005 plan for the alternative development of its mining areas, with the objective of regional development, as proposed by the Honourable Member.

| 3. | The Commission is currently checking whether the Spanish authorities are properly applying EU environmental law with regard to this company's activities. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The Commission is currently checking whether the Spanish authorities are properly applying EU environmental law with regard to this company's activities.

---

(1)  OJ C 28 E, 6.2.2003, p. 149.

(2)  See page 32.

(3)  See page 180.

(4)  See E-0342/02, OJ C 205 E, 29.8.2002, p. 122. Both the Uninsa company and MSP form part of the group of companies owned by Victorino Alonso, together with other mining companies which he has been buying up, all of them operating at a loss.

(5)  Commission Decision No 3632/93/ECSC of 28 December 1993 establishing Community rules for State aid to the coal industry, OJ L 329, 30.12.1993.

(6)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1407/2002 of 23 July 2002 on State aid to the coal industry, OJ L 205, 2.8.2002.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/510 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/510

---

(2004/C 78 E/0530)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3286/03

by Anne André-Léonard (ELDR) to the Commission

(5 November 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 that 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?

Answer given by Ms de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(15 December 2003)

Rules on boatmaster's certificates for recreational craft are not the subject of Community legislation and fall exclusively within the competence of the Member States. The only Community legislation on recreational craft is Directive 94/25/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 June 1994 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States relating to recreational craft (2). This Directive ensures compliance with minimum standards, including safety standards, for the construction of such craft.

However, it should be noted that in 1998 the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe adopted Resolution (ECE) 40 on an international certificate for operators of pleasure craft. The Resolution sets up a harmonised system for obtaining, from the authorities in the country of which the applicant is a national or where he/she is resident, an international certificate on the basis of the national certificate. The international certificate allows the holder to sail on the inland and coastal waters of countries which have adopted the Resolution.

The Commission is examining the implementation of this international certificate and will take the required measures if need be. At this stage, the matter has not been included in the Commission's work programme.

---

(1)  OJ L 164, 30.6.1994, p. 15.

(2)  OJ L 17, 21.1.1997.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/510 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/510

---

(2004/C 78 E/0531)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3288/03

by Margrietus van den Berg (PSE) to the Commission

(5 November 2003)

Subject:   Establishment of businesses in the municipality of Losser

The municipality of Losser in the Netherlands is situated on the border with Germany. At present the municipality is encountering serious difficulties with the establishment of businesses. On the Dutch side of the border it is very difficult to set up small business parks, whereas on the German side such sites do exist. However, entrepreneurs from Losser who wish to set up businesses on the other side of the border are confronted by different regulations and legislation, which makes it very hard for them to do so. The Anholt Agreement, which currently governs cross-border cooperation between Dutch and German regional authorities, does not provide for coordination of German and Dutch legislation or present any options. It is not possible to set up cross-border business parks either, because the regional plan in the Netherlands prohibits this.

I have previously made the point that border regions have a pioneering role to play in European integration and that they are the prime sites for putting European cooperation into practice by coordinating legislation and public facilities.

| 1. | Does the Commission agree that encouraging the establishment of businesses on or across national borders should be a priority in border regions? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Does the Commission agree that encouraging the establishment of businesses on or across national borders should be a priority in border regions?

| 2. | Does the Commission agree that it is very important to coordinate legislation or make it more flexible in the area described above, and will it take measures to encourage Member States to do this? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Does the Commission agree that it is very important to coordinate legislation or make it more flexible in the area described above, and will it take measures to encourage Member States to do this?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(23 December 2003)

| 1. | In accordance with the guidelines governing the Community Initiative, Interreg, encouraging entrepreneurship and the development of small firms and local employment initiatives are among the priorities of European programmes for cross-border cooperation. |
| --- | --- |

1.

In accordance with the guidelines governing the Community Initiative, Interreg, encouraging entrepreneurship and the development of small firms and local employment initiatives are among the priorities of European programmes for cross-border cooperation.

| 2. | The current generation of programmes for cooperation for the period, 2000-2006, seek to promote the development of joint cross-border, transnational and inter-regional strategies and to overcome the obstacles posed by the existence of different national legal and administrative systems and traditions. National legal and administrative systems are, however, the responsibility of the Member States provided that Community law is respected, for example, with regard to the internal market or competition rules. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The current generation of programmes for cooperation for the period, 2000-2006, seek to promote the development of joint cross-border, transnational and inter-regional strategies and to overcome the obstacles posed by the existence of different national legal and administrative systems and traditions. National legal and administrative systems are, however, the responsibility of the Member States provided that Community law is respected, for example, with regard to the internal market or competition rules.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/511 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/511

---

(2004/C 78 E/0532)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3289/03

by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(5 November 2003)

Subject:   Portuguese workers without rights in the North Sea

Various workers, including Portuguese nationals, have been working on North Sea oil platforms in the Dutch sector, some of them for over ten years, in the Catering Logistic Management branch, without being granted equal rights with local workers.

The argument used for this discrimination namely that they officially reside in Portugal and work two weeks on and two weeks off is simply inadmissible.

The Dutch company does not sign them up for social security, nor pay their travel expenses; nor do they have any social rights (family allowance, unemployment benefit, compensation for accidents at work, etc.).

Given that the Netherlands are an EU Member State, how can the failure of Dutch companies comply with the most elementary workers' rights be justified?

What measures will be taken to review the situation?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(4 December 2003)

The Commission would like to emphasise first of all that Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 (1) coordinates the national social security systems of the Member States in order to ensure that persons moving within the Union enjoy the highest standard of social protection. This Regulation includes, in particular, a set of rules establishing the applicable social security legislation in situations where workers have links with two or more Member States. These rules are mandatory and do not allow insured persons to choose the social security legislation which they would prefer to see applied.

In order to establish which legislation is applicable, the Commission intends to ask the Dutch authorities for an explanation to determine whether this is a case of the posting of workers in the context of the provision of services and whether Community law has been properly observed.

---

(1)  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.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/512 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/512

---

(2004/C 78 E/0533)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3291/03

by Helena Torres Marques (PSE) to the Commission

(3 November 2003)

Subject:   Enforcement of Community decisions in Portugal

Commission Decision 2002/914/EC of 24 July 2002 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 of the EC Treaty and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case No COMP/29 373 — Visa International — Multilateral Interchange Fee) was published in the Official Journal (1).

The Decision sets out maximum values which may be charged by VISA for the use of debit and credit cards in the Eurozone.

Naturally the rates applied to transactions made within each country must be lower than those applied to the Eurozone, given the lower cost of telephone calls.

| 1. | Will the Commission specify what body is responsible for the implementation of this Decision in Portugal? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Will the Commission specify what body is responsible for the implementation of this Decision in Portugal?

| 2. | Given that there is only one company, owned by the Portuguese banks — Unicre — through which virtually all debit and credit card transactions made in Portugal are processed, what body is responsible for enforcing Community decisions in this field? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Given that there is only one company, owned by the Portuguese banks — Unicre — through which virtually all debit and credit card transactions made in Portugal are processed, what body is responsible for enforcing Community decisions in this field?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(5 December 2003)

By Decision 2002/914/EC of 24 July 2002, the Commission has exempted, under the Union competition rules, certain multilateral interchange fees (MIF) for cross-border payments with Visa cards. The exemption will expire in 2007.

In order to answer the questions of the Honourable Member, the Commission would first clarify some aspects of Decision 2002/914/EC. The MIF is an inter-bank payment made for each transaction carried out with a payment card. In the Visa system, it is paid to the cardholder's bank by the retailer's bank and constitutes a cost for the latter which is normally passed on to retailers as part of the fee they pay to the bank for each Visa card payment. The default level of the Visa MIF for cross-border transactions within the European Region, which applies unless two banks agree otherwise, is set by the Visa EU Board and was notified to the Commission for clearance. The exemption under Article 81(3) of the EC Treaty was granted by the Commission after Visa submitted a package of reforms, and it was the object of extensive discussions and consultation with interested parties. More particularly, Visa committed itself, firstly, to reducing the level of its MIFs for the different types of consumer cards: for Visa's deferred debit card and credit card payments, the weighted average MIF rate will be brought down in stages, to a level of 0,7 % in 2007; for debit card transactions, Visa will immediately introduce a flat-rate MIF of EUR 0,28. Secondly, the MIF is capped at the level of costs for certain specific services provided by issuing banks, which in the Commission's view correspond to services provided by cardholders' banks which benefit those retailers who ultimately pay the cross-border MIF. Thirdly, Visa has allowed member banks to reveal information about the MIF levels and the relative percentage of the three cost categories to retailers at their request.

| 1. | Monitoring the respect by Visa of the modified MIF scheme for cross-border transactions in all Member States (therefore also in Portugal) is under the responsibility of the Commission. Should any infringement of the terms of the exemption decision come to the attention of the Commission, the services of Directorate General Competition will investigate any possible deviation from the decision.
  It is important to emphasise that the exemption decision of the Commission only applies to cross-border payment transactions with Visa consumer cards at retailer outlets within the European Economic Area. The decision does not apply to MIFs for domestic Visa payments within Member States. As a matter of fact, the assessment of the exemptability of the reformed Visa MIF was carried out by the Commission in the context of cross-border payments within the Visa payment scheme only. The assessment of Visa MIFs for domestic payments in Portugal would have to be made in the light of the different market conditions in the Member State. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Monitoring the respect by Visa of the modified MIF scheme for cross-border transactions in all Member States (therefore also in Portugal) is under the responsibility of the Commission. Should any infringement of the terms of the exemption decision come to the attention of the Commission, the services of Directorate General Competition will investigate any possible deviation from the decision.

It is important to emphasise that the exemption decision of the Commission only applies to cross-border payment transactions with Visa consumer cards at retailer outlets within the European Economic Area. The decision does not apply to MIFs for domestic Visa payments within Member States. As a matter of fact, the assessment of the exemptability of the reformed Visa MIF was carried out by the Commission in the context of cross-border payments within the Visa payment scheme only. The assessment of Visa MIFs for domestic payments in Portugal would have to be made in the light of the different market conditions in the Member State.

| 2. | Community competition law applies where trade between Member States may be appreciably affected. Therefore, if there were to be any indication of possible violation of Community competition law in the Portuguese cards market, such information could be forwarded to the National Competition Authority or the Commission.
  A copy of the concerns raised by the Honourable Member has been sent to the Portuguese competition authority (Autoridade da Concorrência). |
| --- | --- |

2.

Community competition law applies where trade between Member States may be appreciably affected. Therefore, if there were to be any indication of possible violation of Community competition law in the Portuguese cards market, such information could be forwarded to the National Competition Authority or the Commission.

A copy of the concerns raised by the Honourable Member has been sent to the Portuguese competition authority (Autoridade da Concorrência).

---

(1)  OJ L 318, 22.11.2002, p. 17.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/513 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/513

---

(2004/C 78 E/0534)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3294/03

by Claude Moraes (PSE) to the Commission

(7 November 2003)

Subject:   The European Commission's 5th Framework Project

How does the Commission plan to utilise the findings of its 5th Framework Project ‘The Orientation of Young Men and Women to Citizenship and European Identity’ (HPSE-CT-2001-00077)?

Answer given by Mr Busquin on behalf of the Commission

(12 December 2003)

Under the Second Call for Proposals launched by the Key Action ‘Improving the Socio-economic knowledge-base’ of the Fifth Framework Programme, the project ‘Orientations of Young Men and Women to Citizenship and European Identity’ (HPSE-CT-2001-00077) received a financial contribution of EUR 995 000 with a duration of 36 months, from the Community. The project is co-ordinated by Prof. Lynn Jamieson, University of Edinburgh and wishes to examine the constructions of European identity and European citizenship amongst young people in six countries — four current and two prospective Member States.

The project is still ongoing and it is expected that most of its results will be of value in a tangible manner during its final year. The final conference of the project itself will take place in Brussels in July 2004 where key findings and policy suggestions will be presented with a particular focus on the needs of policy makers (institutional actors, educational authorities, vocational bodies).

The research consortium plans to raise awareness and utilise its findings by disclosing them in two principal ways: first, through the website of the project http://www.ed.ac.uk/sociol/youth where documents and reports are available to the general public as well as to the scientific and policy communities. Second, by establishing contacts with European, national and local institutions and actors (the list of these contacts is sent direct to the Honourable Member and to the Secretariat General of the Parliament). Furthermore, the consortium plans to prepare and distribute a policy brief with the key findings of its research to all Ministries of Education in Europe and across all levels of government.

The Commission asked the project coordinator to disseminate the research findings in the conference organised jointly by Directorate General Education and Culture (DG EAC) and the Council of Europe on Youth and Participation, Strasbourg, 24 to 26 November 2003, which aimed to contribute to the implementation of the White Paper on Youth (1). Moreover, it is anticipated that through rigorous collaboration between DG Research (RTD) and DG EAC the research deliverables will have an impact on education policy and active civic participation. Finally, the research findings will also be transmitted to the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy as well as the Committee of Culture, Youth, Education, Media and Sports of the Parliament.

---

(1)  COM(2001) 681 final.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/514 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/514

---

(2004/C 78 E/0535)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3296/03

by Ria Oomen-Ruijten (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(7 November 2003)

Subject:   Fees for residence permits

It is a regular occurrence for nationals of EU Member States who apply for a residence permit in the Netherlands to be charged large administrative fees. One such case concerns a German woman who has officially been cohabiting with a Netherlands national since 1 July 2002. Until 31 May 2003, when she was made redundant, she used to commute to Germany to work. She is now receiving Dutch unemployment benefit pursuant to Article 71 of Regulation No 1408/71 (1). She has been compelled to pay a fee of EUR 430 for renewal of her residence permit.

The woman has two children, who live with her ex-husband (their father) in Germany. She is a German national and has never worked in the Netherlands. Her cohabiting partner has always lived in the Netherlands, and until March 2001 was self-employed there. Since April 2001 he has been employed by a business in Germany (as a frontier worker).

| 1. | Is it permissible for the Netherlands to charge a fee of EUR 430 per annum for extending a residence permit? Is it permissible to charge this amount for an extension such as that granted on 6 June 2003, which was limited to six months (until 6 December 2003)? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is it permissible for the Netherlands to charge a fee of EUR 430 per annum for extending a residence permit? Is it permissible to charge this amount for an extension such as that granted on 6 June 2003, which was limited to six months (until 6 December 2003)?

| 2. | Is it permissible for the Netherlands to charge a fee of EUR 285 per child for their residence permits if the German mother wishes to bring her children up in the Netherlands together with her Dutch partner? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Is it permissible for the Netherlands to charge a fee of EUR 285 per child for their residence permits if the German mother wishes to bring her children up in the Netherlands together with her Dutch partner?

| 3. | Does the case described here entail a violation of Community law (EEC Treaty, Articles 13, 17, 18 and 39, and, inter alia, EEC Directive 68/360) (2)? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Does the case described here entail a violation of Community law (EEC Treaty, Articles 13, 17, 18 and 39, and, inter alia, EEC Directive 68/360) (2)?

NB: the charge for a Dutch identity card is EUR 28,73 for the Netherlands' own residents and Netherlands nationals.

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(15 January 2004)

The Dutch legislation transposing Community law on the right of residence provides that Union citizens who reside in the Netherlands on the basis of Community law may obtain a temporary residence card of up to five years. The validity of the card depends on the capacity in which the Union citizen applies for it (job seeker, worker, inactive person, student).

On the basis of the information provided in the written question, the German national has never worked in the Netherlands and therefore she cannot have applied for a residence card on the basis of directive 68/360/CEE (3). However, it does not derive from the information provided in the parliamentary question in which capacity she applied for a residence card in the Netherlands when she still had a job in Germany and later for an extension when she became unemployed. She could have exercised her right to free movement under directive 90/364/EEC of 28 June 1990 on the right of residence (4) or there is also the possibility that she applied for a residence permit on the grounds of national law on family reunification with her Dutch partner.

Irrespective of the capacity in which a Union citizen applies for a residence card, Community law on free movement provides that residence cards must be issued and renewed free of charge or on payment of an amount not exceeding the dues and taxes charged for the issue of identity cards to nationals. According to the Commission's information, the cost of temporary residence cards issued to Union citizens in the Netherlands has increased to EUR 28. Since national identity cards for nationals cost EUR 28,77 this increase is non-discriminatory with respect to the cost of national identity cards and is, therefore, in conformity with Community law.

The Dutch legislation also provides for the possibility of obtaining a permanent residence card. The cost of this document is EUR 226,89 according to the Commission's information. However, Union citizens are not obliged to apply for this more expensive type of document.

If the German national in question was charged EUR 430 for an extension of her residence card and EUR 285 for each of her children the amounts charged would seem to exceed what is foreseen under the above-mentioned Dutch legislation. However, in order to evaluate the case fully and eventually to take contact with the Dutch authorities, the Commission would require more detailed information about the case.

Finally, the Commission would like to note that Article 13 of the EC Treaty is not applicable in this case as it only provides a legal basis for actions to combat discrimination based on sex, race or ethnic origin, religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation.

---

(1)  OJ L 149, 5.7.1971, p. 2.

(2)  OJ L 257, 19.10.1968, p. 13.

(3)  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, OJ L 257, 19.10.1968.

(4)  OJ L 180, 13.7.1990.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/515 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/515

---

(2004/C 78 E/0536)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3300/03

by Robert Sturdy (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(7 November 2003)

Subject:   ‘Scam’ e-mails requesting bank details from Africa, etc.

Bearing in mind that there have been continuous reports of these e-mails, and my parliamentary account receives several every day, can the Commission tell me what it can do to try to stop these e-mails from reaching e-mail accounts within Europe, before more people get conned into handing over bank account details and being cheated out of large sums of money?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(18 December 2003)

The Honourable Member asks what the Commission can do to try to stop ‘scam’ e-mails requesting bank details, for example: from Africa.

‘Scam’ e-mails are also known as advance fee fraud e-mails, which are a specific form of unsolicited commercial e-mail or ‘spam.’ These are particularly misleading and fraudulent, making money at the expense of naïve e-mail users.

While the Commission cannot as such prevent users from passing on their bank details, it is taking measures to combat spam in general, and scams in particular. As regards spam, Directive 2002/58/EC (1) on privacy and electronic communications has banned unsolicited communications throughout the Union (except in limited circumstances). The deadline for transposing this Directive was the end of October 2003. The Commission refers also the Honourable Member to answers given on the issue of spam to written questions E-1997/03 by Mr Papayannakis (2), E-2085/03 by Mr Watson (3) and E-2254/03 by Mrs Kauppi (4).

Building on this new regime, the Commission will identify in a forthcoming Communication a series of additional actions that are needed to make it as effective as possible. Concrete action would focus not only on effective enforcement by Member States and technical solutions like filtering and security, but also on international cooperation and consumer awareness (5). The proposed measures have been discussed with Member States and interested parties at a workshop held in Brussels on 16 October 2003 (6).

Regarding awareness in particular, it is important that e-mail users be informed about the following: what is legal and illegal; the potential risks of being online or responding to such e-mails; what assistance they can receive from their e-mail service providers or third parties such as filtering software makers; and to whom they can report illegalities.

Regarding enforcement, prosecuting wrongdoers has to be a priority for Member States. International cooperation on prosecution is indeed taking place in a number of transnational cases. While online evidence is not always easy to gather, in particular when ‘spammers’ or ‘scammers’ operate off-shore, intermediaries will often be located much closer to places under the jurisdiction of Union public authorities.

For scam e-mails which originate within the Union, it should be borne in mind that they often amount to misleading advertising banned under Directive 84/450/EEC as amended by Directive 97/55/EC (7) on misleading and comparative advertisements which protects both business and consumers from being mislead. All Member States have transposed the Directive and it is therefore for the national courts and authorities to ensure that it is fully applied. The Commission's proposed directive on unfair commercial practices (8) will incorporate the protections against misleading advertising harming consumers' economic interests, including misleading scam e-mails aimed at consumers, which are currently contained in the Directive on misleading and comparative advertising.

---

(1)  Directive 2002/58/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 12 July 2002 concerning the processing of personal data and the protection of privacy in the electronic communications sector (Directive on privacy and electronic communications), OJ L 201, 31.7.2002.

(2)  OJ C 51 E, 26.2.2004, p. 178.

(3)  OJ C 51 E, 26.2.2004, p. 178.

(4)  OJ C 51 E, 26.2.2004, p. 232.

(5)  See IP/03/1015.

(6)  See IP/03/1373.

(7)  Directive 97/55/EC of Parliament and of the Council of 6 October 1997 amending Directive 84/450/EEC concerning misleading advertising so as to include comparative advertising, OJ L 290, 23.10.1997.

(8)  COM(2003) 356 final.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/517 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/517

---

(2004/C 78 E/0537)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3302/03

by Hiltrud Breyer (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(10 November 2003)

Subject:   Noise abatement plans (Directive 2002/49/EC)

With the aim of assessing and managing environmental noise, Directive 2002/49/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council was adopted on 25 June 2002. By 18 July 2005 it requires the Member States to compile strategic noise maps, using common assessment methods, to record levels of noise nuisance along main roads and main railway lines, around major airports and in conurbations.

In Germany it has already been the case since 1990 that, pursuant to Article 47a of the Federal Pollution Control Act, in areas where noise damages or may be expected to damage the environment, the level of exposure to noise from the relevant sources must be measured and its impact on the environment determined. By law, Länder and communes must draw up noise abatement plans. In Saarland, no commune has so far submitted a noise abatement plan pursuant to Article 47a of the Federal Pollution Control Act. This may be because drawing up such plans costs money and the plans will affect everybody in a commune.

| 1. | What will be done to ensure that the governments of the Member States do not take advantage of the 2005 deadline set by the directive to delay the implementation of domestic law? |
| --- | --- |

1.

What will be done to ensure that the governments of the Member States do not take advantage of the 2005 deadline set by the directive to delay the implementation of domestic law?

| 2. | Will the EU provide financial support for the compilation of noise abatement plans? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Will the EU provide financial support for the compilation of noise abatement plans?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(16 December 2003)

The Commission was interested to note the Written Question from the Honourable Member concerning the link between Community legislation and national legislation on environmental noise and the possibility of financial support from the Community for plans to reduce noise nuisance.

On the first point, pursuant to 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), which entered into force on 18 July 2002, the competent authorities in the Member States are obliged to draw up strategic noise maps in the vicinity of the major transport infrastructures and in major conurbations, based on common indicators, to inform the public about exposure to noise and its effects, and to implement action plans to reduce noise wherever necessary and to preserve the quality of the noise environment wherever it is good. The Directive has to be transposed into the national legislation of the Member States no later than 18 July 2004, the first noise maps have to be drawn up no later than 30 June 2007, and the first action plans no later than 18 July 2008.

With regard to the link between existing national legislation on noise and Directive 2002/49/EC, the competent authorities in the Member States are free to implement the provisions of the Directive earlier, this possibility being at their entire discretion.

On the second point, there is no specific Community funding to combat environmental noise. However, projects in this field could be given financial support under existing mechanisms, including the financial instrument for the environment (LIFE).

---

(1)  OJ L 189, 18.7.2002, p. 12.

(2)  OJ L 189, 18.7.2002.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/518 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/518

---

(2004/C 78 E/0538)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3306/03

by Gary Titley (PSE) to the Commission

(10 November 2003)

Subject:   Fluoride in drinking water

The 1998 Drinking Directive (98/83/EC (1)) lays down a limit of 1,5 milligrams per litre for fluoride in drinking water.

Can the Commission provide the number of Member States, or regions within Member States, that currently add fluoride to their drinking water supply? What are the rights of EU citizens concerning the addition of fluoride to their drinking water?

Given the planned revision of Directive 98/83/EC, does the Commission foresee a change in the parametric values for fluoride?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(16 December 2003)

Fluoridation is currently allowed in four Member States (Germany, Spain, United Kingdom and Ireland); in the three first countries the decision to add fluoride is left to the local/regional authorities. In Italy, there is no specific law banning or authorising fluoridation. The situation at the regional level is not known by the Commission. The issue of the rights of Union citizens concerning the addition of fluoride to their drinking water is outside the formal scope of implementation of the Directive on the quality of drinking water and the matter of fluoridation of water supplies lies within the Member States' responsibility.

At this stage, where compliance with the standards fixed by Directive 98/83/EC (2) should be achieved by 25 December 2003, it is premature to foresee any change for any parametric value.

---

(1)  OJ L 330, 5.12.1998, p. 32.

(2)  Council Directive 98/83/EC of 3 November 1998 on the quality of water intended for human consumption, OJ L 330, 5.12.1998.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/518 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/518

---

(2004/C 78 E/0539)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3309/03

by Philip Claeys (NI) to the Commission

(10 November 2003)

Subject:   ‘Responsible shopping week’ in the Commission's buildings

Between 6 and 10 October, a ‘responsible shopping week’ was held in the Commission's buildings. A brochure published in connection with it mentions cooperation in the project by the Fair Trade Centre and the Commission's main catering suppliers, Delhaize, Eurest and Sodexho.

As well as making space available in its buildings, did the Commission also provide financial assistance for this event? If so, how much?

Were any quantitative objectives set for ‘responsible shopping week’? If so, what? Were the objectives attained?

Did the organisers give consumers the opportunity to assess the quality of the products on offer? If so, what was the outcome?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(19 December 2003)

A one-week event on the theme of responsible consumption took place at the Commission from 6 to 10 October 2003. The week was organised to coincide with the ‘Fair Trade’ week in Belgium and in collaboration with the Fair Trade Centre — which co-ordinates the activities of the Belgian Fair Trade Organisations. The organisation of this event is the result of a commitment made by the Commission in its Communication on Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) (1) to launch a campaign in 2003 to raise staff awareness of the principles of CSR.

During the event, fair trade products were offered for sale in the restaurants and cafeterias, vending machines and the Euro City shop of the Commission in Brussels. Products offered were coffee, tea, fruit juices, sugar, cereal and chocolate bars, rice, quince and bananas.

The Parliament was associated with the promotion and fair trade products were offered for sale in its restaurants and bars, as the Honourable Member will know.

The Employment and Social Affairs DG of the Commission provided a budget of EUR 30 000 that was used for producing promotional material (brochures, posters, etc.) and for organising food-tasting stands offering fair trade products.

The object of the week was to reinforce staff awareness of the issues relating to CSR and responsible consumption by offering them information on this subject as well as the chance to buy fair trade products at their workplace.

Initial reactions from Commission staff to the products offered have been positive, especially regarding coffee, tea, cereal and chocolate bars and fruit juices. Sales of these products have been substantial. The overall results of the event will be evaluated at the end of 2003.

The companies holding the concession contracts for the Commission's restaurants and cafeterias, vending machines and the Euro City shop have committed themselves to continue to offer these fair trade products for as long as there is sufficient demand.

---

(1)  COM(2002) 347 final.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/519 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/519

---

(2004/C 78 E/0540)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3321/03

by Anna Karamanou (PSE) to the Commission

(10 November 2003)

Subject:   Malta's temporary landfills

To comply with the EU Landfill Directive (1999/31/EC (1)), the government of Malta announced, on 8 July 2003, that two quarries for the dumping of domestic and organic waste are to be set up as temporary landfills, until an engineered landfill at Tal-Ghallis is built by 2005. The choice of the two identified quarries has raised serious objections, since they are only a few hundred metres away from the Unesco World Heritage Site Mnajdra and Hagar Qim Megalithic temples and this area has been earmarked as a Heritage Park for a long time.

Can the Commission confirm whether it has been informed by the Maltese government about the choice of the two temporary sites and whether it considers that this temporary solution complies with the (current and future) Member States' commitment to safeguard and enhance Europe's cultural heritage?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(23 December 2003)

The Commission has not been informed by the Maltese governance about the planned landfills in Malta.

In the accession negotiations, Malta gave its commitment to meet the provisions of the Landfill Directive (2) from 1 May 2004. In the run-up to this date the Commission will be monitoring Malta's progress with the transposition and implementation of the Landfill Directive and the commitments given during negotiations.

Concerning the protection of nature and cultural patrimony in the area of the temporary landfills, the decision of where to locate the landfills remains with the national authorities but must meet the general requirements given in Annex I of the Directive.

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)  OJ L 182, 16.7.1999, p. 1.

(2)  Council Directive 1999/31/EC of 26 April 1999 on the landfill of waste.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/520 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/520

---

(2004/C 78 E/0541)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3322/03

by Gabriele Stauner (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(5 November 2003)

Subject:   Vice-President Kinnock and indications of irregularities at Eurostat

In a document passed on to Directors-General Brüner and Reichenbach on 31 August 2001 (‘File on possible irregularities in many Commission services’), Paul van Buitenen also drew attention to numerous irregularities in connection with Eurostat.

Van Buitenen informed the two Directors-General, inter alia, of the existence of an audit report describing the practice, at Eurostat, of creating concealed cash reserves.

He also reported indications that a director of Eurostat had been guilty of numerous derelictions of duty.

When did Mr Kinnock — the Commission Vice-President responsible for disciplinary issues — receive the copy of the document in question?

Were members of his cabinet also given the opportunity to read it? If so, when?

What steps did Mr Kinnock take to obtain a copy of the audit report concerned?

What steps did Mr Kinnock take to have the accusations against the director investigated? What was the outcome?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(19 January 2004)

On 31 August 2001, Mr Van Buitenen submitted to the Director-General of the Antifraud Office (OLAF) and to the Director-General of the Commission's Directorate General (DG) Administration and Personnel (ADMIN) a 5 000-page dossier. The dossier was later established by OLAF and ADMIN to contain 270 identifiable allegations.

As the Honourable Member will know from previous Parliamentary answers and Statements, the Vice-President of the Commission in charge of Personnel and Administration, Mr Kinnock, received a copy of this document from DG ADMIN in early September 2001 in his capacity of Appointing Authority for senior officials referred to in the document.

The voluminous nature of the allegations meant that neither the Commissioner nor members of his cabinet were in a position to determine whether the matters identified in the dossier constituted or amounted to irregularities. This issue could, rightly, only be properly determined by the investigative bodies to whom the file was referred in accordance with established and relevant procedures and analysis was correctly left to them.

As has been reported to Parliament, on the basis of preliminary drafts submitted by Mr Van Buitenen, OLAF and DG ADMIN conducted an initial review of the material supplied by Mr Van Buitenen in order to determine which of the allegations that he made fell within OLAF's competence, as set out in Article 1(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1073/1999 of the Parliament and the Council of 25 May 1999 concerning investigations conducted by the European Anti-Fraud Office (1), and were therefore for OLAF to investigate. The Honourable Member will know from previous answers that the material in the dossier relating to Eurostat was considered to fall wholly within OLAF's remit, particularly since OLAF was already conducting investigations into the issues raised.

The information provided by Mr Van Buitenen in relation to Eurostat was, therefore, from the outset, assessed by the competent analysts to be within OLAF's remit and for OLAF, rather than for DG ADMIN or Mr Kinnock, to investigate further. The OLAF investigating magistrates' summary assessment of the elements of the file attributed to OLAF was sent to the Commission's Director General for Administration and to the President of Parliament's Committee on Budgetary Control (Cocobu) on 15 February 2002.

In relation to Eurostat, OLAF concluded at that moment, that the information received did not justify opening new investigations. However, the information supplied by Mr Van Buitenen on Eurostat was transferred to the active files.

---

(1)  OJ L 136, 31.5.1999.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/521 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/521

---

(2004/C 78 E/0542)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3326/03

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(12 November 2003)

Subject:   Emoluments of Commissioners

Further to the Commission's answer to question E-2235/99 (1), will the Commission provide an update of all the figures previously requested, giving the most recent figures available?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(15 January 2004)

Pursuant to previous Parliamentary answers:

| — | The basic salary to which Commissioners, the President and Vice-President are entitled on a monthly basis (twelve times a year) is EUR 17 341 (calculated as 112,5 % of the basic salary of a grade A1/6) for the Commissioners, EUR 19 268 (calculated as 125 % of the basic salary of a grade A1/6 official) for the Vice-Presidents and EUR 21 272 (calculated as 138 % of the basic salary of a grade A1/6 official) for the President. These sums are, of course, subject to the taxes and deductions payable by officials of the European Communities. |
| --- | --- |

—

The basic salary to which Commissioners, the President and Vice-President are entitled on a monthly basis (twelve times a year) is EUR 17 341 (calculated as 112,5 % of the basic salary of a grade A1/6) for the Commissioners, EUR 19 268 (calculated as 125 % of the basic salary of a grade A1/6 official) for the Vice-Presidents and EUR 21 272 (calculated as 138 % of the basic salary of a grade A1/6 official) for the President. These sums are, of course, subject to the taxes and deductions payable by officials of the European Communities.

| — | The family allowances to which Commissioners, the President and the Vice-Presidents are entitled — if qualified — on a monthly basis consist of a household allowance of 5 % of basic salary (if there is a dependent spouse), a children's' allowance of EUR 237,38 per dependent child, and education allowances which vary according to the child's age and stage of academic development (36 %, 50 % or 100 % of EUR 212,14 respectively for primary, secondary and university education). |
| --- | --- |

—

The family allowances to which Commissioners, the President and the Vice-Presidents are entitled — if qualified — on a monthly basis consist of a household allowance of 5 % of basic salary (if there is a dependent spouse), a children's' allowance of EUR 237,38 per dependent child, and education allowances which vary according to the child's age and stage of academic development (36 %, 50 % or 100 % of EUR 212,14 respectively for primary, secondary and university education).

| — | A residence allowance is paid on the same basis as expatriate officials and is equal to 15 % of the basic salary for non-Belgian Commissioners. |
| --- | --- |

—

A residence allowance is paid on the same basis as expatriate officials and is equal to 15 % of the basic salary for non-Belgian Commissioners.

| — | There is a monthly representation allowance, currently EUR 607,71 for Commissioners, EUR 911,38 for Vice-Presidents, and EUR 1418,07 for the President. Expenditure incurred for reasons of representation is reimbursed after presentation of the relevant invoice and reason, and is subject to the stipulated maximum in any month. Reimbursement is limited annually to EUR 11 489 for most Members of the Commission. For the Vice-Presidents and Members with external relations responsibility, the annual ceiling is EUR 17 234 and for the President it is EUR 28 723. |
| --- | --- |

—

There is a monthly representation allowance, currently EUR 607,71 for Commissioners, EUR 911,38 for Vice-Presidents, and EUR 1418,07 for the President. Expenditure incurred for reasons of representation is reimbursed after presentation of the relevant invoice and reason, and is subject to the stipulated maximum in any month. Reimbursement is limited annually to EUR 11 489 for most Members of the Commission. For the Vice-Presidents and Members with external relations responsibility, the annual ceiling is EUR 17 234 and for the President it is EUR 28 723.

| — | When first taking up duty, a Member of the Commission (unless he or she is a Belgian citizen) is entitled to an allowance to cover his or her installation expenses, equivalent to two months' basic gross salary (i.e. currently EUR 34 682 for a Commissioner), reimbursement for travel expenses for himself or herself and dependent family, and reimbursement of the cost of moving personal effects (insurance included). |
| --- | --- |

—

When first taking up duty, a Member of the Commission (unless he or she is a Belgian citizen) is entitled to an allowance to cover his or her installation expenses, equivalent to two months' basic gross salary (i.e. currently EUR 34 682 for a Commissioner), reimbursement for travel expenses for himself or herself and dependent family, and reimbursement of the cost of moving personal effects (insurance included).

| — | Similar arrangements exist under the relevant legal provisions for Presidents and Members of the Court of Justice and the Court of Auditors. |
| --- | --- |

—

Similar arrangements exist under the relevant legal provisions for Presidents and Members of the Court of Justice and the Court of Auditors.

---

(1)  OJ C 280 E, 3.10.2000, p. 19.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/522 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/522

---

(2004/C 78 E/0543)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3328/03

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(12 November 2003)

Subject:   Wilful neglect, to the point of destruction, of the former prison camp ‘Stammlager Χ Β Sandbostel’, an important memorial to the shared history of Europe

| 1. | Is the Commission aware that during the Second World War more than a million people from 46 countries (including the United Kingdom, Belgium, France, Greece, Serbia, Poland, Italy, Russia, Ukraine and the Netherlands) were at one time or another detained as prisoners of war by the Hitler regime in the camp ‘Stammlager X B Sandbostel’ near Bremervörde between the Rivers Weser and Elbe in the German Land of Lower Saxony and that 50 000 of them died there during their imprisonment on account of hunger, disease or mistreatment? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is the Commission aware that during the Second World War more than a million people from 46 countries (including the United Kingdom, Belgium, France, Greece, Serbia, Poland, Italy, Russia, Ukraine and the Netherlands) were at one time or another detained as prisoners of war by the Hitler regime in the camp ‘Stammlager X B Sandbostel’ near Bremervörde between the Rivers Weser and Elbe in the German Land of Lower Saxony and that 50 000 of them died there during their imprisonment on account of hunger, disease or mistreatment?

| 2. | Is the Commission also aware that in the late 1940s the same camp was used to imprison camp guards and SS personnel and that from the 1950s it housed refugees from the GDR, but that since 1974 it has formed part of Immenhain business park and has passed into private ownership without any form of protection by the Land, Landkreis or commune? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Is the Commission also aware that in the late 1940s the same camp was used to imprison camp guards and SS personnel and that from the 1950s it housed refugees from the GDR, but that since 1974 it has formed part of Immenhain business park and has passed into private ownership without any form of protection by the Land, Landkreis or commune?

| 3. | Is the Commission aware that over a period of many years all memory of the camp has been systematically destroyed by neglecting it, so that the buildings are falling down, by making it impossible for survivors or any other visitors to view the camp, by banning TV cameras from the site, by shouting at visitors that they should forget the past, and by opposing the ‘Dokumentations- und Gedenkstätte Sandbostel’ association, which was set up in 1992 and seeks to preserve the camp as a memorial? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Is the Commission aware that over a period of many years all memory of the camp has been systematically destroyed by neglecting it, so that the buildings are falling down, by making it impossible for survivors or any other visitors to view the camp, by banning TV cameras from the site, by shouting at visitors that they should forget the past, and by opposing the ‘Dokumentations- und Gedenkstätte Sandbostel’ association, which was set up in 1992 and seeks to preserve the camp as a memorial?

| 4. | In view of the common history of the peoples of Europe and their shared suffering under violence and dictatorship, will the Commission, even irrespective of its formal powers and responsibilities, take steps to maximise the scope for preserving this former prison and concentration camp as a memorial and making it accessible as such, and will it, on this basis, contact the authorities responsible for land-use planning, education and monuments in Sandbostel? |
| --- | --- |

4.

In view of the common history of the peoples of Europe and their shared suffering under violence and dictatorship, will the Commission, even irrespective of its formal powers and responsibilities, take steps to maximise the scope for preserving this former prison and concentration camp as a memorial and making it accessible as such, and will it, on this basis, contact the authorities responsible for land-use planning, education and monuments in Sandbostel?

Source: TV Nederland 1, Netwerk, 19 October 2003.

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(12 December 2003)

In 1993 the Parliament resolution on European and international protection for Nazi concentration camps as historical monuments (1) called 'on the Member States, the Council and the Commission to give financial and other support to all measures designed to preserve the special significance of the Nazi concentration camps and to place them under European and international protection'.

The 1995 budget accordingly made provision for grants for 'the preservation of the main sites and archives associated with the deportations, symbolised by the memorials which have been raised on the sites of the former camps'. This provision has been renewed every year since, and is line 15.04.01.02 in the preliminary draft budget for 2004.

In May 2003 the Commission proposed on the basis of Article 151 of the EC Treaty a new legal basis for the grant scheme (2) as part of a proposal for a Parliament and Council Decision establishing a Community action programme to promote bodies active at European level in the field of culture.

Projects are selected for these grants on the basis of calls for proposals. No proposal has hitherto been received for a project in connection with the camp or from the organisation to which the Honourable Member refers. The call for 2004 proposals will be published in the Official Journal and on the internet.

As regards the request to contact the responsible authorities, the Commission has no competence to do this as, by virtue of the principle of subsidiarity, the matters cited fall within the exclusive responsibility of the Member State.

---

(1)  OJ C 72, 15.3.1993.

(2)  COM(2003) 275 final.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/523 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/523

---

(2004/C 78 E/0544)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3329/03

by Antonio Tajani (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(12 November 2003)

Subject:   Eurobarometer poll according to which Israel is the greatest threat to world peace

According to the Eurobarometer poll commissioned by the Commission, EU citizens consider Israel to be the country that presents the greatest threat to world peace.

Does the Commission know what the criteria were for the wording of the questions?

Is the Commission aware of the fact that in the answers offered to those questioned two democratic countries, the United States and Israel, were put on the same level as dictatorships and theocratic regimes that deny freedom?

What steps will the Commission and its President Romano Prodi take to prevent the European institutions from legitimising thoughtless initiatives which may aggravate tension in Europe and the Middle East?

What steps will the Commission take to prevent leaks of information on such sensitive subjects, as in the case of the findings of the Eurobarometer poll published in ‘EL País’?

Does the Commission not consider that Europe, mindful of the tragedy of the Holocaust, should take on greater responsibility for the quest for peace in the Middle East?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(22 December 2003)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to the answer it gave to Written Question P-3334/03 by Ms Muscardini (1).

---

(1)  See page 263.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/524 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/524

---

(2004/C 78 E/0545)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3340/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(12 November 2003)

Subject:   Request for verification of information concerning President Prodi

The Italian press has reported that, at least a year before the end of his term of office, the President of the Commission Romano Prodi is taking steps to have his close associates appointed to prestige posts, giving them all roles to ensure that their careers continue and that their high status is maintained even after the current administration comes to an end.

For example, Riccardo Franco Levi, the President's former spokesman, would become head of the EU's policy services; Michel Petite, former Head of Cabinet, is supposed to have been appointed head of the Community's Legal Service; Fabio Colasanti, the President's deputy, would become Director-General of the Enterprise department.

Even people directly or indirectly linked to the regrettable Eurostat case are to occupy illustrious positions: David O'Sullivan was removed from the office of deputy Director-General of the Statistical Office, but is now the Secretary-General of the Commission.

The press also claims that Commissioner Pedro Solbes is to be given a post in a Spanish public corporation.

Can the Commission say whether these reports are true?

In view of the fact that on previous occasions the allocation of EU posts to persons close to Commissioners caused the Santer administration the crisis which led to the resignations, does the Commission not consider that similar behaviour on the part of President Prodi, if that is the case, should be avoided, in order not to arouse pointless suspicions and so as to safeguard the transparency of the institutions?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(12 January 2004)

The Honourable Member refers to appointments that, according to her information, were made at least one year before the end of Mr Prodi's term of office and asks whether her information is correct.

The Commission wishes to point out that some of that information is incorrect, that most of the appointments referred to were made some time ago and that all the appointments complied with the procedures for appointing senior Commission officials.

Mr Riccardo Franco Levi was appointed Director of the Group of Policy Advisers (GOPA) on 16 May 2001; Mr Michel Petite was appointed Director-General of the Legal Service on 1 June 2001; Mr Fabio Colasanti was appointed Director in the Enterprise DG on 1 January 2000 and was appointed to his current post of Director-General of the Information Society DG on 1 July 2002; Mr David O'Sullivan has never been deputy Director-General of the Statistical Office but was Director-General of the Education and Culture DG before becoming Chef de Cabinet to Mr Prodi and was appointed Secretary-General of the Commission on 1 June 2000. Of these four posts, two were filled by transfer in the interest of the service (Article 7 of the Staff Regulations) while two were filled as a result of publication of a vacancy notice (Article 29(1) of the Staff Regulations).

The Commission has no knowledge of any offers of employment that may have been made to any Commissioner. In accordance with the Code of Conduct adopted by the Commissioners at the beginning of their term of office, whenever they intend to engage in an occupation during the year after they have ceased to hold office, they must inform the Commission, which will examine the nature of the planned occupation and its relation to their portfolio in order to decide, after seeking the opinion of an ethical committee, whether the planned occupation is compatible with the last paragraph of Article 213(2) of the EC Treaty.

The appointments referred to by the Honourable Member were made within the framework of the applicable procedures and with the sole aim of appointing the best-qualified persons to the posts to be filled, in accordance with the general policy on staff and in the interests of the institution as a whole.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/525 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/525

---

(2004/C 78 E/0546)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3341/03

by Adriana Poli Bortone (UEN) to the Commission

(12 November 2003)

Subject:   Albania

Can the Commission say whether the observers at the recent elections in Albania pointed to any significant anomalies, in particular whether:

| — | the new electoral lists were corrected, following numerous complaints, in time to ensure transparent elections with full participation by the population; |
| --- | --- |

—

the new electoral lists were corrected, following numerous complaints, in time to ensure transparent elections with full participation by the population;

| — | the procedure for the reorganisation of the central electoral committee was followed correctly; |
| --- | --- |

—

the procedure for the reorganisation of the central electoral committee was followed correctly;

| — | the rights of the opposition were respected? |
| --- | --- |

—

the rights of the opposition were respected?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(23 December 2003)

Significant shortcomings have been identified during the last local elections in Albania, most notably during the post-election period and the issuing of the results. The re-run of elections in the Himara region on 16 November demonstrated that Albania still needs to make considerable efforts in order to guarantee full compliance with electoral standards. In early December, the Albanian Electoral Court requested the re-run of the elections in 118 voting centres in Tirana (over 30 % of the voting centres of the capital). The re-runs will take place on 28 December.

A major issue identified during the elections has been that of the voters' lists. On request of the opposition parties, the Central Electoral Commission (CEC) made last minute amendments to these lists. However, these amendments were not sufficient to guarantee satisfactory accuracy of the lists. In addition, changes were made too late, and voters were not properly informed. This led to a certain degree of confusion on the Election Day.

The reorganisation of the CEC in the run-up to the elections was controversial. Although the CEC seemed to have taken generally balanced positions during the elections, the recent decision of the Electoral Court as regards the elections in Tirana casts a shadow on the CEC's performance.

There have been efforts to respect the rights of the opposition, and the appeal procedures have been used. The request for re-runs in Tirana and the CEC's decision to change results in Himara due to serious manipulations are good examples. However, it is clear that all political actors in Albania need to be more willing, more determined and more committed to guaranteeing the successful conduct of democratic elections in the country.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/526 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/526

---

(2004/C 78 E/0547)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3343/03

by Mogens Camre (UEN) to the Commission

(12 November 2003)

Subject:   European Convention on Human Rights in relation to third countries

Since 1992, the EU has required the inclusion in all agreements with third countries of a clause concerning the observance of human rights. As far as the author of this question is aware, a number of instruments have been set up which the EU uses to achieve this objective, for example refusal to issue visas to members of certain regimes and the freezing of assets accumulated in EU Member States. The author entirely agrees with the need to insist on the observance of human rights and with the policy statements contained in the report on violation of women's rights and EU international relations, A5-0334/2003, in particular paragraphs I, 7, 8, 10 and 17. Will the Commission, therefore, say what practical measures it has taken in regard to regimes which do not observe human rights in their legislation and administration?

Under the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, a State — or international organisation such as the EU — has the right to withdraw from an agreement if a third party infringes significant conditions of the agreement. In the light of this provision, will the Commission say whether this has actually occurred with reference to the provisions of the agreements concerning respect for human rights? The author is aware that the EU has taken measures in regard to countries such as Kenya, Nigeria, Zambia, Egypt, Pakistan etc. Apart from those agreements, from which agreements has the EU actually withdrawn on the grounds of infringement of the Convention on Human Rights?

Finally, will the Commission say how many times visas have been refused to regime members and assets frozen in EU Member States on grounds of infringement of the Convention on Human Rights?

What specific measures have been taken since the 1992 decision to incorporate in all EU agreements with third countries a clause concerning respect for human rights?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(23 December 2003)

The Commission refers to its response to written question E-2903/03 by Mrs Smet (1).

In addition to this response, the Commission notes that the human rights clause is a dynamic instrument through which the Union can advance human rights in a positive manner. The inclusion of an essential elements clause is not intended to signify a negative or punitive approach. It is, instead, meant to promote dialogue and positive measures, such as joint support for democracy and human rights, the accession, ratification and implementation of international human rights instruments where these are lacking, as well as the prevention of crises through the establishment of a consistent and long-term relationship.

The Commission Communication of 1995 (2) makes clear that there are a range of measures which could be considered in the event of a breach of the clause, with the proviso that the application of measures should respect ‘the principle of proportionality between the breach cited and the degree of reaction’. The Union has never fully withdrawn from a cooperation agreement, but sometimes has suspended its application.

It should be noted that issuing visas is normally not regulated in these agreements. Hence, it is not necessary to suspend an existing Community agreement with a third country in order to adopt a visa ban. Rather, this measure can be decided unilaterally by the European Union as a matter of the Common Foreign and Security Policy. In practice, visa bans have been directed against representatives of Zimbabwe, Angola, Nigeria, Sudan and Zaire as a complementary measure to the suspension of the Lomé/Cotonou agreement with these countries. The EU has also adopted visa bans against Burma, Afghanistan, Belarus, the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (FRY) and Libya which are not linked to the Community with any international agreement at all.

With regard to the freezing of assets, this has been exercised in relation to Afghanistan, Burma, the former FRY, Iraq and Libya, which, again, have not concluded any agreement with the Community so far Angola and Haiti, which are signatories to the Lomé/Cotonou agreement, were subject to the freezing of assets under a decision to suspend cooperation with these countries under this agreement.

---

(1)  See page 441.

(2)  See annex 2 of the Communication on the inclusion of respect for democratic principles and human rights in agreements between the Community and third countries for a list of measures that may be taken in the event of a serious human rights violations, COM(95)216 final.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/527 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/527

---

(2004/C 78 E/0548)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3345/03

by John Bowis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(13 November 2003)

Subject:   Villas of Palladio

In 1994 the villas of Palladio were inscribed on the World Heritage List. It is now proposed to build a 54-kilometre motorway through the Veneto area with seven exits and tollgates — the Valdastico South motorway

Whilst acknowledging the right of the Italian Government to build such roads as it thinks fit, will the Commission work with the Italian authorities to ensure that any such plans do not harm the Palladian villas or the surrounding landscape and that a full and enhanced Environmental Impact Assessment is carried out on the proposals?

Will the Commission also discuss with the Italian authorities whether the Valdastico South motorway is needed, given the adequacy of the existing A22 motorway and the SS247 road and the fact that the Valdastico North motorway very little used?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(7 January 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 (EIA Directive) as amended by Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997 (1) 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 Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) has to be carried out.

In such a case the Italian authorities should take measures to ensure that the environmental impact assessment procedure is carried out which includes:

| (a) | a description of the aspects of the environment likely to be significantly affected by the proposed project such as archaeological heritage, landscape, population etc. (as per Article 5 and Annex IV), |
| --- | --- |

(a)

a description of the aspects of the environment likely to be significantly affected by the proposed project such as archaeological heritage, landscape, population etc. (as per Article 5 and Annex IV),

| (b) | consultations with the public and other competent authorities responsible for the environment, and |
| --- | --- |

(b)

consultations with the public and other competent authorities responsible for the environment, and

| (c) | publication of the decision containing conditions attached to the development consent, main reasons and consideration on which the decision is based and description, where necessary, of the main measures to avoid, reduce and, if possible, offset the major adverse effects. |
| --- | --- |

(c)

publication of the decision containing conditions attached to the development consent, main reasons and consideration on which the decision is based and description, where necessary, of the main measures to avoid, reduce and, if possible, offset the major adverse effects.

The result of consultations and the information gathered pursuant to Articles 5 and 6 must be taken into consideration in the development consent procedure.

The Commission has already looked into the matter raised by the Honourable Member and found no elements which could show any breach of the Directive in this specific case. In addition, the EIA Directive does not contain any legal requirements to contest the opportunity of a project or the development consent itself.

---

(1)  OJ L 73, 14.3.1997.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/528 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/528

---

(2004/C 78 E/0549)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3350/03

by Patricia McKenna (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(6 November 2003)

Subject:   Derrybrien wind-farm bog-slide

Anecdotal and photographic evidence already strongly indicates that the major ongoing bog-slide, which began on Thursday 16 October at Derrybrien, Loughrea was caused by the construction of the 60 MW wind-farm, owned by ESB subsidiary Hibernian Wind Power Ltd, though they have not accepted responsibility, so far. It now covers an area of over 50 hectares, and has closed two access roads to the local village. The project involves two unapproved quarries coupled with the use of explosives, very heavy vehicles moving fill on unstable floating roads, all on a blanket bog up to 6 metres deep on a mountainside. Many of the planning conditions required to be met before commencement of works were not complied with by the developer, and several are outstanding, including a bond to cover abandonment/decommissioning of the project.

Apart from the major safety question, including the threat to the local village, there are now also serious risks to watercourses, and local water supplies, including nearby Lough Cutra, which is within a proposed SAC. One reason why Galway County Council originally rejected permission for phase 3 of this project was because it considered that soil erosion caused by construction was poorly addressed in the EIS. Nevertheless, An Bord Pleanála overturned the planning authority decision and granted permission without conditions on this issue. Much greater renewable energy deployment is absolutely essential, especially in Ireland, but that could now be seriously compromised by such careless development.

Does the Commission consider that such issues are, or should be, a key consideration in an EIS? Since they were not properly addressed in this case, will the Commission advise the planning authorities to halt the development, to avoid further environmental and safety risks and damage to the development of renewable energy?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(16 December 2003)

Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (EIA Directive) (1) as amended by Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997 (2) 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. These projects are defined in Article 4, which refers to Annex I and II of the Directive. The construction of wind farms falls within Annex II point 3(i). It is up to the Member States to determine if an individual project is likely to have significant effects on the environment. Where significant effects are likely, Member States must carry out an environmental impact assessment (EIA).

From the information provided, it seems that an environmental impact statement (EIS), and consequently an EIA, has been carried out for this project. However, the Honourable Member considers that the information provided in the EIS, in particular as regards soil erosion, was inadequate. According to the Honourable Member, the execution of the project may be linked to a major land-slide.

In the light of the above, the Commission will investigate this matter with the Irish authorities and provide additional information to the Honourable Member.

---

(1)  OJ L 175, 5.7.1985.

(2)  OJ L 73, 14.3.1997.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/529 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/529

---

(2004/C 78 E/0550)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3361/03

by Koenraad Dillen (NI) to the Commission

(14 November 2003)

Subject:   Ijzeren Rijn railway line

The Ijzeren Rijn line is an example of a European transport route which is useful for an open economy. It links not only the port of Antwerp but also the ports of Ghent, Zeebrugge and Ostend with the Ruhr and the German hinterland. The Ijzeren Rijn exists and has proved its usefulness in the past, but has ceased to be used for several decades because the cost of environmental improvements such as the building of tunnels in certain places would be far too high to permit the line to become profitable in the near future. The Netherlands Government has been using this argument as a pretext to prevent any action on the matter. However, because of the growing transport problems and the exponential growth in container traffic, Flanders feels the need to bring this line back into operation. Germany, and particularly the Land of North Rhine-Westphalia, have supported Flanders for years in calling for this economically necessary development. However, unfortunately the Netherlands has adopted a policy of obstruction with regard to it, which is inspired by its own plans to create a modern link between the port of Rotterdam and the Ruhr by means of the exorbitantly expensive and environmentally undesirable Betuwe line, which will not benefit any other European country economically. Europe now formally recognises the importance of international railway lines.

Is the Commission monitoring developments with regard to the Ijzeren Rijn line?

Will the Commission try to secure a breakthrough at European level with regard to this vital matter, such as to arrive at a solution satisfactory to all parties?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(16 December 2003)

The Commission monitors the developments in relation to the Iron Rhine (Ijzeren Rijn) link between Antwerp and the German Ruhr area with great interest. The Commission has included this link under priority project No 24: Railway axis Lyon/Genova-Basel-Duisburg-Rotterdam/Antwerpen in its proposal for the revision of the Guidelines for the Trans-European Transport Networks (TEN-T) (1). The countries involved have committed themselves to implement this project, which completion is foreseen for 2010. It should be observed though that the Betuwelijn link was part of the first serie of TEN-T projects, adopted under the so-called Essen project list in 1996.

Belgium and the Netherlands have recently decided to submit their conflict on the Iron Rhine to the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague. The case is now at the pleading stage, and a ruling is expected for mid-2004. Hopefully, the ruling of the Court will constitute the basis for a satisfactory solution.

---

(1)  COM(2003) 564 final.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/530 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/530

---

(2004/C 78 E/0551)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3367/03

by Avril Doyle (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(14 November 2003)

Subject:   Laser technology and radiation emissions

Laser technology has developed dramatically over the past 10 years for the manufacture of steel parts for the engineering sector. Is the Commission aware that such laser technoogy is generated by means of Light Amplification by Stimulated Emissions of Radiation and that the substances included in the process with electromagnetic dust are expelled into the atmosphere.

By comparison, ‘Waterjet’ uses only water and sand to carry out exactly the same process, only more slowly. However, this process is totally environmentally friendly and produces no exhaust fumes.

Can the Commission indicate whether any funding is available for such environmentally friendly engineering processes or indicate any further avenues which might be explored for funding opportunities.

Answer given by Mr Busquin on behalf of the Commission

(19 December 2003)

Concerning Laser and Waterjet cutting applications, the Commission is well aware of the benefits and drawbacks associated with both technologies.

A search through the Cordis projects database (http://dbs.cordis.lu/search/en/simple/EN_PROJ_simple.html) reveals that a significant number (more than 20) of waterjet technology related projects have been financed in various programmes of the past Framework Programmes. Due to the relative maturity of the laser and waterjet cutting applications, the currently on-going activities in the Industrial Technologies Directorate are few and they concentrate on more specialised areas (e.g. G1ST-CT-2002, Development of abrasive water jet removal method for hard coatings to replace environmentally dangerous chemical stripping; G1RD-CT2002-00746, (Laser) Machining of transparent materials by multiple absorption).

In the Sixth Framework Programme, the Nanotechnologies and nano-sciences, knowledge-based multi-functional materials and new production processes and devices (NMP) priority could provide funding opportunities for further Waterjet technology related research, provided that the Research and Technological Development (RTD) proposals are able to demonstrate sufficient innovation and significant progress beyond the current state-of-the-art. More generally, the NMP priority work programme includes a dedicated research domain to improve sustainability of industrial manufacturing as well as to reduce environmental and health impacts.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/530 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/530

---

(2004/C 78 E/0552)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3368/03

by Koenraad Dillen (NI) to the Commission

(14 November 2003)

Subject:   Eurobarometer opinion poll on ‘Iraq and world peace’

The Eurobarometer opinion poll on ‘Iraq and world peace’ which was carried out in October at the request of the Commission indicates that 59 % of people in Europe regard the State of Israel as a threat to world peace. The poll was carried out by the institute EOS Gallup Europe. When the results were announced, Italy's Foreign Minister Frattini, speaking on behalf of the European Council, distanced himself from them (Le Figaro, Tuesday, 4 November).

Does the Commission likewise distance itself from this survey, which it commissioned itself? If so, is this the first time that the Commission has distanced itself from the findings of its own research? What is the point of such opinion polls if the Commission itself says that the results do not reflect its views? Does not the Commission consider that in that case it would be better not to commission such irresponsible research, in order not to confuse public opinion?

Has the Commission used EOS Gallup Europe before? Was a public invitation to tender issued? What was the cost of the opinion poll?

Who was responsible for the questions asked in the poll? Who selected the list of fifteen countries which might possibly constitute ‘a threat to world peace’?

Does the Commission agree with the Israeli Ambassador in Rome that this poll will make it difficult for Europe to act as an intermediary in the Middle East peace process in the near future?

Will the Commission apologise to the Israeli authorities for the damage to Israel's image caused by this EU-funded survey?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(16 January 2004)

The Honourable Member is asked to refer to the Commission's answer to Written Question P-3334/03 by Ms Muscardini (1).

The Commission would also remind the Honourable Member that each Eurobarometer report contains the following caveat: This document does not represent the point of view of the European Commission. The interpretations and opinions contained in it are solely those of the authors.' The Commission has also expressed reservations about the question on which countries are a threat to world peace. It does, however, consider that the results are indicative of worrying prejudices.

The Commission currently has five framework contracts under which opinion surveys are being conducted. These were awarded through tender procedures. The Flash Eurobarometer is the instrument through which surveys by telephone are carried out on the Commission's behalf. As far as the EOS Gallup Europe institute is concerned, the contract was signed with TNS Sofres in January 2002, and the TNS Sofres coordination centre for the Flash Eurobarometer contract is EOS Gallup Europe. Since the contract was signed, about thirty Flash Eurobarometers have been produced for the Commission. The cost of the study on Iraq and world peace (preparation, fieldwork, statistical processing and report writing) was EUR 1 50 098,34 for approximately fifteen questions.

---

(1)  See page 263.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/531 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/531

---

(2004/C 78 E/0553)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3370/03

by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(14 November 2003)

Subject:   Mr Prodi's comments on the outcome of the Swedish referendum on EMU

On 21 September 2003, the Swedish newspaper Aftonbladet published comments made by Romano Prodi on the outcome of the Swedish referendum on EMU. Mr Prodi reportedly said that the Swedes voted against because they are afraid of new developments and because they believe that their democracy is superior to others'. Mr Prodi went on to say that the result of the vote mirrored the general feeling in a country and that the Swedes' rejection was also a reflection of our sense of distinctive character and a distance between the Swedish and European peoples, as well as showing a lack of knowledge about Europe.

Do Romano Prodi's comments also represent the views of the Commission? If so, can the Commission explain in greater detail why the Swedes are afraid of new developments and elaborate on the significance of the distance referred to between the Swedish and European peoples?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(8 January 2004)

At Parliament's plenary session of 16 January 2002, the President of the Commission said that ‘to millions of European citizens, the euro notes and coins in their pockets are a concrete sign of the great political undertaking of building a united Europe. As a symbol of that unity, the euro is having an even greater psychological impact than the abolition of passport controls at Europe's internal borders. So the euro is becoming a key element in people's sense of shared European identity and common destiny. It is tangible evidence that European integration is now irreversible. ... We must take this as a valuable lesson in our step-by-step progress towards enlargement’.

This well known position is that of the whole Commission, and there was no reason to modify it during the campaign prior to the referendum on the adoption of the euro in Sweden.

As for the remarks reported by the Swedish newspaper Aftonbladet, they would seem to have been based on an interview with President Prodi which appeared in the Italian newspaper La Repubblica on 15 September 2003.

In fact the President of the Commission did not make the remark attributed to him by the Swedish newspaper; he did say, in accordance with the Commission line on the subject: ‘It is a pity, because many Swedes understand the advantages of the euro for growth. But a majority of public opinion is still afraid of change. This was the political choice of those who want to emphasise what distinguishes them and who fear losing what they consider to be their essential identity — even losing economic advantages. ... Every nation has the right to express its views. And it is our duty to respect the beliefs revealed in any democratic consultation.’ And: ‘In northern Europe, part of the population remains firmly convinced that a given social model can defend itself better by concentrating on its own chosen identity in politics rather than economics.’

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/532 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/532

---

(2004/C 78 E/0554)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3371/03

by Mogens Camre (UEN) to the Commission

(14 November 2003)

Subject:   Legal implications of ratification of EU draft Constitution

Article 311 of the Treaty establishing the European Community states that the protocols form an integral part of the Treaty. As the existing treaties — the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty establishing the European Community — will cease to be valid once the EU's draft Constitution is ratified, it must also be expected that the existing protocols will also cease to be valid and will be renegotiated in accordance with the principle set out in Article 48 of the Treaty on European Union.

Moreover, Part IV of the Convention's draft Constitution, Articles IV-2 and IV-3, in particular the second paragraph thereof, states that only those protocols mentioned in the protocol annexed to the Treaty establishing the Constitution will remain in force. This must be construed as meaning that the other protocols which are not listed in the protocol annexed to the Constitution cease to be valid and are to be renegotiated by the Heads of Government at the Intergovernmental Conference. Can the Commission confirm this to be the case?

Can the Commission say what the legal implications of ratification of the EU's draft Constitution will be in relation to the protocols which are currently annexed to the present Treaties?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(23 December 2003)

Article IV(2) of the draft Constitution provides for the repeal of the EC and EU Treaties, including all the protocols attached to those Treaties.

Accordingly, when the Constitution enters into force, all the protocols in question will be repealed.

The Presidency of the Intergovernmental Conference has instructed a group of legal experts from the delegations, under the chairmanship of Mr Piris, an IGC juris consult, to check the legality of the draft Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe drawn up by the Convention. The exercise also involved looking into the matter of which protocols attached to the EU or EC Treaty should be included or adapted. The result of this work has been submitted to the Conference (doc. IGC 50/03-ADD 1); if the Conference endorses the result, the protocols in question, revised by that group, will be attached to the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/533 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/533

---

(2004/C 78 E/0555)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3376/03

by Christine De Veyrac (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(10 November 2003)

Subject:   Reduced rates of VAT — hairdressing

Since 1999, on a trial basis, the European Union has authorised the application of reduced rates of VAT to ‘highly labour-intensive services’. An exhaustive list of eligible sectors was drawn up. Three EU Member States (Spain, Luxembourg and the Netherlands) decided to apply the lower rate in the hairdressing sector and would now seem to be willing to continue the experiment. However, in its most recent proposal for a directive concerning VAT the Commission proposes that hairdressing should be removed from the list of services eligible for a reduced rate. That measure is based on a study carried out by the Commission which concludes that the reduced rate has had no favourable impact on employment and that its impact on prices is unclear.

The Commission's standpoint is regrettable in that the conclusions of the study reflect statistics drawn up over only two or three years, depending on the country concerned. Such an assessment would seem to be far from adequate as the basis for a definitive economic judgment.

In the light of the above, can the Commission state whether it regards two (or three) years' statistics as sufficient to assess the economic effectiveness of a tax measure and whether, accordingly, it would not make sense to continue the current experiment by retaining hairdressing on the list of ‘highly labour-intensive services’ eligible for reduced rates of VAT?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(4 December 2003)

The reduced rate of VAT for hairdressing was introduced by Directive 1999/85/EEC of 22 October 1999 which allows a reduced VAT rate to be applied on an experimental basis to labour-intensive services (1). This experiment was introduced for a specific period and evaluation reports have to be presented by both the Member States taking part in the experiment and the Commission.

The Commission adopted its evaluation report on 2 June 2003 (2). This concluded that in the view of ‘information supplied by Member States and the inherent limitation of analytical methods applied, it was not possible to find solid evidence of such reductions in VAT boosting job creation. For the effect on the reduction on the black economy the same observation can be made’.

Under this evaluation exercise the Commission carried out a comparative analysis using its macroeconomic QUEST model, of the effects of reducing VAT rates and the impact on labour costs. This exercise showed that, even under the best assumption that the reduction of VAT rates would be passed on in full to domestic prices, a reduction in labour costs would create 52 % extra jobs within the European Union at the same cost to the budget.

The evaluation period was originally set by the Council at three years (and then extended for one year) and is sufficiently long to determine whether the anticipated economic mechanism (reduction in prices, increase in demand and ultimate increase in jobs) works correctly. One of the important lessons learned from this experiment is that, in many cases, the reduction in VAT rates is not passed on, or if it is, only partially, in the selling price to the final consumer. If it is passed on, it is usually only temporarily and there is a catching-up effect in the sectors concerned (prices rise more than the rate of inflation). It is therefore concluded that the economic mechanism does not work as had been anticipated and the impact on employment is often unpredictable, even in the longer term.

On 23 July 2003 the Commission adopted a proposal for a Directive on reduced rates (3). As the Commission's objective is to improve the functioning of the internal market it is essential that all Member States are able to apply reduced rates if they wish in the same sectors. The proposal does not include reduced rates for hairdressing services.

The proposal is being examined by the Council. It has to decide by unanimity, and in the light of Parliament's opinion, on the future scope of reduced VAT rates.

---

(1)  Council Directive 1999/85/EC of 22 October 1999 amending Directive 77/388/EEC as regards the possibility of applying on an experimental basis a reduced VAT rate on labour-intensive services, OJ L 277, 28.10.1999).

(2)  COM(2003) 309 final.

(3)  COM(2003) 397 final.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/534 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/534

---

(2004/C 78 E/0556)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3379/03

by Mihail Papayannakis (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(14 November 2003)

Subject:   Expansion of petroleum installations in the Ambracian Gulf

Local citizens have complained that plans are going ahead to expand the petroleum installations in the Ambracian Gulf. This marine environment with its rare ecosystem is one of the most important wetlands in Greece, and for this reason part of it is protected under the international Ramsar Convention as a Special Protection Area.

Given that the Ambracian Gulf forms part of the Natura 2000 Network drawn up as part of the implementation of Directive 92/43/EEC (1), what does the Commission intend to do to ensure the preservation of the rare biodiversity (flora and fauna) in the region as a whole and to avert any threat to human health? As co-funder (under the third CSF) of many environmental protection projects in the region over the last decade (biological purification plants), does the Commission intend to examine whether the impact of such an entrepreneurial activity on the ecosystem has been adequately studied and assessed?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(19 December 2003)

The Amvrakikos Gulf (Ambracian Gulf) has been designated a special protection area (GR2110004) under Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds (2) and has been proposed by the Greek authorities as a site of Community importance (GR2110001) under Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (3). The obligations arising from Article 6(2), (3) and (4) of Directive 92/43/EEC therefore apply. In addition, the situation reported by the Honourable Member might also constitute an infringement of Directive 85/337/EEC (4), 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 (5).

Examination of the information transmitted by the Honourable Member shows that the Greek authorities have begun the procedure for assessing the environmental impact of the plan to expand the petroleum installations in question. The plan is intended to modernise the existing installations and to improve the treatment system for waste produced there. At present, on the basis of the information available, the Commission does not believe that Directive 85/337/EEC has been infringed. If the Honourable Member has further information showing that an infringement has been committed, the Commission would ask him to forward such information to it.

Regarding the presumed infringement of the obligations arising from Article 6(2), (3) and (4) of Directive 92/43/EEC, it should be noted that the installation in question is not located within the boundaries of the protected site, but clearly outside it. Moreover, as the project's objective is to modernise the existing installations, it is unlikely to have a serious adverse impact on the site. The project is the subject of an environmental impact assessment.

The Commission will check to see whether there is a coherent, specific and comprehensive legal framework ensuring the sustainable management and effective protection of Amvrakikos Gulf, having regard to the conservation objectives of Directives 79/409/EEC and 92/43/EEC.

---

(1)  OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7.

(2)  OJ L 103, 25.4.1979.

(3)  OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.

(4)  OJ L 175, 5.7.1985.

(5)  OJ L 73, 14.3.1997.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/535 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/535

---

(2004/C 78 E/0557)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3384/03

by Gianfranco Dell'Alba (NI), Emma Bonino (NI), Marco Cappato (NI), Benedetto Della Vedova (NI), Olivier Dupuis (NI), Marco Pannella (NI) and Maurizio Turco (NI) to the Commission

(17 November 2003)

Subject:   Corridor 5

The Italian (‘Trans-Padania’) leg of Corridor 5, which is to link Lisbon and Kiev and thereby ensure optimum east-west transport conditions in southern Europe, is important to the European and Italian facets of the economy of the Friuli-Venezia-Giulia region and the city of Trieste.

The Trieste node is of particular importance in terms of links with the countries of Central and Eastern Europe and as an ideal point of passage for east-west road and rail traffic south of the Alps.

Despite numbering among the Transeuropean projects originally proposed by the Commission, it seems that the Venice-Trieste-Capodistria-Ljubljana-Budapest section has unexpectedly been discarded from the slimmed-down ‘quick list’, which could jeopardise a prompt launch of the project.

Can the Commission urgently explain the reasons for this step backwards and indicate whether this means it has revised its position?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(12 January 2004)

On 1 October 2003, the Commission adopted a proposal to amend the guidelines for the development of the trans-European transport network (TEN-T) (1). This proposal includes a list of priority projects declared to be ‘of European interest’, which includes project No 6 (high-speed train/combined transport) Lyon-Turin-Milan-Venice-Triest-Ljubljana-Budapest (Annex III to the proposal for a decision). This demonstrates the Commission's interest in this project which is of key importance for improving links between the central part of the European Union and the new Member States.

The information supplied by the Member States on this project, which is given in Annex III, shows that building work on most of the sections will not start before 2010-2015, i.e. well outside the criteria defined for the Growth Initiative, which stated that the projects should begin by 2006. It was therefore not possible to include all the projects in the quick-start programme. However, two sections have been included as they fit in with this framework: the international section St Jean de Maurienne-Bussoleno (Mont Cenis tunnel between France and Italy), where preparatory work is already in progress, and the Ljubljana-Budapest section, where construction is due to start by 2005.

If it appears that other sections meet the same criteria, the programme could be extended in accordance with the procedure laid down for its establishment.

The Commission wishes to stress that the Growth Initiative does not in any way weaken its proposal of 1 October 2003, which will be adopted by the co-legislators under the co-decision procedure.

---

(1)  COM(2003) 564 final.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/536 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/536

---

(2004/C 78 E/0558)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3390/03

by Mihail Papayannakis (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(10 November 2003)

Subject:   VAT on tailoring

Ecofin has set the end of 2003 as the expiry date for the lower rate of 8 % VAT applying to the traditional tailoring trade, a sector now in decline. Will the Commission say will happen after that date? Is the Commission in favour of increasing the rate of VAT on tailoring? In any event, what measures will the Commission take to aid and bolster this vulnerable sector?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(11 December 2003)

Council Directive 1999/85/EC of 22 October 1999 (1) enabled Member States to apply, on an experimental basis, a reduced rate of VAT to labour-intensive services. The types of services eligible for the experiment were listed in Annex K. The list included one category that clearly applied to tailoring, though only to small repairs to clothing and household linen (including alterations as well as repairs). The experiment was extended for a year to provide the people offering the services in question with legal security and continuity while the Commission prepared a comprehensive evaluation report on the experiment.

The Commission adopted its report on 2 June 2003 (2). It concluded that ‘taking into account both information supplied by Member States and the inherent limitation of the analytical methods applied, it was not possible to find solid evidence of [VAT] reductions boosting job creation. For the effect on the reduction on black economy [SIC] the same observation can be made.’

For the evaluation, the Commission also used its QUEST macro-economic model to carry out a comparative analysis of the effects of reduced VAT rates and reduced labour charges. The analysis showed that, even if a reduction in VAT is passed on in full in domestic prices, for the same budgetary cost a reduction in labour charges creates 52 % more jobs.

As promised in its Communication on the VAT strategy adopted in 2000 (3), the Commission adopted, on 23 July 2003, a proposal for a Directive to review and rationalise the rules and derogations concerning reduced VAT rates (4). Its main objective was to improve the internal market by simplification and more uniform application of VAT. It was also important to offer all Member States the same opportunities to apply reduced rates to the same things.

In drawing up the proposal, the Commission took account of the results of the experiment but also the VAT treatment of the services in question in the Member States. At present, four Member States (Belgium, Greece, Luxembourg and the Netherlands) apply a reduced rate to these services on an experimental basis and one (Ireland) applies a parking rate under a temporary derogation. Therefore these services were not included during the rationalisation exercise.

The proposal is now being examined by the Council, which will have to decide, unanimously and in the light of Parliament's opinion, on the future scope of reduced VAT rates.

At present, there are no plans to introduce any other Community tax measures for tailoring.

---

(1)  Council Directive 1999/85/EC of 22 October 1999, amending Directive 77/388/EEC as regards the possibility of applying on an experimental basis a reduced VAT rate on labour-intensive services, OJ L 277, 28.10.1999.

(2)  COM(2003) 309 final.

(3)  COM(2000) 348 final.

(4)  COM(2003) 397 final.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/537 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/537

---

(2004/C 78 E/0559)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3393/03

by Jean Lambert (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(17 November 2003)

Subject:   Moped type-approval

In the European Directive on type-approval 2002/24/EC (1), a clear distinction is made between ordinary mopeds and low-performance mopeds. The note on Annex 1 states that ‘separate Directives will lay down specific requirements for low-performance mopeds, i.e. mopeds with pedals, with an auxiliary engine of power not exceeding 1 kW and a maximum design speed not exceeding 25 km/h’. Nevertheless, the UK Government has not made any concessions for motorised bicycles, and, in the UK, DVLA registration, tax, MOT, third-party insurance, road tax and the wearing of a crash helmet are obligatory. In Germany, this is not the case: none of these are required.

Does the Commission take the view that the UK is acting illegally by not distinguishing between ordinary mopeds and low-performance mopeds?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(9 January 2004)

Directive 2002/24/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 18 March 2002 relates to the type approval of two and three-wheeled motor vehicles (2). It does not regulate the conditions under which such vehicles may be used in the Member States. In the absence of Community harmonising rules, Member States have a wide discretion as to the rules they adopt in relation to the use of motorised bicycles on public roads.

The fact that, in relation to the requirements laid down for type approval, the Directive distinguishes between categories of cycles with pedal assistance and indicates that specific type approval requirements will be laid down for low performance mopeds in no way obliges Member States to make a similar distinction in their rules regarding the use of such vehicles. Therefore, the Commission considers that the United Kingdom is not acting in a manner incompatible with the Directive in failing to distinguish between ordinary and low performance mopeds in relation to such matters as registration, road tax, Ministry of Transport test (MOT) requirements, third-party insurance and the obligation to wear a crash helmet.

To the extent that the burdensome character of the rules imposed by a Member State for the use of a product may hinder the import of such product from other Member States, the Commission wonders whether the United Kingdom's rules on the use of low performance mopeds amount to an unjustified measure having an effect equivalent to a quantitative restriction on trade in the meaning of Articles 28 and 30 of the EC Treaty. However, it is not apparent from the Honourable Member's question that the United Kingdom's rules at stake are creating a barrier to imports.

Furthermore, the Commission notes that, even if this should appear to be the case, at least some of the obligations imposed by the United Kingdom (such as the one concerning third-party insurance or the compulsory wearing of a crash helmet) may be considered as justified under public health or road security considerations, i.e. either under one of the explicit grounds set by Article 30 of the EC Treaty or under an overriding requirement in the general public interest as defined by the Court of Justice.

Furthermore the Commission recalls that, under the First Motor Insurance Directive (72/5/EEC (3)) ‘any motor vehicle intended for travel on land and propelled by mechanical power, but not running on rails, and any trailer, whether or not coupled’ must have a compulsory insurance cover. Therefore, also in this perspective it appears that the United Kingdom can legitimately impose that low performance mopeds be covered by motor third party liability insurance.

---

(1)  OJ L 124, 9.5.2002, p. 1.

(2)  OJ L 124, 9.5.2002.

(3)  OJ L 103, 2.5.1972.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/538 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/538

---

(2004/C 78 E/0560)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3404/03

by Patricia McKenna (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(17 November 2003)

Subject:   Ireland and infringement cases for bad application of EU environmental legislation

| 1. | What are the 85 cases from the period 1998 to 2002 in which Ireland received a letter of formal notice due to the bad application of environmental law and to which directives do they relate? |
| --- | --- |

1.

What are the 85 cases from the period 1998 to 2002 in which Ireland received a letter of formal notice due to the bad application of environmental law and to which directives do they relate?

| 2. | How many implementation court cases has Ireland lost in the period 1993-2003? |
| --- | --- |

2.

How many implementation court cases has Ireland lost in the period 1993-2003?

| 3. | How many ‘letters of formal notice’ were delivered to Ireland in the period 1993 to 1998? |
| --- | --- |

3.

How many ‘letters of formal notice’ were delivered to Ireland in the period 1993 to 1998?

| 4. | What are the cases for which the Commission has officially opened files relating to Ireland but which have not yet led to a letter of formal notice? |
| --- | --- |

4.

What are the cases for which the Commission has officially opened files relating to Ireland but which have not yet led to a letter of formal notice?

| 5. | Regarding other Member States, in how many cases has the Commission issued a ‘reasoned opinion’ during the period 1993 to 2003? |
| --- | --- |

5.

Regarding other Member States, in how many cases has the Commission issued a ‘reasoned opinion’ during the period 1993 to 2003?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(22 December 2003)

| 1. | Between 1998 and 2002, a total of 75 letters of formal notice were notified to Ireland with regard to cases involving bad application of Union environmental legislation (1). An additional number of letters of formal notice were notified for cases involving only issues of non-communication of national implementing legislation or the non-conformity of such legislation, giving a total of 108 letters of formal notice. Of the 75 letters relating to bad application, most related to complaint files, but 14 concerned files opened on the Commission's own initiative. These addressed the failure to classify sufficient special protection areas for wild birds, the failure to sufficiently identify sensitive areas for purposes of urban waste water treatment and the failure to submit reports or other information required by environmental directives. Several letters of formal notice involved a failure to respond to Commission information requests, and were based on Article 10 of the EC Treaty (duty of co-operation). Other letters of formal notice forming part of complaint investigations covered a wide range of issues, including the following: the failure to undertake environmental impact assessments; threats to important wild-life sites from projects or activities; the lack of effective action to deal with illegal waste activities; the failure to ensure adequate groundwater protection; the lack of adequate protection of shellfish production areas from water pollution; the lack of compliance with rules on animal experiments; the odour nuisance from an urban waste water treatment plant. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Between 1998 and 2002, a total of 75 letters of formal notice were notified to Ireland with regard to cases involving bad application of Union environmental legislation (1). An additional number of letters of formal notice were notified for cases involving only issues of non-communication of national implementing legislation or the non-conformity of such legislation, giving a total of 108 letters of formal notice. Of the 75 letters relating to bad application, most related to complaint files, but 14 concerned files opened on the Commission's own initiative. These addressed the failure to classify sufficient special protection areas for wild birds, the failure to sufficiently identify sensitive areas for purposes of urban waste water treatment and the failure to submit reports or other information required by environmental directives. Several letters of formal notice involved a failure to respond to Commission information requests, and were based on Article 10 of the EC Treaty (duty of co-operation). Other letters of formal notice forming part of complaint investigations covered a wide range of issues, including the following: the failure to undertake environmental impact assessments; threats to important wild-life sites from projects or activities; the lack of effective action to deal with illegal waste activities; the failure to ensure adequate groundwater protection; the lack of adequate protection of shellfish production areas from water pollution; the lack of compliance with rules on animal experiments; the odour nuisance from an urban waste water treatment plant.

| 2. | In the period 1993-2003, there were eight judgements against Ireland in relation to Union environmental legislation. The judgements concerned cases C-392/96 on impact assessment, C-354/99 on animal experiments, C-67/99 on habitat nominations, C-l77/2000 on sheep overgrazing, C-316/2000 on polluted drinking water, C-394/2000 on major accident hazards, C-376/2001 on biocidal products and C-67/2002 on pollution reduction programmes for shellfish waters. |
| --- | --- |

2.

In the period 1993-2003, there were eight judgements against Ireland in relation to Union environmental legislation. The judgements concerned cases C-392/96 on impact assessment, C-354/99 on animal experiments, C-67/99 on habitat nominations, C-l77/2000 on sheep overgrazing, C-316/2000 on polluted drinking water, C-394/2000 on major accident hazards, C-376/2001 on biocidal products and C-67/2002 on pollution reduction programmes for shellfish waters.

| 3. | 16 letters of formal notice were sent to Ireland for bad application in the period 1993-1998. |
| --- | --- |

3.

16 letters of formal notice were sent to Ireland for bad application in the period 1993-1998.

| 4. | In mid-November 2003, the Commission had 85 complaint and own-initiative files open against Ireland for which no letter of formal notice had been sent. These files covered a range of matters, including alleged failures with regard to environmental impact assessment, threats to wildlife sites, illegal waste operations and pollution of drinking water. |
| --- | --- |

4.

In mid-November 2003, the Commission had 85 complaint and own-initiative files open against Ireland for which no letter of formal notice had been sent. These files covered a range of matters, including alleged failures with regard to environmental impact assessment, threats to wildlife sites, illegal waste operations and pollution of drinking water.

| 5. | During the period 1993 to 2003, 279 Reasoned Opinions in total were notified to Member States other than Ireland in cases involving bad application of Union environmental legislation. A total of 894 Reasoned Opinions was notified to other Member States in relation to all aspects of compliance with Union environmental legislation, i.e. non-communication and non-conformity as well as bad application. |
| --- | --- |

5.

During the period 1993 to 2003, 279 Reasoned Opinions in total were notified to Member States other than Ireland in cases involving bad application of Union environmental legislation. A total of 894 Reasoned Opinions was notified to other Member States in relation to all aspects of compliance with Union environmental legislation, i.e. non-communication and non-conformity as well as bad application.

---

(1)  Because of communications by Ireland, not all Commission decisions to notify a Letter of Formal Notice to Ireland were implemented.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/539 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/539

---

(2004/C 78 E/0561)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3405/03

by Concepció Ferrer (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(17 November 2003)

Subject:   Management of the Structural Funds

With regard to the management of Structural Fund monies for Objectives 1, 2 and 3 (2000-2006), will the Commission please state who the designated payment and management authorities are in Austria, Belgium, France, Germany, Italy and Spain?

Supplementary answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(30 January 2004)

| A. | Managing authorities in Belgium, Germany, Spain, France, Italy and Austria:






  — | The Honourable Member will find all relevant information concerning the managing authorities on the respective websites of the four Directorates-General responsible for the Structural Funds mentioned below:






  — | http://europa.eu.int/comm/regional_policy/manage/authority/authority_en.cfm |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

A.

Managing authorities in Belgium, Germany, Spain, France, Italy and Austria:

—

The Honourable Member will find all relevant information concerning the managing authorities on the respective websites of the four Directorates-General responsible for the Structural Funds mentioned below:

—

http://europa.eu.int/comm/regional_policy/manage/authority/authority_en.cfm

| — | http://europa.eu.int/comm/agriculture/rur/countries/index_en.htm |
| --- | --- |

—

http://europa.eu.int/comm/agriculture/rur/countries/index_en.htm

| — | http://europa.eu.int/comm/employment_social/esf2000/contacts-en.htm |
| --- | --- |

—

http://europa.eu.int/comm/employment_social/esf2000/contacts-en.htm

| — | http://europa.eu.int/comm/fisheries/doc_et_publ/cfp_en.htm |
| --- | --- |

—

http://europa.eu.int/comm/fisheries/doc_et_publ/cfp_en.htm

| — | With respect to the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF), the Honourable Member is referred to the report on the review of management and control systems of 30 April 2003 which was communicated to Parliament. |
| --- | --- |

—

With respect to the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF), the Honourable Member is referred to the report on the review of management and control systems of 30 April 2003 which was communicated to Parliament.

| B. | Paying authorities in Belgium, Germany, Spain, France, Italy and Austria:






  — | The following bodies or types of bodies have been designated paying authorities for 2000-2006 programmes in Belgium, Germany, Spain, France, Italy and Austria. |
| --- | --- | --- |

B.

Paying authorities in Belgium, Germany, Spain, France, Italy and Austria:

—

The following bodies or types of bodies have been designated paying authorities for 2000-2006 programmes in Belgium, Germany, Spain, France, Italy and Austria.

| — | For the one Objective 1 and eight Objective 2 regional programmes in Austria, the paying authorities are the Federal Chancellery for ERDF, the Federal Ministry of the Economy and Labour for the European Social Fund (ESF), and the Federal Ministry for Agriculture, Forestry, Environment and Water Management for the European Agriculture Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) and the Financial instrument for Fisheries Guidance (FIFG). For Objective 3 (ESF) the paying authority is the Federal Ministry of the Economy and Labour. |
| --- | --- |

—

For the one Objective 1 and eight Objective 2 regional programmes in Austria, the paying authorities are the Federal Chancellery for ERDF, the Federal Ministry of the Economy and Labour for the European Social Fund (ESF), and the Federal Ministry for Agriculture, Forestry, Environment and Water Management for the European Agriculture Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) and the Financial instrument for Fisheries Guidance (FIFG). For Objective 3 (ESF) the paying authority is the Federal Ministry of the Economy and Labour.

| — | In Belgium, the three regional authorities (Ministère de la Région Wallonne, Ministerie van de Vlaamse Gemeenschap and Ministère de l'Economie de Bruxelles-Capitale) provide the ERDF and ESF paying authorities for the Objective 1 and 2 programmes in their regions (one Objective 1 programme and two Objective 2 programmes in Wallonia, four Objective 2 programmes in Flanders and one Objective 2 programme in Brussels). The relevant regional authority (Ministère de la Région Wallonne) also provides the paying authority for EAGGF and FIFG (only Objective 1). For the federal Objective 3 programme (ESF) the paying authority is the Ministry of Employment and Labour. |
| --- | --- |

—

In Belgium, the three regional authorities (Ministère de la Région Wallonne, Ministerie van de Vlaamse Gemeenschap and Ministère de l'Economie de Bruxelles-Capitale) provide the ERDF and ESF paying authorities for the Objective 1 and 2 programmes in their regions (one Objective 1 programme and two Objective 2 programmes in Wallonia, four Objective 2 programmes in Flanders and one Objective 2 programme in Brussels). The relevant regional authority (Ministère de la Région Wallonne) also provides the paying authority for EAGGF and FIFG (only Objective 1). For the federal Objective 3 programme (ESF) the paying authority is the Ministry of Employment and Labour.

| — | The ‘Préfet’ of the Region is the paying authority for ERDF and ESF for the 26 of the 27 programmes (6 Objective 1, 21 Objective 2) in the French regions and the ‘départments d'outre mer’ DOMs. The Préfeťs functions are exercised by the Secrétariat général des Affaires régionales in the relevant préfecture. For one Objective 2 programme (Alsace) the Caisse des Dépôts et Consignations now exercises the functions of paying authority.
  DATAR is the paying authority for Information Systems (Presage) programme, and the Ministry of the Interior is the paying authority for the two Technical Assistance programmes (for Objectives 1 and 2). For Objective 3 (ESF) the paying authority is the Ministry of Social Affairs, Labour and Solidarity. The EAGGF paying authority for all programmes is the Cnasea. The paying authority for FIFG outside Objective 1 is the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development, for the four Objective 1 programmes in metropolitan France it is the Regional Treasury, while for the Corsica Objective 1 programme it is the Direction Générale des Affaires Maritimes in Marseilles. |
| --- | --- |

—

The ‘Préfet’ of the Region is the paying authority for ERDF and ESF for the 26 of the 27 programmes (6 Objective 1, 21 Objective 2) in the French regions and the ‘départments d'outre mer’ DOMs. The Préfeťs functions are exercised by the Secrétariat général des Affaires régionales in the relevant préfecture. For one Objective 2 programme (Alsace) the Caisse des Dépôts et Consignations now exercises the functions of paying authority.

DATAR is the paying authority for Information Systems (Presage) programme, and the Ministry of the Interior is the paying authority for the two Technical Assistance programmes (for Objectives 1 and 2). For Objective 3 (ESF) the paying authority is the Ministry of Social Affairs, Labour and Solidarity. The EAGGF paying authority for all programmes is the Cnasea. The paying authority for FIFG outside Objective 1 is the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development, for the four Objective 1 programmes in metropolitan France it is the Regional Treasury, while for the Corsica Objective 1 programme it is the Direction Générale des Affaires Maritimes in Marseilles.

| — | In Germany the official paying authorities for all 16 regional programmes (six Objective 1 and ten Objective 2) is the Bundesamt für Wirtschaft for ERDF, the Federal Ministry of the Economy and Labour for ESF and the Federal Ministry of Consumer Protection, Food and Agriculture for EAGGF and FIFG. In practice, however, the functions of paying authority are performed by the relevant ministries of the individual Länder. The Federal Ministry of Transport, Construction and Housing is the paying authority for the horizontal Objective 1 Transport Infrastructure programme, while for the horizontal Objective 1 Human Resources and Objective 3 (ESF) programmes it is the Federal Ministry of the Economy and Labour. |
| --- | --- |

—

In Germany the official paying authorities for all 16 regional programmes (six Objective 1 and ten Objective 2) is the Bundesamt für Wirtschaft for ERDF, the Federal Ministry of the Economy and Labour for ESF and the Federal Ministry of Consumer Protection, Food and Agriculture for EAGGF and FIFG. In practice, however, the functions of paying authority are performed by the relevant ministries of the individual Länder. The Federal Ministry of Transport, Construction and Housing is the paying authority for the horizontal Objective 1 Transport Infrastructure programme, while for the horizontal Objective 1 Human Resources and Objective 3 (ESF) programmes it is the Federal Ministry of the Economy and Labour.

| — | For all ERDF-financed programmes in Spain (19 regional — 12 Objective 1, seven Objective 2 —, eight horizontal mono-funds and three horizontal pluri-funds) the ERDF paying authority is the Ministry of Finance. The paying authority for the ESF in all programmes is the Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs, while for EAGGF Guidance and FIFG it is the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. |
| --- | --- |

—

For all ERDF-financed programmes in Spain (19 regional — 12 Objective 1, seven Objective 2 —, eight horizontal mono-funds and three horizontal pluri-funds) the ERDF paying authority is the Ministry of Finance. The paying authority for the ESF in all programmes is the Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs, while for EAGGF Guidance and FIFG it is the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.

| — | In Italy, the paying authorities for all Funds in the regional programmes (19 in all, seven Objective 1 and 12 Objective 2) are located within the respective regional administrations. Central government ministries provide the paying authorities for the horizontal programmes serving Objective 1, namely: ‘Local Enterprise Development’ — Ministry for Productive Activities, ‘Transport’ — Ministry for Infrastructure and Transport, ‘Research’ — Ministry for Higher Education and Scientific and Technological Research, ‘Security in the Mezzogiorno’ — Ministry of the Interior, and ‘Technical Assistance’ — Ministry for the Treasury, Budget and Economic Planning. The Ministry of Labour and Social Security is the paying authority for the horizontal programme serving Objective 3 ‘Azioni di Sistema’. For FIFG the paying authority is the Ministry of Agricultural and Forestry Policies. |
| --- | --- |

—

In Italy, the paying authorities for all Funds in the regional programmes (19 in all, seven Objective 1 and 12 Objective 2) are located within the respective regional administrations. Central government ministries provide the paying authorities for the horizontal programmes serving Objective 1, namely: ‘Local Enterprise Development’ — Ministry for Productive Activities, ‘Transport’ — Ministry for Infrastructure and Transport, ‘Research’ — Ministry for Higher Education and Scientific and Technological Research, ‘Security in the Mezzogiorno’ — Ministry of the Interior, and ‘Technical Assistance’ — Ministry for the Treasury, Budget and Economic Planning. The Ministry of Labour and Social Security is the paying authority for the horizontal programme serving Objective 3 ‘Azioni di Sistema’. For FIFG the paying authority is the Ministry of Agricultural and Forestry Policies.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/541 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/541

---

(2004/C 78 E/0562)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3407/03

by José Ribeiro e Castro (UEN) to the Commission

(17 November 2003)

Subject:   Cabinda — report on human rights

The media have reported that a report based on testimonies collected by Catholic priests in Cabinda indicates that there have been frequent cases of torture, rape, murder, illegal detention, and the theft of money and other property from the civilian population in the enclave. With reference to specific recent cases, the report speaks of 30 civilian deaths and 16 rapes, inter alia.

The same source claims that following the death of Jonas Savimbi and the end of the war with Unita, the Forças Armadas Angolanas (FAA) have relocated 30 000 men to Cabinda, to put an end to the guerrilla fighting in the region. The report denounced human rights' violations perpetrated both by FLEC forces and the FAA, attributing most of the crimes to the latter.

The preface to the report was written by the Bishop of Cabinda, Dom Paulino Madeca, who states that ‘Unfortunately, the political situation has developed in the wrong direction in recent years. Thinking predicated on warfare is the predominant approach to solving the “Cabinda case”. (...) Everybody can see the results of the offensive, which can be summed up as systematic violation of human rights and crimes against humanity, as the cases investigated show’.

What information does the Commission have as to the alleged recent violation of human rights in Cabinda? Has the Commission analysed this report in detail?

Has the Commission taken measures to alert the Angolan authorities and make them aware of the need to protect human rights in Cabinda? And likewise the rebel forces?

What contacts does the Commission maintain with the Church and civil society in Cabinda, so as to be able to assess the situation in the territory on a non-partisan, independent basis?

What are the Commission's expectations with regard to the longed-for pacification of Cabinda, and a political solution to the conflict?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(22 December 2003)

The Commission has knowledge of the report and believes that, although it is not in a position to examine all the allegations in detail, it serves as a further indication that the situation in Cabinda remains critical. The Commission maintains regular contacts with civil society in general and the church in particular to discuss the situation in Angola, including the human rights situation. Support for civil society is a component of the Community/Angola cooperation strategy. (The issue of human rights is also addressed through the European Initiative for Democracy and Human Rights (EIDHR), which is financing a project ‘The church and the construction of peace in Angola’ (1).)

Human rights will most certainly be on the agenda of the regular political dialogue (Article 8 of the Cotonou Agreement) with Angola, which was referred to in the Council conclusions of 13 October 2003. The political dialogue is the appropriate forum and most effective tool to discuss this issue with the Angolan Government. The Commission does not have direct contact with the rebel forces.

As regards the long-term perspectives for the situation in Cabinda, the Commission is confident that the consolidation of democracy in Angola will be beneficial also for the Cabindan people. It is understood that this is a very critical situation, but the Commission will do its utmost to ensure the respect of human rights and to seek a peaceful solution to the conflict, involving all stakeholders, i.e. the Angolan Government, the Forces of Liberation of the State of Cabinda (FLEC) and representatives of the very active Cabinda civil society.

---

(1)  Comite Intereclesial para a paz em Angola (Coiepa) project.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/542 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/542

---

(2004/C 78 E/0563)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3413/03

by Olivier Duhamel (PSE) to the Commission

(18 November 2003)

Subject:   Eurobarometer

A question on countries which represent ‘a threat to world peace’ in a recent Eurobarometer poll has upset certain countries, particularly Israel and the USA. One could, of course, debate the appropriateness of asking such a question, and even the way it has been formulated. Nobody doubts that a sort of ‘halo effect’ means that countries involved in military operations (domestic or foreign) which are to a greater or lesser extent the subject of dispute in the media risk, for that very reason, having a negative image worldwide.

At the very least, it would be preferable to pose the question in a slightly modified form, by asking ‘For each of the leaders of the following countries, tell me if, in your opinion, he or she represents a threat to world peace or not’ and adding ‘the Palestinian Authority’ to the list. Does the Commission intend in future to put the question in this form, rather than give up altogether on a useful indicator for understanding patterns of public opinion within the Union?

It would be interesting, furthermore, to investigate — as Eurobarometer has already done in the past — how much each individual questioned trusts his own nation and each of the other nations we wish to study.

Does the Commission believe that trust between nations is a ‘sine qua non’ of European integration and international life? If so, is the Commission prepared to put such a question again in the near future?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(8 January 2004)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to Written Question P-3334/03 from Ms Muscardini (1).

The Commission is aware of the limits to the question on which countries are a threat to world peace while considering that the results obtained reveal deep-seated prejudices. It thanks the Honourable Member for his suggestions, but it has not yet decided whether or not to use this indicator in a modified form.

The question of trust between peoples arose many times between 1976 and 1996, and on each occasion, it was shown to be increasing gradually in the Union. The Commission is planning to look into this matter again.

---

(1)  See page 263.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/543 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/543

---

(2004/C 78 E/0564)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3416/03

by Mario Borghezio (NI) to the Commission

(18 November 2003)

Subject:   Eurostat scandal — unanswered questions

With reference to recent developments in the Eurostat scandal, is the Commission's commitment to pursuing a policy of ‘zero tolerance’ towards those responsible still valid?

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/543 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/543

---

(2004/C 78 E/0565)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3417/03

by Mario Borghezio (NI) to the Commission

(18 November 2003)

Subject:   Eurostat scandal — unanswered questions

Although it is feasible that a general reform process may take several years, is it possible that some cases of irregularity and even fraud may have continued beyond 1999 and even until 2002? Is the Commission responsible or not for the way in which it tackled the issue after 1999?

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/543 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/543

---

(2004/C 78 E/0566)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3418/03

by Mario Borghezio (NI) to the Commission

(18 November 2003)

Subject:   Eurostat scandal — unanswered questions

Can the Commission clarify what it understands to be the political responsibility of the Commissioners with regard to the recommendations of the Committee of Independent Experts and the code of conduct for contracts signed in 1999?

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/543 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/543

---

(2004/C 78 E/0567)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3419/03

by Mario Borghezio (NI) to the Commission

(18 November 2003)

Subject:   Eurostat scandal — unanswered questions

Does the Commission agree with the Committee of Independent Experts that the full political responsibility assumed by the Commissioners should be understood as the obligation to be answerable to the Commission as a body, and then to Parliament, for their actions and those of the Director-General and other officials in their department?

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/544 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/544

---

(2004/C 78 E/0568)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3420/03

by Mario Borghezio (NI) to the Commission

(18 November 2003)

Subject:   Eurostat scandal — unanswered questions

Can the Commission clarify the meaning of the statement it made on 25 September regarding Commissioner Solbes, who it said was guilty of passivity in the Eurostat case? Can it say whether this is to be considered as a lack of political control? How many times, since 1999, has Commissioner Solbes had contact with the Directorate-General for Eurostat?

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/544 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/544

---

(2004/C 78 E/0569)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3421/03

by Mario Borghezio (NI) to the Commission

(18 November 2003)

Subject:   Eurostat scandal — unanswered questions

Does the Commission still trust the relevant Commissioner to monitor the reform process within Eurostat and to accept his responsibilities?

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/544 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/544

---

(2004/C 78 E/0570)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3422/03

by Mario Borghezio (NI) to the Commission

(18 November 2003)

Subject:   Eurostat scandal — unanswered questions

Did Commissioner Solbes offer to resign at any time following the Eurostat scandal? If so, why did the Commission consider his resignation inappropriate or inopportune?

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/544 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/544

---

(2004/C 78 E/0571)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3423/03

by Mario Borghezio (NI) to the Commission

(18 November 2003)

Subject:   Eurostat scandal — unanswered questions

Does the Commission intend to change the relationship between the Commissioners and their Directors-General to ensure that in future the latter are high-level officials but are subject to the political authority of their respective Commissioners, as is the case in ministries in the Member States? If so, when is this decision due to be adopted?

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/544 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/544

---

(2004/C 78 E/0572)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3424/03

by Mario Borghezio (NI) to the Commission

(18 November 2003)

Subject:   Eurostat scandal — unanswered questions

How often has the Commission discussed Eurostat since September 1999? On what dates did these discussions take place?

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/545 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/545

---

(2004/C 78 E/0573)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3425/03

by Mario Borghezio (NI) to the Commission

(18 November 2003)

Subject:   Eurostat scandal — unanswered questions

What is the explanation for the fact that the Commission did not make any connection between the various signs regarding the Eurostat scandal, which dated back to 2000? As regards the Secretary-General's superior, who received confidential information from OLAF on the launch of investigations, can the Commission accept that neither itself nor the Commissioners responsible for personnel were informed of the matter? Was this perhaps justified by internal administrative procedures?

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/545 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/545

---

(2004/C 78 E/0574)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3426/03

by Mario Borghezio (NI) to the Commission

(18 November 2003)

Subject:   Eurostat scandal — unanswered questions

To what extent was the Commission informed of the accusations made by Mrs Dorte Schmidt-Brown? Did it receive information about the problems of Eurocost on 13 November 2000 and did it ask Mr Franchet to reply? Did it inform Commissioner Solbes of the problems or was he asked to take any action? Did it follow the case or inform any other Member of the Commission? What measures did the Commission take in response to the letter of 12 July 2002 from Freddy Blak, Member of the European Parliament?

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/545 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/545

---

(2004/C 78 E/0575)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3427/03

by Mario Borghezio (NI) to the Commission

(18 November 2003)

Subject:   Eurostat scandal — unanswered questions

To what extent was the Commission informed about the contents of the second van Buitenen report, submitted at the end of August 2001, in particular the problems encountered in Eurostat? What was its response?

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/545 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/545

---

(2004/C 78 E/0576)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3428/03

by Mario Borghezio (NI) to the Commission

(18 November 2003)

Subject:   Eurostat scandal — unanswered questions

On 8 July OLAF forwarded its file to the judiciary in Luxembourg. Did President Prodi or his staff contact Commissioner Solbes or his office to discuss the measures required?

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/546 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/546

---

(2004/C 78 E/0577)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3429/03

by Mario Borghezio (NI) to the Commission

(18 November 2003)

Subject:   Eurostat scandal — unanswered questions

One of the main criticisms made by the Committee of Wise Men in 1999 and repeated in Parliament's resolution on the postponement of discharge to the Commission in respect of implementation of the general budget of the European Union for the financial year 1998 (A5-0087/2000, adopted on 13 April 2000 (1)) and recently stressed by the supervisory bodies dealing with the Eurostat case, referred to the lack of appropriate checks. Was somebody appointed specifically to carry out checks? Is there anyone inside Eurostat who may be considered responsible for the lack of comments made?

---

(1)  OJ C 40, 7.2.2001, p. 381.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/546 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/546

---

(2004/C 78 E/0578)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3430/03

by Mario Borghezio (NI) to the Commission

(18 November 2003)

Subject:   Eurostat scandal — unanswered questions

After the fall of the Santer Commission in 1999 it was decided that relations with external firms should be governed by transparent provisions laid down in standard contracts. Why was this principle not followed by Eurostat? How can the new executive agencies avoid finding themselves in the same position?

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/546 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/546

---

(2004/C 78 E/0579)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3431/03

by Mario Borghezio (NI) to the Commission

(18 November 2003)

Subject:   Eurostat scandal — unanswered questions

Since the Commission's agencies in Luxembourg were arms of the political authority, are there grounds to suppose that some Commissioners facilitated the continuation of unorthodox practices or supervised them inadequately? How does the Commission intend to solve this kind of problem?

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/546 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/546

---

(2004/C 78 E/0580)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3432/03

by Mario Borghezio (NI) to the Commission

(18 November 2003)

Subject:   Eurostat scandal — unanswered questions

The reasons adduced to explain the situation Eurostat finds itself in include the fact that there are not enough staff to tackle the increased responsibilities. Can the Commission justify the requests for more staff submitted by Eurostat and the provisions approved by the budgetary authority?

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/547 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/547

---

(2004/C 78 E/0581)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3433/03

by Mario Borghezio (NI) to the Commission

(18 November 2003)

Subject:   Eurostat scandal — unanswered questions

The main tasks of Eurostat include assessing conformity with the Stability Pact and establishing the Member States' contribution to the EU budget. Does the Commission accept Eurostat's conclusions on the economic conditions of the Member States or does it obtain information elsewhere? To what extent has the quality or reliability of Eurostat's work been affected by the recent revelations? What quality controls have been introduced to check the reliability of the data produced by external agencies concerning such sensitive subjects?

Joint answer

to Written Questions E-3416/03, E-3417/03, E-3418/03, E-3419/03, E-3420/03, E-3421/03, E-3422/03, E-3423/03, E-3424/03, E-3425/03, E-3426/03, E-3427/03, E-3428/03, E-3429/03, E-3430/03, E-3431/03, E-3432/03 and E-3433/03

given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(12 January 2004)

The eighteen questions which the Honourable Member raises are connected with the follow-up to the Eurostat case and concern anti-fraud policy political responsibility individual responsibility the information available to the Commission on Eurostat-related matters, questions concerning cases of whistleblowing, Eurostat controls and the quality of Eurostat's work.

When addressing the Conference of Presidents and the Committee on Budgetary Control (Cocobu) on 25 September, and more recently on 18 November before the Committee on Budgetary Control and then the full House in Strasbourg, the President of the Commission set out the Commission's position on all these questions.

In addition, he also provided written answers to the 18 questions put to him after his appearance on 25 September 2003. These answers address in detail the Honourable Member's questions and will be sent direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/547 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/547

---

(2004/C 78 E/0582)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3437/03

by Philip Claeys (NI) to the Commission

(20 November 2003)

Subject:   Anti-Semitism among North African and other Islamic immigrants in Europe

During the annual commemoration of Kristallnacht in Amsterdam on 9 November 2003, Commissioner Bolkestein drew attention to the fact that the vast majority of those who commit anti-Semitic offences are currently of North African origin. In many cases they are young people who sympathise with the Palestinian intifada and wish to express their identification with the Palestinian cause by attacking members of Jewish communities in Europe. This is not confined to verbal abuse but increasingly also involves physical violence. This phenomenon may be observed not only in the Netherlands but also (‘inter alia’) in France and Belgium.

Do the present campaigns and programmes against racism and discrimination which are organised and/or subsidised by the European Union include any specific measures to combat the growing hatred of Jews among Islamic and/or other North African immigrants?

As part of measures against racism, are there any plans to formulate a target group policy in the near future which will specifically tackle hatred of Jews among immigrants? Which approach does the Commission favour in this regard? What appropriations are allocated to this?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(16 January 2004)

The Community Action Programme to combat discrimination (1) is aimed at promoting measures to combat any direct or indirect, single or multiple discrimination based on racial or ethnic origin, religion or beliefs, disability, age or sexual orientation. Within the limits of the Community's powers, the programme with a budget of almost EUR 100 million for the period 2001-2006, supports and supplements the efforts made at Community level and in the Member States to encourage measures to prevent and combat discrimination. One of its objectives is to promote and disseminate the values and practices underlying the combating of discrimination, including by means of awareness-raising activities. Groups who are potential victims of discrimination are targeted through the full range of activities under the Programme, including of course, members of the Jewish community, Muslims and immigrants.

Concerns about reports of the rise of anti-Semitism and Islamophobia in the Union led the Commission to organise, with the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia, a series of Round Tables on anti-Semitism and Islamophobia earlier in 2003.

The Monitoring Centre is, of course, responsible for monitoring racist and xenophobic incidents within the Union. The Centre is currently preparing a study on anti-Semitism in the Union which it plans to publish in the first quarter of 2004.

On the other hand, adequate criminal law measures form an important tool for combating racism and xenophobia. Apart from their punitive aspect, they have a significant dissuasive force. In this respect, the Commission tabled in November 2001 a proposal for a Council Framework Decision on combating racism and xenophobia (2).

The purpose of the proposed framework decision is twofold:

| (1) | to ensure that racism and xenophobia are punishable in all Member States by effective, proportionate and dissuasive criminal penalties, which can give rise to extradition or surrender and |
| --- | --- |

(1)

to ensure that racism and xenophobia are punishable in all Member States by effective, proportionate and dissuasive criminal penalties, which can give rise to extradition or surrender and

| (2) | to improve and encourage judicial co-operation by removing potential obstacles. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

to improve and encourage judicial co-operation by removing potential obstacles.

This instrument, if adopted and implemented in national laws would obviously apply to individuals or legal persons who practice criminal behaviour regardless of whether they belong to any population group.

---

(1)  Council Decision 2000/750/EC of 27 November 2000, OJ L 303, 2.12.2000.

(2)  OJ C 75 E, 26.3.2002.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/548 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/548

---

(2004/C 78 E/0583)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3442/03

by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(20 November 2003)

Subject:   Discrimination amongst athletes

Paragraph 14 of the European Parliament resolution of 5 June 2003 on women and sport (P5_TA-PROV(2003)0269) ‘calls on government authorities to systematically take account of gender equality in their sports policies, particularly in the granting of subsidies’.

The Second International Women and Sport: Action for Change' Congress, organised by the Portuguese ‘Women and Sport’ Association, held in Porto at the beginning of this November, saw Portuguese women athletes denounce the existing discrimination between men and women in sport, particularly in the awarding of prizes in athletics trials where men and women are competing jointly. This unacceptable situation is to be met with, all the time, in Portugal.

What measures does the Commission intend to take to put an end to the discrimination to which women athletes continue to be subjected?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(16 January 2004)

The Commission would like to draw the Honourable Member's attention to the answer given to Mrs Breyer's Question E-3353/03 (1), which sets out the Community's powers in relation to implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women in sport.

---

(1)  See page 271.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/549 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/549

---

(2004/C 78 E/0584)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3446/03

by Sebastiano Musumeci (UEN) to the Commission

(13 November 2003)

Subject:   Authorisation for aid in connection with a biological rest period in Sicily in 2002

In March 2002, pursuant to Regional Decree (D.A.) No 22/Fisheries, the Sicilian regional authorities notified the Commission regarding the granting of financial aid to fishermen in connection with the biological rest period in 2002.

Subsequent and wholly justified requests from the Commission for further information considerably delayed the reply from Brussels on the matter.

The aid provided for in the aforementioned decree was based on the legislation in force at the time, namely Regulation (EC) No 2792/1999 (1).

The Commission surprisingly chose to take its decision on the basis of Regulation (EC) No 2369/2002 (2) of 20 December 2002, which substantially amended Regulation (EC) No 2792/1999.

The failure to authorise the provision of aid in connection with the biological rest period in 2002 is causing major financial problems for many fisheries operators who have implemented the rest period.

Given the above, would the Commission not agree that it should consider the request from the Sicilian regional authorities for 2002 to be compatible with Community law, so as not to add to the financial difficulties already being faced by Sicilian fisheries operators who are also being penalised by the measures provided for in the Community fisheries action plan?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(11 December 2003)

The Commission can inform the Honourable Member that the situation described in his question was the subject of a letter from the Commission's Director-General for Fisheries in July of this year in which he referred to the relevant sections of the Community rules (3) and to the Guidelines for the examination of State aid to fisheries and aquaculture.

In October the Sicilian Regional Government's fisheries department sent the Fisheries Directorate-General a letter on the matter, and the Commission is still examining the dossier in the light of the abovementioned Guidelines (4) and Regulation.

---

(1)  OJ L 337, 30.12.1999, p. 10.

(2)  OJ L 358, 31.12.2002, p. 49.

(3)  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, p. 12.

(4)  OJ C 19, 20.1.2001.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/550 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/550

---

(2004/C 78 E/0585)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3447/03

by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(20 November 2003)

Subject:   Marketing problems and imports in the wine sector

In recent years the situation of winegrowers and cooperative wine cellars in Portugal has worsened, due to enormous problems caused by the fact that wine production far outstrips demand. The problems in marketing wine, at prices which are only minimally fair to the producers, are worsening with the enormous import of wine from various countries, above all since 2001, which is delaying payments to farmers by two or more years. In some cases, these are imports of bulk wines without any quality wine P.S.R. classification.

| 1. | Is the Commission aware of the seriousness of the situation in Portugal? What measures does it intend to take to support Portuguese winegrowers? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is the Commission aware of the seriousness of the situation in Portugal? What measures does it intend to take to support Portuguese winegrowers?

| 2. | Is the Commission prepared to authorise and fund an emergency wine distillation (both ‘verde’ and ‘maduro’), with subsidised prices, so as to improve the market? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Is the Commission prepared to authorise and fund an emergency wine distillation (both ‘verde’ and ‘maduro’), with subsidised prices, so as to improve the market?

| 3. | What aid could be considered to support the financial recovery of the Cooperative Wine Cellars and set up a fund for seasonal loans, so as to guarantee their funding and the rapid release of the delayed payments to the winegrowers? |
| --- | --- |

3.

What aid could be considered to support the financial recovery of the Cooperative Wine Cellars and set up a fund for seasonal loans, so as to guarantee their funding and the rapid release of the delayed payments to the winegrowers?

| 4. | What measures does the Commission intend to improve wine quality, preventing blending, particularly of wines imported from third countries, and the importation of bulk wines, so that these are not then bottled and classified as quality wines P.S.R.? |
| --- | --- |

4.

What measures does the Commission intend to improve wine quality, preventing blending, particularly of wines imported from third countries, and the importation of bulk wines, so that these are not then bottled and classified as quality wines P.S.R.?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(9 January 2004)

The Commission is aware that for about two years now the wine market in Portugal has been in a less satisfactory state. The situation has twice been relieved by crisis distillation enabling a total of 700 000 hl of wine to be withdrawn from the market. Of this 200 000 hl was quality wine, mainly Vinho Verde. We have received no separate figures for the cooperatives' stock position.

Crisis distillation cannot be opened except at the official request of a Member State backed up by a detailed explanation of why it is needed. After scrutinising this and consulting the Management Committee for Wine we decide whether distillation will be opened. In the current wine year Portugal has not so far made any application.

Neither the common market organisation for wine nor the rural development policy make any provision for aid for the financial recovery of wine cooperatives. A national measure could be envisaged only if it met the criteria set out in the Guidelines for State aid in the agriculture sector (2000/C28/02).

Turning to the problems in connection with non-EU wine imported into Portugal that the Honourable Member raises, we point out that according to the customs authorities' figures such imports have been negligible (1 130 hl in 2001, 1 730 hl in 2002). In any case Article 44(14) of Regulation (EC) No 1493/1999 (1) prohibits blending of non-EU wine with Community wine. Policing of observance of the Community rules, including those on the presentation and naming of wines sold on the market, is the Member State's responsibility. Lastly, the rules on international trade do not permit a prohibition on importation of bulk wines.

---

(1)  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.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/551 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/551

---

(2004/C 78 E/0586)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3453/03

by Philip Claeys (NI) to the Commission

(20 November 2003)

Subject:   Political position adopted by EU officials' trade union TAO-AFI on night flights over outlying districts of Brussels

At the beginning of November the EU officials' trade union TAO-AFI adopted a public position on night flights from Zaventem airport. Controversy has been raging for months on the Belgian political scene as to which communes the flight paths in question should pass over. It might be possible to reach consensus by means of a distribution plan which shares the nuisance caused by night flights among various parts of the periphery of Brussels and the adjoining communes. Evidently the officials' trade union has a relatively large number of members living in the residential communes to the east of Brussels, and objects to the possibility that the area in question might also have to bear a share of the nuisance. The union argues, inter alia, that rents are high in these communes and that many people went to live there at a time when there was no suggestion that Zaventem airport might cause noise at night.

TAO-AFI's intervention has annoyed residents of the periphery of Brussels who consider that some solidarity should be displayed in sharing the inconvenience caused by the proximity of Zaventem airport. All this is doing nothing to promote the image of the European institutions in Brussels.

Is it normal and desirable that a trade union representing European officials should adopt such controversial positions in public?

Has the matter been discussed with TAO-AFI? If so, what were the conclusions?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(13 January 2004)

The decision of trade unions and staff associations in the Institutions to express views on matters of public interest and concern are solely the responsibility of the organisations. Obviously, therefore, those organisations do not speak on behalf of the Commission.

The Commission has not discussed the issue of night flights to and from Zaventem airport with the organisation referred to in the question or with any other staff union or association.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/552 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/552

---

(2004/C 78 E/0587)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3455/03

by Elspeth Attwooll (ELDR) to the Commission

(20 November 2003)

Subject:   Community Action Plan to protect seabirds from longline fishing

What urgency is the Commission giving to fulfilling its commitment in the reform of the CFP to propose legislation before the end of this year to implement its Community Action Plan to protect seabirds from longline fishing in the context of the FAO International Plan of Action?

Will the Commission propose such legislation without further delay and present a finalised plan to the next session of FAO-COFI in 2005?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(8 January 2004)

As the Honourable Member might be aware, the Community already presented a draft preliminary action plan to protect seabirds from longline fishing at the Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) Committee in 2001. The FAO action plan does not foresee any specific calendar. However, the Commission would like to present the follow-up of the draft preliminary plan to the next Committee on Fisheries (COFI) in 2005. For this purpose, the Commission will have to work further with Member States, as the protection of seabirds is a shared competence with Member States.

As the Honourable Member must also know, the incidental catches of seabirds constitute a threat within Community waters for several birds included in Annex I of the Directive 79/409/EEC (1).

However, the main problems seem to be caused by non-Community vessels fishing either in international waters or in their own waters. The Community has no direct legal power to control the activities of non-Community vessels in these areas.

The main concerns related to albatrosses and other species, essentially in the Southern Oceans.

To tackle those problems, the Community has already incorporated the following mitigation measures into Community legislation (2):

| — | Using bird-scaring line with plastic streamers attached; |
| --- | --- |

—

Using bird-scaring line with plastic streamers attached;

| — | Weighting the lines so that they sink faster and pose less risk; |
| --- | --- |

—

Weighting the lines so that they sink faster and pose less risk;

| — | Prohibiting the discharge of offal at sea, which attracts seabirds to the lines; |
| --- | --- |

—

Prohibiting the discharge of offal at sea, which attracts seabirds to the lines;

| — | Setting the longlines at night, when albatrosses and other seabirds are less likely to be foraging; |
| --- | --- |

—

Setting the longlines at night, when albatrosses and other seabirds are less likely to be foraging;

| — | Using only thawed bait. |
| --- | --- |

—

Using only thawed bait.

These measures, which are compulsory for Community fishing companies, have been drawn up by the Council for the Conservation of Antarctic Maríne Living Resources (CCAMLR), which deals with Antarctic waters, and of which the Community is a contracting party.

As the Community is already implementing this Community Regulation, new legislation to protect seabirds from longline fishing before 2004 is not currently foreseen.

Furthermore, based on a Community initiative, the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT) has adopted the recommendation 02-14 related to seabirds protection. This is indeed the first measure in the ICCAT area to tackle this matter.

---

(1)  Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds, OJ L 103, 25.4.1979.

(2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 2479/98 of 12 November 1998 amending Regulation (EC) No 66/98 laying down certain conservation and control measures applicable to fishing activities in the Antarctic, OJ L 309, 19.11.1998.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/553 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/553

---

(2004/C 78 E/0588)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3456/03

by Adriana Poli Bortone (UEN) to the Commission

(20 November 2003)

Subject:   Cofinancing of NGOs

The Commission has made provision to reduce the allocation of resources for cooperation on poverty from EUR 199,9 million in 2003 to 193,8 million in 2004. In 2002 the Commission selected as ‘good projects’ only 20 % out of a maximum of 50 % which it could have financed. Can the Commission say which NGOs obtained funding, under what budget lines, what projects were completed and what short- or long-term term results were achieved?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(22 December 2003)

The results of calls for proposals are published on EuropeAid's website at: http://europa.eu.int/comm/europeaid/projects/ong_cd/index_en.htm

The list gives the beneficiary's name, the project title and the beneficiary country. A list of operations cofinanced in the developing countries in 2002 under line B7-6000 is being sent direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat. In 2002, EUR 199,2 million was committed out of the EUR 199,9 million available under line B7-6000.

Each budget line is governed by a regulation specifying the eligible beneficiaries which can only be nongovernmental organisations (NGOs) (e.g. B7-6000) or non-profit organisations which are not necessarily NGOs (e.g. B7-6002).

Operations cofinanced with NGOs under B7-6000 are monitored. The last monitoring report of about a hundred operations highlighted their quality in terms of results and sustainability. The final payment of the Community contribution is subject to approval of a final report consisting of a technical part, which usually contains the evaluation results, and a financial part, including an external audit report.

In 2000, the Commission carried out an overall evaluation of line B7-6000. While pointing to shortcomings in the overall impact of the line owing to the diversity of operations, NGOs and its geographical coverage, the evaluation recognised the positive results of the majority of operations cofinanced. It can be read on the Internet at the following address: (http://europa.eu.int/comm/europeaid/ evaluation/program/otherrep.htm).

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/554 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/554

---

(2004/C 78 E/0589)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3457/03

by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(20 November 2003)

Subject:   Reform of the olive oil sector

Commission Communication (1) on ‘accomplishing a sustainable agricultural model for Europe through the reformed CAP — the tobacco, olive oil, cotton and sugar sectors’, it states that ‘for simplification, the olive grove payment will not be allocated before EUR 50 per aid claim’.

Various interpretations have been placed on this formulation. Would the Commission therefore please clarify whether this means that all olive growers currently receiving less than EUR 50 will henceforth receive EUR 50, or on the contrary, cease to receive any aid whatever, which would be very unfair?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(22 December 2003)

The Commission's communication Accomplishing a sustainable agricultural model for Europe through the reformed CAP- the tobacco, olive oil and sugar sectors (2) was followed on 18 November by its adoption of the proposals for the legislation introducing the reforms in question.

The particular provision to which the Honourable Member refers has to be seen in context: simplification of the aid provisions for a sector with a very large number of recipients (more than 2 100 000 in the Community), most of whom receive very small amounts of aid. This simplification is designed not to harm the interests of the smallest producers.

A second provision has to be taken into account in this connection. Growers with an area of less than 0,3 geographical information system (GIS) hectares will be entitled, irrespective of the amount of aid received, to convert into single payment entitlement the average aid received during the reference period whereas for producers with more than 0,3 GIS hectares the conversion level proposed is 60 %. The first provision in turn makes operation of the system less burdensome by specifying that if the amount of olive grove aid claimed is less than EUR 50 it will not be paid. For the purposes of this provision the actual size of the grove is irrelevant.

Thus under the new system proposed the very small producers will receive at least the average amount granted during the reference period. Those whose grove is considered by the Member State to have an environmental or social value will also be able to receive the olive grove aid provided that the amount actually falling to be received is more than EUR 50.

---

(1)  COM(2003) 554 final.

(2)  COM(2003) 554 final.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/554 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/554

---

(2004/C 78 E/0590)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3459/03

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(21 November 2003)

Subject:   Measures to prevent the breaking-up in Europe of old US warships contaminated with chemicals, asbestos and diesel

| 1. | Is the Commission aware that the Netherlands firm ICT is bringing US warships from the Second World War era which are contaminated with large quantities of chemicals, asbestos and heavy diesel oil to Europe with a view to them being broken up by the British firm Able in the North Sea port of Hartlepool? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is the Commission aware that the Netherlands firm ICT is bringing US warships from the Second World War era which are contaminated with large quantities of chemicals, asbestos and heavy diesel oil to Europe with a view to them being broken up by the British firm Able in the North Sea port of Hartlepool?

| 2. | Is the Commission aware, moreover, that in late October the British Environment Agency decided that the breaking-up operation should not go ahead on the grounds that planning permission for the requisite dry dock has not yet been granted? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Is the Commission aware, moreover, that in late October the British Environment Agency decided that the breaking-up operation should not go ahead on the grounds that planning permission for the requisite dry dock has not yet been granted?

| 3. | Is there a possibility that these and other US warships will now be broken up in Europe in places or under circumstances which offer less stringent safety guarantees? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Is there a possibility that these and other US warships will now be broken up in Europe in places or under circumstances which offer less stringent safety guarantees?

| 4. | Why is it that these activities should be carried out in Europe, rather than in America, given that, primarily because of a lack of suitable, environmentally friendly breaking yards, similar European ships are sent to Asia and cause serious pollution there? |
| --- | --- |

4.

Why is it that these activities should be carried out in Europe, rather than in America, given that, primarily because of a lack of suitable, environmentally friendly breaking yards, similar European ships are sent to Asia and cause serious pollution there?

| 5. | What steps is the Commission planning to take with a view to ensuring that, as soon as possible, these ships leave European waters and ports and are returned to America for breaking-up there and to preventing any repeat of this episode? |
| --- | --- |

5.

What steps is the Commission planning to take with a view to ensuring that, as soon as possible, these ships leave European waters and ports and are returned to America for breaking-up there and to preventing any repeat of this episode?

Source: The 6 November 2003 edition of the Netherlands daily newspaper de Volkskrant.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(19 January 2004)

The Commission has not received information regarding the Dutch firm ICT in particular. However the Commission is aware that it is the company which carried out the towing of the United States' end of life ships to Europe with a view to them being broken up by the British firm Able in the North Sea port of Hartlepool.

The Commission is aware that on 7 October 2003 Hartlepool Borough Council (the relevant planning authority) published a media statement expressing their view that ‘there is no valid planning permission to allow for the construction of the proposed dam and the reinstatement of the dock gates, to provide a dry dock’. Nor does the license allow for the receipt of the amounts of waste in question either.

The Commission is further aware that the Environmental Agency for England & Wales in late October 2003/early November 2003 informed Able UK Ltd, the United States Maritime Administration and the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) that the receiving facility was not licensed to receive or recover the ships as notified. The consent to the shipment is thus annulled.

Under the 1993 Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) agreement on shipments of waste destined for recovery — which is implemented in Community legislation in the Waste Shipment Regulation (EEC) No 259/93 (1) — all waste destined for recovery can travel almost freely within the OECD area. The only requirement is that a shipment is prior notified to the competent authorities of dispatch, destination and transit and that it is consented to by these authorities. It is therefore the decision of these individual authorities/Member States to assess and consider if they have the necessary facilities and capacity to receive and treat the end of life-ships which were subject to the notification procedure. In any case, the dismantling of ships carried out within the Union must comply with the requirements of Community waste legislation.

The Commission is currently investigating a complaint filed against the United Kingdom authorities in relation to the shipment of four end of life ships from the United States to the United Kingdom questioning whether obligations under the Community Waste Shipment Regulation as well as under several Community waste directives were complied with. The United Kingdom authorities have indicated that the ships should be returned to the United States as soon as the meteorological conditions permit. The United Kingdom authorities will continue to keep the Commission updated about all developments in this respect.

Enforcement of — and inspection of compliance with — Community legislation, including the Waste Shipment Regulation is the responsibility of the Member States. In line with Article 211 of the EC Treaty the Commission ensures that the Community legislation is correctly applied. Moreover, the Commission encourages co-operation between Member States to ensure proper and full implementation of the Regulation.

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 259/93 of 1 February 1993 on the supervision and control of shipments of waste within, into and out of the European Community, OJ L 30, 6.2.1993.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/556 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/556

---

(2004/C 78 E/0591)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3460/03

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(21 November 2003)

Subject:   Foot-dragging by the future Member State Czech Republic in connection with efforts to stamp out child prostitution in areas close to its border with Germany

| 1. | Is the Commission aware that, according to a report by the German aid organisation KARO, since the early 1990s their parents' poverty has forced hundreds of children between the ages of 9 and 14 into prostitution in areas on the Czech side of the border with Germany and that these children are being abused by sex tourists from Germany? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is the Commission aware that, according to a report by the German aid organisation KARO, since the early 1990s their parents' poverty has forced hundreds of children between the ages of 9 and 14 into prostitution in areas on the Czech side of the border with Germany and that these children are being abused by sex tourists from Germany?

| 2. | Is the Commission aware, moreover, that the Czech Government has thus far refused to acknowledge the substance of KARO's report, is rejecting calls from Unicef to take the matter seriously and has ignored the recent offer from the German Government to lend assistance in dealing with these evils? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Is the Commission aware, moreover, that the Czech Government has thus far refused to acknowledge the substance of KARO's report, is rejecting calls from Unicef to take the matter seriously and has ignored the recent offer from the German Government to lend assistance in dealing with these evils?

| 3. | Does the Commission regard it as acceptable that the future EU Member State Czech Republic, instead of taking measures to deal with this abuse of children, is investigating possible criminal offences by KARO involving defamation, partly on the grounds that the details supplied by KARO for many years concerning the colour and registration numbers of the cars driven by regular users of prostitutes did not take the form of official legal reports? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Does the Commission regard it as acceptable that the future EU Member State Czech Republic, instead of taking measures to deal with this abuse of children, is investigating possible criminal offences by KARO involving defamation, partly on the grounds that the details supplied by KARO for many years concerning the colour and registration numbers of the cars driven by regular users of prostitutes did not take the form of official legal reports?

| 4. | Does the Commission regard it as acceptable, in general, that EU Member States should refuse to acknowledge their cross-border problems which affect other Member States, that they should take action against non-governmental organisations and that they should refuse to cooperate with neighbouring countries with a view to solving the problems in question? |
| --- | --- |

4.

Does the Commission regard it as acceptable, in general, that EU Member States should refuse to acknowledge their cross-border problems which affect other Member States, that they should take action against non-governmental organisations and that they should refuse to cooperate with neighbouring countries with a view to solving the problems in question?

| 5. | How can the Commission help to resolve this problem before the Czech Republic becomes an EU Member State on 1 May 2004, thereby ensuring that this unacceptable state of affairs along what will shortly be an EU internal frontier does not become permanent? |
| --- | --- |

5.

How can the Commission help to resolve this problem before the Czech Republic becomes an EU Member State on 1 May 2004, thereby ensuring that this unacceptable state of affairs along what will shortly be an EU internal frontier does not become permanent?

Source: The 6 November 2003 edition of the Netherlands daily newspaper de Volkskrant.

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(7 January 2004)

The Commission is aware of the KARO project, which offers support for prostitutes and victims of human trafficking and sexual exploitation, including children. KARO receives financial support from the Interreg Programme of the Union.

The Commission is also aware of the book ‘Kinder auf dem Strich. Bericht von der deutsch-tschechischen Grenze’, written by Ms. Cathrin Schauer, who is working for KARO, and edited and presented by the German Committee for United Nations Children's Fund (Unicef) and End Child Prostitution and Trafficking (ECPAT) Germany on 28 October 2003.

The Commission took note of the statements made by the Government of the Czech Republic in this context and of the ongoing debate about the publication concerned. The Commission is in permanent contact with the Government of the Czech Republic and will continue to observe the situation as well as the future steps of the Czech Government in order to provide any possible support for the fight against child abuse.

In its Regular Report 2002, the Commission concluded that the Czech government had undertaken significant steps to address the issue of human trafficking. 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 neighboring 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.

The Commission reiterates that the prevention of and the fight against child trafficking, child prostitution and sexual exploitation of children needs to be addressed by Member States and Accession and Candidate Countries in a co-operative manner following a multidisciplinary approach. Such an approach includes consequent action against criminals sexually abusing children as well as measures preventing children from being forced into prostitution and sexual abuse. Co-operation between the competent public authorities and the relevant international, inter-governmental or non-governmental organisations should be intensified wherever possible in an enlarged Union.

The Framework Decision on combating the sexual exploitation of children and child pornography, once formally adopted by the Council and implemented by Member States, would be another important step in the fight against these abhorrent phenomena.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/557 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/557

---

(2004/C 78 E/0592)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3466/03

by Theresa Villiers (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(21 November 2003)

Subject:   Animal welfare at abattoirs in Greece

A new report by the Commission's Food and Veterinary Office (FVO) concludes that Greece has made efforts to improve compliance with EU requirements on animal welfare at slaughter, but that there has been insufficient progress with surveillance and enforcement. The FVO points out that the procedures they saw at slaughterhouses in Greece were not routine. The clear implication is that less attention is given to animal welfare when the FVO inspectors are not present. Problems witnessed by the FVO include: 2 out of 12 sheep received a pre-stun electrical shock; some animals may not have been effectively stunned; and for some the interval between stunning and sticking was too long, which creates the risk of animals recovering consciousness.

What steps does the Commission plan to take to press Greece to strengthen enforcement and sanctions and to improve the training of slaughtermen?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(27 January 2004)

The problems noted in the FVO's inspection in Greece (MR 9002/2003) in January 2003 were communicated to the Greek authorities in the regions visited during the inspection, to the central authorities in the closing meeting in Athens and formally in the final report sent to the Greek authorities. In the action plan submitted to the Commission in response to the published report, the Greek authorities stated that they would take measures to enforce the relevant animal welfare legislation, and, in particular, that they would carry out a re-inspection of all slaughterhouses before 2004, to verify compliance with the relevant legislation on animal welfare at slaughter (Council Directive 93/119/EC of 22 December 1993 on the protection of animals at the time of slaughter or killing (1)).

A follow-up inspection in Greece was carried out by the FVO from 15-19 September 2003 (MR9211/2003). Due to a strike of veterinary staff at that time in Greece, it was not possible to assess animal welfare at slaughter, but the FVO inspection team reviewed the results of inspections conducted by Greek officials over previous months and other administrative issues arising from the previous FVO inspection in January 2003. Overall the inspection team concluded that there were still important weaknesses in animal welfare control systems in Greece. A draft report of this inspection was sent to the Greek authorities on 7 November 2003. Comments on the draft report and an action plan to address outstanding deficiencies are awaited from the Greek authorities.

On 23 October 2003, the acting Director General of Directorate General Health and Consumer Protection (DG SANCO) met the Deputy Permanent Representative of Greece to the Union and the Greek Chief Veterinary Officer, to underline the Commission's concerns over the implementation and enforcement of Union food safety and veterinary legislation in Greece. The Commission considers that the Greek authorities are not, and have not been for some time, operating their animal welfare control systems in compliance with the requirements of Union legislation. Commitments given by the Greek authorities to improve animal welfare following that meeting are being examined and if they are not sufficient to remedy the situation, by the summer, the Commission will be obliged to initiate infringements proceedings against Greece.

---

(1)  OJ L 340, 31.12.1993.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/558 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/558

---

(2004/C 78 E/0593)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3472/03

by Christoph Konrad (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(21 November 2003)

Subject:   Conversion of the Landesbank Nordrhein-Westfalen into an investment bank

| 1. | The government of the German Land of Nordrhein-Westfalen is at present drawing up a new State Bank Law, which will make it possible for the Landesbank Nordrhein-Westfalen to be converted into a bank engaged solely in investment activities. Unlike other state banks, the Landesbank Nordrhein-estfalen would then continue to benefit from the state guarantee system of Gewährträgerhaftung (statutory guarantee) and Anstaltslast (institutional liability) after 2005.
  Is the European Commission aware of these plans? What are its views on them, given that they will mean the continued provision of the guarantees which the Commission recently decided should be abolished after 2005? Does the Commission believe that its decision to abolish the guarantees has been undermined? |
| --- | --- |

1.

The government of the German Land of Nordrhein-Westfalen is at present drawing up a new State Bank Law, which will make it possible for the Landesbank Nordrhein-Westfalen to be converted into a bank engaged solely in investment activities. Unlike other state banks, the Landesbank Nordrhein-estfalen would then continue to benefit from the state guarantee system of Gewährträgerhaftung (statutory guarantee) and Anstaltslast (institutional liability) after 2005.

Is the European Commission aware of these plans? What are its views on them, given that they will mean the continued provision of the guarantees which the Commission recently decided should be abolished after 2005? Does the Commission believe that its decision to abolish the guarantees has been undermined?

| 2. | After the law has been adopted in Nordrhein-Westfalen, how will the European Commission react to distortions of competition which might arise as a result of the more competitive refinancing options open to such an investment bank? How will it ensure that all business areas related to competition are kept separate from the bank's investment activities? |
| --- | --- |

2.

After the law has been adopted in Nordrhein-Westfalen, how will the European Commission react to distortions of competition which might arise as a result of the more competitive refinancing options open to such an investment bank? How will it ensure that all business areas related to competition are kept separate from the bank's investment activities?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(15 January 2004)

| 1. | The Commission is aware that the Government of the German Land of Northrhine-Westphalia is preparing a new Landesbank-law, which intends to convert the current Landesbank into a pure public development bank. The draft law has been examined by the Commission services and — after taking into account the Commission services' comments — found to be a correct implementation of the Commission Decision of 27 March 2002 (1). This has also been the case with the other submitted German laws on public development banks to be amended in the light of this Commission decision.
  In strict compliance with Commission Decision of 27 March 2002 recommending appropriate measures to Germany regarding ‘Anstaltslast’ and ‘Gewährträgerhaftung’, this amendment will allow the new pure public development bank to keep the state guarantees for the refinancing of its public developments tasks, in particular, the fulfilment of the public promotional activities in compliance with the state aid rules of the Community.
  On the basis of the information available, the new public development bank will then be in the same position to keep state guarantees for their public tasks as about a dozen other German public development banks, including KfW. Despite its name of Landesbank (which is actually envisaged to be changed), it will not, by its very nature, pursue commercial activities. The conversion does not circumvent the Commission's Decision of 27 March 2002. The State guarantees will be abolished for all Landesbanks and savings banks performing commercial banking activities with effect from 19 July 2005. The necessary legal changes have already been implemented. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The Commission is aware that the Government of the German Land of Northrhine-Westphalia is preparing a new Landesbank-law, which intends to convert the current Landesbank into a pure public development bank. The draft law has been examined by the Commission services and — after taking into account the Commission services' comments — found to be a correct implementation of the Commission Decision of 27 March 2002 (1). This has also been the case with the other submitted German laws on public development banks to be amended in the light of this Commission decision.

In strict compliance with Commission Decision of 27 March 2002 recommending appropriate measures to Germany regarding ‘Anstaltslast’ and ‘Gewährträgerhaftung’, this amendment will allow the new pure public development bank to keep the state guarantees for the refinancing of its public developments tasks, in particular, the fulfilment of the public promotional activities in compliance with the state aid rules of the Community.

On the basis of the information available, the new public development bank will then be in the same position to keep state guarantees for their public tasks as about a dozen other German public development banks, including KfW. Despite its name of Landesbank (which is actually envisaged to be changed), it will not, by its very nature, pursue commercial activities. The conversion does not circumvent the Commission's Decision of 27 March 2002. The State guarantees will be abolished for all Landesbanks and savings banks performing commercial banking activities with effect from 19 July 2005. The necessary legal changes have already been implemented.

| 2. | It should be noted that most commercial activities of the former Westdeutsche Landesbank Girozentrale were already regrouped into the new limited liability bank WestLB AG created in 2002. Commercial activities currently still in existence in Landesbank have to be hived off into a separate undertaking (WestLB AG or other) without any State support. A similar split into two separate legal entities, respectively fulfilling public tasks (with State support) and commercial activities (without any State support), has for instance also to be implemented by the federal public development bank KfW.
  The new legal framework seems thus adequate to avoid distortions of competition in the future. The Commission will of course also monitor in the future whether undue advantages from State resources will be granted to commercial banking activities in an individual case and, if necessary, take appropriate action. |
| --- | --- |

2.

It should be noted that most commercial activities of the former Westdeutsche Landesbank Girozentrale were already regrouped into the new limited liability bank WestLB AG created in 2002. Commercial activities currently still in existence in Landesbank have to be hived off into a separate undertaking (WestLB AG or other) without any State support. A similar split into two separate legal entities, respectively fulfilling public tasks (with State support) and commercial activities (without any State support), has for instance also to be implemented by the federal public development bank KfW.

The new legal framework seems thus adequate to avoid distortions of competition in the future. The Commission will of course also monitor in the future whether undue advantages from State resources will be granted to commercial banking activities in an individual case and, if necessary, take appropriate action.

---

(1)  Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty — Cases where the Commission raises no objections, OJ C 150, 22.6.2002; referring to publication on the Commission's website under http:// europa.eu.int/comm/secretariat_general/sgb/state_aids/industrie/e010-00.pdf

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/559 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/559

---

(2004/C 78 E/0594)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3474/03

by Herbert Bösch (PSE) to the Commission

(24 November 2003)

Subject:   Contracts with management consultants in Commission offices

Given that no final answer has yet been provided to Written Question E-0844/03 (1) of 18 March 2003 on contracts with management consultants, although eight months have now passed since it was submitted, can the Commission initially provide the following information:

| — | How many contracts have the cabinets of individual Commissioners concluded with management consultants since 2000, and what is their total value? |
| --- | --- |

—

How many contracts have the cabinets of individual Commissioners concluded with management consultants since 2000, and what is their total value?

| — | What tasks were assigned to the management consultants? |
| --- | --- |

—

What tasks were assigned to the management consultants?

| — | Why were Commission officials not called on to carry out these tasks? |
| --- | --- |

—

Why were Commission officials not called on to carry out these tasks?

| — | Can the Commission state whether these tasks cost less to carry out externally than if they are carried out internally, and provide figures to back this up? |
| --- | --- |

—

Can the Commission state whether these tasks cost less to carry out externally than if they are carried out internally, and provide figures to back this up?

| — | Has the Commission ever become aware of consultancy work being carried out to an unsatisfactory standard? What criteria does the Commission apply when assessing consultancy services? |
| --- | --- |

—

Has the Commission ever become aware of consultancy work being carried out to an unsatisfactory standard? What criteria does the Commission apply when assessing consultancy services?

| — | Has a consultancy contract ever proved damaging to the Commission, and, if so, to what extent? |
| --- | --- |

—

Has a consultancy contract ever proved damaging to the Commission, and, if so, to what extent?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(5 February 2004)

The allocations to the Cabinets cover the organisation of meetings (heading A-7030) and appropriations for the employment of auxiliary agents, but do not cover consultants.

The principal heading, A-7002, and also headings A-7050 and A-7060 depending on the field of activity — some of which may cover the use of consultants — fall within the responsibility of the various Commission DGs and Services.

No Cabinets of Commissioners have concluded any contracts with consultants since 2000.

Members of the Commission may also use the services of special advisers, either without remuneration or using heading A-1113 for which EUR 300 000 has been allocated for 2004.

---

(1)  OJ C 192 E, 14.8.2003, p. 220.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/560 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/560

---

(2004/C 78 E/0595)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3477/03

by Baroness Sarah Ludford (ELDR) to the Commission

(24 November 2003)

Subject:   Women in prison

Can the Commission supply details of the number of women currently in prison in each European Union Member State?

Can the Commission provide a total number of mothers with dependent children in prison in each European Union Member State?

What percentage of the total prison population do women constitute in each European Member State?

Per capita of the population, can the Commission list which Member States have the most women in prison in the European Union?

What is the most common offence committed by women imprisoned in each European Union Member State?

How do all the above contrast with the male prison population in each European Member State?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(27 January 2004)

The Commission does not have the statistics to give the Honourable Member an appropriate reply to her written question.

The Commission has obtained a number of statistical data on the prison population in the Member States and in the Accession Countries in the context of the preparation of two Green Papers, one on possible measures to be taken at Union level for safeguarding the rights of individuals in pre-trial detention and alternatives to such detention and a second on the approximation, recognition and enforcement of criminal sanctions in the Union.

At the request of the Italian Presidency, the Commission sent a questionnaire to the Member States, wherein they were asked to provide statistical data on their total prison population: They were invited to provide figures on people in pre-trial detention and convicted prisoners. Additionally, they were asked to supply — in each case — statistics for nationals and non-nationals and amongst the non-nationals, between those of other Member States, those of the Accession Countries and those of third countries. Questions regarding the number of female prisoners etc. did not enter into the scope of that questionnaire (as it does not have any relevance for the two above-mentioned Green Papers) and it is not the intention of the Commission to obtain information on this particular issue.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/561 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/561

---

(2004/C 78 E/0596)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3479/03

by Christine De Veyrac (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(24 November 2003)

Subject:   Transposition of Directive 2002/46/EC seeking to harmonise Member State legislation on food supplements

In July 2002, the European institutions adopted a directive seeking to harmonise Member State legislation on food supplements (2002/46/EC (1)).

This directive has made the food supplements sector ‘readable’ again, clarifying the boundary between food and medicine, and making food supplements both safer and more trustworthy. Furthermore, the Directive is doing specific rules for defining products, their contents, dosages and usage for vitamins and minerals, and imposes the same rules on the consumer information throughout Europe. However, it leaves it up to the Member State to regulate the issue of the use of plants in food supplements.

This text was to be transposed into national law on 31 July 2003, which is not yet the case in all Member States.

Can the Commission provide:

| — | the list of those Member States which have in fact transposed the directive before the deadline, and the list of those which did not; |
| --- | --- |

—

the list of those Member States which have in fact transposed the directive before the deadline, and the list of those which did not;

| — | a list of those Member States which transposed the Directive to the letter, and the list of those which chose to go further, by incorporating aspects not harmonised by the Directive? |
| --- | --- |

—

a list of those Member States which transposed the Directive to the letter, and the list of those which chose to go further, by incorporating aspects not harmonised by the Directive?

Furthermore, does the Commission believe that the principle of the freedom of movement provided for in the Treaty of Accession can be applied to those aspects not harmonised by the Directive, and not dealt with in the transposition process?

Does the Commission intend to take fresh initiatives on those aspects not harmonised by Directive 2002/46/EC so as to encourage greater harmonisation of European legislation on food supplements?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(20 January 2004)

The current situation regarding Member States' transposal of Directive 2002/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 June 2002 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to food supplements is as follows:

| — | five Member States transposed Directive 2002/46/EC within the time allowed: Belgium, Denmark, the Netherlands, Portugal and Sweden; |
| --- | --- |

—

five Member States transposed Directive 2002/46/EC within the time allowed: Belgium, Denmark, the Netherlands, Portugal and Sweden;

| — | on 6 October 2003 the Commission sent a letter of formal notice to the other ten Member States for not having given notification of their national measures for transposing the Directive; |
| --- | --- |

—

on 6 October 2003 the Commission sent a letter of formal notice to the other ten Member States for not having given notification of their national measures for transposing the Directive;

| — | since then, Spain, Ireland and the United Kingdom have notified us of their national measures; |
| --- | --- |

—

since then, Spain, Ireland and the United Kingdom have notified us of their national measures;

| — | seven Member States are currently behind schedule in transposing the Directive: Germany, Greece, France, Italy, Luxembourg, Austria and Finland (the delay in transposal concerns only the autonomous province of the Åland Islands); |
| --- | --- |

—

seven Member States are currently behind schedule in transposing the Directive: Germany, Greece, France, Italy, Luxembourg, Austria and Finland (the delay in transposal concerns only the autonomous province of the Åland Islands);

| — | in light of the above, it is not possible to provide a meaningful description of the different ways in which the various countries have transposed the Directive; |
| --- | --- |

—

in light of the above, it is not possible to provide a meaningful description of the different ways in which the various countries have transposed the Directive;

| — | with regard to the areas or products for which this Directive does not provide harmonisation measures, movement of these goods in the single market remains subject to the general provisions of Community law and in particular to those relating to the free movement of goods (Articles 28 and 30 of the EC Treaty). These provisions will of course apply in the accession countries as of the date of accession; |
| --- | --- |

—

with regard to the areas or products for which this Directive does not provide harmonisation measures, movement of these goods in the single market remains subject to the general provisions of Community law and in particular to those relating to the free movement of goods (Articles 28 and 30 of the EC Treaty). These provisions will of course apply in the accession countries as of the date of accession;

| — | based on the implementing powers conferred on it by Article 5(4) of the Directive, the Commission will set the maximum amounts of vitamins and minerals in food supplements. This exercise is to take into account the work currently being done by the European Food Safety Authority on maximum safe levels of vitamins and minerals, which should be completed in the course of 2005; |
| --- | --- |

—

based on the implementing powers conferred on it by Article 5(4) of the Directive, the Commission will set the maximum amounts of vitamins and minerals in food supplements. This exercise is to take into account the work currently being done by the European Food Safety Authority on maximum safe levels of vitamins and minerals, which should be completed in the course of 2005;

| — | under Article 4(8) of the Directive, the Commission must submit to the European Parliament and the Council, not later than 12 July 2007, a report on the advisability of establishing specific rules concerning categories of nutrients or of substances with a nutritional or physiological effect, other than vitamins and minerals. The Commission has not yet begun this work. |
| --- | --- |

—

under Article 4(8) of the Directive, the Commission must submit to the European Parliament and the Council, not later than 12 July 2007, a report on the advisability of establishing specific rules concerning categories of nutrients or of substances with a nutritional or physiological effect, other than vitamins and minerals. The Commission has not yet begun this work.

---

(1)  OJ L 183, 12.7.2002, p. 51.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/562 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/562

---

(2004/C 78 E/0597)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3482/03

by Richard Corbett (PSE) to the Commission

(24 November 2003)

Subject:   Legal privilege of documents between companies and their law firms

Does the Commission regard correspondence between companies and their law firms as ‘legally privileged’ in anti-cartel cases?

If so, what is to prevent companies arranging their cartels via their lawyers in order to avoid detection?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(8 January 2004)

The Commission fully recognises that correspondence between companies and their law firms can be ‘legally privileged’. This recognition is in accordance with the jurisprudence of the European Court of Justice and the Court of First Instance. The jurisprudence sets out the conditions for such privilege. Thus, according to the case law, the confidentiality of written communications between lawyer and client is protected provided that, on the one hand, such communications are made for the purposes and in the interests of the client's rights of defence and on the other hand, they emanate from independent lawyers, that is to say, lawyers who are not bound to the client by a relationship of employment.

The second part of the question of the Honourable Member is of utmost concern to the Commission in connection with the effective enforcement of Article 81 of the EC Treaty. To that effect, the above case law imposes conditions so as to avoid abuse of legal privilege by companies. Documents are only protected if they are written communications solely for requesting the lawyer's advice for the purposes of the rights of defence.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/563 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/563

---

(2004/C 78 E/0598)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3486/03

by Karl von Wogau (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(24 November 2003)

Subject:   Charges for bank transfers within the eurozone

Is the Commission aware that Regulation (EC) No 2560/2001 (1) on cross-border payments in euro is still not consistently applied in Spain? What steps does the Commission intend to take in this connection? How can members of the public obtain refunds of any charges made?

The incident which gave rise to the question was a transfer of EUR 10 which a member of the public made from his account with a local savings bank in Germany to a Spanish account which he had opened with the Caja de Ahorros del Mediterráneo. Only EUR 3,99 were credited to his Spanish account, although the money was transferred after 1 July 2003. Upon enquiry, the Spanish bank told him that a charge of 0,2 % is generally made on transfers from foreign banks, with a minimum charge of EUR 6,01, and that the charges are made by the Bank of Spain directly. Staff at his Spanish bank were not aware of Regulation (EC) No 2560/2001 on cross-border payments.

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(19 January 2004)

Regulation (EC) No 2560/2001 of the Parliament and of the Council of 19 December 2001 establishes the principle of equality of charges between national payments and cross-border payments in euro. This principle applies to electronic payment transactions in euro since 1 July 2002 and to credit transfers since 1 July 2003, up to an amount of EUR 12 500. The Regulation specifies that the sending bank can request from its customer the IBAN (International Bank Account Number) and BIC (Bank Identifier Code) of the beneficiary, and may take additional charges when those are not provided.

In the case presented by the Honourable Member, a transfer of EUR 10 from Germany to Spain was charged EUR 6,01 to the beneficiary. According to the principle of equality of charges, this charge is only correct if it corresponds to the charge applied to a similar national transfer in Spain, and if IBAN and BIC were provided by the sender upon request. The fact that the employee of the bank was not aware of the Regulation and that the charge applied is said to be ‘generally made on transfers from foreign banks’, seems to indicate that this bank does not apply the same charges to credit transfers in euro in the Union as it does to national ones, as prescribed in the Regulation.

Should this be the case, the Spanish authorities should take appropriate measures in order to guarantee adequate and consistent application of the Regulation. Article 7 of the Regulation indicates that the compliance shall be guaranteed by effective, proportionate and deterrent sanctions. The Commission wrote to all Member States in September 2003 asking them the name of the responsible national authority and the measures they may take in this regard, and is in contact with the Banco de España in this respect, concerning cases of possible misapplication of the Regulation.

As regards redress procedures for citizens having problems with banks in Spain, they must first contact their bank, and if they are not satisfied with the reply they receive, they may complain to the Complaints Department at the Banco de España (C/Alcalá No 50, 28014 Madrid), stating their reasons and supplying the documents in their possession relating to the matter in dispute.

---

(1)  OJ L 344, 28.12.2001, p. 13.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/564 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/564

---

(2004/C 78 E/0599)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3490/03

by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(24 November 2003)

Subject:   Regulating the market and olive growers' incomes under 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) 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’. Furthermore, the Commission proposes that ‘the refunds relating both to export and to manufacture of certain preserved food should be repealed’, and that other market policies ‘should be kept intact’.

The Commission:

| 1. | How does it assess the impact of eliminating the previous reform's intervention price in the olive oil sector, given the pattern of prices paid to producers, and their impact on olive growers' incomes? Does it believe that the existing regulatory mechanisms, resting as they do on private storage subsidies, are enough to achieve the objective of regulating the market during and between marketing seasons? |
| --- | --- |

1.

How does it assess the impact of eliminating the previous reform's intervention price in the olive oil sector, given the pattern of prices paid to producers, and their impact on olive growers' incomes? Does it believe that the existing regulatory mechanisms, resting as they do on private storage subsidies, are enough to achieve the objective of regulating the market during and between marketing seasons?

| 2. | What does it believe the impact of the current proposal will be on Portuguese olive growers' incomes? |
| --- | --- |

2.

What does it believe the impact of the current proposal will be on Portuguese olive growers' incomes?

| 3. | What is its reason for abolishing export refunds in the olive oil sector, specifically with regard to the manufacture of certain preserved food, given that this subsidy has an effect on the promotion of the use of olive oil? Does it not believe that reintroducing the abolished consumption aids would provide a solution, not only in terms of promoting olive oil, but also of controlling its production? |
| --- | --- |

3.

What is its reason for abolishing export refunds in the olive oil sector, specifically with regard to the manufacture of certain preserved food, given that this subsidy has an effect on the promotion of the use of olive oil? Does it not believe that reintroducing the abolished consumption aids would provide a solution, not only in terms of promoting olive oil, but also of controlling its production?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(22 December 2003)

The intervention mechanism was abolished at the time of the 1998 reform. Since then, except for very limited periods, market prices have been higher than the former intervention price. Olive growers have therefore not suffered a loss of income, and it has been possible to avoid encouraging production based on quantity rather than quality and oriented towards sales to intervention agencies. Such production could have led to a general fall in the prices paid to growers and hence to a reduction in their income.

The principles of the latest reform involves regulating production according to market demand, as is already largely the case in the olive-oil sector. It therefore does not appear necessary to change the current situation, and the Commission proposes maintaining the private storage system simply as a safety net to be activated in the event of a crisis.

Since the olive-oil sector is already strongly oriented towards the market, the Commission does not expect significant reductions in production levels in Portugal after the reform comes into effect. The Commission proposal also includes maintaining the current level of support for the olive-oil sector in each producer Member State, while decoupling will enable the grower support level to stabilise regardless of annual harvest fluctuations.

The Commission considers that equilibrium will be achieved if the whole olive-oil sector is committed to continuous quality improvement, thereby stimulating sustained growth in demand.

Since export refunds ceased in 1998, sales of Community olive oil in third countries have increased by 50 %. This proves most clearly the instrument's lack of effectiveness as regards promoting growth in Community olive oil exports. It therefore seems appropriate to abolish a mechanism which no longer serves a useful purpose.

The Commission considers that refunds for the manufacture of certain olive-oil preserves are no longer necessary because olive oil's good image means that consumers are now prepared to pay more for foodstuffs containing it. Once again, market demand based on product quality will be determinant in developing outlets for olive-oil use.

By the same token, there is no apparent justification for reintroducing olive-oil consumption aid. It would not help to control production and would entail the management problems familiar from past experience.

---

(1)  COM(2003)final.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/565 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/565

---

(2004/C 78 E/0600)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3494/03

by José Ribeiro e Castro (UEN) to the Commission

(24 November 2003)

Subject:   Cuba — political prisoners

According to information provided by the members of the Cuban resistance, Rafael Ibarra Roque, Honorary President of the Partido Democrático 30 de Noviembre ‘Frank País’ (PD-30-N) was tortured, shackled and dragged along the floor of the Combinado des Este prison in Havana on 16 October 2003, the day on which he began a hunger strike as a form of protest, demanding respect for (his) human rights, separate custody from common criminals, who are threatening and insulting him, and his right to refuse to wear the same uniform as the other prisoners.

Pedro Argüelles Morán, editor of the Cooperativa Avilena de Periodistas Independientes (CAPI), one of the 26 independent journalists arrested and sentenced during the wave of persecution last March, who is also being held in a punishment cell in the same block of the prison, has apparently joined this hunger strike.

Reports on the two prisoners' health are alarming. Both are heavily dehydrated, and they have been refused any form of medical assistance.

Since October 14, Arturo Suárez Ramos has been in the same situation.

Five other members of the Cuban resistance, who are imprisoned in Holguin, and are also on hunger strike, likewise deserve particular attention.

The Commission:

| — | what information does it have as to the health of these political prisoners? What information does it have about the ill treatment and abuse to which Cuban political prisoners are subjected on a daily basis; |
| --- | --- |

—

what information does it have as to the health of these political prisoners? What information does it have about the ill treatment and abuse to which Cuban political prisoners are subjected on a daily basis;

| — | what measures has it taken or does it intend to take to encourage the Cuban authorities to provide decent treatment for prisoners who are quite obviously not common criminals; |
| --- | --- |

—

what measures has it taken or does it intend to take to encourage the Cuban authorities to provide decent treatment for prisoners who are quite obviously not common criminals;

| — | what means does it intend to use to increase European political pressure on the Cuban regime in favour of freedom, democracy and the respect of citizens' basic rights? |
| --- | --- |

—

what means does it intend to use to increase European political pressure on the Cuban regime in favour of freedom, democracy and the respect of citizens' basic rights?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(29 January 2004)

| 1. | The Delegation of the Commission in Havana has been informed that two political prisoners in Holguin Ivan Hernandez Carrillo and Angel Moya Acosta, have been held in punishment cells, since October 17 and 18 respectively. The Delegation was informed, as well, that five political prisoners in the same prison were in hunger strike in protest of the punishment of their fellows, since October 18. The names of these five political prisoners on hunger strike are: Antonio Díaz Sánchez, Alfredo Dominguez Batista, Adolfo Fernández Sainz, Mario Enrique Mayo y Arnaldo Ramos Lauzerique.
  The Delegation of the Commission has also been reported that the three political prisoners mentioned by the Honourable Member, i.e. Rafael Ibarra Roque, Pedro Arguelles Morán and Arturo Suárez Ramos, have been subject to cruel and degrading treatment or punishment, as well as other political prisoners including Oscar Elias Biscet, Francisco Chaviano, Nestor Rodriguez Lovaina, Oscar Espinosa Chepe and Juan Carlos Gonzalez Leiva.
  On November 28 the Human Rights Working Group of Union embassies in Cuba held a meeting were Mr Oswaldo Paya, recipient of the Sakharov prize 2002, was invited to attend. Mr Paya reported on the pressure under which dissidents as well as relatives of political prisoners were living, and expressed his deep concern about the health situation of prisoners, and in particular those currently on hunger strike. Mr Paya essentially deplored: withholding food rations for political prisoners — hunger being used as a punishment; restrictions of visits when abuse, torture or inhuman treatment was denounced; the unbearable state of punishment cells (no light, no WC, rats); lack of appropriate treatment of sick prisoners. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The Delegation of the Commission in Havana has been informed that two political prisoners in Holguin Ivan Hernandez Carrillo and Angel Moya Acosta, have been held in punishment cells, since October 17 and 18 respectively. The Delegation was informed, as well, that five political prisoners in the same prison were in hunger strike in protest of the punishment of their fellows, since October 18. The names of these five political prisoners on hunger strike are: Antonio Díaz Sánchez, Alfredo Dominguez Batista, Adolfo Fernández Sainz, Mario Enrique Mayo y Arnaldo Ramos Lauzerique.

The Delegation of the Commission has also been reported that the three political prisoners mentioned by the Honourable Member, i.e. Rafael Ibarra Roque, Pedro Arguelles Morán and Arturo Suárez Ramos, have been subject to cruel and degrading treatment or punishment, as well as other political prisoners including Oscar Elias Biscet, Francisco Chaviano, Nestor Rodriguez Lovaina, Oscar Espinosa Chepe and Juan Carlos Gonzalez Leiva.

On November 28 the Human Rights Working Group of Union embassies in Cuba held a meeting were Mr Oswaldo Paya, recipient of the Sakharov prize 2002, was invited to attend. Mr Paya reported on the pressure under which dissidents as well as relatives of political prisoners were living, and expressed his deep concern about the health situation of prisoners, and in particular those currently on hunger strike. Mr Paya essentially deplored: withholding food rations for political prisoners — hunger being used as a punishment; restrictions of visits when abuse, torture or inhuman treatment was denounced; the unbearable state of punishment cells (no light, no WC, rats); lack of appropriate treatment of sick prisoners.

| 2. | The Commission, through its Delegation in Havana, is a member of the Human Rights Working Group of Union Embassies in Cuba. To ensure coherence and provide leverage the Commission will not act independently of the Member States. Measures are taken in full consent with the Member States and on the basis of a previously agreed course of action at Union level. The Commission participates as well in all Troika demarches, including those related to human rights matters. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The Commission, through its Delegation in Havana, is a member of the Human Rights Working Group of Union Embassies in Cuba. To ensure coherence and provide leverage the Commission will not act independently of the Member States. Measures are taken in full consent with the Member States and on the basis of a previously agreed course of action at Union level. The Commission participates as well in all Troika demarches, including those related to human rights matters.

| 3. | The Commission fully implements the measures taken by the Council on 5 June 2003 e.g. limit bilateral high level governmental visits, reduce the profile of Member States' participation in cultural events and invite Cuban dissidents at national days celebrations. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The Commission fully implements the measures taken by the Council on 5 June 2003 e.g. limit bilateral high level governmental visits, reduce the profile of Member States' participation in cultural events and invite Cuban dissidents at national days celebrations.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/566 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/566

---

(2004/C 78 E/0601)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3502/03

by Michl Ebner (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(24 November 2003)

Subject:   Air quality standards in areas of heavy traffic

Increasing levels of traffic and the atmospheric and noise pollution associated with these increases are a regular topic for discussion in South Tyrol, which is a transit region. The limit values for particulates and nitrogen oxides need to be tightened up, and stricter emission controls are necessary. Fine dust particles absorb toxic substances, accumulate in the lungs and cause severe respiratory diseases, and these noxious emissions are mainly caused by heavy goods traffic on transit routes. Although particulate filters are available for lorries, they are seldom used, and the same is true for buses and trains, which, although thought of as environmentally friendly forms of transport, use engines which no longer meet current emission standards.

What steps are being taken to reduce pollution?

Will limit values be set which reflect the increasing levels of traffic?

Why are stricter checks of engine emissions not being introduced?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(14 January 2004)

Directive 1999/96/EC (1) introduced new emission requirements for new heavy-duty vehicles in two stages. The Euro 4 stage, due to be mandatory from October 2006 for all new heavy-duty vehicles, will lower the emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOX) by some 30 % compared to the present legal requirements while the emission of particulates will be lowered by some 80 %. A second mandatory stage (Euro 5) will apply to all new heavy-duty vehicles from October 2009 and this will result in a lowering of NOX by a total of 60 % compared to the present legal requirements. Now, the Commission is investigating a further stage of emission reduction for heavy-duty vehicles, concentrating on the primary pollutants NOX and particulates. Further reductions could be foreseen in a Euro 6 stage in the timeframe 2012-2013.

These limit values apply to new vehicles that first enter into service on the roads of the Union. The Commission has no plans to introduce new vehicle emission standards that vary as traffic levels increase. However, the scientific programme of work that may lead to the definition of a Commission proposal for the Euro 6 stage takes into account the increase in traffic throughout the Union and in regional areas.

Stricter checks of emissions are being supplemented by the introduction of new technical measures for onboard diagnostic (OBD) systems on heavy-duty vehicles. OBD is to be a part of the Euro 4 stage from 2006. OBD will monitor non-compliance of emissions in real-time and inform the driver and repair garage if there is a problem with the emission control systems that needs attention. The Commission is also working on a new method for checking the in-use conformity of heavy-duty vehicles in service through the use of portable emission monitoring systems (PEMS) which will supplement the technical measures of the Euro 4 stage.

---

(1)  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, OJ L 44, 16.2.2000.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/567 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/567

---

(2004/C 78 E/0602)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3506/03

by Jorge Hernández Mollar (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(24 November 2003)

Subject:   Community legislation on DNA

Experts claim that adoption of legislation on DNA at Community level would help to solve more crimes, thanks to the employment of techniques which allow the identification of individuals, which would in turn render Community collaboration on prosecuting crime more efficient.

The disparate situations obtaining in the relevant legal frameworks of the various Community countries constitutes a hindrance, and prevents more rapid progress being made in the prosecution of criminals and their crimes.

Does the Commission believe that it should use its power of initiative to make a survey of the current state of legal provisions on DNA in order to put forward standard Community legislation which would aid the EU as a whole to solve crimes within its territory more rapidly?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(14 January 2004)

The use, within an appropriate legislative framework, of deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) analyses is an effective investigation technique available to the police and judicial authorities in more and more types of crime. It makes it possible to determine with a very high degree of probability the origin of samples of human cells or tissues taken from the crime scene. It can therefore considerably facilitate the process of identifying (either positively or negatively) those associated with the offence concerned.

Any legislative framework authorising the use of DNA testing is more effective if it allows genetic databases to be created so that profiles established at the crime scene can be compared with DNA profiles established in other criminal cases.

The Council has adopted two resolutions on the exchange of DNA analysis results. The first, dated 9 June 1997 (1), invites the Member States to establish national DNA databases in accordance with the same standards and in a compatible manner. The second, dated 25 June 2001 (2), lays down a minimum list of seven markers used for the forensic DNA analyses carried out in the Member States.

In order to make police and judicial action more effective in solving crime, and subject to legal arrangements yet to be defined, the Commission is considering the possibility of creating national DNA databases in all the Member States and broadening the comparison of a profile established on the basis of a sample taken at the scene of a crime in a Member State with the profiles contained in the other Member States' databases.

---

(1)  Resolution 97C 193/02 of 9 June 1997.

(2)  Resolution 2001C 187/01 of 25 June 2001.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/568 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/568

---

(2004/C 78 E/0603)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3510/03

by Rodi Kratsa-Tsagaropoulou (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(18 November 2003)

Subject:   Driving licences in the European Union

Can the Commission say whether the British police authorities are acting within the law in refusing to allow a student attending Leeds University to drive within the United Kingdom, the student in question being of Greek nationality and holding an automobile driving licence issued by the Greek authorities under the terms of Directive 91/439/EEC (1) of 29 July 1991 (transposed by Greece and concerning the mutual recognition of driving licences issued by Member States)?

Answer given by Ms de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(15 December 2003)

Council Directive 91/439/EEC of 29 July 1991 on driving licences (2) established the principle of mutual recognition of all driving licences issued by Member States. The Court of Justice has just confirmed, in its ruling in case C-246/00, that this mutual recognition must be unconditional (3). It is clear that the British authorities must recognise the licence issued by the Greek authorities, especially as students are free to obtain a driving licence either in the Member State where they are studying or in their Member State of origin (4).

---

(1)  OJ L 237, 24.8.1991, p. 1.

(2)  OJ L 237, 24.8.1991, Article 1.2.

(3)  C-246/00, Judgment of 10.07.2003, Commission/Netherlands, ECR 2003.

(4)  OJ L 237, 24.8.1991, Articles 7.1.b and 9.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/569 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/569

---

(2004/C 78 E/0604)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3516/03

by Baroness Sarah Ludford (ELDR) to the Commission

(25 November 2003)

Subject:   Commission staffing

What is the total number of permanent staff employed by the European Commission and how many staff work in each Directorate-General?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(15 January 2004)

The Commission interprets the question from the Honourable Member as referring to officials in active employment (Staff Regulations Article 36).

The permanent staff employed by the Commission on 1 December 2003 was 18 670 officials. The number of officials per Directorate-General was as follows:

| Directorate-General (DG) | Number of officials |
| --- | --- |
| Cabinets (20) | 265 |
| Secretariat general | 420 |
| Legal Service | 277 |
| Press and Communication DG | 372 |
| Group of policy advisers | 19 |
| Economic and Financial Affairs DG | 379 |
| Entreprise DG | 577 |
| Competition DG | 469 |
| Employment and Social Affairs DG | 447 |
| Agriculture DG | 756 |
| Transport and Energy DG | 715 |
| Environment DG | 389 |
| Research DG | 616 |
| Joint Research Centre | 1 025 |
| Information Society DG | 546 |
| Fisheries DG | 202 |
| Internal Market DG | 311 |
| Regional Policy DG | 417 |
| Taxation and Customs Union DG | 309 |
| Education and Culture DG | 504 |
| Health and Consumer Protection DG | 499 |
| Justice and Home Affairs DG | 197 |
| External Relations DG | 1 385 |
| Trade DG | 352 |
| Development DG | 264 |
| Enlargement DG | 244 |
| EuropeAid Co-operation Office | 797 |
| Humanitarian Aid Office | 134 |
| Eurostat | 534 |
| Personnel and Administration DG | 946 |
| Budget DG | 359 |
| Internal Audit Service | 64 |
| European Anti-Fraud Office (1) | 141 |
| DG for Interpretation | 562 |
| DG for Translation | 1 685 |
| Publications Office (1) | 436 |
| Office for Infrastructure and Logistics in Brussels | 501 |
| PayMaster Office | 276 |
| Office for Infrastructure and Logistics in Luxembourg | 195 |
| European Personnel Selection Office (1) | 84 |
| Total | 18 670 |

Directorate-General (DG)

Number of officials

Cabinets (20)

265

Secretariat general

420

Legal Service

277

Press and Communication DG

372

Group of policy advisers

19

Economic and Financial Affairs DG

379

Entreprise DG

577

Competition DG

469

Employment and Social Affairs DG

447

Agriculture DG

756

Transport and Energy DG

715

Environment DG

389

Research DG

616

Joint Research Centre

1 025

Information Society DG

546

Fisheries DG

202

Internal Market DG

311

Regional Policy DG

417

Taxation and Customs Union DG

309

Education and Culture DG

504

Health and Consumer Protection DG

499

Justice and Home Affairs DG

197

External Relations DG

1 385

Trade DG

352

Development DG

264

Enlargement DG

244

EuropeAid Co-operation Office

797

Humanitarian Aid Office

134

Eurostat

534

Personnel and Administration DG

946

Budget DG

359

Internal Audit Service

64

European Anti-Fraud Office (1)

141

DG for Interpretation

562

DG for Translation

1 685

Publications Office (1)

436

Office for Infrastructure and Logistics in Brussels

501

PayMaster Office

276

Office for Infrastructure and Logistics in Luxembourg

195

European Personnel Selection Office (1)

84

Total

18 670

---

(1)  These are inter-Institutional bodies whose staff are permanent officials of the Commission.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/570 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/570

---

(2004/C 78 E/0605)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3519/03

by Maurizio Turco (NI) to the Commission

(19 November 2003)

Subject:   Sudden unilateral decision by the Italian Council of Ministers to locate a national radioactive waste storage facility in the municipality of Scanzano Jonico

Knowing that:

| — | on 13 November this year the Italian Council of Ministers approved a decree-law for the immediate disposal of radioactive waste produced on the territory of Italy by creating a national dump in the municipality of Scanzano Jonico in the province of Matera. About 60 million cubic metres of second and third category nuclear waste, i.e. waste which decays in the medium or long term and has accumulated as a result of the decommissioning of Italian power stations and research activities, would be transported to the site; |
| --- | --- |

—

on 13 November this year the Italian Council of Ministers approved a decree-law for the immediate disposal of radioactive waste produced on the territory of Italy by creating a national dump in the municipality of Scanzano Jonico in the province of Matera. About 60 million cubic metres of second and third category nuclear waste, i.e. waste which decays in the medium or long term and has accumulated as a result of the decommissioning of Italian power stations and research activities, would be transported to the site;

| — | the decision was taken suddenly and unilaterally by the Italian government; |
| --- | --- |

—

the decision was taken suddenly and unilaterally by the Italian government;

| — | Council Directive 89/618/Euratom (1) of 27 November 1989 was transposed into Italian national law under Title X (‘Nuclear emergency’) of Decree-Law No 230 of 17 March 1995, but no implementing decrees have yet been issued as regards:






  (a) | the creation of a standing committee on information to be given the task of drawing up precautionary information and stating the appropriate channels of communication for disseminating such information (envisaged in Article 133); |
| --- | --- | --- |

—

Council Directive 89/618/Euratom (1) of 27 November 1989 was transposed into Italian national law under Title X (‘Nuclear emergency’) of Decree-Law No 230 of 17 March 1995, but no implementing decrees have yet been issued as regards:

(a)

the creation of a standing committee on information to be given the task of drawing up precautionary information and stating the appropriate channels of communication for disseminating such information (envisaged in Article 133);

| (b) | indicating the authorities and entities which should arrange for the dissemination of the precautionary information (envisaged in Article 134); |
| --- | --- |

(b)

indicating the authorities and entities which should arrange for the dissemination of the precautionary information (envisaged in Article 134);

| (c) | the cases in which the emergency plans applicable to the transport of radioactive materials are to be applied and the procedures for doing so (envisaged in Article 125). |
| --- | --- |

(c)

the cases in which the emergency plans applicable to the transport of radioactive materials are to be applied and the procedures for doing so (envisaged in Article 125).

| — | the European Commission is contributing funding of EUR 743 million to the Objective 1 programme in the Region of Basilicata during the period 2000-2006. Chapter 2 — ‘Development Strategy’ of the ROP (Regional Operational Programme) for Basilicata states that sustainable development is the underlying aim of the ROP and therefore makes the policies which most directly and on an inter- sectoral basis protect environmental health (protection of ecosystems, soil protection, water use and waste management) particularly important, since the environmental character of the region creates a positive image and intrinsic economic value. Furthermore, the description of the area points out that most jobs are in the agricultural processing industry (fruit, vegetable and animal products). |
| --- | --- |

—

the European Commission is contributing funding of EUR 743 million to the Objective 1 programme in the Region of Basilicata during the period 2000-2006. Chapter 2 — ‘Development Strategy’ of the ROP (Regional Operational Programme) for Basilicata states that sustainable development is the underlying aim of the ROP and therefore makes the policies which most directly and on an inter- sectoral basis protect environmental health (protection of ecosystems, soil protection, water use and waste management) particularly important, since the environmental character of the region creates a positive image and intrinsic economic value. Furthermore, the description of the area points out that most jobs are in the agricultural processing industry (fruit, vegetable and animal products).

Can the Commission say:

| — | what steps it will take in response to Italy's sudden and unilateral adoption of the decision and its failure to adopt the decrees implementing European Directive 89/618/Euratom? |
| --- | --- |

—

what steps it will take in response to Italy's sudden and unilateral adoption of the decision and its failure to adopt the decrees implementing European Directive 89/618/Euratom?

| — | what steps it will take if the Italian government's move to concentrate the nuclear waste in Basilicata proves to be in conflict with the region's natural character as described in the documentation justifying the funding and in the development guidelines funded by the European Union? |
| --- | --- |

—

what steps it will take if the Italian government's move to concentrate the nuclear waste in Basilicata proves to be in conflict with the region's natural character as described in the documentation justifying the funding and in the development guidelines funded by the European Union?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(16 December 2003)

Concerning the proposal to construct a radioactive waste repository in the municipality of Scanzano Jonico in Italy, there are certain steps required by European legislation that must take place before any development approval is given.

Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (2), as amended by Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997 (3), requires an assessment to be carried out of, inter alia, the environmental impact of any facilities designed for the final disposal or long-term storage of radioactive waste or irradiated nuclear fuel.

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 (4) requires an assessment of, ‘inter alia’, any government plan or programme to dispose of radioactive waste. However, Member States have until 21 July 2004 to transpose this Directive into national legislation.

Both assessments require information to be provided to the public ‘within a reasonable time in order to give the public concerned the opportunity to express an opinion’ before consent is granted. The results of the consultations with the concerned parties must be taken into consideration in the consent procedure. Impacts on ‘human beings, fauna and flora’, ‘soil, water, air, climate and landscape’ and ‘material assets and cultural heritage’ must be included in the assessment, together with the interactions between these factors. Alternatives and mitigating measures must also be considered. Radiological effects will form part of the impacts to be assessed.

If development consent is granted, specific measures under the Euratom Treaty and secondary legislation will be applicable. All practices involving radioactive materials are subject to Council Directive 96/29/Euratom of 13 May 1996 laying down basic safety standards for the health protection of the general public and workers against the dangers of ionizing radiation (5). In addition, there are notification requirements under Article 37 of the Euratom Treaty in the case of disposal of radioactive waste.

---

(1)  OJ L 357, 7.12.1989, p. 31.

(2)  OJ L 175, 5.7.1985.

(3)  OJ L 73, 14.3.1997.

(4)  OJ L 197, 21.7.2001.

(5)  OJ L 159, 29.6.1996.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/572 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/572

---

(2004/C 78 E/0606)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3520/03

by Rijk van Dam (EDD) to the Commission

(25 November 2003)

Subject:   Court of Auditors Special Report No 4/2003 concerning rural development: support for less-favoured areas

In its reply to paragraph 78 of the Special Report, the Commission states that it is to carry out an overall analysis of the impact of the support scheme for less-favoured areas by the end of 2003 (1).

| 1. | Has the Commission in the meantime carried out an overall assessment of the impact of the support provided to less-favoured areas over past decades? If so, when will this assessment be forwarded to Parliament? If not, why not? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Has the Commission in the meantime carried out an overall assessment of the impact of the support provided to less-favoured areas over past decades? If so, when will this assessment be forwarded to Parliament? If not, why not?

| 2. | In the course of producing its assessment, has the Commission been able to make use of, or will it be able to make use of, information and assessments provided by Member States or by national or regional auditing authorities concerning support for less-favoured areas? Is the Commission prepared to provide a summary of the reports received? |
| --- | --- |

2.

In the course of producing its assessment, has the Commission been able to make use of, or will it be able to make use of, information and assessments provided by Member States or by national or regional auditing authorities concerning support for less-favoured areas? Is the Commission prepared to provide a summary of the reports received?

| 3. | What guarantees does the Commission have that the assessments and information provided by Member States are comprehensive and reliable? Is the data suitable for mutual comparison between Member States? |
| --- | --- |

3.

What guarantees does the Commission have that the assessments and information provided by Member States are comprehensive and reliable? Is the data suitable for mutual comparison between Member States?

| 4. | ‘Cross-compliance’ requirements are expected to play a significant part in the common agricultural policy. The way in which these requirements — for example, ‘good agricultural practice’ — are incorporated in the support scheme for less-favoured areas is highly unsatisfactory. This is mainly because the concepts and standards applied are vague and ambiguous. How and when does the Commission intend to eliminate this shortcoming? |
| --- | --- |

4.

‘Cross-compliance’ requirements are expected to play a significant part in the common agricultural policy. The way in which these requirements — for example, ‘good agricultural practice’ — are incorporated in the support scheme for less-favoured areas is highly unsatisfactory. This is mainly because the concepts and standards applied are vague and ambiguous. How and when does the Commission intend to eliminate this shortcoming?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(26 January 2004)

| 1. and 2. | Mid-term evaluations for the current rural development programming period, including the less-favoured area measure, were to be presented by the Member States by the end of 2003, which was done for almost all programmes. A Community-level conspectus of these evaluations will be available in 2004. Further information can be expected from updatings of the mid-term evaluations, from the ex-post evaluations and from a special evaluation of the less-favoured areas.
  The evaluation at present available to the Commission is for the previous programming period (1994-1999). That Community-level evaluation analysed whether the policy objectives defined in the relevant Regulations were achieved, and uses the national ex-post evaluation reports to support and illustrate the analysis.
  The final report (Evaluation of the Regulation (EC) No 950/97 (2) measures for improvement of agricultural structures) contains the following conclusions on compensation:






  — | the support system for the less-favoured areas has clearly achieved its purpose of compensating for the impact of natural disadvantages on production costs, |
| --- | --- | --- |

1. and 2.

Mid-term evaluations for the current rural development programming period, including the less-favoured area measure, were to be presented by the Member States by the end of 2003, which was done for almost all programmes. A Community-level conspectus of these evaluations will be available in 2004. Further information can be expected from updatings of the mid-term evaluations, from the ex-post evaluations and from a special evaluation of the less-favoured areas.

The evaluation at present available to the Commission is for the previous programming period (1994-1999). That Community-level evaluation analysed whether the policy objectives defined in the relevant Regulations were achieved, and uses the national ex-post evaluation reports to support and illustrate the analysis.

The final report (Evaluation of the Regulation (EC) No 950/97 (2) measures for improvement of agricultural structures) contains the following conclusions on compensation:

—

the support system for the less-favoured areas has clearly achieved its purpose of compensating for the impact of natural disadvantages on production costs,

| — | the lack of a common, standard definition of support in these areas may, however, be a factor explaining the undercompensation in some of them and the overcompensation in some of those where the handicap is small or even insignificant compared to the ‘non-less favoured areas’ in the Member State concerned. |
| --- | --- |

—

the lack of a common, standard definition of support in these areas may, however, be a factor explaining the undercompensation in some of them and the overcompensation in some of those where the handicap is small or even insignificant compared to the ‘non-less favoured areas’ in the Member State concerned.

| 3. | The quality of the evaluations made at national level is ensured by applying the relevant common rules specifying the scope of the evaluations and how they are to be carried out (Articles 54 to 57 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 445/2002 (3)). Those rules also require common evaluation questions to be defined and a common structure for the reports to be followed. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The quality of the evaluations made at national level is ensured by applying the relevant common rules specifying the scope of the evaluations and how they are to be carried out (Articles 54 to 57 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 445/2002 (3)). Those rules also require common evaluation questions to be defined and a common structure for the reports to be followed.

| 4. | Under Article 5 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 (4), by 1 January 2005 Member States must define, at national or regional level, minimum requirements for good agricultural and environmental conditions on the basis of Annex IV to that Regulation, taking into account the specific characteristics of the areas concerned, including soil and climatic conditions. Those standards will facilitate implementation of good farming practice as defined in Article 29 of Regulation (EC) No 445/2002, entailing, as a minimum, compliance with the general mandatory environmental requirements. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Under Article 5 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 (4), by 1 January 2005 Member States must define, at national or regional level, minimum requirements for good agricultural and environmental conditions on the basis of Annex IV to that Regulation, taking into account the specific characteristics of the areas concerned, including soil and climatic conditions. Those standards will facilitate implementation of good farming practice as defined in Article 29 of Regulation (EC) No 445/2002, entailing, as a minimum, compliance with the general mandatory environmental requirements.

---

(1)  OJ C 151, 27.6.2003, p. 23.

(2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 950/97 of 20 May 1997 on improving the efficiency of agricultural structures, OJ L 142, 2.6.1997.

(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.

(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) 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.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/573 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/573

---

(2004/C 78 E/0607)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3522/03

by Elly Plooij-van Gorsel (ELDR) to the Commission

(19 November 2003)

Subject:   Specific import tariffs on photographic products for the People's Republic of China

In March 2003 I put a written question to the Commission on the import tariffs that the People's Republic of China is imposing on photographic products (E-1289/03 (1)).

In its answer to these questions the Commission includes the comment that the application of specific duties on photographic products in China has in several cases led to higher duties than the consolidated ad valorem rate. In response to this finding the Commission has raised the problem both bilaterally with the Chinese authorities and in the context of the WTO Transitional Review Mechanism. As a result the Chinese authorities have undertaken to make the Commission request the subject of a thorough investigation.

| 1. | Has the Commission yet received the results from the Chinese authorities? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Has the Commission yet received the results from the Chinese authorities?

| 2. | If not, what further steps has the Commission taken in this regard over the past six months to obtain the results concerned? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If not, what further steps has the Commission taken in this regard over the past six months to obtain the results concerned?

| 3. | What action is the Commission taking to enforce the application of the correct tariffs at the earliest possible time? |
| --- | --- |

3.

What action is the Commission taking to enforce the application of the correct tariffs at the earliest possible time?

Answer given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(16 December 2003)

The Commission took the action to which the Honourable Member refers as a result of the matter being raised with the Commission by the European industry in 2002. However, it has not contacted the Commission again since January 2003 when China introduced new tariffs.

No reference was made to the issue by the Member States consulted for the purpose of identifying the EU's priorities in trade with China, in particular as regards China's implementation of its commitments to the World Trade Organisation.

In view of the above and the many priority trade issues facing European businesses in China, the Commission has not prioritised this question.

The Commission would be grateful for any further details which the Honourable Member can provide in order to raise the matter again with the Chinese authorities.

The Commission has been informed that this matter is in fact a priority for Japan, whose industry has apparently suffered more than the EU's from the system of specific duties introduced by China.

---

(1)  See page 27.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/574 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/574

---

(2004/C 78 E/0608)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3523/03

by Struan Stevenson (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(28 November 2003)

Subject:   Proposed new livestock transport regulations

| 1. | Were the Commission officials responsible for drafting the proposed new livestock transport regulations trained in animal husbandry, practical livestock handling or veterinary science? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Were the Commission officials responsible for drafting the proposed new livestock transport regulations trained in animal husbandry, practical livestock handling or veterinary science?

| 2. | Does the Commission accept that the reduction of maximum journey times for livestock from 14 hours to 9 hours with a mandatory 12-hour rest period will, in fact, significantly extend journey times and therefore add to stress of travelling animals? On what scientific evidence are these recommendations based? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Does the Commission accept that the reduction of maximum journey times for livestock from 14 hours to 9 hours with a mandatory 12-hour rest period will, in fact, significantly extend journey times and therefore add to stress of travelling animals? On what scientific evidence are these recommendations based?

| 3. | Has the Commission carried out a cost analysis to ascertain the additional headage cost per animal that the new regulations will incur and which will have to be paid by farmers? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Has the Commission carried out a cost analysis to ascertain the additional headage cost per animal that the new regulations will incur and which will have to be paid by farmers?

| 4. | Has the Commission analysed the likely impact on jobs in terms of existing hauliers who may go out of business rather than attempt to meet the new regulatory standards? |
| --- | --- |

4.

Has the Commission analysed the likely impact on jobs in terms of existing hauliers who may go out of business rather than attempt to meet the new regulatory standards?

| 5. | How does the Commission intend water to be made available to livestock in floats? |
| --- | --- |

5.

How does the Commission intend water to be made available to livestock in floats?

| 6. | If water is to be accessed via teats or nipples, how does the Commission intend to train farm animals in the use of such devices? |
| --- | --- |

6.

If water is to be accessed via teats or nipples, how does the Commission intend to train farm animals in the use of such devices?

| 7. | Does the Commission accept that the provision of continuous supplies of food and water during transport is inconsistent with the public health requirement of presenting only clean livestock for slaughter? |
| --- | --- |

7.

Does the Commission accept that the provision of continuous supplies of food and water during transport is inconsistent with the public health requirement of presenting only clean livestock for slaughter?

| 8. | On what scientific evidence is the proposal for space allowances during transport of livestock based? Does the Commission accept that increased space allowances as proposed can lead to serious injuries amongst livestock and can dangerously de-stabilise vehicles, creating a potential road hazard? |
| --- | --- |

8.

On what scientific evidence is the proposal for space allowances during transport of livestock based? Does the Commission accept that increased space allowances as proposed can lead to serious injuries amongst livestock and can dangerously de-stabilise vehicles, creating a potential road hazard?

| 9. | Can the Commission provide scientific evidence which justifies a one-size-fits-all livestock transport regulation applicable to all 25 Member States, regardless of whether they are in more temperate northern climates or hot, southern climates? |
| --- | --- |

9.

Can the Commission provide scientific evidence which justifies a one-size-fits-all livestock transport regulation applicable to all 25 Member States, regardless of whether they are in more temperate northern climates or hot, southern climates?

| 10. | Will the Commission list the number of successful prosecutions for breaches of existing livestock transport regulations in each of the 15 existing Member States, on a country-by-country basis, during 2002? |
| --- | --- |

10.

Will the Commission list the number of successful prosecutions for breaches of existing livestock transport regulations in each of the 15 existing Member States, on a country-by-country basis, during 2002?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(20 January 2004)

| 1. | The elaboration of the Commission proposal (1) on the protection of animals during transport was coordinated by the Directorate General for Health and Consumer Protection that is competent for animal welfare issues. All the required expertise from outside and inside the Commission was ensured during the process of drafting. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The elaboration of the Commission proposal (1) on the protection of animals during transport was coordinated by the Directorate General for Health and Consumer Protection that is competent for animal welfare issues. All the required expertise from outside and inside the Commission was ensured during the process of drafting.

| 2. | The Commission proposal takes into account several elements including the opinion of the Scientific Committee on Animal Health and Animal Welfare (Scahaw) of March 2002. Travelling time limits as recommended by scientists have been developed taking into account the Union's social legislation for drivers. The resulting travel sequences were adopted by the Commission in order to facilitate enforcement and improve controls without extending the presently required journey durations. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The Commission proposal takes into account several elements including the opinion of the Scientific Committee on Animal Health and Animal Welfare (Scahaw) of March 2002. Travelling time limits as recommended by scientists have been developed taking into account the Union's social legislation for drivers. The resulting travel sequences were adopted by the Commission in order to facilitate enforcement and improve controls without extending the presently required journey durations.

| 3. | The Commission has estimated that there will be minimal cost implications for journeys of less than nine hours. These journeys constitute the great majority of all animal movements (nearly 90 % ). As for long distance journeys, the additional costs potentially introduced by the proposal are expected to be partially compensated by direct economical returns such as low mortality and better meat quality. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The Commission has estimated that there will be minimal cost implications for journeys of less than nine hours. These journeys constitute the great majority of all animal movements (nearly 90 % ). As for long distance journeys, the additional costs potentially introduced by the proposal are expected to be partially compensated by direct economical returns such as low mortality and better meat quality.

| 4. | Experience shows that long distance transportation is an important factor for the welfare of the animals and requires appropriate standards. The Commission is of the opinion that such a type of journey should be reserved only to transporters that are able to ensure sufficient guarantees in this regard. As a consequence haulier associations have been consulted during the elaboration of the proposal. The Commission has been supported by these organizations in developing its initiative in order to achieve higher qualification for the category. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Experience shows that long distance transportation is an important factor for the welfare of the animals and requires appropriate standards. The Commission is of the opinion that such a type of journey should be reserved only to transporters that are able to ensure sufficient guarantees in this regard. As a consequence haulier associations have been consulted during the elaboration of the proposal. The Commission has been supported by these organizations in developing its initiative in order to achieve higher qualification for the category.

| 5. and 6. | Requirements for water supply are provided for long distance journeys for transport by road, rail or sea containers (2). These lorries or containers shall be equipped with automatic drinking equipment and water tanks equipped with a specified capacity so as to allow sufficient autonomy for the transporter to decide the appropriate time for watering the animals including when they are loaded on to a vessel. For dedicated livestock vessels the proposal (3) requires fresh water storage or production facilities adapted to the animals transported. Provision for feed is only required for journeys exceeding 24 hours. According to scientists, animals fasting longer would be seriously affected in their welfare. |
| --- | --- |

5. and 6.

Requirements for water supply are provided for long distance journeys for transport by road, rail or sea containers (2). These lorries or containers shall be equipped with automatic drinking equipment and water tanks equipped with a specified capacity so as to allow sufficient autonomy for the transporter to decide the appropriate time for watering the animals including when they are loaded on to a vessel. For dedicated livestock vessels the proposal (3) requires fresh water storage or production facilities adapted to the animals transported. Provision for feed is only required for journeys exceeding 24 hours. According to scientists, animals fasting longer would be seriously affected in their welfare.

| 7. | The proposed rules on animal transport are in line with the most recent requirements in the field of public health and food safety. |
| --- | --- |

7.

The proposed rules on animal transport are in line with the most recent requirements in the field of public health and food safety.

| 8. | The starting point of the Commission proposal for space allowances is the opinion of the Scahaw which recommended substantial increase of the space allowances. |
| --- | --- |

8.

The starting point of the Commission proposal for space allowances is the opinion of the Scahaw which recommended substantial increase of the space allowances.

| 9. | Great variations in climatic conditions that could occur during long distance transportation (such as the ones from the United Kingdom to Greece during summertime) are proved to affect the welfare of the animals in the vehicles. The Scahaw issued an opinion in 1999 on Standards for the Microclimate inside Animal Transport Road Vehicles. The opinion is reflected in the ventilation and temperature requirements for long distance journeys adopted in the proposal. The panel on animal health and animal welfare of the European Food Security Authority (EFSA) is currently carrying out an evaluation on whether the opinion of 1999 needs updating on the basis of new scientific knowledge. |
| --- | --- |

9.

Great variations in climatic conditions that could occur during long distance transportation (such as the ones from the United Kingdom to Greece during summertime) are proved to affect the welfare of the animals in the vehicles. The Scahaw issued an opinion in 1999 on Standards for the Microclimate inside Animal Transport Road Vehicles. The opinion is reflected in the ventilation and temperature requirements for long distance journeys adopted in the proposal. The panel on animal health and animal welfare of the European Food Security Authority (EFSA) is currently carrying out an evaluation on whether the opinion of 1999 needs updating on the basis of new scientific knowledge.

| 10. | Based on Article 8 of Directive 91/628/EEC (4) Member States shall provide to the Commission every year the number of inspections carried out on the protection of animals during transport. Such reports shall include details on infringements but not on the number of successful prosecutions. As for infringements a table providing data declared by each Member State in 2001 is being sent to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat. However, the Commission in 2000 reported to the Council and to the Parliament (5) the difficulty of interpreting this information since no harmonised methodology is provided in the current Community legislation. The Commission proposal aims to remedy this deficiency. |
| --- | --- |

10.

Based on Article 8 of Directive 91/628/EEC (4) Member States shall provide to the Commission every year the number of inspections carried out on the protection of animals during transport. Such reports shall include details on infringements but not on the number of successful prosecutions. As for infringements a table providing data declared by each Member State in 2001 is being sent to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat. However, the Commission in 2000 reported to the Council and to the Parliament (5) the difficulty of interpreting this information since no harmonised methodology is provided in the current Community legislation. The Commission proposal aims to remedy this deficiency.

---

(1)  COM(2003) 425 final.

(2)  Chapter VI of Annex I to the proposal.

(3)  Chapter IV of Annex I to the proposal.

(4)  Council Directive 91/628/EEC of 19 November 1991 on the protection of animals during transport and amending Directives 90/425/EEC and 91/496/EEC, OJ L 340, 11.12.1991.

(5)  COM(2000) 809 final.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/576 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/576

---

(2004/C 78 E/0609)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3527/03

by Rijk van Dam (EDD) to the Commission

(20 November 2003)

Subject:   Court of Auditors Special Report No 4/2003 on rural development: support for less-favoured areas

In paragraph 77 of its Special Report 4/2003 (1), the Court of Auditors of the EC states, inter alia, that the Commission should perform an in-depth review of the existing classifications of all the less-favoured areas. In its reply the Commission states, inter alia, that the evaluation of the existing programmes will yield new information for use in a review.

| 1. | On the basis of the new information obtained by means of monitoring and evaluation, has the Commission concluded that the existing classifications of less-favoured areas are no longer valid and that overcompensation therefore needs to be prevented or is inevitable in the existing programmes? |
| --- | --- |

1.

On the basis of the new information obtained by means of monitoring and evaluation, has the Commission concluded that the existing classifications of less-favoured areas are no longer valid and that overcompensation therefore needs to be prevented or is inevitable in the existing programmes?

| 2. | If the Commission can confirm this, what corrective action has it now taken? If the Commission denies that the classifications are invalid, can it provide the requisite information for this and can it explicitly state that the existing classifications are valid and can be applied accurately so that the possibility of overcompensation may reasonably be deemed to be ruled out? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If the Commission can confirm this, what corrective action has it now taken? If the Commission denies that the classifications are invalid, can it provide the requisite information for this and can it explicitly state that the existing classifications are valid and can be applied accurately so that the possibility of overcompensation may reasonably be deemed to be ruled out?

| 3. | Does the Commission now have a clear and workable definition of the phenomenon of overcompensation, as this concept is not defined in Directive 75/268/EEC (2) or Regulation 1257/1999 (3) or in ancillary legislation? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Does the Commission now have a clear and workable definition of the phenomenon of overcompensation, as this concept is not defined in Directive 75/268/EEC (2) or Regulation 1257/1999 (3) or in ancillary legislation?

| 4. | Is the Commission confident — and can it prove — that expenditure under the LFA scheme is now legal and regular? Can it also provide information to show that the enormous disparities in amounts of compensation per hectare or per farm between regions and Member States are justified? |
| --- | --- |

4.

Is the Commission confident — and can it prove — that expenditure under the LFA scheme is now legal and regular? Can it also provide information to show that the enormous disparities in amounts of compensation per hectare or per farm between regions and Member States are justified?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(18 December 2003)

Mid-term evaluations for the current rural development programming period are due for presentation by the Member States before the end of the year and will include the less favoured area measure. A conspectus of these evaluations will be available in 2004. Further information can be expected from updatings of the mid-term evaluations and from the ex-post evaluations. The evaluations at present available to the Commission are for the previous programming period (1994-1999).

The final report (Evaluation of the Regulation (EC) No 950/97 (4) measures for improvement of agricultural structures) contains the following conclusions on compensation:

| — | the support system for the less favoured areas has clearly achieved its purpose of compensating for the impact of natural disadvantages on production costs, |
| --- | --- |

—

the support system for the less favoured areas has clearly achieved its purpose of compensating for the impact of natural disadvantages on production costs,

| — | the lack of uniformity in definition of support in these areas can however be considered as a contributory factor in undercompensation in most of them and in overcompensation in those where the handicap is small or even insignificant when comparison is made with ‘non-less favoured areas’ in the Member State. |
| --- | --- |

—

the lack of uniformity in definition of support in these areas can however be considered as a contributory factor in undercompensation in most of them and in overcompensation in those where the handicap is small or even insignificant when comparison is made with ‘non-less favoured areas’ in the Member State.

The list of less favoured areas was finalised in the 90s and has changed very little since then. Under the new Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999 (5) it is the Member States themselves that delimit the areas using the common criteria set in that Regulation. The quantitative criteria in the explanatory memorandum to Directive 75/268/CEE (6) are still used as guidelines for classification. Before the new rural development Regulation for the next programming period is proposed all measures, including that for less favoured areas, will be reviewed in the light of the evaluations available.

Article 15 of Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999 states that allowances are to compensate adequately for the handicap (principle of proportionality) but must not go beyond what is adequate, i.e. overcompensation is prohibited.

It falls to the Member States to put the principle of compensation into practice. Differences between them in amount granted per hectare reflect differences in productivity per hectare and differences in the support per farm reflect structural disparities linked to farm size.

---

(1)  OJ C 151, 27.6.2003, p. 1.

(2)  OJ L 128, 19.5.1975, p. 1.

(3)  OJ L 160, 26.6.1999, p. 80.

(4)  Council Regulation (EC) No 950/97 of 20 May 1997 on improving the efficiency of agricultural structures, OJ L 142, 2.6.1997.

(5)  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.

(6)  Council Directive 75/268/EEC of 28 April 1975 on mountain and hill farming and farming in certain less favoured areas, OJ L 128, 19.5.1975.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/578 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/578

---

(2004/C 78 E/0610)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3529/03

by Claude Moraes (PSE) to the Commission

(28 November 2003)

Subject:   Amnesty International and Oxfam report on arms control

Has the European Commission seen or does it have any plans to respond to the report by Amnesty International and Oxfam entitled ‘Shattered Lives: The Case for Tough International Arms Control’?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(6 January 2004)

The Commission has received a copy of the report which it has acknowledged.

Member States have up to now, on the basis of Article 296 (ex-Article 223) of the EC Treaty exempted the trade in arms from the scope of application of treaty rules. Thus, there is for the time being no Community legislation on trade in arms. The arms trade is currently considered in the context of the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP), to which the Commission is fully associated.

The Commission is active in broader Union work against the spread of small arms. The report refers to a number of Union initiatives and projects. The Union recognises the need for continued action and has earmarked substantial funds for the provision of financial and technical assistance to programmes around the world implemented by the Commission. In May 2003, moreover, a EUR 2 million small arms project in Tanzania was financed from the European Development Fund. Similar projects in African, Caribbean and Pacific countries may be supported upon request by recipient countries.

In this context, the Commission will carefully examine the steps proposed in the report.

The Commission has assured the authors of its continued support of their goal of a safer future for all.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/578 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/578

---

(2004/C 78 E/0611)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3536/03

by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(28 November 2003)

Subject:   Problems with the recognition of educational and professional qualifications in France

Social service graduates from various EU Member States, namely Portugal, Spain and Germany, living in France and wishing to follow their profession there, are faced with the French authorities' refusal to recognise their qualifications without further ado.

Instead, the authorities demand that the graduates do a six-month unpaid traineeship, and be registered with a teaching institution, for which they themselves have to pay. Thereafter, they are subject to an assessment, without which, the Ministry of Social Affairs will not authorise them to work professionally in France.

What measures are planned to make the freedom of movement of workers a reality within the European Union, and resolve the issue of the equivalence of educational and professional qualifications?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(20 January 2004)

Directives 89/48/EEC (1) and 92/51/EEC (2) are not based on the coordination of training arrangements or conditions governing access to the professions covered by them. In accordance with Articles 149 and 150 of the EC Treaty each Member State remains free to regulate (or not) a given profession and to specify the level and content of the training required in order to be eligible to carry on this profession in that Member State. These directives could not therefore put in place a system of automatic recognition of diplomas.

These directives lay down that the host Member State is entitled to ask that a migrant take an aptitude test or complete an adaptation period not exceeding three years when the education and training he/she has received covers matters which differ substantially from those covered by the diploma required in the host Member State. The host Member State must, however, allow the migrant to choose between the aptitude test and the adaptation period. The directives lay down that the adaptation period shall be the subject of an assessment, and that the detailed rules governing the adaptation period, its assessment and the status of the migrant undergoing this period shall be determined by the competent authorities in the host Member State in accordance with Community law.

The Commission has no knowledge of problems concerning the recognition of qualifications held by social service graduates in France. It would ask the Honourable Member to forward any complaints she has received on this matter so that it can examine them and take appropriate action.

---

(1)  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.

(2)  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.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/579 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/579

---

(2004/C 78 E/0612)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3542/03

by Caroline Lucas (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(28 November 2003)

Subject:   GMOs

Commission document (1) — Information note concerning forthcoming decisions on GMOs and GM food, feed and seed — (Brussels, 13.10.2003), notes on page 5, paragraph 4, that: '23 GM maize varieties are inscribed in national catalogues (French, Dutch and Spanish) and are awaiting inscription into the Common Catalogue of agricultural plant species (Directive 2002/53/EC)'.

Would the Commission therefore please state:

| 1. | the name of each variety and which GM line they are each derived from? |
| --- | --- |

1.

the name of each variety and which GM line they are each derived from?

| 2. | the national seed list on which each is currently inscribed? |
| --- | --- |

2.

the national seed list on which each is currently inscribed?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(20 January 2004)

A table listing the information requested concerning the 23 genetically modified (GM) maize varieties inscribed in national catalogues awaiting inscription into the Common Catalogue of agricultural plant species, as mentioned in Commission document (2), is sent direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat.

---

(1)  SEC(2003)1131.

(2)  SEC(2003)1131.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/580 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/580

---

(2004/C 78 E/0613)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3543/03

by Claude Moraes (PSE) to the Commission

(28 November 2003)

Subject:   Free movement of Bulgarians

Could the Commission please explain what the policy is on freedom of movement for Bulgarian citizens and Bulgarians with refugee status in the EU?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(14 January 2004)

As the Honourable Member knows, Bulgaria will be a Candidate Country until their planned accession in 2007. Until 2007, provided accession takes place that year, Bulgarian nationals will be considered as third country nationals. Bulgarian nationals can enter the Union and move freely within the Schengen area for a period of up to three months.

As regards movement of Bulgarian workers, applications for residence and work permits are subject to the conditions and modalities in each Member State. There is however a provision in the Europe Agreement according to which the existing facilities for access to employment for Bulgarian workers accorded by Member States under bilateral agreements ought to be preserved and if possible improved. As to the establishment of Bulgarian companies and nationals in the territory of a Member State, Bulgarian nationals have a right under the Europe agreement to a treatment no less favourable than that accorded to the Member State's own nationals. The scope of the latter provision has been clarified in European Court of Justice case law.

The Honourable Member may be aware that on 25 November 2003 the Council adopted the Directive concerning the status of third country nationals who are long-term residents in a Member State (1). In accordance with Chapter III of that Directive, third country nationals (including Bulgarian citizens) who have been legally resident in a Member State for five years or more can benefit under certain conditions from a consolidated status on which basis they can enjoy the right to reside and work in other Member States. This Directive will have to be transposed by Member States into national legislation by November 2005 at the latest.

However, that Directive does not apply to those third country nationals who are refugees. The rights of refugees are set out in the 1951 Geneva Convention relating to the status of refugees of which all Member States are signatories. At this stage there is no Community law governing the freedom of movement of refugees in the Union.

---

(1)  Council Directive 2003/109/EC of 25 November 2003, OJ L 16, 23.1.2004, p. 44.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/580 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/580

---

(2004/C 78 E/0614)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3544/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(28 November 2003)

Subject:   Eurobarometer survey on threats to peace

The findings of the most recent of the Eurobarometer surveys carried out at the Commission's behest on a regular basis, which sought the European public's opinion on which countries were a threat to world peace, have given rise to widespread indignation.

The final result, in which 60 % of Europe's population placed Israel at the top of the list of most dangerous countries, gave rise to indignation among the world's Jewish community and consternation among the general public and drew a shocked response from the Commission President, Romano Prodi, who said he was disturbed and surprised by what have been interpreted as new anti-Semitic leanings in Europe. Since then, however, no attempt has been made to look further into the matter and there has been no self-criticism and no discussion of the reasons why Europeans consider Israel to be the leading threat to peace.

In view of the outcome, there would appear to be good reason to question both the political advisability of the survey and the manner in which it was conducted, given that Mr Prodi himself has criticised both the way in which it was drawn up and the fact that respondents were presented with a non-exhaustive list of countries from which to choose. One is also entitled to doubt the effectiveness and general usefulness of Eurobarometer surveys given that if a survey's findings do not serve any useful purpose, even if only to foster discussion and enquiry, it is nothing more than a waste of public money.

Given the above, would the Commission say:

| 1. | Why the survey was commissioned? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Why the survey was commissioned?

| 2. | Whether it intends to make constructive use of the findings by exploring the reasons for the fears they reflect and attempting to counter any tendencies which, if taken to the extreme, can give rise to anti-Semitic attitudes? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Whether it intends to make constructive use of the findings by exploring the reasons for the fears they reflect and attempting to counter any tendencies which, if taken to the extreme, can give rise to anti-Semitic attitudes?

| 3. | How much the invitation to tender both for this survey and for Eurobarometer surveys in general cost the Union? |
| --- | --- |

3.

How much the invitation to tender both for this survey and for Eurobarometer surveys in general cost the Union?

| 4. | Whether, as Mr Prodi claims, technical mistakes were made in drafting the questionnaire, and how any such mistakes could have escaped the Commission's notice and supervision? |
| --- | --- |

4.

Whether, as Mr Prodi claims, technical mistakes were made in drafting the questionnaire, and how any such mistakes could have escaped the Commission's notice and supervision?

| 5. | How it is possible for the President of the Commission to be unaware of and thus surprised by the findings of a survey instigated by the Commission itself? |
| --- | --- |

5.

How it is possible for the President of the Commission to be unaware of and thus surprised by the findings of a survey instigated by the Commission itself?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(13 January 2004)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to the answer it gave to Written Question No P-3334/03 by Ms Muscardini (1).

As a supplement to that answer, the Commission would inform the Honourable Member that it commissioned the survey in question and that the questionnaire was drawn up jointly by the Press and Communication DG and its contractor, TNS Sofres. It is aware of the limits to the question concerning countries that are a threat to world peace. Nevertheless, it considers that the replies obtained are indicative of worrying prejudices.

---

(1)  See page 263.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/581 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/581

---

(2004/C 78 E/0615)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3546/03

by Miet Smet (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(28 November 2003)

Subject:   Using intelligent speed adaptation in road vehicles

Every year, 40 000 people are killed and 1 700 000 injured on Europe's roads. In order to improve road safety in Europe, the European Commission proposes greater use of information and communication technologies. Innovations in terms of the burgeoning technical possibilities in this area are still, however, largely focused on drivers and passengers.

Intelligent speed adaptation (ISA) is not among the Commission's proposals. ISA prevents drivers from driving faster than the permitted maximum speed. According to a study by the European Transport Safety Council, this technology guarantees better protection not only for vehicle occupants but also for vulnerable road users, namely pedestrians and cyclists.

Does the Commission intend to promote and endorse ISA at European level? If not, what measures is the Commission taking to improve the safety of vulnerable road users?

Answer given by Ms de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(26 January 2004)

In its Road Safety Action Programme (1), the Commission announced its intention to examine national trials of Intelligent Speed Adaptation (ISA) devices and to assess their acceptability to the public. In this context, the Commission is giving its support to the development of ISA devices, particularly through the ongoing Prosper and Speed Alert projects. These projects are aimed at evaluating the effectiveness of ISA devices, the cost of introducing them, the industrial implications of creating an infrastructure to support these devices, various marketing strategies and their acceptability.

As regards vulnerable road users, most of the actions announced in the European Road Safety Action Programme will significantly increase their protection. Certain actions are designed specifically to protect vulnerable road users, such as promoting road safety training from school age, encouraging the use of crash helmets by all two-wheel motor vehicle users, continuing to improve cars in order to reduce the severity of accidents involving pedestrians and cyclists, and improving the safety of motorcycles and their users.

Certain measures are being considered regarding the use of information and communications technologies for the protection of vulnerable road users, some of which also form part of European research projects. These measures, which could help prevent accidents involving pedestrians and cyclists, currently remain longer term solutions.

The Commission is therefore supporting research projects on ISA devices, while also assessing other kinds of measures for the protection of vulnerable road users.

---

(1)  Communication from the Commission on the European Road Safety Action Programme. Halving the number of road accident victims in the European Union by 2010: A shared responsibility [COM(2003) 311 final].

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/582 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/582

---

(2004/C 78 E/0616)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3547/03

by Paulo Casaca (PSE) to the Commission

(24 November 2003)

Subject:   Scot-free permanent oil slick along the Portuguese coast

Anyone who visits Portuguese beaches at any point in the year — particularly those of mainland Portugal, but also those of the Azores Autonomous Region — is regularly confronted with the depressing sight of oil slicks from oil tankers cleaning out their tanks as they pass through the Portuguese economic exclusion zone.

The Diário de Notícias of 19 November, quoting the Portuguese authorities responsible for coastguard activities, ‘every month fifteen vessels clean out their dirty oil or oil-derivatives tanks along the (...) Portuguese coast’.

The same publication states that this crime goes completely unpunished, for reasons and under circumstances which it sets out, and of which I would highlight the following:

| 1. | It is ‘extremely difficult to prove that the liquid poured into the ocean is the same as the same as that contained in the tanks’. |
| --- | --- |

1.

It is ‘extremely difficult to prove that the liquid poured into the ocean is the same as the same as that contained in the tanks’.

| 2. | ‘Even the port authorities where the ships tie up after washing out their tanks do not always provide witnesses’. |
| --- | --- |

2.

‘Even the port authorities where the ships tie up after washing out their tanks do not always provide witnesses’.

| 3. | ‘Should the ship owners win the case, the Portuguese Government could be faced with fines amounting to tens of thousands of euros’. |
| --- | --- |

3.

‘Should the ship owners win the case, the Portuguese Government could be faced with fines amounting to tens of thousands of euros’.

In conclusion, the Navy Chief of Staff spokesman claims that ‘the sea is free, and is regulated by international maritime law. Even if we drew up our own legislation to protect our coasts, this would have no effects’, and even claims that ‘we can only take steps if their objective is to prevent a catastrophe’.

Can the Commission tell me whether this explanation collaborates the total ineffectiveness of Community measures for preventing these crimes and, in any case, state what it believes is needed in order to prevent their present day in, day out repetition?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(15 December 2003)

Each Member State now has fairly stringent legislation in this field. National laws partly reflect the provisions of relevant international conventions, in particular the 1982 Montego Bay Convention on the Law of the Sea and the Convention on the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (Marpol 1973-1978).

Following the ‘Prestige’ disaster in November 2002, the Community institutions set themselves the objective, among others, of setting up a system of sanctions, including criminal sanctions for pollution infringements, such as deliberate unlawful discharges (tank cleaning operations) and, under certain conditions, accidental discharges.

On 5 March 2003, the Commission presented its proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on ship-source pollution and on the introduction of sanctions, including criminal sanctions, for pollution offences.

With this proposal, the Commission is essentially pursuing four objectives:

| — | Determine, under Community law, what constitutes an unlawful discharge of polluting substances at sea. In this it is following Marpol definitions to the letter. |
| --- | --- |

—

Determine, under Community law, what constitutes an unlawful discharge of polluting substances at sea. In this it is following Marpol definitions to the letter.

| — | Guarantee that those responsible for these illegal discharges will be prosecuted and will receive sanctions, including, where appropriate, criminal sanctions in accordance with national legislation. |
| --- | --- |

—

Guarantee that those responsible for these illegal discharges will be prosecuted and will receive sanctions, including, where appropriate, criminal sanctions in accordance with national legislation.

| — | Draw up a list of all those whose liability can be invoked, not only captains and ship owners but also charterers, classification societies, etc. |
| --- | --- |

—

Draw up a list of all those whose liability can be invoked, not only captains and ship owners but also charterers, classification societies, etc.

| — | Define the conditions in which the liability of each of these parties could be invoked. As regards discharges on the open seas and in exclusive economic zones, the Commission is tied to what is laid down in Marpol. However, as regards discharges in territorial waters, it may, in accordance with the 1982 Convention on the Law of the Sea, release the Union from Marpol, follow a more stringent line and lay down that liability can be invoked where there is serious negligence. |
| --- | --- |

—

Define the conditions in which the liability of each of these parties could be invoked. As regards discharges on the open seas and in exclusive economic zones, the Commission is tied to what is laid down in Marpol. However, as regards discharges in territorial waters, it may, in accordance with the 1982 Convention on the Law of the Sea, release the Union from Marpol, follow a more stringent line and lay down that liability can be invoked where there is serious negligence.

This proposal for a Directive also deals with the question of the proof required to punish natural or legal persons responsible for an illegal discharge (whether deliberate or accidental). The Commission therefore calls on Member States to draw up ‘reliable methods for attributing pollutants detected at sea to a particular ship’. Numerous methods are currently being developed, such as specific on-board equipment which can automatically record unlawful substances which might be contained in discharges from ships.

The Commission attaches particular importance to this proposal and is counting on the resolute support of the Council and Parliament which are currently examining its text.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/583 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/583

---

(2004/C 78 E/0617)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3549/03

by José Ribeiro e Castro (UEN) to the Commission

(28 November 2003)

Subject:   Cohesion Fund — Portugal

The Commission has stated that the suspension of the Cohesion Fund in relation to Portugal ceased at the beginning of this year. However, to date this normalisation of the Cohesion Fund has had few or no effects. The Portuguese Government is making an immense effort to consolidate the budget so as to comply with the Stability and Growth Pact. For geographical reasons, and particularly in view of the current enlargement, Portugal is suffering a severe economic backlash from its peripheral location. Action in the transport infrastructure sector is therefore of particular importance.

On the other hand, there is fortunately — since the Gothenburg 1999 and Lisbon 2000 Summits — the reassuring consideration that the goals of economic and material development in the European Union should only be pursued in obedience to sustainability criteria, i.e. the so-called environmental dimension. For example, an ‘eco-conditionality’ criterion was introduced for the carrying out of various activities which fell within the scope of EU powers.

In other words, transport infrastructure and the environment are two areas of prime importance for the longed-for Portuguese convergence and the much desired social cohesion of the EU and, for that very reason, come under the Cohesion Fund.

The Commission:

| 1. | Can it tell me where exactly we are right now with the application of the Cohesion Fund in Portugal, both in procedural and quantitative terms? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Can it tell me where exactly we are right now with the application of the Cohesion Fund in Portugal, both in procedural and quantitative terms?

| 2. | Are public reports that Portugal is in danger of losing these funds justified? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Are public reports that Portugal is in danger of losing these funds justified?

| 3. | How many cases have been approved, to date, relative to the Commission's expectations? |
| --- | --- |

3.

How many cases have been approved, to date, relative to the Commission's expectations?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(9 January 2004)

The indicative Cohesion Fund allocation to Portugal for 2003 is EUR 478 million. To this must be added EUR 169 million not committed by Portugal in 2002. Thus for 2003 an indicative amount of EUR 647 million was available for part-financing of transport and environment projects.

Of this amount the Commission committed EUR 645 million in December 2003, EUR 139 million for 12 projects accepted in previous years and EUR 506 million for 23 new projects.

We consider therefore that Portugal's take-up of Cohesion Fund commitment appropriations is satisfactory given that the leeway from 2002 has been made up.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/584 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/584

---

(2004/C 78 E/0618)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3552/03

by Gabriele Stauner (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(1 December 2003)

Subject:   EU funding for research programmes in Ukraine

According to media reports, 700 children disappeared in the region of the Ukrainian city of Kharkov between 1996 and 2003, and the whereabouts of over 300 of them is apparently still unknown. In the ‘Mona Lisa’ programme shown on 12 October 2003 on the German television channel ZDF, serious accusations were levelled at a hospital in Kharkov, where there have been repeated instances of newborn babies being pronounced dead and where there is a high incidence of premature births resulting in death. A mass grave was found with fetuses and babies from which the organs had been removed.

Can the Commission therefore answer the following questions:

| 1. | Is EU aid used to fund research programmes on embryonic or adult stem cells in Ukraine? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is EU aid used to fund research programmes on embryonic or adult stem cells in Ukraine?

| 2. | If so, which institutes or organisations receive the funding? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If so, which institutes or organisations receive the funding?

| 3. | Does the Commission believe that other forms of EU aid may be used to finance similar research activities which could involve the use of foetuses or new born babies? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Does the Commission believe that other forms of EU aid may be used to finance similar research activities which could involve the use of foetuses or new born babies?

| 4. | Is the Commission aware of a possible connection between the strikingly large number of missing or stillborn babies and research projects on human cells in Ukraine? |
| --- | --- |

4.

Is the Commission aware of a possible connection between the strikingly large number of missing or stillborn babies and research projects on human cells in Ukraine?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(22 January 2004)

| 1. and 2. | There is no Union-funded research project that concerns embryonic or adult stem cells research and that involves a Ukrainian participant neither in the Fifth Framework Programme (1998-2002) nor in the present stage of implementation of the Sixth Framework Programme (2002-2006). |
| --- | --- |

1. and 2.

There is no Union-funded research project that concerns embryonic or adult stem cells research and that involves a Ukrainian participant neither in the Fifth Framework Programme (1998-2002) nor in the present stage of implementation of the Sixth Framework Programme (2002-2006).

| 3. | The Commission does not believe that Union aid, and Technical assistance to the Commonwealth of Independent States (TACIS) funding in particular, are used to finance research activities involving the use of foetuses or new born babies. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The Commission does not believe that Union aid, and Technical assistance to the Commonwealth of Independent States (TACIS) funding in particular, are used to finance research activities involving the use of foetuses or new born babies.

| 4. | The Commission does not have any information on statistics for missing or stillborn babies in Ukraine and has no reason to believe that there is a connection between infant mortality rates and human cell research in Ukraine. |
| --- | --- |

4.

The Commission does not have any information on statistics for missing or stillborn babies in Ukraine and has no reason to believe that there is a connection between infant mortality rates and human cell research in Ukraine.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/585 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/585

---

(2004/C 78 E/0619)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3553/03

by Claude Moraes (PSE) to the Commission

(1 December 2003)

Subject:   Missing Cypriots

A group of my constituents, the Organisation of Relatives of Missing Cypriots (UK), wish to know what the situation is in resolving the case of the missing persons in Cyprus.

Does the Commission believe the Government of Turkey could exert more pressure on the Turkish Cypriot leadership to uphold its duties and responsibilities to human rights? If so, could the Commission please state whether this issue will form part of Turkey's accession negotiations?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(29 January 2004)

Mr Clerides and Mr Denktash met in June and July 2002 to exchange proposals on the issue of missing persons. The basis for this exchange was their agreement of 31 July 1997. The Greek Cypriot side proceeded with its programme of exhumations and identifications in areas under its control. Investigations are carried out by the United States (US) funded bi-communal Institute for Neurology and Genetics. The Turkish Cypriot side has not yet designated scientists who would work with the Institute.

In its set of measures vis-à-vis the Turkish Cypriots of 30 April 2003 the Government of the Republic announced several measures regarding relatives of missing and killed Turkish Cypriots. The measures provide ‘inter alia’ for access to information, meetings between relatives of missing persons and Government officials, exploratory excavations of burial places, and arrangements for the establishment of a DNA Bank. A list of 500 Turkish Cypriots whose cases have been submitted to the Committee of Missing Persons (CMP) was published by the Government of the Republic in Turkish Cypriot newspapers on 14 June 2003. The Commission has also learned that information concerning the fate of 201 missing Turkish Cypriots was officially conveyed to the International Committee of the Red Cross by Government authorities.

In letter of 3 December 2003 to Mr Papadopoulos and Mr Denktash, United Nations Secretary-General Annan urged the two leaders to invite their respective members of the CMP to resume formal meeting in order to reactivate the work of the Committee.

As for Turkey, the Commission has repeatedly indicated to Turkey the need to use its influence over the Turkish Cypriot leadership to find a comprehensive settlement. After the formation of a new ‘government’ in the north under opposition leader Mr Talat there is a window of opportunity to reach a settlement on the basis of the Annan plan in the coming months. In the event of a settlement based on the Annan plan, the question mentioned by the Honourable Member will be solved on the basis of the relevant provisions.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/586 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/586

---

(2004/C 78 E/0620)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3554/03

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(1 December 2003)

Subject:   Development of artificial viruses and bacteria in America and possible resultant neglect of environmental protection in Europe

| 1. | Is the Commission aware that, since 1999, genetic engineer Craig Venter and his Institute for Biological Energy Alternatives (IBEA), which receives USD 3 million per annum in subsidy from the US Government, have been developing artificial viruses? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is the Commission aware that, since 1999, genetic engineer Craig Venter and his Institute for Biological Energy Alternatives (IBEA), which receives USD 3 million per annum in subsidy from the US Government, have been developing artificial viruses?

| 2. | Is the Commission aware that this research has now yielded a living product named PhiX174, which consists of 5 386 base pairs coding for nine proteins, and that in addition an artificial bacterium consisting of 580 000 base pairs, with 470 proteins, is still at the development stage? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Is the Commission aware that this research has now yielded a living product named PhiX174, which consists of 5 386 base pairs coding for nine proteins, and that in addition an artificial bacterium consisting of 580 000 base pairs, with 470 proteins, is still at the development stage?

| 3. | Is the Commission furthermore aware that — unlike the artificial polio virus presented in New York last year — PhiX174 is capable of penetrating bacteria, modifying them and reproducing with their assistance, just like natural viruses? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Is the Commission furthermore aware that — unlike the artificial polio virus presented in New York last year — PhiX174 is capable of penetrating bacteria, modifying them and reproducing with their assistance, just like natural viruses?

| 4. | Is the Commission aware of the press conference of 13 November 2003 in Rockville, Maryland, at which the US Secretary of Energy, Spencer Abraham, announced that such manmade micro-organisms will soon bring about revolutionary changes in environmental protection? |
| --- | --- |

4.

Is the Commission aware of the press conference of 13 November 2003 in Rockville, Maryland, at which the US Secretary of Energy, Spencer Abraham, announced that such manmade micro-organisms will soon bring about revolutionary changes in environmental protection?

| 5. | How will the Commission help to prevent EU Member States and regions or localities within them from neglecting their environmental protection responsibilities in the hope that a future panacea will devour and clean up all previous pollution, including even radioactive waste? |
| --- | --- |

5.

How will the Commission help to prevent EU Member States and regions or localities within them from neglecting their environmental protection responsibilities in the hope that a future panacea will devour and clean up all previous pollution, including even radioactive waste?

Source: Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, 15 November 2003.

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(21 January 2004)

| 1. and 2. | The Commission is aware of PhiX 174. This matter is addressed in detail in the Commission's reply to the written question E-3555/03 (1) by the Honourable Member. It is to be noted that the virus to which the Honourable Member refers in his written question is not an artificial virus. |
| --- | --- |

1. and 2.

The Commission is aware of PhiX 174. This matter is addressed in detail in the Commission's reply to the written question E-3555/03 (1) by the Honourable Member. It is to be noted that the virus to which the Honourable Member refers in his written question is not an artificial virus.

| 3. | As noted under point 1, PhiX 174 is not an artificial organism but a virus of the genus Microvirus and family Microviridiae. |
| --- | --- |

3.

As noted under point 1, PhiX 174 is not an artificial organism but a virus of the genus Microvirus and family Microviridiae.

| 4. | Yes. In his vision of the future, the United States' Secretary of Energy, Spencer Abraham, gave as examples microbes that could remove pollution from the emissions of power plants, or reduce water pollution and the toxic effects of radioactive waste. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Yes. In his vision of the future, the United States' Secretary of Energy, Spencer Abraham, gave as examples microbes that could remove pollution from the emissions of power plants, or reduce water pollution and the toxic effects of radioactive waste.

| 5. | The Commission will continue to ensure that Member States respect their commitments to Union environmental legislation, irrespective of any hypothetical future technological possibilities |
| --- | --- |

5.

The Commission will continue to ensure that Member States respect their commitments to Union environmental legislation, irrespective of any hypothetical future technological possibilities

---

(1)  See page 587.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/587 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/587

---

(2004/C 78 E/0621)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3555/03

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(1 December 2003)

Subject:   Development of artificial viruses and bacteria in America and its impact on biodiversity and biological warfare in Europe

| 1. | On account of the impact of PhiX174 and other artificial products of the American Ibea research project referred to in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung on 15 November 2003, could existing plants and animals be replaced by others? Could existing living beings lose their resistance to new diseases and could other uncontrollable changes occur in nature, which would be comparable with the rabbit plague unleashed by colonists in Australia or the spread and escape of American muskrats in the Netherlands, where they are now constantly undermining dykes? |
| --- | --- |

1.

On account of the impact of PhiX174 and other artificial products of the American Ibea research project referred to in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung on 15 November 2003, could existing plants and animals be replaced by others? Could existing living beings lose their resistance to new diseases and could other uncontrollable changes occur in nature, which would be comparable with the rabbit plague unleashed by colonists in Australia or the spread and escape of American muskrats in the Netherlands, where they are now constantly undermining dykes?

| 2. | Is the Commission bearing in mind the possibility that, as a result of such experiments, species of animal may come into existence which are aggressive towards people and can spread diseases or render food and drinking water unsuitable for human and animal consumption? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Is the Commission bearing in mind the possibility that, as a result of such experiments, species of animal may come into existence which are aggressive towards people and can spread diseases or render food and drinking water unsuitable for human and animal consumption?

| 3. | Do international agreements on biological warfare afford a guarantee that such artificial organisms will never deliberately be used to make people ill or exterminate them in an area classified as hostile? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Do international agreements on biological warfare afford a guarantee that such artificial organisms will never deliberately be used to make people ill or exterminate them in an area classified as hostile?

| 4. | Does the Commission agree that it may be a very long time before it becomes clear whether such inventions as those developed by Ibea are a blessing or a curse for humanity and the world? |
| --- | --- |

4.

Does the Commission agree that it may be a very long time before it becomes clear whether such inventions as those developed by Ibea are a blessing or a curse for humanity and the world?

| 5. | Is the Commission considering measures to provisionally prevent imports of artificial life into Europe — until such time as the consequences are known — and provisionally isolate all new products created as a result of research? |
| --- | --- |

5.

Is the Commission considering measures to provisionally prevent imports of artificial life into Europe — until such time as the consequences are known — and provisionally isolate all new products created as a result of research?

| 6. | What else will the Commission do to prevent uncontrollable or malicious dissemination of artificial viruses and artificially altered bacteria in Europe? |
| --- | --- |

6.

What else will the Commission do to prevent uncontrollable or malicious dissemination of artificial viruses and artificially altered bacteria in Europe?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(22 January 2004)

It is inherent to nature and its evolution that existing plants and animals can be replaced by others, that existing living beings can lose their resistance to diseases (or other stressors), that they may have no resistance to new or imported diseases or threats. Evolutions and variations in the climate, migrations of people, natural disasters, emerging natural (i.e. non man-made) diseases, spontaneous genetic mutations, etc. alter the conditions of competition between species and can result in major shifts such as the complete disappearance of species and changes in the floristic or faunistic composition of environments. One can thus never exclude that uncontrollable changes occur in nature, comparable to the ones listed by the Honourable Member.

However, such changes can not be put on the account of PhiX174. The PhiX174 virus is a bacteriophage and as such, a natural parasite of Escherichia coli. The genetic identity of the virus has long been known. The scientists have not newly created this virus. Its genome has rather been synthesized in vitro and has been re-assembled, which means that the synthesised genome is identical to the natural one. In fact, the resulting virus is indistinguishable from its natural counterpart.

There is nevertheless an urgent need to improve knowledge of connections between, on the one hand, public and animal vulnerability and health, and, on the other, biological diversity, ecosystem dynamics, habitat fragmentation, land use change, climate change and other environmental and social changes and drivers.

This is not the case for PhiX174 or similar experiments. The Commission is aware of the fact that genetically modified organisms (GMOs) could contaminate food, drinking water and the environment, and in this way could become a danger for humans and animals. The handling of these organisms must, therefore, be in compliance with the Community aquis on GMOs, in particular with the directives 2000/54/EC (1), 2001/18/EC (2) and 2000/618/EC (3).

There are no international agreements on biological warfare that provide guarantees that artificial organisms will never deliberately be used to make people ill or exterminate them in an area classified as hostile. The only international Convention on the matter, the Biological and Toxic Weapons Convention, provides for a framework of controls. Progress on its implementation has however stalled. The Commission is not a party to this Convention and does not take part in its meetings.

Moreover, international agreements seek to control the use of GMOs. By nature, they can, however provide no guarantee that GMOs may never be used in a hazardous way.

The Commission is aware of the fact that new bio-technologies require a thorough observation of ongoing developments, and is financing projects on risk assessment of these new technologies.

Access to GMOs should enable the scientists working in Europe to follow up new developments in this area. Imports of these GMOs are, however, tightly controlled and handling is limited to those laboratories that are licensed in compliance with the relevant Community legislation.

No single authority, including the Commission, is in a position to totally exclude or prevent such development. However, complementing the efforts of the individual Member States, the Commission has actively put in to place or is part of a significant number of mechanisms and systems that reduce this risk to the maximum possible extent.

A number of examples can be mentioned here:

| — | Within the framework of biosecurity the Commission has put in place the Biological and Chemical Agent Task Force (Bichat) to specifically address health threats caused by the deliberate release of biological and chemical agents. The task force has put in place a permanent stand-by alert system interlinking national authorities at Community level with a view to disseminating secure information to ensure timely response.
  In the health field, since 2002 the Commission has implemented a programme of co-operation on preparedness and response to deliberate releases of biological and chemical agent (health security) comprising 25 actions grouped under four objectives:






  (a) | Set up a mechanism for information exchange, consultation and co-ordination for the handling of health-related issues related to attacks; |
| --- | --- | --- |

—

Within the framework of biosecurity the Commission has put in place the Biological and Chemical Agent Task Force (Bichat) to specifically address health threats caused by the deliberate release of biological and chemical agents. The task force has put in place a permanent stand-by alert system interlinking national authorities at Community level with a view to disseminating secure information to ensure timely response.

In the health field, since 2002 the Commission has implemented a programme of co-operation on preparedness and response to deliberate releases of biological and chemical agent (health security) comprising 25 actions grouped under four objectives:

(a)

Set up a mechanism for information exchange, consultation and co-ordination for the handling of health-related issues related to attacks;

| (b) | Create a Union-wide capability for the timely detection and identification of biological and chemical agents that might be used in attacks and for the rapid and reliable determination and diagnosis of relevant cases; |
| --- | --- |

(b)

Create a Union-wide capability for the timely detection and identification of biological and chemical agents that might be used in attacks and for the rapid and reliable determination and diagnosis of relevant cases;

| (c) | Create a medicines stock and health services database and a stand-by facility for making medicines and health care specialists available in cases of suspected or unfolding attacks; |
| --- | --- |

(c)

Create a medicines stock and health services database and a stand-by facility for making medicines and health care specialists available in cases of suspected or unfolding attacks;

| (d) | Draw-up rules and disseminate guidance on facing-up to attacks from the health point of view and co-ordinating the Union response and links with third countries and international organisations. |
| --- | --- |

(d)

Draw-up rules and disseminate guidance on facing-up to attacks from the health point of view and co-ordinating the Union response and links with third countries and international organisations.

Progress with the implementation of this programme has been reported in a Commission Communication (4).

| — | Following the request made by the European Council in Ghent in October 2001, a programme to improve co-operation in the Union for preventing and limiting the consequences of chemical, biological, radiological or nuclear terrorist threats (CBRN Programme) has been jointly adopted by the Commission and the Council at the end of 2002. This programme sets out the strategic objectives that need to be addressed in order to improve the protection of the population, the environment, the food chain and property against CBRN threats and attacks and describes areas where there is a need for further action. The Commission regularly reviews this programme with the Council. The programme has already shown the importance of the co-ordination established between the various Community networks responsible for civil protection, health protection, radiological emergencies and the expertise available in the research area, in order to set up a common platform to organise an optimum response to CBRN emergencies. |
| --- | --- |

—

Following the request made by the European Council in Ghent in October 2001, a programme to improve co-operation in the Union for preventing and limiting the consequences of chemical, biological, radiological or nuclear terrorist threats (CBRN Programme) has been jointly adopted by the Commission and the Council at the end of 2002. This programme sets out the strategic objectives that need to be addressed in order to improve the protection of the population, the environment, the food chain and property against CBRN threats and attacks and describes areas where there is a need for further action. The Commission regularly reviews this programme with the Council. The programme has already shown the importance of the co-ordination established between the various Community networks responsible for civil protection, health protection, radiological emergencies and the expertise available in the research area, in order to set up a common platform to organise an optimum response to CBRN emergencies.

| — | The Sixth Framework Programme has launched or is preparing, as part of its Science in Support to Policies priority, projects and networks operating in the fields of emerging disease surveillance linked to bioterrorist threats, modelling of infectious diseases, rapid detection of agents possibly used by bioterrorists, treatment of bioterrorist agents and vulnerabilities of societies. Moreover, many other research projects and networks funded under the 5th or 6th Framework Programme for Research are directly relevant to the risks mentioned by the Honourable Member. |
| --- | --- |

—

The Sixth Framework Programme has launched or is preparing, as part of its Science in Support to Policies priority, projects and networks operating in the fields of emerging disease surveillance linked to bioterrorist threats, modelling of infectious diseases, rapid detection of agents possibly used by bioterrorists, treatment of bioterrorist agents and vulnerabilities of societies. Moreover, many other research projects and networks funded under the 5th or 6th Framework Programme for Research are directly relevant to the risks mentioned by the Honourable Member.

---

(1)  Directive 2000/54/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 18 September 2000 on the protection of workers from risks related to exposure to biological agents at work (seventh individual directive within the meaning of Article 16(1) of Directive 89/391/EEC), OJ L 262, 17.10.2000.

(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)  Commission Directive 2000/68/E of 23 October 2000 including an active substance (bentazone) in Annex I to Council Directive 91/414/EEC concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market, OJ L 276, 28.10.2000.

(4)  COM(2003) 320 final.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/589 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/589

---

(2004/C 78 E/0622)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3559/03

by Margrietus van den Berg (PSE) and Jan Wiersma (PSE) to the Commission

(1 December 2003)

Subject:   Groningen Rail Service Centre and non-use of cross-border railway line near Nieuweschans to Northern Germany

Why is an EU-funded transhipment station, the Groningen Rail Service Centre, not being used for direct freight transport from and to Northern Germany, Eastern Europe and Scandinavia, with the result that unnecessary detours are being made, the railways are not being put to optimal use and no favours are being done to the environment, either?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(23 January 2004)

The Groningen Rail Service Centre handles approximately 100 000 Twenty foot Equivalent Unit (TEU) per year, and new investments are planned to further develop rail services linking Groningen to the Rotterdam area and other Member States. Growth is notably expected from freight traffic on the so-called Northern corridor, which links the Rotterdam port area with Northern Germany and Scandinavia. The market for freight transport by rail has been opened by Directive 91/440/EEC (1) as amended by Directive 2001/12/EC (2), which provides that freight transport over the Trans European Rail Freight Network (TERFN) shall be opened by 15 March 2003 at the latest to all railway undertakings in possession of a European licence awarded under the framework conditions set by Directive 95/18/EC, as amended by Directive 2001/13/EC (3), and provided the railway undertakings possess the required safety certificates for the countries where rail services are planned. Any railway undertaking that sees an opportunity to operate services on those links can do so. Groningen is located on the TERFN. Within this context though, it must be observed that Directive 91/440/EC, as amended, requires railway undertakings to be managed according to the principles which apply to commercial undertakings.

The development of the Groningen Rail Service Center has been part of priority 1 (Industry, business services and tourism), as set out in the Single Programming Document (SPD) for the Objective 2 areas of Groningen-Drenthe in the Netherlands approved by the Commission in 1997. The contribution from the structural funds for this priority in the 1997-1999 period was 32,4 % (EUR 74,25 million).

---

(1)  Directive 91/440/EEC of 29 July 1991 on the development of the Community's railways, OJ L 237, 24.8.1991.

(2)  Directive 2001/12/EC of 26 February 2001 of the 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.

(3)  Directive 2001/13/EC of 26 February 2001 of the Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2001 amending Council Directive 95/18/EC on the licensing of railway undertakings, OJ L 75, 15.3.2001.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/590 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/590

---

(2004/C 78 E/0623)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3561/03

by Jan Andersson (PSE) to the Commission

(1 December 2003)

Subject:   ‘Parasubordinated’ workers and social dumping

A problem which has arisen within the Swedish labour market over the past few years, mainly in the construction sector, is that workers from the candidate countries are working for pay and under working conditions far interior to those offered by Swedish collective agreements. These workers, from Poland and elsewhere, are able to evade the existing regulations by being given the status of self-employed workers, in spite of the fact that they should to all intents and purposes be regarded as employees. Behind this arrangement is often a kind of hiring firm which acts as an agency supplying the services of the foreign workers to the Swedish contractors, and helps them to obtain the ‘F tax certificates’ and other required documentation. The hiring firms in these cases should clearly be regarded as employers, but they act on the basis that they are merely an agency for services carried out by self-employed workers.

If this practice increases in extent, it will lead to widespread social dumping. The situation is surely not unique to Sweden.

| 1. | What is the Commission's view of this situation? |
| --- | --- |

1.

What is the Commission's view of this situation?

| 2. | Does the Commission propose to take any measures with a view to dealing with this problem? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Does the Commission propose to take any measures with a view to dealing with this problem?

Answer given by Ms Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(22 January 2004)

It is not clear from the Honourable Member's question whether the circumstances described fall within the scope 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).

In the case of postings within the meaning of this Directive, the definition of a worker is that which applies in the law of the Member State on the territory of which the worker is posted, according to Article 2(2).

If, however, these are placements with the objective of having the workers habitually perform their work in Sweden, the ratione personae scope of the working and employment conditions is, in general, also determined by Swedish law.

In view of this, it is up to the host Member State to ensure that the category of persons mentioned by the Honourable Member is covered by its worker protection legislation.

---

(1)  OJ L 18, 21.1.1997.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/591 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/591

---

(2004/C 78 E/0624)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3562/03

by Giacomo Santini (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(1 December 2003)

Subject:   Automatic renewal of concession for the Brenner motorway

The issue of the automatic renewal of the concession held by the Società Autostrade del Brennero is on the agenda once again now that Commissioner Bolkestein has found against it. In view of the fact that the long dispute over the matter, which has gone through a whole series of advances and setbacks, has yet to be settled, can the Commission state:

| 1. | whether it would agree that, in view of the A22 motorway's strategic position, a derogation from the Community rules on invitations to tender should be granted? |
| --- | --- |

1.

whether it would agree that, in view of the A22 motorway's strategic position, a derogation from the Community rules on invitations to tender should be granted?

| 2. | how it can justify the unfavourable opinion delivered in respect of the A22 when the automatic renewal of similar concessions has in the past been authorised on more than one occasion in Italy on the basis of Interministerial Directive No 283 of 20 October 1998? |
| --- | --- |

2.

how it can justify the unfavourable opinion delivered in respect of the A22 when the automatic renewal of similar concessions has in the past been authorised on more than one occasion in Italy on the basis of Interministerial Directive No 283 of 20 October 1998?

| 3. | whether it considers that it can place its trust in the current operating company, which has set aside a large amount of money to fund the building of the Brenner Base Tunnel and, on this basis, whether it would agree to reconsider the Italian Government's proposals that automatic renewal be authorised? |
| --- | --- |

3.

whether it considers that it can place its trust in the current operating company, which has set aside a large amount of money to fund the building of the Brenner Base Tunnel and, on this basis, whether it would agree to reconsider the Italian Government's proposals that automatic renewal be authorised?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(16 January 2004)

As the honourable Member points out, the fact of the A22 motorway's strategic position does not mean that the award of the concession for the operation of the motorway should not be subject to the relevant Community rules on awarding concessions. According to Community law, the renewal of a concession is considered similar to the granting of a new concession. Consequently, since there was no prior invitation to tender, the renewal of the concession awarded to the Autostrada del Brennero company gives rise to serious misgivings with regard to its compatibility with the aforementioned Community rules.

Contrary to what the honourable Members seems to be stating, the Commission has never been asked to give an opinion on renewals of concessions awarded in Italy on the basis of Interministerial Directive No 283 of 20 October 1998. Indeed, although the Commission is cognizant of the text of the Interministerial Directive, the Italian authorities have not forwarded full and precise information concerning the procedures for its implementation, especially in connection with the concessions which have in fact been renewed in accordance with the Directive, the duration of the renewals and, in each case, the reasons justifying renewal. Therefore, where necessary, the Commission reserves the right to ask the Italian authorities for information which will allow it to assess the implementation of the Directive.

The Commission would point out that the problems it has indicated concerning the compatibility with Community law of renewing the concession in question concern solely the lack of a prior invitation to tender and certainly not the reliability of the current operator, judgement on whom in any case is not among the responsibilities of the Commission.

Lastly, the Commission points out that, in its desire not to prejudice the completion of the objectives in connection with which the problem exists, it is pursuing its contacts with the Italian authorities with a view to arriving at a solution which complies with all the requirements involved.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/591 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/591

---

(2004/C 78 E/0625)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3564/03

by Torben Lund (PSE) to the Commission

(2 December 2003)

Subject:   International telecommunication services and competition

The use of telecommunication services has increased at the same rate as internationalisation and technological advances mean that the telecommunications market is constantly changing. This creates employment, new conditions for corporate growth and more choice for consumers.

Unfortunately, many consumers feel that the mobile telephone companies' prices and range of subscriptions are not transparent or flexible and that the prices for cross-border services are unreasonably high. Competition does not take place under perfect conditions in this sector, which also means that companies dependent on telecommunication services pay unreasonably high prices for a number of essential services.

In the light of this situation, will the Commission say to what extent it is aware of problems on the European telecommunications market relating to the terms of competition, including transparency, comparability, cross-border services (e.g. roaming and the varying charges for these services) and the lack of information to consumers at both Member State and EU level? Is the Commission aware of any studies into the above problems? Does the Commission plan to ensure that subscribers using roaming are offered the ‘shortest’ or ‘cheapest’ route instead of being diverted and paying more? What steps will the Commission take to improve the terms of competition — with particular reference to transparency, comparability, cross-border services and the lack of information to consumers — for the benefit of consumers and the European economy?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(28 January 2004)

The Commission monitors, on a regular basis, the conditions of competition prevailing in the European telecommunications market, pursuant to its role in the enforcement of Union competition rules. The Commission is indeed committed to applying such rules with determination in the telecommunications sector, especially as regards cross-border services. In particular, the Commission wishes to recall several issues of concern, notably, the level, transparency and comparability of tariffs on cross-border roaming services were identified as a result of its sector inquiry into mobile roaming, launched pursuant to Article 12 of Council Regulation No 17 (1).

Following the ensuing talks with interested parties in 2001, the Commission notes that, in general, the situation regarding consumer information across the Union has appreciably improved in several fields: most mobile network operators now charge flat tariff rates to their subscribers for roamed voice calls made in other Member States. Flat retail rates have replaced former non-transparent and unpredictable ad valorem tariffs, which virtually all Union mobile operators used to apply, and which were based on markups placed on the wholesale tariff charged by the operator on whose network foreign subscribers were roaming. Retail roaming rates are now customarily published by mobile network operators as part of their tariffs and the Commission regularly publishes Union-wide surveys of such tariffs (2).

As to the choice of a specific mobile network to roam on in a different Member State, it is widespread practice between mobile operators in the Union market to conclude preferential agreements, which may include preferential discounts. Moreover, subscribers have the ability to override the automatic programming of a foreign network proposed by their mobile operator.

As to the level of roaming tariffs charged between mobile operators at the wholesale level, the Commission is actively investigating the issue with respect to Union competition rules and refers the Honourable Member to its reply to the parliamentary question E-2689/03 by Mr Manders (3).

Over and above of the initiatives mentioned, in the absence of evidence or indications of infringements of Union rules, the Commission believes that normal competition patterns between operators should bring about benefits to consumers. This may take the form of better information and attractive specific offerings for cross-border services, among the bundle of domestic and cross-border services that one or several of the various mobile operators active in each Member State propose to their subscribers. Should specific problems of consumer awareness arise in a particular Member State, the Commission believes that the relevant National Regulatory Authority is in a position to take adequate steps.

---

(1)  Working document on mobile roaming charges, DG Competition, December 2000, which can be found at the following Web address: http://europa.eu.int/comm/competition/antitrust/others/sector_inquiries/roaming, EEC Council: Regulation No 17: First Regulation implementing Articles 85 and 86 of the Treaty, OJ P 13, 21.2.1962.

(2)  The last survey can be found at the following Web address: http://europa.eu.int/information_society/topics/telecoms/regulatory/studies/documents/tariff_report_2002_12.pdf

(3)  See page 416.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/593 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/593

---

(2004/C 78 E/0626)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3566/03

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(2 December 2003)

Subject:   Refund of budgetary resources

In a communication dated 29 October 2003, the Commission has proposed that unused budgetary resources from the 2003 Community budget amounting to EUR 5 billion be refunded to the Member States.

From which actions funded by the budget are these unused resources derived?

Answer given by Mrs Schreyer on behalf of the Commission

(22 December 2003)

The Honourable Member is referring to the proposal made by the Commission in the Preliminary Draft Amending Budget No7 to hand back to the Member States EUR 5 billion in surplus payment appropriations in heading 2 of the Budget. The surplus appropriations were on the budget lines for the completion of the pre-2000 Structural Funds programmes.

The Commission's proposal has now been adopted, as an Amending Budget No 6, by the Budgetary Authority.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/593 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/593

---

(2004/C 78 E/0627)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3568/03

by Herman Schmid (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(25 November 2003)

Subject:   Draft Constitution no solution to the EU's lack of democratic legitimacy

According to one view, the democratic deficit in the EU consists in the fact that more and more decisions are taken at EU level, while the people still identify with the national level of politics. Evidence of this is provided by the very low turnout for elections to the European Parliament, a pattern which does not look likely to be broken ahead of subsequent elections. According to this view, the core of the problem is that there quite simply is no European identity or a single European people. On the basis of this view, several countries (Ireland, Denmark, Sweden, the UK) have opposed the development of the EU towards a state (they prefer the EU to remain an organisation which cooperates to resolve practical issues). If the draft Constitution is adopted, a few more steps will have been taken towards a future state. However, according to the above view, such a development is a denial of democracy in the EU. As long as the democratic legitimacy of the European Parliament is low, any strengthening of its power entails a weakening of democracy and a corresponding weakening of the influence of the national parliaments via the Council of Ministers. This does not reduce but increases the distance between decision-makers at EU level and the electorate. It is also defeats the object of establishing a constitution for the EU.

One example of the European Parliament's lack of democratic legitimacy at the present time is that, with very few exceptions, no EU citizen can state the name of any political group in Parliament, let alone what political tendency it represents. They are unknown to the great majority of the public. When people go to the polls in European Parliament elections, they look only at national issues. Moreover, Members of the European Parliament often have to follow a party political programme at EU level which frequently contradicts the parties' election manifestos at national level. The most serious aspect of the problem is that voters who voted for an MEP to represent them are not in a position to know whether they have been duped. At the present time, it is almost impossible for voters to know what is happening in EU politics. There is no media coverage etc. The entire situation is a vicious circle which ultimately creates contempt for politicians.

It is widely understood that the EU suffers from a lack of democratic legitimacy, as described above. In the light of that fact, how can the Commission endorse the draft of the new Constitution when, by proposing a strengthening of the European Parliament's powers, democracy in the EU is weakened? How does the Commission believe that strengthening the supranational level can win the support of the people when, de facto, the European people and the European identity required to legitimise its decisions do not exist?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(6 January 2004)

The Commission does not share the views expressed by the Honourable Member in his question. In particular it believes that strengthening the powers of Parliament does not weaken democracy within the Union, but instead would enhance the democratic nature of the Union. Strengthening Parliament's powers does not affect the powers of national parliaments; quite the contrary, the draft Constitution will lead to closer involvement of the national parliaments in the operation of the Union.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/594 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/594

---

(2004/C 78 E/0628)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3571/03

by Gerhard Schmid (PSE) to the Commission

(5 December 2003)

Subject:   Threat to a water protection zone in one member State by a project in another

A garage is currently being built near the municipality of Pavlùv Studenec in the Czech Republic, and the construction of a large petrol station is planned as part of this project. On the German side of the border there is a water protection zone near the municipality of Bärnau, whose springs provide some 60 % of the population of Bärnau with drinking water. Since the petrol station due to be built on the Czech side is situated on a hill overlooking the border, the water protection zone is at risk from pollution in the event of leaks of hazardous substances on the Czech side. Nevertheless, the Czech administration intends to approve the construction of the petrol station.

In view of the above, will the Commission say whether after accession to the European Union the Czech authorities will be obliged to respect a water protection zone on the German side of the border as part of water legislation?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(6 February 2004)

The Community legislation on Environmental Impact Assessment (1) (EIA) requires that private and public projects that are likely to have significant effects on the environment must be subject to an assessment of their potential effects on the environment before they can be allowed to proceed. EIAs are mandatory for certain projects listed in Annex I of the Directive, but Member States have discretion determining whether projects of the type listed in Annex II require an EIA, based on selection criteria provided in Annex III.

Where a project subject to an EIA is likely to have a significant effect on the environment of another Member State, it must be ensured that specific procedures are followed concerning information exchange, participation in the assessment procedure and consultation.

The result of the consultation has to be taken into account in the development consent procedure. However, a negative impact assessment does not automatically imply that a project is not allowed to proceed.

In order to decide whether the construction of a petrol station requires an EIA, it is necessary to know the capacity of the station. For instance, if it concerns an installation with a capacity of more than 100 000 tonnes, an EIA is obligatory. If the installation has a capacity of between 5 000 and 100 000 tonnes, there is an obligation to carry out a screening to see if an EIA is necessary. For installations with a capacity under 5 000 tonnes no screening is necessary.

The Czech Republic has to fully implement the EIA Directive by the time of accession at the latest. However, according to information provided by the country, the EIA Directive has already been transposed and the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UN ECE) Convention dealing with transboundary impact assessment of projects and plans (Espoo) ratified. Therefore a transboundary consultation on projects potentially having effects on the environment of other states would normally already need to be carried out now and comments of the affected state taken into account in preparing the EIA statement and final decision.

The Community legislation on water protection is mainly based on the Water Framework Directive (2). Article 7 of the Directive requires, inter alia, the establishment of protected areas for the abstraction of drinking water by the end of 2004. Since the management will be co-ordinated for the whole river basin, transboundary issues need to be addressed in this context. In other words, the Czech and German Authorities will have to discuss and agree whether the respective area becomes a transboundary drinking water protected area. However, this obligation under the Water Framework Directive can only be enforced by the Commission after the Accession of the Czech Republic and after the deadline in the Directive has expired. Previous Community legislation on water, in particular the Groundwater Directive (3), did not provide for the establishment of groundwater protected areas. However, it requires the prior authorisation of, e.g. underground storage tanks.

The Commission has been informed that the issue raised by the Honourable Member in his Written Question has already been the subject of bilateral discussions between Germany and the Czech Republic in the Commission of Border Waters between the two countries. Such discussions should continue in the framework of bilateral agreements between the Czech Republic and Germany.

The Commission is monitoring closely that the commitments made by the Czech Republic and the other acceding Countries in the accession negotiations are being respected.

---

(1)  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, OJ L 73, 14.3.1997.

(2)  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, OJ L 331, 15.12.2001.

(3)  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.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/595 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/595

---

(2004/C 78 E/0629)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3576/03

by Michl Ebner (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(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 Commission 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?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(28 January 2004)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to the reply it gave to his earlier written question E-2173/02 (2). As is clearly stated therein, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, the decision concerning the definition of disability and thus eligibility for disability cards is taken at national level.

---

(1)  OJ C 277 E, 14.11.2002, p. 257.

(2)  OJ C 277 E, 14.11.2002, p. 257.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/596 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/596

---

(2004/C 78 E/0630)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3580/03

by Proinsias De Rossa (PSE) to the Commission

(5 December 2003)

Subject:   EU working time legislation

Further to its 15 October answer to my written question E-2611/03 (1), when did the Commission issue the two invitations to tender for a study on the consequences of the judgment of the Court of Justice in the SIMAP case (2)?

Why did it wait almost two and a half years before issuing the invitation to tender?

Does it believe such a completed study would have been useful for the preparation of its Communication on working time which is due by the end of 2003, and which it has already indicated will address the implications of the SIMAP judgment?

What views were presented by the Irish Government's representative at the meeting of national experts referred to by the Commission in its answer to written question E-0535/03 (3)?

Have any approaches been made to the Commission by the Irish Government requesting a possible Irish ‘derogation’ from the scope of Directive 2000/34/EC (4) in relation to junior doctors? What is or would be the Commission's response to such a request?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(16 January 2004)

As regards the invitations to tender for a study on the consequences of the judgment of the Court of Justice in the SIMAP Case (5), the Commission dispatched the letters of invitation to tender on 11 April 2002 and 18 December 2002.

The study was launched with a view to preparing for the communication on working time.

As for the Commission's meeting with national experts on working time, the Commission would refer to its answer to the Honourable Member's Written Question E-2611/03 (6). It must point out, however, that the purpose of the meeting was not to discuss the transposition of Directive 2000/34/EC (7), but the Commission's future communication on working time. At all events, no Member State reported difficulties with the transposition of that Directive.

Lastly, the Commission wishes to make it clear that no derogations can be made from the scope of Directive 2000/34/EC and none of the Member Sates has submitted a request for derogation.

---

(1)  OJ C 58 E, 6.3.2004, p. 187.

(2)  Judgment of the Court of 3 October in case C-303/98, Sindicato de Medicos de Asistencia Publica (SIMAP) and Conselleria de Sanidad y Consumo de la Generalidad Valenciana.

(3)  OJ C 192 E, 14.8.2003, p. 199.

(4)  OJ L 195, 1.8.2000, p. 41.

(5)  Judgment of the Court of 3 October 2000 in Case C-303/98, Sindicato de Médicos de Asistencia Pública (SIMAP) and Conselleria de Sanidad y Consumo de la Generalidad Valenciana.

(6)  OJ C 58 E, 6.3.2004, p. 187.

(7)  Directive 2000/34/CE of the Parliament and of the Council of 22 June 2000 amending Council Directive 93/104/CE concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time to cover sectors and activities excluded from that Directive, OJ L 195, 1.8.2000.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/597 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/597

---

(2004/C 78 E/0631)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3582/03

by Yasmine Boudjenah (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(5 December 2003)

Subject:   Role of multinational corporations in conflict regions in Africa

The UN Security Council's endorsement of the report by the UN Expert Panel on the Illegal Exploitation of Natural Resources and Other Forms of Wealth of the Democratic Republic of the Congo (formerly Zaire) and the publication in the French press of extracts from this report underline the urgent need for greater transparency when investigating the links between the responsibilities of multinational corporations and the pursuit of war in certain countries, particularly on the African continent.

In the light of the European Parliament's adoption of the Howitt report in 1998 on EU standards for European enterprises operating in developing countries: towards a European Code of Conduct and monitoring platform (A4-0508/1998) and the repeated calls for the Commission to impose strict controls on multinational corporations obliging them to treat human beings with respect, to maintain human dignity and proper working conditions and to respect democratic principles and the values of peace, can the Commission state what progress has been made in this area?

More specifically, has the Commission had access to the full text of the UN report? If so, can it state whether or not European private or public companies are implicated in illegal activity in relation to the conflict in the Democratic Republic of the Congo? If so, will action be taken (setting up a committee of inquiry, sanctions) to ensure that no European subsidy is linked to this conflict?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(14 January 2004)

In relation to the Code of conduct for European enterprises operating in developing countries, the Commission does not believe in a mandatory approach. Rather it is convinced that a voluntary strategic framework, such as the European strategy on Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR), is more appropriate. Moreover, the 1998 Howitt Report itself identifies the voluntary approach as the starting point for any action in this field.

The Commission launched in September 2002 an implementation strategy with respect to CSR following the July 2002 adoption of a Communication (1) on the matter. The main element of the strategy is the CSR Stakeholder Forum, officially launched on 16 October 2002. The Forum promotes CSR through fostering a dialogue between the business community, trade unions, civil society organisations and other stakeholders. The Forum has the aim of raising awareness of and promoting CSR good practice and instruments, taking into account existing Union initiatives and internationally agreed instruments such as the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises and the International Labour Office (ILO) Core Labour Standard conventions.

The international dimension is taken into account in the ‘development round-table’, in which different corporations and non-governmental organisations (NGOs) participate actively. Thematic areas such as health and development, promotion of core labour standards, good governance, social dialogue, financial transparency, implementation of the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Corporations are examined. The Forum will present a report on its work to the Commission before Summer 2004, which shall then assess its results, and decide on its follow-up.

The Commission has received the version of the United Nation's panel of inquiry report which was published on the UN's website and can be consulted freely there. The report offers no specific details concerning the involvement of European private or public companies in illegal activity in relation to the conflict in the Democratic Republic of Congo.

The Commission's development assistance to the DRC cannot be linked to the conflict. It entails projects implemented mainly by local and international NGOs which directly benefit the poorest sections of the community, in particular through the rehabilitation of basic infrastructure, repairs to rural tracks and measures to boost agriculture.

The Commission notes that the Report states that the United Nations Panel was charged with fact-finding but was not a judicial body. In the case of companies listed in the report's annexes, the principles of the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises were used as an appropriate benchmark of ‘generally accepted international standards of corporate behaviour’.

The OECD Guidelines contain voluntary principles and standards for responsible business conduct in areas including human rights, disclosure of information and anti-corruption. The Commission strongly supports the Guidelines as a key corporate responsibility instrument with global reach. National Contact Points in each adhering country handle enquiries relating to the Guidelines and cases of alleged non-adherence.

The Commission notes that the UN Panel has referred a number of Union-based companies to National Contact Points for clarification as to whether their activities in the DRC have contravened the OECD Guidelines. The Commission considers that it is the responsibility of National Contact Points to investigate all well-founded allegations of conduct inconsistent with the Guidelines.

---

(1)  COM(2002) 347 final.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/599 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/599

---

(2004/C 78 E/0632)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3584/03

by Ria Oomen-Ruijten (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(5 December 2003)

Subject:   Receipt of supplementary reply

On 6 March, Mrs Reding replied on behalf of the Commission to written question E-3868/02 (1), and stated that the Commission would provide a supplementary reply.

Why has no supplementary reply so far been sent concerning equal treatment of children studying at secondary schools or secondary vocational education establishments in the Netherlands, who are eligible for a Dutch study grant, and of Dutch children studying at secondary schools or secondary vocational education establishments in Germany or Belgium, who do not receive study grants?

When can the supplementary reply be expected?

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(23 January 2004)

After giving the question close attention, the Commission decided to contact the Dutch authorities to verify whether the legislation relating to the awarding of study grants was in conformity with the provisions of Community law relating to freedom of movement, because although it is up to the Member States to set the conditions governing access to their national education systems and the conditions governing the awarding of study grants to students wishing to study in another Member State, the Member States must nevertheless observe Community law and in particular the principle of non-discrimination, as confirmed by the Judgment of the Court of Justice in the Meeusen case (C-337/97).

On the basis of the documentation obtained, the Commission has no evidence that grants are awarded for study in the Netherlands in contravention of the principles of freedom of movement.

In particular:

| — | Dutch students have the right, and make use of the right, to study in other countries of Europe; |
| --- | --- |

—

Dutch students have the right, and make use of the right, to study in other countries of Europe;

| — | students who are nationals of other countries of the Union have the right to study in the Netherlands. |
| --- | --- |

—

students who are nationals of other countries of the Union have the right to study in the Netherlands.

---

(1)  OJ C 161 E, 10.7.2003, p. 157.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/599 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/599

---

(2004/C 78 E/0633)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3585/03

by Mogens Camre (UEN) to the Commission

(5 December 2003)

Subject:   The EUMC's shelved report on Muslim anti-Semitism

According to the ‘Financial Times’ and the Danish newspaper ‘Berlingske Tidende’ of 23 November 2003, the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia (EUMC) in Vienna has shelved a 112-page report on anti-Semitism which the EUMC had itself commissioned from university research staff in Berlin.

The reason why the report is being shelved is said to be that it did not portray the political image sought by the EUMC. Indeed, it revealed that it is Muslim immigrants and pro-Palestinian groups who are behind most of the attacks on Jewish property and persons in Europe, and Beate Winkler, the EUMC's strongly pro-Muslim director, did not want this to come out.

Beate Winkler and her monitoring centre have systematically sought to portray an image of Europeans as racist irrespective of the fact that this image is a false one in all essentials. All Muslim communities in the EU — as in the rest of the world — are witnessing flagrant breaches of the European Convention on Human Rights. This primarily takes the form of wide-scale oppression of women with many Muslim communities in the EU implementing Sharia law in the form of discrimination against women in the matter of inheritance in breach of the legislation in the Member States; still worse, there are what are known as the ‘honour killings’ of women wanting their freedom and even the killing of women who have been the victims of rape. These grave matters have never been dealt with by the EUMC.

The EUMC has systematically portrayed a false image of who the racists are and who is infringing human rights in the EU. Now Beate Winkler also wants to conceal the anti-Semitism of Muslims.

What action does the Commission intend to take in order to halt the one-sided politicising activity of the EUMC and ensure truthful information about racist threats and human rights' infringements in the EU?

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/600 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/600

---

(2004/C 78 E/0634)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3587/03

by Koenraad Dillen (NI) to the Commission

(5 December 2003)

Subject:   Report on anti-Semitism by the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia

The Financial Times and other European newspapers this week reported that the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia, based in Vienna, has decided not to publish a recent report on anti-Semitism. The European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia is made up of representatives of Member States, the Council of Europe, the Commission and the European Parliament. The 112-page report in question was compiled by Berlin Technical University at the request of the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia. The newspapers state that, according to the report, there has been a sharp increase in anti-Semitic statements made and crimes committed by immigrants. For reasons of ‘political correctness’, it was therefore decided not to make the report public.

Are these newspaper reports accurate?

Was the Commission aware of the decision not to publish this report? Can the Commission state how much this research cost?

By whom and on the basis of what discussions was it decided not to publish this report? On the basis of what arguments was it decided to invalidate the scientific research of Berlin Technical University in this way?

On the basis of what subsidies is the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia financed? What are the sums involved? How many members of staff are employed at the Centre? What is the composition of its Management Board? To what extent is this Centre sponsored by the Commission?

Can this report still be made available to MEPs?

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/600 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/600

---

(2004/C 78 E/0635)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3607/03

by Olivier Duhamel (PSE) to the Commission

(5 December 2003)

Subject:   Vienna Observatory

Does the Commission consider it acceptable for the EUMC, the European agency responsible for monitoring racism and xenophobia, to censor the publication of the report requested from the Centre for Research on Anti-Semitism at the Technical University of Berlin?

Does it share our view that it is not by concealing the appearance of new forms of anti-Semitism that we will help to combat them?

Is it aware of the risks that the EU may give the, albeit false, impression of being tolerant of anti-Semitism, on the pretext of not jeopardising young Palestinian supporters in the suburbs, who sometimes veer dangerously, or unconsciously, towards anti-Semitism?

Can it ask the Vienna Observatory not to hide behind this kind of cautious attitude, which provides grounds for accusations that it tolerates anti-Semitism? Can it advise the Vienna Observatory, and any other EU body, not to ask unnecessary questions when carrying out surveys, as these are always a delicate and sometimes imperfect matter, as we saw with the controversies following the publication of the Eurobarometer on threats to peace in the world?

We need a strong, clear and rapid reaction. The EU and its various representatives must not equivocate in their analysis of anti-Semitism or in the fight against it.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/601 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/601

---

(2004/C 78 E/0636)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3700/03

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

(10 December 2003)

Subject:   Withholding of a study on anti-Semitism in Europe by the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia (EUMC)

Knowing that:

| — | on 22 November 2003 the Financial Times published on its front page a report to the effect that the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia (EUMC) had withheld a 112-page report on anti-Semitism in Europe which the Monitoring Centre itself had commissioned in 2002 from Berlin University's Centre for Research into Anti-Semitism; |
| --- | --- |

—

on 22 November 2003 the Financial Times published on its front page a report to the effect that the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia (EUMC) had withheld a 112-page report on anti-Semitism in Europe which the Monitoring Centre itself had commissioned in 2002 from Berlin University's Centre for Research into Anti-Semitism;

| — | the Director of the Monitoring Centre, Beate Winkler, has stated that the decision not to publish the research was based partly on the fact that the period selected for consideration (May and June 2002) was not deemed representative and partly on the irreconcilable differences of opinion between the Monitoring Centre and the Berlin Research Centre concerning the concept of anti-Semitism. |
| --- | --- |

—

the Director of the Monitoring Centre, Beate Winkler, has stated that the decision not to publish the research was based partly on the fact that the period selected for consideration (May and June 2002) was not deemed representative and partly on the irreconcilable differences of opinion between the Monitoring Centre and the Berlin Research Centre concerning the concept of anti-Semitism.

Would the Commission say:

| — | why a report which furthers understanding of the way in which forms of anti-Semitism develop has been withheld from the people of the EU? |
| --- | --- |

—

why a report which furthers understanding of the way in which forms of anti-Semitism develop has been withheld from the people of the EU?

| — | what differences of opinion have arisen between the Monitoring Centre and the Berlin Research Centre concerning the concept of anti-Semitism? |
| --- | --- |

—

what differences of opinion have arisen between the Monitoring Centre and the Berlin Research Centre concerning the concept of anti-Semitism?

| — | why the Eurobarometer survey (which was not based on scientific criteria) was published immediately (with consequences which are known to all), whereas the Monitoring Centre's report was kept secret? |
| --- | --- |

—

why the Eurobarometer survey (which was not based on scientific criteria) was published immediately (with consequences which are known to all), whereas the Monitoring Centre's report was kept secret?

| — | whether the Commission's representative to the EUMC was informed of the decision not to disclose the report? |
| --- | --- |

—

whether the Commission's representative to the EUMC was informed of the decision not to disclose the report?

Joint answer

to Written Questions E-3585/03, E-3587/03, E-3607/03 and E-3700/03

given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(30 January 2004)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Members to the reply it gave to written question P-3693/03 by Mr Laschet (1).

---

(1)  See page 313.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/602 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/602

---

(2004/C 78 E/0637)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3590/03

by José Ribeiro e Castro (UEN) to the Commission

(5 December 2003)

Subject:   Ibero-American Summit — conclusions and prospects

The annual Ibero-American Summits, representing 600 million people (i.e. 10 to 12 % of the world's population) have served as a forum for political consultation and concerted action and for tackling specific subjects of common interest to Portugal, the countries of Latin America and Spain, with the objective of giving shape to a genuine Ibero-American Community embracing different continents and uniting Portugal and Spain with the Portuguese- and Spanish-speaking countries of the Americas, thus providing a bridge between the EU and Latin America.

The 13th summit, which was held in Santa Cruz de la Sierra (Bolivia) on 14/15 November 2003, brought together the heads of state and government of the 21 Latin-American countries and was attended by the UN Secretary-General, Kofi Annan. The Latin American countries unanimously decided to approve the establishment of a Permanent Secretariat which will coordinate future summits and, like the regional organisations, could come to play a key role in closer future cooperation between those countries.

On page 12 of the Commission's Latin America Regional Strategy Document 2002-2006 programming we read: ‘The international challenge concerns the capacity of the countries of the region to take a more active part in major international debates, by means of greater internal cohesion and alliances with external partners’, and on page 19, that ‘because of the lack of viability of the role of European and Community aid in Latin America, special efforts will be made to ensure these activities are well publicised’.

The Commission:

| — | what information does it have as to the Summit and its conclusions? What conclusions does it draw; |
| --- | --- |

—

what information does it have as to the Summit and its conclusions? What conclusions does it draw;

| — | recognising Latin America's historical heritage, a system of values close to those of Europe, and the common linguistic heritage, in what way does the Commission intend to work together with the Ibero-American summit and encourage this particularly well-informed and exceptionally appropriate European involvement, with all it means in terms of cooperation and strengthening links with Latin America; |
| --- | --- |

—

recognising Latin America's historical heritage, a system of values close to those of Europe, and the common linguistic heritage, in what way does the Commission intend to work together with the Ibero-American summit and encourage this particularly well-informed and exceptionally appropriate European involvement, with all it means in terms of cooperation and strengthening links with Latin America;

| — | how does it view the potential strategic importance to the EU of a more cohesive and integrated Ibero-American community? What measures has it taken or will it take in this connection; |
| --- | --- |

—

how does it view the potential strategic importance to the EU of a more cohesive and integrated Ibero-American community? What measures has it taken or will it take in this connection;

| — | what aid is it prepared to provide, specifically for setting up the Ibero-American community representation, infrastructure and facilities on Community territory? |
| --- | --- |

—

what aid is it prepared to provide, specifically for setting up the Ibero-American community representation, infrastructure and facilities on Community territory?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(23 December 2003)

The Commission is fully informed on the outcome of the 13th Ibero-American summit which concluded on the 15 November 2003 in Santa Cruz. The theme of the summit and some of its conclusions are fully consistent with one of the main objectives of the Commission in its relations with Latin America: promoting social cohesion.

At the last ministerial meeting between the Union and the Rio Group held in Vouliagmeni, the Member of the Commission responsible for External relations proposed social cohesion as the central theme of the next summit of Heads of State of the Union and Latin America and the Caribbean to be held in Guadalajara, Mexico in 2004. The fact that this theme has been at the centre of the discussions in Santa Cruz encourages the Commission to continue working on this issue. The Commission and the Inter American Development Bank have set up a working group on social cohesion to propose measures in this field that could be submitted to Heads of State in Mexico.

The Commission considers that the development of the Ibero-American Community is very positive for the Union. The participation in this Community of two Member States contributes to strengthening the relations, the dialogue and the understanding between the Union and Latin America.

The Commission considers that the setting up of Ibero-American Community representation is an internal matter and therefore does not envisage any particular initiative in this regard.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/603 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/603

---

(2004/C 78 E/0638)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3596/03

by Brigitte Langenhagen (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(5 December 2003)

Subject:   EU border controls

There is evidence that fisheries products are being imported into the EU, mainly via EEA countries, from third-country factory vessels which are not authorised to export to the EU. As well as being more economically competitive than products from EU fisheries, as money is saved by omitting to make the investments necessary to ensure hygienic conditions during fishing and processing, these imports are unsafe from a health point of view, and should be regarded as posing a health risk.

I am aware that there is an comprehensive body of Community legislation laying down the procedures to be followed at border inspection posts as regards the import of products of animal origin, including fisheries products from third countries.

Commission services and officials are doing all they can in the course of their inspections to uncover irregularities at Community border inspection posts.

I am further aware that the EEA countries have laid down statutory regulations for fisheries products which correspond or are equivalent to EU regulations.

According to Community rules, fisheries products which are imported into the EU from third countries via EEA countries should be checked at the border inspection posts of the EEA countries.

However, significant quantities of fisheries products which do not comply with EU regulations still enter the Community economic area via these border inspection posts, and this is an open secret among economic operators in North East Atlantic and North Sea regions.

Can the Commission therefore answer the following questions:

| — | How and to what extent do the relevant Commission services monitor the proper importing of fisheries products at the external borders of the EEA countries, and thus also of the EU? |
| --- | --- |

—

How and to what extent do the relevant Commission services monitor the proper importing of fisheries products at the external borders of the EEA countries, and thus also of the EU?

| — | In what ways can the Commission take effective action to detect disparities in the way Community import procedures are applied by EEA countries and to ensure that lasting improvements are made, given that EEA countries are third countries, albeit with a special status? |
| --- | --- |

—

In what ways can the Commission take effective action to detect disparities in the way Community import procedures are applied by EEA countries and to ensure that lasting improvements are made, given that EEA countries are third countries, albeit with a special status?

| — | What can the Commission do to prevent the above-mentioned import via EEA countries of fisheries products which do not comply with EU regulations, in order to protect the Community's domestic fishery industry and consumers? |
| --- | --- |

—

What can the Commission do to prevent the above-mentioned import via EEA countries of fisheries products which do not comply with EU regulations, in order to protect the Community's domestic fishery industry and consumers?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(2 February 2004)

Iceland and Norway are linked to the Union by the European Economic Area (EEA) agreement. Both countries have adopted Community legislation concerning imports from third countries as regards fish and fishery products, both for import conditions and for import procedures. These EEA States have put in place a network of border inspection posts for the examination of products imported from third countries. Once cleared for free circulation into these two EEA States, fish and fishery products from third countries may circulate freely anywhere within the single market.

Inspection and enforcement of legislation in the EEA States is carried out by ESA, the European Free Trade Association (EFTA) Surveillance Authority which carries out missions to the EEA States to verify compliance with the Community requirements in relevant areas of the aquis. As regards border inspection posts however, Annex I to the agreement [Veterinary and Phyto Sanitary matters] states at point I. paragraph 4.B:

| | Inspection of border inspection posts shall take place in close cooperation between the EC Commission and the EFTA Surveillance Authority. |
| --- | --- |

Inspection of border inspection posts shall take place in close cooperation between the EC Commission and the EFTA Surveillance Authority.

| | The EFTA Surveillance authority shall be entitled to participate in inspection visits of the Commission services to the EC Member States with regard to the decisions to which reference is made in paragraph 5(b), first indent. |
| --- | --- |

The EFTA Surveillance authority shall be entitled to participate in inspection visits of the Commission services to the EC Member States with regard to the decisions to which reference is made in paragraph 5(b), first indent.

| | The EC Commission and the EFTA Surveillance Authority shall arrange joint inspection visits to establish a common recommendation for the purposes of the decisions to which reference is made in paragraph 5(b), second indent. Any issue arising out of this connection may be referred to the EEA Joint Committee. |
| --- | --- |

The EC Commission and the EFTA Surveillance Authority shall arrange joint inspection visits to establish a common recommendation for the purposes of the decisions to which reference is made in paragraph 5(b), second indent. Any issue arising out of this connection may be referred to the EEA Joint Committee.

These missions look at both the development of facilities and the application of the relevant veterinary aquis.

The reports of the ESA inspections are sent to the Commission and are also available on their own website (1).

The two latest ESA reports available for missions to Norway and Iceland have highlighted that these two countries seem to be accepting fishery products from non-approved sources. In the case where this would be considered as an infringement of EEA legislation (i.e. EC legislation), it is for ESA to take action as the body responsible for enforcement of the legislation in the EEA States.

---

(1)  http://www.eftasurv.int/

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/605 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/605

---

(2004/C 78 E/0639)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3601/03

by Elly Plooij-van Gorsel (ELDR) to the Commission

(5 December 2003)

Subject:   Buy American Act

The Buy American Act is a piece of legislation which relates to products purchased by US government bodies in connection with projects which they finance. The purpose of the Act is to support American businesses and employees by preferentially purchasing their products.

During tender procedures, for example, American businesses are given information about bids by foreign — e.g. European — businesses. The American businesses are then given the opportunity to submit a lower bid.

| 1. | Is the Commission aware of the role played by the US administration and government bodies in tender procedures on the basis of the Buy American Act? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is the Commission aware of the role played by the US administration and government bodies in tender procedures on the basis of the Buy American Act?

| 2. | Is the Commission aware of the disadvantages which this Act entails for many European businesses, for example Dutch biotechnology companies? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Is the Commission aware of the disadvantages which this Act entails for many European businesses, for example Dutch biotechnology companies?

| 3. | Is this Act protectionist and does it contravene WTO provisions? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Is this Act protectionist and does it contravene WTO provisions?

Answer given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(29 January 2004)

The legislation the Honourable Member is referring to is well known by the Commission and originates in a United States Law (the ‘Buy American Act’) adopted in 1933, in the middle of the Great Depression, aiming at developing industry and construction and stimulating jobs creation in the United States. The spirit of this law is maintained in numerous legal acts affecting procurement by United States public entities and agencies. Most of the provisions aim at excluding foreign goods or foreign bidders from tenders launched by public entities. The Buy American provisions apply also to activities financed by the United States public budget. As an example, one could take the obligation to use United States air carriers when the flight is financed by the United States Federal budget (thus obliging all officials or Members of Congress on mission or even students benefiting from public grants to travel in United States-owned air carriers). These protectionist measures are expensive for United States tax payers and introduce inefficiency and unfair competition in many economic sectors.

In 1996 the United States signed the World Trade Organisation (WTO) Agreement on Government Procurement, granting non-discriminatory access to bidders from 12 signatory countries (including the Community as a whole). At that time the United States had to introduce important changes in the ‘Buy American’ legislation to accommodate to the new WTO rules. Unfortunately, the scope of this agreement is quite limited and many important contracts and procurements continue to escape its rules.

The Commission is not aware of any United States provision that may allow a procuring entity to request proposals from foreign bidders and then offer a right to domestic suppliers to overtake the foreign bid. The Commission is ready to examine the WTO compatibility of this and other measures that may create obstacles to Community exporters in the biotechnology sector or in any other sector. The Commission has not received any complaint from Community companies in this regard.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/606 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/606

---

(2004/C 78 E/0640)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3602/03

by Anne Van Lancker (PSE) to the Commission

(5 December 2003)

Subject:   Article 51 of the European Constitution

The text of the proposed European Constitution includes an Article 51 which confers equal status on churches and non-confessional communities. On 21 October 2003, representatives of religious communities were consulted about immigration and measures against prostitution and trafficking in persons. However, non-confessional organisations were not consulted.

| 1. | Why were non-confessional organisations excluded from this dialogue despite Declaration 11 appended to the Treaty of Amsterdam, which guarantees equal treatment of religious and non-confessional organisations, and despite Article 51 of the Draft Constitution of the EU? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Why were non-confessional organisations excluded from this dialogue despite Declaration 11 appended to the Treaty of Amsterdam, which guarantees equal treatment of religious and non-confessional organisations, and despite Article 51 of the Draft Constitution of the EU?

| 2. | Can the Commission confirm that the dialogue with religiously inspired NGOs will immediately be opened up to non-confessional philosophical organisations? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Can the Commission confirm that the dialogue with religiously inspired NGOs will immediately be opened up to non-confessional philosophical organisations?

| 3. | Can the Commission confirm that in future non-confessional philosophical organisations will be treated equally to religious organisations? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Can the Commission confirm that in future non-confessional philosophical organisations will be treated equally to religious organisations?

| 4. | Can the Commission guarantee that its attitude in this regard does not foreshadow its future interpretation of the application of Article 51? |
| --- | --- |

4.

Can the Commission guarantee that its attitude in this regard does not foreshadow its future interpretation of the application of Article 51?

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/606 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/606

---

(2004/C 78 E/0641)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3665/03

by Nelly Maes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(9 December 2003)

Subject:   Non-confessional organisations

Despite the proposed European Constitution, which confers equal status on churches and non-confessional communities, we have noted that the Commission has consulted certain religious communities about immigration and measures against prostitution and trafficking in persons. Non-confessional organisations were evidently not consulted.

| 1. | Why were non-confessional organisations, such as the European Humanist Federation, excluded from this dialogue? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Why were non-confessional organisations, such as the European Humanist Federation, excluded from this dialogue?

| 2. | Why was the non-confessional organisation so excluded despite Declaration 11 appended to the Treaty of Amsterdam, which guarantees equal treatment of religious and non-confessional organisations? This exclusion was also not in the spirit of Article 51 of the Draft Constitution of the EU. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Why was the non-confessional organisation so excluded despite Declaration 11 appended to the Treaty of Amsterdam, which guarantees equal treatment of religious and non-confessional organisations? This exclusion was also not in the spirit of Article 51 of the Draft Constitution of the EU.

| 3. | Can the Commission confirm that the dialogue with religiously inspired NGOs will immediately be opened up to non-confessional philosophical organisations? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Can the Commission confirm that the dialogue with religiously inspired NGOs will immediately be opened up to non-confessional philosophical organisations?

| 4. | Can the Commission confirm that in future non-confessional philosophical organisations will be treated equally to religious organisations? |
| --- | --- |

4.

Can the Commission confirm that in future non-confessional philosophical organisations will be treated equally to religious organisations?

| 5. | Can the Commission guarantee that its attitude in this regard does not foreshadow its future interpretation of the application of Article 51 of the draft Constitution of the EU? |
| --- | --- |

5.

Can the Commission guarantee that its attitude in this regard does not foreshadow its future interpretation of the application of Article 51 of the draft Constitution of the EU?

Joint answer

to Written Questions E-3602/03 and E-3665/03

given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(10 February 2004)

The Commission would like to reassure the Honourable Members that Article 51 of the draft Constitutional Treaty, which is entitled ‘the status of Churches and non-confessional organisations’, and which provides for a dialogue with such organisations, does not foreshadow any loss of status for non-confessional organisations. The dialogue referred to is in fact already organised on a regular basis, notably in the aftermath of European Councils, and the established practise will continue. The Commission is not aware of any particular dissatisfaction with this dialogue, on the part of non-confessional organisations.

The meeting referred to by the Honourable Member on 21 October 2003, was in fact an information meeting in advance of a conference to be held later on in Rome, at the initiative and under the organisation of the Presidency of the Council at that time.

Due to the fact that the Italian Presidency sought contact with experts from religious organisations for their Conference in Rome, it merely chose to take advantage of the opportunity offered by the presence in Brussels of such organisations — amongst others — who had come for one of the regular dialogue meetings.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/607 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/607

---

(2004/C 78 E/0642)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3603/03

by José Ribeiro e Castro (UEN) to the Commission

(5 December 2003)

Subject:   Portuguese Overseas War veterans — disabilities

In its Resolution of 15 July 2003 (1) the Council drew attention to the declaration issued by the Ministers responsible (in Málaga on 8 May 2003), which states that improving the quality of life for people with disabilities and for their families is ‘one of the main aims of the next decade’.

Parliament too has adopted several resolutions on the same subject, including its resolution of 3 September 2003 on the Commission Communication entitled ‘Towards a United Nations legally binding instrument to promote and protect the rights and dignity of persons with disabilities’, which also points to the duty of meeting the needs of people with ‘hidden’ disabilities.

Over and above the issue of the disabled in general, there is a specific group in Portugal not receiving any kind of special attention, namely the numerous Portuguese veterans of the ‘Overseas War’, fought between 1961 and 1974 in Angola, Mozambique, and Guinea-Bissau.

Some 800 000 men served in the Portuguese armed forces in those parts of the world, and many came back crippled or maimed or are now suffering from chronic psychological disorders resulting from exposure to traumatic stress factors in warfare. These are termed military-related Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, defined as a type of anxiety disorder in DSM-IV, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, published by the American Psychiatric Association.

Portugal has been seeking to honour its obligations to those who became disabled during their military service, but European solidarity and shared experience could also be very useful in relieving the special problems of fellow citizens in this situation.

What measures has the Commission taken or will it take in connection with the European Year of People with Disabilities specifically with a view to integrating war-disabled people such as the veterans who served in the Portuguese ‘overseas provinces’? What measures does it recommend?

Given the seriousness of ‘hidden’ illnesses, the category which can be said to include Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, what specific steps does the Commission think could be taken both to remedy the lack of information about the causes, symptoms, and consequences of this form of disability and to rehabilitate and integrate the sufferers? Will it take any action in this area?

Answer given by Ms Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(16 January 2004)

The specific issue of the integration of people disabled as a result of their participation in military action is the responsibility of the Member States.

However, the Commission has a long tradition of promoting the rights and the inclusion of disabled people in social and economic life. To quote just a few examples: the European Social Fund contributes to the integration of disabled people in the labour market. Other Community funds (2) are used to improve health infrastructures, promote the social inclusion of disabled people in society, combat discrimination, etc. Moreover, on the basis of a proposal from the Commission, the Council has adopted Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation (3). This Directive prohibits any discrimination, direct or indirect, based on belief, disability, age or sexual orientation. It is also to be hoped that it will help to improve the low employment rate among disabled people who can work. In the context of its external and development aid policy, the Commission supports projects contributing to the reintegration of disabled people in active life, the improvement of rehabilitation systems, etc.

As part of the European Year of People with Disabilities in 2003, and to keep disability high on the European political agenda, the Commission adopted a Communication entitled ‘Equal opportunities for people with disabilities: A European Action Plan’ (4), with the aim of establishing a long-term, operational approach to disability for the future, taking into account the forthcoming enlargement of the EU. The Communication provides for a multiannual Action Plan to mainstream disability issues into relevant Community policies and develop concrete actions in crucial areas to enhance the full integration of people with disabilities in society and the economy by 2010.

In implementing the health information and knowledge strand of the Public Health Programme, the Commission has set up a working party on mental health to improve the information available in the area of mental disorders, develop relevant mental health indicators and make them operational. The working party on mental health met for the first time in November 2003. A specific task force for mental health indicators has been established. Research into and the treatment of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder are not covered by the Public Health Programme.

---

(1)  OJ C 175, 24.7.2003, p. 1.

(2)  FEDER, Community programmes in the area of education, training and youth, the EQUAL initiative, the Antidiscrimination programme, the programme to combat social exclusion, etc.

(3)  OJ L 303, 2.12.2000.

(4)  COM(2003)650.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/608 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/608

---

(2004/C 78 E/0643)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3604/03

by José Ribeiro e Castro (UEN) to the Commission

(5 December 2003)

Subject:   East Timor — Emergency aid

The Commission has announced its intention to grant EUR 2 million in humanitarian aid to the population of East Timor to help combat drought and the food shortage.

According to the Commission, although the reconstruction effort is now under way, 110 000 people will need emergency food aid between November 2003 and March 2004.

Can the Commission answer the following:

| — | for what specific measures will this humanitarian aid be used; |
| --- | --- |

—

for what specific measures will this humanitarian aid be used;

| — | has any timetable been approved for the operation; |
| --- | --- |

—

has any timetable been approved for the operation;

| — | in what regions will the operation be carried out; |
| --- | --- |

—

in what regions will the operation be carried out;

| — | who in the Timorese Government will be chiefly responsible for implementation of the aid; |
| --- | --- |

—

who in the Timorese Government will be chiefly responsible for implementation of the aid;

| — | how will the Commission oversee delivery and use of the aid; |
| --- | --- |

—

how will the Commission oversee delivery and use of the aid;

| — | will it agree to increase the aid if it proves insufficient? |
| --- | --- |

—

will it agree to increase the aid if it proves insufficient?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(29 January 2004)

The objective of the approved humanitarian aid is to enable affected families of East Timor to meet their most immediate food security needs following the floods and drought of 2003.

The main components of the aid are the following:

| — | Food aid distribution to 110 000 victims in the highland areas in Alieu, Ainaro, Ermera, Bobonaro, Covalima, Baucau, and in the remote and more isolated areas such as Oecussi, Lautem and Atauro Island. |
| --- | --- |

—

Food aid distribution to 110 000 victims in the highland areas in Alieu, Ainaro, Ermera, Bobonaro, Covalima, Baucau, and in the remote and more isolated areas such as Oecussi, Lautem and Atauro Island.

| — | Emergency agricultural assistance (well-adapted certified quality seed, fertilizer and simple hand tools) for 8 200 drought- and flood-affected farming households to restart crop production in the forthcoming planting season. |
| --- | --- |

—

Emergency agricultural assistance (well-adapted certified quality seed, fertilizer and simple hand tools) for 8 200 drought- and flood-affected farming households to restart crop production in the forthcoming planting season.

| — | Therapeutic and supplementary feeding for an acute by malnourished population and seed distribution in the Districts of Bobonaro, Cova Lima and Liquica. |
| --- | --- |

—

Therapeutic and supplementary feeding for an acute by malnourished population and seed distribution in the Districts of Bobonaro, Cova Lima and Liquica.

The operations started in October 2003 (agricultural assistance) and November 2003 (food and nutritional aid). Each operation will last six months.

According to the European Humanitarian Aid Office (ECHO) regulations, only ECHO partners can be responsible for the implementation of aid approved by ECHO. National Governments are not eligible as ECHO partners.

In the current case, the organisations responsible for the implementation of the aid are:

| — | World Food Programme: Food aid; |
| --- | --- |

—

World Food Programme: Food aid;

| — | Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO): Agricultural assistance; and |
| --- | --- |

—

Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO): Agricultural assistance; and

| — | CARE Austria: Nutritional care and seed distribution. |
| --- | --- |

—

CARE Austria: Nutritional care and seed distribution.

In addition, World Vision Germany is finalizing a project proposal for food aid, which is likely to be approved in January 2004.

Although not directly responsible for implementation, the Government of East Timor is fully involved. The Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, the Ministry of Labour and Solidarity, the Territorial Administration and Local Development (ALDG), the Ministry of State Administration and the National Management Disaster Office will oversee the implementation and participate to different degrees. To this end, various agreements between the Government and ECHO partners have been signed or are in the process of being signed.

ECHO will monitor the implementation of the project through its Technical Assistant in charge of Laos, Indonesia and East Timor, who is based in Bangkok but will undertake several field monitoring visits during project implementation. A mission of the Desk Officer in charge in Brussels is also foreseen for the first quarter of 2004.

The allocation of ECHO funds is based on existing humanitarian needs. Should urgent humanitarian needs persist at the end of the implementation of the ongoing projects, ECHO could consider increasing the aid allocated to East Timor. However, this is unlikely at this stage.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/610 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/610

---

(2004/C 78 E/0644)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3608/03

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

(5 December 2003)

Subject:   Violation of the rights of the Çam minority

In June 1944, 44 000 Albanians of Muslim origin were forcibly driven out of Çameria after being accused of collaborating with the Nazi occupying forces. This was the final stage in a process of genocide against these people, whose movable and immovable property was also confiscated (land, houses, livestock and household equipment).

The Çam population belonging to the Orthodox faith who remained in Çameria do not enjoy the rights recognised by the European Union, in particular the rights of ethnic and linguistic minorities and the right to learn Albanian in Albanian schools, which are banned by the Greek government.

Only if these two minorities are granted political and legal equality in Greece and Albania can relations of sincere and stable friendship be established between the different peoples and countries.

Can the Commission say what steps it will take to ensure that the Albanian population of Muslim origin forcibly removed from Çameria may return to their land of origin and be entitled to reacquire their property and be compensated for damage to their assets?

And can it say what steps it will take to ensure that the Albanian population belonging to the Orthodox faith remaining in Çameria are allowed to use the Albanian language in official transactions and to enjoy full civil rights in Greece, in the same way as the Greek minority in Albania?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(3 February 2004)

The Commission is aware of the claims of a part of Albanian population that their rights are not fully respected in Greece, notably as regards the properties confiscated at the end of World War II.

The Commission considers that this issue is mainly a bilateral issue between Albania and Greece. Nonetheless, the Commission would like to point out that some positive developments have been observed during 2003. High level meetings (i.e. between Prime Minister Nano and Prime Minister Simitis) have taken place with the objective, amongst others, of addressing issues such as the validity of the so-called ‘Law of War’ (established by Greece and allegedly applied to Albanians), the access of the Albania population to Greek Courts to claim their rights, and the response of these Courts. The Commission noted that Mr Nano, during a session of the Albanian Parliament (15/05/03), has stated that the Albanian government considers that the ‘State of War’ does not exist anymore since the two countries have signed on 21 March 1996 a Friendship and Co-operation Agreement. The ‘State of War’ belongs to the past, concluded Mr Nano. At the same time the Chief of the Democratic Party, Mr Sali Berisha (main opposition Party) has also declared that actually there is no ‘State of War’ between Greece and Albania. While the matter of confiscated properties remains controversial, this can be considered progress in the right direction.

The Commission will continue to monitor the situation and to encourage further dialogue between Athens and Tirana with the aim of achieving a fair resolution of pending issues ...

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/611 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/611

---

(2004/C 78 E/0645)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3611/03

by Camilo Nogueira Román (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(5 December 2003)

Subject:   Legalising immigration

The Commission for Justice and Home Affairs recently stated that legislation on legalising immigration — an area in which there has only been progress on the issues of family reunion and long-term resident status — always runs into ‘major problems in Council’.

Can the Commission state which issues cause these major problems, and which Member States are responsible for the delays in so serious and crucial an area, at a time when dozens and dozens of immigrants continue to drown on the Union's southern shores?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(28 January 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.

These proposals must be adopted by unanimity, whereas current national legislation in relation to particular third countries differs widely. These factors have to be taken into account.

However, the European Council meetings in Seville on 21/22 June 2002, in Thessaloniki on 19/20 June 2003 and in Brussels on 12 December 2003 emphasised the need to speed up the legislative work in order to implement the programme approved at Tampere, in particular as concerns the development of a common European policy on asylum and migration.

In this regard certain progress has already been achieved:

| — | As far as legislation in the field of legal migration is concerned, the Council adopted on 22 September 2003 Council Directive 2003/86/EC of 22 September 2003 on the right to family reunification (1) and on 25 November 2003 the Directive on the status of third-country nationals who are long term residents (2). |
| --- | --- |

—

As far as legislation in the field of legal migration is concerned, the Council adopted on 22 September 2003 Council Directive 2003/86/EC of 22 September 2003 on the right to family reunification (1) and on 25 November 2003 the Directive on the status of third-country nationals who are long term residents (2).

| — | A proposal for a Directive concerning the admission of students and volunteers was presented on 7 October 2002 (3) and it is hoped that this will be adopted in the first half of 2004. A proposal concerning the admission of researchers will be put forward by the Commission in January 2004. |
| --- | --- |

—

A proposal for a Directive concerning the admission of students and volunteers was presented on 7 October 2002 (3) and it is hoped that this will be adopted in the first half of 2004. A proposal concerning the admission of researchers will be put forward by the Commission in January 2004.

| — | The Commission regrets that in spite of the above mentioned statements of the European Council, its proposal for a Directive on the admission of economic migrants has not yet been adopted by the Council, and the Commission will be launching a wide debate on this issue during 2004. |
| --- | --- |

—

The Commission regrets that in spite of the above mentioned statements of the European Council, its proposal for a Directive on the admission of economic migrants has not yet been adopted by the Council, and the Commission will be launching a wide debate on this issue during 2004.

| — | Concerning the present migratory pressure on the southern external borders of the Union, the Commission refers to its reply to the written question E-2347/03 by Mr Noguiera Roman (4). Furthermore, it should be noted that in September 2003, the Commission presented the final report on the feasibility study on the control of the Union's maritime borders. The Council on 27/28 November 2003 adopted a programme of measures to combat illegal immigration across the maritime borders of the Member States. |
| --- | --- |

—

Concerning the present migratory pressure on the southern external borders of the Union, the Commission refers to its reply to the written question E-2347/03 by Mr Noguiera Roman (4). Furthermore, it should be noted that in September 2003, the Commission presented the final report on the feasibility study on the control of the Union's maritime borders. The Council on 27/28 November 2003 adopted a programme of measures to combat illegal immigration across the maritime borders of the Member States.

| — | The Commission is going to present a study in 2004 on the links between legal and illegal migration. This study will examine the potential pull and push factors and will also duly take into consideration Member States' experiences and positions on regularization of illegal migration. |
| --- | --- |

—

The Commission is going to present a study in 2004 on the links between legal and illegal migration. This study will examine the potential pull and push factors and will also duly take into consideration Member States' experiences and positions on regularization of illegal migration.

---

(1)  OJ L 251, 3.10.2003.

(2)  OJ C 240 E, 28.8.2001.

(3)  OJ C 45, 25.2.2003.

(4)  OJ C 70 E, 20.3.2004, p. 88.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/612 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/612

---

(2004/C 78 E/0646)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3620/03

by Antonios Trakatellis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(5 December 2003)

Subject:   Use of a mathematical formula in awarding public contracts

In its answer to my previous question (H-0097/03 (1)) concerning the use of a mathematical formula in awarding public contracts in Greece, the Commission stated that it had sent a letter to the Greek authorities to obtain information as to how they apply the formula concerned and its exact content. However, according to recently published reports, although the Ministry of the Environment, Planning and Public Works has abolished the formula for large-scale projects, it continues to apply it to small-scale works. The outcome is that a virtual monopoly situation continues in the public works construction sector; furthermore, there are indications of the existence of a cartel.

Can the Commission asnwer the following:

| 1. | Have the Greek authorities informed the Commission of the previous and current application of the mathematical formula? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Have the Greek authorities informed the Commission of the previous and current application of the mathematical formula?

| 2. | Is the use of this formula consistent with Community law? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Is the use of this formula consistent with Community law?

| 3. | Will the Commission reconsider the formula and what measures will it take in response to complaints concerning its abuse? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Will the Commission reconsider the formula and what measures will it take in response to complaints concerning its abuse?

| 4. | What measures will the Commission take if the above reports concerning unfair competition prove to be correct? |
| --- | --- |

4.

What measures will the Commission take if the above reports concerning unfair competition prove to be correct?

| 5. | What measures will the Commission take in regard to the application of the current procedure in Greece, which is leading to an oligopoly in the public works sector? |
| --- | --- |

5.

What measures will the Commission take in regard to the application of the current procedure in Greece, which is leading to an oligopoly in the public works sector?

In addition to the abolition of the mathematical formula, will the Commission also ask for its replacement with a transparent procedure which will prevent the violation of the principle of free and healthy competition in the awarding and execution of public works contracts?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(30 January 2004)

As the Commission pointed out in its reply to oral question H-0097/03, which the honourable Member asked at Question Time during the part-session of March 2003 (2), according to the case law of the Court of Justice the use of a mathematical criterion for detecting abnormally low tenders is not in itself an infringement of Community law (Cases C-285/99 and C-286/99). However, the same case law says that a tenderer whose bid is considered abnormally low — even if a mathematical method is used — must be able to submit all the explanations which he deems relevant to explain the content of his bid, and that the awarding authority must examine all these explanations before deciding whether or not to reject the bid. Following complaints, the Commission was prompted to examine the compatibility of the Greek system for detecting abnormally low tenders and contacted the Greek authorities several times to clarify the situation. The matter was also discussed at the package meeting which took place in Athens on 23/24 October 2003 on the application of Community law to public procurement in Greece.

It emerged from this examination by the Commission that the law in Greece allows abnormally low tenders to be explained only in very specific cases and that there is provision for a category entitled ‘exceptionally abnormally low tenders’ for which no explanation is allowed. The relevant services of the Commission feel that this legislation, and the administrative practice derived from it, are apparently contrary to Council Directive 93/37/EEC of 14 June 1993 concerning the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts (3), as well as to the aforementioned case law of the Court of Justice.

Following bilateral contacts, the Greek authorities have amended their legislation by abolishing the category of ‘exceptionally abnormally low tenders’, while accepting that tenderers whose bids are considered abnormally low after the application of the mathematical formula may nevertheless submit explanations.

Consequently, the mathematical method has not been abolished, as articles in the press would seem to indicate, but the procedures for its use by awarding authorities have been changed to make it comply with Community law.

The Commission is watching to ensure that the new national legislation on the procedures for using the mathematical method, and more especially on the detection of abnormally low tenders, is being applied in compliance with Community law.

With regard to the allegations concerning the existence of cartels in the construction sector, the Commission does not at this time have any elements allowing it to reach a conclusion on the existence of a structural market situation in breach of Union competition rules. It would therefore like to urge the honourable Member to forward any information indicating that public contracts may have been rigged.

---

(1)  Written answer of 11.3.2003.

(2)  Written answer of 11.3.2003.

(3)  OJ L 199, 9.8.1993.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/613 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/613

---

(2004/C 78 E/0647)

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?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(22 January 2004)

The Commission is not aware of the published conclusions drawn 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.

Consequently the Commission can not currently provide an answer to the questions concerning this study.

The Commission has requested the report to the competent authorities of Greece and will be able to provide an answer to the questions of the Honourable Member after receipt of the report.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/614 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/614

---

(2004/C 78 E/0648)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3622/03

by Stavros Xarchakos (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(5 December 2003)

Subject:   Cost of ‘free’ education in Greece

According to a study reported in the Greek press, total private expenditure on education in Greece amounted to EUR 1 770 000 000 in 2002, which is equal to 2,8 % of total private expenditure in Greece and 1,2 % of the country's gross national product. This astronomical sum is made up of fees for private schools, supplementary tuition (at privately run establishments known in Greece as ‘frondistiria’) in subjects taught in the state schools, the teaching of which, however, is inadequate for those pupils who wish to be admitted to Greek universities, and for foreign language tuition at ‘frondistiria’.

Are there any data available to show whether the equivalent of ‘frondistiria’ exists in the other Member States and how widespread the institution is? In which other Member States are such establishments as widespread and per capita private expenditure on supplementary tuition as high as in Greece? Does the Commission have any data on the expansion of this system in Greece over the last twenty years, a phenomenon which represents a huge drain on the family budget of every Greek, whose income is the lowest in Europe and barely 67 % of the Community average?

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(27 January 2004)

The Commission has at its disposal the Eurostat Household Budget Survey, which includes data on private household expenditure on education. This is sent direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat. The latest survey relates to 1999. Different private expenditure items on education are aggregated within this category, including expenditure related to public education, such as text books and also expenditure on private schools and private tuition. A breakdown of the data presenting expenditure solely on private institutions is, however, unavailable.

The data available for 1999 show that private household expenditure on education in Greece represents 2,4 % of private household expenditure, which is three times the Union average and higher than in any other Member State.

While the data refer to private household expenditure on education in total, there is very little available data on expenditure purely on private tuition. In France, the private tuition market (‘cours particuliers’) amounts to EUR 1,4 billion (0,2 % of private household expenditure) and in Germany, ‘Nachhilfe’ is estimated at over EUR 1 billion (0,1 % of private household expenditure). In the Union as a whole, private tuition is estimated to be less than 0,5 % of private expenditure. In Greece, this figure appears to be over 2 %.

In order to interpret these data correctly, it is important to bear in mind that they do not refer to expenditure of the private sector as a whole, which includes, for example, expenditure by private companies on education and training, nor do they give any indication of expenditure on education and training as a proportion of gross domestic product (GDP). The Commission analysed the question of investment in education and training in its Communication of January 2003 entitled ‘Investing efficiently in Education and Training: an imperative for Europe’ (1). Details on the overall levels of investment in the Member States, from both the public and private sectors, can be found in this Communication.

The Commission does not have detailed information on the equivalent of ‘frondistiria’ in Member States at its disposal. However, the data available for Greece suggest that the importance of ‘Frondistiria’ has increased in the last decade. This also has to be seen in the light of growing upper secondary and tertiary attainment rates.

Eurostat data suggest that private household spending on education in Greece has more than doubled between 1988 and 1999 in absolute terms. Measured as a share of household expenditure, it has increased by 50 per cent from 1988 to 1999 (from 1,6 to 2,4 %). In fact, the data reported in the Greek press relating to private expenditure on education in 2002 imply that there may have been a further increase since 1999.

---

(1)  COM(2002) 779 final.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/615 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/615

---

(2004/C 78 E/0649)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3626/03

by Marianne Thyssen (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(5 December 2003)

Subject:   Opening up the labour markets in the Member States

The accession treaty with the candidate countries includes transitional measures relating to the access which EU citizens from the new Member States will enjoy to the labour markets of the present Member States.

Member States are permitted to open up their labour markets earlier than agreed.

This could result in very different situations from one Member State to another, which could distort competition between businesses.

Would not some coordination of the positions of the Member States in this regard be desirable? Will the Commission assume a coordinating role here?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(28 January 2004)

According to the transitional arrangement agreed in the Accession Treaty, for the first two years following the accession of the new Member States, free movement or workers under Community law will not apply, and access to the labour markets of any present Member State will depend on the national law and policy of those States, as well as on the bilateral agreements they may have with the new Member States. This means that during the transitional period Union citizens from new Member States who want to work in the Union might need to obtain work permits, depending on the national law of the Union country where they want to work. Some Member States have indicated that they intend to fully open their labour markets to workers from all the new Member States. Other present Member States intend to allow more restrictive access, which will differ depending on the new Member State in question. This transitional arrangement does not apply to Cyprus and Malta.

The Commission believes that such agreement provides the present Member States with the possibility to continue to apply the provisions currently in force vis-à-vis each of the new Member States. Therefore, the situation concerning possible distortion of competition would not worsen the present situation in this respect. Furthermore, according to the provisions of the Accession Treaty, before the end of the two-year period following the date of accession, the Commission will have to address a report to the Council on the functioning of these transitional provisions.

The Commission believes that a timely communication from the present Member States of their decisions on the applicable national legislation would help the citizens of both the present and the new Member States to better understand the conditions created by enlargement in this area. The Commission will closely monitor the implementation of the Accession Treaty provisions in this field.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/616 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/616

---

(2004/C 78 E/0650)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3627/03

by Marianne Thyssen (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(5 December 2003)

Subject:   Access to the labour market for new EU citizens and non-EU citizens

On 1 May 2004, 10 new Member States will join the EU. Transitional measures have been agreed regarding access to the labour market. Member States may adopt a more flexible approach and open up their labour markets earlier than agreed.

As the Commission knows, some Member States have concluded bilateral agreements with third countries, for example concerning access to the Member State's labour market for the purpose of performing seasonal work.

Would it not be logical for citizens of the new Member States — as from 1 May 2004 — to be given at least the same access to the labour market as is given to certain non-EU citizens on the basis of bilateral agreements, ‘inter alia’ for the purpose of performing seasonal work?

Will the Commission propose a measure to prevent discrimination between new EU citizens and non-EU citizens?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(28 January 2004)

The Commission draws the attention of the Honourable Member to the principle of ‘Community preference’ for free movement of workers, contained in the provisions of the Accession Treaty. On the basis of this principle, notwithstanding the application of the transitional period, to which the Honourable Member refers, ‘the present Member States shall, during any period when national measures or those resulting from bilateral agreements are applied, give preference to workers who are nationals of the Member States over workers who are nationals of third countries as regards access to their labour market’.

Therefore upon accession Union citizens from acceding Member States cannot be subject to provisions less favourable than those applicable to citizens from third countries. The Commission will closely monitor this issue and take appropriate action in cases where discrimination between new Union citizen and non-Union citizen is reported.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/617 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/617

---

(2004/C 78 E/0651)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3631/03

by Proinsias De Rossa (PSE) to the Commission

(5 December 2003)

Subject:   Consultation with charities with regard to the proposal relating to the imposition of VAT on postal services

As the Commission is aware, the proposal to impose VAT on postal services (1) will have serious financial consequences for charities. What consultations did the Commission undertake with charitable organisations, particularly those from Ireland, concerning the implications of this move prior to the publication of its proposal in May 2003? How was the outcome of any such consultations taken into account in the Commission's final proposal?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(28 January 2004)

The Commission was engaged in a long consultation process prior to making its proposal on postal services. The Commission would like to assure the Honourable Member that charities, as well as other customers of direct mail, were in fact consulted. Irish Charities were represented in that process. As early as mid 2000, Commission officials were already discussing the effects of introducing VAT on the postal sector with the European Committee on VAT (of which the Irish Cancer Society is a member), as well as with many other groups and bodies representing postal consumers. As a result of those consultations, the Commission included an optional reduced rate (which Ireland could set at 5 %) and widened the scope of that option in order to include direct mail, something of interest to charities. The possibility given to Member States of introducing a reduced rate together with the savings resulting from the right to deduct for public postal operators, would broadly neutralise any increase in postal prices.

---

(1)  COM(2003)234.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/617 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/617

---

(2004/C 78 E/0652)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3632/03

by Camilo Nogueira Román (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(5 December 2003)

Subject:   Statements by André Sapir (adviser to the Commission President, Romano Prodi) concerning EU cohesion policy

Voicing a commonplace view which appears to be shared by Spain, Italy, Portugal, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, Ireland and Germany, André Sapir (an adviser to the Commission President, Romano Prodi) recently stated in Barcelona that ‘cohesion has served its purpose but what we need now is growth’. He even declared that cohesion policy should in future focus on the actual Member States and not on the regions with the lowest per-capita income.

What are the impact and the significance of such statements made by a person who, in his capacity as Mr Prodi's adviser, dares to dismiss (describing it as ‘a political point of view’) the idea that the regions are ‘partners with a special role to play in the implementation of Community policies’? Who authorised him to state that an ‘economic’ rather than a ‘political’ reason lies behind the idea of concentrating projects in the Member States and gearing them to growth in the EU's wealthiest and most industrialised regions, thereby marginalising areas which would have plenty of development capacity if only the structural divides caused by detrimental policies conducted by the EU and its Member States could be bridged?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(8 January 2004)

The question of the Honourable Member refers to a statement made by André Sapir in an interview published in El País in early November 2003. The occasion of the interview was a seminar at IESE Business School, where Mr Sapir was presenting the report of the independent study group established on the initiative of President Prodi, which he chaired. His statements reflected the views expressed in the report rather than the views of President Prodi or the Commission. As a matter of fact the cover page of the Sapir report states that: ‘The Report represents only the opinion of the independent Group and does not necessarily reflect the views of the European Commission.’

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/618 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/618

---

(2004/C 78 E/0653)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3645/03

by Salvador Jové Peres (GUE/NGL) and Pedro Marset Campos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(9 December 2003)

Subject:   European Union/Morocco agreement

At a conference held in Almeria on 24 October 2003, a Commission official acknowledged that the fruit and vegetables imported from Morocco to European markets had on a number of occasions exceeded the quotas laid down by the association agreement. He specifically acknowledged that Morocco had imported into Europe quantities of tomatoes and courgettes in excess of the authorised quotas. According to press reports, he explained that the new courgette quota negotiated with Morocco was nothing new and posed no threat to producers in south-eastern Spain, since Morocco had previously been importing similar quantities illegally, and the impact on the market would go unnoticed.

If the Commission was aware that import quotas were being exceeded, why did it take no action? Following the renewal of the EU/Morocco association agreement, how will it monitor compliance with these quotas? What action will it take if the quotas are exceeded?

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/618 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/618

---

(2004/C 78 E/0654)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3646/03

by Salvador Jové Peres (GUE/NGL) and Pedro Marset Campos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(9 December 2003)

Subject:   European Union/Morocco agreement

The Council of Ministers for Agriculture, meeting in March and December 1997, stressed ‘the importance of taking account, when defining the Community position in negotiations with third countries, of the characteristics of the Community agricultural market and of the socio-economic repercussions of the proposed concessions on that market, as well as of the need to develop a consistent overall strategy on the subject’, and they encouraged ‘the Commission to conduct regular analyses of the situation regarding trade in agricultural products and in particular of the impact of preferential arrangements for imports of such products into the Community. They stressed'the need to have available, before the adoption of negotiating directives or autonomous measures involving concessions on agricultural products, an analysis of the impact of the concessions liable to be granted to third countries or groups of third countries as well as of the advantages which could result for the European Union’.

Has the Commission carried out the impact studies called for by the Council in order to define the Community position in negotiations with Morocco? Will it forward them to Parliament? What is the scheduled timetable for submitting the regular impact studies on the association agreement with Morocco called for by the Council?

Joint answer

to Written Questions E-3645/03 and E-3646/03

given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(30 January 2004)

Within the recent agreement with Morocco on the import of agricultural products, quotas have been determined on the basis of traditional patterns on flows. Morocco has exceeded the quota fixed in the Association Agreement for the export of courgettes. However, this has caused no disturbances in the Community market, nor has any operator or country presented complaints. Moreover, the relevant data has been regularly supplied to the Management Committee of Fruit and Vegetables. Therefore, the Commission did not deem it necessary to take action as there is no case for fraud or other misgivings, the excess import quotas being the result of an increased demand for courgettes in the Community.

An impact study was conducted in 1997. In 2002, the Council formally asked the Commission to produce another study on the impact of the liberalisation of the Mediterranean agricultural products on the bilateral negotiations on agriculture. A reference to this study has been included in the conclusions of the meeting of Euro-Mediterranean Ministers of Foreign Affairs which took place in Naples on 2/3 December 2003. This study has been finalised recently and is available on (www.femise.org).

The Commission is perfectly aware of the particular sensitivities linked to the Mediterranean products. For this reason, it informs the players involved at regular intervals, in the context of the various Management and Consultative committees and through the different Council working groups.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/619 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/619

---

(2004/C 78 E/0655)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3647/03

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(9 December 2003)

Subject:   Delay in deepening and widening the River Maas north of Maastricht due to objections to gravel quarrying under negotiated contracts

| 1. | Is the Commission aware that the decision by the Netherlands, in response to the repeated floods in the area of the River Maas along the Dutch-Belgian border north of Maastricht, no longer to resort to the traditional method of preventing periodic inundations, namely raising dykes, but that instead deepening and widening the river bed and adjoining land could result in more sustainable nature management? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is the Commission aware that the decision by the Netherlands, in response to the repeated floods in the area of the River Maas along the Dutch-Belgian border north of Maastricht, no longer to resort to the traditional method of preventing periodic inundations, namely raising dykes, but that instead deepening and widening the river bed and adjoining land could result in more sustainable nature management?

| 2. | Can the Commission confirm that the implementation of this Maas Border Project, whose cost is estimated at EUR 450 million, is being delayed because the Commission wishes a public invitation to tender to be issued, whereas the Netherlands prefers to negotiate contracts privately, in which connection the quarrying of 50 million tons of gravel forms part of the cofinancing by regional private undertakings without any money changing hands? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Can the Commission confirm that the implementation of this Maas Border Project, whose cost is estimated at EUR 450 million, is being delayed because the Commission wishes a public invitation to tender to be issued, whereas the Netherlands prefers to negotiate contracts privately, in which connection the quarrying of 50 million tons of gravel forms part of the cofinancing by regional private undertakings without any money changing hands?

| 3. | Do the Commission's objections concern the inclusion in the contract of a concession for commercial gravel quarrying by businesses which have already previously been permitted to dig deep gravel pits which have filled with stagnant water along the river banks in the same area, destroying the landscape, or is the Commission's concern rather that major public works projects should not be carried out under public-private partnerships? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Do the Commission's objections concern the inclusion in the contract of a concession for commercial gravel quarrying by businesses which have already previously been permitted to dig deep gravel pits which have filled with stagnant water along the river banks in the same area, destroying the landscape, or is the Commission's concern rather that major public works projects should not be carried out under public-private partnerships?

| 4. | Will the approach advocated by the Commission lead to higher costs for the Netherlands Government or compel it to use a developer of gravel deposits other than the businesses currently operating in this area? |
| --- | --- |

4.

Will the approach advocated by the Commission lead to higher costs for the Netherlands Government or compel it to use a developer of gravel deposits other than the businesses currently operating in this area?

| 5. | Who will bear the cost of any large-scale damage caused by flooding to homes, businesses, public land and farmland while the work is delayed due to the Commission's intervention? |
| --- | --- |

5.

Who will bear the cost of any large-scale damage caused by flooding to homes, businesses, public land and farmland while the work is delayed due to the Commission's intervention?

| 6. | What will the Commission do to ensure that the work can be carried out quickly, at the lowest possible cost and in a way which is appropriate to the area? |
| --- | --- |

6.

What will the Commission do to ensure that the work can be carried out quickly, at the lowest possible cost and in a way which is appropriate to the area?

Source: 8 o'clock TV news, Nederland 1,26 November 2003.

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(29 January 2004)

| 1. | The Commission is aware of the Grensmaas project that has as objectives ecological development, gravel extraction and flood control. The Commission is equally aware of the fact that this project foresees, inter alia, dredging works to be carried out in the Maas River. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The Commission is aware of the Grensmaas project that has as objectives ecological development, gravel extraction and flood control. The Commission is equally aware of the fact that this project foresees, inter alia, dredging works to be carried out in the Maas River.

| 2. | On the basis of a large number of complaints, the Commission has opened an infringement procedure with regard to the Grensmaas project and has sent a letter of formal notice to the Dutch government on 2 May 2003. In this letter of formal notice, the Commission explains that it considers that the relationship between the Dutch authorities and those who are going to execute works in the framework of the Grensmaas project gives rise to a public works contract in the meaning of the applicable Union public procurement directives: such a contract should consequently be awarded in conformity with Union legislation. The Commission does not dispose of any data according to which one can conclude that the Grensmaas project has been delayed because of the ongoing infringement procedure. On the basis of the information available, it rather appears that this project is scheduled to be completed by 2022 and that the competent authorities do not foresee its execution to start before 2005. A tendering procedure as foreseen by European public procurement legislation usually takes no more than six months. |
| --- | --- |

2.

On the basis of a large number of complaints, the Commission has opened an infringement procedure with regard to the Grensmaas project and has sent a letter of formal notice to the Dutch government on 2 May 2003. In this letter of formal notice, the Commission explains that it considers that the relationship between the Dutch authorities and those who are going to execute works in the framework of the Grensmaas project gives rise to a public works contract in the meaning of the applicable Union public procurement directives: such a contract should consequently be awarded in conformity with Union legislation. The Commission does not dispose of any data according to which one can conclude that the Grensmaas project has been delayed because of the ongoing infringement procedure. On the basis of the information available, it rather appears that this project is scheduled to be completed by 2022 and that the competent authorities do not foresee its execution to start before 2005. A tendering procedure as foreseen by European public procurement legislation usually takes no more than six months.

| 3. | As said in point 2, the Commission's concerns relate to the modalities of awarding the works at stake. In the above-mentioned letter of formal notice, the Commission considers that the Grensmaas project entails a public works contract which should be awarded in conformity with European public procurement directives. Furthermore, the Commission underlines that, even if the contract were to be considered as a concession, it should be awarded to the private partner in accordance with European law, i.e. in full compliance with the Treaty principles of non-discrimination, transparency and equality of treatment which impose on any awarding body the duty to carry out tendering procedures in a transparent manner, by ensuring adequate publicity thereof. |
| --- | --- |

3.

As said in point 2, the Commission's concerns relate to the modalities of awarding the works at stake. In the above-mentioned letter of formal notice, the Commission considers that the Grensmaas project entails a public works contract which should be awarded in conformity with European public procurement directives. Furthermore, the Commission underlines that, even if the contract were to be considered as a concession, it should be awarded to the private partner in accordance with European law, i.e. in full compliance with the Treaty principles of non-discrimination, transparency and equality of treatment which impose on any awarding body the duty to carry out tendering procedures in a transparent manner, by ensuring adequate publicity thereof.

| 4. | The Commission does not dispose of any specific elements allowing it to respond to this question. However, the aim of tendering procedures is to guarantee that public contracts are awarded to the tenderer submitting the best bid, i.e. to ensure better — and not worse — value for public money. |
| --- | --- |

4.

The Commission does not dispose of any specific elements allowing it to respond to this question. However, the aim of tendering procedures is to guarantee that public contracts are awarded to the tenderer submitting the best bid, i.e. to ensure better — and not worse — value for public money.

| 5. | The Commission refers to the response to point 2. The Commission equally underlines that, even if a delay would occur because of the ongoing infringement procedure, such delays are not attributable to the Commission. Article 226 of the EC Treaty foresees such procedures in the case where a Member State has failed to fulfil an obligation under the EC Treaty, this Member State consequently bearing the responsibility for the consequences of this failure. |
| --- | --- |

5.

The Commission refers to the response to point 2. The Commission equally underlines that, even if a delay would occur because of the ongoing infringement procedure, such delays are not attributable to the Commission. Article 226 of the EC Treaty foresees such procedures in the case where a Member State has failed to fulfil an obligation under the EC Treaty, this Member State consequently bearing the responsibility for the consequences of this failure.

| 6. | Since the dispatch of the letter of formal notice, the Commission has already met the Dutch authorities twice with a view to finding a solution compatible with public procurement law and taking due account of the importance of the project. Further contacts are due to take place in the near future. |
| --- | --- |

6.

Since the dispatch of the letter of formal notice, the Commission has already met the Dutch authorities twice with a view to finding a solution compatible with public procurement law and taking due account of the importance of the project. Further contacts are due to take place in the near future.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/620 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/620

---

(2004/C 78 E/0656)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3648/03

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(9 December 2003)

Subject:   Desire of international rail freight operators to replace national rail safety systems with the European standard ECTS

| 1. | Can the Commission confirm that, in the context of its efforts to encourage a growth in the number of international rail freight operators, it assumes that the new rail safety system ECTS is in general use at least on sections of track which cross national borders and in the international corridors which EU Member States are to make available for such transport first? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Can the Commission confirm that, in the context of its efforts to encourage a growth in the number of international rail freight operators, it assumes that the new rail safety system ECTS is in general use at least on sections of track which cross national borders and in the international corridors which EU Member States are to make available for such transport first?

| 2. | What is the Commission's view of the statement by the director of the private rail company Shortlines, quoted in the Dutch newspaper Rotterdams Dagblad on 21 November 2003, that he fears that separate old safety systems such as ATB in the Netherlands, Memor in Belgium and Indusi in Germany will be ‘strongly protected’ in each Member State, and he calls for ‘an emergency scenario in case the equipment for reconciling the safety systems with one another is not ready and available in time’? |
| --- | --- |

2.

What is the Commission's view of the statement by the director of the private rail company Shortlines, quoted in the Dutch newspaper Rotterdams Dagblad on 21 November 2003, that he fears that separate old safety systems such as ATB in the Netherlands, Memor in Belgium and Indusi in Germany will be ‘strongly protected’ in each Member State, and he calls for ‘an emergency scenario in case the equipment for reconciling the safety systems with one another is not ready and available in time’?

| 3. | How much extra would it cost per Member State to switch to ECTS before the existing safety systems have reached the end of their service life or depreciation period? |
| --- | --- |

3.

How much extra would it cost per Member State to switch to ECTS before the existing safety systems have reached the end of their service life or depreciation period?

| 4. | Will the Member States bear the cost of this investment as track operators? In what cases will these costs or part thereof be charged to the businesses which benefit or will they be borne by the Trans-European Networks? |
| --- | --- |

4.

Will the Member States bear the cost of this investment as track operators? In what cases will these costs or part thereof be charged to the businesses which benefit or will they be borne by the Trans-European Networks?

| 5. | Does the Commission fear that it may be impossible for the modernisation to be carried out within the period it has in mind and that it may be a long time before a unified safety system is available? In that case, what are the consequences? What is the Commission's response to this state of affairs? |
| --- | --- |

5.

Does the Commission fear that it may be impossible for the modernisation to be carried out within the period it has in mind and that it may be a long time before a unified safety system is available? In that case, what are the consequences? What is the Commission's response to this state of affairs?

Source: Rotterdams Dagblad, 21 November 2003.

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(27 January 2004)

The Commission's efforts to revitalise the rail freight industry in Europe are not confined to harmonising the control and command systems, but also cover safety issues and the regulations relating to the railways.

| 1. | The safety of the existing railway network is ensured by means of signalling systems of which some were installed very recently. It is obviously unrealistic to want to replace these systems from one day to the next. Secondly, it is not necessary to install the European Train Control System (ETCS) throughout the network or along the whole length of a corridor for trains to be able to continue their journey without stopping. The ETCS system has been designed to operate alongside other systems thanks to the use of intelligent interfaces. Lastly, the ETCS technology is available and is being installed in connection with several projects. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The safety of the existing railway network is ensured by means of signalling systems of which some were installed very recently. It is obviously unrealistic to want to replace these systems from one day to the next. Secondly, it is not necessary to install the European Train Control System (ETCS) throughout the network or along the whole length of a corridor for trains to be able to continue their journey without stopping. The ETCS system has been designed to operate alongside other systems thanks to the use of intelligent interfaces. Lastly, the ETCS technology is available and is being installed in connection with several projects.

| 2. | To be able to estimate the cost of equipping the entire network and rolling stock, a migration strategy is needed. This strategy is being developed on the basis of the national plans which the Member States have notified pursuant to Commission Decision 2002/731/EC of 30 May 2002 concerning the technical specification for interoperability relating to the control-command and signalling subsystem of the trans-European high-speed rail system (1). A communication from the Commission due in 2004 will set out a coherent European plan for the introduction of the European Rail Traffic Management System (ERTMS) (ETCS and Global Standard for Mobile Communication/Rail (GSM-R)) and propose the related funding arrangements. |
| --- | --- |

2.

To be able to estimate the cost of equipping the entire network and rolling stock, a migration strategy is needed. This strategy is being developed on the basis of the national plans which the Member States have notified pursuant to Commission Decision 2002/731/EC of 30 May 2002 concerning the technical specification for interoperability relating to the control-command and signalling subsystem of the trans-European high-speed rail system (1). A communication from the Commission due in 2004 will set out a coherent European plan for the introduction of the European Rail Traffic Management System (ERTMS) (ETCS and Global Standard for Mobile Communication/Rail (GSM-R)) and propose the related funding arrangements.

| 3. | To finance the deployment of this system, each of the players involved would have to participate. There is no standard solution: each specific project would be funded under its own package, which would depend on the size of the project, the type of project (infrastructure or rolling stock, new equipment or refurbishment, etc.), and above all the state of the system in which it was being incorporated, as ETCS does not operate independently but together with the trackside signalling systems (interlocking, points, track circuits, etc.) and the on-board systems (driver's cab, braking system, odometry, etc.). Co-funding under the budget for the trans-European networks is possible and, for some projects, is already a reality. |
| --- | --- |

3.

To finance the deployment of this system, each of the players involved would have to participate. There is no standard solution: each specific project would be funded under its own package, which would depend on the size of the project, the type of project (infrastructure or rolling stock, new equipment or refurbishment, etc.), and above all the state of the system in which it was being incorporated, as ETCS does not operate independently but together with the trackside signalling systems (interlocking, points, track circuits, etc.) and the on-board systems (driver's cab, braking system, odometry, etc.). Co-funding under the budget for the trans-European networks is possible and, for some projects, is already a reality.

| 4. | Control-command and signalling systems have a service life of 10 to 30 years, depending on the technology used. The modernisation of these systems on such an extensive and sprawling system as the EU network has to be a continuous process, with several generations coexisting. Coexistence does not prevent the network from being interoperable or trains from continuing their journey without stopping at borders. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Control-command and signalling systems have a service life of 10 to 30 years, depending on the technology used. The modernisation of these systems on such an extensive and sprawling system as the EU network has to be a continuous process, with several generations coexisting. Coexistence does not prevent the network from being interoperable or trains from continuing their journey without stopping at borders.

---

(1)  OJ L 245, 12.9.2002.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/622 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/622

---

(2004/C 78 E/0657)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3650/03

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(9 December 2003)

Subject:   Extinction of the Iberian lynx in the Sierra Morena nature reserve in Andalusia due to the construction of a large reservoir and lack of compensatory habitat

| 1. | Can the Commission confirm that the number of Iberian lynxes, shy feline predators, living in the Sierra Morena nature reserve in the north of the Spanish region of Andalusia, in Doñana national park on the lower reaches of the Guadalquivir and in Portugal, has fallen from 1 100 in 1989 to 200 now? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Can the Commission confirm that the number of Iberian lynxes, shy feline predators, living in the Sierra Morena nature reserve in the north of the Spanish region of Andalusia, in Doñana national park on the lower reaches of the Guadalquivir and in Portugal, has fallen from 1 100 in 1989 to 200 now?

| 2. | Does the Commission assume that efforts to save the Iberian lynx have definitively failed, so that this species will disappear from the wild in the next few years and be able to survive, at best, only in zoos? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Does the Commission assume that efforts to save the Iberian lynx have definitively failed, so that this species will disappear from the wild in the next few years and be able to survive, at best, only in zoos?

| 3. | Is the Commission aware that, as a result of the completion of the Breña II dam in 2008, the existing reservoir in the Guadatio river in the Sierra Morena will be replaced with a new reservoir with a water level 80 m higher and eight times the water capacity, which will be many kilometres longer? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Is the Commission aware that, as a result of the completion of the Breña II dam in 2008, the existing reservoir in the Guadatio river in the Sierra Morena will be replaced with a new reservoir with a water level 80 m higher and eight times the water capacity, which will be many kilometres longer?

| 4. | What chances of survival do Iberian lynxes have in the Sierra Morena, a designated Natura 2000 area, if 2000 hectares of their habitat disappears under water and the rest is divided into two? |
| --- | --- |

4.

What chances of survival do Iberian lynxes have in the Sierra Morena, a designated Natura 2000 area, if 2000 hectares of their habitat disappears under water and the rest is divided into two?

| 5. | Is the Commission aware that, according to the Worldwide Fund for Nature, which has in the past worked to secure the survival of the lynx in this area with the support of the Commission, the adjoining land which has been expropriated and which was intended as a wilderness to provide compensation for the lost area is totally unsuitable as lynx habitat? |
| --- | --- |

5.

Is the Commission aware that, according to the Worldwide Fund for Nature, which has in the past worked to secure the survival of the lynx in this area with the support of the Commission, the adjoining land which has been expropriated and which was intended as a wilderness to provide compensation for the lost area is totally unsuitable as lynx habitat?

| 6. | Under these circumstances, is the possible EU cofinancing (as requested by Spain) of the new dam, which is expected to cost EUR 150 million, compatible with the Commission's nature conservation policy? |
| --- | --- |

6.

Under these circumstances, is the possible EU cofinancing (as requested by Spain) of the new dam, which is expected to cost EUR 150 million, compatible with the Commission's nature conservation policy?

Source: Rotterdams Dagblad, 20 November 2003.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(22 January 2004)

The Honourable Member has expressed his concern about the situation of the Iberian Lynx in Sierra Morena (Andalucía).

In October 2002, the Spanish Ministry of Environment and the regional Government of Andalucía with the support of The World Conservation Union (IUCN), Council of Europe, World Wildlife Fund (WWF) and other partners organised an international meeting to assess the current situation of the Iberian Lynx. One outcome of the meeting was that a new inventory of the lynx was carried out; according to this there are currently three main locations of subpopulations. Two of these are breeding populations and are located in Doñana National Park and Andujar-Cardeña (Sierra Morena, Andalucía).

The Spanish Ministry of Environment has established an ad hoc working group for the Iberian lynx.

This group considers the Spanish population (200-300 individuals), distributed in four sub-populations:

| — | Gata-Granadilla Sierra (Cáceres-Salamanca). |
| --- | --- |

—

Gata-Granadilla Sierra (Cáceres-Salamanca).

| — | Montes de Toledo (Toledo-Ciudad Real-Cáceres). |
| --- | --- |

—

Montes de Toledo (Toledo-Ciudad Real-Cáceres).

| — | Sierra Morena (‘Sierra Morena Central de Cordoba’, ‘Ciudad Real and Jaén’ and ‘Sierras del Relumbrar-Guadalmena in Ciudad Real and Albacete’). |
| --- | --- |

—

Sierra Morena (‘Sierra Morena Central de Cordoba’, ‘Ciudad Real and Jaén’ and ‘Sierras del Relumbrar-Guadalmena in Ciudad Real and Albacete’).

| — | Doñana and its environment (Sevilla, Huelva). |
| --- | --- |

—

Doñana and its environment (Sevilla, Huelva).

The Commission is assisting, through the LIFE-Nature programme, the national efforts to improve the conservation status of the species. There have been, over the last decade, a large number of LIFE projects, both in Spain and Portugal, targeting the Iberian lynx. These projects have included basic inventories and ecological and biological research on the species, but also improvement or re-creation of habitats, including corridors, and particularly repopulation of potential lynx areas with rabbits; this species constitutes the main prey for the lynx. The other main action consisted of population monitoring and surveillance of lynx areas.

A captive breeding programme is presently under way in Spain, following an agreement with the Portuguese authorities. Community financing for this programme was not requested, although some marginal activities related to the programme have been included in some of the above-mentioned LIFE projects.

La Breña II reservoir is proposed to be built on River Guadiato, close to River Guadalquivir. The dam will be located 120 metres from the existing ‘La Breña I’ reservoir. Part of the existing ‘La Breña I’ reservoir is within the Natura 2000 site ‘Sierra de Hornachuelos’. ‘La Breña II’ reservoir will completely flood ‘La Breña I’ reservoir. The new reservoir will occupy 626 hectares of the Natura 2000 site, which is 1,05 % of its surface. This reservoir is not located in Sierra Morena.

According to the available information Spain has proposed 2 615 102 hectares as Sites of Community Importance (SCI) to protect the Iberian Lynx. Specifically the Regional government of Andalucia has proposed 1 356 845 hectares (36 sites, pSCI).

The compensatory measures plan has received a favourable statement of the Regional Ministry of Environment of Andalucia and the Spanish Ministry of Environment. It has been elaborated in coordination with Iberian Lynx Group, the Doñana Research Station and the University of Córdoba.

The Ministry of Environment, Office of the State Secretary of Water and Coast, has asked the Commission for an opinion pursuant to Article 6.4 of the Habitat Directive (1), because of the absence of alternative solutions and for imperative reasons of overriding public interest, including that of a social or economic nature. It is foreseen that the Commission will shortly deliver its opinion in relation to this project.

---

(1)  Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 July 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora, OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/623 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/623

---

(2004/C 78 E/0658)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3651/03

by Cees Bremmer (PPE-DE) and Bartho Pronk (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(9 December 2003)

Subject:   Poor working conditions for au pairs in the Netherlands

Is the Commission aware of the poor working conditions which apply to 70 % of au pairs in the Netherlands, who are compelled to perform too much, and excessively heavy, domestic work and to care for children for more than the permitted 30 hours per week, as revealed by a report by the Netherlands Ministry of Justice which is as yet unpublished but will be published shortly (according to the Volkskrant newspaper of 25 November 2003)?

Is the Commission further aware that the proliferation of agencies on the Internet, the lack of any quality certification system for such agencies, the protracted visa procedures and the high costs, due to which many au pairs are employed illegally, lead to a situation in which au pairs' rights are insufficiently respected?

Is the Commission aware that these circumstances do not accord with its own recommendation to the Member States to sign and ratify at the earliest opportunity the Council of Europe's European Agreement on au pair placement of 24 November 1969, which lays down rules, inter alia, on working conditions and the setting-up of national consultative and information bodies?

Can the Commission establish to what extent au pairs are similarly exploited in other Member States?

How will the Commission tackle this practice, bearing in mind, inter alia, the growing uncertainty about the safeguarding of au pairs' rights — irrespective of their own responsibility — and in view of the Commission's duty to encourage close cooperation among the Member States in the field of social policy (Article 136 in conjunction with Article 140 of the EC Treaty)?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(23 January 2004)

There is no specific Community legislation aimed at au pairs. In so far as they are considered to be workers according to the definition in the country where they work, they are, in general, covered by the existing labour law directives.

The Commission has through Recommendation 85/64/EEC of 20 December 1984 (1). recommended that Member States sign and ratify the European agreement of the Council of Europe of 24 November 1969 on au pair placement. Based on the information the Commission has received so far regarding the situation of au pairs, it has not been considered necessary to take any further specific actions.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.1985.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/624 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/624

---

(2004/C 78 E/0659)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3660/03

by Olivier Dupuis (NI) to the Commission

(2 December 2003)

Subject:   Tragic state of health of children in Chechnya

Mr Hasan Gadayev, head of the maternity and child health department of the pro-Russian Chechen administration, has stated that more than 80 % of the children in Chechnya have health problems. This information was made public as part of a health survey covering the entire territory of the Russian Federation during which 320 000 children underwent routine medical check-ups in Chechnya. According to Mr Gadayev, the problems are mostly of a neurological and psychological nature, although many children also suffer from anaemia and endocrinological and gastrointestinal problems. Furthermore, more than 40 % of children suffer from pathologies affecting sight and hearing, while 70 % of those examined have tuberculosis. In the long list of adverse factors affecting the health of youngsters, Mr Gadayev emphasised the interruption of their schooling, the existence of overcrowded classrooms and the lack of hot meals and exercise. He concluded by pointing out that the consequences of the war will unfortunately have a major impact on the health of Chechen children for many years. Although entirely familiar with this disastrous situation, neither the Commissioner for humanitarian aid nor the President of the Commission have ever felt it necessary to visit Chechnya in order to make an accurate assessment of needs and devise possible measures with a view to finding solutions to such a tragedy.

Does the President or a Member of the Commission plan to visit Chechnya before the end of the present Commission's term of office in order to gather all the information necessary for framing an extraordinary Union initiative capable of providing practical answers to the humanitarian tragedy taking place there? In particular, what specific measures does the Commission at long last plan to take in order to provide effective help for Chechen children who are facing a disastrous situation in terms of health? Lastly, does it plan to recommend that Member States adopt a joint measure aimed at organising an extraordinary humanitarian operation with the objective of accommodating thousands of Chechen children in need of special care in the health structures of the EU Member States?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(28 January 2004)

The Commission is aware of, and concerned by, the humanitarian situation in the north Caucasus. The impact of the ongoing conflict in Chechnya on ordinary citizens — and in particular children — is deeply disturbing.

The Commission — via the European Humanitarian Aid Office (ECHO) — is the largest donor of humanitarian aid in the north Caucasus, with EUR 110 million committed since 1999. Significant funding has already been allocated for efforts to improve the poor health infrastructure in Chechnya as well as to provide safe drinking water and improve sanitation conditions for local inhabitants. Specific health programmes for children are going on in four locations in Grozny. This will continue and will soon be expanded to six locations. It is certainly hoped that these efforts will over time contribute to improve the very poor state of health of the civilian population in Chechnya, but as long as the population continues to live in such poor conditions, the impact of these programmes on the general health situation will be limited.

The Commission notes that the Member of the Commission responsible for Development and Humanitarian Aid visited the north Caucasus in 2000. It regrets that — due to difficult security conditions in this area — more high-level visits have not been possible so far. It takes this opportunity to underline the fact that ECHO tries to undertake regular missions to Chechnya to assess in detail and at expert level the needs of the population there, in order to consider how best it can help to improve the humanitarian situation, in particular with regard to children. The extent of the programmes undertaken in Chechnya and the regularity of visits there, are however, highly dependent on security conditions in the region.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/625 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/625

---

(2004/C 78 E/0660)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3671/03

by Joost Lagendijk (Verts/ALE) and Arie Oostlander (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(9 December 2003)

Subject:   Further cooperation in the fight against terrorism

Turkey recently suffered terrorist attacks on two synagogues on 15 November and on the British Consulate and the HSBC headquarters in Istanbul on 20 November 2003.

Does the Commission see any further possibility of extending cooperation with Turkey in the fight against terrorism, given that these attacks could impede the reform process in Turkey?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(29 January 2004)

The Commission is already providing assistance in a number of the areas defined by the United Nations (UN) as essential in the fight against terrorism, notably capacity building for the police, border control, customs and immigration services. In addition, the co-operation with Turkey in the fight against terrorism will be further extended through a twinning project which will start in early 2004 to strengthen the Financial Crimes Investigation Board (MASAK). This body has administrative, regulatory and supervisory powers concerning the identification of suspicious transactions related to money laundering and the financing of terrorism.

The twinning will analyse current Turkish legislation on money laundering, confiscation and forfeiture of proceeds related to financing of terrorism and draft proposals for improvements, will develop co-operation between all agencies involved in the fight against money laundering, and will train personnel.

A further twinning entitled ‘Strengthening the struggle against money laundering, financial sources of crime and the financing of terrorism’ with the Turkish National police will commence in late 2004. This twinning is intended to eliminate any legal or practical difficulties in the freezing and confiscation of terrorist assets, to assist the Turkish authorities to provide the widest possible range of assistance to other countries' law enforcement and regulatory authorities for terrorist financing investigations and to ensure that entities, in particular non-profit organisations, cannot be misused to finance terrorism.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/626 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/626

---

(2004/C 78 E/0661)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3672/03

by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(9 December 2003)

Subject:   Situation at the Sorefame company

The Sorefame company, which commenced operations in Portugal in 1943, is known for its high standards in terms of quality, capacity and technology in the manufacture and construction of large-scale equipment, notably rolling stock.

Currently owned by Bombardier, it employs 550 workers directly and provides a further thousand jobs via subcontracted enterprises.

However, Sorefame is now passing through difficult circumstances, despite the skilled workers and operatives who enable it not only to manufacture rolling stock but also to plan and design that equipment, representing a major economic and technological asset and ensuring the company recognition in terms of quality and competitiveness.

Orders are now in short supply: the Bombardier group claims to be in a phase of global restructuring, and is already hinting at closure of the Sorefame plant in Amadora (Portugal), should orders not begin to pick up.

A number of plans are on the drawing-board in Portugal which, if acted on, could resolve this problem. One of these is the strategic plan for more trains for the Lisbon and Oporto underground systems, as well as for Oporto's commuter train services and other networks.

Given the above, as well as comparable developments in other Member States:

| 1. | What measures will the Commission take to support the normal functioning of Sorefame/Bombardier in Portugal, in the light of the company's contribution to employment and regional development? |
| --- | --- |

1.

What measures will the Commission take to support the normal functioning of Sorefame/Bombardier in Portugal, in the light of the company's contribution to employment and regional development?

| 2. | Will the Commission support a policy of channelling Portuguese orders to this company, with a view to preventing the short-term paralysis of its production line, given the impact that would have on its workers' jobs and recalling that unemployment is now rising faster in Portugal than in any other EU Member State? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Will the Commission support a policy of channelling Portuguese orders to this company, with a view to preventing the short-term paralysis of its production line, given the impact that would have on its workers' jobs and recalling that unemployment is now rising faster in Portugal than in any other EU Member State?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(30 January 2004)

We must inform the Honourable Member that implementation of appropriate measures for sectors in crisis in Portugal is a responsibility of the national authorities alone, which have in fact reached agreement with us on introduction of support mechanisms for enterprises in the sector to which she refers and for public investment (under the Economy and Transport Operational Programmes we have approved (1)).

On the question of Community support for new Portuguese orders placed with the enterprise to which she refers, we must remind her that it is each Member State's responsibility to ensure that the Community Directives on public contracts are respected.

---

(1)  C (2000) 1774, 28.7.2000; C (2000) 2382, 28.7.2000.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/627 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/627

---

(2004/C 78 E/0662)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3675/03

by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(9 December 2003)

Subject:   Situation of micro-enterprises and SMEs in Portugal

Micro-enterprises and SMEs are currently facing grave problems in Portugal in the present climate of recession, despite the key role they play in the productive, commercial and services sectors and their vital importance for regional and national development.

The Commission:

| 1. | Can it state what Community support has been granted to micro-enterprises and SMEs in Portugal under the various programmes in place since 2000? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Can it state what Community support has been granted to micro-enterprises and SMEs in Portugal under the various programmes in place since 2000?

| 2. | Can it state what measures are proposed to support job creation and promote cooperation between enterprises and with research centres, and foster business innovation? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Can it state what measures are proposed to support job creation and promote cooperation between enterprises and with research centres, and foster business innovation?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(27 January 2004)

| 1. | The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to her written question E-3898/02 (1). which already covers most of the period mentioned (since 2000). However, the following new elements have just become available:
  The European Investment Fund (EIF), the specialised subsidiary of the European Investment Bank (EIB) Group, has granted guarantees under the Community-funded ‘SME Guarantee Facility’ for loans to small and medium-sized businesses (SMEs) located in Portugal. The actual guarantee volumes amounted to EUR 75 348 in 2000, EUR 92 778 in 2001, EUR 10 599 891 in 2002 and EUR 6 057 502 in 2003, based on the amounts reported by the Portuguese intermediary SPGM to the EIF.
  Regarding the European Technology Facility (ETF) Start-up, an investment of EUR 5 000 000 was signed in December 2002 with a Portuguese generalist venture capital fund. This fund is focusing on high-growth innovative SMEs in Portugal (80 %) and Galicia (20 %) and has currently a total fund size of EUR 20 million. The ETF Start-up share is 25 %. The venture-capital fund started drawing down money in January 2003 with a view to investing in portfolio companies and has made one investment reported so far to the EIF for an amount of EUR 1 236 555.
  Regarding the ERDF contributions, the Commission can inform the Honourable Member that aid to SMEs is a key element in the current Community Support Framework (2000-2006), given that SMEs account for more than 90 % of the total businesses receiving aid.






  A. | Thus in the operational programme for the economy, aids to SMEs account for around 50 % of the total public aids granted. The other operational programmes also provide for a set of initiatives to support SMEs, particularly including those provided for under Priority 3 of the regional programmes (a table showing the amounts allocated to supporting SMEs in terms of the contribution by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) will be sent direct to the Honourable Member and the Parliament Secretariat). |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to her written question E-3898/02 (1). which already covers most of the period mentioned (since 2000). However, the following new elements have just become available:

The European Investment Fund (EIF), the specialised subsidiary of the European Investment Bank (EIB) Group, has granted guarantees under the Community-funded ‘SME Guarantee Facility’ for loans to small and medium-sized businesses (SMEs) located in Portugal. The actual guarantee volumes amounted to EUR 75 348 in 2000, EUR 92 778 in 2001, EUR 10 599 891 in 2002 and EUR 6 057 502 in 2003, based on the amounts reported by the Portuguese intermediary SPGM to the EIF.

Regarding the European Technology Facility (ETF) Start-up, an investment of EUR 5 000 000 was signed in December 2002 with a Portuguese generalist venture capital fund. This fund is focusing on high-growth innovative SMEs in Portugal (80 %) and Galicia (20 %) and has currently a total fund size of EUR 20 million. The ETF Start-up share is 25 %. The venture-capital fund started drawing down money in January 2003 with a view to investing in portfolio companies and has made one investment reported so far to the EIF for an amount of EUR 1 236 555.

Regarding the ERDF contributions, the Commission can inform the Honourable Member that aid to SMEs is a key element in the current Community Support Framework (2000-2006), given that SMEs account for more than 90 % of the total businesses receiving aid.

A.

Thus in the operational programme for the economy, aids to SMEs account for around 50 % of the total public aids granted. The other operational programmes also provide for a set of initiatives to support SMEs, particularly including those provided for under Priority 3 of the regional programmes (a table showing the amounts allocated to supporting SMEs in terms of the contribution by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) will be sent direct to the Honourable Member and the Parliament Secretariat).

| B. | The European Employment Strategy (EES) defines a broad framework for the development of policies that support the creation of jobs throughout the Union. The Portuguese National Action Plan (NAP), which translates the priorities of the EES into national employment policies, has established a target of 70 % for the overall employment rate by 2010. The European Social Fund (ESF) is the main instrument for financing the Portuguese NAP, with a total of more than EUR 4,7 billion in the current Community Support Framework (CSF) III. Considering that more than 92 % of companies in Portugal have fewer than 20 staff, a substantial amount of ESF support is directed at this group of businesses. |
| --- | --- |

B.

The European Employment Strategy (EES) defines a broad framework for the development of policies that support the creation of jobs throughout the Union. The Portuguese National Action Plan (NAP), which translates the priorities of the EES into national employment policies, has established a target of 70 % for the overall employment rate by 2010. The European Social Fund (ESF) is the main instrument for financing the Portuguese NAP, with a total of more than EUR 4,7 billion in the current Community Support Framework (CSF) III. Considering that more than 92 % of companies in Portugal have fewer than 20 staff, a substantial amount of ESF support is directed at this group of businesses.

The recent evaluation of the EES for the period 1997-2002 shows that the net job-creation attributable to measures resulting from the implementation of the EES in Portugal was more than 20 000 new jobs, for the year 2001 alone.

Although the ESF does not directly subsidise job-creation (except in the case of incentives for own-job-creation by the unemployed), it contributes to the creation of lasting jobs in the economy by supporting policies and measures that contribute to the establishment of a solid labour market with a qualified workforce.

Direct measures supported by the ESF include:

| — | Continuous vocational training — more than 400 000 people benefit from support each year; |
| --- | --- |

—

Continuous vocational training — more than 400 000 people benefit from support each year;

| — | Professional apprenticeships — more than 20 000 people benefit from this measure each year; |
| --- | --- |

—

Professional apprenticeships — more than 20 000 people benefit from this measure each year;

| — | Vocational training schools — more than 30 000 young adults attend these schools each year; |
| --- | --- |

—

Vocational training schools — more than 30 000 young adults attend these schools each year;

| — | Social Employment market — more than 30 000 people (most from disadvantaged social groups) are supported each year. |
| --- | --- |

—

Social Employment market — more than 30 000 people (most from disadvantaged social groups) are supported each year.

The EES further contributes to job-creation by promoting the simplification of the legislative framework for the creation of new businesses and labour norms, increased employment for women through the provision of childcare facilities, promotion of active ageing, local employment initiatives, and enhancement of the quality and attractiveness of work.

The Portuguese authorities also support projects to promote innovation by encouraging businesses and research and technological development bodies to form consortia through Measure 2.3 in the Science Programme and through the programme for the economy (PRIME), which contains still further budget lines for innovation projects such as stimulating the modernisation of businesses through innovation (SIME-Innovation), the IDEIA programme and Public Initiative Partnerships (PIP).

| 2. | The Commission is continuing its deliberations on how to improve the instruments for cooperation between SMEs, taking account of the conclusions of the evaluations of the previous projects under the third Multiannual Programme for businesses and in connection with its deliberations on promoting entrepreneurship following the Green Paper of 2003 (2).
  This will involve a global and systematic approach, with meetings via the major existing sectoral exhibitions etc., in which businesses themselves take part through their financial contribution, but are coordinated by the members of the networks that support them.
  It will comprise:






  — | A new methodology based on the EIC, IRC and BIC networks, a Programme and an Interactive Calendar of meetings arranged in advance by SMEs taking part in specialised exhibitions, advance preparation/training for these businesses, and constant monitoring of cooperation contacts by the members of the networks. |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

The Commission is continuing its deliberations on how to improve the instruments for cooperation between SMEs, taking account of the conclusions of the evaluations of the previous projects under the third Multiannual Programme for businesses and in connection with its deliberations on promoting entrepreneurship following the Green Paper of 2003 (2).

This will involve a global and systematic approach, with meetings via the major existing sectoral exhibitions etc., in which businesses themselves take part through their financial contribution, but are coordinated by the members of the networks that support them.

It will comprise:

—

A new methodology based on the EIC, IRC and BIC networks, a Programme and an Interactive Calendar of meetings arranged in advance by SMEs taking part in specialised exhibitions, advance preparation/training for these businesses, and constant monitoring of cooperation contacts by the members of the networks.

| — | Use by businesses of an improved ‘Partner Search Database’ in order to obtain a critical mass that will enable the matching process to yield good results against the background of the rationalisation of the Community network currently under way. |
| --- | --- |

—

Use by businesses of an improved ‘Partner Search Database’ in order to obtain a critical mass that will enable the matching process to yield good results against the background of the rationalisation of the Community network currently under way.

In 2004, the Commission will present an Innovation Action Plan including measures to promote innovation clusters and cooperation between research organisations and companies, and to extend the transfer and the absorption of knowledge to and by businesses, and particularly SMEs. This will include, ‘inter alia’, technology transfer and promotion of organisational and other non-technological innovation. Given the multifaceted nature of the innovation process, the new innovation policy approach will aim at a mobilising a broad range of operators and resources in the Community and the Member States. In particular, the Innovation Action Plan will complement the 3 % Action Plan adopted in 2003, which aims at increasing the average research investment level to 3 % of gross domestic product (GDP) by 2010.

---

(1)  OJ C 268 E, 7.11.2003, p. 60.

(2)  COM(2003) 0027 final.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/629 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/629

---

(2004/C 78 E/0663)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3690/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(9 December 2003)

Subject:   Update on use of funding from the Daphne programme by the municipality of Florence

In its answer to question E-1006/03 (1), which asked whether the municipality of Florence had submitted projects and secured funding under the Daphne programme, the Commission stated that a number of proposals had been submitted, but that the outcome of the assessment would be available in July 2003.

Can the Commission say whether the projects submitted actually received funding and, if not, why they were not considered suitable?

Have any other projects been submitted in the meantime?

---

(1)  OJ C 51 E, 26.2.2004, p. 62.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/629 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/629

---

(2004/C 78 E/0664)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3691/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(9 December 2003)

Subject:   Update on use of funding from the Daphne programme by the municipality of Pesaro-Urbino

In its answer to question E-1011/03 (1), which asked whether the municipality of Pesaro-Urbino had submitted projects and secured funding under the Daphne programme, the Commission stated that a number of proposals had been submitted, but that the outcome of the assessment would be available in July 2003.

Can the Commission say whether the projects submitted actually received funding and, if not, why they were not considered suitable?

Have any other projects been submitted in the meantime?

---

(1)  OJ C 51 E, 26.2.2004, p. 62.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/629 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/629

---

(2004/C 78 E/0665)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3692/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(9 December 2003)

Subject:   Update on use of funding from the Daphne programme by the municipality of Siena

In its answer to question E-1015/03 (1), which asked whether the municipality of Siena had submitted projects and secured funding under the Daphne programme, the Commission stated that a number of proposals had been submitted, but that the outcome of the assessment would be available in July 2003.

Can the Commission say whether the projects submitted actually received funding and, if not, why they were not considered suitable?

Have any other projects been submitted in the meantime?

Joint answer

to Written Questions E-3690/03, E-3691/03 and E-3692/03

given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(19 January 2004)

In 2003 the Daphne programme received the following proposals from the municipalities in question:

| — | two proposals from the municipality of Florence: Education and Youth Policy Department, Education Unit; |
| --- | --- |

—

two proposals from the municipality of Florence: Education and Youth Policy Department, Education Unit;

| — | one proposal for the municipality of Pesaro: Social Services; |
| --- | --- |

—

one proposal for the municipality of Pesaro: Social Services;

| — | one proposal from the municipality of Siena: Equal Opportunities Committee. |
| --- | --- |

—

one proposal from the municipality of Siena: Equal Opportunities Committee.

The Commission did not accept these proposals for Community funding because they were not of the required quality.

The applicants were duly informed of this decision as well as of the reasons why the proposals were rejected. Moreover, in its correspondence, the Commission indicated which aspects of the proposal needed to be improved.

It also stated that new proposals could, of course, be submitted under the next call for proposals in 2004.

Since there was no further call for proposals in 2003, the Commission did not receive any other proposal.

---

(1)  OJ C 51 E, 26.2.2004, p. 62.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/630 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/630

---

(2004/C 78 E/0666)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3697/03

by Luigi Vinci (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(3 December 2003)

Subject:   Return to Turkey of refugees of Turkish origin

The government in Ankara and the UNHCR have reached an agreement on the repatriation to Turkey of around 9,500 refugees of Kurdish origin, who have been living in the camp at Mahmur in northern Iraq since 1998.

Is the Commission involved in this issue? If not, does it not consider that proper financial involvement is needed to guarantee that the refugees from Mahmur return voluntarily and to ensure that they are safe from any repressive action on the part of the Turkish security forces, who are known for their anti-Kurdish attitude?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(20 January 2004)

The Commission is aware of the ongoing discussions between the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), the Turkish government and the United States government regarding the return to Turkey of refugees of Kurdish origin, living in the camp at Mahmur in Northern Iraq.

The UNHCR has informed the Commission that the next round of high level discussions on a tripartite agreement is due to take place in Ankara on 21 January.

As far as financial involvement is concerned, the UNHCR has expressed its intention to establish a project to ensure the successful repatriation of these people and has suggested that one source of funding be the Union. This will be subject to consideration once the parties have reached an agreement.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/631 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/631

---

(2004/C 78 E/0667)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3699/03

by Dana Scallon (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(10 December 2003)

Subject:   Objective 1 areas in Connacht/Ulster (Ireland)

My Connacht/Ulster constituency at present comprises 8 Objective 1' counties. After the 2004 European elections, the constituency of Connacht/Ulster will be renamed and enlarged. One county will be added, which, at present, has Objective 1 in transition' status. This county is County Clare, at present in the Munster constituency.

Can the European Commission inform me if the enlarged constituency will then comprise 8 Objective 1 in transition' counties and can you also inform me of the proposed status of County Clare?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(21 January 2004)

The regions eligible under Objective 1 of the Structural Funds, including the regions in transition, are those that were decided by the Commission on 1 July 1999 (1) in accordance with the procedure foreseen in Article 3 of Council Regulation (EC) no. 1260/1999. This decision is unaffected by subsequent changes in administrative boundaries in the Member States. 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.

---

(1)  1999/502/CE.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/631 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/631

---

(2004/C 78 E/0668)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3702/03

by José Ribeiro e Castro (UEN) to the Commission

(10 December 2003)

Subject:   EC-Macau Joint Committee — tenth meeting

Under the terms of the EU-Macau cooperation agreement, in force since 1 January 1993, an EC-Macau Joint Committee was established, to meet annually, on the territory of each signatory year about.

To date there is no news of the scheduling or holding of the tenth meeting, which should take place in 2003.

No official specifically responsible for EU cooperation with Macau has yet been appointed, capable of getting bilateral cooperation moving on the ground in Macau.

Commissioner Patten said in reply to my Written Question E-3098/02 (1). that the Commission continued to be committed to maintaining close relations with Macau.

Can the Commission answer the following:

| — | has the date for the holding of the tenth meeting of the Joint Committee been fixed; |
| --- | --- |

—

has the date for the holding of the tenth meeting of the Joint Committee been fixed;

| — | what are the reasons for it not having been scheduled or announced to date; |
| --- | --- |

—

what are the reasons for it not having been scheduled or announced to date;

| — | does the Commission believe that the existence of an official specifically responsible for EC-Macau cooperation, the need for which both Commission and Parliament have acknowledged, would guarantee more effective continuity in following up relations with the Special Administrative Region; |
| --- | --- |

—

does the Commission believe that the existence of an official specifically responsible for EC-Macau cooperation, the need for which both Commission and Parliament have acknowledged, would guarantee more effective continuity in following up relations with the Special Administrative Region;

| — | in the light of the foregoing, and pursuant to my previous Written Questions P-1961/01 (2) and E-3098/02 and taking account of the recent developments described in Question E-3278/03 (3), does the Commission believe that it can now go ahead with recruiting an official responsible for cooperation with Macau? |
| --- | --- |

—

in the light of the foregoing, and pursuant to my previous Written Questions P-1961/01 (2) and E-3098/02 and taking account of the recent developments described in Question E-3278/03 (3), does the Commission believe that it can now go ahead with recruiting an official responsible for cooperation with Macau?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(22 January 2004)

The EEC-Macau Cooperation Agreement of 14 December 1992 provides for an annual joint committee meeting to review trade relations and the state of bilateral cooperation between the Community and the Macau Special Administrative Region. The Commission is committed to holding these meetings annually. During informal talks with the Economic and Trade Office, Macau's mission to the Communities, it suggested a date for the tenth meeting of the committee in December 2003. Unfortunately Macau was unable to accept that date. The Commission is currently discussing other possible dates, i.e. February or March 2004, with its counterparts from Macau.

On the question of the appointment of an official with special responsibility for cooperation with Macau, the Commission still does not consider that the size of its current cooperation programme in Macau, consisting of a single project expiring this year, justifies recruiting an official for this purpose.

---

(1)  OJ C 242 E, 9.10.2003, p. 39.

(2)  OJ C 364 E, 20.10.2001, p. 232.

(3)  See page 248.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/632 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/632

---

(2004/C 78 E/0669)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3703/03

by Ulla Sandbæk (EDD) to the Commission

(3 December 2003)

Subject:   HIV and Commission support for development of affordable microbicide

Can the Commission provide a comprehensive account of its previous and ongoing support for microbicide research and development, including community preparedness efforts, both within the EU and in developing countries to date, and specifically provide detailed information on the timing of such support, to whom it was allocated and from which budget lines it was drawn?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(23 December 2003)

There are several Community initiatives to help develop microbicides and make them readily available.

The communication on ‘increased solidarity to confront AIDS in developing countries’ (1) adopted by the Commission on 3 July 1998 provided a framework for the European response to appeals for greater international solidarity with developing countries in their fight against the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV/AIDS) and, in particular, to appeals for wider access to HIV/AIDS treatment and the development of HIV vaccines and microbicides for the developing countries. The Commission's communication explores the possibility of supporting the accelerated development of vaccines and microbicides.

The Community has initiated and supervised a study into the market potential for vaginal microbicides which could protect against sexually transmitted diseases (STDs), notably HIV.

Research was carried out on 4 000 individuals in Brazil, Côte d'Ivoire, Egypt, France, India, Kenya, the Philippines, Poland, South Africa, Thailand and Venezuela.

In 2000, a call for proposals was launched under budget heading (B7-6211) to support innovative programmes in the fields identified in the communication on increased solidarity. The project ‘Microbicide Awareness, Investment and Demand’ was selected. It advocates support for microbicides in Europe, Africa and Asia and putting in place networks to develop them more rapidly and make them available to the most vulnerable, notably women in developing countries. This project, worth EUR 1 450 071 and signed in December 2001 for a duration of three years, is being implemented by International Family Health.

One of the objectives of Regulation (EC) No 1568/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 July 2003 on aid to fight poverty diseases in developing countries (2), covering the period 2003-2006, is to intensify research and development, notably on vaccines, microbicides and innovative treatments.

The 2004 action plan for the budget item concerned (21 02 07 02) provides for a grant of EUR 0,87 million for the International Partnership for Microbicides. That organisation's goal is to speed up the discovery, development and access to microbicides to prevent HIV infection, notably in places where incomes are low. The grant will finance a project to develop a model for rapid access to microbicides in those countries where they are needed and implement this preparatory framework in the form of case studies in four countries. The Commission is part of a consultative group on the preparedness of those countries within this International Partnership For Microbicides.

The sixth European framework programme for research (2002-2006) has a special field for poverty diseases which includes research into microbicides. The Commission selected in 2003 two basic research projects on microbicides, one on blocking entry of the HIV virus into the cell and the other on replication of the virus in the mucus. These two projects bring together the best European specialists in this field along with teams of specialists from Africa, comprising 40 partners in all, of which three in Africa. Their budget amounts to more than EUR 15 million and they are in the process of negotiating with the coordinators with a view to starting in the first quarter of this year.

---

(1)  COM(98)407.

(2)  OJ L 224, 6.9.2003.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/633 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/633

---

(2004/C 78 E/0670)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3718/03

by Paul Rübig (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(10 December 2003)

Subject:   Eco-design requirements for energy-using products

The European Commission has proposed a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on establishing a framework for the setting of eco-design requirements for energy-using products and amending Council Directive 92/42/EEC (1).

This directive has to be seen in the context of the Commission Communication on Integrated Product Policy (IPP) (2). The Communication on IPP serves as an instrument for achieving a balanced and coordinated environmental policy for all industry sectors in Europe. On the symbiosis to be reached between regulation and voluntary measures, the Communication states that ‘to green products effectively, non-legislative solutions, such as environmental agreements and the standardisation process, need to be considered in addition to legislation’ (Point 5.1(b)).

The framework proposal on EuP is an example of an IPP initiative. The relationship between voluntary measures and possible further regulation, i.e. implementing measures on eco-design and energy efficiency requirements which could be adopted on the basis of the EuP framework, should be defined in this framework.

| 1. | Does the Commission agree that priority should generally be given to flexible and user-friendly instruments such as voluntary industry measures, self-commitments, standards and agreements? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Does the Commission agree that priority should generally be given to flexible and user-friendly instruments such as voluntary industry measures, self-commitments, standards and agreements?

| 2. | Does the Commission intend to assess existing voluntary industry measures, self-commitments, standards and agreements, before proposing implementing measures in order to avoid duplication of requirements and to ensure that the evolution of voluntary measures is not negatively affected by implementing measures? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Does the Commission intend to assess existing voluntary industry measures, self-commitments, standards and agreements, before proposing implementing measures in order to avoid duplication of requirements and to ensure that the evolution of voluntary measures is not negatively affected by implementing measures?

| 3. | How does the Commission plan to evaluate the effectiveness of existing voluntary industry measures, self-commitments, standards and agreements? |
| --- | --- |

3.

How does the Commission plan to evaluate the effectiveness of existing voluntary industry measures, self-commitments, standards and agreements?

| 4. | Is the Commission in a position to provide the European Parliament with a document listing the number and types of voluntary measures/programmes already in place in the various sectors? |
| --- | --- |

4.

Is the Commission in a position to provide the European Parliament with a document listing the number and types of voluntary measures/programmes already in place in the various sectors?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(2 February 2004)

The Commission believes that voluntary agreements can present some advantages compared with regulation and that they allow for flexible adaptation to technological options and market sensitivities. In the context of the Framework Directive proposal, priority should be given to alternative courses of actions such as self-regulation by the industry where such actions are likely to deliver the policy objectives faster or cheaper than mandatory requirements. However, legislative measures may be needed where the market forces fail to evolve in the right direction or at an acceptable speed.

Standards can support the implementation of the Energy Using Products (EuP) Framework Directive proposal (for example in establishing testing and measurement methods, in better describing certain environmental parameters or in information supply, databases, checklists etc.). Harmonised standards produced by European Standardisation Organisations on the basis of a mandate from the Commission in accordance with Directive 98/34/EC (3), the reference numbers of which have been published in the Official Journal of the European Community, are indeed proposed as a possible means for presumption of conformity. However, in no case will the standardisers be invited to settle issues that, in view of their sensitive nature, should be left to the regulators, such as fixing a limit for a given environmental aspect.

The Commission before proposing implementing measures for a given product (or environmental aspect) will examine to which extent the criteria of Article 12 of the proposal are fulfilled; one of these criteria is ‘significant potential for improvement’. In order to explore this potential, an adequate description of existing measures and/or voluntary initiatives is necessary; the assessment of voluntary industry measures, the existence, dissemination, efficiency of standards and other agreements will take place in that context.

The Commission when assessing self-regulatory measures initiated by industry intends to take into account, inter alia, ambition (clear and unambiguous commitments: e.g. quantified targets and well-defined baselines), representativity (proportion of the market covered), monitoring and reporting mechanisms (regular, detailed and transparent reporting) identified responsibilities and independent verification, publicity (the content of the Voluntary Agreement and the regular reports publicised), cost-effective administration (proportionate administrative burden compared with the objectives and with alternative policy instruments) as well as compliance with International engagements of the Union: e.g. World Trade Organisation/Technical Barriers to Trade (WTO/TBT) rules).

Concerning harmonised standards, they are adopted by the European Standardisation Bodies and the EuP proposal foresees (in Article 8) that they may be used for presumption of conformity. The mechanism, by which the Commission and/or the Member States can object to such use, is described in Article 9 of the same proposal (involvement of the Committee of Directive 98/34/EC for technical regulations and standards).

Here is a list of voluntary actions relevant in the context of the EuP proposal (and relating mainly to energy efficiency), and notified to the Commission:

| — | Unilateral self-commitments: (coverage by the signatories beyond 70 % of the Union market):






  — | Standby and ON-mode of cathode ray tube (CRT) Televisions, standby for DVD players, Liquid Crystal Displays (LCD) and plasma televisions (EICTA, 2003); new targets are under consideration by the industry for DVDs, LCD and plasma televisions which will include on-mode consumption; |
| --- | --- | --- |

—

Unilateral self-commitments: (coverage by the signatories beyond 70 % of the Union market):

—

Standby and ON-mode of cathode ray tube (CRT) Televisions, standby for DVD players, Liquid Crystal Displays (LCD) and plasma televisions (EICTA, 2003); new targets are under consideration by the industry for DVDs, LCD and plasma televisions which will include on-mode consumption;

| — | Washing machines (CECED, 2003); |
| --- | --- |

—

Washing machines (CECED, 2003);

| — | Refrigerators, freezers and their combinations (CECED, 2003); |
| --- | --- |

—

Refrigerators, freezers and their combinations (CECED, 2003);

| — | Standby consumption of Audio equipment (EICTA, 2000); |
| --- | --- |

—

Standby consumption of Audio equipment (EICTA, 2000);

| — | Dishwashers (CECED, 2000-2001); |
| --- | --- |

—

Dishwashers (CECED, 2000-2001);

| — | Detergents (including Energy saving consumer behaviour washing machines, AISE 1998); |
| --- | --- |

—

Detergents (including Energy saving consumer behaviour washing machines, AISE 1998);

| — | Codes of Conduct (for individual companies, includes quantitative targets):






  — | Digital Television Services (2000); |
| --- | --- | --- |

—

Codes of Conduct (for individual companies, includes quantitative targets):

—

Digital Television Services (2000);

| — | External Power Supplies (2000). |
| --- | --- |

—

External Power Supplies (2000).

---

(1)  COM/2003/0453 final — COD 2003/0172.

(2)  COM/2003/0302 final.

(3)  Directive 98/34/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 22 June 1998 laying down a procedure for the provision ofinformation in the field of technical standards and regulations, OJ L 204, 21.7.1998.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/635 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/635

---

(2004/C 78 E/0671)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3720/03

by Cristiana Muscardini (UEN) to the Commission

(10 December 2003)

Subject:   Adapting Directive 97/24/EC to technical progress

On the basis of the above directive catalytic exhaust systems are now no long the firms manufacturing them from obtaining type-approval for exhausts and means that the vehicle manufacturer acquires the monopoly for type-approval. This situation in the motor-car industry was settled in two years by adapting the basic directive to technical progress. In 2000 the Italian Government requested that a similar procedure be launched for two and three-wheeled vehicles, proposing the same formula as for the adaptation of Directive 97/24/EC (1).

Can the Commission say:

| — | whether it is true that the MVEG (Motor Vehicle Emissions Group) did not approve the document incorporating the Italian proposal until 20 February 2003; |
| --- | --- |

—

whether it is true that the MVEG (Motor Vehicle Emissions Group) did not approve the document incorporating the Italian proposal until 20 February 2003;

| — | why the MVEG proposal was tacked onto the package of amendments to Directive 2002/51/EC (2) on Euro 3 rather than being forwarded immediately to the CATP for swift adoption; |
| --- | --- |

—

why the MVEG proposal was tacked onto the package of amendments to Directive 2002/51/EC (2) on Euro 3 rather than being forwarded immediately to the CATP for swift adoption;

| — | whether it does not consider that the two- and three-wheeled vehicle sector should be given the same opportunity as the motor-car sector; |
| --- | --- |

—

whether it does not consider that the two- and three-wheeled vehicle sector should be given the same opportunity as the motor-car sector;

| — | what steps it will take to make up for the delay, which heavily penalises the firms involved; |
| --- | --- |

—

what steps it will take to make up for the delay, which heavily penalises the firms involved;

| — | by what date it expects to be able to make up for the delay in order to satisfy the firms put at a disadvantage by the type-approval monopoly? |
| --- | --- |

—

by what date it expects to be able to make up for the delay in order to satisfy the firms put at a disadvantage by the type-approval monopoly?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(19 January 2004)

The Motor Vehicle Emission Group (MVEG) is a consultative group in which the Commission normally discusses with stakeholders subjects relevant to the control of emissions from motor vehicles before it undertakes the finalisation of any legal proposal in this field.

When the Italian delegation first made its proposal concerning replacement catalysts the Commission, in the motorcycle sub-group of MVEG, did comment that it may be possible to deal with the subject of replacement catalytic converters for two and three wheel vehicles through the regulatory committee (CATP). However, the Commission had to subsequently take into account the result of an earlier proposal to make a similar amendment to Directive 70/220/EEC (3) through the comitology process which had to be cancelled since the Parliament found that such a proposal would be beyond the remit of comitology.

The Commission is presently working on a very large package of amendments with respect to motorcycle emissions through reference to Articles 5-8 of Directive 2001/51/EC (4) (amending Directive 97/24/EC (5)). Consequently, the Commission decided to add the proposal on replacement catalytic converters for two and three wheel vehicles to this package of amendments which will be presented to the Council and Parliament during the first half of 2004.

The Commission agrees that manufacturers of replacement catalytic converters for two and three wheeled vehicles ought to enjoy the same opportunities as manufacturers of replacement catalytic converters for motor cars.

---

(1)  OJ L 226, 18.8.1997, p. 1.

(2)  OJ L 252, 20.9.2002, p. 20.

(3)  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 76, 6.4.1970.

(4)  Directive 2001/51/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 July 2002 on the reduction of the level of pollutant emissions from two- and three-wheel motor vehicles and amending Directive 97/24/EC, OJ L 252, 20.9.2002, p. 20.

(5)  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, OJ L 226, 18.8.1997, p. 1.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/637 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/637

---

(2004/C 78 E/0672)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3732/03

by Olivier Dupuis (NI) to the Commission

(3 December 2003)

Subject:   Vietnam

Under the terms of the EU-Vietnam Cooperation Agreement, the EU-Vietnam Joint Committee which monitors the implementation ofthat agreement met on 21 November 2003 in Brussels. According to the Agence Europe bulletin of 25 November 2003, the Commission and the Vietnamese authorities decided to broaden their dialogue to embrace subjects such as governance and human rights, which will be dealt with by a new sub-group set up at the meeting in question. However, the Commission has not supplied any information concerning undertakings given by the Vietnamese authorities to implement reforms which would ensure that in future Vietnam is not in breach of Article 1 of the Cooperation Agreement (human rights clause). This is particularly relevant because, the day before the meeting of the Joint Committee, Parliament had adopted a fresh resolution calling on the Commission to make the issue of freedom of religion and more specifically, the granting of legal status to non-recognised churches one of the priority objectives of the legal reform policy which the Commission is supporting by means of an aid programme.

What are the legal and political bases for the Commission's decision to consider broadening EU-Vietnam dialogue?

Does the Commission not take the view that Article 1 of the Cooperation Agreement (human rights clause) already constitutes an adequate legal and political basis for tackling all issues relating to respect for human rights by both parties?

Does the Commission not take the view that the establishment of a sub-group with responsibility for human rights and governance in fact amounts to devaluing the issue of human rights and to creating a main forum for dialogue which will enable the two sides to discuss ‘important’ matters, such as the cooperation programme, the implementation of the agreement on textiles, etc., without being distracted by ‘marginal’ issues, such as serious breaches of freedom of religion, association, expression, etc.?

At the meeting of the Joint Committee, what assurances did the Commission obtain regarding the willingness of the Vietnamese authorities to grant legal status to non-recognised churches, and first and foremost the Unified Buddist Church of Vietnam (UBCV), without delay?

Under its legal reform support programme, does the Commission intend to provide the Vietnamese authorities with technical assistance which will enable them to grant the UBCV and other non-recognised churches legal status as soon as possible?

Does the Commission intend to make the continuation of the legal reform aid programme and, more generally, all cooperation aid to Vietnam contingent on reforms granting the various religious faiths in Vietnam legal status?

More generally, can the Commission provide detailed information concerning the projects which it has financed or co-financed under its legal reform aid programme?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(21 January 2004)

At its meeting of 21 November 2003 in Brussels the Community-Vietnam Joint Commission agreed to reinforce the dialogue and cooperation on human rights and related issues and established a sub-group on ‘Cooperation in Institution Building, Administrative Reform, Governance and Human Rights’ in accordance with Article 14(3) of the Community-Vietnam Cooperation Agreement. Two other sub-groups on Development and Economic Cooperation as well as on Trade and Investment were already created in 1996 and have since met on a regular basis, last on 20 November 2003, to prepare and report to the Joint Commission.

The specific objectives of the new sub-group are to establish a regular dialogue to increase the mutual understanding in the sectors concerned, to devise guidelines for cooperation activities in the areas covered by the sub-group and to identify subjects for which Community assistance would be most useful and productive. The sub-group reports and makes recommendations to the Joint Commission, which will monitor progress of its work. The activities of the sub-group will consist of formal meetings and informal events (seminars, round tables, visit programmes, etc) and will be complementary to the established and recently reinforced EU-Vietnam Human Rights dialogue between the Union Troika Heads of Mission in Hanoi and the Government of Vietnam.

The Commission reconfirms its commitment to addressing the situation of human rights in Vietnam in all political dialogue meetings with Vietnam. The Commission has raised human rights concerns during the Joint Commission meeting, amongst others by pointing to the Parliament Resolution on religious freedom of 20 November 2003. Moreover, the EU Troika ambassadors at the EU Human Rights dialogue meeting with the Government of Vietnam on 26 November 2003, have again expressed concern and raised questions about the free exercise of fundamental freedoms in Vietnam (freedom of opinion, press, religion and association), the situation of persons of concern, death penalty and torture as well as the situation of ethnic minorities. The EU Troika emphasised the importance of increased transparency, and the need for the dialogue to translate into concrete improvements on the ground. In following up on these meetings the Union will continue to monitor the situation closely, and to press for improvements in Vietnam's human rights record.

The Commission, like the Member States, believes that only a combination of dialogue and cooperation can contribute to an improvement of the human rights situation in Vietnam. These will contribute to develop greater tolerance towards dissent and acceptance of different views. Moreover, the country is in the process of challenging social, economic and legal reform, not least in view of its intended World Trade Organisation (WTO) accession, which entails the need to develop more transparent, accountable and modern governance. This process is also an important factor for the emergence of a more open environment, where civil, political and religious rights can be improved.

Under the National Indicative Programme 2002-2004, EUR 9 million is earmarked for an institutional support programme, which is currently under preparation and shall target key capacity problems within the most significant legislative and judicial agencies, the National Assembly, Ministry of Justice, Supreme Peoples Court, and Supreme Peoples Procuracy, and their respective training institutions.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/638 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/638

---

(2004/C 78 E/0673)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3733/03

by Constanze Krehl (PSE) to the Commission

(10 December 2003)

Subject:   Social partnerships for regional structural development in Saxony

The ‘Stiftung Innovation und Arbeit Sachsen’ (‘Foundation for Innovation and Employment in Saxony’) is a specific example of one of Saxony's ‘Alliances for Employment’. Employers, employees and the state are represented in equal numbers in the foundation's bodies, and one of its tasks is to provide expert advice to small and medium-sized enterprises. The regional forums provide an infrastructure enabling regional actors to become involved in the development of regional models and projects.

| 1. | How important does the Commission believe it is to support social partnerships for regional structural development? |
| --- | --- |

1.

How important does the Commission believe it is to support social partnerships for regional structural development?

| 2. | What forms of EU aid are available to social partnerships for regional structural development, such as the ‘Stiftung Innovation und Arbeit Sachsen’? |
| --- | --- |

2.

What forms of EU aid are available to social partnerships for regional structural development, such as the ‘Stiftung Innovation und Arbeit Sachsen’?

| 3. | Is it necessary to change from institutional to project-based aid for regional offices for technical reasons? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Is it necessary to change from institutional to project-based aid for regional offices for technical reasons?

| 4. | In view of the principle of additionality, has a firm deadline been set for the granting of aid to organisational structures such as the regional offices? |
| --- | --- |

4.

In view of the principle of additionality, has a firm deadline been set for the granting of aid to organisational structures such as the regional offices?

| 5. | How does the Commission believe Structural Fund aid should interact with measures taken by the Free State of Saxony in order to ensure the lasting success of social partnerships for regional structural policy? |
| --- | --- |

5.

How does the Commission believe Structural Fund aid should interact with measures taken by the Free State of Saxony in order to ensure the lasting success of social partnerships for regional structural policy?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(3 February 2004)

| 1. and 2. | The role of the social partners in implementing the programmes supported by the Structural Funds is clearly recognised in the relevant legislation. In accordance with Article 8 of the general regulation on the Structural Funds (1), the social partners feature among authorities and bodies designated by the Member States for the ‘preparation, financing monitoring and evaluation of assistance’. Article 8 also provides for the annual consultation of ‘the European-level organisations representing the social partners about the structural policy of the Community’.
  Social partner organisations may also act as project promoters, either alone or with other partners. In addition, the Member State may sub-delegate responsibility to such organisations for the implementation of (parts of) programmes, subject to national and Community rules, where this helps to realise the objectives of the programmes concerned.
  For actions in the field of human resource development supported by the European Social Fund (ESF) the social partners can and should play a key role, in particular, in developing lifelong learning policies and strategies to increase adaptability of companies and their workers. |
| --- | --- |

1. and 2.

The role of the social partners in implementing the programmes supported by the Structural Funds is clearly recognised in the relevant legislation. In accordance with Article 8 of the general regulation on the Structural Funds (1), the social partners feature among authorities and bodies designated by the Member States for the ‘preparation, financing monitoring and evaluation of assistance’. Article 8 also provides for the annual consultation of ‘the European-level organisations representing the social partners about the structural policy of the Community’.

Social partner organisations may also act as project promoters, either alone or with other partners. In addition, the Member State may sub-delegate responsibility to such organisations for the implementation of (parts of) programmes, subject to national and Community rules, where this helps to realise the objectives of the programmes concerned.

For actions in the field of human resource development supported by the European Social Fund (ESF) the social partners can and should play a key role, in particular, in developing lifelong learning policies and strategies to increase adaptability of companies and their workers.

| 3. | The current legislation remains in force until 31 December 2006. The Commission will in due time bring forward proposals on the future of cohesion policy, including aspects relating to the involvement of the social partners. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The current legislation remains in force until 31 December 2006. The Commission will in due time bring forward proposals on the future of cohesion policy, including aspects relating to the involvement of the social partners.

| 4. | For the current generation of programmes financed by the Structural Funds, funds must be committed at the level of the final beneficiaries by 31 December 2006. As it is an Objective 1 region, Saxony co-finances substantial parts of its development activities in the context of Structural Funds programmes. At the same time, the vast majority of expenditures under the state budget have no tie to Structural Funds. It is for the State authorities to ensure that both elements are complementary with a view to maximising the benefits for the citizens of Saxony. |
| --- | --- |

4.

For the current generation of programmes financed by the Structural Funds, funds must be committed at the level of the final beneficiaries by 31 December 2006. As it is an Objective 1 region, Saxony co-finances substantial parts of its development activities in the context of Structural Funds programmes. At the same time, the vast majority of expenditures under the state budget have no tie to Structural Funds. It is for the State authorities to ensure that both elements are complementary with a view to maximising the benefits for the citizens of Saxony.

---

(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.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/639 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/639

---

(2004/C 78 E/0674)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3751/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(10 December 2003)

Subject:   Update on use of funding from the 2000 City Twinning Programme by the municipality of Terni

In its answer to question E-1029/03 (1), which asked whether the municipality of Terni had submitted projects and secured funding under the 2000 City Twinning Programme, the Commission stated that no funding had been granted for the year 2000.

Can the Commission say whether the municipality has submitted any projects and obtained and used any funding in the budget years since then?

---

(1)  OJ C 242 E, 9.10.2003, p. 208.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/640 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/640

---

(2004/C 78 E/0675)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3752/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(10 December 2003)

Subject:   Update on use of funding from the 2000 City Twinning Programme by the municipality of Ancona

In its answer to question E-1017/03 (1), which asked whether the municipality of Ancona had submitted projects and secured funding under the 2000 City Twinning Programme, the Commission stated that no funding had been granted for the year 2000.

Can the Commission say whether the municipality has submitted any projects and obtained and used any funding in the budget years since then?

---

(1)  OJ C 242 E, 9.10.2003, p. 208.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/640 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/640

---

(2004/C 78 E/0676)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3753/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(10 December 2003)

Subject:   Update on use of funding from the 2000 City Twinning Programme by the municipality of Florence

In its answer to question E-1019/03 (1), which asked whether the municipality of Florence had submitted projects and secured funding under the 2000 City Twinning Programme, the Commission stated that no funding had been granted for the year 2000.

Can the Commission say whether the municipality has submitted any projects and obtained and used any funding in the budget years since then?

---

(1)  OJ C 242 E, 9.10.2003, p. 208.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/640 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/640

---

(2004/C 78 E/0677)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3754/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(10 December 2003)

Subject:   Update on use of funding from the 2000 City Twinning Programme by the municipality of Livorno

In its answer to question E-1020/03 (1), which asked whether the municipality of Livorno had submitted projects and secured funding under the 2000 City Twinning Programme, the Commission stated that no funding had been granted for the year 2000.

Can the Commission say whether the municipality has submitted any projects and obtained and used any funding in the budget years since then?

---

(1)  OJ C 242 E, 9.10.2003, p. 208.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/641 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/641

---

(2004/C 78 E/0678)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3755/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(10 December 2003)

Subject:   Update on use of funding from the 2000 City Twinning Programme by the municipality of Macerata

In its answer to question E-1021/03 (1), which asked whether the municipality of Macerata had submitted projects and secured funding under the 2000 City Twinning Programme, the Commission stated that no funding had been granted for the year 2000.

Can the Commission say whether the municipality has submitted any projects and obtained and used any funding in the budget years since then?

---

(1)  OJ C 242 E, 9.10.2003, p. 208.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/641 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/641

---

(2004/C 78 E/0679)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3756/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(10 December 2003)

Subject:   Update on use of funding from the 2000 City Twinning Programme by the municipality of Perugia

In its answer to question E-1023/03 (1), which asked whether the municipality of Perugia had submitted projects and secured funding under the 2000 City Twinning Programme, the Commission stated that no funding had been granted for the year 2000.

Can the Commission say whether the municipality has submitted any projects and obtained and used any funding in the budget years since then?

---

(1)  OJ C 242 E, 9.10.2003, p. 208.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/641 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/641

---

(2004/C 78 E/0680)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3757/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(10 December 2003)

Subject:   Update on use of funding from the 2000 City Twinning Programme by the municipality of Pesaro

In its answer to question E-1024/03 (1), which asked whether the municipality of Pesaro had submitted projects and secured funding under the 2000 City Twinning Programme, the Commission stated that no funding had been granted for the year 2000.

Can the Commission say whether the municipality has submitted any projects and obtained and used any funding in the budget years since then?

---

(1)  OJ C 242 E, 9.10.2003, p. 208.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/642 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/642

---

(2004/C 78 E/0681)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3758/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(10 December 2003)

Subject:   Update on use of funding from the 2000 City Twinning Programme by the municipality of Pisa

In its answer to question E-1025/03 (1), which asked whether the municipality of Pisa had submitted projects and secured funding under the 2000 City Twinning Programme, the Commission stated that no funding had been granted for the year 2000.

Can the Commission say whether the municipality has submitted any projects and obtained and used any funding in the budget years since then?

---

(1)  OJ C 242 E, 9.10.2003, p. 208.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/642 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/642

---

(2004/C 78 E/0682)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3759/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(10 December 2003)

Subject:   Update on use of funding from the 2000 City Twinning Programme by the municipality of Pistoia

In its answer to question E-1026/03 (1), which asked whether the municipality of Pistoia had submitted projects and secured funding under the 2000 City Twinning Programme, the Commission stated that no funding had been granted for the year 2000.

Can the Commission say whether the municipality has submitted any projects and obtained and used any funding in the budget years since then?

---

(1)  OJ C 242 E, 9.10.2003, p. 208.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/642 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/642

---

(2004/C 78 E/0683)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3760/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(10 December 2003)

Subject:   Update on use of funding from the 2000 City Twinning Programme by the municipality of Siena

In its answer to question E-1028/03 (1), which asked whether the municipality of Siena had submitted projects and secured funding under the 2000 City Twinning Programme, the Commission stated that no funding had been granted for the year 2000.

Can the Commission say whether the municipality has submitted any projects and obtained and used any funding in the budget years since then?

Joint answer

to Written Questions E-3751/03, E-3752/03, E-3753/03, E-3754/03, E-3755/03, E-3756/03, E-3757/03, E-3758/03, E-3759/03 and E-3760/03

given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(20 January 2004)

Further to the answer given to the Honourable Member's previous questions, below are the numbers of projects submitted and grants received in 2000-2003 by the municipalities concerned under the Community's City Twinning Programme:

| — | Municipality of Terni, Italy:






  — | in 2000 and 2003 no projects were submitted; |
| --- | --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Terni, Italy:

—

in 2000 and 2003 no projects were submitted;

| — | in 2001 one project was submitted but not approved; |
| --- | --- |

—

in 2001 one project was submitted but not approved;

| — | in 2002 one project was funded (EUR 1 027), and the Municipality of Terni received a grant of EUR 1 170 as an invited town under another project. |
| --- | --- |

—

in 2002 one project was funded (EUR 1 027), and the Municipality of Terni received a grant of EUR 1 170 as an invited town under another project.

| — | Municipality of Ancona, Italy:






  — | in 2002 one project was submitted but not approved; |
| --- | --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Ancona, Italy:

—

in 2002 one project was submitted but not approved;

| — | no projects were submitted in the other years. |
| --- | --- |

—

no projects were submitted in the other years.

| — | Municipality of Florence, Italy:






  — | in 2000 no projects were submitted; |
| --- | --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Florence, Italy:

—

in 2000 no projects were submitted;

| — | in 2001 one project was approved then cancelled; |
| --- | --- |

—

in 2001 one project was approved then cancelled;

| — | in 2002 one project was approved in which the Municipality of Florence was an invited city, and the grant was paid to the organising city; |
| --- | --- |

—

in 2002 one project was approved in which the Municipality of Florence was an invited city, and the grant was paid to the organising city;

| — | in 2003 one project was approved under which the Municipality of Florence received a grant of EUR 472,5 as an invited city. |
| --- | --- |

—

in 2003 one project was approved under which the Municipality of Florence received a grant of EUR 472,5 as an invited city.

| — | Municipality of Livornio, Italy:






  — | in 2001 one project was not approved and one project was funded (EUR 9 000); |
| --- | --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Livornio, Italy:

—

in 2001 one project was not approved and one project was funded (EUR 9 000);

| — | no projects were submitted in the other years. |
| --- | --- |

—

no projects were submitted in the other years.

| — | Municipality of Macerata, Italy:






  — | in 2001 one project was not approved; |
| --- | --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Macerata, Italy:

—

in 2001 one project was not approved;

| — | no projects were submitted in the other years. |
| --- | --- |

—

no projects were submitted in the other years.

| — | Municipality of Perugia, Italy:






  — | no projects have ever been submitted. |
| --- | --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Perugia, Italy:

—

no projects have ever been submitted.

| — | Municipality of Pesaro, Italy:






  — | in 2000 and 2003 no projects were submitted; |
| --- | --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Pesaro, Italy:

—

in 2000 and 2003 no projects were submitted;

| — | in 2001 one project was funded (EUR 2 618); |
| --- | --- |

—

in 2001 one project was funded (EUR 2 618);

| — | in 2002 one project was funded (EUR 4 638). |
| --- | --- |

—

in 2002 one project was funded (EUR 4 638).

| — | Municipality of Pisa, Italy:






  — | in 2000 one project was not approved; |
| --- | --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Pisa, Italy:

—

in 2000 one project was not approved;

| — | no projects were submitted in the other years. |
| --- | --- |

—

no projects were submitted in the other years.

| — | Municipality of Pistoia, Italy:






  — | no projects have been submitted since 1993. |
| --- | --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Pistoia, Italy:

—

no projects have been submitted since 1993.

| — | Municipality of Sienna, Italy:






  — | in 2000 one project was not approved; |
| --- | --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Sienna, Italy:

—

in 2000 one project was not approved;

| — | in 2001 one project was not approved; |
| --- | --- |

—

in 2001 one project was not approved;

| — | in 2002 one project was funded (EUR 2 854); |
| --- | --- |

—

in 2002 one project was funded (EUR 2 854);

| — | in 2003 no projects were submitted. |
| --- | --- |

—

in 2003 no projects were submitted.

The Honourable Member might also contact the relevant local authorities for more detailed information.

---

(1)  OJ C 242 E, 9.10.2003, p. 208.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/644 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/644

---

(2004/C 78 E/0684)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3763/03

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(11 December 2003)

Subject:   Clinical trials

| 1. | Will the Commission indicate in table form the position in each Member State whereby charities and academic institutions researching into pharmaceuticals of limited market potential (for example, because of the small incidence of the condition or of its imminently life-threatening form) may enjoy special conditions for their clinical trials? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Will the Commission indicate in table form the position in each Member State whereby charities and academic institutions researching into pharmaceuticals of limited market potential (for example, because of the small incidence of the condition or of its imminently life-threatening form) may enjoy special conditions for their clinical trials?

| 2. | Will it further state whether such conditions will be compatible in each case with the proper implementation of the Clinical Trials Directive? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Will it further state whether such conditions will be compatible in each case with the proper implementation of the Clinical Trials Directive?

| 3. | Is any distinction made in any of the Member States for exemptions from Phase I, Phase II and Phase III? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Is any distinction made in any of the Member States for exemptions from Phase I, Phase II and Phase III?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(29 January 2004)

The Commission and Member States discussed the responsibilities of the Member States to take into consideration the recommendation given in Directive 2001/20/EC (1), recital 14, for non-commercial trial.

This recital reads: ‘Non-commercial clinical trials conducted by researchers without the participation of the pharmaceuticals industry may be of great benefit to the patients concerned. The Directive should therefore take account of the special position of trials whose planning does not require particular manufacturing or packaging processes, if these trials are carried out with medicinal products with a marketing authorization (...) and on patients with the same characteristics as those covered by the indication specified in this marketing authorization (...)’.

According to Article 22 of the above-mentioned Directive, the Member States are asked to inform the Commission on the national measures adopted with a view to transposing and complying with this text. The Commission is currently working together with the Member States in the preparation of the implementing guidelines of this Directive. The Commission is, therefore, confident that some of these concerns would be properly addressed during this preparation, both at Community level and at national level.

Moreover, to get an overall and conclusive view on the specific decisions taken by the Member States, the Commission will send out a questionnaire to the Member States to receive the information requested in a comparable format.

The Commission will publish the information received by the Member States.

---

(1)  Directive 2001/20/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 4 April 2001 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States relating to the implementation of good clinical practice in the conduct of clinical trials on medicinal products for human use, OJ L 121, 1.5.2001.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/645 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/645

---

(2004/C 78 E/0685)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3792/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(11 December 2003)

Subject:   Update on funding for the municipality of Pesaro-Urbino under the Tempus III programme

In reply to my earlier question E-1168/03 (1) asking whether the municipality of Pesaro had submitted projects and obtained funding under the Tempus III programme, the Commission said on 8 March 2003 that no projects had been submitted.

Is the Commission aware of whether, since that date, the municipality has submitted any projects, secured funding and made use of any funds granted?

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(29 January 2004)

It should be noted that municipalities are not eligible for Tempus funding. However, since March 2003, there have been several calls for proposals under the Tempus programme, the most recent being that of 15 December 2003. In response to these calls, the university of Urbino (Università degli studi di Urbino) submitted a proposal for a project involving universities in Spain, Morocco and Malta. The selection procedure has begun and the final decision will be taken in June 2004 to allow projects to get under way during the 2004/2005 academic year.

Projects funded under the Tempus programme generally involve several universities, from both EU countries and partner countries. These projects relate to the development and reform of higher education in those countries which are the final recipients of Community funding.

---

(1)  OJ C 242 E, 9.10.2003, p. 184.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/645 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/645

---

(2004/C 78 E/0686)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3811/03

by Cristiana Muscardini (UEN) to the Commission

(11 December 2003)

Subject:   The spread of androgenetic alopecia

According to research carried out by the Dermatology Department of California University in San Francisco 15 % of adolescents under 17 are losing their hair, the average age of onset being 14 for girls and 16 for boys. The Dermatology Faculty of Bologna University carried out a four-year study on children aged 6 to 10 who showed signs of baldness. All of them had parents suffering from androgenetic alopecia. But what are the possible causes of premature baldness? The ‘Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology’ has published the findings of research carried out by the dermatologist Antonella Tosti at Bologna University, which summarise the causes of the phenomena: an early onset of adrenarche, the hormonal process which starts two or three years before puberty, a high glycaemic diet, which may speed up the onset of the pre-pubertal phase, the use of cosmetic products containing estrogens and placenta and contamination of food with estrogen hormones.

In view of the risks to young people of this pathology — since very early baldness may be a warning of other dysfunctions — can the Commission say:

| — | whether it is aware of the problem; |
| --- | --- |

—

whether it is aware of the problem;

| — | whether it does not consider that governments should be made aware of this disease and the need to step up controls on cosmetic products and foodstuffs likely to contain placenta and/or estrogen hormones? |
| --- | --- |

—

whether it does not consider that governments should be made aware of this disease and the need to step up controls on cosmetic products and foodstuffs likely to contain placenta and/or estrogen hormones?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(30 January 2004)

Androgenetic alopecia causes hair loss in men and women and is characterized as hormonally driven hair loss in the genetically susceptible individual. The epidemiology of androgenetic alopecia is not fully understood. A strong genetic basis has long been identified but little is known of its non-genetic causes. Recent research (1) on the epidemiology of the disease suggested that evidence for environmental influences remains very slight. Dr A. Tosti has reported about 20 cases of unexplained and very early baldness, most patients belonging to genetically predisposed families. Since early baldness has an endocrine component, intake of compounds containing estrogens was suspected as a concurrent factor. Due to the limitations of the studies further evidence is required.

The Commission has sponsored numerous projects that are elucidating the effects of endocrine disrupting substances, including estrogens, on various organs in the human body (2). Many of them focus on food as an intake route. The Commission expects the results, when available, to contribute to the Regulation of chemical substances (authorisation or restriction). The Eurisked project (3) in particular, includes studies on the effects on estrogens present in cosmetic products, which will contribute to the risk assessment and regulation later on regarding cosmetic products. In an ongoing call, with a deadline in February 2004 launched by Priority 5 (Food Quality and Safety) of the 6th Framework Programme, research proposals are solicited on early onset of puberty, which appears to have strong similarities with the phenomenon of androgenetic alopecia. Once a project or projects in this domain have been selected and funded, the Commission can, in the negotiation phase, seek to ensure that the research to be undertaken includes studies on this phenomenon.

The Member States and the Commission discuss regularly the public health priorities in the Union in the context of the public health programme. This problem has not been prioritised during the discussions on the work programmes for 2003 or 2004.

Cosmetic products are regulated by Council Directive 76/768/EEC of 27 July 1976 (4). The Directive states, as a general principle that only cosmetic products that do not cause damage to human health can be put on the market (Article 2 of the Directive).

The Directive includes specific measures, for example certain ingredients must not form part of a cosmetic product. Annex II of the Directive lists ‘estrogens’ as No 260. Therefore, estrogens are banned in cosmetic products. Placenta is not listed in the inventory of cosmetic ingredients used in cosmetic products (Commission Decision 96/335/EC of 8 May 1996 establishing an inventory and a common nomenclature of ingredients employed in cosmetic products) (5). It is a raw material used to produce the following cosmetic ingredients: hydrolyzed human placental protein; hydrolyzed placental protein; placental enzymes; placental lipids; placental protein. These ingredients are obtained from mammalian placenta, but are not allowed to contain estrogens.

Article 3 of the Directive stipulates that Member States should take all necessary measures to ensure that only cosmetic products which conform to the provisions of this Directive and its Annexes may be put on the market.

The use of hormones for growth promotion in livestock is prohibited in the Community since 1988. The legislation currently in force is Council Directive 96/22/EC of 29 April 1996 concerning the prohibition on the use in stockfarming of certain substances having a hormonal or thyrostatic action and of beta-agonists (6), as amended by Directive 2003/74/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2003 (7).

---

(1)  Severi G et al. Br J Dermatol. 2003 Dec;149(6):1207-13.

(2)  http://europa.eu.int/comm/research/endocrine/index_en.html

(3)  http://www.eurisked.org/index.htm

(4)  OJ L 262, 27.9.1976.

(5)  OJ L 132, 1.6.1996.

(6)  OJ L 125, 23.5.1996.

(7)  OJ L 262, 14.10.2003.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/647 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/647

---

(2004/C 78 E/0687)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3813/03

by Maurizio Turco (NI) to the Commission

(11 December 2003)

Subject:   Judicial inquiry by the Venice Prosecutor's Office into use of Community funds for the agricultural sector

An article appeared on 26 November 2003 on the Vivacity Belluno website, entitled ‘Puglia businessman arrested for fraud against the EU’. According to the article:

| — | three people were arrested for involvement in aggravated and repeated fraud to obtain national and Community funding, aggravated and repeated falsification by a private citizen in an official act, with the aggravating circumstance of causing serious prejudice to the body concerned; |
| --- | --- |

—

three people were arrested for involvement in aggravated and repeated fraud to obtain national and Community funding, aggravated and repeated falsification by a private citizen in an official act, with the aggravating circumstance of causing serious prejudice to the body concerned;

| — | the three individuals concerned had, according to the information gathered by the Guardia di Finanza police, set up and managed many organisations and companies in the Veneto, Lazio and Puglia regions, producing and selling ‘dehydrated medicinal herbs’, thanks to substantial Community aid; |
| --- | --- |

—

the three individuals concerned had, according to the information gathered by the Guardia di Finanza police, set up and managed many organisations and companies in the Veneto, Lazio and Puglia regions, producing and selling ‘dehydrated medicinal herbs’, thanks to substantial Community aid;

| — | the organisations were used to invoice or take delivery of consignments of medicinal herbs, through which the three individuals illegally obtained in 2002 alone funds from the AGEA (Agenzia per le erogazioni in agricoltura) amounting to EUR 500 000; |
| --- | --- |

—

the organisations were used to invoice or take delivery of consignments of medicinal herbs, through which the three individuals illegally obtained in 2002 alone funds from the AGEA (Agenzia per le erogazioni in agricoltura) amounting to EUR 500 000;

| — | the sums to be refunded, added to the administrative penalties and sums owed by the companies for failing to monitor the activities of their own administrators, as well as ordinary and revaluation interest, amount to a minimum of EUR 1 300 000 and a maximum of EUR 1 900 000. |
| --- | --- |

—

the sums to be refunded, added to the administrative penalties and sums owed by the companies for failing to monitor the activities of their own administrators, as well as ordinary and revaluation interest, amount to a minimum of EUR 1 300 000 and a maximum of EUR 1 900 000.

Will the Commission state:

| — | whether it is aware of these facts and, if so, what action it has taken or intends to take on the matter? |
| --- | --- |

—

whether it is aware of these facts and, if so, what action it has taken or intends to take on the matter?

| — | whether OLAF has been informed of the matter and, if so, whether it has initiated or intends to initiate an investigation? |
| --- | --- |

—

whether OLAF has been informed of the matter and, if so, whether it has initiated or intends to initiate an investigation?

Answer given by Ms Schreyer on behalf of the Commission

(27 January 2004)

The Commission can inform the Honourable Member that the European Antifraud Office (OLAF) is aware that the Italian authorities are conducting a judicial investigation into a company for alleged aggravated and repeated fraud to obtain national and Community grants and aggravated and repeated falsification.

As judicial proceedings are already in motion in Italy, at the Prosecution Service for Venice, OLAF is available to provide the judicial authorities with all such assistance as they may request.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/647 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/647

---

(2004/C 78 E/0688)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3814/03

by Maurizio Turco (NI) to the Commission

(11 December 2003)

Subject:   Judicial inquiry by the Palermo Prosecutor's Office into EUR 6,5 million fraud against the European Union

An article appeared on 7 November 2003 on the website of the daily newspaper ‘La Gazzetta del Mezzogiorno’ entitled ‘EUR 6,5 million fraud against the EU to finance Cosa Nostra’. According to the article:

| — | three people charged with fraud against the EU amounting to EUR 6,5 million were arrested by the ‘Guardia di Finanzia’ police in Palermo; |
| --- | --- |

—

three people charged with fraud against the EU amounting to EUR 6,5 million were arrested by the ‘Guardia di Finanzia’ police in Palermo;

| — | the money was used to pay for illegal activities of Cosa Nostra; |
| --- | --- |

—

the money was used to pay for illegal activities of Cosa Nostra;

| — | the three individuals had, through a number of companies, applied for EU funds from the Ministry for Industry to set up new companies at a cost of approximately EUR 6 million; of this amount, around EUR 2,5 million was granted and paid out; |
| --- | --- |

—

the three individuals had, through a number of companies, applied for EU funds from the Ministry for Industry to set up new companies at a cost of approximately EUR 6 million; of this amount, around EUR 2,5 million was granted and paid out;

| — | investigations begain in 2001; to obtain the amounts in question the three individuals produced totally fictitious documents; |
| --- | --- |

—

investigations begain in 2001; to obtain the amounts in question the three individuals produced totally fictitious documents;

| — | the three persons under arrest, who own various businesses dealing with tyre sales, had requested and obtained almost EUR 2,5 million to set up a tyre recucling plant in a shed. However, there was no machinery in this shed — which had been the object of a preventive confiscation order in previous years — and nothing had been produced. |
| --- | --- |

—

the three persons under arrest, who own various businesses dealing with tyre sales, had requested and obtained almost EUR 2,5 million to set up a tyre recucling plant in a shed. However, there was no machinery in this shed — which had been the object of a preventive confiscation order in previous years — and nothing had been produced.

Will the Commission state:

| — | whether it is aware of these facts and, if so, what action it has taken or intends to take on the matter? |
| --- | --- |

—

whether it is aware of these facts and, if so, what action it has taken or intends to take on the matter?

| — | whether OLAF has been informed of the matter and, if so, whether it has initiated or intends to initiate an investigation? |
| --- | --- |

—

whether OLAF has been informed of the matter and, if so, whether it has initiated or intends to initiate an investigation?

Answer given by Ms Schreyer on behalf of the Commission

(27 January 2004)

The Commission can inform the Honourable Member that the European Antifraud Office (OLAF) is aware that the Italian authorities are conducting a judicial investigation into alleged instances of fraud against the Union.

As judicial proceedings are already in motion in Italy, at the Prosecution Service for Palermo, OLAF is available to provide the judicial authorities with all such assistance as they may request.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/648 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/648

---

(2004/C 78 E/0689)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3815/03

by Maurizio Turco (NI) to the Commission

(11 December 2003)

Subject:   Judicial inquiry by the Salerno Prosecutor's Office into EUR 30 million fraud against the European Union

On 2 December 2003 the AGI Italian press agency published a report entitled ‘EUR 30 million fraud against the EU: seven arrested in the Salerno region’. According to this report:

| — | an organisation which illegally obtained state and Community funding has been dismantled by the regional branch of the Guardia di Finanza police, who arrested seven people; |
| --- | --- |

—

an organisation which illegally obtained state and Community funding has been dismantled by the regional branch of the Guardia di Finanza police, who arrested seven people;

| — | investigations were coordinated by the Salerno Public Prosecutor's Office; |
| --- | --- |

—

investigations were coordinated by the Salerno Public Prosecutor's Office;

| — | companies and property amounting to EUR 100 million were confiscated in the country; |
| --- | --- |

—

companies and property amounting to EUR 100 million were confiscated in the country;

| — | the people under investigation had set up a group of interconnected companies which had received funding between 1997 and 2003 amounting to EUR 30 million; |
| --- | --- |

—

the people under investigation had set up a group of interconnected companies which had received funding between 1997 and 2003 amounting to EUR 30 million;

| — | the organisation, which could count on the cooperation of three officials at the Ministry for Productive Activities, had claimed public funds to cover false expenditure, based on forged accounts and off-accounts documents. |
| --- | --- |

—

the organisation, which could count on the cooperation of three officials at the Ministry for Productive Activities, had claimed public funds to cover false expenditure, based on forged accounts and off-accounts documents.

Will the Commission state:

| — | whether it is aware of these facts and, if so, what action it has taken or intends to take on the matter? |
| --- | --- |

—

whether it is aware of these facts and, if so, what action it has taken or intends to take on the matter?

| — | whether OLAF has been informed of the matter and, if so, whether it has initiated or intends to initiate an investigation? |
| --- | --- |

—

whether OLAF has been informed of the matter and, if so, whether it has initiated or intends to initiate an investigation?

Answer given by Ms Schreyer on behalf of the Commission

(27 January 2004)

The Commission can inform the Honourable Member that the European Antifraud Office (OLAF) is aware that the Italian authorities are conducting a judicial investigation into alleged instances of fraud against the Union.

As judicial proceedings are already in motion in Italy, at the Prosecution Service for Salerno, OLAF is available to provide the judicial authorities with all such assistance as they may request.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/649 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/649

---

(2004/C 78 E/0690)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3816/03

by Maurizio Turco (NI) to the Commission

(11 December 2003)

Subject:   Judicial inquiry by the Lecce Prosecutor's Office into EUR 6 million fraud against the European Union

An article appeared on 22 November 2003 on the website of the daily newspaper ‘La Gazzetta del Mezzogiorno’ entitled ‘EUR 6 million fraud in Salento aganist the EU’:

| — | according to the article, three people had been arrested for criminal conspiracy, aggravated fraud against the European Community amounting to around EUR 6 million and fictitious invoices; |
| --- | --- |

—

according to the article, three people had been arrested for criminal conspiracy, aggravated fraud against the European Community amounting to around EUR 6 million and fictitious invoices;

| — | the case allegedly concerns contributions received illicitly, on the basis of Law 488, for the fictitious purchase of machinery through forged invoices substantiated by fake expert evaluations; |
| --- | --- |

—

the case allegedly concerns contributions received illicitly, on the basis of Law 488, for the fictitious purchase of machinery through forged invoices substantiated by fake expert evaluations;

| — | Community funds amounting to some EUR 6 million were apparently received by means of these invoices. |
| --- | --- |

—

Community funds amounting to some EUR 6 million were apparently received by means of these invoices.

Will the Commission state:

| — | whether it is aware of these facts and, if so, what action it has taken or intends to take on the matter? |
| --- | --- |

—

whether it is aware of these facts and, if so, what action it has taken or intends to take on the matter?

| — | whether OLAF has been informed of the matter and, if so, whether it has initiated or intends to initiate an investigation? |
| --- | --- |

—

whether OLAF has been informed of the matter and, if so, whether it has initiated or intends to initiate an investigation?

Answer given by Ms Schreyer on behalf of the Commission

(26 January 2004)

The Commission can inform the Honourable Member that the European Antifraud Office (OLAF) is aware that the Italian authorities are conducting a judicial investigation into alleged instances of fraud against the Union.

As judicial proceedings are already in motion in Italy, at the Prosecution Service for Lecce, OLAF is available to provide the judicial authorities with all such assistance as they may request.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/650 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/650

---

(2004/C 78 E/0691)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3818/03

by Stavros Xarchakos (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(12 December 2003)

Subject:   Conditions for awarding pensions in Greece

Pensioners in Greece have complained that in all the other EU Member States the main criterion for awarding a pension is the advent of the so-called ‘insurance risk’, namely the time when the citizens reach a certain age at which the normal risks associated with ageing appear. This is apparently not the case in Greece, where the basic criterion for each citizen is completion of a minimum number of years of employment (evidenced by contribution records).

They complain in particular that throughout the rest of the European Union each citizen acquires pension rights as soon as he reaches a certain age and the size of his pension is strictly proportionate to the number of years of employment (however few), which is not the case in Greece.

One of the results of this state of affairs is that a fair number of very elderly Greek women (who have no contribution records to show, since they spent their whole lives bringing up children in the family and housekeeping) receive no pension at all, if, for example, their spouse receives a monthly pension of the order of EUR 600. More generally, it should be pointed out that Greek pensions are the lowest in the European Union, with very broad categories of pensioner (almost 90 %) receiving a monthly pension of less than EUR 500, and other categories (for instance taxi drivers and others) receiving pensions of EUR 300 or less.

Will the Commission say whether the criteria applied in Greece for awarding pensions are completely in line with Community legislation? Do citizens in the other EU Member States receive a minimum pension with the advent of the so-called ‘insurance risk’, i.e. when they reach a given age, regardless of their contribution records? Will it provide a breakdown of these minimum pensions in the other 14 Member States? Do pensioners in the other EU Member States receive pensions strictly proportionate to their employment contributions (however few) when they reach a certain age? Will it give an analytical table of this age in the other 14 Member States? Is it in line with Community legislation that very elderly Greek citizens should not be entitled to any pension at all, even though they have made employment contributions (albeit few)? Under EU legislation could they claim a pension — however small — in proportion to their contributions?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(28 January 2004)

The design of pension systems falls within the responsibilities of the Member States. Union law on social protection concerns only very limited aspects such as the rights of people who move from one Member State to another and equal treatment of men and women (with certain exceptions still holding as regards the retirement age and survivors' benefits). There is no Union legislation on the link between contribution payments and benefit entitlements.

The design of statutory pension schemes differs widely across the Union. Some countries pay a flat-rate pension from the age of 65 (in Denmark and the Netherlands this is based on residence, in Ireland on contributions). In most Member States, pensions are linked to insured earnings with a tendency to take into account increasingly long earnings histories. There are, however, a number of ways in which statutory pension schemes deviate from strict insurance principles. Minimum contribution periods may be required before an entitlement to a pension is earned (thus in some cases, contributions may remain without a counterpart in terms of benefits); on the other hand, certain periods without contribution payments (unemployment, illness, career breaks for family reasons, education periods) may be recognised as equivalent to pensionable employment periods. Earnings or contribution related statutory pension schemes often also guarantee a minimum pension level.

Details on such features in national pension systems can be found in the publication ‘Missoc — Social Protection in the Member States and the European Economic Area’ (1) and in the Joint Report by the Commission and the Council on Adequate and Sustainable Pensions of March 2003 (2). The latter contains in particular tables on the retirement age (table 7) and on minimum income guarantees for older people (table 1).

---

(1)  http://europa.eu.int/comm/employment_social/missoc/index_en.html

(2)  http://europa.eu.int/comm/employment_social/soc-prot/pensions/index_en.htm

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/651 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/651

---

(2004/C 78 E/0692)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3820/03

by Elspeth Attwooll (ELDR) to the Commission

(12 December 2003)

Subject:   Connection to electricity and water supplies

Further to Written Question E-2399/03 and the Commission's reply, will the Commission please reply to the same question but with regard to the parts of Scotland that are not within the Highland and Islands Region?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(27 January 2004)

3 746 381 people in Scotland live in areas eligible under Objective 2 of the Structural Funds or in Objective 2 transitional areas. The interventions are organised under three Objective 2 Programmes in accordance with Commission Decisions taken on 21 and 22 March 2001: the West of Scotland Objective 2 Programme, the East of Scotland Objective 2 Programme and the South of Scotland Objective 2 Programme.

Under Objective 2, the interventions relate to the diversification and revitalisation of areas in economic decline. Infrastructures in these areas are supported where they are ‘a prerequisite for the location or development of job-creating economic activities’. In all three Objective 2 Programmes there is provision for actions to promote the adoption of waste minimisation, energy efficiency and environmental management to benefit economic activity and better protect the environment through more efficient use of resources.

The responsibility for deciding on the selection of projects co-financed by European Structural Funds lies with the Regional Partnership for each Objective 2 Programme. For the West of Scotland Programme, this is the Strathclyde European Partnership Ltd (SEP Ltd), for the East of Scotland, this is the East of Scotland European Partnership Ltd (ESEP Ltd) and for the South of Scotland, this is the South of Scotland Partnership (SOSEP).

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/651 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/651

---

(2004/C 78 E/0693)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3827/03

by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(12 December 2003)

Subject:   Funding for the network of Carrefours and Info-Points

The European network of Carrefours and Info-Points Europe recently publicly protested at the decision of the Directorate-General for Press and Communication of 29 September to cancel the annual allocation of EUR 20 000 for Carrefours and Info-Points Europe and its proposal merely to maintain collaboration in distributing documentation, training and running helpdesks. They complained that this ‘unilateral decision, taken without any consultation and at such short notice’ would affect the budget and activities of all the structures involved.

Can the Commission therefore say what measures it is considering in order to take account of the commitments already made by these organisations, bearing in mind the promise that funding would be maintained until the end of 2004?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(3 February 2004)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to written E-3007/03 by Mr Santini (1)

---

(1)  See page 448.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/652 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/652

---

(2004/C 78 E/0694)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3830/03

by Juan Ferrández Lezaun (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(8 December 2003)

Subject:   Spanish NHP infrastructure tendering

The Spanish Government has begun tendering for the infrastructure of the river Ebro water transfer, and specifically, two sections thereof, in the provinces of Almeria (section 46/subsection 1) and Murcia (section 41/subsection 1).

As both Commissioner Bolkestein himself and the Spanish Ministry have acknowledged, the Spanish Government failed to comply with Directive 92/50/EEC (1) on the awarding of public service contracts, by failing to respect the rules on openness to competition in awarding a service contract.

In this case, the Commission decided, despite the Spanish Government's repeated infringements in this area, not to open infringement proceedings against it, nor oblige it to re-run the tendering process.

Has the Commission been following the tendering process for the two aforementioned water transfer infrastructure sections? If so, can it confirm that Directive 92/50/EEC on coordinating the awarding of public service contracts has been respected?

Can the Commission confirm that these two water transfer sections respect Community environmental legislation? If not, which provisions does it infringe, and why? What measures is the Commission going to take in this connection?

Can the Commission confirm that these two water-transfer building operations have been preceded by a cost-benefit, project-viability and socio-economic impact assessment, as required by Regulation (EC) 1260/1999 (2)?

Can the Commission confirm whether as of now, it has guaranteed Community co-funding for the building of these two sections of the water transfer? If so, what are the figures for each section?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(30 January 2004)

The Commission would first of all like to clarify that the service contracts for environmental studies referred to in its reply to the questions by the Honourable Members De Roo (H-0563/03) during question time at Parliament's Plenary session of October 2003 (3) and Dührkop (H-688/03) during question time at Parliament's Plenary session of November 2003 (4) were awarded by Trasagua some time ago. The Commission decided not to bring infringement proceedings regarding these specific contracts, for the reasons stated in its answer to these questions. The contracts which the Honourable Member now enquires about are part of new calls for tender recently issued by Trasagua. In fact, Trasagua has published separate tenders for works contracts, relating to the construction of the infrastructure for the transfer of waters from the river Ebro, and for service contracts, relating to consultancy on various aspects of the works on the infrastructure. To the extent that their value goes beyond the Union thresholds, such works contracts must comply with Directive 93/37/EEC of 14 June 1993 on the co-ordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts (5), whereas service contracts are subject to Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992 on the co-ordination of procedures for the award of public service contracts (6). The Commission understands that the Honourable Member refers in particular to compliance of the service contracts at stake with the requirements of Directive 92/50/EEC. Indeed, those contracts involve consultancy and assistance services to the management of the works, environmental direction and health and safety coordination for the construction of the two sections of the infrastructure. According to the information available to the Commission, tender notices concerning those contracts were published in the Official Journal S 229 of 27 November 2003, and S 230 of 28 November 2003. Furthermore, the Commission would like to point out that the Spanish authorities undertook to ensure that Trasagua applies in full the Community public procurement rules when awarding public contracts. The Commission does not dispose at this stage of any information allowing it to believe that this undertaking is not being honoured.

The Commission does not have specific information on the water transfer infrastructures at stake to allow it to conclude that they do not comply with Community environmental legislation. In fact, the Commission does not receive this type of information automatically, except for projects which are financed by the Cohesion Fund or for which the Community financing through the Structural Funds exceeds EUR 50 million.

Thirdly, as far as the need for a cost-benefit analysis, an analysis of the economic viability and the socioeconomic impact of the projects is concerned, in line with the requirements of Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 of 21 June 1999 laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds (7) they will only be required if there is a request for Community co-financing and the projects are considered major ones.

Indeed, up to now the Commission has not received any request for the financing of the two infrastructures which are the subject matter of the tendering.

---

(1)  OJ L 209, 24.7.1992, p. 1.

(2)  OJ L 161, 26.6.1999, p. 1.

(3)  Oral reply, 21.10.2003.

(4)  Written reply, 18.11.2003.

(5)  OJ L 199, 9.8.1993.

(6)  OJ L 209, 24.7.1992.

(7)  OJ L 161, 26.6.1999.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/653 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/653

---

(2004/C 78 E/0695)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3833/03

by Roberto Bigliardo (UEN) to the Commission

(12 December 2003)

Subject:   Provincial authorities' involvement in the management of EU Structural Funds

In the context of EU Structural Fund programming, responsibility for the use of Community funds lies with the relevant regional authorities, with the involvement of local authorities — in this instance, at provincial level. In Objective 1 regions, including in Italy, provincial authorities have, under framework agreements concluded with the relevant regional authorities, taken on a significant role in the management of funds available under the Regional Operational Programme (ROP).

| 1. | Given the above, can the Commission state whether the authorities in Objective 1 regions in Italy should in fact provide for the involvement of provincial authorities in the management of ROP funds and whether this might not act as a barrier to the funds being used on schedule as a result of lengthy coordination procedures? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Given the above, can the Commission state whether the authorities in Objective 1 regions in Italy should in fact provide for the involvement of provincial authorities in the management of ROP funds and whether this might not act as a barrier to the funds being used on schedule as a result of lengthy coordination procedures?

| 2. | Whether the involvement of local authorities in the management of ROP funds (at provincial level) is nominal or real, given that local authorities were not involved in the drafting of the 2000-2006 Community Support Framework? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Whether the involvement of local authorities in the management of ROP funds (at provincial level) is nominal or real, given that local authorities were not involved in the drafting of the 2000-2006 Community Support Framework?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(27 January 2004)

The Honourable Member's two questions relate to the principle of partnership involvement in the programming and management of assistance (part-financing) from the Community Structural Funds.

That principle is set out in Article 8 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 of 21 June 1999 laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds (1): ‘Community actions ... shall be drawn up in close consultation ... between the Commission and the Member State, together with the authorities and bodies designated by the Member State within the framework of its national rules and current practices ...’. Article 8 also requires Member States to ensure association of the relevant partners at each stage of programming.

Accordingly the administrative authorities in charge of Operational Programmes must, if they are to ensure that the partnership principle is correctly and effectively applied, associate the local authorities in partnership if national rules require them to do so or if they consider it advisable to do so. This entails setting appropriate consultation procedures.

---

(1)  OJ L 161, 26.6.1999.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/654 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/654

---

(2004/C 78 E/0696)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3834/03

by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(12 December 2003)

Subject:   Discrimination against Portuguese workers abroad

As the Portuguese Northern Building, Wood, Marble, Stone, Ceramics and Building Materials Trade Union recently complained, thousands of Portuguese civil construction workers find themselves the victims of the problems experienced by the sector in Northern Portugal, and as winter draws near, their work contracts are not being renewed. They are therefore obliged to emigrate, and are frequently the victims of unscrupulous recruitment agencies which promise them good conditions and then fail to make good the promises.

Two examples will suffice:

| — | In Iceland, Portuguese workers are constructing tunnels for a water diversion in connection with the building of dams in Kárahnjúkar, where there are no means of evacuation in an emergency, over and above the fact that they are discriminated against compared with other workers from EU Member States; |
| --- | --- |

—

In Iceland, Portuguese workers are constructing tunnels for a water diversion in connection with the building of dams in Kárahnjúkar, where there are no means of evacuation in an emergency, over and above the fact that they are discriminated against compared with other workers from EU Member States;

| — | in Germany (in Berne, in the south) and Spain, the Portuguese workers are discriminated against in terms of salaries, accommodation and insurance conditions, and their working timetable. In Spain, for example, they are obliged to work a 12-hour day, and earn less than Spaniards working an 8-hour day (companies in Galicia, the Basque country, Valencia and Lleida, inter alia). |
| --- | --- |

—

in Germany (in Berne, in the south) and Spain, the Portuguese workers are discriminated against in terms of salaries, accommodation and insurance conditions, and their working timetable. In Spain, for example, they are obliged to work a 12-hour day, and earn less than Spaniards working an 8-hour day (companies in Galicia, the Basque country, Valencia and Lleida, inter alia).

The Commission:

| 1. | What measures does it intend to take to combat this serious discrimination and unacceptable exploitation of Portuguese workers in EU Member States, and guarantee them equality in terms of salaries and working conditions? |
| --- | --- |

1.

What measures does it intend to take to combat this serious discrimination and unacceptable exploitation of Portuguese workers in EU Member States, and guarantee them equality in terms of salaries and working conditions?

| 2. | What steps are being implemented for the professional certification of these workers at EU level? |
| --- | --- |

2.

What steps are being implemented for the professional certification of these workers at EU level?

| 3. | What measures are planned to prevent companies which win international competitions from recruiting workers via workforce recruitment agencies? |
| --- | --- |

3.

What measures are planned to prevent companies which win international competitions from recruiting workers via workforce recruitment agencies?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(29 January 2004)

It is not clear from the question whether the situations referred to fall within the scope 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). Where this is the case, the workers concerned must be covered by a ‘hard core’ of protective rules concerning the working and employment conditions in force in the host country; these must include, in particular, rules on maximum working periods, the minimum wage, and health, safety and hygiene at work.

If, however, the situations in question are placements with the objective of having the workers habitually perform their work in the EU Member States or EEA countries mentioned, Council Regulation (EEC) 1612/68 of 15 October 1968 on freedom of movement for workers within the Community (2) stipulates that a worker who is a national of a Member State may not, in the territory of another Member State, be treated differently from national workers in respect of any conditions of employment and work.

It goes without saying that the Commission deplores situations where these rules are disregarded. It would, however, point out that the monitoring of compliance with working and employment conditions is primarily the responsibility of the national authorities.

---

(1)  OJ L 18, 21.1.1997.

(2)  OJ L 257, 19.10.1968.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/655 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/655

---

(2004/C 78 E/0697)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3836/03

by Emmanouil Bakopoulos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(8 December 2003)

Subject:   VAT for transport service providers

The transport sector in the European Union is governed by various tax regimes. For instance, a Belgian transport service provider may transport its customers to Athens in a coach belonging to a Greek company, transport them from there to Vienna with an Austrian company and take them to their final destination in the Netherlands in a coach belonging to a Dutch company. The problem facing this service provider — which is essentially providing its customers with a package and therefore uses subcontractors — is the how to calculate VAT for such a service.

In this specific example, will the Commission say how VAT is to be levied so that all the subcontractors involved in providing services meet their tax obligations?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(20 January 2004)

Since Community VAT legislation is based on a Directive (the Sixth VAT Directive — Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977) each Member State is responsible for the transposition of these provisions into national legislation and their correct application within its territory. In the light of this, and the basic principle of subsidiarity, national tax administrations have the principal responsibility for informing their taxable persons about the interpretation and application of these provisions.

According to Article 9(2)(b) of the Sixth VAT Directive the place of supply of transport services is the place where the transport takes place, having regards of the distances covered. Therefore, in the example quoted, it is up to each individual Member State to determine how VAT is to be levied and which obligations each subcontractor has to fulfil on its territory.

The Commission is aware of the problems which can occur in the field of taxation of passenger transport services and in the framework of its review and update of VAT Strategy priorities (1). it has undertaken to look at the simplification of the obligations for traders in the field of VAT in the third quarter of 2004 as well as at the issue of the place of taxation of passenger transport services in 2005.

---

(1)  COM(2003) 614 final of 20.10.2003.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/656 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/656

---

(2004/C 78 E/0698)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3839/03

by Monica Frassoni (Verts/ALE) and Daniel Cohn-Bendit (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(12 December 2003)

Subject:   Marmara Earthquake Rehabilitation Programme (MERP): ‘An Integrated Intervention for the Rehabilitation of Düzce’ — Turkey

The European Commission's Europe-Aid Cooperation Office has co-financed, under the MERP, budget line B7-411, the project mentioned in the reference — Contract identification number: PIU-ID-MERP-2002-0004 — Contracting Authority: Prime Ministry of Turkey, Project Implementation Unit (PIU) — Duration: 1.12.2002 to 30.11.2004. Within the project, procurements subject to tenders, referring to supplies, services and works, total a value of EUR 1130 000.

The forecasts were submitted on 22 January 2003 and although they are supposed to be examined and approved within 4 weeks, the first remarks by the PIU arrived only on 13 March 2003. Immediately afterwards, tender dossiers (7 out of 10 in the initial stage) were submitted, at different stages reacting to additional remarks received, between 19 March and 27 June 2003.

On 1 July the project leader, the PIU representatives and the Tender and Procurement Advisor hired by the European Commission met in Düzce to discuss specific remarks expressed. On that occasion it was announced that in the meantime the template documents used by Europe-Aid for procurement had changed, and all the tender dossiers had to be revised in order to meet the new requirements. New tender dossiers were submitted on 8 July 2003.

No answer on them has been received until today, although the stagnation regarding official provision of VAT exemption by the Turkish Treasury was finally overcome during November. The delays by the European Commission services supervising the tender procurement procedures are threatening the very implementation of the project.

What urgent action will the Commission take to remove existing obstacles and allow the successful continuation of the MERP Düzce project?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(30 January 2004)

Whereas the details elaborated in the question are broadly correct, it should be noted that the MERP is not implemented by the Commission but by the Turkish government (decentralised management). As set out in the first paragraph of the question, the contracting authority is the Prime Ministry of Turkey Project Implementation Unit (PIU). The procurement advisor referred to was therefore not hired by the Commission and indeed has no contractual relationship with the Commission but only with the Turkish contracting authority.

As with all activities implemented through decentralised management, the Commission is only concerned when the contracting authority incurs any delay. In such a case the Commission may bring pressure to bear on the contracting authority to improve its performance, and may ultimately refuse to extend the budgetary commitment to the project if the contracting authority fails to implement it within the terms of the Financing Agreement signed between the Commission and the beneficiary government.

In the case of the MERP, it is the understanding of the Commission that the initial problems have now largely been overcome and agreement has broadly been reached between the Project Implementation Unit and the Prefecture of Grevana, and that the tender dossiers should soon be launched. The Commission has also indicated to the Prefecture of Grevana that if difficulties occur in their relationship with the PIU, the Commission is prepared to intervene in order to facilitate dialogue between the stakeholders. To this effect, the Commission has formally requested the PIU to establish monthly meetings of all project partners.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/657 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/657

---

(2004/C 78 E/0699)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3843/03

by Maurizio Turco (NI), Marco Pannella (NI), Marco Cappato (NI), Gianfranco Dell'Alba (NI), Benedetto Della Vedova (NI) and Olivier Dupuis (NI) to the Commission

(12 December 2003)

Subject:   Censorship practised at the request of the Russian Consulate in Milan by the city authorities in connection with the Romano Cagnoni photography exhibition

On 4 December 2003 the Milan city authorities were due to stage an exhibition (which had been scheduled since last April) of the work of the photographer Romano Cagnoni.

The photograph which appears on the invitation (and also on the posters, the banners, the public-transport advertising and the catalogue cover) contains a foregrounded image of a smiling Chechen soldier.

After the first posters appeared on walls in Milan the Russian Consulate complained to the city authorities that they constituted ‘a senseless provocation’ and with less than a week to go before the opening of the exhibition the authorities decided not to display any more posters, banners or public-transport advertising and to cover up the posters which were already on the streets. They have not yet decided whether to censor the catalogue cover as well, although they cannot take any action in respect of the invitations, which have already been sent out.

In order to justify the censorship practised by the Milan city councillor with responsibility for cultural matters, Salvatore Carubba has told Romano Cagnoni that ‘it would not please the Bishop to see that murderer's ugly mug in piazza del Duomo [Cathedral Square] at Christmas time’.

Is the Commission aware of the facts set out above? What action does it intend to take vis-à-vis the Milan city authorities in response to this serious act of censorship?

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(23 January 2004)

Freedom of opinion and expression is one of the Union's fundamental rights guaranteed by the Charter of Fundamental Rights. However, the Commission cannot comment on the specific case referred to by the Honourable Members, which is exclusively a matter for the Member State concerned.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/658 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/658

---

(2004/C 78 E/0700)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3846/03

by Maj Theorin (PSE) to the Commission

(12 December 2003)

Subject:   Women and conflict

The report on participation of women in peaceful conflict resolution adopted by Parliament in November 2000 (A5-0308/2000) describes how women are in all conflicts exposed to rape and other attacks but very seldom allowed to participate in the peace process. The UN report entitled Women, War and Peace' from 2002 covering the same subject as the above report proposes measures for empowering women.

What action is the Commission prepared to take to increase women's participation in the entire peace process?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(29 January 2004)

It is indeed necessary to take practical steps to ensure the full participation of women and the integration of the gender perspective in peace and security issues.

Within its areas of responsibility the Commission will continue to work to effectively address the gender aspects of crisis management and conflict prevention. The Commission's ‘twin track approach’ to gender mainstreaming ensures not only the integration of gender issues at the policy level, but also the support of specific gender programmes and projects. Moreover, all EU assistance includes the gender dimension as an assessment criteria. It should be noted that the Commission's approach to gender mainstreaming is subject to regular review and debate with the Member States.

Examples of practical steps the Commission has taken include support for specific actions — such as in Angola, where it has promoted the establishment of stronger links amongst women's groups, nongovernmental organisations (NGOs) and others; or in Cyprus, where it has supported inter-community initiatives launched by women; or in Afghanistan, where it has rehabilitated women's meeting places, such as hammams; or in Chechnya, where it has funded mother and child healthcare.

Additionally, the inclusion of a gender module in the core component of the Community's pilot courses for civilian crisis management is a concrete step toward sensitising policy makers on the importance of including a gender perspective in peace building missions. To date 260 experts have been trained by training institutions located in nine different Member States.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/658 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/658

---

(2004/C 78 E/0701)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3849/03

by Proinsias De Rossa (PSE) to the Commission

(16 December 2003)

Subject:   Compilation of information on organ transplants in Europe

Further to its answer to my Written Question E-1666/03 (1), could the Commission indicate if it has now concluded the compilation of information on the situation in respect of organ transplants in the Member States and applicant countries. If so, what conclusions has it drawn, and what action does it now propose to take?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(2 February 2004)

The Commission has compiled data on the current practices and legal requirements related to organ transplantation in the Member States and the Acceding Countries and it is in the process of analysing the results. These results will be integrated in a more comprehensive report on a Community approach to be taken in the field of organ transplantation that the Commission will bring forward when the necessary analysis and preparation has been undertaken.

---

(1)  OJ C 51 E, 26.2.2004, p. 122.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/659 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/659

---

(2004/C 78 E/0702)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3850/03

by Jan Andersson (PSE) to the Commission

(16 December 2003)

Subject:   Harmful isocyanates and the protection of workers

Isocyanates are basic chemicals that are used primarily in the production of polyurethane foam, and polyurethane elastomers, etc. Isocyanates are thus found in chemical products such as paints, varnishes, surface treatments, adhesives and sealing compounds. It has recently been discovered that exposure to isocyanates also arises when mineral wool, glass wool and bakelite, etc. are heated.

For a long time now, the production and use of isocyanates has been on the increase. Most western European countries apply the same occupational exposure limits (0,005 ppm). However, studies show that the methods that have been used for many years to measure isocyanates in Europe are inadequate. Therefore, trade unions in the EU are calling for European rules for the industrial use of products that contain, or can emit, isocyanates.

| 1. | Is the Commission aware of the harmful nature of isocyanates and the risks of exposure run by workers in many industries? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is the Commission aware of the harmful nature of isocyanates and the risks of exposure run by workers in many industries?

| 2. | Does the Commission intend to take any measures and lay down European rules for the protection of workers from isocyanates? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Does the Commission intend to take any measures and lay down European rules for the protection of workers from isocyanates?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(29 January 2004)

The Commission is well aware of the harmful effects of isocyanates for workers.

Several isocyanates are on the priority list for the work of the Scientific Committee for Occupational Exposure Limit values (SCOEL) (1).

During 2004, the Committee (SCOEL) plans to start evaluating the available toxicological data with the aim of recommending occupational exposure limit values for isocyanates. Where appropriate, after this work has been accomplished, the Commission will propose occupational indicative exposure limit values for isocyanates, according to the provisions of Article 3, of Council Directive 98/24/EC of 7 April 1998 on the protection of the health and safety of workers from the risks related to chemical agents at work (2).

---

(1)  OJ L 188, 9.8.1995.

(2)  OJ L 131, 5.5.1998.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/660 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/660

---

(2004/C 78 E/0703)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3853/03

by Joan Colom i Naval (PSE) to the Commission

(8 December 2003)

Subject:   Funding for Spain's ‘National Water Plan’

Law No 10/2001 of 5 July 2001 introduced the ‘National Water Plan’ for Spain and the Spanish Government requested Community funding for carrying out the Plan.

Can the Commission say for which projects Community funding was requested? For which projects was it granted? What was the proportion of Community funding for the projects? For which projects was funding refused?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(22 January 2004)

In accordance with the subsidiarity principle, it is the competence of the Member States to select the projects to be co-financed by the Cohesion Fund and the Structural Funds programmes.

As far as those projects to be co-financed by the Structural Funds, Member States are obliged to notify only those projects requesting community co-financing whose cost exceeds the EUR 50 million threshold laid down in Article 25 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 (1).

Annex II of Spanish law 10/2001 on the National Hydrological Plan includes a listing of investments consisting of several hundreds of projects. The Spanish authorities have recently informed the Commission of the projects that will be proposed for Community financing by the Cohesion Fund and by the European Regional Development Fund.

As established in Article 14.3. ‘Information and publicity’ of Council Regulation (EC) No 1164/94 of 16 May 1994 establishing a Cohesion Fund (2), as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 1264/1999 of 21 June 1999 (3) and by Council Regulation (EC) No 1265/1999 of 21 June 1999 (3), the Commission publishes yearly in the Official Journal of the European Union the list of Decisions granting financial assistance under the above mentioned Regulation.

The information related to Spanish projects was published in the following Official Journals:

| — | Year 2000: OJ C 361, 17.12.2001, p. 9; |
| --- | --- |

—

Year 2000: OJ C 361, 17.12.2001, p. 9;

| — | Year 2001: OJ C 126, 28.5.2002, p. 3; |
| --- | --- |

—

Year 2001: OJ C 126, 28.5.2002, p. 3;

| — | Year 2002: OJ C 123, 24.5.2003, p. 6. |
| --- | --- |

—

Year 2002: OJ C 123, 24.5.2003, p. 6.

Projects for which financing has been requested under the Cohesion Fund but which are still being processed or that have been approved in 2003 are set out in Annex I to this response. A list of those large projects in the hydrological field, as defined by Article 25 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 on Structural Funds, that have been notified by the Member State are enclosed in Annex II.

These annexes are sent directly to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat.

---

(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.

(2)  OJ L 130, 25.5.1994.

(3)  OJ L 161, 26.6.1999.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/661 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/661

---

(2004/C 78 E/0704)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3861/03

by Heide Rühle (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(8 December 2003)

Subject:   Export guarantee by the German Federal Government for Finnish nuclear reactor

Following the decision of the Finnish Government to build a fifth nuclear reactor in Finland, at Olkiluoto, a decision is to be taken before the end of 2003 as to which firms apart from the Finnish TVO consortium (Teollisuuden Voima) are to be involved in building the reactor. In order to guarantee the possible involvement of the German Siemens group in Olkiluoto, the German Federal Government intends to approve an application by Siemens for a ‘Hermes guarantee’. A State guarantee of this kind — which is generally only available for the promotion of exports outside the EU — would substantially reduce the commercial risk borne by Siemens in connection with this project and would above all make it possible for Siemens to borrow money for its participation in the building of the Finnish reactor at significantly lower interest rates. The French group Framatome is also bidding to build the reactor.

Does this State guarantee for Siemens' proposed export transaction within the EU violate the relevant European provisions on State aid, particularly Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty, pursuant to which ‘any aid granted by a Member State or through State resources in any form whatsoever’ is incompatible with the common market? Does the Commission know, furthermore, whether the French Government is likewise supporting the commercial plans of Framatome in Olkiluoto by means of an export guarantee? If so, is this compatible with EC law on State aid? Have the Commission or the Court of Justice of the EC in the past issued any rulings on similar cases (relating to export guarantees)?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(26 January 2004)

As for the first part of the question, Siemens has announced that it will not apply for the State guarantee referred to by the Honourable Member.

The Commission is not aware of any support by the French Government in favour of Framatome by means of a similar export guarantee.

Neither the Commission, nor the Court of Justice have ever taken position on export guarantees in the nuclear field. Under the EC Treaty the Commission has always considered export aid within the Union incompatible with the State aid rules and other fundamental principles (e.g. Article 10 of the EC Treaty) as it is considered as one of the most distortive types of aid (see, e.g. the Communication of the Commission to the Member States pursuant to Article 93(1) of the EC Treaty applying Articles 92 and 93 of the Treaty to short-term export-credit insurance (1)). As for the Euratom Treaty, it does not foresee specific provisions on export aid.

---

(1)  OJ C 281, 17.9.1997, as amended in 2001, OJ C 217, 2.8.2001.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/661 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/661

---

(2004/C 78 E/0705)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3862/03

by Sebastiano Musumeci (UEN) to the Commission

(8 December 2003)

Subject:   Community funding for the bridge over the Straits of Messina

With more than five million inhabitants Sicily is the most heavily populated island in the Mediterranean.

Although the bridge over the Straits of Messina is not a cross-border project it is a fundamental link in the Berlin-Palermo transport axis.

The concessionaire Stretto di Messina SpA has drawn up a financial plan without any public contribution and will therefore proceed according to the announced timetable, starting with the selection of the general contractor at the beginning of 2004.

A European contribution to the funding of investments would make the project easier to carry out by reducing the financial risks and the time needed to pay off the investment, and would hence improve the overall feasibility.

Excluding the bridge project from the ‘quick-start list’ would entail a considerable financial burden to be borne by the users alone.

The important Declaration No 30 annexed to the Amsterdam Treaty, mentioned by the French Presidency in Nice in December 2000, ‘recognises that island regions suffer from structural handicaps linked to their island status, the permanence of which impairs their economic and social development’.

In view of this does the Commission not consider that it should once again consider including the bridge over the Straits of Messina among the major projects benefiting from Community funding?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(9 January 2004)

Financing of transport infrastructure in Southern Italy falls within the ambit of the National Transport Operational Programme and the Regional Operational Programmes.

For the period 2000-2006 EUR 1 801 313 000 has been allocated from the European Regional Development Fund for projects in the National Programme and EUR 1 058 479 469 from the same Fund for transport infrastructure covered by the Regional Programmes. More specifically, the Fund's contribution to transport projects under the Calabrian and Sicilian programmes has been set at EUR 1 36 048 000 and EUR 295 376 000 respectively.

Selection of the infrastructure projects to be financed is a matter for the national and regional authorities running the Operational Programmes. For that purpose the national and regional planning instruments for the sector are used (general document on transport and logistics, regional transport plans).

A bridge over the Straits of Messina is not at present included in the projects selected by the Italian authorities for Community financing in implementation of the Operational Programmes managed by the Transport Ministry and Calabria and Sicily Regions.

On 1 October 2003 the Commission however proposed further modifications of the trans-European transport network (TEN-T) guidelines and the TEN-T financial rules that are designed to facilitate agreement by Council and Parliament so that, as requested by the European Council, amended provisions can enter into force as soon as possible. The Commission's aims are adjustment to the post-enlargement situation and concentration of resources on priority projects. Among the 29 such projects scheduled in the new proposal for implementation by 2020 is the mixed (passenger and freight) rail axis Berlin-Verona/Milan-Bologna-Naples-Messina-Palermo, including a bridge over the Straits of Messina.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/662 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/662

---

(2004/C 78 E/0706)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3872/03

by Alexander de Roo (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(16 December 2003)

Subject:   Impact of EU investment in the Júcar-Vinalopó water transfer

The agreement between the users of the Júcar-Vinalopó water transfer and the state company Aguas del Júcar S.A. of 13 July 2001 explicitly states that neither Spanish state investments, nor those of the EU, described as ‘rest of the investment’ will have any impact on item (c) of Clause III of the Agreement. This money will not be reclaimed from the users, neither in the form of water tariffs, nor repayments, nor operational costs, nor in any other way.

Does the Commission not believe that treating Community funding in this way runs counter to the following Community obligations: transparency in managing and applying European funds (recitals 26 and 57 and Articles 17 to 19, 34, 36 and 46 of Regulation 1260/1999 (1)); the ban on distorting competition within the internal market by means of state aids (EC Treaty Article 87); the protection of the Community's financial interests (EC Treaty Article 280); and the obligations on economic transparency and the need to take due account of the principle of recovery of the costs of water-related services (Article 9 and Annex III of Directive 2600/60/EC (2)?

On 2 June 2003, the Spanish state's own lawyers recognised the independence of the nature of public funds relative to the issue of including, within the regulation levies and water use tariffs, the monetary sums financed with European funds in water regulation schemes.

Furthermore, account needs to be taken of the fact that 35 hm3 per year, of a total of 80 hm3 planned for this water transfer, are intended for urban supply, for which it has been standard practice for years that the users repay the investment via the tariffs. In the case of the Alicantí and Marína Baja, the fresh supplies are basically designed to meet current rising tourist demand. This means that the Commission would be funding, on a no-return basis, the Spanish tourist industry. Can the Commission accept this situation?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(4 February 2004)

The Commission is collecting the information it needs to answer the question. It will communicate its findings as soon as possible.

---

(1)  OJ L 161, 26.6.1999, p. 1.

(2)  OJ L 327, 22.12.2000, p. 1.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/663 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/663

---

(2004/C 78 E/0707)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3874/03

by Francesco Fiori (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(16 December 2003)

Subject:   Imports into the EU of uncertified active pharmaceutical ingredients

Imports from outside the EU (mostly from India, China and other emerging Asian nations) of active ingredients which have not received inspection certificates from any European authority are threatening to cause lasting damage to Italy's producers of active ingredients for the pharmaceutical industry. The products concerned enter the EU accompanied only by paper documentation (the Certificate of Suitability or COS) stating that they conform to the contents of the European Pharmacopeia. This is not a sufficient health guarantee. Italy's producers of active ingredients for the global pharmaceutical industry enjoy a reputation for excellence, thanks to the quality and reliability of their products, which are guaranteed by following Good Manufacturing Practices (GMP) in line with the European guidelines (‘GMP Guide for Active Pharmaceutical Ingredients’), and to the fact that the products have been inspected either by the American Food and Drug Administration or by the Italian health ministry.

Given the above, what action will the Commission take with a view to protecting the health of the European public from imports of active ingredients for the pharmaceutical industry produced by companies from the above-named countries?

Does the Commission not consider that the Community's principles imply the need for harmonised rules placing all producers under the same conditions of competitiveness and reliability in the Community context, with safeguards against international competition based on product quality, especially in the case of products relating to human health?

Does the Commission not consider it necessary to propose and implement at European level a Community regulation to deal with this entire problem and ensure, through inspections of imports, suitable guarantees and standards of precautionary protection for substances and pharmaceuticals consumed within the Union?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(5 February 2004)

Present Union pharmaceutical legislation does not foresee any obligation for Active Pharmaceutical Ingredients (APIs) to be produced according to Good Manufacturing Practice (GMP) standards. Therefore, being aware of this situation, the Commission adopted on 26 November 2001 new legislative proposals (1) that introduce the requirement for pharmaceutical manufacturers to only use active substances which have been manufactured according to GMP requirements for medicinal products. After agreement has been reached, following the second reading in the Parliament on 17 December 2003, the Commission is now anticipating the final adoption of the new legislation in early 2004. Bearing in mind the 18 month implementation period of the new legislation, the provisions for APIs could be applicable from the end of 2005.

Nevertheless, the current situation in the Union already makes it possible that GMP inspections of API manufacturers may voluntarily be carried out by the competent authorities of Member States whenever these authorities find reasons for concern. In those cases, Union inspectors may conduct inspections against the requirements of Annex 18 (‘Good Manufacturing Practice for Active Pharmaceutical Ingredients’) to the Union Guide to Good Manufacturing Practice, which already covers internationally agreed GMP standards for APIs. This guideline will become mandatory as soon as the new legislation enters into force.

---

(1)  Proposals for Directives of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive 2001/83/EC on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use and amending Directive 2001/82/EC on the Community code relating to veterinary medicinal products.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/664 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/664

---

(2004/C 78 E/0708)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3877/03

by Francesco Fiori (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(16 December 2003)

Subject:   Breach of Community principles — Article 24 of Law 289/2002

Article 26 of the Italian law No 488 of 23 December 1999 lays down the rules governing the supply of goods and services to the public sector on the basis of procedures open to public scrutiny. Article 24(3) of Law No 289 of 27 December 2002 reinforces the obligation to use the framework conventions defined by the Consip SpA for the bodies indicated in table C and for institutional bodies.

The general principles which, according to the Italian government, underlie this provision are the objectives of competition and transparency, with the aim of achieving savings, containing expenditure and ensuring efficiency in the supply systems concerned.

Nonetheless, the Italian government intends to pursue those objectives via the above-mentioned law, which appears to be in breach of both the Italian constitution (numerous regions have appealed to the Constitutional Court on the same point) and Community law and principles. Three points may be raised here:

| (a) | the opportunity given to the Italian legislative branch of independently revising (downwards) the Community threshold set by the Community directives and by the corresponding incorporating laws; |
| --- | --- |

(a)

the opportunity given to the Italian legislative branch of independently revising (downwards) the Community threshold set by the Community directives and by the corresponding incorporating laws;

| (b) | inconsistency of the centralised supply system mediated through the Consip procedures with Community competition law; |
| --- | --- |

(b)

inconsistency of the centralised supply system mediated through the Consip procedures with Community competition law;

| (c) | the creation of a legislative and administrative framework unfavourable to the development of small businesses. |
| --- | --- |

(c)

the creation of a legislative and administrative framework unfavourable to the development of small businesses.

In view of the above, what measures will the Commission take in support of the SMEs' associations whose members appear to be the inevitable target of this legislation?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(2 February 2004)

The Commission has examined the legal aspects relating to the centralised procurement system set up in Italy by Consip on a number of occasions and has never found any breach of Community law which would warrant instituting infringement proceedings. It would first like to draw the Honourable Member's attention to the proposal for a Parliament and Council Directive on the coordination of procedures for the award of public supply, services and works contracts which is intended to replace the three directive currently in force. Article 11 of the common position adopted by the Council on 20 March 2003 does in fact lay down that ‘Member States may provide for the possibility of contracting authorities procuring works, supplies and/or services by having recourse to purchasing groups’, adding that ‘contracting authorities which procure works, supplies and/or services by having recourse to a purchasing group ... shall be deemed to have complied with the provisions of this Directive provided that the purchasing group has complied with them.’

First of all, with regard to the Honourable Member's statement that Italy might revise the application threshold set by the Community directives for public contracts downwards, it should be noted that the provisions of these Community directives impose minimum obligations on the Member States, whilst allowing the latter to set stricter rules in order to open up public contracts to wider and more general competition. Indeed, as the Court of Justice has often repeated, the Community directives in question are legislative texts which coordinate, but do not harmonise, procedures for the award of public contracts at European level.

Furthermore, it should be observed that from the point of view of Community law, all public contracts are — in principle — subject to disclosure obligations. For contracts in which the amount is lower than the Community thresholds, as the Court of Justice has clarified in its case-law, there is an obligation to ensure that they have been adequately advertised, taking into account the amount and nature of the contract. It is up to the Member States to determine how these should be advertised, leaving them free to decide whether this should be done at European level, notably through publication in the Official Journal of the European Union (1).

In the light of the foregoing, it should be explained that the application threshold in the directives has not been amended by the provision in the law mentioned by the Honourable Member. It is clear that the national legislator, in simply referring to the application of the national rules transposing the aforementioned Community directives, wished to refer in full to the methods of publication provided for by these provisions, including in particular those relating to the publication of a contract notice in the Official Journal of the European Union.

Secondly, with regard to the comment that the centralisation of procurement would create a legislative and administrative environment which was unfavourable to the development of small businesses (SMEs), the Commission would emphasise that the issue of the impact of centralising procurement through the Consip on reference markets and particularly on the activity of SMEs is a problem which falls within the competence of the national competition authority, which has already looked at the system in question on a number of occasions, as, on a more general level, have the competent political and administrative authorities.

In this respect, the Commission would add that it is aware of the fact that the national competition authority has sent a number of recommendations to the Consip which seek to avoid excessive restrictions on competition in the invitations to tender it launches — recommendations which the Consip does in fact seem to follow. In addition, the national political and administrative authorities, i.e. the government, Parliament and Consip, have recently held talks on how to limit the potential negative effects of the aforementioned centralised procurement system on the activities of small and medium-sized enterprises.

The Commission would point out that the recent Decree-Law No 143/2003, which was converted into Law No 212/2003 published in the national Official Journal 131/L of 11 August 2003, made significant changes to the field in question — including, in particular, the annulment of Article 24(3) in Law No 289/2002 mentioned by the Honourable Member — precisely in order to reduce the impact of the centralised procurement system on the activities of small and medium-sized enterprises. According to information currently at the Commission's disposal, other changes to the legislation in force are planned as part of the process of approving the financial law for 2004.

---

(1)  This possibility is, moreover, explicitly covered by the aforementioned directives, which lay down — see Article 13 of Directive 93/36/EEC for supplies and Article 21 of directive 92/50/EEC for services — that contracting authorities may arrange for the publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities of notices announcing public supply and service contracts which are not subject to the publication requirement laid down in these Directives.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/666 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/666

---

(2004/C 78 E/0709)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3878/03

by Johannes Blokland (EDD) to the Commission

(16 December 2003)

Subject:   Research into the effects of medicinal products on children

| 1. | Is the Commission aware that the majority — possibly 70 % — of medicinal products prescribed for children have not undergone any research to ascertain their effects on patients of this age group? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is the Commission aware that the majority — possibly 70 % — of medicinal products prescribed for children have not undergone any research to ascertain their effects on patients of this age group?

| 2. | What percentage of medicinal products evaluated by the European Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal Products (EMEA) have also been found to be suitable for use by children? |
| --- | --- |

2.

What percentage of medicinal products evaluated by the European Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal Products (EMEA) have also been found to be suitable for use by children?

| 3. | What efforts is the Commission making to encourage manufacturers to perform more research into the effects of medicinal products on children? |
| --- | --- |

3.

What efforts is the Commission making to encourage manufacturers to perform more research into the effects of medicinal products on children?

| 4. | Is Community funding made available for such research, and if so, what are the relevant appropriations and how are they being used? |
| --- | --- |

4.

Is Community funding made available for such research, and if so, what are the relevant appropriations and how are they being used?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(30 January 2004)

| 1. | The Commission is fully aware that many medicines used to treat children are not specifically studied nor authorised for such use, and is working to remedy the situation. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The Commission is fully aware that many medicines used to treat children are not specifically studied nor authorised for such use, and is working to remedy the situation.

| 2. | In October 2003, the European Medicines Evaluation Agency (EMEA) performed a review of the authorisation status for children of the 191 active substances used in medicines authorised through the Community procedure, on the basis of an EMEA scientific evaluation. Sixty-two (32 %) were appropriately authorised for the use of children. Of the remaining active substances 51 (27 % ) were medicines indicated for diseases not relevant to children (e.g. cancers occurring only in adults). |
| --- | --- |

2.

In October 2003, the European Medicines Evaluation Agency (EMEA) performed a review of the authorisation status for children of the 191 active substances used in medicines authorised through the Community procedure, on the basis of an EMEA scientific evaluation. Sixty-two (32 %) were appropriately authorised for the use of children. Of the remaining active substances 51 (27 % ) were medicines indicated for diseases not relevant to children (e.g. cancers occurring only in adults).

| 3. | Current Community pharmaceutical legislation does not compel industry to study medicines for the use on children. However, the existing regulatory framework already provides incentives to orphan products. Regulation (EC) No 141/2000 of the Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 1999 on orphan medicinal products (1) provides incentives to the pharmaceutical industry to develop and authorise medicinal products for serious, rare diseases where no satisfactory method of treatment exists. This legislation applies equally to diseases affecting children and adults.
  In 2000, following major input from the Union, the International Conference on Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Registration of Pharmaceuticals for Human Use (ICH) guideline E11: ‘Clinical Investigation of Medicinal Products in the Paediatric Population’ was finalised and implemented in the Union.
  In 2001, the European Medicines Evaluation Agency set up the Paediatric Expert Group of the Committee for Proprietary Medicinal Products. The Paediatric Expert Group provides advice on the study and use of medicines for children and is developing guidance for investigators and the industry on such use.
  Following a resolution of the Council of Ministers, the Commission has been developing and consulting on proposals for a new Regulation that aims specifically to address the need for greater study and authorisation of medicines for children. The Commissions' proposals are currently the subject of an extended impact assessment (EIA) that is due to report in the first quarter of 2004. Following the results of the EIA, it will be possible to finalise the proposals for adoption by the Commission. Pending the results of the EIA, to speed up the legislative process, the Commission has set up an informal ad-hoc working group of the Pharmaceutical Committee (which has representation from all Member States) to advice on its informal draft proposal. In addition, the Commission is continuing its discussions with other stakeholder groups. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Current Community pharmaceutical legislation does not compel industry to study medicines for the use on children. However, the existing regulatory framework already provides incentives to orphan products. Regulation (EC) No 141/2000 of the Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 1999 on orphan medicinal products (1) provides incentives to the pharmaceutical industry to develop and authorise medicinal products for serious, rare diseases where no satisfactory method of treatment exists. This legislation applies equally to diseases affecting children and adults.

In 2000, following major input from the Union, the International Conference on Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Registration of Pharmaceuticals for Human Use (ICH) guideline E11: ‘Clinical Investigation of Medicinal Products in the Paediatric Population’ was finalised and implemented in the Union.

In 2001, the European Medicines Evaluation Agency set up the Paediatric Expert Group of the Committee for Proprietary Medicinal Products. The Paediatric Expert Group provides advice on the study and use of medicines for children and is developing guidance for investigators and the industry on such use.

Following a resolution of the Council of Ministers, the Commission has been developing and consulting on proposals for a new Regulation that aims specifically to address the need for greater study and authorisation of medicines for children. The Commissions' proposals are currently the subject of an extended impact assessment (EIA) that is due to report in the first quarter of 2004. Following the results of the EIA, it will be possible to finalise the proposals for adoption by the Commission. Pending the results of the EIA, to speed up the legislative process, the Commission has set up an informal ad-hoc working group of the Pharmaceutical Committee (which has representation from all Member States) to advice on its informal draft proposal. In addition, the Commission is continuing its discussions with other stakeholder groups.

| 4. | An emphasis is also put on child health in Priority 1 of the Union's 6th Framework Programme for Research and Technological Development. This thematic priority will stimulate and sustain multi-disciplinary basic research to exploit the full potential of genome information to underpin applications to human health. The specific programme for research, technological development and demonstration: ‘Integrating and strengthening the European Research Area’ (2002-2006) mentions that ‘attention will be paid to childhood diseases and related treatments, whenever appropriate’. Some topics of the Work Programmes of this Priority are clearly devoted to children, for instance ‘Medicines for children’, or ‘Rare autoimmune disorders: from genes to individualised medicine’ including paediatric diseases. Even if topics do not specifically mention children, proposals selected for funding may contain parts referring to, or centred on, children health. It is then to be expected that the results deriving from those projects will directly benefit children, for instance through the better understanding of disease mechanisms, and the development of new diagnostic tools and new therapeutic agents.
  As regards the public health programme, there are possibilities to fund projects on public health aspects of pharmaceuticals. The priorities and the specific research areas are identified in the annual work plans. |
| --- | --- |

4.

An emphasis is also put on child health in Priority 1 of the Union's 6th Framework Programme for Research and Technological Development. This thematic priority will stimulate and sustain multi-disciplinary basic research to exploit the full potential of genome information to underpin applications to human health. The specific programme for research, technological development and demonstration: ‘Integrating and strengthening the European Research Area’ (2002-2006) mentions that ‘attention will be paid to childhood diseases and related treatments, whenever appropriate’. Some topics of the Work Programmes of this Priority are clearly devoted to children, for instance ‘Medicines for children’, or ‘Rare autoimmune disorders: from genes to individualised medicine’ including paediatric diseases. Even if topics do not specifically mention children, proposals selected for funding may contain parts referring to, or centred on, children health. It is then to be expected that the results deriving from those projects will directly benefit children, for instance through the better understanding of disease mechanisms, and the development of new diagnostic tools and new therapeutic agents.

As regards the public health programme, there are possibilities to fund projects on public health aspects of pharmaceuticals. The priorities and the specific research areas are identified in the annual work plans.

---

(1)  OJ L 18, 22.1.2000.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/667 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/667

---

(2004/C 78 E/0710)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3882/03

by Cristina Gutiérrez-Cortines (PPE-DE), Bernd Lange (PSE), Karl-Heinz Florenz (PPE-DE) and Ria Oomen-Ruijten (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(16 December 2003)

Subject:   Inspire initiative

EU policies with spatial incidence such as Natura 2000 Network, the Framework Directive on Water and the future policy on Soil Protection, amongst others, need wide environmental information based on cartography in order to be implemented.

The European Parliament urged the Commission to tackle this issue rapidly in its report on the Thematic Strategy on Soil Protection (A5-0354/03), passed on 19 November.

In this sense we welcome the legislative initiative Inspire, to which Commissioners Solbes, Busquin and Wallström engaged themselves in the Memorandum of Agreement of 2002 and the Work Programme of the Commission for 2003.

The information offered by the Commission on the Internet has shown great progress towards the fulfilment of this initiative, thanks to the contributions of public and private bodies and to the support of the Member States and of the accession countries.

We are aware that unless there is a legal mandate, the barriers to further development in the collection of information will not be removed, and consequently the implementation of Community policies with spatial incidence would be significantly delayed. That is why we understand that the initiative Inspire is the appropriate instrument.

Will the Commission adopt the legislative initiative Inspire as intended in the above instruments, and will it keep its promise about the dates indicated in them?

Should this be the case, could the Commission brief us about progress so far on the main lines of the future proposal?

Should this not be the case, could the Commission explain the reasons for the change of position about the dates indicated in the Memorandum of Agreement and in the Work Programme?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(5 February 2004)

The Memorandum of Understanding on Inspire signed in 2002 by the Member of the Commission responsible for Environment, the one responsible for Economic and Financial Affairs and the one responsible for Research serves as a basis for the collaboration between Directorate-General (DG) Environment, Eurostat and the Joint Research Centre to develop the Inspire initiative. The principle objective of Inspire is to make available harmonised sources of geographical information to support the formulation, implementation and evaluation of Community policies.

As explained in the Memorandum of Understanding, the first phase of the initiative is to define a legal framework providing for the co-ordination of the collection, usage of and access to geographical information. The Commission had, consistent with the Memorandum of Understanding, scheduled the adoption of a legal framework for Inspire in its 2003 work programme, which also entailed the elaboration of an extended impact assessment.

However, due to the pressure of other legislative proposals in late 2003, the Commission was obliged to defer its adoption of the Inspire initiative. Furthermore, the extended impact assessment had highlighted issues surrounding the level of ambition of Inspire and the potential investment needs for its implementation, which required some further reflexion.

The Commission has, therefore, carried forward the Inspire proposal to the Commission's 2004 work programme. Inspire remains an independent initiative but ensures that synergies can be developed with other related actions in the spirit of a complementary approach. The issues raised in the impact assesment report on investment needs will be addressed by ensuring that the scope of Inspire is targeted on the key requirements of a Community initiative and by revising the analysis of the impacts accordingly.

Strengthened by the support for Inspire expressed by many stakeholders, the Commission remains committed and is determined to finalise the legal proposal on Inspire for adoption during the second quarter of 2004, as a first step toward the creation of a multi-sectoral framework for handling and accessing information with a spatial dimension based on a common geographical framework.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/669 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/669

---

(2004/C 78 E/0711)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3893/03

by Chris Davies (ELDR) to the Commission

(10 December 2003)

Subject:   Health warnings on cigarette packs

The Commission is currently preparing a library file of illustrations and graphic warnings intended to be used to complement written health warnings on cigarette packs while conforming to the requirements of the single market.

When does the Commission now expect this work to be complete, and from what date will those Member States that wish to require tobacco manufacturers to print such visual warnings on cigarette packs be able to do so?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(19 January 2004)

The Commission expects the work on the library of colour photographs, or other illustrations intended to be used to complement written health warnings on cigarette packets, to be completed by 30 September 2004. The library will be at the disposal of the Member States after this time.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/669 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/669

---

(2004/C 78 E/0712)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3894/03

by Ian Hudghton (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(10 December 2003)

Subject:   Objective One status — Highlands and Islands of Scotland

With reference to Oral Question and Answer H-0809/02 (1), has the Commission been informed by the UK Office of National Statistics, or by the UK Government, that the data compiled in preparation for the 1999 funding bid for Objective One status for the Scottish Highlands and Islands may have been inaccurate?

What is the view of the Commission should the data prove to have been inaccurate?

What is the view of the Commission on the interpretation of Regulation 1260/1999 (2) should data used in the consideration of eligibility for Objective One funding prove to have been inaccurate, as opposed to unavailable, at the requisite time?

Is the Commission aware of any Community law provision which would prevent a Member State Government from compensating a region of that state for the loss of Objective One funding, should the Member State Government have submitted a defective funding bid?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(22 January 2004)

The Commission confirms that it has received no communication from the Office for National Statistics (ONS) or the United Kingdom Government on the accuracy of data relating to the Highlands and Islands.

On the question of the possible revision of the list of areas eligible under Objective 1, the Commission refers the Honourable Member to the response it gave to his oral question H-0809/02 (3) during Parliament's plenary session of December II 2002.

---

(1)  Written answer of 17.12.2002.

(2)  OJ L 161, 26.6.1999, p. 1.

(3)  Written answer of 17.12.2002.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/670 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/670

---

(2004/C 78 E/0713)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3899/03

by Olivier Dupuis (NI) to the Commission

(17 December 2003)

Subject:   Meeting of EU-Lao PDR Joint Committee

Article 14 of the Cooperation Agreement between the EU and Laos states that ‘the Joint Committee [ ...] shall normally meet every other year, alternately in Vientiane and in Brussels, on a date fixed by mutual agreement. Extraordinary meetings may also be convened by agreement between the Parties’. However, according to well-informed sources, in spite of this rule the meeting which should have been planned for last November apparently did not take place, because at least one of the two parties did not believe there were any important or urgent issues to discuss.

Does the Commission not believe that there are certain issues which are sufficiently important and urgent to warrant a meeting of the Joint Committee being held? Such issues include the ‘enforced disappearances’ of the regime's opponents, such as the five student leaders of the 26 October 1999 Movement, the fact that Mr Latsamy Khamphoui, a former minister of the Lao People's Democratic Republic (Lao PDR), has now been in prison for over 13 years, and that Mr Feng Sackchittaphong, a former senior civil servant at the Ministry of Justice, is being held in the forced labour camp ‘Number 7’ for having published an open letter criticising the highest Laotian authorities, the cruel repression of the Hmong people and the Christian communities in Laos, the arrest and sentencing this summer of two European journalists, a Lao-American interpreter and three Laotians during a show trial, the generalised corruption, the failure to reform a judicial system which is entirely under the control of the single ruling party, the widespread practice of torture, the involvement of high-ranking dignitaries of the regime in all kinds of illegal trafficking (precious woods, drugs, precious stones etc.) and, more generally, the denial of freedom of speech, freedom of association, freedom of religion and other fundamental freedoms, which are the principles upon which the EU-Laos Cooperation Agreement is based. Furthermore, does the Commission not believe that in its relations with the Lao PDR the EU should place a great deal more emphasis on issues such as those mentioned above, on which the European Parliament has given its opinion on several occasions?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(30 January 2004)

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.

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 Commission and the government of Lao PDR to demonstrate their commitment to implementing the Human Rights chapter of the Commission-Lao PDR Cooperation Agreement in a more proactive way.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/671 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/671

---

(2004/C 78 E/0714)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3903/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(17 December 2003)

Subject:   Disparities in the treatment of debts by banks in connection with Democratici di Sinistra's unpaid debts

In 1996 the Italian party Democratici di Sinistra (DS) entrusted Beta Immobiliare, a company set up in 1995 with the remit of purchasing, building, managing, transferring and selling property and property rights of all kinds, with the job of putting its accounts in order. With a view to achieving this, the DS party's local federations entrusted Beta Immobiliare with a considerable number of properties, the proceeds from the sale of which would be used to bring the party's accounts out of the red. However, this recovery plan failed. The creditor banks include Monte dei Paschi di Siena, which is owed 27 instalments amounting to several million euro on the four loans it has made to the party. Despite the huge sum involved, the decision-makers at the bank do not appear to wish to demand that the outstanding amounts be paid, and the Bank of Italy's supervisory authorities have failed to take any action on the matter. What is more, the secretary-general of the DS, Mr Fassino, recently proposed that the party be given a 50 % rebate on the debt, with a view to tackling this situation. Although the proposal has not yet been formally accepted, the banks are clearly entertaining the possibility of doing so.

Under these circumstances can the Commission answer the following questions:

| 1. | The normal practice is for banks to instigate recovery proceedings against a client who is in arrears, right from the second unpaid instalment. In this instance, however, no such action has been taken. Would the Commission not agree that this is in breach of the principle of equal treatment for consumers, in that those in a position of power receive preferential treatment while ordinary members of the public are obliged to pay sometimes very high rates of interest, together with charges on every bank transaction and penalties should they ever fall into arrears? |
| --- | --- |

1.

The normal practice is for banks to instigate recovery proceedings against a client who is in arrears, right from the second unpaid instalment. In this instance, however, no such action has been taken. Would the Commission not agree that this is in breach of the principle of equal treatment for consumers, in that those in a position of power receive preferential treatment while ordinary members of the public are obliged to pay sometimes very high rates of interest, together with charges on every bank transaction and penalties should they ever fall into arrears?

| 2. | Would the Commission clarify the European banking laws applying in this instance, with particular reference to provisions on the protection of consumers in their dealings with banks? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Would the Commission clarify the European banking laws applying in this instance, with particular reference to provisions on the protection of consumers in their dealings with banks?

| 3. | Can this situation be viewed as a case of ‘overindebtedness’, on which the Economic and Social Committee has on several occasions given its opinion and on which it has often asked the Commission to take action? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Can this situation be viewed as a case of ‘overindebtedness’, on which the Economic and Social Committee has on several occasions given its opinion and on which it has often asked the Commission to take action?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(5 February 2004)

The matters raised by the Honourable Member fall outside the scope of Community competence.

As the parties involved are not natural persons acting outside their business or professional activities, the Community provisions governing consumer protection to which the Honourable Member refers are not applicable.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/671 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/671

---

(2004/C 78 E/0715)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3910/03

by Amalia Sartori (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(10 December 2003)

Subject:   Domestic accidents and workplaces

Domestic accidents, not only in Italy but world wide, have taken on alarming proportions.

Statistics show that each year well over three million people are affected by such accidents. Of these more than seven thousand die as a result of the accident. As the World Health Organisation points out this type of incident, which affects all age groups, is the main cause of death among young children in developed countries although the worst affected are housewives.

The causes of such accidents are varied. Some are due to absent-mindedness, carelessness, lack of awareness of and/or respect for safety standards, the presence in the home of dangerous equipment or chemical substances. However, they are also very often due to an inadequate safety and prevention culture.

Given that housewives form part of a category of workers who often are not adequately protected, a major step forward might be to consider the domestic environment as a ‘workplace’, contrary to what is stipulated in Council Directive 98/24/EC (1) of 7 April 1998 on the protection of the health and safety of workers from the risks related to chemical agents at work.

Under the Italian law of 3 December 1999 (No 493) on health protection standards in the home and establishment of insurance against domestic accidents (2), the domestic environment is considered to constitute a workplace.

What does the Commission intend to do in this respect?

Does it consider it appropriate to take action in support of housewives along the lines of the relevant Italian legislation?

Answer given by Ms Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(19 January 2004)

The Commission shares the Honourable Member's concern about the number of accidents in the home.

The protection of workers at work is governed by framework 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) and its 17 individual Directives, adopted pursuant to Article 16(1). According to Article 3 of the framework Directive, a worker is ‘any person employed by an employer, including trainees and apprentices but excluding domestic servants’. Housewives, not being employed by an employer in accordance with the definition in Directive 89/391/EEC, do not therefore come within its scope or that of the individual Directives based on it, in particular Council Directive 98/24/EC of 7 April 1998 on the protection of the health and safety of workers from the risks related to chemical agents at work (4), mentioned by the Honourable Member.

It goes without saying that Member States are free to adopt specific measures to protect women's health and safety in the home. The case described by the Honourable Member, i.e. the Italian law of 3 December 1999 (No 493) on health protection standards in the home and establishment of insurance against domestic accidents, is very interesting and could act as an example for other Member States.

However, as the Community legislation in the area of health and safety is based on Article 137 of the EC Treaty, which provides only for the adoption of minimum standards for the protection of workers, the Commission does not envisage taking any specific measures at Community level to include the home environment in the definition of a workplace.

---

(1)  OJ L 131, 5.5.1998, p. 11.

(2)  Published in Official Gazette No 303 of 28 December 1999.

(3)  OJ L 183, 29.6.1989.

(4)  OJ L 131, 5.5.1998.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/673 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/673

---

(2004/C 78 E/0716)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3913/03

by Ole Krarup (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(17 December 2003)

Subject:   Oil extraction agreement: granting of authorisations

Does the Commission consider that 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 meets the requirement that authorisations ‘shall be granted on the basis of objective and non-discriminatory principles’ (Article 13 of Directive 94/22/EC (1) on the conditions for granting and using authorisations for the prospection, exploration and production of hydrocarbons)? If so, is it aware of any examples of comparable concession conditions?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(6 February 2004)

The Commission has asked the Member State concerned for information regarding the facts raised to by the Honourable Member. It will inform him of its findings.

---

(1)  OJ L 164, 30.6.1994, p. 3.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/673 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/673

---

(2004/C 78 E/0717)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3915/03

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

(17 December 2003)

Subject:   Forced repatriation to Vietnam of Montagnard refugees by the Cambodian government and the repeated violation of the UN Convention on Refugees

According to a report by Radio Free Asia, in mid-November 2003 the Cambodian authorities forcibly repatriated the last eleven of sixty Montagnard refugees in Cambodia, handing them over to the Vietnamese authorities when they left the malaria-infected forest last July after Cambodian fishermen were forced to reveal their whereabouts to the Cambodian authorities.

All sixty Montagnards belong to the Jarai tribe and the provincial police in Ratanakiri have confirmed their deportation although they have not said exactly when this took place and the inhabitants of the village of O Lvea have confirmed that the last refugees were rounded up and arrested by the police in the forest in Koh Nhek district between Ratanakiri and Mondolkiri provinces. No information concerning the fate of the sixty refugees has been provided either by the Cambodian authorities or by the Vietnamese authorities and reports from the local population confirm that all sixty had contracted malaria after living for months on a diet of tubers and bamboo, as the police had prevented local fishermen from providing them with any assistance since October. The Cambodian police authorities have issued contradictory statements concerning the presence of Montagnard refugees on their territory, failing to provide them with any assistance but handing them over to the Vietnamese authorities in exchange for food and money, as recently documented by various independent sources.

Son Chhay, a Cambodian Member of Parliament from the Sam Rainsy party, and even the King of Cambodia have pointed out in recent months that the government of Cambodia is repeatedly violating the Refugee Convention, under which it has a duty to provide assistance to refugees on its territory.

Cambodian NGOs have repeatedly condemned the impossibility of obtaining information from the government on the situation of the Montagnard refugees and providing them with humanitarian aid; the office of the UNHCR in Cambodia has supported the Cambodian Government's actions in an unacceptable way, suspending all assistance and support for the Montagnard refugees in the provinces bordering Vietnam despite knowing about the arrests, forced repatriation and brutality, as well as the illnesses contracted by hundreds of Montagnard refugees during the past year and a half;

The Commission:

| — | what action, if any, will it take to verify and ensure that the Cambodian government observes the 1951 UN Refugee Convention, putting an end to arrests and the forced repatriation of Montagnard refugees who are fleeing political and religious oppression by the Vietnamese authorities, as condemned by the European Parliament in the resolution adopted in November 2003; |
| --- | --- |

—

what action, if any, will it take to verify and ensure that the Cambodian government observes the 1951 UN Refugee Convention, putting an end to arrests and the forced repatriation of Montagnard refugees who are fleeing political and religious oppression by the Vietnamese authorities, as condemned by the European Parliament in the resolution adopted in November 2003;

| — | what pressure does it intend to put on the UNHCR, both in Geneva and in Cambodia, to guarantee that the Montagnard refugees hiding in the jungle on the border will not be arrested and sold by the Cambodian police to the Vietnamese police who are patrolling the area and frequently crossing the border into Cambodia; |
| --- | --- |

—

what pressure does it intend to put on the UNHCR, both in Geneva and in Cambodia, to guarantee that the Montagnard refugees hiding in the jungle on the border will not be arrested and sold by the Cambodian police to the Vietnamese police who are patrolling the area and frequently crossing the border into Cambodia;

| — | does it not consider that, unless the Cambodian and Vietnamese governments cease this action immediately, the cooperation agreements with them should be suspended as the Commission is effectively financing policies which violate human rights rather than ensuring that they are observed? |
| --- | --- |

—

does it not consider that, unless the Cambodian and Vietnamese governments cease this action immediately, the cooperation agreements with them should be suspended as the Commission is effectively financing policies which violate human rights rather than ensuring that they are observed?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(5 February 2004)

The Commission is aware of the plight of Montagnard refugees crossing the Vietnamese-Cambodian border. While many of these exiles do not seem to have claimed refugee status under the Geneva Convention, effective monitoring of the situation on both sides of the border, including of the fate of those returning to Vietnam, is not possible due to the breakdown of 2001 Tripartite Agreement between Cambodia, Vietnam and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR). The Commission is also aware of the deportations referred to in the question and is trying to obtain independent confirmation of these reports.

The Union is supporting efforts by the UNHCR to find a way out of the present quagmire, encouraging both Cambodia and Vietnam to return to the Tripartite Agreement, or some similar arrangement. The UNHCR has initiated discussions with the Royal Government of Cambodia on the preparation of a new system for dealing with asylum seekers in Cambodia in accordance with both Cambodia's obligations under the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees and the internal law and territorial integrity of the Kingdom. The Commission supports this approach and looks forward to the successful completion of these discussions. The allegations concerning UNHCR support to ‘the Cambodian Government's action in an unacceptable way’, referring to the forced return of refugees to Vietnam, are in our view neither substantiated nor confirmed by reliable sources.

The reference to the respect for Human Rights and democratic principles in the Community Co-operation Agreements with Vietnam and Cambodia enables the Commission to address human rights issues in its bilateral contacts with the Governments of these countries.

As regards Vietnam, the Union, in its Human Rights dialogue as well as during the Troika Heads of Mission visit to the Central Highlands in December 2003, has reiterated concerns about the situation in the Central Highlands and pressed for increased transparency, i.e. through allowing free access of UNHCR and other United Nations bodies.

Finally, the Commission would never ‘finance policies which violate human rights’. Respect for and defense of Human Rights remain at the heart of our dialogue and cooperation with third countries.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/675 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/675

---

(2004/C 78 E/0718)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3918/03

by Georges Berthu (NI) to the Commission

(11 December 2003)

Subject:   Reduced rates of VAT

Before the European Parliament on 3 December 2003, Commissioner Bolkestein stated that the Commission did not intend to submit any new proposal on extending reduced rates of VAT (particularly to work on homes or to restoration), as the Council has expressed reservations about its proposal of 7 July.

However, the proposal of 7 July was broader in scope, and particularly sought to eliminate exemptions, which is a controversial subject.

Would it not be desirable for the Commission to avoid conflicts and to act in accordance with the opinion of the European Parliament (Randzio-Plath report adopted on 4 December 2003, P5TA-PROV (2003) 0547), which wisely proposed extending the experiment with reduced rates of VAT on labour-intensive services, and increase the scope for States to apply reduced rates of VAT, particularly on restoration work?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(19 January 2004)

On 16 December 2003, the Commission adopted a proposal for a Council Directive amending Directive 77/388/EEC (1) so as to extend the facility allowing Member States to apply reduced rates of VAT to certain labour-intensive services and a proposal for a decision extending the period of application of Decision 2000/185/EC (2) authorising Member States to apply a reduced rate of VAT to certain labour-intensive services in accordance with the procedure provided for in Article 28(6) of Directive 77/388/EEC (3).

The extension is intended to allow the nine Member States which currently apply a reduced rate of VAT to labour-intensive services to continue to do so for a further two years up to 31 December 2005, under the same conditions, without altering or extending the scope of the experiment.

This should allow the Council the necessary time to reach unanimous agreement, on the basis of the original Commission proposal (4), on a decision on the future scope of reduced rates of VAT.

The Commission's aim in its proposal of 23 July 2003 was to improve the internal market, notably by simplifying and rationalising the rates of VAT. It proposed in particular to include restaurant services, house repair, maintenance and cleaning services, and home care services in Annex H.

That proposal is still before the Council. It is now up to the Council to reach a final decision on reduced rates of VAT in the light of Parliament's opinion.

---

(1)  Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment, OJ L 145, 13.6.1977.

(2)  Council Decision 2000/185/EC of 28 February 2000 authorising Member States to apply a reduced rate of VAT to certain labour-intensive services in accordance with the procedure provided for in Article 28(6) of Directive 77/388/EEC, OJ L 59, 4.3.2000.

(3)  COM(2003) 825 final.

(4)  COM(2003) 397 final.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/676 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/676

---

(2004/C 78 E/0719)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3922/03

by María Bergaz Conesa (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(18 December 2003)

Subject:   Projects co-funded by the Commission as part of the National Hydrological Plan

The Spanish Environment Ministry regularly publishes various figures concerning the number of NHP projects and Annex II to Law 889 (on building works and projects) which have secured EU funding. However, the Commission's DG on Regional Policy has replied to all questions and requests for information in this connection with the statement that it possesses no NHP building project references, since the requests for funding arrive without explicit reference to the NHP, bearing reference numbers different from the abbreviations used in the NHP Law. This is a worrying situation, above all in terms of the cumulative environmental effects and synergies of the various building projects.

Can the Commission submit a report on the co-funding, making reference to each NHP project?

Should the DG on Regional Policy not request that the Spanish Government from now on, identify each building project included in the NHP Law with a specific reference to the latter, so as to facilitate the monitoring of NHP projects?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(4 February 2004)

The Commission refers the Honourable Member to the response given to the question E-2288/01.

It should also be noted that Annex II of Spanish law 10/2001 on the National Hydrological Plan (SNHP) referred to by the Honourable Member includes a listing of investments consisting of several hundreds of projects. The Spanish authorities have submitted a number of these projects for financing in the framework of the financial instruments and programming documents mentioned in the response referred to above, without specifically informing the Commission whether they are included in the SNHP, as this is not a necessary requirement.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/676 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/676

---

(2004/C 78 E/0720)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3943/03

by Daniel Cohn-Bendit (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(22 December 2003)

Subject:   Temporary Nationality and Entry into Israel law

The need for an urgent change of the social, political and economic status of the Arab minority in Israel and its attempt to gain minority recognition and rights is widely known. At present, as the deadlock in the implementation of the road map seems to be insurmountable, further efforts should be made within Israeli society for a real reconciliation between all of its components, and these could be regarded as a first step to restart the peace process.

Unfortunately on 31 July 2003 the Israeli Knesset enacted the temporary Nationality and Entry into Israel law prohibiting citizenship, permanent residency and temporary residency status to West Bank/Gaza Palestinians married to Israeli citizens. This law forbids residents of the Occupied Territories married to Israeli citizens or Palestinian residents in Israel to live lawfully in Israel with their companion. Furthermore it aims at preventing family unification and will also apply retroactively, affecting tens of thousands of couples. The fulfilment of this law will split nearly 22 000 families.

This law directly discriminates against Arab citizens of Israel, as a majority of Israelis married to residents of the Occupied Territories belongs to the Palestinian minority of Israel. Thus it contravenes many international human rights instruments ratified by Israel with regard, in particular, to Article 5 of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination ratified by Israel in 1979.

Is not the Commission of the opinion that this law violates Article 2 of the Association Agreement between the EU and Israel? What steps does the Commission intend to take in order to convince the competent Israeli authorities to abolish this law or not to implement it?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(30 January 2004)

The Commission has taken note that the Knesset approved in July 2003 the Nationality and Entry into Israel Law (Temporary Order). In the Commission's view, this order raises issues of concern in relation to potential discrimination in the highly sensitive area of family rights. The Commission has already expressed these concerns in Israel, and is following carefully the developments relating to the practical modalities of this law. The Commission is also following carefully the observations of the United Nations Human Rights Committee and the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination on the matter. Under the Union-Israel Association Agreement, Israeli respect for human rights constitutes an essential element of its relationship with the Union. Matters relating to human rights are discussed in the framework of the political dialogue held between the Union and Israel under the Association Agreement.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/677 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/677

---

(2004/C 78 E/0721)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3951/03

by Alexander de Roo (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(22 December 2003)

Subject:   Genetically modified GloFish

On Monday, 5 January 2004 the US firm Yorktown Technologies plans to start marketing the first genetically modified pets. The GloFish is a genetically modified zebra fish. A green fluorescent gene from a jellyfish and a red fluorescent gene from a sea anemone make the zebra fish glow green or red in the dark under ultraviolet light. The GloFish was originally developed in Singapore as an indicator for toxic substances in water, as the fish lights up red when it comes into contact with poisonous substances. This transgenic zebra fish is now in danger of becoming a sought-after pet, at a price of USD 5.

Does the European Commission not agree that the genetic modification of these fish is in breach of the Protocol on protection and welfare of animals included in the 1997 Treaty of Amsterdam?

What steps does the European Commission intend to take to prevent the import and sale of such fish in the European Union, in line with the current moratorium on GM products?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(10 February 2004)

In relation to the animal welfare aspects of this question, the Commission currently has no information as to whether the genetic modification of this particular species would compromise its general welfare when kept as a pet in a domestic aquarium.

No animal welfare rules exist at Community level for fish kept as pets, and therefore this aspect is entirely within the competence of the Member States.

With regard to the import and commercial exploitation of genetically modified fish within the European Community, the Commission would like to point out that, under 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 (1), a GMO cannot be marketed in the European Union without first obtaining authorisation for placing on the market in accordance with part C of the Directive, based on a case-by-case scientific evaluation of the potential risks that the GMO in question could pose to human health and the environment. To date no request has been made to release the organism in question into the environment for experimental or commercial purposes.

---

(1)  OJ L 106, 17.4.2001.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/678 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/678

---

(2004/C 78 E/0722)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3953/03

by Catherine Stihler (PSE) to the Commission

(22 December 2003)

Subject:   Wheelchair design specifications

Can the Commission inform me whether there is a European standard for wheelchair design specifications?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(29 January 2004)

Wheelchairs are medical devices and, as such, fall under the scope of Council Directive 93/42/EEC of 14 June 1993 concerning medical devices (1).

The following European Standards exist for wheelchairs.

When complied with, they give presumption of conformity with the relevant essential requirements.

| — | EN 12183: 1999 rev, on manually propelled wheelchairs — requirements and test methods; |
| --- | --- |

—

EN 12183: 1999 rev, on manually propelled wheelchairs — requirements and test methods;

| — | EN 12184: 1999 rev, on electrically powered wheelchairs, scooters and their charges — requirements and test methods; |
| --- | --- |

—

EN 12184: 1999 rev, on electrically powered wheelchairs, scooters and their charges — requirements and test methods;

| — | EN 12182, on technical aids for disabled persons — general requirements and test methods. |
| --- | --- |

—

EN 12182, on technical aids for disabled persons — general requirements and test methods.

In meeting the requirements of the Directive, technical files must be available which include design information.

---

(1)  OJ L 323, 26.11.1997.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/678 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/678

---

(2004/C 78 E/0723)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3960/03

by José Ribeiro e Castro (UEN) to the Commission

(5 January 2004)

Subject:   Angola — reintegration of ex-combatants and disarmament of civilians

According to a communiqué issued by the Unita Standing Committee at the meeting which it held from 31 October to 2 November 2003 for the purpose of analysing the party's internal situation and Angola's social, economic and political situation, there has been an increase in the number of acts of intimidation and violence committed in the country against former FALA combatants and against Unita supporters. The destruction of villages followed by the forced removal of people from their homes along the Quembo River in Kuando Kubango province to areas in the Lupiri district (where land-mines are still present) is just one example.

The Unita Standing Committee deplores and condemns such acts and it has called upon the government to take whatever action is necessary in order to prevent any repetition and any spread thereof, and it regrets the fact that the bilateral mechanism stemming from the Luena Memorandum which is intended to enable such cases to be dealt with was not brought into operation.

In the same communiqué the Unita Standing Committee also calls on the President of the Republic to make every effort to promote peace amongst Angolans by insisting upon the disarmament of the civilian population and the abolition of the Civil Protection Organisation (ODC), the existence of which it regards as a flagrant violation of the country's Constitution.

In view of the above, would the Commission answer the following questions:

| — | What information does the Commission hold regarding verification of the above facts? Does it fear that they may have some impact on the current process of institutional consolidation and the establishment of peace in the country? |
| --- | --- |

—

What information does the Commission hold regarding verification of the above facts? Does it fear that they may have some impact on the current process of institutional consolidation and the establishment of peace in the country?

| — | How does it rate compliance with the specific points contained in the Memorandum of Understanding which relate to this issue, with particular reference to the normal functioning of the instruments created for the purpose (or of other, replacement, ones) and the results achieved? |
| --- | --- |

—

How does it rate compliance with the specific points contained in the Memorandum of Understanding which relate to this issue, with particular reference to the normal functioning of the instruments created for the purpose (or of other, replacement, ones) and the results achieved?

| — | What action has it taken (or is it intending to take) with a view to remedying the situations reported, should the latter be confirmed? How does it consider that the EU might influence the Angolan authorities with a view to promoting effective action against such occurrences and bringing into operation the bilateral mechanism referred to above? |
| --- | --- |

—

What action has it taken (or is it intending to take) with a view to remedying the situations reported, should the latter be confirmed? How does it consider that the EU might influence the Angolan authorities with a view to promoting effective action against such occurrences and bringing into operation the bilateral mechanism referred to above?

| — | What view does it take of the extent to which the civilian population has so far disarmed and of the ODC's activities? Does it consider these to be potentially destabilising factors? |
| --- | --- |

—

What view does it take of the extent to which the civilian population has so far disarmed and of the ODC's activities? Does it consider these to be potentially destabilising factors?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(30 January 2004)

The Commission is aware of the Unita Standing Committee's communiqué and also of an article by Unita's Terra Angolana on the matter. While it is difficult to obtain further information on the substance of these allegations, it cannot be excluded that such acts have occurred and the Government should do its utmost to prevent these. However, the limited information available leads to the conclusion that these seem to be isolated incidents that do not present a substantial threat to the consolidation of the peace process.

On a more general note, these issues fall into the area of respect of human rights, and this will be one of the items on the agenda of the structured EU-Angola political dialogue which was formally opened on 3 December 2003. Furthermore, the Commission has declared Angola a priority country for the European Initiative for Democracy and Human Rights. Finally the United Nations (UN) has a specific mandate to deal with human rights questions, and an office in Luanda.

As regards the functioning and mechanisms of the Memorandum of Understanding, the Commission believes that the Troika and the UN, as official witnesses to the document, have a prominent role and should be the parties to address in case of conflict or violation of the Agreement or where the Agreement is not considered to have been properly followed by the two signatory parties.

As regards the situation of the demobilized soldiers and their families, the World Bank, which is co-operating with and supporting the Government through the Angola Demobilization and Reintegration Program (ADRP) (to which the Commission contributes, with part of its EUR 20 million contribution to the Multi-Donor Trust Fund for the Greater Great Lakes area), considers that the demobilization process is satisfactory. The ADRP has started and specific actions for reinsertion of the demobilized are expected to begin soon (by now almost all of the demobilized should have returned or resettled and are being re-integrated). The resettlement process in general is indeed not flawless and in many resettlement locations the minimum conditions are not in place, this also including the problem of landmines. The Commission's de-mining programmes (on-going and planned) and the European Humanitarian Aid Office's (ECHO) activities address these issues directly.

While the peace process continues to make progress, difficult living conditions for people could lead to an increase in banditry in the future. The large quantities of small arms and light weapons constitute a problem in this context, which, while not considered as a threat to stabilization, is still serious and needs to be addressed. The Government seems to consider the disarmament of civilians a growing priority and has conducted a number of (isolated) operations in this sense. The United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) is prepared to support the Government with a specific programme.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/680 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/680

---

(2004/C 78 E/0724)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3998/03

by Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(19 December 2003)

Subject:   Use of CSF funds to finance an advertising campaign in Greece

In Greece the government is unfortunately continuing to use Community Support Framework funds to promote its position through television and press advertising. The main purpose of this publicity is supposed to be to promote the CSF operational programmes, but in fact it forms part of the governing party's advertising campaign.

The advertisements by the Ministry of Health are a case in point: under the slogan ‘A New Era for Health’, the Ministry publicises the construction of new hospitals and the upgrading of certain services in the health sector. However, it presents these as government achievements, hardly mentioning the EU's contribution. At the end of the TV spot a tiny flag of the European Union appears next to the Greek flag for a fraction of a second, but no other reference or allusion is made to this. It should be pointed out that no mention is made either of the Operational Programme ‘Health and Welfare’ with whose funds these projects have been realised, or even of the CSF. Of course, this whole publicity campaign is being financed with CSF information campaign funds.

| 1. | How does the Commission intend to intervene with the Greek authorities to prevail upon them to change the configuration of this and other similar advertising campaigns (for Public Works, Employment, etc.) which blatantly violate the spirit of the structural fund regulation and do nothing to promote the CSF? |
| --- | --- |

1.

How does the Commission intend to intervene with the Greek authorities to prevail upon them to change the configuration of this and other similar advertising campaigns (for Public Works, Employment, etc.) which blatantly violate the spirit of the structural fund regulation and do nothing to promote the CSF?

| 2. | Given that Greece has de facto entered the pre-election period, when does the Commission intend to intervene with the Greek authorities — as has occurred in the past — to suspend this type of publicity campaign which may serve to promote the government party in view of the forthcoming elections? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Given that Greece has de facto entered the pre-election period, when does the Commission intend to intervene with the Greek authorities — as has occurred in the past — to suspend this type of publicity campaign which may serve to promote the government party in view of the forthcoming elections?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(30 January 2004)

The Commission is attentive to the issues raised by the Honourable Member:

| (a) | As concerns publicity regarding the constructing of new hospitals, this was discussed in the margin of the Monitoring Committee meeting of the Greek Community Support Framework (CSF) III on the 17 December 2003. It was agreed that although the publicity campaign in question is funded exclusively through national sources, the Greek authorities will change the TV spot in order to mention the contribution of the EU to the construction of new hospitals. |
| --- | --- |

(a)

As concerns publicity regarding the constructing of new hospitals, this was discussed in the margin of the Monitoring Committee meeting of the Greek Community Support Framework (CSF) III on the 17 December 2003. It was agreed that although the publicity campaign in question is funded exclusively through national sources, the Greek authorities will change the TV spot in order to mention the contribution of the EU to the construction of new hospitals.

| (b) | With regard to the period before the national elections, the Commission is informed that the national authorities issued instructions concerning Information and Publicity on the 8 January 2004. These are addressed to all ministries and other bodies involved in the management of Structural Funds. They reflect the agreement in Chapter 4.8, 3rd paragraph, of the CSF. |
| --- | --- |

(b)

With regard to the period before the national elections, the Commission is informed that the national authorities issued instructions concerning Information and Publicity on the 8 January 2004. These are addressed to all ministries and other bodies involved in the management of Structural Funds. They reflect the agreement in Chapter 4.8, 3rd paragraph, of the CSF.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/681 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/681

---

(2004/C 78 E/0725)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-4001/03

by Stavros Xarchakos (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(7 January 2004)

Subject:   Transfers of students

Thousands of EU citizens study at universities outside the countries of which they hold citizenship. These higher education institutions are State bodies, may be inside or outside the European Union and, naturally, are recognised by the authorities of the states in which they are established.

If statutory regulation were to be put forward in an EU Member State giving the opportunity to students studying in such universities to be transferred to universities in their country of origin (obviously under certain conditions, such as having obtained excellent marks in the two first years of their studies etc.), would this be incompatible with Community legislation?

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(2 February 2004)

The question raised by the Honourable Member touches on how the Member States organise their education systems. Under Article 149 of the EC Treaty, the Community fully respects the responsibility of the Member States for the content of teaching and the organisation of education systems. This matter is therefore outside the Community's sphere of competence.

The Bologna Process, designed to create a European Higher Education Area, introduced a series of reforms (two cycles, transparency instruments, promotion of quality) with the aim of making the higher education on offer more accessible and attractive.

The Bologna reforms enable the competent authorities (ministries, universities, etc.) to encourage transparency and the recognition of diplomas. The power to take decisions will remain with these authorities.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/681 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/681

---

(2004/C 78 E/0726)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-4031/03

by Michl Ebner (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(12 January 2004)

Subject:   Language programme for minority languages

In July 2003, the Commission published a call for proposals (GD EAC/45/03) to prepare the ground for the implementation of the Action Plan on language learning and linguistic diversity (1).

One of the aims explicitly mentioned in the call for proposals was to disseminate information and raise awareness on the potential of existing programmes and activities to promote regional and minority languages. Following the deadline for the submission of project proposals at the end of September(!), seven of the thirty-three project proposals received were accepted.

How many of the 33 project proposals submitted were specifically concerned with the promotion of regional and minority languages, which, as reflected by the Action Plan's inclusive approach, contribute as much to linguistic diversity as the official languages of the European Union?

How many of the seven project proposals selected are specifically concerned with the promotion of regional and minority languages, which, as reflected by the Action Plan's inclusive approach, contribute as much to linguistic diversity as the official languages of the European Union?

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(5 February 2004)

Call for proposals EAC/45/03 aimed at funding:

| — | projects to disseminate information and raise awareness of the potential of existing programmes, and |
| --- | --- |

—

projects to disseminate information and raise awareness of the potential of existing programmes, and

| — | activities to promote regional and minority languages as well as to set up networks to prepare the implementation of the future Action Plan on language learning and linguistic diversity. |
| --- | --- |

—

activities to promote regional and minority languages as well as to set up networks to prepare the implementation of the future Action Plan on language learning and linguistic diversity.

The Commission received a total of 33 project proposals. A large majority of projects did not target specific languages. However, 10 proposals were specifically concerned with the promotion of regional and minority languages.

Out of the seven project proposals selected, three were aimed specifically at promoting regional and minority languages:

| (a) | ‘Cramlap — Celtic, Regional and Minority Languages Abroad Project’ (University of Belfast). |
| --- | --- |

(a)

‘Cramlap — Celtic, Regional and Minority Languages Abroad Project’ (University of Belfast).

| (b) | ‘Network of European Language Planning Boards — Developing a structure for co-operation’ (Welsh Language Board, Cardiff). |
| --- | --- |

(b)

‘Network of European Language Planning Boards — Developing a structure for co-operation’ (Welsh Language Board, Cardiff).

| (c) | ‘ADUM — Working together to promote regional and minority languages in Europe’ (Open University of Catalonia). |
| --- | --- |

(c)

‘ADUM — Working together to promote regional and minority languages in Europe’ (Open University of Catalonia).

The remaining four projects do not aim to promote specific languages.

Information about the seven selected projects is available at the following website: (http://europa.eu.int/ comm/education/programmes/calls/languages/selection.pdf).

---

(1)  OJ C 180, 31.7.2003, p. 34.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/682 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/682

---

(2004/C 78 E/0727)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-4059/03

by José Ribeiro e Castro (UEN) to the Commission

(8 January 2004)

Subject:   Large families

There is a whole range of essential goods and services which larger families need to use but which cause them to suffer on account of the more costly pricing, charging, and rate systems.

This applies to the payment of road tolls, which are particularly high for larger families because they have to use bigger vehicles.

Another example is water consumption: the scaling policy normally applied does not allow for the number of persons making up a family unit and thus serves to impose penalties for consumption which, as far as larger families are concerned, is in no way excessive and does not constitute a luxury.

There is no doubt that overconsumption or sheer carelessness should carry a penalty, but the water consumption of a large household does not correspond to the situation which scaling is designed to counteract and simple justice consequently demands that it be exempted from such punishment. Correctives should be applied when enforcing the scaling policy. Systems whereby household consumption charge scales are calculated per head — or acting as a similar corrective — are the only means of remedying this serious social injustice.

In addition to the cases described above, there are other instances of manifest failure to allow for family size.

Given that the International Year of the Family is being celebrated in 2004 and it is ten years since the United Nations General Assembly established International Day of Families (15 May), this would be an especially appropriate time for the Union to send signals to the Member States regarding policies and the steps to take.

The Commission:

| — | how will it promote the necessary justice for families who, because they are larger, incur more expenses and liabilities and often pay higher prices, rates, or charges for given services? Has it compiled any list of standard situations in which large families are falling victim to discrimination or being denied the positive discrimination from which they ought to benefit; |
| --- | --- |

—

how will it promote the necessary justice for families who, because they are larger, incur more expenses and liabilities and often pay higher prices, rates, or charges for given services? Has it compiled any list of standard situations in which large families are falling victim to discrimination or being denied the positive discrimination from which they ought to benefit;

| — | given that it is aware of the Union's low birth rate and the problems that will ensue if the trend is not reversed, does it not take the view that states, instead of harming the interests of families with three or more children, should, on the contrary, apply positive discrimination, not least as regards taxation and other charges or the price of public services? |
| --- | --- |

—

given that it is aware of the Union's low birth rate and the problems that will ensue if the trend is not reversed, does it not take the view that states, instead of harming the interests of families with three or more children, should, on the contrary, apply positive discrimination, not least as regards taxation and other charges or the price of public services?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(30 January 2004)

The Commission shares the Honourable Member's concerns on the issues he has raised. In addition, the Commission continues to raise public awareness of the current demographic challenge, which is partly a result of chronically low fertility rates across the Union. However, the Union does not possess a specific legal basis to develop and implement measures in the area of family policy. This is clearly a responsibility for the Member States.

Nonetheless, family issues are of interest to the Commission as they affect demographic developments and interact with a number of European policies. Therefore, the Commission focuses its attention on the study of family and household trends and their policy implications. The social situation in the European Union', which the Commission publishes annually, presents analysis on social trends and demography, including family-related aspects.

From a policy-making point of view, the European social inclusion process, based on the open method of coordination, is of particular relevance to the issues raised by the Honourable Member. The objectives for the fight against poverty and social exclusion, relevant in the context of family, include: implementing policies which aim to provide access for all to decent and sanitary housing, as well as the basic services necessary to live normally having regard to local circumstances (electricity, water, heating etc.); developing policies to promote the reconciliation of work and family life, including the issue of affordable child and dependent care; implementing action to preserve family solidarity in all its forms; and moving towards the elimination of social exclusion among children and giving them every opportunity for social integration.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/683 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/683

---

(2004/C 78 E/0728)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-4072/03

by John Cushnahan (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(8 January 2004)

Subject:   Application of the EC-Israel Association Agreement

Does the Commission consider that the proposal announced in November 2003 by Israel ‘to list the city of origin for the goods’ on proofs of origin (or on products) would enable ‘the national customs authorities to determine, for each and every individual consignment, whether, under those provisions, the elements of fact and law allow refusal of the preferential tariff treatment’?

Does the Commission consider that listing the name of a locale can enable Member States to identify Israeli settlement goods commingled in shipments with essentially identical goods originating in Israel, products incorporating settlement-produced components to an extent as to render that product non-originating, or products in which working or processing carried out in settlements is cumulated with working or processing carried out in Israel?

Is the Commission aware that Israeli officials have been quoted as estimating that ‘as much as USD 2 billion of Israel's annual USD 7 billion exports to Europe’ (1) incorporates some material from settlements?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(28 January 2004)

The Israeli suggestion of indicating the place of production of goods being exported to the Community still needs to be further clarified by Israel before any conclusions can be drawn, for example as regards its possible effect on refusal by the national customs authorities of preferential tariff treatment.

One of the issues to be clarified would indeed be to know how the proposed scheme would be implemented, for example in the case of mixed consignments, which include both goods produced in the settlements and products obtained in the territory of the State of Israel.

The statement reported by the New York Times in May 2001 was never made to the Commission by Israeli officials.

---

(1)  ‘In meetings with European negotiators, Israeli officials have said that as much as USD 2 billion of Israel's annual USD 7 billion exports to Europe could be penalised by a policy change, as many Israeli manufactured goods incorporate some materials from settlement communities.’ EU Targets Goods Made in Israeli Settlements, William A. Orme Jr., New York Times, 22 May 2001.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/684 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/684

---

(2004/C 78 E/0729)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-4074/03

by Marianne Thyssen (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(8 January 2004)

Subject:   Problems relating to the transposition into national law of Directive 2002/2/EC

Article 3 of Directive 2002/2/EC (1) of 28 January 2002 amending Council Directive 79/373/EEC (2) on the circulation of compound feedingstuffs and repealing Commission Directive 91/357/EEC (3) requires Member States to adopt and publish the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with the Directive not later than 6 March 2003. Under the same article, Member States are required to implement these provisions with effect from 6 November 2003.

The transposition of Directive 2002/2 is causing problems at European level and giving rise to considerable confusion in the industries concerned. In particular, Article 1(1)(b) and the corresponding section of Article 1 (4) concerning the indication of feedingstuffs with their percentages is causing problems (‘open labelling’).

In various Member States (France, Italy, Portugal), legal proceedings have been initiated against these provisions. In the United Kingdom, a judgment has apparently already been given to the effect that no percentages may be indicated because this would cause serious economic damage to the industries concerned. Other Member States are said simply not to be applying the provisions in question.

Is the Commission aware of these problems? What steps has it taken or does it intend to take in the near future to remedy them? Does not the Commission agree that labelling requirements cannot go so far that businesses are virtually forced to reveal their methods of preparation to the market?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(29 January 2004)

The Commission would like to highlight that 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 feedingstuffs and repealing Commission Directive 91/357/EEC was adopted by co-decision procedure which included a conciliation phase. The proposal for percentage declarations on labels was maintained on the insistence of the Parliament, which adopted the Directive in Plenary by a very large majority. The Directive has been the subject of national transposition measures in all the Member States, some of them still to be published.

The Commission is aware that the application of national measures has been suspended by jurisdictions in France, Italy and the United Kingdom, but this is not the case in the twelve other Member States.

The European Court of Justice has been requested by the High Court of Justice (England and Wales) to give a preliminary ruling under Article 234 of the EC Treaty concerning the validity of Articles 1(1)(b) and Article 1(4) of Directive 2002/2/EC, which provide for the so-called ‘open declaration’ for the labelling of compound feedingstuffs (case number C-453/03).

The Commission supports the legitimacy of the provisions laid down in Directive 2002/2/EC and is looking forward to the preliminary ruling by the European Court of Justice.

---

(1)  OJ L 63, 6.3.2002, p. 23.

(2)  OJ L 86, 6.4.1979, p. 30.

(3)  OJ L 193, 17.7.1991, p. 34.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/685 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/685

---

(2004/C 78 E/0730)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0037/04

by Charles Tannock (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(12 January 2004)

Subject:   Provisions made by acceeding 10 new EU member states following 1 May 2004 for freedom of movement and establishment of other EU member state nationals

Following enlargement to 25 member states on 1 May 2004, the existing 15 member states have made a variety of different arrangements within the permissible 7 year derogation under the enlargement treaties for freedom of movement and establishment of nationals coming from the new 10 EU member states. I understand this ranges from a 7 year prohibition by Germay to the immediate granting of full EU freedom of movement and establishment to the new country nationals by the United Kingdom.

Can the Commission list what arrangements have been made from May 1st 2004 by the 10 new EU member states with regards to their granting the right of freedom and establishment to nationals coming from other member states including both the current 15 and the other newly joined countries?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(29 January 2004)

The Commission has not received from any present Member States official information on their intention to amend their own national rules, under which present Member States will admit workers from the new Member States during the transitional period. Member States have already been invited to communicate this information to the Commission, however no provision of the Act of Accession establishes such an obligation for present Member States.

Concerning transitional measures that new Member States might apply vis-à-vis workers from any other Member States, the Act of Accession establishes that, whenever national measures, or those resulting from bilateral agreements, are applied by the present Member States by virtue of the agreed transitional provisions, the new Member States may maintain in force equivalent measures with regard to the nationals of the Member State in question. Therefore, a decision from a new Member State can only be taken after knowing whether a present Member State is applying transitional measures.

Finally, it should be noted that the transitional arrangement does not apply to Cyprus and Malta. Thus, there will be complete free movement between current Member States and these countries and indeed between the other future Member States and Cyprus and Malta. Malta, however, has the right to impose a safeguard if it fears large movements of workers into Malta.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/686 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/686

---

(2004/C 78 E/0731)

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 2nd 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 2nd 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 2nd CSF? How many were created and how many of those are now operational?

| 2. | How many units planned under the 2nd CSF were not completed? |
| --- | --- |

2.

How many units planned under the 2nd CSF were not completed?

| 3. | How many completed units are not operational and why? |
| --- | --- |

3.

How many completed units are not operational and why?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(19 February 2004)

The Commission is collecting the information it needs to answer the question. It will communicate its findings as soon as possible.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/686 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/686

---

(2004/C 78 E/0732)

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?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(18 February 2004)

The Commission is collecting the information it needs to answer the question. It will communicate its findings as soon as possible.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/687 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/687

---

(2004/C 78 E/0733)

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?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(19 February 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)

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/688 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/688

---

(2004/C 78 E/0734)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1287/02

by Graham Watson (ELDR) to the Commission

(7 May 2002)

Subject:   The planting of oilseed rape

Is the Commission aware of any research into the effects on human health of oilseed rape cultivation — especially where it is grown in proximity to habitation?

Are there any plans to control the planting of this crop within close proximity of human habitation?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(28 June 2002)

Similar written questions were put in 1991, 1992 and again in 1996 (E-1452/91 by Mr McCubbin (1), E-2414/91 by Mrs Ewing (2), E-2415/91 by Mrs Ewing (3), E-611/92 by Mr Raffin (4), E-2146/96 by Mrs McNally (5)). The Commission is not aware of a consensus within the scientific community on the matter raised in the Honourable Member's question. The Commission knows that there is some concern about the possible links between allergic symptoms in humans and the crop of oilseed rape and can confirm that several studies have been carried out on this subject (6), in particular by the Scottish Crops Research Institute and the University of Dundee (7). Given the result of the published papers, no conclusive evidence is available to demonstrate a direct cause effect on human health from oilseed rape cultivation.

---

(1)  OJ C 311, 2.12.1991.

(2)  OJ C 159, 25.6.1992.

(3)  OJ C 209, 15.8.1992.

(4)  OJ C 32, 2.2.1994.

(5)  OJ C 11, 13.1.1997.

(6)  Butcher RD, Goodman BA, Deighton N, Smith WH. Evaluation of the allergic/irritant potential of air pollutants: detection of proteins modified by volatile organic compounds from oilseed rape (Brassica napus ssp. Oleifera) using electrospray ionization-mass spectrometry. Cli Exp Allergy Oct 1995; 25(10): 985-92. Hemmer W, Focke M, Wantke F, Jager S, Gotz M, Jarisch R. Oilseed rape pollen is a potential relevant allergen. Cli Exp Allergy. Feb 1997; 27(2): 156-161Hemmer W. The health effects of oilseed rape: myth or reality? BMJ. 1998; 316: 1327-28 Soutar A, Harker C, Seaton A, Brooke M, Marr I. Oilseed rape and seasonal symptoms: epidemiological and environmental studies. Thorax, 1994; Vol 49: 352-56. Soutar A, Harker C, Seaton A, Packe G. Oilseed rape and bronchial reactivity. Occup Environ Med. Sep 1995; 52 575-580 Welch J, Jones MG, Cullinam P, Coates OA, Newman Taylor AJ. Sensitization to oilseed rape is not due to cross-reactivity with grass pollen Cli Exp Allergy. Mar 2000; 30(3): 370-375.

(7)  McEvan M, Macfarlane Smith WH. Identification of volatile organic compounds emitted in the field by oilseed rape (Brassica napus ssp. Oleifera) over the growing season. Cli Exp Allergy. 1998; 28: 332-38 Parratt D, Macfarlane Smith WH, Thomson G, Cameron LA, Butcher RD. Evidence that oilseed rape (Brassica napus spp. Oleifera) causes respiratory illness in rural dwellers; Sco Med J. 1995; 40: 074-76.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/688 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/688

---

(2004/C 78 E/0735)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2931/02

by María Sornosa Martínez (PSE) to the Commission

(17 October 2002)

Subject:   Priority for EU funding for high-speed rail links in Spain that promote regional balance and economic and social cohesion

The Commission is currently examining the case put forward by the ‘Teruel Existe’ citizens' association regarding a proposal to re-route the Spanish high-speed rail (AVE) link between Madrid and Levante through Teruel (Petition 219/2001).

Bearing in mind, ‘inter alia’:

| — | the European Spatial Development Perspective (Potsdam, 1999), which highlights the need to ensure that all regions, including outlying and island areas, enjoy adequate access to transport infrastructure and services, |
| --- | --- |

—

the European Spatial Development Perspective (Potsdam, 1999), which highlights the need to ensure that all regions, including outlying and island areas, enjoy adequate access to transport infrastructure and services,

| — | the Moretti report (A3-0115/93) adopted by the European Parliament, which advocates taking account of the particularly marginal economic situation of areas with low population densities when developing trans-European networks, |
| --- | --- |

—

the Moretti report (A3-0115/93) adopted by the European Parliament, which advocates taking account of the particularly marginal economic situation of areas with low population densities when developing trans-European networks,

| — | the EU Sustainable Development Strategy and the White Paper on European transport policy, which refers to the need to apply economic and social cohesion policies and regional development objectives to sustainable transport that contributes towards social and regional cohesion, |
| --- | --- |

—

the EU Sustainable Development Strategy and the White Paper on European transport policy, which refers to the need to apply economic and social cohesion policies and regional development objectives to sustainable transport that contributes towards social and regional cohesion,

and in view of the arguments put forward by ‘Teruel Existe’ in its petition and, more particularly, in its document, setting out the arguments for re-routing the Madrid-Levante high-speed rail link, of which the Commission has a copy:

| — | does the Commission not believe that, as part of the process of allocating Community funds for highspeed rail projects in Spain, it ought to urge the Spanish authorities to make a minor alteration to the new route involving a mere 10 minutes' additional journey time, so that it also benefits less densely populated or least favoured regions, as advocated in different EU documents on economic and social cohesion; |
| --- | --- |

—

does the Commission not believe that, as part of the process of allocating Community funds for highspeed rail projects in Spain, it ought to urge the Spanish authorities to make a minor alteration to the new route involving a mere 10 minutes' additional journey time, so that it also benefits less densely populated or least favoured regions, as advocated in different EU documents on economic and social cohesion;

| — | does it not take the view that, generally speaking, all allocations of Community aid ought to boost those regions experiencing the greatest difficulties (namely outlying, island and less densely populated regions) instead of benefiting only their more developed counterparts, as the existing plans for the high-speed rail link would do; |
| --- | --- |

—

does it not take the view that, generally speaking, all allocations of Community aid ought to boost those regions experiencing the greatest difficulties (namely outlying, island and less densely populated regions) instead of benefiting only their more developed counterparts, as the existing plans for the high-speed rail link would do;

| — | does it not believe that the province of Teruel might suffer discrimination on two counts if, besides losing its eligibility for Objective 1 status, it were forced to remain outside the main transport routes that the Commission itself sees as a matter of priority; |
| --- | --- |

—

does it not believe that the province of Teruel might suffer discrimination on two counts if, besides losing its eligibility for Objective 1 status, it were forced to remain outside the main transport routes that the Commission itself sees as a matter of priority;

| — | will it say what stage it has reached in its examination of Petition 219/2001, forwarded to it by the European Parliament's Committee on Petitions? |
| --- | --- |

—

will it say what stage it has reached in its examination of Petition 219/2001, forwarded to it by the European Parliament's Committee on Petitions?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(13 December 2002)

In reply to the Honourable Member's view that the province of Teruel has suffered from discrimination on two counts, the Commission would point out that:

| — | that province has not been removed from the list of regions eligible under Objective 1, since it was never one of the areas eligible under that Objective of the Structural Funds; |
| --- | --- |

—

that province has not been removed from the list of regions eligible under Objective 1, since it was never one of the areas eligible under that Objective of the Structural Funds;

| — | as regards development of the trans-European rail network, the Commission follows 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 (1). In 2001 it proposed amending that Decision (2) to include the Huesca-Zaragoza-Teruel rail link as a high-speed line to help improve access to the province of Teruel. Parliament expressed a positive opinion on that proposal, which is now being considered by the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

as regards development of the trans-European rail network, the Commission follows 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 (1). In 2001 it proposed amending that Decision (2) to include the Huesca-Zaragoza-Teruel rail link as a high-speed line to help improve access to the province of Teruel. Parliament expressed a positive opinion on that proposal, which is now being considered by the Council.

The Commission is currently considering the requests for further information in petition 219/2001 referred to by the Honourable Member. A Communication on those requests will be sent to Parliament's Committee on Petitions as soon as possible.

---

(1)  OJ L 228, 9.9.1996.

(2)  COM(2001) 544 final.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/690 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/690

---

(2004/C 78 E/0736)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3340/02

by Astrid Thors (ELDR) to the Commission

(26 November 2002)

Subject:   Certification of organic cereals exported on the internal market

Finnish exports of organic cereals to Germany are currently at a low because the German buyers do not accept the Finnish authorities' certification procedure. Germany requires every single consignment of organic produce to be issued with a certificate while the Finnish authorities do not consider that to be necessary. The relevant EU regulation does not require certification of each consignment either but it is customary for much of the trade in organic produce in the EU.

The Finnish authorities are eager to secure their exports of organic cereals and are prepared, if necessary to change their control procedures so that the certificates which the buyers require can in fact be issued. The German buyers, however, have been reluctant to produce clear models for the certification that they would like.

Does the Commission consider that the German buyers' demand that each individual consignment of organic cereals should be certified may be construed as a measure which obstructs competition? If so, what does the Commission intend to do to remove this obstacle to the internal market?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(7 January 2003)

The Honourable Member explains that Finnish exports of ‘organic’ cereals to Germany are currently low because the German buyers require that every single consignment of ‘organic’ cereals is accompanied by a certificate without communicating the required model.

Council Regulation (EEC) No 2092/91 of 24 June 1991, on organic production of agricultural products and indications referring thereto on agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), sets out in its Annex III provisions for inspection requirements and in particular states that, on receipt of a product from another unit, the operator shall check that the following appropriate information is present on the label or on the accompanying document:

| (a) | the name and address of the operator and, where different, of the owner or seller of the product; |
| --- | --- |

(a)

the name and address of the operator and, where different, of the owner or seller of the product;

| (b) | the name of the product, including a reference to the organic production method; |
| --- | --- |

(b)

the name of the product, including a reference to the organic production method;

| (c) | the name and/or the code number of the inspection body or authority to which the operator is subject and; |
| --- | --- |

(c)

the name and/or the code number of the inspection body or authority to which the operator is subject and;

| (d) | where relevant, the lot identification mark according to a marking system either approved at national level or agreed with the inspection body or authority. |
| --- | --- |

(d)

where relevant, the lot identification mark according to a marking system either approved at national level or agreed with the inspection body or authority.

Therefore, the buyers of cereals are entitled to require the presence of the information relating to the reference to the organic production method and to the inspection authority or body. The Council Regulation does not require that this information appears on a certificate.

In addition, Article 12 of Regulation (EEC) No 2092/91 guarantees the free movement of ‘organic’ produce within the Community and states that Member States may not prohibit the marketing of products in compliance with this regulation on grounds relating to labelling or to the presentation of the production method.

---

(1)  OJ L 198, 22.7.1991.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/691 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/691

---

(2004/C 78 E/0737)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3636/02

by Niall Andrews (UEN) to the Commission

(10 December 2002)

Subject:   Humanitarian aid and immigration controls

Given the Commission's welcome views on the issue of the link between development aid and trade, can the Commission state its views on a suggestion put forward by the Irish Minister for Justice that development aid be linked to the recipient's emigration controls and Ireland's immigration controls?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(17 January 2003)

In its recent Communication on ‘integrating migration issues in the Union relations with third countries’, the Commission has proposed a three-pronged strategy to step up cooperation with third countries in the area of migration:

| — | first, a balanced overall approach which addresses the root causes of migratory movements. The Community's action in this area is substantial and cannot be underestimated. Its external cooperation and development programmes and policies aimed at promoting human rights, bolstering democracy, combating poverty, preventing conflicts and improving the economic and social situation in general tackle the main factors contributing to migratory pressures in third countries and therefore exert an indirect effect on those pressures; |
| --- | --- |

—

first, a balanced overall approach which addresses the root causes of migratory movements. The Community's action in this area is substantial and cannot be underestimated. Its external cooperation and development programmes and policies aimed at promoting human rights, bolstering democracy, combating poverty, preventing conflicts and improving the economic and social situation in general tackle the main factors contributing to migratory pressures in third countries and therefore exert an indirect effect on those pressures;

| — | second, a partnership on migration stemming from a definition of common interests with third countries. The objective of more effectively managing migration flows requires the Community to continue integrating migration issues into its political dialogue with third countries and regions. That dialogue should focus not only on illegal immigration but also on the channels for legal immigration; |
| --- | --- |

—

second, a partnership on migration stemming from a definition of common interests with third countries. The objective of more effectively managing migration flows requires the Community to continue integrating migration issues into its political dialogue with third countries and regions. That dialogue should focus not only on illegal immigration but also on the channels for legal immigration;

| — | third, specific and concrete initiatives to assist third countries in increasing their capacity in the area of migration management. Since the European Council meeting in Tampere, the Commission has endeavoured to integrate specifically the topic of migration into its cooperation programmes with third countries. |
| --- | --- |

—

third, specific and concrete initiatives to assist third countries in increasing their capacity in the area of migration management. Since the European Council meeting in Tampere, the Commission has endeavoured to integrate specifically the topic of migration into its cooperation programmes with third countries.

In its communication, the Commission favours a positive approach, based on support and incentives to partner countries with whom co-operation on migration issues is to be improved. The Commission holds the view that punitive actions against countries with limited migration management capacities are counterproductive and should be avoided.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/691 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/691

---

(2004/C 78 E/0738)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3857/02

by Mark Watts (PSE) to the Commission

(6 January 2003)

Subject:   Slaughter of baby seal pups on the White Sea, Russia

My previous written question on this subject (P-2365/02 (1)) asked the Commission to state how many baby seal pups were clubbed to death on the White Sea in the year 2001. It also asked the Commission to raise the matter, which appals so many people in my constituency and elsewhere, with the Russian authorities at the earliest opportunity.

In the reply, the Commissioner acknowledged that the treatment of baby seals in the White Sea has been an ongoing concern in recent years. Will the Commission now make renewed efforts to ascertain and publish the number of seal pups that were slaughtered on the White Sea in 2001, and make preparations for obtaining similar figures in respect of 2002?

Furthermore, will the Commission also undertake to raise the matter in an effective way with the Russian authorities, if necessary seeking their cooperation in obtaining this elusive information, and state when this will be done?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(27 January 2003)

The Commission will continue to raise the issue of the treatment of baby seals in the White Sea with the Russian authorities in the context of its Partnership and Co-operation Agreement, in particular at the Sub-Committee on Environment.

As regards the number of seal pups killed during recent years the Russian authorities have so far indicated that they do not have such information, but they believe that numbers should have been decreasing over the last few years reflecting a downward trend in profitability. Figures from other sources are not sufficiently up to date to assess the situation.

---

(1)  OJ C 242 E, 9.10.2003, p. 18.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/692 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/692

---

(2004/C 78 E/0739)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3878/02

by Salvador Garriga Polledo (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(10 January 2003)

Subject:   Community-wide harmonisation of time limits for the writing-off of tax arrears

Regarding the EU's goal of tax harmonisation, numerous experts on international taxation in the context of the different Member States are now considering whether harmonisation should extend to the time limits for the writing-off of tax arrears.

The variations existing between Member States in the time limits for writing off tax arrears create a degree of discrimination between citizens and undertakings of different Member States, and for those operating in more than one country confusion can arise.

Can the Commission state whether its proposals on the time limits for writing off tax arrears include any consideration of the desirability of harmonising the national rules in this field, in order to introduce uniform rules and put an end to the discrimination between Member States?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(20 February 2003)

The Commission's policy in direct taxation is set out in its Communication (1) addressed to the Council, the Parliament and the Economic and Social Committee. In that document it says:

| | It is clear that there is no need for an across the board harmonisation of Member States' tax systems. Provided that they respect Community rules, Member States are free to choose the tax systems that they consider most appropriate and according to their preferences. |
| --- | --- |

It is clear that there is no need for an across the board harmonisation of Member States' tax systems. Provided that they respect Community rules, Member States are free to choose the tax systems that they consider most appropriate and according to their preferences.

In this context, the Commission has no plans to make a proposal to harmonise the direct tax rules to which the Honourable Member refers.

---

(1)  OJ C 284, 10.10.2001.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/693 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/693

---

(2004/C 78 E/0740)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3908/02

by Caroline Lucas (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(14 January 2003)

Subject:   Malta

It is understood that during accession negotiations, the EU granted Malta a derogation for spring hunting of common quail coturnix coturnix and turtle dove streptopelia turtur on the islands. The Commission has previously stated that this derogation is subject to ‘strict conditions’.

Could the Commission please explain why Malta was granted a derogation in the first place?

Could the Commission also clarify what these ‘strict conditions’ are and what concession, if any, is Malta obliged to give for such a derogation? Furthermore, how does the Commission propose to monitor Malta's respect of its commitments in this area?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(14 February 2003)

With regard to hunting of common quail coturnix coturnix and turtle dove streptopelia turtur, Malta has not been given a derogation beyond the provisions of Article 9 of the Birds Directive (1). Article 9 of this Council Directive allows, where there is no other satisfactory solution, for exceptions under certain very stringent conditions.

This means that, if Malta wishes to allow spring hunting for these species, it would need to ensure that all the requirements of Article 9 are met and that hunting is carried out under ‘strictly supervised conditions’ and limited to ‘small numbers’ only. Furthermore, the recourse to Article 9 is subject to regular monitoring by the Commission and Malta is committed, in such a case, to report each year on its possible use.

---

(1)  Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds, OJ L 103, 25.4.1979.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/693 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/693

---

(2004/C 78 E/0741)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0064/03

by Hanja Maij-Weggen (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(22 January 2003)

Subject:   European assistance for the raising of the Le Joola ferry which sank off the coast of Senegal

The Le Joola ferry sank off the coast of Senegal and Gambia in September with more than a thousand Africans and several European citizens on board, including the Netherlands nationals Roel and Lisette Arendshorst. Very many family members in Africa and Europe and the Netherlands want to recover the bodies of the victims and bury them on land.

Is the correct that the European Commission has already offered to fund the raising of the ship from the eighth European Development Fund?

Why has the government of Senegal still not accepted the offer and what is preventing the Senegalese government from raising the ship so that the victims can be given a dignified burial by their families?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(28 February 2003)

The Commission has not made the offer mentioned by the Honourable Member since such funding falls outside the objectives of development co-operation with African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) States as defined in Article 177 of the EC Treaty and the Cotonou Agreement.

As mentioned in previous replies to similar Written Questions E-3166/02 (1) by Mrs Bonino, and E-3319/02 (2) and P-0108/03 (3) by Mr van den Berg, the Government of Senegal has not submitted any request to the Commission in respect of raising the ship.

---

(1)  OJ C 155 E, 3.7.2003, p. 105.

(2)  OJ C 268 E, 7.11.2003, p. 29.

(3)  OJ C 268 E, 7.11.2003, p. 72.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/694 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/694

---

(2004/C 78 E/0742)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0075/03

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(23 January 2003)

Subject:   Regular rail transport in cities becoming unviable due to competition from minibuses offering expensive, unsafe and obscure services

| 1. | Is the Commission aware that in the city with the biggest tram company in the world, St Petersburg in Russia, public transport has been in rapid decline for several years due to inadequate maintenance, the need to spend all the available money on restoring an underground-railway tunnel which has been flooded since 1995, and motor vehicle congestion on tram tracks, which are not reserved to prevent use by other traffic? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is the Commission aware that in the city with the biggest tram company in the world, St Petersburg in Russia, public transport has been in rapid decline for several years due to inadequate maintenance, the need to spend all the available money on restoring an underground-railway tunnel which has been flooded since 1995, and motor vehicle congestion on tram tracks, which are not reserved to prevent use by other traffic?

| 2. | Is the Commission aware that this situation has been aggravated by the advent, since 1998, of thousands of competing privately operated buses and minibuses which are more expensive but quicker, are now operating on nearly 400 routes in the city and account for an estimated 40 % of public transport, and that the cash-strapped city authorities regard the growing role of these operators as grounds for ceasing to invest in improvements to and renewal of regular public transport? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Is the Commission aware that this situation has been aggravated by the advent, since 1998, of thousands of competing privately operated buses and minibuses which are more expensive but quicker, are now operating on nearly 400 routes in the city and account for an estimated 40 % of public transport, and that the cash-strapped city authorities regard the growing role of these operators as grounds for ceasing to invest in improvements to and renewal of regular public transport?

| 3. | Is the Commission furthermore aware that this situation in St Petersburg is not some bizarre local aberration but that the public transport system in Odessa, Ukraine, was previously destroyed in the same way and that minibus operators are similarly in the process of eliminating regular public transport in cities in possible future EU Member States in the Balkans? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Is the Commission furthermore aware that this situation in St Petersburg is not some bizarre local aberration but that the public transport system in Odessa, Ukraine, was previously destroyed in the same way and that minibus operators are similarly in the process of eliminating regular public transport in cities in possible future EU Member States in the Balkans?

| 4. | Does the Commission share the fear that the continuation of this trend in Europe would create chaos on the roads, on a par with that which exists in some Third-World cities which do not yet have public transport systems that are affordable for most potential users or comprehensible to outsiders but which do have fleets of minibuses which try to squeeze through the growing traffic jams quickly and without regard for safety? |
| --- | --- |

4.

Does the Commission share the fear that the continuation of this trend in Europe would create chaos on the roads, on a par with that which exists in some Third-World cities which do not yet have public transport systems that are affordable for most potential users or comprehensible to outsiders but which do have fleets of minibuses which try to squeeze through the growing traffic jams quickly and without regard for safety?

| 5. | Is this trend, which wastes land, promotes gridlock and makes few transport services available to the lower paid, beneficial to the quality of life in cities and does it promote access to facilities in densely populated city centres where there is little room for traffic? |
| --- | --- |

5.

Is this trend, which wastes land, promotes gridlock and makes few transport services available to the lower paid, beneficial to the quality of life in cities and does it promote access to facilities in densely populated city centres where there is little room for traffic?

| 6. | How will the Commission help to protect regular public transport in the EU Member States against destructive competition from businesses which incur few costs themselves but pass costs on to the community at large and which, by providing unreliable services which cause major damage to the environment, impair the quality of public transport? |
| --- | --- |

6.

How will the Commission help to protect regular public transport in the EU Member States against destructive competition from businesses which incur few costs themselves but pass costs on to the community at large and which, by providing unreliable services which cause major damage to the environment, impair the quality of public transport?

Source: ‘Tramfan Magazine’, vol. 2, no 10, p. 32.

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(3 March 2003)

The Community has Partnership and Co-operation Agreements (PCA) (http://www.europa.eu.int/comm/ external_relations/ceeca/pca/index.htm) with both the Russian Federation and with Ukraine that provide the basis and instruments for co-operation in many domains including transport. The Commission's strategy is, above all, to use the instruments of the PCAs to support the partner countries in better utilising transport infrastructure, to exploit modern management and appraisal techniques in a competitive market place. This will help them to define their strategic options and policies towards the transport sector, assess infrastructure development proposals and decide on their own priorities.

The Commission is not in a position to ascertain some of the information that the Honourable Member reports under points 1, 2 and 3 of the question, concerning Russia and Ukraine. Nor would it be appropriate for the Commission to get involved in purely internal matters of the countries concerned.

The Commission is supporting reform policy in the transport sector within the framework of broader support for macroeconomic and structural reforms. However, Union TACIS policy priorities do not include specific interventions in the public transport sector since this is not a priority of the relevant National Programmes, as approved by Member States.

The Commission recognises that cities need good, attractive public transport. The Commission's analysis of different methods for organising urban public transport, of the kind referred to in the question, within the Union has shown that deregulation has tended to cut costs and improve productive efficiency but made services less attractive to passengers. By contrast, ‘controlled competition’ tends to deliver more attractive services at a lower price. Under controlled competition, the services are provided on the basis of fixed term exclusive contracts let after a competitive bidding process. Service quality, including reliability, frequency and price, are subject to continuous monitoring by the contracting public authority. This is the model which most Member States have tended to follow in opening their markets at national level and it is also the model favoured by the Commission in its draft regulation on public services in the road, rail and inland waterway sectors (1). Moreover, the Commission is developing a thematic strategy on the urban environment in accordance with the 6th Environment Action Programme which will address the issue of sustainable urban transport as a priority theme. A communication on the Strategy will be issued by the end of the year 2003.

---

(1)  COM(2002) 107 final.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/695 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/695

---

(2004/C 78 E/0743)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0115/03

by Catherine Stihler (PSE) to the Commission

(28 January 2003)

Subject:   Malta's accession to the EU: Wild Birds Directive (79/409/EEC)

Further to the answer given to my Written Question E-2554/02 (1) on 11 November, can the Commission confirm that any spring hunting would also only be acceptable if ‘there is no other satisfactory solution’ (79/409/EEC (2) Article 9.1) and can it explain why, when these species both migrate through Malta in the autumn, when hunting of them would be legal under the Directive, this is not a perfectly satisfactory solution?

Can the Commission confirm that any spring hunting would also only be acceptable if the use was judicious (79/409/EEC Article 9.1(c)) and will it explain how it could be judicious to kill individuals of two species, whose populations are declining in Europe, in the few weeks immediately prior to their breeding?

Moreover, can the Commission confirm that Malta did indeed establish its Ornis Committee by 31 December 2002, and will it list those individuals who sit on this Committee?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(7 March 2003)

The implementation of Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds and, in particular, the specific aspect of spring hunting has been negotiated in the framework of the accession negotiations on the environment chapter with Malta.

The Commission confirms that any use of derogations must be in conformity with each of the requirements of Article 9 of the Directive. Malta has committed itself to fully implement, as from accession, the Directive. If Malta wishes to allow spring hunting on the basis of the exceptions foreseen by Article 9 of the Directive, for instance in relation to turtle dove and quail, it would need to ensure that all these requirements are met.

The use of derogations is decided by Member States in accordance with these requirements and reported retrospectively to the Commission. The Commission confirms that it will take all necessary measures to ensure that the terms of the Directive, and in particular those related to the use of derogations, are fully implemented by Malta as from accession in accordance with the outcome of the Accession Negotiation.

In particular, as regards the Ornis Committee, Malta has issued at the end of January 2003 a regulation establishing it. Subsequently, a call for applications for membership from non-governmental organisations has been issued and was closed on 5 February 2003. It is expected that the selection of the members as well as the official appointment of the chairman of the committee will be concluded by March 2003.

---

(1)  OJ C 280 E, 21.11.2003, p. 5.

(2)  OJ L 103, 25.4.1979, p. 1.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/696 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/696

---

(2004/C 78 E/0744)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0118/03

by Salvador Garriga Polledo (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(28 January 2003)

Subject:   Delineation of the European Union's final borders

The signature of the Accession Treaty in Athens on 16 April 2003 will definitively open the way for ten new countries to join the European Union on 1 May 2004, once that Treaty has been ratified by the current Member States and by the ten new Member States.

Many analysts believe that we should take the opportunity provided by this enlargement to definitively establish what the final borders of the European Union should be, because the EU cannot go on expanding for ever.

Does the Commission not feel that in order to lay the bases for discussions on this subject it should sponsor an in-depth study by a select group of eminent figures and scholars in this field on where the European Union's borders should end, based on Europe's conception of its own culture and civilisation, which are the unequivocal identifying signs of a common and identical geographical background?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(27 February 2003)

As the Honourable Member is aware, ‘Any European State that respects the principles set out in Article 6(1) of the Treaty on the European Union may apply to become a member of the Union’ in accordance with Article 49 of the Treaty on the European Union. The principles set out in Article 6 of the Treaty are the following: ‘liberty, democracy, respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, and the rule of law, principles which are common to the Member States.’

After the accession of 10 new members in 2004, the Union has taken the commitment to support Bulgaria and Romania in their efforts to become members in 2007. In March 2002, the Commission plans to propose revised Accession Partnerships for these two countries, as well as for Turkey, ‘a candidate state destined to join the Union on the basis of the same criteria as applied to the other candidate states’ as specified by the Copenhagen European Council in December 2002.

The Copenhagen European Council declared that the Union remains determined to avoid the creation of new dividing lines in Europe and to promote stability and prosperity within and beyond the new borders of the Union.

The European Council reaffirmed the European perspective of the countries of the Western Balkans in the Stabilisation and Association Process as stipulated by the European Council in Feira (19/20 June 2000).

With regard to relations between the enlarged Union and its neighbours, the European Council stated that enlargement will strengthen relations with Russia, and expressed the wish that relations with Ukraine, Moldova, Belarus and the southern Mediterranean countries be enhanced, based on a long-term approach promoting democratic and economic reforms, sustainable developments and trade.

The Commission will soon bring forward proposals to that end.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/697 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/697

---

(2004/C 78 E/0745)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0120/03

by Jorge Hernández Mollar (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(28 January 2003)

Subject:   Border fishing dispute at the mouth of the Guadiana

The fishing dispute taking place at the mouth of the River Guadiana on the border between Spain and Portugal has reached such an intensity that fishermen from the coastal villages in Huelva (Spain) have complained that the Portuguese navy has fired shots at them.

It is for this reason that these Spanish fishermen have called for suspension of the current fishing agreement until the Portuguese navy undertakes not to open fire, because according to them it was a miracle that nobody died in the attacks by the Portuguese patrol-boat, which was ‘shooting to kill’.

Given the powers that the Commission has in the area of fisheries under the CFP, what initiatives has it taken to resolve this fishing dispute, how far will it intervene with the Portuguese authorities to prevent the Portuguese navy from continuing to fire on Huelva fishermen, and will it act as an arbitrator to find a compromise solution to the dispute?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(24 February 2003)

The Commission has received no request from the national authorities to take any action over incidents that have occurred at the mouth of the Guadiana.

It falls to the national authorities to apply the Community or national rules in force and to their judicial bodies to impose penalties on those who break them.

In any case it goes without saying that the Commission wishes fishing in this zone to be conducted under satisfactory conditions for all parties.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/697 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/697

---

(2004/C 78 E/0746)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0192/03

by Lennart Sacrédeus (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(31 January 2003)

Subject:   Indian priest imprisoned without charge in Qatar

Mr Arokiyasamy Stanislas Chellappa is a Christian Indian who has lived and worked as an engineer in Qatar on the Arabian peninsula for 22 years together with his wife, Ester, and their 12-year old son. On 9 December 2002, he was arrested with no reason given. Two weeks later, on 23 December, he was released on bail but was told to return to India by 22 January 2003 at the latest.

If that does not happen, Mr Chellappa will be re-arrested. The authorities gave no reason for the arrest on this occasion either.

Mr Chellappa has been a priest in a community of Christian Indians in Qatar. His family and friends suspect that the reason for his arrest is connected with his faith and Christian activities.

In what way does the Commission work to influence governments in such cases and what is the established practice? Is the Commission aware of the above case? Is the Commission able to take any action on this specific matter concerning human rights and religious freedom?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(28 February 2003)

The Commission does not have any precise information on the case raised by the Honourable Member. Without a delegation in the country, it is difficult to obtain details.

If it possesses the necessary evidence, the European Union can intervene in individual cases of abuse of human rights by making representations to the authorities of the countries concerned. The appropriateness of such representations is assessed on a case by case basis through a confidential consultation procedure.

In addition it should be pointed out that the Commission is in the process of negotiating a free trade agreement between the Community and the Gulf Cooperation Council which would include the human rights clause as one of the essential elements. The Commission has also put a proposal to the Gulf Cooperation Council on opening a political dialogue on human rights. The purpose of this dialogue would be to regularly discuss issues of respect for fundamental rights as enshrined in particular in the Universal Declaration on Human Rights and its complementary International Covenants, and to encourage the GCC party states which have not yet signed and ratified these instruments to do so. Individual cases might also be raised during this dialogue.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/698 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/698

---

(2004/C 78 E/0747)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0281/03

by Ulpu Iivari (PSE) to the Commission

(3 February 2003)

Subject:   Reform of the common fisheries policy and restoration of wild salmon stocks

Baltic wild salmon are very important for recreational fishing and hence for tourism in the northern part of the Gulf of Bothnia and northern Finland. However, wild salmon are currently being overfished at sea and in estuaries, and they are often fished at the wrong times. As a result, salmon are being prevented from migrating to their spawning rivers, or at least their migration is being seriously disrupted.

The European Union's fisheries policy completely disregards the issue of restoring wild salmon stocks in the Baltic, although the EU's competence extends to the Member States' sea and river fishing. In the Baltic, the EU uses its authority over salmon fishing only as a member of the Baltic Sea Fishery Commission, and restrictions on fishing mainly take the form of fishing quotas for each species.

By joint ministerial decision, Sweden and Finland have restricted salmon fishing in the northern Gulf of Bothnia, particularly in the estuary of the River Tornio, but only Finland has enforced this agreement strictly. Sweden has granted exemptions to its own fishermen, more or less in accordance with the rules, and the Swedes' salmon catches from the river mouth have increased to a level which exceeds many times over the recreational catch from the whole of the River Tornio.

Does the Commission attach importance to restoring wild salmon stocks and promoting recreational fishing for wild salmon? How will the Commission take Baltic wild salmon into account in the current reform of the EU's fisheries policy?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(3 March 2003)

As the Honourable Member rightly mentioned, Baltic salmon during its marine life stage is managed in the framework of the International Baltic Sea Fishery Commission (IBSFC), which in accordance with the Gdansk Convention of 1973 is the body responsible for the management of the living resources in the Baltic Sea.

This organisation adopted in 1997 a long term management plan on salmon, known as Salmon Action Plan. Its main objective is to improve the status of wild salmon stocks in the Baltic and to gradually increase the natural production of wild Baltic salmon in order to reach by 2010 at least 50 % of the best estimates of the potential capacity of each wild salmon river. Other objectives include the re-establishment of wild salmon populations in potential salmon rivers and the improvement of wild salmon habitats where possible.

Even if not all elements of the Salmon Action Plan fall within the responsibility of IBSFC, the latter closely monitors the implementation of the Action Plan in all its aspects. Contracting Parties are required to regularly report on the activities falling within their responsibility, like releases of reared salmon or restocking of wild salmon.

National regulatory measures in coastal areas aiming at reducing the fishing pressure on wild salmon and measures taken at IBSFC level go hand in hand. The most effective measure at IBSFC level was definitely the reduction of the salmon total allowable catch (TAC) based on the need of the wild salmon populations. In the late 1980's, the off-shore and coastal fishery captured not less than one million salmon annually. The TAC for year 2003 for the Main Basin and the Gulf of Bothnia is set at 460 000 fish.

These measures are already paying off. According to the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES), the status of the wild populations in the Main Basin and the Gulf of Bothnia improved in general over the last years, and the wild smolt production in 2000-2002 was very high. Good spawning runs are therefore expected for years 2003-2005. Further significant improvement of the status of wild salmon is expected through the implementation, from 2004, of an alternative harvesting strategy for Baltic salmon, which was adopted at last IBSFC Annual Session and which aims at shifting more from a mixed wild and reared population fishery to a selective harvesting of reared populations.

This might illustrate why the Commission is of the opinion that the conservation measures to protect wild salmon taken at both national and IBSFC level represent a success story for fisheries management in the Baltic. As long as this is the case, the Commission does not see a need for enhanced responsibilities regarding salmon. With regard to recreational fisheries, the Commission can inform the Honourable Member that the Community has no policy on Baltic wild salmon.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/700 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/700

---

(2004/C 78 E/0748)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0320/03

by Massimo Carraro (PSE) and Vincenzo Lavarra (PSE) to the Commission

(10 February 2003)

Subject:   Poultrymeat imports

In the last two years there has been a huge increase (109 % a year) in the volume of poultrymeat (chicken and turkey) imported onto the Community market, which has risen from 244 000 to 790 000 tonnes. The meat in question falls under tariff headings 0210, 1602 31 11, and 1602 31 19 (fresh meat and meat preparations).

Does the Commission know that the meat is being imported in such a way as to circumvent the prevailing tariffs, as laid down by the WTO, because, merely by adding small quantities of salt and/or other spices, exporters can benefit from unlawful tariff reductions, resulting in unjustified losses to the Community budget?

What practical steps will the Commission take to protect consumers, bearing in mind that inspections carried out in various parts of the Union have shown that the imported meat contains nitrofurans and the farms of origin use types of animal meal prohibited under Community rules?

Is the Commission aware that this continuing trading aberration has seriously disturbed the Community market, from both the health and the economic point of view, and considerably damaged European producers, who are having to contend with distorted, unfair competition?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(18 March 2003)

The Commission has indeed noted a significant increase in imports of certain types of poultrymeat and poultrymeat preparations. Nevertheless the figures quoted by the Honourable Members do not relate to the past 24 months or to the products concerned, but seem to relate to other reference periods and to imports of all poultrymeat and poultrymeat preparations, expressed in carcase weight. In 2000-2001, imports increased from 397 000 tonnes to 576 000 tonnes. In 2002, they comprised an estimated 550 000 tonnes.

Certain types of chicken meat were classified by some Member States' customs authorities as salted meat under tariff heading 0210, although the meat in question was frozen chicken meat containing insufficient quantities of salt for long-term preservation and which therefore, by the mere fact of being frozen, fell under tariff heading 0207. Faced with divergent interpretations of the general rules on tariff classification in the Community, the Commission as quickly as possible took appropriate legal measures by means of Regulation (EC) No 1223/2002 (1) in order to clarify the tariff classification of this type of product and to ensure that they are classified uniformly as frozen chicken meat under heading 0207.

Although the Commission is not aware at present of illicit circumvention under tariff heading 1602 covering inter alia uncooked, seasoned meat, the Honourable Members can be sure that appropriate measures would be taken immediately to combat this type of fraud if it was identified.

The Commission is aware of the health and economic risks and has taken a range of practical measures to protect consumers and producers. Third countries must present residue control plans to the Commission, including measures to prevent abuse. Tests of substances are also carried out at the point of import to the Union. Inspection missions by the Food and Veterinary Office also address the control measures in place in relation to residues of banned substances.

Where it is evident that there are problems, further measures are considered. These range from the imposition of increased testing, from 20 % to 100 % of imported consignments, to an outright ban on imports. There are at present measures of this nature in place in relation to imports of poultrymeat from several third countries, including Brazil, Thailand and China.

Finally, the Commission has recently adopted a proposal concerning the official controls on food and feed (2) and is preparing a proposal on feed hygiene where provisions to prevent health hazards to human health, animal health and the environment will be further harmonised and strengthened. Both proposals are also applicable to third countries that want to export to the Union.

---

(1)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 1223/2002 of 8 July 2002 concerning the classification of certain goods in the Combined Nomenclature, OJ L 179, 9.7.2002.

(2)  Proposal for a Regulation of the Parliament and of the Council on official feed and food controls, COM(2003) 0052 final.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/701 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/701

---

(2004/C 78 E/0749)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0450/03

by Cristiana Muscardini (UEN) to the Commission

(19 February 2003)

Subject:   Reception centres and ‘human traffickers’

‘The Pendeli reception centre in Greece: tin shacks awash in a sea of rubbish and sewage, ... 80 kilometres from Athens, a camp run by Doctors of the World, an NGO which is doing everything possible to help the desperate immigrants in Greece — in vain. The influx of desperate people becomes larger every day. Afghans, Iraqis and Kurds arrive in Turkey and from there move on to Greece, where they have to pay the “mafia” at least USD 2 500 in order to continue their journey. They hide in lorries carried on fast ships or in “coffin boats”. At least 15 thousand foreigners have passed through this camp and all of them have only one idea in their heads: to reach the real Europe’ (the 6 February 2003 edition of Panorama). ‘The voyage of hope of Turkish Kurds starts in Istanbul and takes various directions ... They might travel through the Balkans in lorries or on foot, until they reach Italy, or to Kosovo and Albania, from where they travel to Italy on rafts, or on shabby old vessels from Izmir to the Calabrian coast. Or there is the “new route” by air to Tunisia, where they embark on fishing boats bound for Sicily. Whatever the chosen route, the “fare” is between EUR 3 000 and 6 000, depending on the final destination, amounting to a turnover of EUR 18 million in two years. The price is paid in cash in Turkey’ (from the same edition of Panorama). These two excerpts from the Italian weekly magazine are ample evidence of the degrading, miserable, degenerate and barbaric conditions in certain reception centres, devoid of even minimal respect for human dignity, and the fact that there are obviously criminal organisations of ‘human traffickers’ who greedily exploit the desperation of these refugees.

Can the Commission say:

| 1. | whether the existence of these camps in a Member State and the conditions there have anything to do with the provisions on immigration set out in the Schengen agreement; |
| --- | --- |

1.

whether the existence of these camps in a Member State and the conditions there have anything to do with the provisions on immigration set out in the Schengen agreement;

| 2. | what instruments the Union has at its disposal to prevent the degradation of the camps and criminal exploitation from making the immigrants' existence even more barbaric and totally destroying their human dignity; |
| --- | --- |

2.

what instruments the Union has at its disposal to prevent the degradation of the camps and criminal exploitation from making the immigrants' existence even more barbaric and totally destroying their human dignity;

| 3. | whether it does not consider it necessary and appropriate to prevail upon the government of a country which is a candidate for accession to bring its legislation on immigration into line with that of the much-vaunted European Union, in order to ensure that phenomena such as those described cannot occur with impunity on its territory? |
| --- | --- |

3.

whether it does not consider it necessary and appropriate to prevail upon the government of a country which is a candidate for accession to bring its legislation on immigration into line with that of the much-vaunted European Union, in order to ensure that phenomena such as those described cannot occur with impunity on its territory?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(15 May 2003)

In accordance with the Protocol integrating the Schengen acquis into the framework of the Union, Member States must expel persons who do not fulfil or no longer fulfil the short-stay conditions applicable, where they have not left voluntarily, where it may be assumed that they will not do so or where their immediate departure is required for reasons of national security or public policy. For the purpose of implementing these provisions, Member States may hold illegal residents or require them to reside within a certain area.

As mentioned in the reply to Written Question E-431/03 by Mrs Poli Bortone (1), the Council adopted on 28 February 2002, following a Commission's Communication on a common policy on illegal immigration of 15 November 2001 (2), an action plan on illegal immigration (3). Moreover, the Council adopted on 13 June 2002 a plan for the management of the external borders of the Member States, which is also based on a Commission's Communication on the subject of 7 May 2002 (4). Proper implementation of these measures may reduce irregular flows and thus, in the long term, diminish the burden on centres or camps as described in the question.

Moreover, it has to be stressed that if the persons in question would have applied or would apply for asylum in Greece, that there are no Community provisions, based on Article 63 of the EC Treaty in place yet, that would allow the Commission to take any action, such as requesting further information from the Greek authorities.

The Council has adopted Directive 2003/9/EC of 27 January 2003, laying down minimum standards for the reception of asylum seekers (5), but these provisions still need to be transposed by the Member States. The Directive aims to improve substantially the reception conditions for asylum seekers at least in some Member States. The principle that destitute asylum seekers, who are allowed to stay in the country to await the outcome of procedures, are entitled to reception conditions (including housing, food, clothing and a daily expenses allowance) has been accepted by all Member States (nevertheless reception conditions may be excluded if an application for asylum is presented later than as soon as reasonably practicable). In all Member States, asylum seekers will be entitled to proper health care, information and documentation, schooling and, in a limited number of cases, access to the labour market. In addition, Member States would commit themselves to ensuring appropriate guidance, monitoring and control of the standard of reception conditions. The deadline for transposition is 6 February 2005.

In this framework, it is also worth noting that the Greek authorities are investing most of their European Refugee Fund (ERF) funding in upgrading and enhancing the reception capacity for asylum seekers. Since 1998 several non-governmental organisations (NGO's) have been able to develop and ensure the provision of accommodation and food for asylum seekers in Greece (‘inter alia’ in the Aspropyrgos Center run by EL.IN.AS, the accommodation center in Nea Makri run by the Greek Red Cross and the night shelter for asylum seekers at the Centre of Athens run by Médecins du Monde).

Turkey, as a Candidate Country, has an Accession Partnership and has adopted a National Programme for the Adoption of the Acquis (NPAA). The NPAA naturally provides for Turkey gradually to bring its legislation and practices on migration, asylum and border management into line with the acquis. In 2002, the Turkish authorities established inter-departmental working groups on migration, asylum and border management, which were charged with drawing up strategies setting out in more detail the plan for aligning with the acquis in these areas. The strategies on migration and border management are about to be published. Moreover, the Turkish authorities have decided to draw up Action Plans for migration, asylum and border management which will set out a detailed schedule for legislative alignment, institutional reform, training and investment with a view to aligning with the acquis. The drawing up and implementation of these Action Plans will be supported by the Commission through two ‘twinnings’, which will start later in 2003. Moreover, in June 2002, the Commission and Turkey opened discussion on a special Action Plan on illegal migration and it is hoped to conclude negotiations on this plan shortly.

---

(1)  OJ C 51 E, 26.2.2004, p. 24.

(2)  COM(2001) 672 final.

(3)  OJ C 142, 14.6.2002.

(4)  COM(2002) 233 final.

(5)  OJ L 31, 6.2.2003.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/703 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/703

---

(2004/C 78 E/0750)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0557/03

by Anne Van Lancker (PSE) to the Commission

(20 February 2003)

Subject:   Regulations governing milk quotas in cross-border farms

A Belgian farmer is running a dairy farm in Meer-Hoogstraten (Belgium) which has a quota of 397 727 litres of milk with a fat content of 3,76 % (Producer No 00113020140). His wife wishes to take over the farm of her mother and stepfather in Baarle Nassau (Netherlands) which has a quota of 307 164 litres of milk with a 4,04 % fat content (COS registration number 66244). The farms are 5 km apart on either side of the border. The husband's farm is poorly parcelled (less than 3 ha per parcel) and is situated in a sensitive surface water protection area (pursuant to the nitrates directive). The wife's future farm is situated in an area of consolidated land parcels, with farmhouse, of 40 ha.

In accordance with the findings in the Ballmann judgment (1), the Belgian farmer wishes to produce his milk quota on the farm in Castelre — Baarle Nassau. He is retaining his farm and adjoining land in Meer-Hoogstraten and will continue to supply his milk to a Belgian purchaser. His wife's future farm will supply its milk to a purchaser in the Netherlands.

The Belgian quota remains tied to the Belgian producer (the husband) and to the Belgian parcels of land. It therefore remains a Belgian quota. The Belgian regulations do not expressly state that a milk production unit must be situated in Belgium. The Belgian regulations define a ‘milk production unit’ as a complex of functionally connected facilities. Nowhere is this restricted to a geographical area on Belgian soil.

Is this arrangement compatible with European regulations? What provisions do the two farms have to comply with? Is the Belgian purchaser permitted to keep milk in the tank on the husband's farm in Castelre — Baarle Nassau (NL) or must he transport the milk tank himself to the farm in Meer-Hoogstraten (B)?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(17 March 2003)

The Commission must regretfully inform the Honourable Member that the arrangement envisaged is not permissible. Article 9 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 3950/92 of 28 December 1992 establishing an additional levy in the milk and milk products sector (2) defines producer as a natural or legal person or group of natural or legal persons farming a holding within the geographical territory of a Member State and selling milk or other milk products direct to the consumer and/or supplying purchasers and holding as all production units operated by a single producer and located within the geographical territory of a Member State. In both cases ‘geographical territory of a Member State’ was deliberately introduced by Council Regulation (EEC) No 1560/93 of 14 June 1993 (3) in order to prevent unmanageable situations in administration of the quotas.

The findings in the Ballmann case are not relevant. It does not deal with cross-border questions and moreover refers to the old milk quota system introduced by Regulation (EEC) No 857/84 (4).

Thus the quantities of milk produced on the two holdings must be separately delivered in Belgium and the Netherlands and entered against the appropriate country's milk quota.

---

(1)  Case C-341/89, Ballmann v. Hauptzollamt Osnabrück.

(2)  OJ L 405, 31.12.1992.

(3)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 1560/93 of 14 June 1993 amending Regulation (EEC) No 3950/92 establishing an additional levy in the milk and milk products sector, OJ L 154, 25.6.1993.

(4)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 857/84 of 31 March 1984 adopting general rules for application of the levy referred to in Article 5c of Regulation (EEC) No 804/68 in the milk and milk products sector, OJ L 90, 1.4.1984.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/704 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/704

---

(2004/C 78 E/0751)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0736/03

by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(11 March 2003)

Subject:   Building of ‘controlled tips’

There are plans to build a series of ‘controlled tips’ for ordinary refuse at various sites in Portugal, in some cases with aid from Community funds.

What projects have already been submitted for Community funding, and what stage have these projects reached?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(28 April 2003)

So far no request for Community Fund financing for controlled tips has been presented by Portugal.

On the question of financing for such projects from the Structural Funds, the Commission reminds the Honourable Member that under the subsidiarity principle projects are selected at national level by the managing authority for each operational programme once its strategic priorities have been approved by the Commission. Only projects costing more than EUR 50 million have to be notified to the Commission (Article 25 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 (1)).

Thus the Commission does not have prior knowledge of all projects financed from the Structural Funds and invites him to approach the Portuguese authorities for information.

---

(1)  Council Regulation 1260/1999 of 21 June 1999 laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/704 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/704

---

(2004/C 78 E/0752)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0751/03

by Mary Banotti (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(11 March 2003)

Subject:   National Irish Development Plan 2000-2006

How was the EUR 20 million allocated under the National Irish Development Plan 2000-2006 for Maríne Tourism Infrastructure allocated? Is the Commission satisfied that this entire budget was distributed as originally intended?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(14 April 2003)

The Irish National Development Plan is implemented through several Operational Programmes which contain a range of measures, some of which are confinanced by the Community and others funded from purely national resources.

The Maríne Tourism measure is a nationally funded measure featuring in the two Regional Operational Programmes i.e. The Border Midland and Western and the Southern and Eastern Programmes.

As this measure is not cofinanced from Union Structural Funds, the distribution of the funding is not a matter on which the Commission is in a position to comment.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/705 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/705

---

(2004/C 78 E/0753)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0790/03

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(14 March 2003)

Subject:   Legislation on waste incineration

| 1. | Following the judgment of the Court of Justice on 13 February in case C-458/2000, does the Commission intend to bring forward any changes to the existing Community legislation regarding waste incineration in order to clarify the status of incineration as a recovery or disposal operation? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Following the judgment of the Court of Justice on 13 February in case C-458/2000, does the Commission intend to bring forward any changes to the existing Community legislation regarding waste incineration in order to clarify the status of incineration as a recovery or disposal operation?

| 2. | Does the Commission consider that there are any contradictions between the Court's judgment in this case and existing EU legislation, such as the 1994 packaging directive, which specifies that energy recovery can be counted towards packaging waste recovery targets? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Does the Commission consider that there are any contradictions between the Court's judgment in this case and existing EU legislation, such as the 1994 packaging directive, which specifies that energy recovery can be counted towards packaging waste recovery targets?

| 3. | What are the likely implications of the judgment, in the Commission's opinion, for the processing of municipal waste through incineration and the desirability of incineration as a means of treating waste? |
| --- | --- |

3.

What are the likely implications of the judgment, in the Commission's opinion, for the processing of municipal waste through incineration and the desirability of incineration as a means of treating waste?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(27 May 2003)

| 1. | The Commission has launched a general study on recovery and disposal operations with a view to clarifying the definitions of recovery and disposal. This study will be submitted to a workshop of experts from Member States and stakeholders mid-2003.
  However, the Commission is of the opinion that changing the definition of energy recovery should be done in the framework of an amendment of Council Directive 75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975 on waste (1), as amended (2). At this stage the Commission is still reflecting on the need for any such proposals. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The Commission has launched a general study on recovery and disposal operations with a view to clarifying the definitions of recovery and disposal. This study will be submitted to a workshop of experts from Member States and stakeholders mid-2003.

However, the Commission is of the opinion that changing the definition of energy recovery should be done in the framework of an amendment of Council Directive 75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975 on waste (1), as amended (2). At this stage the Commission is still reflecting on the need for any such proposals.

| 2. | The European Court of Justice has decided in its judgement in case C-458/00 that the primary objective of incineration in a dedicated municipal waste incinerator is waste disposal. The Court added that this classification as a disposal operation is not changed if, as a secondary effect of the process, energy is generated and used.
  The consequence of the Court Decision is that the definition of the recovery target provided for in Article 6 of the Parliament and Council Directive 94/62/EC of 20 December 1994 on packaging and packaging (3) waste should be interpreted as follows: The word recovery is defined in Directive 94/62/EC as any of the applicable operations provided for in Annex IIB to Directive 75/442/EEC. The Court's judgement in case C-458/00 has by applying the concept of the primary objective of the operation excluded dedicated incineration in municipal incinerators from this list of operations.
  Energy recovery defined as ‘the use of combustible packaging waste as a means to generate energy through direct incineration with or without other waste and with recovery of the heat’ is excluded from the concept of recycling as it is defined in Directive 94/62/EC.
  On this basis, to achieve the overall recovery target, Member States have either to increase recycling or to recover energy from the combustible fraction of the packaging waste stream through co-incineration in cement kilns or power plants, which have been recognised by the Court as recovery operations (Law case C-228/00, judgement 13 February 2003). |
| --- | --- |

2.

The European Court of Justice has decided in its judgement in case C-458/00 that the primary objective of incineration in a dedicated municipal waste incinerator is waste disposal. The Court added that this classification as a disposal operation is not changed if, as a secondary effect of the process, energy is generated and used.

The consequence of the Court Decision is that the definition of the recovery target provided for in Article 6 of the Parliament and Council Directive 94/62/EC of 20 December 1994 on packaging and packaging (3) waste should be interpreted as follows: The word recovery is defined in Directive 94/62/EC as any of the applicable operations provided for in Annex IIB to Directive 75/442/EEC. The Court's judgement in case C-458/00 has by applying the concept of the primary objective of the operation excluded dedicated incineration in municipal incinerators from this list of operations.

Energy recovery defined as ‘the use of combustible packaging waste as a means to generate energy through direct incineration with or without other waste and with recovery of the heat’ is excluded from the concept of recycling as it is defined in Directive 94/62/EC.

On this basis, to achieve the overall recovery target, Member States have either to increase recycling or to recover energy from the combustible fraction of the packaging waste stream through co-incineration in cement kilns or power plants, which have been recognised by the Court as recovery operations (Law case C-228/00, judgement 13 February 2003).

| 3. | The waste management hierarchy contained in Council Resolution of 27 February 1997 (4) on a Community strategy for waste management gives the first priority to prevention and the second priority to recovery with a preference for reuse and material recovery insofar as they are the best environmental option. Disposal of waste is the last priority.
  For the time being, the Commission is still evaluating the consequences that the Court judgement could have on the decision of the competent authorities concerning the waste treatment technologies. Indeed, these decisions are influenced by ‘inter alia’ environmental legislation, including Community provisions such as obligations to divert large amounts of biodegradable waste from landfills and obligations to recycle large amounts of certain waste streams (packaging, end-of-life vehicles, waste electronic and electric equipment). In this context, one of the options for authorities maximising recovery of waste would be to opt for more composting or recycling, but also where appropriate for more energy recovery through co-incineration of waste in substitution of primary fuels in industrial installations (power plants, cement kilns).
  Additionally, irrespective of the classification of dedicated incineration as a recovery operation or a disposal operation, Directive 2000/76/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 4 December 2000 on the incineration of waste (5) includes provisions requiring that energy is recovered as far as practicable. Council Directive 1999/31/EC of 26 April 1999 on the landfill of waste (6) also includes such a provision for recovering energy from landfill gas. Furthermore, the Best Available Techniques Reference document (BREF) for waste incineration currently under development in the framework of Council Directive 96/61/EC of 24 September 1996 concerning integrated pollution prevention and control (7) will include a chapter on using the energy released by the waste. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The waste management hierarchy contained in Council Resolution of 27 February 1997 (4) on a Community strategy for waste management gives the first priority to prevention and the second priority to recovery with a preference for reuse and material recovery insofar as they are the best environmental option. Disposal of waste is the last priority.

For the time being, the Commission is still evaluating the consequences that the Court judgement could have on the decision of the competent authorities concerning the waste treatment technologies. Indeed, these decisions are influenced by ‘inter alia’ environmental legislation, including Community provisions such as obligations to divert large amounts of biodegradable waste from landfills and obligations to recycle large amounts of certain waste streams (packaging, end-of-life vehicles, waste electronic and electric equipment). In this context, one of the options for authorities maximising recovery of waste would be to opt for more composting or recycling, but also where appropriate for more energy recovery through co-incineration of waste in substitution of primary fuels in industrial installations (power plants, cement kilns).

Additionally, irrespective of the classification of dedicated incineration as a recovery operation or a disposal operation, Directive 2000/76/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 4 December 2000 on the incineration of waste (5) includes provisions requiring that energy is recovered as far as practicable. Council Directive 1999/31/EC of 26 April 1999 on the landfill of waste (6) also includes such a provision for recovering energy from landfill gas. Furthermore, the Best Available Techniques Reference document (BREF) for waste incineration currently under development in the framework of Council Directive 96/61/EC of 24 September 1996 concerning integrated pollution prevention and control (7) will include a chapter on using the energy released by the waste.

---

(1)  OJ L 194, 25.7.1975.

(2)  OJ L 78, 26.3.1991.

(3)  OJ L 365, 31.12.1994.

(4)  OJ C 76, 11.3.1997.

(5)  OJ L 332, 28.12.2000.

(6)  OJ L 182, 16.7.1999.

(7)  OJ L 257, 10.10.1996.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/706 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/706

---

(2004/C 78 E/0754)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0816/03

by Paulo Casaca (PSE) to the Commission

(17 March 2003)

Subject:   Independent study on the use of inter-specific wine varieties

In its reply to Question E-3520/01 (1) the Commission said that it would ‘finance an independent study on the use of inter-specific wine varieties’ on the basis of which it would send a report to Parliament and the Council by 31 December 2003.

Although this date is still a long way off, is there any possiblity that — given the natural concern this issue is causing in the Azores Autonomous Region which has a delegation for marketing this type of wine only until 2006 — the Commission might publish this independent study, even at the preliminary stage preceding the completion of the report itself?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(15 April 2003)

In July 2002 the Commission opened an invitation to tender for the study in question, in accordance with Article 17(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1493/1999 of 17 May 1999 on the common organisation of the market in wine (2).

Based on the tenders received, the Commission chose a consortium made up of German, French and Hungarian companies.

The study must be completed by 30 June 2003; the Commission will send it to the Honourable Member when it becomes available.

---

(1)  OJ C 160 E, 4.7.2002, p. 131.

(2)  OJ L 179, 14.7.1999.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/707 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/707

---

(2004/C 78 E/0755)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0926/03

by Peter Skinner (PSE) to the Commission

(24 March 2003)

Subject:   Relocation of workforce from Eastleigh, United Kingdom to Battipaglia, Southern Italy by Pirelli

I have been informed by a local Eastleigh Labour Councillor, Cllr Bill Luffman, that Pirelli illegally transferred 312 jobs from Eastleigh in the south-east of England to Battipaglia in Southern Italy using GBP 50 million of an Italian Government grant.

I request that you urgently investigate the alleged misuse of these funds on the basis that Italy has attracted business from another Member State with the help of state funds.

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(8 May 2003)

Community law does not prohibit companies operating in one or several Member States from reorganising their activities, and locating their investments according to their business interests.

On 2 October 2002, the Commission has approved aid in favour of Fibre Ottiche Sud for an investment in Battipaglia, southern Italy. This decision was taken on basis of the compliance of the project with the rules of the Multisectoral Framework on regional aid for large investment projects (1). For further information about this subject, the Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to Written Question E-3777/02 by Mr Huhne (2).

---

(1)  OJ C 107, 7.4.1998.

(2)  OJ C 280 E, 21.11.2003, p. 26.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/707 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/707

---

(2004/C 78 E/0756)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1237/03

by Diana Wallis (ELDR) to the Commission

(26 March 2003)

Subject:   EEA Agreement on enlargement of the EU

Will the Commission confirm the timetable for consultation with the European Parliament in respect of the conclusion and ratification of the EEA Agreement with the acceding States on enlargement of the European Union?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(25 April 2003)

As a consequence of the Union enlargement, the agreement on the European Economic Area (EEA), which extends the internal market to Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein, must also be enlarged. This has to be negotiated with these three EEA European Free Trade Association (EFTA) countries. As the EEA Agreement is a mixed agreement, the Commission has obtained a mandate, adopted by the 9 December 2002 General Affairs Council, to negotiate on behalf of the Community and the current Member States. The negotiations were launched on 9 January 2003.

Much progress has been achieved in the very difficult negotiations over recent weeks, and a set of extremely finely balanced elements for an agreement is now there, which the Commission believes will enable to conclude rapidly the negociations. The Commission has had several exchanges of views with the Parliament on the subject of these negotiations.

The Commission hopes to conclude the negotiations with the EEA EFTA countries and the Acceding Countries on the enlargement of the EEA Agreement in the near future. Once the negotiations are concluded, the draft EEA enlargement instrument will be transmitted to the Parliament. As for the timetable, it is expected that the EEA enlargement instrument will be ratified in parallel to the Treaty of Accession to the European Union. As for the involvement of the Parliament it shall give its assent in accordance with Article 300 (3) second subparagraph of the EC Treaty, since the EEA Agreement belongs to the category of agreements concluded by the Community in accordance with Article 310 of the Treaty.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/708 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/708

---

(2004/C 78 E/0757)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1266/03

by Caroline Lucas (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(27 March 2003)

Subject:   TRIPs, UPOV and Farmers' Rights

The EU in its bilateral trade agreements almost invariably seeks to impose obligations on its partners to accede to international treaties on intellectual property which go beyond their existing commitments. One example is the use of what has been termed ‘TRIPs Plus’ to require trading partners to accede to the International Convention for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants (UPOV 1991) which carries specific rules on plant variety rights not contained in TRIPs. The EU-Lebanon agreement is the latest example; although Lebanon is not yet a member of the WTO it is required to accede both to UPOV 1991 and to the TRIPs Agreement within 5 years.

The Commission in its Concept Paper of September 2002 on the review of TRIPs Article 27.3b and the TRIPs/CBD relationship notes that Article 27.3b requires effective sui generis protection of plant variety rights but agrees that, although the UPOV 1991 Convention meets the standard of effectiveness in Article 27.3(b), other protection models may be equally effective.

In addition, the Concept Paper says that Farmers' exemptions (i.e. exceptions to plant variety rights or patents allowing farmers to save, use, exchange or sell seeds of protected varieties or seeds) can, under certain circumstances, be justified under Article 27.3(b) of the TRIPs Agreement, or under Article 30 of the TRIPs Agreement. These rights are either not available or are severely restricted under UPOV 1991.

Will the Commission please explain why it pursues a set of objectives in its bilateral trade negotiations which clearly and effectively prevent the application of the more flexible intellectual property rules in respect of plant varieties, as provided by the multilateral TRIPs agreement?

Answer given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(30 April 2003)

Through its Communication (Concept Paper) of 17 October 2002 (1) the Union was the first developed country Member of the World Trade Organisation (WTO) to address the review of Article 27.3(b) of the Trade Related Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPs) Agreement and related issues in a substantial, constructive and systematic manner.

In particular, the Union acknowledged that the UPOV Convention was not the only possible sui generis protection model for plant varieties and advocated an interpretation of the TRIPs Agreement that would allow for farmers' exemptions. This approach was welcomed by developing country Members, both in the TRIPs Council and in the Committee on Trade and Environment.

Bilateral trade agreements concluded by the Union do contain a reference to the UPOV Convention, either through a commitment to adhere to the UPOVC or by a best-endeavours close (which, however, does not constitute a firm obligation in itself). These commitments are part of a balanced package of mutual commitments and concessions, which have not been ‘imposed’ but have been freely accepted by the trading partner.

Since 2002, the Union approach has been adjusted to further accommodate development concerns: in ongoing bilateral negotiations, the Commission is proposing that the trade partner, as an alternative to the UPOV Convention, could equally implement some other adequate and effective sui generis system of protection of plant varieties, in compliance with Article 27.3(b) of the TRIPS Agreement.

In the Commission's assessment the UPOV Convention (in both its 1978 and 1991 versions) offers a protection regime much more flexible than patent protection and therefore better suited to the specifities of plant varieties (as a matter of fact, the Convention serves as a model for Community and national legislation in several Member States). Therefore, certain developing countries, e.g. Mexico, Brazil and Argentina, have adhered to the UPOV Convention, without having previously taken any such commitment in a bilateral agreement with the Union.

As regards farmers' exceptions, the UPOV Convention provides for a ‘farmers’ privilege', which permits farmers to use for propagating purposes, on their own holdings, the product of the harvest which they have obtained by planting, on their own holdings, the protected variety.

Moreover, the Convention states that breeders' rights do not extend to acts done privately and for noncommercial purposes: this exception does, in the view of the Commission, cover any act done by subsistence farmers (whose activities are, by definition, ‘non-commercial’) with regard to protected varieties, including the exchange of seed. So, as far as subsistence farmers are concerned, the possibility to provide for exceptions goes well beyond the ‘farmers’ privilege'.

Also, the Convention in many cases allows for the free breeding of new varieties on the basis of existing varieties (be it by agro-business or by farmers).

Finally, adherence to the UPOV Convention does not prevent the establishment of additional protection regimes for traditional farming practices, traditional knowledge or varieties which do not meet the criteria set out in the UPOV Convention, as well as the protection of farmers' rights as set out in the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture.

Exemptions beyond those available under the 1991 Act of the UPOV Convention could be conceived and defended as being allowed under Article 27.3(b) of the TRIPs Agreement. It would, however, be wrong to state that the UPOV Convention does not provide for a flexible system and for farmers' exemptions.

As such, the 1991 UPOV Convention does provide for an effective and flexible sui generis system for the protection of plant varieties though alternative models could be put in place, and would be consistent with the TRIPs Agreement provided they offer effective protection.

---

(1)  IP/C/W/383.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/709 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/709

---

(2004/C 78 E/0758)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1280/03

by María Sornosa Martínez (PSE) to the Commission

(4 April 2003)

Subject:   Incorrect transposition into national law of Directive 2002/49/EC

The Spanish Government is in the process of transposing into national law Directive 2002/49/EC (1) relating to the assessment and management of environmental noise.

Although the deadline for transposition has been set at July 2004, the preliminary draft law drawn up by the government has already sparked fierce controversy among sections of the public and ecologists, who feel that the government's draft law does not satisfy the expectations of the directive, especially with reference to the following:

| — | the distribution of responsibilities between the various parallel administrations in the field of environmental noise is not sufficiently delineated, despite being an obligation under the Directive; |
| --- | --- |

—

the distribution of responsibilities between the various parallel administrations in the field of environmental noise is not sufficiently delineated, despite being an obligation under the Directive;

| — | although the Directive provides for the adoption of three basic indicators for use in the noise maps and other acoustic indexes that can be defined by the Member States, the preliminary draft law proposes very little in this regard. It provides for standard acoustic indexes for the 24 hours of the day (divided into the three periods defined in the Directive: day, evening and night), but defers any definition of these until subsequent legislation is drafted; |
| --- | --- |

—

although the Directive provides for the adoption of three basic indicators for use in the noise maps and other acoustic indexes that can be defined by the Member States, the preliminary draft law proposes very little in this regard. It provides for standard acoustic indexes for the 24 hours of the day (divided into the three periods defined in the Directive: day, evening and night), but defers any definition of these until subsequent legislation is drafted;

| — | the draft law is vague as regards the noise maps and their typology (which are mandatory under the Directive), as it also defers until subsequent legislation the population density factors applicable to the delimitation of urban agglomerations, and the actual typology of the noise maps, etc.; |
| --- | --- |

—

the draft law is vague as regards the noise maps and their typology (which are mandatory under the Directive), as it also defers until subsequent legislation the population density factors applicable to the delimitation of urban agglomerations, and the actual typology of the noise maps, etc.;

| — | the action plans laid down in Annex V to the Directive are only taken up at a broad objectives level in the preliminary draft law, with the definition of their minimum contents, as set out in the Directive, being deferred until later. |
| --- | --- |

—

the action plans laid down in Annex V to the Directive are only taken up at a broad objectives level in the preliminary draft law, with the definition of their minimum contents, as set out in the Directive, being deferred until later.

The Commission can and should work with the Member States to ensure the correct transposition of directives into national law, by suggesting corrections, during the pre-approval process, to any aspects thereof which may present weaknesses.

In view of this, will the Commission intervene in the process of the transposition of Directive 2002/49/EC to correct those aspects of the Spanish preliminary draft law which clearly fail to conform with the provisions of Community noise legislation?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(7 May 2003)

The Commission has received the preliminary draft law transposing 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 — Commission statement within the conciliation committee regarding the Directive relating to the assessment and management of ambient noise, as well as the reports the Honourable Member attached to this question.

However, given that the preliminary draft is liable to be amended, the Commission does not propose to comment on it at this stage. It can therefore only await the formal notification of the measures transposing the Directive.

The Commission is at the disposal of the Spanish authorities to provide them with any assistance they may require in adopting measures to transpose the Directive by no later than 18 July 2004. Such measures must be notified to the Commission.

---

(1)  OJ L 189, 18.7.2002, p. 12.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/710 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/710

---

(2004/C 78 E/0759)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1285/03

by Mario Borghezio (NI) to the Commission

(4 April 2003)

Subject:   European Union action to ensure civil and respectful treatment for prisoners of war in Iraq

Right from the outset of the war in Iraq we have seen disturbing images of the inhuman treatment to which prisoners from the Anglo-American alliance are being subjected. The conduct of the Iraqi authorities manifestly contravenes the provisions of the Geneva Convention as regards respect for prisoners of war. It may very soon be that EU citizens are prisoners of war of the Iraqi authorities too.

What action will the Commission take in this regard?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(15 May 2003)

The Commission is very concerned by the inhuman treatments of prisoners of war, in violation of the provision of the Geneva Convention, in this war as in any other conflict. In this regard, the behaviour of the Iraqi authorities interviewing publicly American prisoners, with intimidatory intent, represents a clear violation of the Geneva Convention. This behaviour is to be condemned.

The Iraqi government has been dissolved following the United States military occupation. Therefore, the risk of Union citizens becoming prisoners of the Iraqi authorities no longer exists.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/711 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/711

---

(2004/C 78 E/0760)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1318/03

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(7 April 2003)

Subject:   Concern about maintaining non-commercial services outside Europe following the EU's requests in the WTO GATS 2 negotiations

| 1. | Is the Commission aware of the outrage expressed by the American national consumer organisation Public Citizen at the position taken by the Commission in preparation for the WTO negotiations in Geneva on services (General Agreement of Trade in Services 2000); Public Citizen claims that the Commission will be asking for European firms to have access to postal services, drinking water supply, energy supply, environmental management, public transport, higher education, the distribution of alcohol and the sale of insurance in the United States and the rest of the world and calling for the abolition of rules protecting consumers, the environment and democratic decision-making by elected representatives? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is the Commission aware of the outrage expressed by the American national consumer organisation Public Citizen at the position taken by the Commission in preparation for the WTO negotiations in Geneva on services (General Agreement of Trade in Services 2000); Public Citizen claims that the Commission will be asking for European firms to have access to postal services, drinking water supply, energy supply, environmental management, public transport, higher education, the distribution of alcohol and the sale of insurance in the United States and the rest of the world and calling for the abolition of rules protecting consumers, the environment and democratic decision-making by elected representatives?

| 2. | Should the reassuring statement made by Commissioner Lamy on 10 March 2003, at the start of the EP debate on the EU's approach to the GATS 2 negotiations, to the effect that all the commitments entered into by the EU are merely temporary, that the audiovisual media should be protected on grounds of cultural diversity, that government monopolies should remain possible, that there would be no pressure for privatisation or liberalisation and that the European socio-economic model should be maintained, lead us to conclude that the EU is much tougher on the outside world than on its own inhabitants? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Should the reassuring statement made by Commissioner Lamy on 10 March 2003, at the start of the EP debate on the EU's approach to the GATS 2 negotiations, to the effect that all the commitments entered into by the EU are merely temporary, that the audiovisual media should be protected on grounds of cultural diversity, that government monopolies should remain possible, that there would be no pressure for privatisation or liberalisation and that the European socio-economic model should be maintained, lead us to conclude that the EU is much tougher on the outside world than on its own inhabitants?

| 3. | Following the Unctad contribution to the developing countries' GATS lists of requests, will the developing countries be prepared in good time to adopt an equivalent position on the horizontal issues of emergency safeguard measures and credits for autonomous liberalisation that are of crucial importance to them, or does the Commission recognise that they need more time? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Following the Unctad contribution to the developing countries' GATS lists of requests, will the developing countries be prepared in good time to adopt an equivalent position on the horizontal issues of emergency safeguard measures and credits for autonomous liberalisation that are of crucial importance to them, or does the Commission recognise that they need more time?

| 4. | How does the Commission intend to allay fears outside the EU about demands that would disrupt local and regional service provision, not least to avoid a situation in which world public opinion sees the EU as playing the negative role traditionally expected of the United States? |
| --- | --- |

4.

How does the Commission intend to allay fears outside the EU about demands that would disrupt local and regional service provision, not least to avoid a situation in which world public opinion sees the EU as playing the negative role traditionally expected of the United States?

Answer given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(26 May 2003)

| 1. | The Commission is aware that Public Citizen has made a number of sensational and misleading claims about the Community's request to the United States. The critique is based on two misperceptions about the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS), namely that it promotes privatisation and that the agreement is a threat to governments' ability to regulate in the public interest.
  Neither the GATS nor the Union's requests are aimed at forcing the privatisation of public undertakings, whether or not they are entrusted with the provision of services of general interest. The Union is seeking commitments that will allow EU service providers access to third country markets in a number of sectors where the government has either already decided to open a particular sector to private domestic suppliers or where experience has shown that competition can be a tool in improving performance without endangering equitable access to public services.
  For example, current United States commitments in waste water services only cover ‘services contracted by private industry’. The Union has asked for an extension of this commitment to allow Union service providers to bid when municipalities contract these services out to private companies. This does not mean privatisation of municipal services, as it has been suggested, but if a municipality already uses or intends to use private contractors, there seems to be little reason to exclude Union service suppliers.
  Furthermore, the Union is not calling for nor does its requests imply the abolition of rules protecting consumers, the environment or democratic decision-making by elected representatives. Many services are strictly regulated for good reason and the GATS explicitly recognises World Trade Organisation (WTO) members' sovereign right to regulate economic and non-economic activities within their territory in pursuance of public policy objectives. To capture its full gains, market opening must be accompanied by an appropriate institutional and regulatory framework to encourage competition and to help ensure equitable access to essential services. The Union has no intention of seeking the deregulation of services. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The Commission is aware that Public Citizen has made a number of sensational and misleading claims about the Community's request to the United States. The critique is based on two misperceptions about the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS), namely that it promotes privatisation and that the agreement is a threat to governments' ability to regulate in the public interest.

Neither the GATS nor the Union's requests are aimed at forcing the privatisation of public undertakings, whether or not they are entrusted with the provision of services of general interest. The Union is seeking commitments that will allow EU service providers access to third country markets in a number of sectors where the government has either already decided to open a particular sector to private domestic suppliers or where experience has shown that competition can be a tool in improving performance without endangering equitable access to public services.

For example, current United States commitments in waste water services only cover ‘services contracted by private industry’. The Union has asked for an extension of this commitment to allow Union service providers to bid when municipalities contract these services out to private companies. This does not mean privatisation of municipal services, as it has been suggested, but if a municipality already uses or intends to use private contractors, there seems to be little reason to exclude Union service suppliers.

Furthermore, the Union is not calling for nor does its requests imply the abolition of rules protecting consumers, the environment or democratic decision-making by elected representatives. Many services are strictly regulated for good reason and the GATS explicitly recognises World Trade Organisation (WTO) members' sovereign right to regulate economic and non-economic activities within their territory in pursuance of public policy objectives. To capture its full gains, market opening must be accompanied by an appropriate institutional and regulatory framework to encourage competition and to help ensure equitable access to essential services. The Union has no intention of seeking the deregulation of services.

| 2. | The Union has already opened sectors involved with provision of services of general interest to foreign suppliers where these were already open to domestic competition, e.g. telecommunication and postal services. Second, the Union requests concern sectors where policy objectives such as access for the poor can be ensured through means other than restricting competition, including universal service obligations or subsidies. For many people in developing countries, access to affordable and efficient services of general interest still remains a distant hope. Removing barriers that restrict the access of foreign firms or discriminate against them may help improve access to and the performance of certain services of general interest. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The Union has already opened sectors involved with provision of services of general interest to foreign suppliers where these were already open to domestic competition, e.g. telecommunication and postal services. Second, the Union requests concern sectors where policy objectives such as access for the poor can be ensured through means other than restricting competition, including universal service obligations or subsidies. For many people in developing countries, access to affordable and efficient services of general interest still remains a distant hope. Removing barriers that restrict the access of foreign firms or discriminate against them may help improve access to and the performance of certain services of general interest.

| 3. | WTO members adopted ‘Modalities for the treatment of autonomous liberalisation’ at the beginning of March 2003. By establishing agreed criteria for granting credit for autonomous liberalisation, negotiators, from both developed and developing countries, can now engage more confidently in their bilateral negotiations for specific commitments on market access.
  The deadline for concluding negotiations on an emergency safeguard measure under the GATS has been postponed several times, following lack of agreement between the members seeking such a mechanism and those who question its desirability and feasibility. The latter group includes both developed countries and some developing countries. The Union has been active in the discussions, which have not yet shown a business case that could have been solved by an emergency safeguard mechanism.
  A safeguard is temporary in nature and so would not respond to the argument that developing countries need a mechanism for rolling back commitments that turn out to have unintended consequences. In addition, such a mechanism for withdrawal of commitments already exists in Article XXI of GATS. Given the flexibility provided for by GATS, new commitments can, whenever necessary, be underpinned by specific reservations to deal with emergency situations.
  The Union recognises the importance of helping developing countries increase their negotiating capacity and the important role played by the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (Unctad) secretariat in providing continuous assistance to developing countries' participation in the services negotiations. The Union is also working constructively with the group of Least Developed Countries (LDCs), and other WTO members, on the establishment of ‘Modalities of for the treatment of LDCs in the negotiations’, as mandated by GATS Article XIX. |
| --- | --- |

3.

WTO members adopted ‘Modalities for the treatment of autonomous liberalisation’ at the beginning of March 2003. By establishing agreed criteria for granting credit for autonomous liberalisation, negotiators, from both developed and developing countries, can now engage more confidently in their bilateral negotiations for specific commitments on market access.

The deadline for concluding negotiations on an emergency safeguard measure under the GATS has been postponed several times, following lack of agreement between the members seeking such a mechanism and those who question its desirability and feasibility. The latter group includes both developed countries and some developing countries. The Union has been active in the discussions, which have not yet shown a business case that could have been solved by an emergency safeguard mechanism.

A safeguard is temporary in nature and so would not respond to the argument that developing countries need a mechanism for rolling back commitments that turn out to have unintended consequences. In addition, such a mechanism for withdrawal of commitments already exists in Article XXI of GATS. Given the flexibility provided for by GATS, new commitments can, whenever necessary, be underpinned by specific reservations to deal with emergency situations.

The Union recognises the importance of helping developing countries increase their negotiating capacity and the important role played by the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (Unctad) secretariat in providing continuous assistance to developing countries' participation in the services negotiations. The Union is also working constructively with the group of Least Developed Countries (LDCs), and other WTO members, on the establishment of ‘Modalities of for the treatment of LDCs in the negotiations’, as mandated by GATS Article XIX.

| 4. | The Commission is fully aware that there is concern about the effects of further services liberalisation and that some people have linked these concerns to cases where privatisation has encountered problems and the regulatory regime that was introduced proved to be inadequate. Nevertheless, such policy failures were not caused by the GATS. The Commission will continue to explain that the GATS process leaves governments free to choose whether their services should be provided by public or by private companies and free to regulate in pursuance of public policy objectives. The Commission is currently preparing a Green Paper on Services of General Interest, which will include a section examining possible links between these services and trade policy.
  In this context, the Commission is committed to ensuring a regular and transparent information and dialogue with representatives of civil society. Consultation takes place within Directorate General Trade's civil society dialogue, where consumer organisations participate. The Commission also meets consumer organisations to discuss these issues on an ad hoc basis, for example in the Commission Consumer Consultative Committee or in the context of the Transatlantic Consumer Dialogue (TACD), where the Union and the United States' consumer organisations are represented. |
| --- | --- |

4.

The Commission is fully aware that there is concern about the effects of further services liberalisation and that some people have linked these concerns to cases where privatisation has encountered problems and the regulatory regime that was introduced proved to be inadequate. Nevertheless, such policy failures were not caused by the GATS. The Commission will continue to explain that the GATS process leaves governments free to choose whether their services should be provided by public or by private companies and free to regulate in pursuance of public policy objectives. The Commission is currently preparing a Green Paper on Services of General Interest, which will include a section examining possible links between these services and trade policy.

In this context, the Commission is committed to ensuring a regular and transparent information and dialogue with representatives of civil society. Consultation takes place within Directorate General Trade's civil society dialogue, where consumer organisations participate. The Commission also meets consumer organisations to discuss these issues on an ad hoc basis, for example in the Commission Consumer Consultative Committee or in the context of the Transatlantic Consumer Dialogue (TACD), where the Union and the United States' consumer organisations are represented.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/713 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/713

---

(2004/C 78 E/0761)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1330/03

by Sérgio Marques (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(8 April 2003)

Subject:   ‘Prestige’: Community aid

The sinking of the ‘Prestige’ off the Galician coast in 19 November 2002, caused one of the largest-ever ecological disasters, with appalling economic and social consequences for a massively fisheries-dependent, and hence fragile, Objective 1 region.

This disastrous accident, which did not affect Portugal solely and simply because of sea-currents, once again raised the issue of safety at sea and how to control transport of hydrocarbons. The issue is of fundamental concern to a country like Portugal, with an immense coastline and extremely vulnerable islands like Madeira and the Azores.

Following the wreck, the Commission presented a Communication on stepping-up safety at sea, providing for: earlier application of the measures in the ‘Erika I’ package (measures on port State control of vessels, closer monitoring of the performance of the classification societies and bringing forward the timetable for withdrawing single-hull oil tankers from service), and the ‘Erika II’ (measures on earlier establishment of the European Maritime Safety Agency and compensation for victims of oil spillages), increased international intervention and the introduction of sanctions, for pollution crime, including penal sanctions.

In paragraphs 11 and 12 of its resolution of 19 December 2002, the European Parliament called on the Commission, ‘as a matter of urgency, to consider using all the necessary financial instruments to tackle the economic, social and environmental consequences of the wreck of the “Prestige” and assist the economic sectors affected’, and the immediate adoption of measures ‘to alleviate the damage occasioned to those affected, through the use of the Solidarity Fund’.

Can the Commission answer the following:

| 1. | Four months after the ‘Prestige’ tragedy, what financial resources have been made available, and what measures have been adopted to tackle the economic, social and environmental consequences? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Four months after the ‘Prestige’ tragedy, what financial resources have been made available, and what measures have been adopted to tackle the economic, social and environmental consequences?

| 2. | Does the Commission possess any estimate of the damage caused by the sinking of the ‘Prestige’? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Does the Commission possess any estimate of the damage caused by the sinking of the ‘Prestige’?

| 3. | What has the Commission decided with regard to the possible use of the Solidarity Fund in respect of the ‘Prestige’ disaster? |
| --- | --- |

3.

What has the Commission decided with regard to the possible use of the Solidarity Fund in respect of the ‘Prestige’ disaster?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(21 May 2003)

The Commission refers the Honourable Member to the response given to question H-0221/03.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/714 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/714

---

(2004/C 78 E/0762)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1340/03

by Marjo Matikainen-Kallström (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(9 April 2003)

Subject:   Funding of research into prion diseases in the 6th Research Framework Programme

Prion diseases, otherwise known as Transmissible Spongiform Encephalopathies (TSEs) represent a wholly new type of infectious agents. They have become an issue in the EU particularly as a result of the emergence of the BSE infection in cattle and of its variant, Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease.

There is still much uncertainty about how infection with TSEs occurs, and about their distribution, and it is therefore essential that wide-ranging research into them be carried out in the interests of public health. The principle underlying the action of prions, and the diseases they cause, may be much more widespread in nature than has hitherto been realised. At present, for example, it is not known whether BSE has already moved to sheep, and if so, to what extent. The incidence of BSE in the various EU countries and its infection route is also quite unclear.

As a result of the BSE crisis, many Member States have supported the funding of research into prion diseases on a temporary basis. However, there were no guarantees that these projects could be continued, and so the funding of research into TSE diseases rests firmly with the EU.

It is of extreme importance that attention be given to research into prions and TSE diseases in the Sixth Framework Programme on Research at this time. The continuation of sufficiently high-quality research cannot be guaranteed if research into prion diseases has to compete for funding alongside other degenerative diseases of the nervous system (such as Alzheimer's disease and Huntington's chorea). In view of the importance of this subject, funding of the ‘European Network of Excellence’ type is not sufficient for financing research into TSEs, and these diseases must have their own integrated project in the Sixth Framework Programme on Research.

What measures does the Commission propose to take to ensure that sufficient funding is given to research on TSEs? Does the Commission propose to give prion research its own integrated project in the 6th Framework Programme?

Answer given by Mr Busquin on behalf of the Commission

(27 May 2003)

Transmissible spongiform encephalopathy (TSE) research may be supported by the Union's Sixth Framework Programme in a number of ways.

According to the workprogrammes for 2003 and 2004 of Thematic Priorities I and V (Life Sciences, Genomics and Biotechnology for Health and Food Quality and Safety respectively), proposals are sought to address the following topics:

| — | Thematic Priority V: T19; Prevention, control and management of prion diseases. To be supported by a Network of Excellence or an Integrated Project (NoE preferred); |
| --- | --- |

—

Thematic Priority V: T19; Prevention, control and management of prion diseases. To be supported by a Network of Excellence or an Integrated Project (NoE preferred);

| — | Thematic Priority I: LSH-2002-2.1.3-3; Role and mechanisms of protein aggregation in neurodegenerative diseases. To be supported by an Integrated Project; |
| --- | --- |

—

Thematic Priority I: LSH-2002-2.1.3-3; Role and mechanisms of protein aggregation in neurodegenerative diseases. To be supported by an Integrated Project;

| — | Thematic Priority I; LSH-2002-1.2.2-3; New diagnostic tools for prion associated diseases. To be supported by a Specific Targeted Research Project (STREP). |
| --- | --- |

—

Thematic Priority I; LSH-2002-1.2.2-3; New diagnostic tools for prion associated diseases. To be supported by a Specific Targeted Research Project (STREP).

The selection of these topics took account of the portfolio of TSE work already funded by the Community and in Member States, and also of the views of the research community, via the Expressions of Interest exercise.

In 2001, the Commission launched a specific call for TSE research with the objective of filling gaps in the European TSE research effort. The contents of the call were based on an analysis of all of the research ongoing in TSEs in Europe at that time. This analysis was performed by the Commission with the help of independent expert scientists from all Member States. The vast majority of gaps are now being addressed by projects funded under this call. These include projects investigating the various aspects relating to bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) in small ruminants.

The areas which were not well addressed in the call related to the relative lack of co-ordination in the European TSE research effort. This lack of co-ordination can be best addressed by a successful Network of Excellence, hence a Network is the favoured instrument in Priority V. Nevertheless, the opportunity remains for an Integrated Project, dedicated to TSE research, to be funded by this Priority, should it be highly rated by the independent experts who will evaluate all proposals.

Finally, it should also be noted that regarding ‘the incidence of BSE in the various Member States’, the following website (http://europa.eu.int/comm/food/fs/bse/index_en.html) gives details on the BSE testing programmes in Member States as provided by Directorate General Health and Consumer Protection (DG SANCO). The Union is testing all adult bovine animals (above 30 months, with the exception of certain animals destroyed under the over-thirty-months-scheme (OTMS) in the United Kingdom) at slaughter or death and the testing programme ensures that all clinical cases are detected and reported. It should, however, also be noted that if an infected animal dies or is slaughtered before reaching the clinical phase it may not be detected, due to the limited capacity of the tests to detect pre-clinical cases.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/715 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/715

---

(2004/C 78 E/0763)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1441/03

by Caroline Jackson (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(24 April 2003)

Subject:   Tyres: application of the Landfill Directive 1999/31/EC

The Landfill Directive 1999/31/EC (1) introduces a ban on whole used tyres in landfill starting from July 2003, with a ban on shredded used tyres in landfill starting in July 2006.

| 1. | In 2001, 74 % of used tyres in Spain were still going to landfill. Can the Commission give an assurance that it will pursue the Spanish authorities if they fail to meet their obligation under this directive by the due dates, with particular reference to the July 2003 deadline? What action has the Commission taken to emphasise to the Spanish Government the importance of meeting the deadline? |
| --- | --- |

1.

In 2001, 74 % of used tyres in Spain were still going to landfill. Can the Commission give an assurance that it will pursue the Spanish authorities if they fail to meet their obligation under this directive by the due dates, with particular reference to the July 2003 deadline? What action has the Commission taken to emphasise to the Spanish Government the importance of meeting the deadline?

| 2. | In 2001, 69 % of used tyres in Poland went to landfill. Can the Commission state whether the Polish Government has negotiated a derogation from the relevant part of the directive, or will the deadlines apply unaltered from the date of accession to the EU? |
| --- | --- |

2.

In 2001, 69 % of used tyres in Poland went to landfill. Can the Commission state whether the Polish Government has negotiated a derogation from the relevant part of the directive, or will the deadlines apply unaltered from the date of accession to the EU?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(27 May 2003)

Pursuant to Article 5(3)(d) of Directive 1999/31/EC whole used tyres will be banned from landfills as of 16 July 2003 and shredded used tyres as of 16 July 2006.

The Commission is aware that for some Member States the implementation of the ban is a significant challenge. Most Member States have set up or are setting up systems for the collection of tyres, in order to divert them from landfills.

The Commission has the task of ensuring the correct application of Community law, in the light of the powers conferred on it by the EC Treaty. As the guardian of the Treaty, it does not hesitate to take all necessary measures, including infringement procedures under Article 226 of the EC Treaty, in order to ensure the observance of Community law.

Poland has not requested a transition period with regard to the ban of landfilling used tyres. Thus, Poland will have to implement the ban by the date of accession.

---

(1)  OJ L 182, 16.7.1999, p. 1.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/716 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/716

---

(2004/C 78 E/0764)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1450/03

by María Sornosa Martínez (PSE) to the Commission

(16 April 2003)

Subject:   Need for urgent intervention — plan to extend the port of Altea (Spain)

For more than a year now, numerous complaints and parliamentary questions have been submitted to the Commission concerning the plan to extend the port of Altea (Spain) with a view to creating a yachting facility and its implications for the coastline of Alicante province, which is already under severe pressure from development projects.

The author of this question is grateful for the Commission's joint reply to her questions P-0769/03 and E-0775/03 (1), in which it states that it is awaiting information from the Spanish authorities. However, the project to expand the port has now passed through the various procedures laid down in law, and the work could soon be completed.

Does the Commission not consider the information provided by the complainants and detailed in the university reports cited in the above-mentioned questions to be sufficient justification for calling on the Spanish government to suspend the project until the Commission has completed its investigations?

Does the Commission not believe that the matter calls for urgent intervention on its part, in view of the potential environment impact of the completion of this project?

Does the Commission not believe that, as a matter of priority, action must be taken to prevent any further deterioration of the coastline of Alicante province, in view of the present condition of its irreplaceable posidonia meadows?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(23 May 2003)

The Commission is not empowered to enjoin Member States to suspend a project which is the subject of an enquiry. However, within the framework of the procedural rules it must observe, the Commission has promptly taken all steps to ensure that Community law is complied with in this case.

Correspondence has been exchanged between the Commission and the Spanish authorities and the project was also discussed at a bilateral meeting in Madrid at the beginning of April this year. The Commission is now examining the Spanish authorities' reply. A decision will shortly be adopted on the appropriate action to be taken.

It should also be noted that the Commission is making every effort to ensure the conservation of the posidonia meadows as a priority habitat of Community importance, protected under Council Directive 92/43/EEC (2) of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild flora and fauna.

---

(1)  OJ C 268 E, 7.11.2003, p. 132.

(2)  OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/717 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/717

---

(2004/C 78 E/0765)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1504/03

by Elly Plooij-van Gorsel (ELDR) to the Commission

(5 May 2003)

Subject:   Measurability of GMO material in food products

The Commission proposal for a directive on traceability and labelling of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) is currently awaiting its second reading by the European Parliament. An important precondition and premise of the directive is that consumers must be able to choose between products which contain GMO material and those which do not.

On 28 November 2002 the Agriculture Council reached agreement on the Commission proposal, setting thresholds for determining whether or not a product would have to be labelled as containing GMO material.

The Council decided that there was no need to label a product as containing GMO material unless it contained at least 0,9 %.

At the same time a threshold of 0,5 % was set for adventitious GMO material which is not permitted but which an assessment has shown to be risk-free. This ‘tolerance threshold’ will remain in force for three years.

The Commission welcomed the Council's agreement. On 4 December 2002 the Commission inaugurated the European network of GMO laboratories. This network of 45 European laboratories will cooperate in the development of methods of tracing, identifying and quantifying GMOs and producing reference material.

The system for tracing GMOs will require suitable instruments and testing methods.

| 1. | To what extent can the presence of GMO material in food products in such marginal quantities genuinely be measured, in the Commission's opinion? |
| --- | --- |

1.

To what extent can the presence of GMO material in food products in such marginal quantities genuinely be measured, in the Commission's opinion?

| 2. | Are adequate instruments and suitable testing methods already in use which can trace the presence of GMOs? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Are adequate instruments and suitable testing methods already in use which can trace the presence of GMOs?

| 3. | If so, are these instruments and methods equally available in all Member States and are the instruments and methods of the same standard in all Member States? |
| --- | --- |

3.

If so, are these instruments and methods equally available in all Member States and are the instruments and methods of the same standard in all Member States?

Answer given by Mr Busquin on behalf of the Commission

(17 July 2003)

| 1. | The Commission would like to stress that the thresholds agreed in the Common Position on the Regulation on genetically modified (GM) food and feed (1) relate only to adventitious or technically unavoidable presence of genetically modified material.
  Furthermore, the requirements to trace genetically modified organisms (GMOs) and food and feed produced from GMOs have been agreed in the Common Position on traceability and labelling of GMOs and traceability of food and feed produced from GMOs. These requirements are based on paper documentation and implies that operators must have systems in place to be able to identify from whom they received such products and to whom they have sold such products. The common position does not include an obligation for operators to test products for presence of GM material. Where no analytical detection methods are currently available, the accuracy and truthfulness of the information being provided on labels can be controlled through the traceability system.
  Concerning analytical methods, presence of GMOs is measured by determining the amount of GM-specific DNA or proteins present in a certain sample, thus it is usually necessary for those running a test to know the characteristics of the specific GMO(s) they are searching for. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The Commission would like to stress that the thresholds agreed in the Common Position on the Regulation on genetically modified (GM) food and feed (1) relate only to adventitious or technically unavoidable presence of genetically modified material.

Furthermore, the requirements to trace genetically modified organisms (GMOs) and food and feed produced from GMOs have been agreed in the Common Position on traceability and labelling of GMOs and traceability of food and feed produced from GMOs. These requirements are based on paper documentation and implies that operators must have systems in place to be able to identify from whom they received such products and to whom they have sold such products. The common position does not include an obligation for operators to test products for presence of GM material. Where no analytical detection methods are currently available, the accuracy and truthfulness of the information being provided on labels can be controlled through the traceability system.

Concerning analytical methods, presence of GMOs is measured by determining the amount of GM-specific DNA or proteins present in a certain sample, thus it is usually necessary for those running a test to know the characteristics of the specific GMO(s) they are searching for.

| 2. | The equipment for GMO analysis is widely available in the enforcement and private laboratories of different Member States. Protocols for detection of approved GMOs are also available, as indicated in the Commission Recommendation of 25 January 2002 concerning a co-ordinated programme for the official control of foodstuffs for 2002 (2). To facilitate detection, the proposed GM food and feed legislation will require the notifier to provide a method as part of the authorisation procedure as well as to submit the material for the production of certified reference materials. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The equipment for GMO analysis is widely available in the enforcement and private laboratories of different Member States. Protocols for detection of approved GMOs are also available, as indicated in the Commission Recommendation of 25 January 2002 concerning a co-ordinated programme for the official control of foodstuffs for 2002 (2). To facilitate detection, the proposed GM food and feed legislation will require the notifier to provide a method as part of the authorisation procedure as well as to submit the material for the production of certified reference materials.

| 3. | All Member States are understood to have sufficient instruments and methods available that meet adequate standards. Moreover, the Commission operates the European Network of GMO Laboratories. The network consists of more than 40 control laboratories located in Member States and provides full participation to Accession Countries. It is also interacting with all Union global trade partners. One of the objectives is to facilitate the enforcement of the rules for labelling and traceability of GMOs in the food chain. |
| --- | --- |

3.

All Member States are understood to have sufficient instruments and methods available that meet adequate standards. Moreover, the Commission operates the European Network of GMO Laboratories. The network consists of more than 40 control laboratories located in Member States and provides full participation to Accession Countries. It is also interacting with all Union global trade partners. One of the objectives is to facilitate the enforcement of the rules for labelling and traceability of GMOs in the food chain.

---

(1)  OJ C 113 E, 13.5.2003.

(2)  OJ L 26, 30.1.2002.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/718 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/718

---

(2004/C 78 E/0766)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1531/03

by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(29 April 2003)

Subject:   Importation of canned tuna from Thailand and the Philippines

In November 2001, the EU, Thailand and the Philippines agreed to hold talks within the framework of the WTO aimed at assessing the extent to which the preferential tariffs accorded to canned tuna originating from the ACP countries was damaging the interests of Thailand and the Philippines. It proved impossible to reach a solution acceptable to all parties and the European Community, Thailand and the Philippines agreed to submit the matter to arbitration. On 20 December 2002, the arbitrator ruled that the European Community should open a ‘most favoured nation’-type tariff quota of 25 000 tonnes for 2003 at an ad valorem rate of duty of 12 %. The Commission agreed to the arbitrator's proposal and has just presented a proposal for a Council regulation on opening and providing for the administration of that tariff quota (1). Article 4 of that proposal lays down that the provisions in force in the Community shall apply when determining the origin of canned tuna qualifying for the tariff quota. Under Article 24 of Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 (2), goods whose production has involved more than one country shall be deemed to originate in the country where they underwent their last substantial processing or working.

In the light of the Community legislation on rules of origin currently in force, could the Commission indicate whether, under the regulation being adopted, canned tuna originating from Thailand and the Philippines will be considered to have been undergone its last processing in those countries, regardless of the origin of the raw materials processed?

Is the Commission aware that the application of these provisions on rules of origin could strip the proposal for a regulation of its purpose, which is to grant preferential treatment solely to canned tuna from Thailand and the Philippines and not to open up the EU market to tuna products coming from other Asian countries such as Indonesia, etc.?

Is the Commission aware of the damage that the implementation of these rules of origin might occasion to the EU tuna processing industry, which is located largely in Objective 1 areas that are highly dependent on fishing? What measures has it adopted, or will it adopt, to prevent this situation from arising?

Answer given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(5 June 2003)

The Commission confirms that, in accordance with the provisions of Community Customs Code (3) and in particular Article 24, canned tuna produced in countries wishing to export to the Community within the proposed quota, will bear the origin of the country in which it underwent its last, substantial, economically justified processing, independently of the origin of the tuna fish used. In accordance with Article 26 of the above-mentioned Regulation, Article 4.2 of the proposed Council Regulation to open the quota requires that a certificate of origin be presented to the Community authorities to prove that the goods are eligible for the part of the quota from which the benefit is requested.

The Commission would respectfully refer the Honourable Member to the proposed Regulation to open a quota for canned tuna and, in particular, to Article 1 which states that the quota shall be open to goods originating in any country. This is in accordance with General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) Article XIII, as is the division of the quota, based on past trade of the countries concerned, into the four parts laid down in Article 3 of the proposed Regulation. The complainants, for their part, have signalled their agreement to this division. The Honourable Member will note that canned tuna from Indonesia may be exported to the amount of 11 % of the annual volume of the quota. This is because, in order to comply with GATT Article XIII, Indonesia, as the third main supplier to the Community (i.e. an import share >10 %), is entitled to any increased most favoured nation (MFN) quota. The Commission considers it unlikely, therefore, that either Thailand or Philippines would see any economic advantage by attempting to re-export canned tuna from Indonesia within the limited amounts of the quota (52 % and 36 % respectively) from which they benefit.

The Commission is not of the opinion that damage will be occasioned to the Community tuna processing industry by the implementation of the above-mentioned rules of origin. The Commission will of course monitor the situation following the implementation of the quota and therefore does not intend to adopt any measures at this stage.

---

(1)  COM(2003) 141 final.

(2)  OJ L 302, 19.10.1992, p. 1.

(3)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992, OJ L 302, 19.10.1992.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/719 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/719

---

(2004/C 78 E/0767)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1586/03

by Nuala Ahern (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(8 May 2003)

Subject:   Radioactive contamination from Sellafield

Will the Commission set out the means by which it is in a position to independently determine, as required under Euratom Treaty Article 37, whether the reprocessing activities at Sellafield and La Hague respectively are liable or not to result in the radioactive contamination of the water, soil or airspace of another Member State?

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/719 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/719

---

(2004/C 78 E/0768)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1587/03

by Nuala Ahern (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(8 May 2003)

Subject:   Basic nuclear safety standards

Will the Commission set out the means by which it is able to guarantee that the Basic Safety Standards on radiological protection are respected concerning the La Hague and Sellafield facilities?

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/720 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/720

---

(2004/C 78 E/0769)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1588/03

by Nuala Ahern (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(8 May 2003)

Subject:   Precautionary principle

Will the Commission set out the means by which it is able to establish whether BNFL and Cogema respectively apply the ‘precautionary principle’ to their operation of their reprocessing plants at Sellafield and La Hague?

Joint answer

to Written Questions E-1586/03, E-1587/03 and E-1588/03

given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(13 June 2003)

The Euratom Treaty imposes on Member States a number of obligations in order to ensure health protection of the public and exposed workers.

On the basis of Title II, Chapter 3, of the Euratom Treaty the Basic Safety Standards for the radiological protection of the population and the workers have been laid down (Council Directive 96/29/Euratom of 13 May 1996 (1), as supplemented by other legal instruments).

Under Article 35 of the Euratom Treaty Member States have an obligation to establish the facilities necessary to carry out continuous monitoring of the levels of radioactivity in the environment and to ensure compliance with the basic standards. The Commission has the right of access to these national facilities, so that it can verify their operation and efficiency.

The Commission — in its role as Guardian of the Treaties — controls that national legislation conforms to all these provisions, and in particular to the Basic Safety Standards.

Where the Basic Safety Standards are not applied correctly in practice, the Commission can also initiate inquiries and, if necessary, take action against the Member State concerned. Such an initiative is usually originated following complaints informing the Commission of alleged non-compliance, but the Commission can also act on its own initiative, according to its knowledge. To this end, the Commission examines any information that could indicate an infringement of the Basic Safety Standards.

The Opinions delivered by the Commission under Euratom Treaty Article 37 address the issue of whether the submitted project is liable to result in the radioactive contamination of the water, soil or airspace of another Member State. The Opinions for the reprocessing activities at Sellafield and La Hague, as for other installations, were based on the general data relating to these plans provided by the national authorities of United Kingdom and France respectively in accordance with Article 37 and the provisions of the Commission Recommendations (2) on its application. These Opinions were delivered after consultation of the group of independent experts referred to in Article 31 of the Euratom Treaty.

---

(1)  Council Directive of 13 May 1996 laying down basic safety standards for the health protection of the general public and workers against the dangers of ionising radiation, OJ L 159, 29.6.1996.

(2)  Commission Recommendation of 16 November 1960, OJ L 81, 21.12.1960 Commission Recommendation 82/181/Euratom of 3 February 1982, OJ L 83, 29.3.1982 Commission Recommendation 91/4/Euratom of 7 December 1990, OJ L 6, 9.1.1991; Commission Recommendation 99/829/Euratom of 6 December 1999, OJ L 324, 16.12.1999.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/720 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/720

---

(2004/C 78 E/0770)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1650/03

by Hanja Maij-Weggen (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(16 May 2003)

Subject:   Detention of Oscar E. Biscet in Cuba

On 10 April 2003 in Strasbourg, the European Parliament adopted a resolution in which it called on the Commission to promote positive change with regard to the human rights situation in Cuba.

Among the victims of Fidel Castro's regime is Dr Oscar E. Biscet González, the founder of the Lawton Foundation for Human Rights and an activist for the promotion of democracy and human rights in Cuba. After three years' imprisonment in Holguin, Dr Biscet was released on 31 October 2002. On 6 December 2002, he was re-arrested on a charge of associating with other human rights activists. On 7 April 2003, he was sentenced to 25 years' imprisonment. Since 24 April 2003, Dr Biscet has been transferred to the prison in Piñar del Rio, where he is being held in solitary confinement.

Is the Commission aware of the detention and ill-treatment of activists like Dr Biscet?

What has the Commission done to comply with the request set out in the resolution referred to above, and what has the Commission been able to do in the specific case of Dr Biscet?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(18 June 2003)

The Commission is closely following the human rights situation in Cuba and the recent detention and sentencing of 75 dissidents and independent journalists in Cuba, including Dr. Oscar Elias Biscet González.

The Commission, together with the Member States, has strongly condemned such arrests in a declaration published on 26 March 2003, which was followed by a Union démarche in Havana to urge the Cuban authorities to allow the prisoners' immediate release. A second Union démarche in Havana took place on 18 April 2003, following the Foreign Ministers' statement issued on 14 April 2003.

Further measures have recently been agreed, including limits to high-level visits.

The grave concern felt was also highlighted in the Union's statement on ‘Human Rights in the World’, at the United Nations Commission on Human Rights in Geneva in April 2003. The statement called for the prompt release of those arrested whom the Union considers to be prisoners of opinion.

The Commission decided on 30 April 2003 to defer the examination of the Cuban application for accession to the Cotonou Agreement, signalling that these recent developments are not conducive to co-operation between the Union and Cuba. The Cuban authorities decided on 16 May 2003 to withdraw their application.

Through these actions, the Cuban authorities have been made aware that detentions on political grounds are not acceptable and that the Union urges the release of prisoners held due to their opinions or political activities. In this context, we will certainly also bring the case of Dr Oscar Elias Biscet to the attention of the Cuban authorities, and will follow this matter closely, exerting continued political pressure on the Cuban authorities.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/721 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/721

---

(2004/C 78 E/0771)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1667/03

by Proinsias De Rossa (PSE) to the Commission

(19 May 2003)

Subject:   VAT on postal services

The Commission's Communication on a ‘Strategy To Improve the Operation of the VAT system’ (1), issued in June 2000, indicated the Commission's intention, ‘inter alia’, to come forward with proposals to ensure the application of VAT to postal services. Could the Commission indicate what, if any, formal responses were received by it from the Irish Government regarding this particular proposal in the three-year period since the issuing of this Communication and its proposal for a draft Directive issued on 6 May 2003?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(19 June 2003)

No formal responses were received by the Commission from the Irish Government regarding the application of VAT to postal services as set out in its Communication A strategy to improve the operation of the VAT system within the context of the internal market' (2).

---

(1)  COM(2000) 348 final.

(2)  COM(2000) 348 final.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/722 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/722

---

(2004/C 78 E/0772)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1720/03

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(23 May 2003)

Subject:   Joint EU and US bloc vis-à-vis the rest of the world by widening the remit of the TABD

| 1. | With the reactivation of the Transatlantic Business Dialogue (TABD), is the Commission trying to keep the divergent interests of the EU and US, with their very different social systems, Kyoto obligations, concepts of international law enforcement, attitudes to war and arms, development aid to the Third World and respect for the United Nations, completely separate? |
| --- | --- |

1.

With the reactivation of the Transatlantic Business Dialogue (TABD), is the Commission trying to keep the divergent interests of the EU and US, with their very different social systems, Kyoto obligations, concepts of international law enforcement, attitudes to war and arms, development aid to the Third World and respect for the United Nations, completely separate?

| 2. | Is a broader remit for the TABD consistent with its original terms of reference, which were to build bridges between policymakers and private actors on either side of the Atlantic, or is it now a question of ensuring that, as far as possible, the EU and US present a united front as a single trading bloc at international level? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Is a broader remit for the TABD consistent with its original terms of reference, which were to build bridges between policymakers and private actors on either side of the Atlantic, or is it now a question of ensuring that, as far as possible, the EU and US present a united front as a single trading bloc at international level?

| 3. | Against which other countries in the world is this joint venture on the part of the EU and US directed? What common interests need to be defended vis-à-vis Japan, Russia, China and all the countries of the Third World, and why? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Against which other countries in the world is this joint venture on the part of the EU and US directed? What common interests need to be defended vis-à-vis Japan, Russia, China and all the countries of the Third World, and why?

| 4. | In connection with the considerations set out above, does the Commission apply benchmarks to determine cases in which economic cooperation between the EU and US is desirable and those in which it is not? Can the Commission disclose what these benchmarks are? |
| --- | --- |

4.

In connection with the considerations set out above, does the Commission apply benchmarks to determine cases in which economic cooperation between the EU and US is desirable and those in which it is not? Can the Commission disclose what these benchmarks are?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(4 August 2003)

| 1. | The Commission refers to the reply given to the Honourable Member in the Written Question E-1719/03 (1). The Commission welcomes and supports the relaunching of the Trans-Atlantic Business Dialogue (TABD). Its specific aim is to help solve differences in transatlantic economic relations and contribute to dismantling of barriers to trade. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The Commission refers to the reply given to the Honourable Member in the Written Question E-1719/03 (1). The Commission welcomes and supports the relaunching of the Trans-Atlantic Business Dialogue (TABD). Its specific aim is to help solve differences in transatlantic economic relations and contribute to dismantling of barriers to trade.

| 2. | There is no plan for a broader remit for the TABD. The role of the TABD will continue to be that of building bridges between Union and United States businesses and governments. Moreover, in the area of multilateralism, TABD has the potential to contribute to the DOHA process and World Trade Organisation (WTO) matters in general, with benefit for other countries as well. Therefore, its role is certainly not to ensure the existence of a single trading bloc at international level. |
| --- | --- |

2.

There is no plan for a broader remit for the TABD. The role of the TABD will continue to be that of building bridges between Union and United States businesses and governments. Moreover, in the area of multilateralism, TABD has the potential to contribute to the DOHA process and World Trade Organisation (WTO) matters in general, with benefit for other countries as well. Therefore, its role is certainly not to ensure the existence of a single trading bloc at international level.

| 3. | The TABD is not directed against any other countries in the world. Common trade interests with the countries referred to by the Honourable Member, as well as those between the Union and the United States, are discussed in various multilateral and bilateral fora. Should they be of interest to business, dealing with such issues within the TABD is possible. For instance, the WTO negotiations have been widely discussed in the TABD in the past. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The TABD is not directed against any other countries in the world. Common trade interests with the countries referred to by the Honourable Member, as well as those between the Union and the United States, are discussed in various multilateral and bilateral fora. Should they be of interest to business, dealing with such issues within the TABD is possible. For instance, the WTO negotiations have been widely discussed in the TABD in the past.

| 4. | In the TABD process it is up to business to identify the issues on which they wish to give recommendations to the governments. The Commission considers the TABD as an important interlocutor in transatlantic economic relations. The implementation of the recommendations of the TABD is considered based on their own merit and in respect of the acquis and the competencies of the Commission. As a general rule the Commission gives positive consideration to all efforts to dismantle barriers to transatlantic trade and to reduce transaction costs for doing business. In doing so, it takes into account also other policy considerations, and in particular those related to the common commercial policy and the competitiveness of the European enterprises. |
| --- | --- |

4.

In the TABD process it is up to business to identify the issues on which they wish to give recommendations to the governments. The Commission considers the TABD as an important interlocutor in transatlantic economic relations. The implementation of the recommendations of the TABD is considered based on their own merit and in respect of the acquis and the competencies of the Commission. As a general rule the Commission gives positive consideration to all efforts to dismantle barriers to transatlantic trade and to reduce transaction costs for doing business. In doing so, it takes into account also other policy considerations, and in particular those related to the common commercial policy and the competitiveness of the European enterprises.

---

(1)  OJ C 11 E, 15.1.2004, p. 219.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/723 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/723

---

(2004/C 78 E/0773)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1747/03

by Anna Karamanou (PSE) to the Commission

(26 May 2003)

Subject:   Israel — removal of restriction on movement from and to the occupied territories

According to information from Amnesty International, the Israeli Government has recently decided to require all foreigners entering Gaza to sign a ‘declaration of waiver’ exonerating Israel of any liability in the event of their death or injury. Amnesty International states that entry to the occupied territories has been denied to AI members refusing to sign this declaration, significantly hampering the organisation's work. Fears are being expressed that this tactic is an attempt to relieve the Israeli authorities of their duty to ensure that the armed forces respect human rights in all circumstances. It is also considered likely to impede outside monitoring and scrutiny of the conduct of the Israeli army and to lead to an immediate increase in killings in Gaza.

Does the Commission intend to put pressure on the Israeli Government in order to:

| 1. | have the new restriction on movement from and to the occupied territories lifted, and |
| --- | --- |

1.

have the new restriction on movement from and to the occupied territories lifted, and

| 2. | call for the posting of international monitors in Israel and the occupied territories, in order to ensure that it abides by international standards? |
| --- | --- |

2.

call for the posting of international monitors in Israel and the occupied territories, in order to ensure that it abides by international standards?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(26 June 2003)

Following parallel demarches in Israel by the Union Troïka and in Athens by the Greek Presidency, the Commission would like to inform the Honourable Member that the Commission formally raised with the Israeli Ambassador to the Union the restrictive security measures in place at the Erez Crossing on 23 May 2003.

The Commission underlined that the current practise of denying access, requesting information beyond customary norm, and demanding a security waiver to be signed by international staff entering Gaza was of particular concern because Commission/ECHO staff and contractors in general do not carry diplomatic passports. The Commission was aware of Israeli security concerns and fully understood the increased sensitivity in the wake of recent bombings in Tel Aviv carried out by foreign passport holders. However, the near-total closure was disproportionate, and several measures newly introduced, e.g. waiver forms and detailed information on humanitarian projects, have no apparent relation to security concerns.

It further stated that if these restrictive measures continued, international donors would have to consider suspending operations in the Gaza Strip and that a new deterioration of the humanitarian situation was not in Israel's security interests.

The Israeli Ambassador showed understanding for the Commission's points and undertook to convey the Commission's concerns to the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs, which has not reacted as of yet.

Regarding the posting of international monitors, the Commission would like to inform the Honourable Member that this issue is being discussed in the framework of the Quartet.

The Commission obviously welcomes any measure taken that would lead to an improvement of the current situation.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/724 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/724

---

(2004/C 78 E/0774)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1764/03

by Torben Lund (PSE) to the Commission

(28 May 2003)

Subject:   Arms transport and export bans

Most EU countries have rules on the export of arms by their own firms, but there are practically no restrictions on the transport of arms. It often happens, for example, that armaments are transported from EU countries in contravention of the individual EU countries' export bans.

That being so, the possibility cannot be ruled out of terrorist organisations being able to transport by sea, legally and without great difficulties, armaments purchased from private arms dealers.

It becomes quite grotesque when EU-registered ships freely ship armaments from non-EU countries to regimes on which the EU has imposed an arms embargo. In this way, Danish vessels have transported heavy armaments from Poland to Sudan without infringing the EU embargo.

In the light of the above, can the Commission state whether EU rules will be introduced subjecting sea transport to the same conditions which apply to export activities, so that prior approval has to be given before the vessel sails)?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(17 July 2003)

Member States have up to now, on the basis of Article 296 of the EC Treaty exempted production and trade in arms, munition and war material for specifically military purposes from the scope of application of treaty rules. Trade in military weapons is currently dealt with in the context of the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP), to which the Commission is fully associated.

The Commission possesses no enforceable legal instrument to monitor the export of war armaments. Responsibility for the licensing of military weapons exports belongs to the governments of the Member States. The main instruments utilised by the Union in this field are the EU Code of Conduct on Arms Exports (1) adopted in 1998 and the Joint Action 2002/589/CFSP on small arms and light weapons.

The Code lays down a series of criteria on the basis of which all decisions relating to arms exports are taken and provides a framework within which individual arms transfers can be discussed. While such criteria give guidance on a common basis, it is made clear that the ultimate responsibility for arms exports belongs to national governments. In its first four years of operation the Code has increased mutual understanding of Member States policies, established an efficient consultation mechanism and encouraged dialogue on the implementation of its provisions. In particular Member States have actively participated in the new system of denial notification and have striven to increase transparency in arms export control, also with the publication of the Annual Report.

Most recently Common Position 2003/468/CFSP on arms brokering has been adopted whose main objective is to control arms brokering in order to avoid circumvention on the United Nations, the European Union or the Organisation for Security and Cooperation embargoes on arms exports as well as the criteria of the Code. Member States will take all the necessary measures to control brokering activities taking place within their territory; they are also encouraged to consider controlling brokering activities outside their territory carried out by brokers of their nationality resident or established in their territory. While this Common Position represents an improvement, it is undeniable that there are grounds for continued strengthening of the Code and its implementation. The Commission supports making the Code legally binding for Member States.

Joint Action 2002/589/CFSP does not distinguish between legally and illegally transferred weapons. Among others it provides for financial and technical assistance to non-African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) States, international organisations, programmes, agencies and regional arrangements for these purposes. Such assistance draws exclusively on CFSP funds. Assistance to ACP States falls under the rules and criteria established by the Cotonou Agreement. A number of Community-supported projects in both categories are currently under way.

---

(1)  http://projects.sipri.se/expcon/eucode.htm

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/725 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/725

---

(2004/C 78 E/0775)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1795/03

by Terence Wynn (PSE) to the Commission

(28 May 2003)

Subject:   Manufactured products from third countries

Why does the Commission allow manufactured products to enter the EU from third countries that do not meet minimum health, safety and environmental standards that EU companies have to comply with? Would the Commission agree that by allowing such products into the EU, the direct result is the loss of European manufacturing jobs?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(14 July 2003)

Products marketed in the European Union, whether they originate from third countries or Member States, are subject to the same technical rules governing product safety or setting out requirements relating to health and/or environmental protection.

The requirements on producers, whatever their origins, are therefore the same throughout the Internal Market. The EU directives on product safety or on requirements relating to health or environmental protection can therefore affect the marketing of products in the EU.

The Commission is also committed to a comprehensive strategy aimed at promoting Europe's regulatory approach in certain third countries (and in particular the EU's principal trading partners) with regard to both enterprise policy and aspects of standardisation for industrial sectors. One of the objectives of this upstream strategy is to promote awareness and the implementation of Community rules by producers of products manufactured in third countries.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/726 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/726

---

(2004/C 78 E/0776)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1815/03

by Gabriele Stauner (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(2 June 2003)

Subject:   Information from Mrs Schreyer in connection with fraudulent financial dealings at Eurostat

On 19 March 2003, the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) reported Planistat Europe SA to the Paris Public Prosecutor's Office, alleging the firm's involvement in fraud and in establishing illicit accounts subsequently drawn on by Eurostat officials. In this connection, the spokeswoman for the Paris Public Prosecutor's Office, Mrs Caillibotte, is quoted in the 16 May 2003 edition of the newspaper ‘Luxemburger Wort’ as stating that, in the light of the details of the case, the existence of a system of fictitious invoices involving the two organisations was more than likely and that embezzlement and concealment of embezzlement were the criminal offences which might be involved.

OLAF's complaint is based on Eurostat audit reports which have been in the possession of the Commission's Directorate-General for Financial Control, answerable to Mrs Schreyer, since as long ago as spring 2000. Business links with Planistat had nonetheless not been severed; rather, further contracts had been concluded. According to Yves Franchet, Director-General of Eurostat, those audit reports were known to Mrs Schreyer. On 17 May 2003, on the ARD television programme ‘Europa-Magazin’, Mr Franchet said that Mrs Schreyer had tirelessly stood up for Eurostat before the European Parliament, that all problems had been known to her, that everything had been discussed, including the audit reports, and that everything had been brought to her attention at the appropriate time.

Can the Commission confirm that statement?

Does the Commission think that it was proper for Planistat to have been given new contracts in spite of what had become known about the firm?

If not, can the Commission say why Mrs Schleyer did not stop payments to, and new contracts for, Planistat?

Will the Commission now forward the above-mentioned audit reports to the Committee on Budgetary Control without delay?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(11 September 2003)

These questions were discussed at the meeting of the Budgetary Control Committee meeting of 16 June 2003. Commissioner Schreyer made it clear that she had not received the audit report on Datashops before May 2003, and she had never spoken with Mr Franchet about Eurostat. The remarks of Mr Franchet referred to the information made available to the Commission in the context of the 2001 Discharge procedure. In the television interview referred to, Mr Franchet also said: ‘There is no system for the transmission of audit reports to Commissioners’ (verbatim). Mr Franchet has confirmed in writing that he had not transmitted the internal audit report of Eurostat on Datashops to Commissioners at the time of the interview. Mr Franchet confirmed as well that he has never met Commissioner Schreyer.

As a matter of principle, the awarding of new contracts is subject to the provisions of the new Financial Regulation (1) in force since 1 January 2003. This also applies to the contracts with Planistat. No recommendation was made in the audit report on the Datashops that the firm should be excluded from future contracts.

The Secretariat General was first informed of OLAF's findings on 3 April 2003, as OLAF's investigations are subject to rules of confidentiality provided for in Community legislation (2) and these investigations were external investigations.

On 9 July 2003, the Commission decided, on the basis of information brought to its attention, to suspend all contracts with Planistat pending the ongoing enquiries. Eurostat has already suspended payments to Planistat with respect to activities in relation to Data Shops. Planistat was signaled in the Commission's Early Warning System on 23 July 2003. On that day, the Commission instructed its authorizing officers to terminate all contracts with Planistat.

A thorough examination of all contracts in force and the work carried out by the firm is ongoing. For work effectively carried out, the Commission remains liable to pay the corresponding amounts. Should the ongoing investigations of OLAF and the judicial authorities in France reveal a breach of the financial rules, the Commission will take the appropriate action immediately. It should also be noted that the Commission has lodged a complaint against person(s) unknown under the procedure initiated by the Paris Public Prosecutor in response to information supplied by OLAF

On 16 May 2003, as part of the follow-up to the 2001 Discharge procedure and at Parliament's request, the Commission sent the Cocobu secretariat six internal audit reports drawn up by the Eurostat internal audit service between 1999 and 2002, pursuant to the procedures laid down in the framework agreement on the transmission of confidential documents to Parliament. Subsequently, on 20 May 2003, a summary report on the follow-up to the internal audit reports was also sent the Cocobu secretariat.

Some of the audit reports are subject to OLAF investigations and some have also been included in the dossiers sent by OLAF to the Luxembourg legal authorities and the public prosecutor's office of the Paris Regional Court. The Commission is anxious not to prejudice either the ongoing investigations or the rights of the parties involved.

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities, OJ L 248, 16.9.2002.

(2)  OJ L 136, 31.5.1999.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/727 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/727

---

(2004/C 78 E/0777)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1826/03

by Monica Frassoni (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(23 May 2003)

Subject:   High-speed Italian transverse rail route: internal market, environmental impact and productivity of investment

The Italian Government has revived the projected transverse high-speed rail link (Lyons-Turin-Venice, Trieste-Ljubljana). In connection with the current environmental impact assessment (EIA) for the Turin-Lyons, Milan-Genoa and Milan-Verona stretches, the leading Italian environmental organisations have pointed out that there have been no: cost-benefit analyses taking economic, technical and environmental factors into account; assessments of the direct and indirect effect of the works and of alternative options, including the zero option; credible planning scenarios and clear project documents; studies relating to environmental impact and the full framework of environmental, rural and urban planning constraints.

In particular:

| — | in the case of the Turin-Lyons line, the impact of the works on tourism in the valley (including the initiation of building works lasting several years and requiring the moving of 8 million square metres of excavated material), hydrogeological risks both at the construction and the operational stage, and the impact on Sites of Community Importance (SCIs), particularly the Casellette wetlands and the Foresto nature reserve, have all been underestimated; |
| --- | --- |

—

in the case of the Turin-Lyons line, the impact of the works on tourism in the valley (including the initiation of building works lasting several years and requiring the moving of 8 million square metres of excavated material), hydrogeological risks both at the construction and the operational stage, and the impact on Sites of Community Importance (SCIs), particularly the Casellette wetlands and the Foresto nature reserve, have all been underestimated;

| — | in the case of the Genoa-Milan line, the implications for many archaeological sites (including Libarna), the hydrogeological implications (a 46 km tunnel, quarries, excavation of sections of the River Scrivia), the impact on 4 SCIs (banks of the River Scrivia, Capanne di Marcarolo, Praglia and Monte Gazzo) and one SRI (Arenziarie di Serravalle) and the loss of agricultural land, woodland and countryside have been underestimated; |
| --- | --- |

—

in the case of the Genoa-Milan line, the implications for many archaeological sites (including Libarna), the hydrogeological implications (a 46 km tunnel, quarries, excavation of sections of the River Scrivia), the impact on 4 SCIs (banks of the River Scrivia, Capanne di Marcarolo, Praglia and Monte Gazzo) and one SRI (Arenziarie di Serravalle) and the loss of agricultural land, woodland and countryside have been underestimated;

| — | in the case of the Milan-Verona line, no study is being carried out of the impact on areas of outstanding natural beauty or importance (including ten areas subject to planning constraints in four municipalities in the Verona district) or on the SCI in Laghetto del Frassino, and there has been no discussion of the protection of hydrological resources and noise pollution. |
| --- | --- |

—

in the case of the Milan-Verona line, no study is being carried out of the impact on areas of outstanding natural beauty or importance (including ten areas subject to planning constraints in four municipalities in the Verona district) or on the SCI in Laghetto del Frassino, and there has been no discussion of the protection of hydrological resources and noise pollution.

What measures does the Commission intend to take to ensure that the EIA procedure is applied correctly, not just in form but in substance, so that it takes account of all the above-mentioned factors which have been excluded from the assessment?

Is the Commission prepared to finance the construction of these sections of line despite the absence of any detailed analysis of the productivity of this investment and of traffic flows?

In particular, does the Commission not intend to consider funding the modernisation of the existing railway line in the case of the Turin-Lyons line?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(20 June 2003)

In all co-financing granted under the budget for trans-European networks (which applies, for instance, to the studies concerning the Lyon-Turin line), the Member State or Member States responsible for the project must make sure that the project is consistent with EU legislation on protection of the environment, and in particular:

| — | 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/EE on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (2); |
| --- | --- |

—

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/EE on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (2);

| — | ‘Natura 2000’ legislation in accordance with Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds (3) and Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (4). |
| --- | --- |

—

‘Natura 2000’ legislation in accordance with Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds (3) and Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (4).

The Commission regards this project as being of major importance in redressing the modal balance of traffic between Western and Eastern Europe across the Alps and through Italy. Projections made in several studies by independent bodies and confirmed by the studies undertaken by Lyon-Turin Ferroviaire, the company responsible for managing the Franco-Italian section of the project, show a substantial increase in goods transport throughout the Alps over the next fifteen years; this is certainly not unconnected with the impact of enlargement. For the moment, the major part of the project, including the Lyon-Turin line, is still under study. These studies — co-financed by the EU from the trans-European network's budget — should among other things serve to hone the economic hypotheses and help to design a model for operating the line that should be sufficiently profitable to attract investors, including from the private sector. The studies also include environmental aspects. The questions concerning excavations and hydrological resources referred to by the Honourable Member are therefore part of Lyon-Turin Ferroviaire's work programme.

The EU is already co-financing the construction of access points to the existing Turin-Lyon line. This work is intended to improve its operation and will make it possible from June 2003 to operate an experimental rail shuttle service between Aiton (France) and Orbassano (Italy). However, capacity on the existing line and its technical characteristics are not compatible with the traffic increase expected in the next few years. The existing line therefore represents a bottleneck preventing the railway from being competitive with the road and hampering implementation of a strategy to redress the modal balance in goods transport across the Alps. Accordingly, only new infrastructure with modern specifications will ensure that rail transport presents a credible alternative to transport by road.

---

(1)  OJ L 175, 5.7.1985.

(2)  OJ L 73, 14.3.1997.

(3)  OJ L 103, 25.4.1979.

(4)  OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/729 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/729

---

(2004/C 78 E/0778)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1841/03

by Charles Tannock (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(26 May 2003)

Subject:   The Commission's view that terrorism is not a human rights abuse

During the debate on the (Van Hecke) Annual Human Rights Report in the Foreign Affairs Committee of the European Parliament last year the Commission spokesman asked for an amendment from the report to be deleted on the grounds that it was the official position of the European Commission that terrorist offences could not constitute human rights abuses but were ordinary crimes that should be tried in national courts.

This appeared to be consistent with the position of the European Council which refused to sign a common declaration with the Indian government at the EU-India Summit at New Delhi in November 2001 which described terrorism as ‘a grave violation of human rights’ after the intervention of EU legal experts.

This issue also raised its head at the time of the conclusion to negotiations over the birth of the International Criminal Court in the summer of 1998, when it was recognised in Annex 1 to the Final Resolution to the Final Act of the United Nations Diplomatic Conference of Plenipotentiaries on the Establishment of an International Criminal Court that terrorist acts, by whomsoever they are committed, are serious crimes of concern to the international community, whilst regretting that no generally acceptable definition of the crime of terrorism could be agreed upon for the inclusion within the jurisdiction of the Court. After affirming in the same Annex that the Statute of the International Criminal Court provides for a review mechanism which allows for a future expansion of the jurisdiction of the Court, it was recommended that ‘a Review Conference pursuant to Article 123 of the Statute of the International Criminal Court consider the crimes of terrorism and drug crimes with a view to arriving at an acceptable definition and their inclusion in the list of crimes within the jurisdiction of the Court.’ That said, the failure to agree on a definition of terrorism notwithstanding, there is nothing in the text of the Statute which specifically requires the crimes listed to be committed by state actors or which specifically excludes terrorists or terrorist acts from the provisions of the Statute, whilst, interestingly, both Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch affirmed at a formal hearing of the European Parliament's Foreign Affairs Committee last year that they regarded the September 11 attacks as ‘crimes against humanity.’

Is it still the Commission's view that terrorist acts do not constitute human rights abuses and does the Commission support the inclusion of a list of terrorist crimes within the Statute of the ICC?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(24 June 2003)

It is the view of the Commission, and indeed the Union as a whole, that a distinction must be made between individual criminal acts and acts which are attributable to States. Only States are legally responsible under international law for protecting human rights. However, acts of terrorism, which are well-defined criminal acts, seriously affect the enjoyment of human rights.

The Commission would not wish to pre-empt future discussions within the Union and in the wider context on the complex question of the inclusion of a list of terrorist crimes within the International Criminal Court (ICC) Statute. The Commission notes, however that several leading human rights experts — including the former United Nations High Commissioner on Human Rights Mary Robinson — have stated that Article 7 of the Rome Statute relating to crimes against humanity could encompass large-scale terrorist acts directed at civilian populations.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/730 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/730

---

(2004/C 78 E/0779)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1855/03

by Anna Karamanou (PSE) to the Commission

(3 June 2003)

Subject:   Human rights in the EU — absence of common procedures for the reporting by Member States of human rights violations

In its six-monthly reports, Amnesty International expresses concern at systematic human rights violations in most Member States of the European Union, the victims being mainly migrants or members of minority groups and those responsible usually being members of the security forces. The violations may take the form of torture, ill-treatment and the excessive use of violence and in most cases they remain unpunished.

At the same time the European Union is engaged in a major endeavour to secure the protection of human rights outside its borders, having issued a series of recommendations and demands to third countries with which it is cooperating or which it is funding, while it remains silent about human rights violations taking place within its borders. At the same time the Treaties — by all accounts including the new constitutional Treaty currently being drawn up — clearly state that European Union's desire to protect human rights both outside and within. However, from the above it appears that in practice the European Union regards the protection of human rights within as the responsibility of the Member States and has accordingly failed to establish any supranational mechanism for monitoring and assessing the conduct of Member States and recommending measures to remedy problems, in particular structural shortcomings.

What steps will the Commission take to develop a common mechanism reporting human rights violations within the Member States of the European Union?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(7 July 2003)

Respect for fundamental rights at the Union level is ensured by the following mechanisms:

| — | Article 7 of the Treaty on the European Union introduces mechanisms for ensuring respect for the principles set out in Article 6 paragraph 1 of the same Treaty. The Commission together with the Parliament and the Member States are the actors responsible for launching the mechanisms set out in Article 7. The Commission can initiate both mechanisms, of prevention and sanction, as provided for in paragraphs 1 and 2 of this Article. The Commission is in the process of producing a Communication to the Parliament and to the Council on the application of Article 7; |
| --- | --- |

—

Article 7 of the Treaty on the European Union introduces mechanisms for ensuring respect for the principles set out in Article 6 paragraph 1 of the same Treaty. The Commission together with the Parliament and the Member States are the actors responsible for launching the mechanisms set out in Article 7. The Commission can initiate both mechanisms, of prevention and sanction, as provided for in paragraphs 1 and 2 of this Article. The Commission is in the process of producing a Communication to the Parliament and to the Council on the application of Article 7;

| — | In 2002, the Independent Network of Experts on Fundamental Rights was set up by the Commission at the request of the Parliament. Their first annual report, which has already been transmitted to the Parliament on 2 May 2003, gives a comprehensive overview of the actual situation of fundamental rights in each of the Member States. This report analyses the situation on fundamental rights with respect to each article of the Charter, reviewing the legislation, case law and practices of the national authorities in a national, Community and international context. |
| --- | --- |

—

In 2002, the Independent Network of Experts on Fundamental Rights was set up by the Commission at the request of the Parliament. Their first annual report, which has already been transmitted to the Parliament on 2 May 2003, gives a comprehensive overview of the actual situation of fundamental rights in each of the Member States. This report analyses the situation on fundamental rights with respect to each article of the Charter, reviewing the legislation, case law and practices of the national authorities in a national, Community and international context.

While the report does not constitute the Commission's official view, it does provide it with a clear snapshot of the situation, as regards the protection of fundamental rights in the Union.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/731 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/731

---

(2004/C 78 E/0780)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1945/03

by Elly Plooij-van Gorsel (ELDR) to the Commission

(13 June 2003)

Subject:   Amendment of the Dutch Media Act

The Netherlands Government has tabled a bill to amend the Media Act which would increase the number of stations which cable companies are required to relay by a maximum of two television stations and five radio stations. This would mean that, out of the average total of 32 television stations which a cable company relays, 17 would be relayed compulsorily, while out of the average total of 32 radio stations relayed, the same would apply to 30.

In connection with the amendment of the Media Act, the Netherlands Government has stated that it is not necessary to alter the relay obligations which the Media Act imposes on cable companies so as to bring them into line with Article 31 of the Universal Services Directive, because the aim of the Media Act (to protect diversity) is different from that of the new European framework.

| 1. | Is the Commission aware of the bill to amend the Media Act? Is it possible to adopt such legislation during the period of implementation of the new European regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services, which likewise includes rules on relay obligations? If so, is the Netherlands Government complying with the requirements of proportionality, transparency and reasonableness? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is the Commission aware of the bill to amend the Media Act? Is it possible to adopt such legislation during the period of implementation of the new European regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services, which likewise includes rules on relay obligations? If so, is the Netherlands Government complying with the requirements of proportionality, transparency and reasonableness?

| 2. | Is the Commission aware of the position adopted by the Netherlands Government that the Media Act does not need to be brought into line with Article 31 of the Universal Services Directive? What view does the Commission take of this position? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Is the Commission aware of the position adopted by the Netherlands Government that the Media Act does not need to be brought into line with Article 31 of the Universal Services Directive? What view does the Commission take of this position?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(24 July 2003)

| 1. | The Commission has not been officially informed by the Dutch authorities of any modification to the ‘Mediawet’, even though the concerns of certain market players regarding the Dutch must carry rules have been conveyed to it.
  Regarding the question as to whether it is possible to modify the ‘Mediawet’ during the period in which the new regulatory framework for electronic communication is being transposed, the Commission would point out that this new framework should enter into force on 25 July 2003, which means that by that date, all relevant Directives should be transposed into national law and any legislation that is not compliant with the new framework should be repealed or modified.
  In the present situation, since neither the draft law modifying the ‘Mediawet’ or any other Dutch legislation transposing the new regulatory framework for electronic communications have been communicated or notified to the Commission, the Commission cannot pronounce on the compliance of the Dutch must carry rules with the new regulatory framework, and in particular Article 31 of the Universal Service Directive 2002/22/EC (1). |
| --- | --- |

1.

The Commission has not been officially informed by the Dutch authorities of any modification to the ‘Mediawet’, even though the concerns of certain market players regarding the Dutch must carry rules have been conveyed to it.

Regarding the question as to whether it is possible to modify the ‘Mediawet’ during the period in which the new regulatory framework for electronic communication is being transposed, the Commission would point out that this new framework should enter into force on 25 July 2003, which means that by that date, all relevant Directives should be transposed into national law and any legislation that is not compliant with the new framework should be repealed or modified.

In the present situation, since neither the draft law modifying the ‘Mediawet’ or any other Dutch legislation transposing the new regulatory framework for electronic communications have been communicated or notified to the Commission, the Commission cannot pronounce on the compliance of the Dutch must carry rules with the new regulatory framework, and in particular Article 31 of the Universal Service Directive 2002/22/EC (1).

| 2. | As has been indicated above, the position of the Dutch Government has not been communicated to the Commission.
  The Commission has written to the Dutch authorities suggesting that, where deemed useful, a bilateral meeting be organised to discuss any issue arising from the transposition and implementation of the new framework. Such a meeting has taken place on 26 June 2003.
  The Commission reserves its position regarding the compliance of the Dutch must carry rules with the new regulatory framework until it has completed its analysis of the notified transposition measures. |
| --- | --- |

2.

As has been indicated above, the position of the Dutch Government has not been communicated to the Commission.

The Commission has written to the Dutch authorities suggesting that, where deemed useful, a bilateral meeting be organised to discuss any issue arising from the transposition and implementation of the new framework. Such a meeting has taken place on 26 June 2003.

The Commission reserves its position regarding the compliance of the Dutch must carry rules with the new regulatory framework until it has completed its analysis of the notified transposition measures.

---

(1)  Directive 2002/22/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on universal service and user's rights relating to electronic communications networks and services, OJ L 108, 24.4.2002.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/732 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/732

---

(2004/C 78 E/0781)

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 Fifth and Sixth 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 Fifth and Sixth 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?

Answer given by Mr Busquin on behalf of the Commission

(31 July 2003)

The proposals for innovative projects under the reference INN/01/02 were submitted in response to a call for proposals opened on 15 December 2001 and closed on 15 March 2002. According to the relevant procedures, the consortia of 31 selected proposals were invited to submit the detailed information required to complete the project negotiations. This would then enable the relevant dossier to be established, a positive opinion to be obtained from the Programme Committee and funding to be approved by the Commission. The approval of the Commission was given on 11 October 2002 (1) and on 22 November 2002 (2). Four contracts were launched before 31 December 2002. The delay that has occurred in preparing the 27 remaining contracts for signature has been exceptional in nature.

It is regrettable that the contracts were not launched as initially planned. In order to be able to implement projects correctly despite the delay, contractors have been given the possibility to adapt the road map of each of the identified activities.

Given that the information about the contracts which have not been signed is dealt with on a decentralised basis, it is not possible to give a statement by the required deadline. The Commission will provide further information without fail and as soon as possible.

The amount of EUR 7 billion corresponds roughly to the amount of outstanding commitments (OCs) for the research programmes. In accordance with the budget programming, it is planned to pay these at a steady rate, for example, up to EUR 2 200 million for the Directorate-General for Research (DG RTD) for 2003.

It should be emphasised that this amount is quite small in relation to the annual budget for research policy and that DG RTD has taken steps to ensure that this issue is being properly dealt with.

DG RTD makes a detailed analysis of its requirements for payment appropriations for each financial year, and then implements most of the budget (for example, 96 % in 2002). The risk of payment appropriations being cancelled is therefore low. Moreover, DG RTD has set up instruments for monthly reporting on OCs and is endeavouring to cancel the commitments for which payment appropriations are no longer required as soon as possible.

---

(1)  Decision number C(2002) 3710.

(2)  Decision number C(2002) 4524.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/733 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/733

---

(2004/C 78 E/0782)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2160/03

by Antonios Trakatellis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(30 June 2003)

Subject:   Broadcasting licences, rules governing State aid for broadcasting and media advertising in Greece

In reply to my previous question regarding the media activities in Greece (El775/02 (1)), the Commission informed me that, in response to complaints, the Commission was investigating the complex and unclear situation regarding broadcasting licensing and preferential treatment given to the public broadcasting body, the ERT, by the Greek authorities.

Given the new and excessive increase being envisaged in fees levied by the Public Power Corporation on behalf of the Greek public broadcasting body coupled with the latter's increased share in earnings from public and private advertising:

| 1. | What were the Commission's findings regarding the complaints, particularly in the light of the recent judgement by the ECJ (C 53/2000 Ferring) concerning the illegality of subsidies exceeding the net additional cost attributable to public service obligations and what measures have been taken to ensure a transparent and irreproachable system of media licensing in Greece in accordance with Community rules? |
| --- | --- |

1.

What were the Commission's findings regarding the complaints, particularly in the light of the recent judgement by the ECJ (C 53/2000 Ferring) concerning the illegality of subsidies exceeding the net additional cost attributable to public service obligations and what measures have been taken to ensure a transparent and irreproachable system of media licensing in Greece in accordance with Community rules?

| 2. | How will the Commission as guardian of the Treaties ensure effective monitoring of public service obligations by broadcasters in Greece where no clear agreement exists between the State and the company concerned clearly defining its activities where the supervisory authority (ERS) is not independent of the Government or the company concerned and no separate accounts are kept indicating sources and amounts of income and expenditure in respect of non public service activities? |
| --- | --- |

2.

How will the Commission as guardian of the Treaties ensure effective monitoring of public service obligations by broadcasters in Greece where no clear agreement exists between the State and the company concerned clearly defining its activities where the supervisory authority (ERS) is not independent of the Government or the company concerned and no separate accounts are kept indicating sources and amounts of income and expenditure in respect of non public service activities?

| 3. | How will it ensure the smooth implementation of internal market rules governing the allocation of State/public advertising and media subsidies in Greece? |
| --- | --- |

3.

How will it ensure the smooth implementation of internal market rules governing the allocation of State/public advertising and media subsidies in Greece?

| 4. | In how many and which Member States are fees levied by public power corporations and how is this increase in fees payable to the public broadcasting body, coupled with its increased share of advertising earnings, consistent with rules governing State aid, in particular for public broadcasting services? |
| --- | --- |

4.

In how many and which Member States are fees levied by public power corporations and how is this increase in fees payable to the public broadcasting body, coupled with its increased share of advertising earnings, consistent with rules governing State aid, in particular for public broadcasting services?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(29 August 2003)

| 1. | The Ferring judgement does not modify the basic rationale of Article 86(2) of the EC Treaty i.e. that State funding of a service of general economic interest must not exceed its net additional costs.
  The Commission's examination concerning the proportionality of the public support granted to Elliniki Radiophonia Tikorassi (ERT) is still ongoing and at this stage it is not possible to indicate whether the funds granted to it exceed the cost attributable to its public service obligations. Nonetheless, based on the available information, it can be noted preliminarily that the Commission does not possess evidence of anticompetitive behaviour of ERT in any commercial market, that would suggest the presence of such an overcompensation.
  Nor does the Commission have information in its possession on the attribution of broadcasting licences to ERT which provide evidence of a possible infringement of the relevant EU rules, in particular the freedom of establishment. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The Ferring judgement does not modify the basic rationale of Article 86(2) of the EC Treaty i.e. that State funding of a service of general economic interest must not exceed its net additional costs.

The Commission's examination concerning the proportionality of the public support granted to Elliniki Radiophonia Tikorassi (ERT) is still ongoing and at this stage it is not possible to indicate whether the funds granted to it exceed the cost attributable to its public service obligations. Nonetheless, based on the available information, it can be noted preliminarily that the Commission does not possess evidence of anticompetitive behaviour of ERT in any commercial market, that would suggest the presence of such an overcompensation.

Nor does the Commission have information in its possession on the attribution of broadcasting licences to ERT which provide evidence of a possible infringement of the relevant EU rules, in particular the freedom of establishment.

| 2. | The Law 1730/87 defines the mission of the Greek public broadcaster which is to inform, to educate and entertain the Greek nation. ERT's broadcasts must be governed by the principles of objectivity, polyphony, good quality of broadcasts, preservation of quality of the Greek language, promotion and dissemination of Greek culture and traditions. Furthermore, ERT must ensure radio and television coverage of the activities of the Parliament, of the pre-election campaigns by the political parties, of issues related to local government, and of the activities of other organisms involved in the cultural, social and economic development of the country. This definition of the broadcasting public service mission appears to be in line with Article 86(2): the Protocol of Amsterdam (2) and the Communication from the Commission on the application of State aid rules to public service broadcasting (3), recognise that the definition of the public service mandate falls within the competence of the Member States.
  Furthermore, the Commission considers that it is within the competence of each Member State to choose the mechanism to ensure effective supervision of the fulfilment of the public service obligations. The National Commission of Electronic Means of Communication (Ethniki Epitropi Ilektronikon Meson Epikinonias, EEIME) established by the Law 2173/93 in order to control the fulfilment by ERT of its public service obligations is an independent authority attached to the Government. Its members enjoy personal and functional independence and are not submitted to administrative control in the framework of their duties.
  Finally, regarding the separation of accounts, as stated in the Communication on the application of State aid rules to public service broadcasting, Member States may consider the whole programming of the broadcasters as covered by the public service remit, while at the same time allowing for its commercial exploitation. Thus, costs attributable to public service activities, but also benefiting commercial activities, need not be apportioned between the two and can be entirely allocated to public service. However it is necessary that the State support does not exceed the net costs of the public service mission, considering also other direct or indirect revenues derived from this mission. The main question is therefore the proportionality of the public support granted to ERT which is still being investigated by the Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The Law 1730/87 defines the mission of the Greek public broadcaster which is to inform, to educate and entertain the Greek nation. ERT's broadcasts must be governed by the principles of objectivity, polyphony, good quality of broadcasts, preservation of quality of the Greek language, promotion and dissemination of Greek culture and traditions. Furthermore, ERT must ensure radio and television coverage of the activities of the Parliament, of the pre-election campaigns by the political parties, of issues related to local government, and of the activities of other organisms involved in the cultural, social and economic development of the country. This definition of the broadcasting public service mission appears to be in line with Article 86(2): the Protocol of Amsterdam (2) and the Communication from the Commission on the application of State aid rules to public service broadcasting (3), recognise that the definition of the public service mandate falls within the competence of the Member States.

Furthermore, the Commission considers that it is within the competence of each Member State to choose the mechanism to ensure effective supervision of the fulfilment of the public service obligations. The National Commission of Electronic Means of Communication (Ethniki Epitropi Ilektronikon Meson Epikinonias, EEIME) established by the Law 2173/93 in order to control the fulfilment by ERT of its public service obligations is an independent authority attached to the Government. Its members enjoy personal and functional independence and are not submitted to administrative control in the framework of their duties.

Finally, regarding the separation of accounts, as stated in the Communication on the application of State aid rules to public service broadcasting, Member States may consider the whole programming of the broadcasters as covered by the public service remit, while at the same time allowing for its commercial exploitation. Thus, costs attributable to public service activities, but also benefiting commercial activities, need not be apportioned between the two and can be entirely allocated to public service. However it is necessary that the State support does not exceed the net costs of the public service mission, considering also other direct or indirect revenues derived from this mission. The main question is therefore the proportionality of the public support granted to ERT which is still being investigated by the Commission.

| 3. | The compatibility of State aid to broadcasting is examined by the Commission on the basis of the criteria set out in the Communication on the application of State aid rules to public service broadcasting. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The compatibility of State aid to broadcasting is examined by the Commission on the basis of the criteria set out in the Communication on the application of State aid rules to public service broadcasting.

| 4. | In most Member States public broadcasters are financed at least partially through television licence fees. There are different arrangements concerning the modalities of collection of these fees and their amount varies. It is also common to observe a dual financing scheme, combining public funds and advertising revenues. The Commission considers that the imposition of such a licence fee on households as well as the choice of a dual financing scheme is compatible with the State aid rules, as long as the total amount of funds granted to the public broadcaster does not exceed the net costs of its public service mission. This means that an increase in total funding, where justified by an increase in the cost of the public service, is consistent with the EC Treaty rules on State aid. |
| --- | --- |

4.

In most Member States public broadcasters are financed at least partially through television licence fees. There are different arrangements concerning the modalities of collection of these fees and their amount varies. It is also common to observe a dual financing scheme, combining public funds and advertising revenues. The Commission considers that the imposition of such a licence fee on households as well as the choice of a dual financing scheme is compatible with the State aid rules, as long as the total amount of funds granted to the public broadcaster does not exceed the net costs of its public service mission. This means that an increase in total funding, where justified by an increase in the cost of the public service, is consistent with the EC Treaty rules on State aid.

---

(1)  OJ C 301 E, 5.12.2002, p. 224.

(2)  Interpretative Protocol on the system of Public Service in Broadcasting.

(3)  OJ C 320, 15.11.2001.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/735 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/735

---

(2004/C 78 E/0783)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2218/03

by Monica Frassoni (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(2 July 2003)

Subject:   High-speed rail link between Milan and Genoa and Milan and Verona

In its answer of 20 June 2003 to my Written Question P-1826/03 (1) on the high-speed rail link (Lyon-Turin-Venice-Trieste-Ljubljana), the Commission failed to respond to the questions concerning shortcomings in the environmental impact assessment procedure for the Milan-Genoa and Milan-Verona links.

In particular:

| — | in the case of the Genoa-Milan line, the implications for many archaeological sites (including Libarna), the hydrogeological implications (a 46 km tunnel, quarries, excavation of sections of the River Scrivia), the impact on 4 SCIs (banks of the River Scrivia, Capanne di Marcarolo, Praglia and Monte Gazzo) and one SRI (Arenziarie di Serravalle) and the loss of agricultural land, woodland and countryside have been underestimated; |
| --- | --- |

—

in the case of the Genoa-Milan line, the implications for many archaeological sites (including Libarna), the hydrogeological implications (a 46 km tunnel, quarries, excavation of sections of the River Scrivia), the impact on 4 SCIs (banks of the River Scrivia, Capanne di Marcarolo, Praglia and Monte Gazzo) and one SRI (Arenziarie di Serravalle) and the loss of agricultural land, woodland and countryside have been underestimated;

| — | in the case of the Milan-Verona line, no study is being carried out of the impact on areas of outstanding natural beauty or importance (including ten areas subject to planning constraints in four municipalities in the Verona district) or on the SCI in Laghetto del Frassino, and there has been no discussion of the protection of hydrological resources and noise pollution. |
| --- | --- |

—

in the case of the Milan-Verona line, no study is being carried out of the impact on areas of outstanding natural beauty or importance (including ten areas subject to planning constraints in four municipalities in the Verona district) or on the SCI in Laghetto del Frassino, and there has been no discussion of the protection of hydrological resources and noise pollution.

What measures does the Commission intend to take to ensure that the EIA procedure is applied correctly to these two links, not just in form but in substance, so that it takes account of all the above-mentioned factors which have been excluded from the assessment?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(10 September 2003)

Under Article 3 of Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1983 (2), as modified 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 (3), ‘The environmental impact assessment’ (EIA) shall identify, describe and assess in an appropriate manner, in the light of each individual case and in accordance with Articles 4 to 11, the direct and indirect effects of a project on the following factors:

| — | human beings, fauna and flora; |
| --- | --- |

—

human beings, fauna and flora;

| — | soil, water, air, climate and the landscape; |
| --- | --- |

—

soil, water, air, climate and the landscape;

| — | material assets and the cultural heritage; |
| --- | --- |

—

material assets and the cultural heritage;

| — | the interaction between the factors mentioned in the first, second and third indents. |
| --- | --- |

—

the interaction between the factors mentioned in the first, second and third indents.

Construction of lines for long-distance railway traffic are found in Annex I point 7. An environmental impact assessment is mandatory for all projects found in Annex I. In this case, the information to be provided by the developer should contain the requirements of Article 5 and Annex IV. The issues invoked by the Honourable Member, namely a description of the aspects of the environment likely to be significantly affected such as archaeological heritage, fauna, flora, water and noise are found in Annex IV.

As regards the two projects, in none of these cases the authorities appear to have yet granted consent. Therefore, a complete assessment of the compliance of the EIA procedure carried out on these cases is not possible at this stage. In addition, as regards the Genoa-Milan project, it is not explained why and to what extent the described impact and implication have been underestimated while, as regards the Milan Verona project, the impacts on natural sites, mentioned by the Honourable Member, are not sufficiently described and it is not clear whether a study on the impact of the project on water and noise pollution was carried out or not.

In the light of the above, the information provided by the Honourable Member is not sufficient to draw concrete conclusions as regards the correct application of the EIA Directive.

---

(1)  See page 727.

(2)  OJ L 175, 5.7.1985.

(3)  OJ L 73, 14.3.1997.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/736 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/736

---

(2004/C 78 E/0784)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2265/03

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(9 July 2003)

Subject:   Deployment of a fund and provision of misleading information in order to dissuade authorities and other large users from using cheaper software available from a competitor

| 1. | Is the Commission aware of the existence of Microsoft's internal e-mails and other documents, including ‘Microsoft Confidential’ of 16 July 2002, referred to by the International Herald Tribune? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is the Commission aware of the existence of Microsoft's internal e-mails and other documents, including ‘Microsoft Confidential’ of 16 July 2002, referred to by the International Herald Tribune?

| 2. | Will the Commission compel Microsoft to make these documents available to it? The documents in question indicate that the company is using a special fund of USD 180 million to persuade authorities and large organisations to use Microsoft software rather than Linux. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Will the Commission compel Microsoft to make these documents available to it? The documents in question indicate that the company is using a special fund of USD 180 million to persuade authorities and large organisations to use Microsoft software rather than Linux.

| 3. | When did/will the Commission take a decision on this? |
| --- | --- |

3.

When did/will the Commission take a decision on this?

| 4. | Is it possible that the Commission may impose fines for the granting of unjustified discounts, similar to those imposed on such companies as Michelin and British Airways in the past, on account of the information to be obtained in this way or on account of a refusal to provide it? |
| --- | --- |

4.

Is it possible that the Commission may impose fines for the granting of unjustified discounts, similar to those imposed on such companies as Michelin and British Airways in the past, on account of the information to be obtained in this way or on account of a refusal to provide it?

| 5. | What other ways of putting a rapid and complete end to such practices within the European market is the Commission considering? |
| --- | --- |

5.

What other ways of putting a rapid and complete end to such practices within the European market is the Commission considering?

| 6. | Is Microsoft's use of members of its staff as ostensibly independent consultants or independent business-persons, with the aim of obtaining information from competitors or of acquiring potential customers, acceptable within the EU? Will the Commission inform the company that these practices, which are resorted to in America, are not permissible here? |
| --- | --- |

6.

Is Microsoft's use of members of its staff as ostensibly independent consultants or independent business-persons, with the aim of obtaining information from competitors or of acquiring potential customers, acceptable within the EU? Will the Commission inform the company that these practices, which are resorted to in America, are not permissible here?

| 7. | When does the Commission expect that measures already taken or yet to be taken will permanently reverse Microsoft's further progress towards a total monopoly on the European market? |
| --- | --- |

7.

When does the Commission expect that measures already taken or yet to be taken will permanently reverse Microsoft's further progress towards a total monopoly on the European market?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(25 August 2003)

| 1. | The Commission is aware of the article referred to by the Honourable Member, and the contents of this article. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The Commission is aware of the article referred to by the Honourable Member, and the contents of this article.

| 2. and 3. | The majority of the Commission's resources in this area is currently devoted to the main ongoing investigation against Microsoft, which relates to allegations in the fields of interoperability and tying. Nevertheless, the Commission intends to examine Microsoft's licensing arrangements, including the allegations referred to by the Honourable Member, in greater detail. |
| --- | --- |

2. and 3.

The majority of the Commission's resources in this area is currently devoted to the main ongoing investigation against Microsoft, which relates to allegations in the fields of interoperability and tying. Nevertheless, the Commission intends to examine Microsoft's licensing arrangements, including the allegations referred to by the Honourable Member, in greater detail.

| 4. | It is premature to speculate on this question. The Commission confirms that unjustified discounts by a dominant company can constitute an abuse of Article 82 of the EC Treaty. |
| --- | --- |

4.

It is premature to speculate on this question. The Commission confirms that unjustified discounts by a dominant company can constitute an abuse of Article 82 of the EC Treaty.

| 5. | As outlined in the answers to questions 2, 3 and 4, the Commission intends to examine Microsoft's licensing arrangements in greater detail. It is therefore premature to consider potential courses of action before the allegations are properly examined. |
| --- | --- |

5.

As outlined in the answers to questions 2, 3 and 4, the Commission intends to examine Microsoft's licensing arrangements in greater detail. It is therefore premature to consider potential courses of action before the allegations are properly examined.

| 6. | The Commission has no information that the practices alleged by the Honourable Member are taking place within the Union. |
| --- | --- |

6.

The Commission has no information that the practices alleged by the Honourable Member are taking place within the Union.

| 7. | The Commission's analysis of what is a complex and exhaustive file in its ongoing Microsoft investigation is in its latter stages. The Commission intends to ensure that the final outcome of the case is beneficial to innovation and consumers alike. |
| --- | --- |

7.

The Commission's analysis of what is a complex and exhaustive file in its ongoing Microsoft investigation is in its latter stages. The Commission intends to ensure that the final outcome of the case is beneficial to innovation and consumers alike.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/737 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/737

---

(2004/C 78 E/0785)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2328/03

by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission

(16 July 2003)

Subject:   Helicopter services to the Isles of Scilly

Will the Commission ensure that the interpretation of the Lisi report ‘Compensation and assistance to air passengers’ will take into account the situation of airlines that fly particularly difficult routes for technical and meteorological reasons, such as the above and similar routes? After all the intention of the report was to compensate passengers for the airlines that unreasonably inflict on passengers the cost of their failure to provide the resources to ensure passengers are not unnecessarily inconvenienced, and not to drive those that are giving a valuable and important public service on acknowledged difficult routes out of business.

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(9 September 2003)

The Commission recognises the particular conditions faced by air carriers, including helicopter operators, when operating some essential and difficult routes.

The draft Regulation ‘establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to air passengers in the event of denied boarding and cancellation or long delay of flights (1)’ will shortly go through the conciliation procedure, and the Lisi report on ‘Compensation and assistance to air passengers’ does not address the situation of airlines that fly particularly difficult routes. However, the draft Regulation includes the concept of ‘extraordinary circumstances which could not have been avoided even if all reasonable measures had been taken’.

In particular, such circumstances may occur in cases of meteorological conditions incompatible with the operation of the flight concerned and unexpected flight safety shortcomings. This concept is an efficient safeguard as, in such circumstances, carriers shall be exempted from certain obligations in event of cancellations and delays. It maintains a balance between passengers' rights and operational hazards for which operators can not be considered responsible.

Nevertheless, ‘a mechanical breakdown’ may not, by definition, always fall within the concept of ‘extraordinary circumstances’. Operators having to guarantee quality and safety of service normally will have the responsibility to avoid such failure.

---

(1)  OJ C 103 E, 30.4.2002.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/738 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/738

---

(2004/C 78 E/0786)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2428/03

by Niels Busk (ELDR) to the Council

(22 July 2003)

Subject:   State aid to Italian milk producers

Will the Council explain how its decision to approve Italian State aid to Italian milk producers is consistent with the provisions of Article 12 of the Treaty concerning equal treatment of European citizens and, therefore, including milk producers?

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/738 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/738

---

(2004/C 78 E/0787)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2429/03

by Niels Busk (ELDR) to the Council

(22 July 2003)

Subject:   State aid to Italian farmers

Will the Council say which ‘exceptional circumstances’ within the meaning of Article 88(2), third paragraph, ‘justify’ its decision to approve Italian State aid to Italian milk producers?

If the same ‘exceptional circumstances’ exist in other Member States or new Member States, will the Council approve corresponding State aid in those cases?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-2428/03 and E-2429/03

(4 March 2004)

The Council considered, in its decision of 16 July 2003 on the compatibility of the national aid the Italian Republic intends to grant to its milk producers by pre-financing itself the sums owed by these producers to the Community Budget by virtue of the additional levy on milk for the period 1995/1996 to 2001/2002, that there are exceptional circumstances which justify this aid as compatible with the common market in derogation from Article 8 7 of the Treaty.

In this respect, the Council took into account the unique factual and legal situation relating to the operation on the additional levy system in Italy, and in particular the fact that immediate recovery in full of all amounts due would have imposed a heavy financial burden on the individual Italian producers concerned and the need to alleviate the existing social tensions in Italy by allowing them to settle their outstanding debt by means of deferred payment.

The principle of equality is therefore respected since no such exceptional circumstances exist for other Community milk producers. In this respect, both the Council and the Commission stressed in a common statement for the Council's minutes that this Council Decision was justified by an exceptional situation particular to Italy and that its objective was to definitively settle past implementation problems of the additional levy there.

Consequently, both Institutions underlined that this Decision cannot be invoked as a precedent for other possible implementation problems either in Italy or in other Member States.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/739 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/739

---

(2004/C 78 E/0788)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2447/03

by Marie-Arlette Carlotti (PSE) to the Commission

(23 July 2003)

Subject:   Detailed rules for the implementation of technical and financial assistance measures for traditional ACP suppliers of bananas

The per country annual funding of technical and financial assistance measures for traditional ACP suppliers of bananas is determined by the Commission using a calculation method that takes into account the competitivity gap observed between the beneficiary ACP countries and third-country banana suppliers and the importance of banana production for the economy of the country concerned (Commission Regulation (EC) No 1609/1999 (1)).

The Commission bases its calculation of the competitivity gap on the average reference price per tonne of bananas produced in each beneficiary ACP country. This is a CIF (cost, insurance and freight) price. It seems that the CIF price for ACP bananas is reconstructed on the basis of the statistical customs value of the bananas as recorded by Eurostat. However, the absence of any Community harmonisation of the customs registration of ACP bananas results in widely-acknowledged differences in the price from one Member State to another. The same statistical data were also used by the Commission in application of the first directive on a system of assistance to suppliers (Regulation (EC) No 2686/94 (2)), but in the opposing sense.

These detailed implementing rules for the policy desired by the Council and the European Parliament result in distortions between beneficiaries.

In the interests of transparency could the Commission divulge the variables and calculations that formed the basis for the allocation of funding in 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002 and 2003?

Could it divulge all the data used to calculate the average CIF reference price for bananas in each ACP country in 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002 and 2003, as well as the average CIF reference prices for each ACP country for those years?

Does the Commission plan to rectify the method used for its calculation, so that this is performed on fair and transparent bases for the years to come?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(5 September 2003)

Commission Regulation (EC) No 1609/1999 of 22 July 1999 lays down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 856/1999 establishing the special framework of assistance (SFA) to traditional African, Caribbean and pacific (ACP) suppliers of bananas, including the methodology to be applied for calculating the yearly individual amounts. In accordance with Article 3 of the implementing regulation, the prices used in the calculations are the cost, insurance and freight (c.i.f.) values as published by Eurostat. Hence, the data used are official statistics, which are available by consulting the database Comext (3).

The alleged lack of harmonisation among Member States in the collection of data is being looked into, further to a letter of the Ivory Coast producers' organisation and a meeting held between its representatives and the Commission.

As to the different criteria applied when comparing the current SFA and the banana scheme established in 1994, important changes in the banana Union trade regime have occurred, forced upon the Community by world trade organisation (WTO) rules, which European development policy has to take into account.

The Commission does not see any distortions having occurred among beneficiaries. The fact that the weakest ACP competitors have so far received higher support is in line with the SFA policy choice, namely to help more the less competitive ACP suppliers. As of 2004, in accordance with the provisions in force, a reduction coefficient will have to be applied to all beneficiaries, but the reduction will be lower for those ACPs having improved their competitiveness, and will be proportional to those improvements.

None of the beneficiaries has ever disputed the correctness of the calculations leading to the individual yearly amounts. Even the representatives of the Ivorian producers stated at the above mentioned meeting that in their view the Commission has always applied the method prescribed by the Commission Regulation in a correct and fair manner.

---

(1)  OJ L 190, 23.7.1999, p. 14.

(2)  OJ L 286, 5.11.1994, p. 1.

(3)  The Comext database, accessible to Parliament, contains this data.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/740 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/740

---

(2004/C 78 E/0789)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2452/03

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Council

(23 July 2003)

Subject:   Growing American pressure on future EU Member States to permanently cease their cooperation with the International Criminal Court

| 1. | Has the Council heard that, under US legislation, as from 1 July 2003 no financial assistance will be provided to the approximately 50 States which have ratified the Statute of the International Criminal Court in The Hague? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Has the Council heard that, under US legislation, as from 1 July 2003 no financial assistance will be provided to the approximately 50 States which have ratified the Statute of the International Criminal Court in The Hague?

| 2. | Is the Council aware that the future EU Member States Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Slovakia, Slovenia and Bulgaria are among the 3 5 States which have previously received US assistance but in future will only be able to receive it if they conclude an Article 98 agreement' promising never to extradite American citizens to the International Criminal Court in The Hague? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Is the Council aware that the future EU Member States Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Slovakia, Slovenia and Bulgaria are among the 3 5 States which have previously received US assistance but in future will only be able to receive it if they conclude an Article 98 agreement' promising never to extradite American citizens to the International Criminal Court in The Hague?

| 3. | Does the Council regard this new step as an escalation of the United States' approach, which already featured the American Service Members Protection Act (dubbed by some the ‘Hague Invasion Act’) and the agreement signed with the future EU Member State Romania on 1 August 2002 on the exclusion of Americans? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Does the Council regard this new step as an escalation of the United States' approach, which already featured the American Service Members Protection Act (dubbed by some the ‘Hague Invasion Act’) and the agreement signed with the future EU Member State Romania on 1 August 2002 on the exclusion of Americans?

| 4. | Does the Council accept that, as a result of this escalation, the Criminal Court will not be able to operate properly and that those responsible for future war crimes comparable to those committed in the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda will enjoy permanent immunity from prosecution in cases where no adequate national prosecution procedure is applied? |
| --- | --- |

4.

Does the Council accept that, as a result of this escalation, the Criminal Court will not be able to operate properly and that those responsible for future war crimes comparable to those committed in the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda will enjoy permanent immunity from prosecution in cases where no adequate national prosecution procedure is applied?

| 5. | What will the Council do to prevent further pressure being brought to bear on EU Member States and future Member States to permanently cease their cooperation with the International Criminal Court, contrary to the common position adopted by the Council in 2001 and 2002? |
| --- | --- |

5.

What will the Council do to prevent further pressure being brought to bear on EU Member States and future Member States to permanently cease their cooperation with the International Criminal Court, contrary to the common position adopted by the Council in 2001 and 2002?

Source: De Volkskrant, 2 July 2003.

Reply

(4 March 2004)

| 1. | The Council recalls the importance the EU attaches to the preservation of the integrity of the Rome Statute.
  The Council confirms it has received information, both from NGOs and from the third countries concerned, on renewed heavy US pressure to conclude non-surrender agreements. This pressure consists mainly in threats to withdraw US military assistance as provided for by the American Service members Protection Act, the so-called ASPA (effective from 1 July 2003). It was mentioned that such pressure might also include the decision to withdraw the whole US aid to certain countries. The US authorities have, however, strongly denied this latter information. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The Council recalls the importance the EU attaches to the preservation of the integrity of the Rome Statute.

The Council confirms it has received information, both from NGOs and from the third countries concerned, on renewed heavy US pressure to conclude non-surrender agreements. This pressure consists mainly in threats to withdraw US military assistance as provided for by the American Service members Protection Act, the so-called ASPA (effective from 1 July 2003). It was mentioned that such pressure might also include the decision to withdraw the whole US aid to certain countries. The US authorities have, however, strongly denied this latter information.

| 2. | The Council is aware of the consequences of the implementation of the above US decision for the European countries mentioned by the Honourable MEP. NATO members will not be concerned, but six future EU Member States (Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Slovakia, Slovenia and Bulgaria), not expected to join NATO before 2004, will see important funds withheld as of 1 October. These funds are meant to help them prepare their nation's militaries to be fully interoperable with NATO forces. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The Council is aware of the consequences of the implementation of the above US decision for the European countries mentioned by the Honourable MEP. NATO members will not be concerned, but six future EU Member States (Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Slovakia, Slovenia and Bulgaria), not expected to join NATO before 2004, will see important funds withheld as of 1 October. These funds are meant to help them prepare their nation's militaries to be fully interoperable with NATO forces.

| 3. | The Council recalls that at every possible occasion (EU Common Positions, Guiding Principles and different demarches carried out in third countries) it has reaffirmed its consistent and clear position on the ASPA and on the bilateral non-surrender agreements. When approached by the US with proposals for non-surrender agreements, Member States looked for a common EU approach to these proposals within the Council. Since the very start of the process, the Council identified one clear political objective for this common approach: the framework for any solution to accommodate US concerns must preserve the integrity of the Rome Statute and should not undermine the ICC.
  Particular reference should be made to the EU Guiding Principles annexed to the Council Conclusions of 30 September 2002. In the above Guiding Principles, the Council considered that entering into bilateral agreements — as presently drafted — would be inconsistent with ICC States Parties' obligations with regard to the ICC Statute and may be inconsistent with other international agreements to which ICC States Parties are parties. Furthermore, any solution should include appropriate operative provisions ensuring that persons who have committed crimes falling within the jurisdiction of the Court do not enjoy impunity. Such provisions should ensure appropriate investigation and — where there is sufficient evidence — prosecution by national jurisdictions concerning persons requested by the ICC. In any case, any solution should only cover persons who are not nationals of an ICC State Party. It should cover only persons present on the territory of a requested State because they have been sent by a sending State; and surrender cannot be deemed to include transit.
  It is recalled that the ten acceding countries supported the EU Common Position of June 2003 and that the associated countries (Romania, Bulgaria and Turkey) as well as the EFTA countries also aligned with it. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The Council recalls that at every possible occasion (EU Common Positions, Guiding Principles and different demarches carried out in third countries) it has reaffirmed its consistent and clear position on the ASPA and on the bilateral non-surrender agreements. When approached by the US with proposals for non-surrender agreements, Member States looked for a common EU approach to these proposals within the Council. Since the very start of the process, the Council identified one clear political objective for this common approach: the framework for any solution to accommodate US concerns must preserve the integrity of the Rome Statute and should not undermine the ICC.

Particular reference should be made to the EU Guiding Principles annexed to the Council Conclusions of 30 September 2002. In the above Guiding Principles, the Council considered that entering into bilateral agreements — as presently drafted — would be inconsistent with ICC States Parties' obligations with regard to the ICC Statute and may be inconsistent with other international agreements to which ICC States Parties are parties. Furthermore, any solution should include appropriate operative provisions ensuring that persons who have committed crimes falling within the jurisdiction of the Court do not enjoy impunity. Such provisions should ensure appropriate investigation and — where there is sufficient evidence — prosecution by national jurisdictions concerning persons requested by the ICC. In any case, any solution should only cover persons who are not nationals of an ICC State Party. It should cover only persons present on the territory of a requested State because they have been sent by a sending State; and surrender cannot be deemed to include transit.

It is recalled that the ten acceding countries supported the EU Common Position of June 2003 and that the associated countries (Romania, Bulgaria and Turkey) as well as the EFTA countries also aligned with it.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/741 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/741

---

(2004/C 78 E/0790)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2464/03

by Piia-Noora Kauppi (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(23 July 2003)

Subject:   Pricing of basic postal services

European users are often paying unjustified high prices for basic postal services. In particular, this seems to be the case in Germany, where a stamp costs more than twice its Spanish equivalent for consumers. It appears that, even though Deutsche Post was obliged by the German Regulator to slightly reduce its stamp price earlier this year (from EUR 0,56 to 0,55), the price charged by DPWN on a stamp for a basic letter of 20 grams is still the highest in Western Europe, even taking into consideration elements such as quality of service and population density.

In February 2000, the DVPT (Deutscher Verband für Post und Telekommunikation e.V.), the German association for post and telecommunication, filed a complaint with the European Commission (Comp/37 821) concerning the excessive prices used by Deutsche Post in the reserved letter mail area. DVPT argued that Deutsche Post used its excessive prices in the reserved area to cross-subsidise other services and referred to this as a breach of Article 82 of the Treaty (abuse of dominant position).

The Commission has in past years adopted important decisions to redress the abuses perpetrated by some postal operators. Can the Commission explain what is the current status of the above-mentioned DVPT case and what steps it intends to take in order to solve it?

Could the Commission indicate how it intends to ensure that the requirements of the Postal Directives and the Postal Notice (Notice from the Commission on the application of the competition rules to the postal sector and on the assessment of certain State measures relating to postal services (1)) as regards transparency of accounts for the postal operators are respected, in particular with regard to the separation of reserved and commercial activities?

Can the Commission indicate whether and how it intends to provide, in addition to the provisions contained in the Postal Directives and in the Postal Notice, detailed guidelines for the National Regulatory Authorities (NRAs) on control of tariff levels, measurement of costs of universal service (if applicable) and use of monopoly profits by the incumbents, including suggestions for applications for alternative methods such as the returns on capital employed (ROCE) method?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(4 September 2003)

The Honourable Member's first question concerns the current status of the Commission's investigation of the complaint filed by DVPT concerning certain postal tariffs charged by Deutsche Post AG in Germany (2). Regrettably, the Commission is currently unable to disclose anything about the outcome of its investigation, since it is still pending. However, the Commission would like to emphasise the fact that — as noted by the Honourable Member — it is primarily the Member States themselves that have the responsibility to ensure that postal tariffs charged by the monopoly operator are proportionate to the actual costs incurred. The German regulator — the Regulierungsbehörde für Telekommunikation und Post (RegTP) — has far-reaching powers under the German Postal Act to determine the level of postal tariffs based on an analysis of the incumbent's cost.

With regard to the respect of the Postal Directive's provisions of transparency of accounts, national postal regulatory authorities are primarily responsible for this obligation (Article 14.5 of Directive 97/67/EC (3)). However, the Commission has addressed itself to a number of Member States during 2001 in order to be reassured that the applicable provisions were fully respected. Furthermore, a dedicated study was conducted on behalf of the Commission to look into the details of the implementation and application of the Directives' transparency of accounts provisions by Member States (‘Study on the cost accounting systems of providers of the universal postal service’, CtCon July 2001), which concluded that Article 14 of Directive 97/67/EC was broadly implemented and applied.

The Commission considers that the effective application of the Directive's provisions and competition rules constitute so far an adequate basis for ensuring a proper separation between reserved and commercial postal activities. However, due to the complexity of these issues, the Commission will remain attentive to any possible developments in this area.

The Commission has not the intention at this point in time to provide detailed guidelines to the national regulatory authorities on the issues suggested by the Honourable Member. An on-going monitoring of the situation by the Commission and a periodic exchange of views and practices between national regulatory authorities and the Commission already takes place on some of these issues at different occasions (e.g. workshops and panels carried out in the preparation of studies, bilateral meetings). Furthermore, and as stated above, the Commission has commissioned a number of studies which contain a comparison and best practice recommendations in some of these areas and can be the basis for a harmonised improvement of national practices (e.g. the abovementioned study on cost accounting; study on the impact of certain aspects of the Application of Directive 97/67/EC, Omega Partners August 2001; study on costing and financing of universal postal services, NERA October 1998).

The report on the application of the Directive that the Commission must present before the Parliament and Council before the 31 December 2004 (Article 1.5 of Directive 2002/39/EC (4)) appears to be an occasion that the Commission could use to propose further action, should this necessity be perceived.

---

(1)  OJ C 39, 6.2.1998, p. 2.

(2)  Case No COMP/37.821 — Deutscher Verband für Post und Telekommunikation E.V./Deutsche Post AG.

(3)  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.

(4)  Directive 2002/39/EC of the European 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.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/743 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/743

---

(2004/C 78 E/0791)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2485/03

by Ria Oomen-Ruijten (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(24 July 2003)

Subject:   Double taxation conventions and Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71

In practice, workers who are employed in more than one EU Member State, for example in international road haulage, often find themselves the victims of unfavourable combinations of social insurance costs in one country (where their employer is based) and levying of income tax in their country of residence for days spent working outside the country where their employer is based. The regulation coordinating social security schemes ((EEC) No 1408/71 (1)) and bilateral double taxation conventions do not mesh together smoothly.

| 1. | Do the allocation rules in bilateral double taxation conventions take precedence over the corresponding rules in the multilateral Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 or vice versa? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Do the allocation rules in bilateral double taxation conventions take precedence over the corresponding rules in the multilateral Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 or vice versa?

| 2. | Is it contrary to EU legislation if Member States agree allocation rules in a double taxation convention which deviate from the principles laid down in Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Is it contrary to EU legislation if Member States agree allocation rules in a double taxation convention which deviate from the principles laid down in Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71?

| 3. | What does the Commission consider to be the significance of consideration 32 in the recent judgment in the case of Gottardo, C-55/00 (With regard to a bilateral international treaty concluded between a Member State and a non-member country for the avoidance of double taxation, the Court has pointed out that, although direct taxation is a matter falling within the competence of the Member States alone, the latter may not disregard Community rules but must exercise their powers in a manner consistent with Community law (...)')? |
| --- | --- |

3.

What does the Commission consider to be the significance of consideration 32 in the recent judgment in the case of Gottardo, C-55/00 (With regard to a bilateral international treaty concluded between a Member State and a non-member country for the avoidance of double taxation, the Court has pointed out that, although direct taxation is a matter falling within the competence of the Member States alone, the latter may not disregard Community rules but must exercise their powers in a manner consistent with Community law (...)')?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(11 September 2003)

The Commission would like to inform the Honourable Member that Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the Council (2) creates a system for co-ordinating national social security schemes of the Member States and contains a series of provisions which determine the national legislation to apply in a given case. These provisions aim to ensure that persons who have exercised their right to free movement are subject to the legislation of only one Member State, i.e. the State of employment, and that, as a result, they must pay social security contributions only in the Member State whose legislation is applicable.

As for the allocation rules in bilateral double taxation conventions, in the absence of a Community unifying or harmonising measure the Member States retain the power to lay down criteria for taxing income and savings with a view to eliminating double taxation, if necessary by means of conventions. In this respect, within the framework of bilateral conventions the Member States are free to define attachment factors for the purposes of allocating tax jurisdiction.

There is no relationship, let alone a hierarchical relationship, between the provisions of Regulation (EC) No 1408/71 and those of bilateral double taxation conventions. It follows that the dispute rules laid down in these two types of instrument apply within their respective fields of application.

As far as employment income (dependent activities) is concerned, and particularly in the case of drivers, the Commission notes that double taxation conventions between the Member States use criteria for allocating tax jurisdiction (e.g. the employee's place of residence, the employer's place of residence or the place where the activity is carried out) which do not always correspond to the allocation criteria laid down in Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71. However, the Commission does not consider that this difference in the allocation rules per se represents an infringement of Community law.

The Commission considers that paragraph 32 of the judgment of the European Court of Justice in Gottardo (C-55/00) confirms its earlier judgment in Gilly (C-336/96). According to that judgment, in the absence of European harmonisation in the area, the Member States are free to lay down criteria for allocating tax jurisdiction in bilateral double taxation conventions. However, when doing so, they must respect the fundamental principles of the EC Treaty.

---

(1)  OJ L 149, 5.7.1971, p. 2.

(2)  Latest consolidated version: Regulation (EC) No 118/97 of the Council of 2 December 1997 amending and updating Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community, OJ L 28, 30.1.1997.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/744 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/744

---

(2004/C 78 E/0792)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2494/03

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(25 July 2003)

Subject:   Pensions

| 1. | Will the Commission estimate the proportion of each Member State's pension age population that is in receipt of some pension based on a funded or private sector scheme? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Will the Commission estimate the proportion of each Member State's pension age population that is in receipt of some pension based on a funded or private sector scheme?

| 2. | Will the Commission estimate the proportion of each Member State's working age population that is currently contributing to a funded pension scheme whether private or public? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Will the Commission estimate the proportion of each Member State's working age population that is currently contributing to a funded pension scheme whether private or public?

| 3. | Will the Commission estimate how many privately funded pension schemes in each Member State are currently declaring that they are unable to meet their existing obligations at current levels of the financial markets? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Will the Commission estimate how many privately funded pension schemes in each Member State are currently declaring that they are unable to meet their existing obligations at current levels of the financial markets?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(26 August 2003)

The joint report of the Council and the Commission on adequate and sustainable pensions adopted in March 2003 (1) summarises in its table 3 (pages 31-32) information obtained from the Member States' authorities on the importance of private pension provision, mainly through occupational pensions. The table provides for most Member States information on the proportion of employees contributing to private pension schemes and pensioners receiving benefits from such schemes.

Moreover, Eurostat has started collecting data on active, deferred and retired members (2) of autonomous pension funds. The figures below reflect the situation in 2001:

| | Number of active members | Number of deferred members | Number of retired persons |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Belgium | 269 835 | 56 631 | 67 609 |
| Denmark | 11 404 | NA | 10 337 |
| Germany | NA | NA | NA |
| Spain (2000) (3) | 3 928 682 | 931 940 | 134 967 |
| Ireland | NA | NA | NA |
| Italy (3) | 1 811 022 | NA | 118 050 |
| Luxembourg | NA | NA | NA |
| Netherlands (2000) | 5 140 000 | 6 247 000 | 1 968 000 |
| Austria | 325 713 | NA | 39 658 |
| Portugal (3) | 283 244 | NA | 112 813 |
| Finland | 75 071 | 33 665 | 45 541 |
| Sweden | 427 119 | 339 048 | 133 620 |
| United Kingdom | NA | NA | NA |

Number of active members

Number of deferred members

Number of retired persons

Belgium

269 835

56 631

67 609

Denmark

11 404

NA

10 337

Germany

NA

NA

NA

Spain (2000) (3)

3 928 682

931 940

134 967

Ireland

NA

NA

NA

Italy (3)

1 811 022

NA

118 050

Luxembourg

NA

NA

NA

Netherlands (2000)

5 140 000

6 247 000

1 968 000

Austria

325 713

NA

39 658

Portugal (3)

283 244

NA

112 813

Finland

75 071

33 665

45 541

Sweden

427 119

339 048

133 620

United Kingdom

NA

NA

NA

The Commission does not have information on the number of privately funded pension schemes in each Member State which would currently be unable to meet their existing obligations at current levels of financial markets. The recently adopted Directive 2003/41/EC of the Parliament and of the Council on the activities and supervision of institutions for occupational retirement pensions, which will come into force two years after its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union, contains a host of prudential provisions to ensure that pension schemes will be able to meet their obligations to their members. It also ensure that an effective system of prudential surpervision be established to the same end.

---

(1)  Available on: http://europa.eu.int/comm/employment_social/soc-prot/pensions/index_en.htm

(2)  Number of active members: the number of members who are actively contributing to the pension scheme. Number of deferred members: number of members who have left the pension scheme, but retain deferred rights. Number of retired members: number of persons who receive pension benefits (including widows, orphans, ...).

(3)  Figures for Spain, Portugal and Italy also contain data for some pension funds of the third pillar, these are personal pension schemes where there is no involvement from the employer.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/745 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/745

---

(2004/C 78 E/0793)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2553/03

by Marco Cappato (NI) to the Council

(4 August 2003)

Subject:   The Tunisian journalist Abdallah Zouari

The court in the Tunisian town of Zarzis sentenced the journalist Abdallah Zouari to four months in prison on 18 July 2003. The court held that the journalist's complaint about being barred from using a cybercafe amounted to ‘defamation’ against the manageress of the cafe.

Abdallah Zouari has been constantly harassed and spied on for months. After being forbidden to go online at a cybercafe in Zarzis on 19 April, he said he would call his lawyer. The manageress then filed a complaint against him for defamation. Sentence was passed on 18 July 2003.

Zouari's conviction is only the latest example of the increasing lack of freedom of expression in Tunisia.

Two cases may be considered as typical of the situation:

| — | the journalist Sihem Ben Sedrine, after setting up an online publication called ‘Kalima’ because she had not obtained authorisation to publish a newspaper, was attacked by the police of President Zine el-Abidine ben Ali in an attempt to eliminate any form of dissidence on the Internet; |
| --- | --- |

—

the journalist Sihem Ben Sedrine, after setting up an online publication called ‘Kalima’ because she had not obtained authorisation to publish a newspaper, was attacked by the police of President Zine el-Abidine ben Ali in an attempt to eliminate any form of dissidence on the Internet;

| — | Zouhair Yahyaoui, webmaster of the Tunisian site TuneZine, was arrested last year and sentenced to two years' imprisonment on 10 July 2002 for ‘spreading false information’. Yahyaoui was the first person to publish online a letter to President Ben Ali from Judge Mokhtar Yahyaoui (Zouhair Yahyaoui's uncle) criticising the complete lack of judicial independence in Tunisia. |
| --- | --- |

—

Zouhair Yahyaoui, webmaster of the Tunisian site TuneZine, was arrested last year and sentenced to two years' imprisonment on 10 July 2002 for ‘spreading false information’. Yahyaoui was the first person to publish online a letter to President Ben Ali from Judge Mokhtar Yahyaoui (Zouhair Yahyaoui's uncle) criticising the complete lack of judicial independence in Tunisia.

In view of the fact that Tunisia has been chosen to host the 2005 meeting of the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS), what steps will the Council take to induce the Tunisian government to give up its repressive attitude towards journalists and Internet users?

Does the Council not consider that it should use every form of political, diplomatic and economic pressure to induce the Tunisian government to relax the laws on the press and ensure the right to freedom of speech in Tunisia?

Does the Council consider it appropriate to try to ensure that the decision to hold the second meeting of the WSIS in Tunisia in 2005 is suspended until Tunisian legislation actually guarantees full enjoyment of freedom of expression?

Reply

(4 March 2004)

The Council is well informed about the cases mentioned by the Honourable Member and agrees completely with his analysis of the situation with regard to freedom of expression in Tunisia.

At the last meeting of the EU-Tunisia Association Council on 29/30 September 2003, the European Union reminded Tunisia once again that respect for democracy, human rights and the rule of law are a fundamental aspect of the Association Agreement. The European Union noted on that occasion that Tunisia still had to make progress, in particular with regard to freedom of speech. It also called on Tunisia to effectively implement the commitments that it has entered into through UN international conventions.

On the basis of the May 2003 Commission communication aimed at reinvigorating EU actions on human rights and democratisation with Mediterranean partners, the European Union proposed that Tunisia enter into a dialogue on implementation of the recommendations made in that communication. Moreover, in the Decision of the Association Council setting up subcommittees of the Association Committee which was adopted at the last meeting of the Association Council, Tunisia endorsed the provision emphasising the importance attached to issues relating to democratic principles and human rights. The text of the Decision states that they will be afforded due attention in the various forums set up under the Association Agreement and, if the parties so decide, these issues may also be discussed within a subcommittee of the Association Committee or within a specific Working Party.

The European Union believes in the benefits of a continual dialogue and therefore intends to raise the issue of Tunisia's human rights commitments on a regular basis and at all levels.

With regard to the desirability of holding the second phase of the World Summit on the Information Society in Tunis in 2005, the Council would remind the Honourable Member that the meeting is being organised by the International Telecommunication Union under the patronage of the United Nations.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/747 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/747

---

(2004/C 78 E/0794)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2584/03

by Graham Watson (ELDR) to the Council

(8 August 2003)

Subject:   Import of timber from Indonesia

What measures does the Presidency intend to take to combat the illegal import of timber from Indonesia?

Reply

(4 March 2004)

The Council attaches particular importance to combating the illegal import of timber and recognises the need for the EU to contribute to global efforts to tackle the problem of illegal logging.

Council bodies are therefore currently studying the Communication from the Commission on Forest Law Enforcement, Governance and Trade (FLEGT), which contains an EU Action Plan aimed notably at combating illegal logging and the associated trade in illegal timber.

In the conclusions adopted on 13 October 2003, the Council considered that there was an urgent need for the EU and its Member States to enter into a political dialogue with the countries most directly concerned to instigate forest sector governance reforms and, more specifically, to engage the private sector of the timber producing countries with a view to building a consensus on how best to tackle the problem of illegal logging and the associated trade, in particular by exploring multilateral and regional responses and by studying the ideas developed in the Action Plan at the appropriate international meetings, such as the UNFF (United Nations Forum on Forests), the ITTO (International Tropical Timber Organization), the regional FLEG processes, the Asia Forest Partnership and the Congo Basin Forest Partnership.

Furthermore, in its conclusions the Council invited the Commission to study the measures in the Action Plan, including the drawing up of a Regulation, and to review options for, and the feasibility of, further legislation to control imports of illegally harvested timber and conflict timber, taking account of relevant initiatives in other areas, as well as the impact on domestic industries.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/747 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/747

---

(2004/C 78 E/0795)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2614/03

by Albert Maat (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(28 August 2003)

Subject:   Planting of vineyards with the help of EU funds

Is the Commission aware that in the Spanish winegrowing area of Toro, vineyards are being planted (with irrigation) with the help of EU funds?

Does this policy not conflict with the restriction of surplus overproduction in viticulture? (1)

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(17 September 2003)

Council Regulation (EC) No 1493/1999 of 17 May 1999 on the common organisation of the market in wine (2) provides for a system of restructuring and conversion of Community vineyards to improve the adjustment of production to market demand.

Under that system, an instrument for funding restructuring and conversion operations was introduced in 2000 under a budget managed by the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) Guarantee Section.

That budget is shared out among the various Member States by the Commission on the basis of the criteria laid down in the Council Regulation and its use is strictly governed by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1227/2000 of 31 May 2000 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1493/1999 on the common organisation of the market in wine, as regards production potential (3).

Therefore the Commission is fully aware of the information to which the Honourable Member refers.

The vineyard restructuring and conversion policy is part of a wine production potential management strategy.

This is why, to prevent the qualitative restructuring of vineyards from having a quantitative impact on the volume of production, the Community rules include a number of safeguards, such as restrictions on vine yields, rules on the transfer of replanting rights between holdings, and the specific problem of vine irrigation. These provisions are applied by the Member States concerned and are verified and checked by the Commission.

---

(1)  See article in the magazine Perswijn, volume 16, issue 4 July 2003.

(2)  OJ L 179, 14.7.1999.

(3)  OJ L 143, 16.6.2000.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/748 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/748

---

(2004/C 78 E/0796)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2616/03

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(25 August 2003)

Subject:   Exclusion of feta cheese, ouzo and Kalamata olives from the list of products with geographical indications of origin to be negotiated at the WTO

The Article 133 Committee has excluded the Greek products of feta cheese, ouzo and Kalamata olives from the list of products with geographical indications of origin to be negotiated at the WTO.

Given that this exclusion is tantamount to discrimination against vitally important Greek products that are recognised not only in Europe but throughout the world, will the Commission say:

| 1. | why the abovementioned Greek products, which have been recognised as being of protected geographical origin, have not been included in the list of such products to be discussed at Cancun, Mexico? |
| --- | --- |

1.

why the abovementioned Greek products, which have been recognised as being of protected geographical origin, have not been included in the list of such products to be discussed at Cancun, Mexico?

| 2. | what provisions on the recognition of products with geographical indications of origin have been included in the agreement on agricultural trade between the EU and USA (13 August 2003)? |
| --- | --- |

2.

what provisions on the recognition of products with geographical indications of origin have been included in the agreement on agricultural trade between the EU and USA (13 August 2003)?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(18 September 2003)

| 1. | On 27 August 2003 the Council's Article 133 Committee endorsed the list of geographical indications which the European Union will soon be submitting to the World Trade Organisation (WTO), the objective being to prevent misuse of these names at international level. The list contains 41 names, two of which are Greek — ‘feta’ and ‘ouzo’. |
| --- | --- |

1.

On 27 August 2003 the Council's Article 133 Committee endorsed the list of geographical indications which the European Union will soon be submitting to the World Trade Organisation (WTO), the objective being to prevent misuse of these names at international level. The list contains 41 names, two of which are Greek — ‘feta’ and ‘ouzo’.

| 2. | The European Union/United States document on agriculture refers to geographical indications as one of the subjects for discussion. The Commission will continue to pursue the objective of strengthening the protection of geographical indications in Cancun.
  In view of the different positions taken by the two sides, it is not possible to go any further at this stage. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The European Union/United States document on agriculture refers to geographical indications as one of the subjects for discussion. The Commission will continue to pursue the objective of strengthening the protection of geographical indications in Cancun.

In view of the different positions taken by the two sides, it is not possible to go any further at this stage.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/749 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/749

---

(2004/C 78 E/0797)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2627/03

by Maurizio Turco (NI) to the Council

(2 September 2003)

Subject:   Follow-up on the ‘Resolution on sexual violence against women, particularly Catholic nuns’ adopted by the European Parliament on 5 April 2001

On 5 April 2001 the European Parliament adopted a ‘Resolution on sexual violence against women, particularly Catholic nuns’ (B5-0261, 0272, 0280 and 0298/2001) (1), which referred, among other things, to the following:

| a) | the report in the US periodical the National Catholic Reporter indicating that a large number of Catholic nuns had been raped by priests in at least 23 countries; |
| --- | --- |

a)

the report in the US periodical the National Catholic Reporter indicating that a large number of Catholic nuns had been raped by priests in at least 23 countries;

| b) | confirmation by the Holy See that it was aware of cases of rape and sexual abuse of women, including nuns, by Catholic priests, because at least five reports on this subject had been submitted to the Vatican since 1994, and according to those reports many of the nuns raped were also compelled to have abortions or resign, and in some cases became infected with HIV/AIDS. |
| --- | --- |

b)

confirmation by the Holy See that it was aware of cases of rape and sexual abuse of women, including nuns, by Catholic priests, because at least five reports on this subject had been submitted to the Vatican since 1994, and according to those reports many of the nuns raped were also compelled to have abortions or resign, and in some cases became infected with HIV/AIDS.

In adopting the resolution, the European Parliament called:

| (a) | for those responsible for the crimes to be arrested and brought to justice; |
| --- | --- |

(a)

for those responsible for the crimes to be arrested and brought to justice;

| (b) | on the judicial authorities of the 23 countries cited in the reports to ensure that all appropriate judicial action was taken to establish the truth about the cases of violence against women; |
| --- | --- |

(b)

on the judicial authorities of the 23 countries cited in the reports to ensure that all appropriate judicial action was taken to establish the truth about the cases of violence against women;

| (c) | on the Holy See to take all allegations of sexual abuse within its organisations seriously, to cooperate with the judicial authorities and to remove the perpetrators from office; |
| --- | --- |

(c)

on the Holy See to take all allegations of sexual abuse within its organisations seriously, to cooperate with the judicial authorities and to remove the perpetrators from office;

| (d) | on the Holy See to reinstate those female officials who had been removed from their posts for drawing their supervisors' attention to such abuses and to afford the victims the necessary protection from and compensation for any discrimination which might ensue; |
| --- | --- |

(d)

on the Holy See to reinstate those female officials who had been removed from their posts for drawing their supervisors' attention to such abuses and to afford the victims the necessary protection from and compensation for any discrimination which might ensue;

| (e) | for the content of the five reports cited by the National Catholic Reporter to be published in full; and |
| --- | --- |

(e)

for the content of the five reports cited by the National Catholic Reporter to be published in full; and

| (f) | instructed its President to forward the resolution to the Council, the Commission, the authorities of the Holy See, the Council of Europe, the United Nations Human Rights Commission and the Governments of Botswana, Burundi, Brazil, Colombia, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Ghana, India, Ireland, Italy, Kenya, Lesotho, Malawi, Nigeria, Papua-New Guinea, the Philippines, South Africa, Sierra Leone, Uganda, Tanzania, Tonga, the United States of America, Zambia and Zimbabwe. |
| --- | --- |

(f)

instructed its President to forward the resolution to the Council, the Commission, the authorities of the Holy See, the Council of Europe, the United Nations Human Rights Commission and the Governments of Botswana, Burundi, Brazil, Colombia, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Ghana, India, Ireland, Italy, Kenya, Lesotho, Malawi, Nigeria, Papua-New Guinea, the Philippines, South Africa, Sierra Leone, Uganda, Tanzania, Tonga, the United States of America, Zambia and Zimbabwe.

In the light of the above, could the Council state:

| — | what initiatives were taken subsequent to the forwarding of the resolution? |
| --- | --- |

—

what initiatives were taken subsequent to the forwarding of the resolution?

| — | whether contacts were established with the Holy See and the Governments of Ireland and Italy and what the outcome of these was? |
| --- | --- |

—

whether contacts were established with the Holy See and the Governments of Ireland and Italy and what the outcome of these was?

| — | whether the European Parliament's demands concerning those countries with links to the European Union were formalised, and what the response was to these? |
| --- | --- |

—

whether the European Parliament's demands concerning those countries with links to the European Union were formalised, and what the response was to these?

Reply

(4 March 2004)

| 1. | During its meeting of 11/12 June 2003, the Council took note of the resolution mentioned by the Honourable Parliamentarian in his question. |
| --- | --- |

1.

During its meeting of 11/12 June 2003, the Council took note of the resolution mentioned by the Honourable Parliamentarian in his question.

| 2. | From a general point of view the Council underlines that Women's rights and the issue of violence against women are matters of particular concern to the EU. In line with international human rights standards and based on the ethical and constitutional principles common to all EU Member States, the EU consistently calls on governments of third countries to commit themselves to the resolutions and decisions of UN fora and to apply legislation, measures and programmes aiming at the full enjoyment of the human rights and fundamental freedoms of women on an equal footing with men. At the 59th session of the UN Commission on Human Rights (‘CHR’), towards the end of April this year, all EU Member States co-sponsored a resolution tabled by Canada entitled ‘Elimination of violence against women’. Moreover, the Presidency made a speech on behalf of the EU under CHR agenda item 12 in which it highlighted the need to eliminate all forms of violence against women and girls, and in this regard drew particular attention to the work of the UN's Special Rapporteur on violence against women and girls. At the time of answering this question, another resolution on the issue of violence against women has been tabled, this time by the Netherlands in the Third Committee of the UN General Assembly, which it is hoped will gain widespread support. |
| --- | --- |

2.

From a general point of view the Council underlines that Women's rights and the issue of violence against women are matters of particular concern to the EU. In line with international human rights standards and based on the ethical and constitutional principles common to all EU Member States, the EU consistently calls on governments of third countries to commit themselves to the resolutions and decisions of UN fora and to apply legislation, measures and programmes aiming at the full enjoyment of the human rights and fundamental freedoms of women on an equal footing with men. At the 59th session of the UN Commission on Human Rights (‘CHR’), towards the end of April this year, all EU Member States co-sponsored a resolution tabled by Canada entitled ‘Elimination of violence against women’. Moreover, the Presidency made a speech on behalf of the EU under CHR agenda item 12 in which it highlighted the need to eliminate all forms of violence against women and girls, and in this regard drew particular attention to the work of the UN's Special Rapporteur on violence against women and girls. At the time of answering this question, another resolution on the issue of violence against women has been tabled, this time by the Netherlands in the Third Committee of the UN General Assembly, which it is hoped will gain widespread support.

---

(1)  OJ C 21 E, 24.1.2002, p. 353.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/750 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/750

---

(2004/C 78 E/0798)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2652/03

by Emma Bonino (NI), Marco Cappato (NI), Benedetto Della Vedova (NI), Gianfranco Dell'Alba (NI), Olivier Dupuis (NI), Marco Pannella (NI) and Maurizio Turco (NI) to the Council

(10 September 2003)

Subject:   Infringements of legality in Lebanon

Given that:

| — | the lawyer Muhammad Mugraby, aged 64 and a well-known defender of human rights and the independence of the judiciary, was arrested in Beirut on 8 August 2003; |
| --- | --- |

—

the lawyer Muhammad Mugraby, aged 64 and a well-known defender of human rights and the independence of the judiciary, was arrested in Beirut on 8 August 2003;

| — | the disciplinary council of the Beirut Bar Association decided to strike his name off the register for political reasons on 17 January 2003; |
| --- | --- |

—

the disciplinary council of the Beirut Bar Association decided to strike his name off the register for political reasons on 17 January 2003;

| — | the decision does not become final until the accused has exhausted all possibilities of appeal (Articles 553, 563 and 111 of the Lebanese Civil Code and Article 28 of the UN's Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers); |
| --- | --- |

—

the decision does not become final until the accused has exhausted all possibilities of appeal (Articles 553, 563 and 111 of the Lebanese Civil Code and Article 28 of the UN's Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers);

| — | the appeal lodged by Dr Mugraby against the disciplinary measure is still pending (Appeal No 222/2003); |
| --- | --- |

—

the appeal lodged by Dr Mugraby against the disciplinary measure is still pending (Appeal No 222/2003);

| — | the Beirut Bar Association has nevertheless accused him of ‘impersonating a lawyer’; |
| --- | --- |

—

the Beirut Bar Association has nevertheless accused him of ‘impersonating a lawyer’;

| — | the judiciary has ordered him to be detained, without having obtained authorisation to prosecute him. |
| --- | --- |

—

the judiciary has ordered him to be detained, without having obtained authorisation to prosecute him.

Considering that:

| — | the actions taken against him seem to be politically motivated and designed to hinder his work as an upholder of the rule of law. |
| --- | --- |

—

the actions taken against him seem to be politically motivated and designed to hinder his work as an upholder of the rule of law.

Knowing that:

| — | the Republic of Lebanon is a member of the Euro-Mediterranean Partnership and signatory to the Final Declaration of the Euro-Mediterranean Ministerial Conference held in Barcelona on 27/28 November 1995, in which the parties undertake to introduce the rule of law and democracy into their political systems; |
| --- | --- |

—

the Republic of Lebanon is a member of the Euro-Mediterranean Partnership and signatory to the Final Declaration of the Euro-Mediterranean Ministerial Conference held in Barcelona on 27/28 November 1995, in which the parties undertake to introduce the rule of law and democracy into their political systems;

| — | relations between the Republic of Lebanon and the European Community are defined in a bilateral agreement ratified in December 2002, which is based on ‘respect of democratic principles and fundamental human rights as set out in the Universal Declaration on Human Rights’ (Article 2) and in Article 59 stresses the importance of the rule of law and the proper functioning of institutions, as well as an independent judiciary and the correct practice of the legal profession. |
| --- | --- |

—

relations between the Republic of Lebanon and the European Community are defined in a bilateral agreement ratified in December 2002, which is based on ‘respect of democratic principles and fundamental human rights as set out in the Universal Declaration on Human Rights’ (Article 2) and in Article 59 stresses the importance of the rule of law and the proper functioning of institutions, as well as an independent judiciary and the correct practice of the legal profession.

Can the Council say:

| — | whether it is aware of the serious infringements that have occurred in the administration of justice in Lebanon; |
| --- | --- |

—

whether it is aware of the serious infringements that have occurred in the administration of justice in Lebanon;

| — | whether it does not consider that these infringements are incompatible with the agreements governing relations between the European Union and the Republic of Lebanon, in view of the provisions of Articles 2 and 59 of the above-mentioned agreement; |
| --- | --- |

—

whether it does not consider that these infringements are incompatible with the agreements governing relations between the European Union and the Republic of Lebanon, in view of the provisions of Articles 2 and 59 of the above-mentioned agreement;

| — | whether it intends to take any measures in accordance with Article 86(2) of the EC-Lebanon Agreement, and if so which, to ensure that respect for the rule of law and correct procedures is reestablished, in accordance with the strategies and commitments which the Commission says it has adopted in paragraph 6.6. of the Country Strategy Paper for Lebanon 2002-2006, outlining the Community's policy for the countries belonging to the Euro-Med partnership? |
| --- | --- |

—

whether it intends to take any measures in accordance with Article 86(2) of the EC-Lebanon Agreement, and if so which, to ensure that respect for the rule of law and correct procedures is reestablished, in accordance with the strategies and commitments which the Commission says it has adopted in paragraph 6.6. of the Country Strategy Paper for Lebanon 2002-2006, outlining the Community's policy for the countries belonging to the Euro-Med partnership?

Reply

(4 March 2004)

The Council shares with the Honourable Members the concerns expressed in their question and is keeping a close watch on human rights issues in Lebanon. On several occasions approaches have been made to the Lebanese authorities to raise specific cases.

On 17 June 2002 the European Union signed an Association Agreement with Lebanon, and it is currently in the process of being ratified by the Member States. The Interim Agreement on trade-related matters, which was concluded at the same time, entered into force on 1 March 2003. Once the Association Agreement applies, the possibilities for monitoring human rights issues will be enhanced, on the basis of Article 2 of the Agreement which stipulates that relations between the Parties will be based on respect for democratic principles and fundamental human rights as set out in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. These issues will then be the subject of an institutionalised political dialogue, which will take place regularly at all levels. Until the Association Agreement enters into force, the European Union is not able to invoke Article 86.

The European Union will seek to improve the human rights situation in Lebanon, by establishing a regular ongoing dialogue with the Lebanese authorities. It is planned to hold a Cooperation Council with Lebanon in the first half of 2004. On that occasion, the European Union does indeed intend to raise these issues within the political section of the meeting.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/752 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/752

---

(2004/C 78 E/0799)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2706/03

by Raffaele Costa (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(11 September 2003)

Subject:   Daphne Programme

The Daphne Programme, which was set up to stop violence against women and children, received funding of EUR 20 million in the period 2000-2003. Can the Commission list the non-governmental organisations, public bodies and private establishments to which that funding was awarded? Has the Commission launched an evaluation of the results of the programme?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(16 October 2003)

During the period 2000-2003 the Daphne programme has provided financing totalling EUR 18 271 522 for 145 projects by organisations or public authorities.

A complete list of projects financed has been sent direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat.

An evaluation of the results and of their initial impact is made annually and forms the basis of a summary report. A mid-term evaluation of the Daphne programme itself has been made and the report on that evaluation, together with the annual evaluation reports, is available on the programme's internet site: HtmlResAnchor (http://europa.eu.int/comm/justice_home/funding/daphne/funding_daphne_en.htm).

A final evaluation of the Daphne programme is being made. The evaluation report should be available at the beginning of 2004 and will be sent to Parliament and the Council in accordance with Article 9(3) of Decision No 293/2000/E (1) establishing the Daphne programme.

---

(1)  European Parliament and Council Decision No 293/2000/EC of 24 January 2000 adopting a programme of Community action (the Daphne programme) (2000 to 2003) on preventive measures to fight violence against children, young persons and women, OJ L 34, 9.2.2000.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/752 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/752

---

(2004/C 78 E/0800)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2737/03

by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission

(11 September 2003)

Subject:   Human rights in Vietnam

Would the Commission like to comment on the human rights situation in the Central Highlands of Vietnam since we are currently receiving conflicting reports of, on the one hand, a general improvement and, on the other, individual cases of human rights abuse?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(10 October 2003)

Since February 2001, when social unrest spread in parts of the Central Highlands of Vietnam, independent and verifiable information on the situation has been difficult to obtain, as visits by foreign diplomats and journalists to this region have been severely curtailed. Consequently, it is difficult for the Commission to assess the current situation on the ground.

It should be noted, however, that the number of visits managed and organised by the Vietnamese Ministry of Foreign Affairs has increased during the course of recent months. Such visits have been carried out, ‘inter alia’, by a local EU working level troika in June 2003, and by United States Assistant Secretary of State Arthur E. Dewey in August 2003. Despite their obvious limitations, the increased number of these visits suggests a higher degree of openness on the part of the Vietnamese Government as regards the situation in the Central Highlands. At the same time, the government is paying greater attention to the region, and attempting to tackle some of the issues that triggered the 2001 unrest, such as low economic prospects, over-dependency on coffee as a cash crop, lack of social services such as health, education, etc.

Yet, at the same time, there are several credible reports indicating that the social conflicts persist. For the most part these are due to — arising migratory pressures on the local ethnic minorities, aspirations for a greater recognition of their distinctive identity, disputes over land rights, diverse religious beliefs, and a desire for some sort of political autonomy for the region. Reports also point to heavy pressure on all forms of local dissent, affecting in particular local Protestants, whom the government suspects of supporting the creation of a ‘Degar Homeland’. While denying all these reports, the government is publicising sporadic trials against members of ethnic minorities accused of helping others to cross into Cambodia, which is a sign of continued dissatisfaction among local ethnic minorities.

The Commission will continue to monitor closely the situation in the Central Highlands, including through its participation in EU missions to the region, and to raise its concerns with the Vietnamese Government. It is also noteworthy that the Vietnamese Government has stated its interest in extending an invitation to a delegation from the Parliament to visit the country soon. Such a visit would provide the Parliament with an opportunity to assess the situation itself at first hand.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/753 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/753

---

(2004/C 78 E/0801)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2751/03

by Gabriele Stauner (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(10 September 2003)

Subject:   Criminal practices involved in the award of a contract to CESD-Roma

In its 28 August 2003 edition, ‘Der Stern’ magazine reported that, in December 2001, the Commission had awarded a contract for technical assistance with the population census in Macedonia to CESD-Roma, despite that company's involvement in the Eurostat scandal.

Can the Commission confirm that that contract, for an amount of around EUR 1 million, was approved by it at the instigation of Commissioners Nielson and Patten, although the Court of Auditors and the Commission's departments responsible for financial control had already expressed reservations about contracts with CESD?

Can the Commission confirm that the contract was awarded to CESD-Roma without any prior public call for tenders, although such a call was obligatory under the relevant Community guidelines?

In particular, can the Commission confirm that, at the time when it took its decision, it had been aware for some months that it would need technical assistance with the carrying out of the census and that, therefore, there was no sudden and imperative urgency involved which might have justified the decision not to issue a call for tenders for the contract?

Is the Commission aware that, pursuant to Belgian law (Section 314 of the Criminal Code in the version dated 24 December 1993), it is a criminal offence for anyone to restrict the freedom to make a bid in connection with the award of contracts? Will the Commission refer the course of events outlined above to the Belgian courts?

Can the Commission forward to me copies of all the relevant documents and memoranda relating to this matter within the period laid down in the Regulation on public access to EU documents?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(1 December 2003)

The project, as agreed by the Commission, was intended to achieve the Union's objective of promoting good governance and improving the political climate in the Former Yugoslavia Republic of Macedonia (FYROM) by providing a reliable and acceptable portrait of the country's demographic composition, thus building confidence between the ethnic groups in FYROM. The Commission's agreement to support this work came in response to an urgent request from the Government of FYROM, and was in line with the Framework Agreement for FYROM signed on 13 August 2001. This called for a census under international supervision, the swift implementation of which was recognised as an essential underpinning to the Lake Ochrid agreement securing the future of FYROM's democracy. The urgency of implementation of the Lake Ochrid agreement was widely recognised at the time, including by the Council and the Parliament.

The company which was awarded the contract, CESD, had been directly involved in the previous census in FYROM and was considered at the time to have the best possible technical expertise to carry out the monitoring activities set out by the Commission and government of FYROM in the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU). The advice of Eurostat, agreed by the responsible Commission services, the Council of Europe and the FYROM authorities, was that CESD was the sole organisation capable of meeting those objectives, and it was on that basis that the Commission accepted this choice. The procedure followed was in line with the Financial Regulation (1) in force at the time, which allowed for the award of a contract without prior public call for tenders under the given circumstances.

Furthermore, the contract was awarded in the context of external aid, where the Council directive relating to the co-ordination of procedures for the award of public service contracts does not apply.

As part of the decision-making process, specific concerns about the status of CESD as a former BAT (Bureau d'assistance technique) for Eurostat were examined. The contract went ahead on the basis that CESD's activities as a BAT were being discontinued, and that it would be subject to the direct supervision of Eurostat and the steering group. To ensure that a high degree of control could be exercised, it was agreed at the time to structure the contract as a service rather than a grant contract.

The funding was designed to support a team of experts to monitor and check the census field operations, to increase confidence in the impartiality and objectivity of the work carried out by the census enumerators, ensure data confidentiality and to help achieve a wide acceptance of the census results. In order to ensure the success of the observation mission, the Commission asked the FYROM Government to agree a MoU which set out precise conditions under which the contract would be carried out. In addition, it was decided that monitoring would be implemented through a steering group chaired by Eurostat, with the participation of the Commission, the Council of Europe, UNECE (2), and the OSCE (3). The steering group was charged with following the operation as a whole, together with facilitation of the work of a High Level Experts Group and of observers in the field.

The organisation has subsequently implemented the project to the satisfaction of the steering group, often in difficult circumstances. Most of the fieldwork for the census has now been carried out, apart from three follow-up missions which are necessary to finalise the results.

Additional information about CESD has emerged in the context of the Eurostat affair. However, EuropeAid was not made aware of allegations about financial mismanagement by CESD until July. It subsequently terminated the FYROM contract in line with the Commission's decision of 23 July 2003. Following that termination, the Council of Europe has exceptionally agreed to provide support for the remaining limited work of the census observation mission.

The Honourable Member requests access to documents. This request is based on 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 (4).

The Commission will assess the request of the Honourable Member according to the procedure foreseen in that Regulation.

---

(1)  Financial Regulation of 21 December 1977 applicable to the general budget of the European Communities, OJ L 356, 31.12.1977.

(2)  United Nations Economic Commission for Europe.

(3)  Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe.

(4)  OJ L 145, 31.5.2001.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/755 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/755

---

(2004/C 78 E/0802)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2753/03

by Elly Plooij-van Gorsel (ELDR) to the Commission

(15 September 2003)

Subject:   Amendment of the Dutch Media Act

In May 2003 I put a question to the Commission (E-1945/03 (1)) concerning the Netherlands government's draft law amending the Media Act. The Netherlands government took the position that it was not necessary to amend the relay obligations (‘must carry’ rules), imposed on cable firms under the Media Act, to take account of Article 31 of the Universal Service Directive, which forms part of the new Community regulatory framework for electronic communications.

In its reply to my question, the Commission referred to a meeting it had held with the Netherlands government on 26 June 2003, at which possible problems relating to the transposition and implementation of the new regulatory framework were discussed.

The Commission also stated that it was not able to rule on the compatibility of the Dutch ‘must carry’ rules with the new regulatory framework, because neither the draft law modifying the Media Act nor any other Dutch legislation transposing the new regulatory framework for electronic communications had at that point been notified to the Commission, and the new framework would not be entering into force until 25 July 2003.

| 1. | Has the Commission now considered the Dutch draft law amending the Media Act and other Dutch legislation transposing the new regulatory framework? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Has the Commission now considered the Dutch draft law amending the Media Act and other Dutch legislation transposing the new regulatory framework?

| 2. | Does the Commission consider that the Dutch ‘must carry’ rules comply with the new regulatory framework, particularly Article 31 of the Universal Service Directive? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Does the Commission consider that the Dutch ‘must carry’ rules comply with the new regulatory framework, particularly Article 31 of the Universal Service Directive?

| 3. | If not, what measures does the Commission propose to take in this connection? |
| --- | --- |

3.

If not, what measures does the Commission propose to take in this connection?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(19 November 2003)

The Commission has not yet received a notification from the Dutch Authorities of legislative measures transposing the new regulatory framework.

Therefore it is not yet possible to determine whether the legislation transposing the new framework in the Netherlands will be in compliance with it, in particular as regards Article 31 of the Universal Service Directive (2).

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. The Commission wishes to underline that on 8 October 2003 infringement proceedings have already been initiated under Article 226 of the EC Treaty against the Netherlands, among others, for non-communication of its transposition measures (3). The Member States concerned were requested to respond to the Commission's concerns within two months.

Finally, the Honourable Member will recall that in the final analysis the Court of Justice has sole competence to rule on the legality or otherwise of a transposition measure.

---

(1)  See page 731.

(2)  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, OJ L 108, 24.4.2002.

(3)  IP/03/1356 of 8.10.2003.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/756 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/756

---

(2004/C 78 E/0803)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2767/03

by Dana Scallon (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(11 September 2003)

Subject:   NGO funding

Can the EU Commission fund organisations which support or participate in the management of a programme of coercive abortion?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(15 October 2003)

The Commission's policy on abortion is based on a set of principles adopted through a series of major development conferences over recent years, including the 1994 Cairo International Conference on Population and Development (ICPD) and ICPD plus five. All 15 Member States of the Union have endorsed the ICPD Programme of Action.

Accordingly the Commission supports the right of men and women to make a free and informed choice about the number and spacing of their children, to have access to good family planning and sexual health services, and to have access to skilled care during birth.

The Commission regards national legislation as paramount when it comes to the question of abortion being performed within the formal health care system. It does not support abortion policies as a means to limit population growth in developing countries and it is strongly opposed to forced abortion.

The Union has recently adopted a Regulation (EC) No 1567/2003 of the Parliament and of the Council of 15 July 2003, on aid for policies and actions on reproductive and sexual health and rights in developing countries (1). This regulation provides the basis for financing projects in developing countries. In selecting the beneficiaries for Community funding open tendering procedures are applied. The Commission considers the activity for which the funds were authorised, not the whole range of activities carried out by the beneficiary organisation.

---

(1)  OJ L 224, 6.9.2003.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/756 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/756

---

(2004/C 78 E/0804)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2797/03

by Ria Oomen-Ruijten (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(19 September 2003)

Subject:   Combating legionnaires' disease

According to the guidelines which have to be followed, if a single case of legionnaires' disease is reported — defined as ‘cases who in the ten days before onset of illness stayed at or visited an accommodation site that has not been associated with any other cases of legionnaires’ disease, or cases who stayed at an accommodation site linked to other cases of legionnaires' disease but more than two years previously' — travel organisations need not inform travellers. However, in this situation there are grounds for suspecting the presence of legionella in the building concerned, so a report of a single case is serious enough to warrant an insistence that measures be taken in relation to the accommodation site.

After a report of a cluster of cases of the disease, the authorities have two weeks to submit a provisional report to the EWGLI. If no provisional report has been received within this time limit, the accommodation site is listed on the EWGLI website.

| 1. | Where a single case of legionnaires' disease is reported, does the Commission consider that, in view of the life-threatening nature of the disease, it is desirable for a travel organisation to provide the fullest possible information to travellers, and if so, is the provision of information for which the guidelines currently provide too limited? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Where a single case of legionnaires' disease is reported, does the Commission consider that, in view of the life-threatening nature of the disease, it is desirable for a travel organisation to provide the fullest possible information to travellers, and if so, is the provision of information for which the guidelines currently provide too limited?

| 2. | Where a cluster of cases of legionnaires' disease is reported, does the Commission consider that, in view of the life-threatening nature of the disease, it is desirable for a travel organisation to provide the fullest possible information to travellers, and if so, is the two-week period too long? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Where a cluster of cases of legionnaires' disease is reported, does the Commission consider that, in view of the life-threatening nature of the disease, it is desirable for a travel organisation to provide the fullest possible information to travellers, and if so, is the two-week period too long?

| 3. | Will the Commission submit a proposal for rules on the provision of information on cases of legionnaires' disease in order to avert deaths? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Will the Commission submit a proposal for rules on the provision of information on cases of legionnaires' disease in order to avert deaths?

| 4. | If the Commission intends to submit such a proposal, will it incorporate these rules in a legislative proposal? |
| --- | --- |

4.

If the Commission intends to submit such a proposal, will it incorporate these rules in a legislative proposal?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(22 October 2003)

Guidelines on reporting cases, information to travellers and action by national authorities concerning legionnaires' disease outbreaks have been proposed by the technical experts of the European Working Group for Legionella Infections Network (Ewglinet). Such guidelines are not mandatory for the authorities and organisations concerned but they can contribute to establishing a basis for decisions and action aimed at providing a high-level of health protection.

Co-operation through the Ewglinet has helped fight legionnaires' disease and represents a significant advance. There is, however, no consensus among the authorities concerned as to how the guidelines proposed by the experts can serve as the basis for regulatory provisions that have subsequently to be enforced.

The Commission has provided support to Ewglinet and works to achieve a common approach among the authorities represented in its Communicable Disease Network Committee, established under Decision No 2119/98/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 24 September 1998 setting up a network for the epidemiological surveillance and control of communicable diseases in the Community (1), to enable the formulation of guidelines on the basis of scientific and technical advice that will take into account the proposals cited in the question.

---

(1)  OJ L 268, 3.10.1998.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/757 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/757

---

(2004/C 78 E/0805)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2801/03

by Pedro Marset Campos (GUE/NGL) to the Council

(19 September 2003)

Subject:   Special tolls in France and Germany for the transport of goods by road

The announcement that the French and German authorities will shortly impose special tolls for lorries travelling through those countries on the motorways is likely to cause justified alarm in the Murcia region (Spain), particularly in the farming industry, since it might have adverse effects on the transport of fruit and vegetables from Murcia to various EU countries.

| 1. | Is the Council aware of this situation? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is the Council aware of this situation?

| 2. | Does the Council not consider it appropriate to demand that this measure should not be implemented, given that the charges are discriminatory and damaging? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Does the Council not consider it appropriate to demand that this measure should not be implemented, given that the charges are discriminatory and damaging?

| 3. | Does the Council take the view that these French and German measures may violate the free movement and transport of goods in the EU? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Does the Council take the view that these French and German measures may violate the free movement and transport of goods in the EU?

| 4. | Does the Council not believe that, if they were to be implemented, these measures would be most damaging for the most outlying European regions, such as the Murcia region which remains an Objective 1 region? Does this measure not represent flagrant discrimination among regions? |
| --- | --- |

4.

Does the Council not believe that, if they were to be implemented, these measures would be most damaging for the most outlying European regions, such as the Murcia region which remains an Objective 1 region? Does this measure not represent flagrant discrimination among regions?

| 5. | Does the Council not believe that, at a time of economic recession in the euro zone, these measures would damage economic recovery in a key sector such as the transport of goods by road? |
| --- | --- |

5.

Does the Council not believe that, at a time of economic recession in the euro zone, these measures would damage economic recovery in a key sector such as the transport of goods by road?

Reply

(4 March 2004)

The Council is aware of the fact that German authorities intend to impose in the near future tolls on heavy goods vehicles, levied per kilometre. The Council does not dispose of any information which might indicate that France, apart from the tolls it already applies on its highways, intends to impose additional tolls on all heavy goods vehicles travelling through France.

The Council recalls that any levying of tolls for heavy goods vehicles must respect the provisions of Directive 1999/62/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the charging of heavy goods vehicles for the use of certain infrastructures (1).

Provided that a Member State respects these provisions, it is free to impose tolls on heavy goods vehicles; it may be recalled that in some ‘transit countries’, such tolls — also levied on transport operators from other countries which make use of their infrastructure — constitute a contribution to the financing of the transeuropean networks concerned.

Furthermore, the Council informs the Honourable Parliamentarian that it is currently examining the Commission's proposal for a Directive on the charging of heavy goods vehicles for the use of certain infrastructure (2), which aims to ensure that a harmonised methodology will be used for the calculation of tolls and to render toll systems more transparent; in the context of this examination, the particular concerns of peripheral countries and regions will be duly taken into account.

---

(1)  OJ L 187, 20.7.1999, p. 42.

(2)  COM(2003)448 final (2003/0175 (COD)).

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/758 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/758

---

(2004/C 78 E/0806)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2807/03

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(19 September 2003)

Subject:   The Vatican's crusade against homosexual marriages within the EU and the Vatican's right to acquire revenue by issuing euro coins

| 1. | Is the Commission aware that in the Netherlands and Belgium it is now legal for two people of the same sex to marry, and is the Commission aware of the European Parliament's resolution of 4 September 2003 on fundamental rights in the EU in 2002 (Sylla report, A5-0281/2003), which calls for homosexuals to be given the right to marry and adopt children and mentions the recent Belgian legislation as one of the ways in which progress was made in 2002? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is the Commission aware that in the Netherlands and Belgium it is now legal for two people of the same sex to marry, and is the Commission aware of the European Parliament's resolution of 4 September 2003 on fundamental rights in the EU in 2002 (Sylla report, A5-0281/2003), which calls for homosexuals to be given the right to marry and adopt children and mentions the recent Belgian legislation as one of the ways in which progress was made in 2002?

| 2. | Is the Commission aware of the position adopted by the Roman Catholic Church's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in the Vatican City opposing this, the Congregation's recent explicit rejection of such marriages and its call for Catholic parliamentarians to oppose their legalisation? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Is the Commission aware of the position adopted by the Roman Catholic Church's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in the Vatican City opposing this, the Congregation's recent explicit rejection of such marriages and its call for Catholic parliamentarians to oppose their legalisation?

| 3. | Can the Commission confirm that — in addition to the states which are members of European Economic and Monetary Union — the small non-member states San Maríno, Monaco and Vatican City, whose only land borders are with EU Member States, have the right to issue and distribute their own euro coins? What is the basis for this? Is it intended to allow the states concerned to issue a proportionate share of the coins circulating in the currency union or is it mainly or exclusively a matter of coins from which these states derive special financial advantages because, on account of the coins' rarity, collectors buy them at a price far above face value? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Can the Commission confirm that — in addition to the states which are members of European Economic and Monetary Union — the small non-member states San Maríno, Monaco and Vatican City, whose only land borders are with EU Member States, have the right to issue and distribute their own euro coins? What is the basis for this? Is it intended to allow the states concerned to issue a proportionate share of the coins circulating in the currency union or is it mainly or exclusively a matter of coins from which these states derive special financial advantages because, on account of the coins' rarity, collectors buy them at a price far above face value?

| 4. | If the Vatican continues to pressurise parliamentarians in the EU and its Member States to restrict the right to marry, will the Commission give a clear indication so as to dispel the impression that the Vatican can act on behalf of the EU or EMU by issuing and distributing its own euro coins or that the EU indirectly confers financial advantages on the Vatican, and to this end, abolish or at least temporarily suspend the Vatican's coinage rights? |
| --- | --- |

4.

If the Vatican continues to pressurise parliamentarians in the EU and its Member States to restrict the right to marry, will the Commission give a clear indication so as to dispel the impression that the Vatican can act on behalf of the EU or EMU by issuing and distributing its own euro coins or that the EU indirectly confers financial advantages on the Vatican, and to this end, abolish or at least temporarily suspend the Vatican's coinage rights?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(4 November 2003)

The Commission is aware of the changes in the legislation of Belgium and the Netherlands which enable two people of the same sex to get married and of the Parliament Resolution of 4 September 2003 on fundamental rights in the Union in 2002 which calls on Member States to abolish any form of discrimination against homosexuals in particular as regards to marriage and adoption.

The Commission is also aware of the document issued by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith of the Vatican entitled: ‘Considerations regarding proposals to give legal recognition to unions between homosexual persons’.

In this context, the Vatican represents the view of the Catholic Church. The document, to which you refer, is thus an expression of religious conviction of one particular church, and the Commission does not wish to comment on questions of religious interpretation. Freedom of religious conviction and expression are also parts of the fundamental values that we wish to respect.

At the level of the Union, the commitment to the policy of anti-discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation, amongst others, stands firm. In 2000, the Council adopted a directive prohibiting discrimination in employment and occupation on a variety of grounds, including sexual orientation (Directive 2000/78/EC (1)). Member States have until 2 December 2003 to transpose this directive into national law.

The Commission confirms that Vatican City is entitled to issue a certain quantity of euro coins each year. This is laid down in a Monetary Agreement, which was concluded between the Italian Republic on behalf of the Community and the Vatican City State in December 2000 (2). It was concluded to ensure legal continuity with an agreement that existed between the Italian Republic and the Vatican City prior to the introduction of the euro, which allowed Vatican City to issue a certain number of coins denominated in Italian lira. Similar agreements exist with San Maríno and Monaco.

The coin issuance of Vatican City is in full compliance with the Monetary Agreement. The recent Recommendation by the Commission (3) to amend this Monetary Agreement ensures legal continuity, in particular in respect of the maximum number of coins which can be issued. The Commission does not intend to propose any other amendments to this Agreement.

---

(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.

(2)  OJ C 299, 25.10.2001.

(3)  OJ C 212, 6.9.2003.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/760 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/760

---

(2004/C 78 E/0807)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2839/03

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Council

(25 September 2003)

Subject:   Place of Iraq in the UN and position of the EU

Member States of the UN have particular characteristics (sovereignty, legitimacy etc.) clearly not possessed by Iraq, which is currently under occupation. The Provisional Government Council of Iraq has been appointed by the occupying authorities without any form of legitimising mechanism but also without any of the powers which would enable it to represent the country at the UN. As an occupied country, Iraq is no longer a state within the meaning of international law and its membership of the UN should be suspended in accordance with the precedent established with Cambodia between 1979 and 1989, following the intervention of Vietnamese troops, when the government controlled by the Vietnamese occupying forces was not accepted at the UN General Assembly. The suspension of Iraq's membership of the UN should last until elections have been held in the presence of UN observers.

Has the Council considered the matter of Iraq's seat at the UN in the context of Article 19, paragraph 2 (Title V) of the EU Treaty with a view to the forthcoming session of the UN General Assembly? What are the thoughts of the EU Presidency in this regard? Is there agreement on this matter, within the meaning of the above article of the EU Treaty, among the Member States which are members of the UN Security Council as to the position they will adopt in the Accreditation Committee under Rule 28 of the UN General Assembly's Rules of Procedure? What is the current status of diplomatic relations between the EU, and its Member States, and Iraq as an occupied country?

Reply

(4 March 2004)

The Council informs the Honourable Parliamentarian that it has not discussed the question as to Iraq's seat in the United Nations.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/760 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/760

---

(2004/C 78 E/0808)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2875/03

by Hélène Flautre (Verts/ALE) to the Council

(22 September 2003)

Subject:   Situation of migrants and asylum-seekers in Malta

A number of reports from reliable sources, such as the Maltese Jesuit Refugee Service, suggest that asylum-seekers in Malta are being detained in deplorable, if not wretched, conditions for periods of up to 18 months.

According to official Maltese sources, about 400 people, most of them asylum-seekers, are incarcerated solely because they entered Maltese territory illegally. They are also being held without being given any information on the likely outcome of their cases.

Is the Council aware of the very worrying situation of migrants and asylum-seekers in Malta?

Does the Council recognise that such a situation is in breach of international law, and in particular the European Human Rights Convention and the 1951 Geneva Convention on the Status of Refugees?

Now that there are only a few months to go before Malta joins the European Union, what does the Council intend to do to ensure that Malta complies with its international obligations and the existing body of Union legislation in this sphere?

Reply

(4 March 2004)

The Council is aware of the limited reception capacity for illegal immigrants and asylum-seekers in Malta, which has led to overcrowding. The Council underlines, however, that although a suitable solution has yet to be found, the Maltese authorities are making efforts to ensure that reception conditions for illegal immigrants and asylum-seekers are as decent as circumstances allow, given the sheer pressure of numbers. In this context, the conditions under which asylum-seekers are held must be evaluated in close connection with Malta's real (and limited) reception ability.

It should be noted, however, that the Council will monitor closely the situation regarding the reception conditions for illegal immigrants and asylum-seekers in Malta, as it is doing for all the acceding States, in order to ensure that the requirements of the acquis are being met. This monitoring will continue until the day of accession. Furthermore, the situation in reception centres is also expected to be covered in the Commission's comprehensive monitoring reports on each acceding State's preparations for accession to be presented to the Council on 5 November 2003.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/761 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/761

---

(2004/C 78 E/0809)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2878/03

by Jan Dhaene (PSE) to the Council

(29 September 2003)

Subject:   Technical inspection of the systems for indirect vision used on commercial vehicles

According to press reports, only 1,02 % of commercial vehicles in Belgium fail their technical inspection test because of badly-positioned or inadequate systems for indirect vision. 4,64 % of such vehicles are driven away, despite a defect being registered, but they are not required to undergo a second test. In the Netherlands, police checks showed that 85 % of systems for indirect vision are not properly adjusted (Source: Goca).

In the interim, technological development has not been standing still. Major commercial vehicle manufacturers are developing technology whereby sensors warn drivers of such vehicles about the presence of persons or objects which cannot be observed by direct vision.

Can the Commission answer the following:

| — | will the procedures laid down in Directive 77/143/EEC (1) and those which will be laid down in legislation adopted on the basis of COM(1999)458 (98/0097(COD)) (2) also apply to systems for indirect vision which are to be installed in accordance with the requirements to be laid down when the Council approves amendments to Directive 70/156/EEC (3), as set out in COM(2001)811 (2001/0317(COD)) (4); |
| --- | --- |

—

will the procedures laid down in Directive 77/143/EEC (1) and those which will be laid down in legislation adopted on the basis of COM(1999)458 (98/0097(COD)) (2) also apply to systems for indirect vision which are to be installed in accordance with the requirements to be laid down when the Council approves amendments to Directive 70/156/EEC (3), as set out in COM(2001)811 (2001/0317(COD)) (4);

| — | do the procedures laid down in Directive 77/143/EEC and those which will be laid down in legislation adopted on the basis of COM(1999)458 (98/0097(COD)) also apply to systems for indirect vision already installed in accordance with the requirements laid down in national legislation adopted in advance of Council approval of amendments to Directive 70/156/EEC, as set out in COM(2001) 811 (2001/0317(COD)); |
| --- | --- |

—

do the procedures laid down in Directive 77/143/EEC and those which will be laid down in legislation adopted on the basis of COM(1999)458 (98/0097(COD)) also apply to systems for indirect vision already installed in accordance with the requirements laid down in national legislation adopted in advance of Council approval of amendments to Directive 70/156/EEC, as set out in COM(2001) 811 (2001/0317(COD));

| — | is the Council considering amendments to current legislation and to the proposals for legislation currently before the Council with a view to authorising sensor-based systems for indirect vision; |
| --- | --- |

—

is the Council considering amendments to current legislation and to the proposals for legislation currently before the Council with a view to authorising sensor-based systems for indirect vision;

| — | has the Council any statistics relating to the positioning, quality of positioning and quality of installed systems for indirect vision? |
| --- | --- |

—

has the Council any statistics relating to the positioning, quality of positioning and quality of installed systems for indirect vision?

Reply

(4 March 2004)

The Council would ask the Honourable Member to refer all of these questions directly to the Commission.

---

(1)  OJ L 47, 8.2.1977, p. 47.

(2)  OJ C 116 E, 26.4.2000, p. 7.

(3)  OJ L 42, 23.2.1970, p. 1.

(4)  OJ C 126 E, 28.5.2002, p. 225.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/762 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/762

---

(2004/C 78 E/0810)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2880/03

by Jan Dhaene (PSE) to the Council

(29 September 2003)

Subject:   Bicycle theft

Every year, enormous numbers of bicycles are stolen. Many are stolen for individual use, but large numbers of bicycles are also fed into stolen-goods circuits, some of which operate on an international scale.

Belgian research shows that bicycle theft is the ‘daily bread’ of criminals who are involved in more serious crime. Bicycle theft is the most widespread form of crime in Europe.

Plans which the bicycle industry wanted to develop in response to requests from consumer associations and the European Cyclists' Federation, which involved the standardisation of serial numbers, identity chips and obligatory U-locks, have come to nought.

The Council:

| — | does it have any accurate information about the number of bicycles stolen in the various Member States and about where such stolen goods finish up; |
| --- | --- |

—

does it have any accurate information about the number of bicycles stolen in the various Member States and about where such stolen goods finish up;

| — | does it acknowledge the impact of mass bicycle theft on the attractiveness of the bicycle as a sustainable mode of transport and on an individual's feeling of insecurity; |
| --- | --- |

—

does it acknowledge the impact of mass bicycle theft on the attractiveness of the bicycle as a sustainable mode of transport and on an individual's feeling of insecurity;

| — | is it, together with the bicycle industry, planning to take measures to prevent bicycle theft? |
| --- | --- |

—

is it, together with the bicycle industry, planning to take measures to prevent bicycle theft?

Reply

(4 March 2004)

| 1. | The Council shares the opinion of the Honourable Member of the European Parliament that bicycle theft has an impact on the attractiveness of the bicycle as a mode of transport and on citizens' feeling of insecurity. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The Council shares the opinion of the Honourable Member of the European Parliament that bicycle theft has an impact on the attractiveness of the bicycle as a mode of transport and on citizens' feeling of insecurity.

| 2. | The Council has no information about the number of bicycles stolen in the Member States and where the stolen bicycles finish up. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The Council has no information about the number of bicycles stolen in the Member States and where the stolen bicycles finish up.

| 3. | As concerns measures to prevent bicycle theft, the Council draws attention to:






  (a) | Council Resolution of 27.5.1999 on combating international crime with fuller cover of the routes used (1). This Resolution aims at improving practical cooperation between police services in the Member States in order to combat a specific form of crime on the basis of a coordinated policy; |
| --- | --- | --- |

3.

As concerns measures to prevent bicycle theft, the Council draws attention to:

(a)

Council Resolution of 27.5.1999 on combating international crime with fuller cover of the routes used (1). This Resolution aims at improving practical cooperation between police services in the Member States in order to combat a specific form of crime on the basis of a coordinated policy;

| (b) | Council Decision 2001/427/JHA of 28.5.2001 setting up a European crime prevention network (2). This network has the task to contribute to developing the various aspects of crime prevention activities. |
| --- | --- |

(b)

Council Decision 2001/427/JHA of 28.5.2001 setting up a European crime prevention network (2). This network has the task to contribute to developing the various aspects of crime prevention activities.

---

(1)  OJ C 162, 9.6.1999, p. 1.

(2)  OJ L 153, 8.6.2001, p. 1.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/763 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/763

---

(2004/C 78 E/0811)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2885/03

by Charles Tannock (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(29 September 2003)

Subject:   Application of the EU/Israel Association Agreement

In recent years the European Commission has begun to apply a policy of imposing customs duties on importers of goods which are known to have been produced in Israeli settlements in the occupied territories of the West Bank. The Commission also imposes duties when it is suspected that goods have been produced in the settlements.

The European Union has Free Trade Agreements with both Israel and the Palestinian Authority covering the whole area of Israel and the occupied territories without regard to the nationality of the producer. Does the Commission accept, therefore, that there should be no discrimination with regard to customs duties on produce produced anywhere in the region regardless of the legal status of the settlements? Does the Commission also accept that under the Oslo accords reached between Israel and the Palestinian Authority that Israel is responsible for customs administration in all settlement areas, and, if so, does the Commission believe that it is important for the EU to respect the Oslo accords even if it is not legally bound to do so? Finally, what progress has been made under the terms of the dispute procedures that have been activated to deal with this situation under Article 79 of the EU/Israel Association Agreement, and which were put into place after a meeting of the Association Council in October, 2002?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(6 November 2003)

The Union-Israel Association Agreement provides for the establishment of a free trade area between the Union and Israel creating a favourable environment notably for the development of trade, investment and economic co-operation. As regards the application of the rules of origin, the Union's interpretation of the Agreement is clear: products originating from the Israeli settlements (West Bank, Gaza Strip, East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights) are not entitled to benefit from preferential treatment.

As regards the reference made by the Honourable Member to the Oslo accords, these agreements do not deal with the issue of preferential treatment of goods entering the Union since they regulate the bilateral relations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority.

Following the ‘Notice to Importers’ issued by the Commission in November 2001 and the measures adopted unilaterally by the Union, the ‘rules of origin’ issue has been discussed in the appropriate fora (i.e. relevant Association Committees and Association Councils) where the Union reasserted its position and the Israeli authorities expressed their willingness to explore appropriate technical measures in this respect. This matter is still under discussion.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/763 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/763

---

(2004/C 78 E/0812)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2900/03

by Antonio Tajani (PPE-DE) to the Council

(1 October 2003)

Subject:   Safeguarding jobs at the Alcatel plant in Rieti

The telecommunications sector is going through a period of recession. In order to tackle the unfavourable situation the Alcatel group has decided on drastic job cuts. Apart from undermining the research sector this policy also threatens to lead to the company's activities being relocated to countries with low labour costs.

If they go ahead, Alcatel's restructuring plans will hit Alcatel's factories in southern Italy, in particular the ultramodern establishment in Rieti.

Is the Council aware of the risks for the economy of the Rieti area, where substantial resources have been invested in electronics?

Since Alcatel's situation is improving, what steps does the Council intend to take to prevent a temporary difficulty from seriously damaging employment?

How does the Council intend to safeguard plants such as the one at Rieti, which are considered of strategic importance because of the highly specialised professional staff and equipment?

Reply

(4 March 2004)

| 1. | The Council is conscious that any major restructuring, leading to job redundancies, in a multinational company could be a risk for the region and country where the affected plants are located and recognises that this could be a particularly sensitive subject in Italy, if the Alcatel plant in Rieti is affected. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The Council is conscious that any major restructuring, leading to job redundancies, in a multinational company could be a risk for the region and country where the affected plants are located and recognises that this could be a particularly sensitive subject in Italy, if the Alcatel plant in Rieti is affected.

| 2. | However, despite measures taken in the context of the European Employment Strategy and, in particular, the adoption of the annual Employment Guidelines in accordance with Article 128 of the Treaty, Employment Policy as such remains a national competence. It is not therefore incumbent upon the Council to intervene directly in situations affecting specific firms or plants. |
| --- | --- |

2.

However, despite measures taken in the context of the European Employment Strategy and, in particular, the adoption of the annual Employment Guidelines in accordance with Article 128 of the Treaty, Employment Policy as such remains a national competence. It is not therefore incumbent upon the Council to intervene directly in situations affecting specific firms or plants.

| 3. | The Honourable Parliamentarian may be aware, however, that particular emphasis has been placed in recent years, on the need to provide for adequate information and consultation of employees in situations likely to affect their interests or, indeed, their livelihoods and that a number of Community legislative acts have been adopted in this area. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The Honourable Parliamentarian may be aware, however, that particular emphasis has been placed in recent years, on the need to provide for adequate information and consultation of employees in situations likely to affect their interests or, indeed, their livelihoods and that a number of Community legislative acts have been adopted in this area.

| 4. | Provisions on employee information and consultation are contained in 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 (1), Council Directive 98/59/EC of 20 July 1998 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to collective redundancies (2) and Council Directive 2001/23/EC of 12 March 2001 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the safeguarding of employees' rights in the event of transfers of undertakings, businesses or parts of undertakings or businesses (3). |
| --- | --- |

4.

Provisions on employee information and consultation are contained in 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 (1), Council Directive 98/59/EC of 20 July 1998 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to collective redundancies (2) and Council Directive 2001/23/EC of 12 March 2001 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the safeguarding of employees' rights in the event of transfers of undertakings, businesses or parts of undertakings or businesses (3).

| 5. | Another key instrument in this context is 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 (4), which the Member States should implement no later than 23 March 2005. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Another key instrument in this context is 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 (4), which the Member States should implement no later than 23 March 2005.

| 6. | The Council invites the Honourable Parliamentarian to revert to the Commission for more detailed information as regards his question. |
| --- | --- |

6.

The Council invites the Honourable Parliamentarian to revert to the Commission for more detailed information as regards his question.

---

(1)  OJ L 254, 30.9.1994, p. 64.

(2)  OJ L 225, 12.8.1998, p. 16.

(3)  OJ L 82, 22.3.2001, p. 16.

(4)  OJ L 80, 23.3.2002, p. 29.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/764 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/764

---

(2004/C 78 E/0813)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2911/03

by Glenys Kinnock (PSE) to the Council

(2 October 2003)

Subject:   Football-related violence

Is the Council aware that Welsh football supporters were the target of significant violence during the Italy v. Wales match in Milan on 6 September?

Does the Council intend to launch an investigation into this matter, and to take action in order to ensure that such unacceptable events do not reoccur?

Reply

(4 March 2004)

| 1. | As concerns the matters referred to in the oral question, the Council is not in a position to intervene on individual cases in the Member States and can thus not meet the request by the Honourable Member of the European Parliament. |
| --- | --- |

1.

As concerns the matters referred to in the oral question, the Council is not in a position to intervene on individual cases in the Member States and can thus not meet the request by the Honourable Member of the European Parliament.

| 2. | As concerns security at football matches, the Council has adopted texts to increase co-operation between the competent bodies and authorities of the Member States.
  In particular, the Council has adopted:






  — | the Recommendation of 22.4.1996 on guidelines for preventing and restraining disorder connected with football matches (1), |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

As concerns security at football matches, the Council has adopted texts to increase co-operation between the competent bodies and authorities of the Member States.

In particular, the Council has adopted:

—

the Recommendation of 22.4.1996 on guidelines for preventing and restraining disorder connected with football matches (1),

| — | the Resolution of 9.6.1997 on preventing and restraining football hooliganism through the exchange of experience, exclusion from stadiums and media policy (2), |
| --- | --- |

—

the Resolution of 9.6.1997 on preventing and restraining football hooliganism through the exchange of experience, exclusion from stadiums and media policy (2),

| — | the Resolution of 6.12.2001 concerning a handbook with recommendations for international police co-operation and measures to prevent and control violence and disturbances in connection with football matches with an international dimension, in which at least one Member State is involved (3), and |
| --- | --- |

—

the Resolution of 6.12.2001 concerning a handbook with recommendations for international police co-operation and measures to prevent and control violence and disturbances in connection with football matches with an international dimension, in which at least one Member State is involved (3), and

| — | Decision 2002/348/JHA of 25.4.02 concerning security in connection with football matches with an international dimension (4). |
| --- | --- |

—

Decision 2002/348/JHA of 25.4.02 concerning security in connection with football matches with an international dimension (4).

On the initiative of the Italian Presidency, the Council is examining a draft Resolution on the use by Member States of bans on access to venues of football matches with an international dimension.

---

(1)  OJ C 131, 3.5.1996, p. 1.

(2)  OJ C 193, 24.6.1997, p. 1.

(3)  OJ C 22, 24.1.2002, p. 1.

(4)  OJ L 121, 8.5.2002, p. 1.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/765 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/765

---

(2004/C 78 E/0814)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2917/03

by Gabriele Stauner (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(2 October 2003)

Subject:   2 SDA, Camire, Marcom, World Systems, Ariane II Group and Sema Belgium

Can the Commission provide a record for each Directorate-General of the provision of services by the six companies 2 SDA, Camire, Marcom, World Systems, Ariane II Group and Sema Belgium, including the following information:

| — | a list of all the contracts concluded with these firms over the last 10 years, with details of each respective contract volume and the procedure by which the contracts were awarded to these firms; |
| --- | --- |

—

a list of all the contracts concluded with these firms over the last 10 years, with details of each respective contract volume and the procedure by which the contracts were awarded to these firms;

| — | the volume of the individual payments to these companies? |
| --- | --- |

—

the volume of the individual payments to these companies?

Answer given by Ms Schreyer on behalf of the Commission

(15 October 2003)

The Commission is compiling the information it needs to reply to the Honourable Member's question. It will report on its findings as soon as possible.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/766 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/766

---

(2004/C 78 E/0815)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2918/03

by Marco Cappato (NI) and Maurizio Turco (NI) to the Council

(2 October 2003)

Subject:   Case of Italian citizen Maurizio Trotta, imprisoned in Romania

On 2 August 2002, Mr Maurizio Trotta, an Italian citizen from Reggio Emiliano, was arrested in Romania on charges of international drugs trafficking for possession of 11 grammes of hashish, found in his rented apartment in Craiova.

Mr Maurizio, who has been held in Craiova prison since his arrest, was tried in a court of first instance and sentenced to two years' imprisonment, following the withdrawal of the charge of international trafficking, which is punishable by up to 25 years' imprisonment.

Having received a two-year sentence, and in the light of his good conduct, Mr Trotta ought to be released in December 2003. However, following an appeal against the sentence of the court of first instance lodged by the public prosecutor's office, the case is to be re-tried, with the result that the outcome is highly uncertain and Mr Trotta is still in prison.

In the meantime, Mr Trotta's family has spent substantial sums on visiting Romania and on the fees of Italian lawyer Mr Liborio Catagliotti and the succession of Romanian lawyers assigned to the case.

There is no knowing how long the case will last or what the eventual sentence will be and there have been reports of substantial bribes being requested by those seeking to take advantage of the situation.

After making the necessary enquiries with the Romanian authorities, will the Council say whether it considers that the fundamental rights established under the EU treaties may have been infringed in this case?

Will the Council provide details of the response from the Romanian authorities and say what possible steps might be taken?

Reply

(4 March 2004)

The Honourable Parliamentarian of the European Parliament is informed that the Council can not take a position in respect of an ongoing criminal procedure.

As the Honourable Parliamentarian are certainly aware, the EU is pressing for reform of the judiciary in Romania in view of EU accession. The EU has continuously stressed that the establishment of an independent, reliable and efficient judiciary is of paramount importance for Romania and has strongly invited Romania to strengthen the independence of the judiciary vis-à-vis the executive.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/766 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/766

---

(2004/C 78 E/0816)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2926/03

by Michl Ebner (PPE-DE) to the Council

(6 October 2003)

Subject:   Urgent need to expand voluntary fire services

Mediterranean countries have again been hit this summer by devastating forest and bush fires. Large numbers of people have fallen victim to fires in Portugal and the south of France, which have been unusually frequent and have affected an unusually wide area. Enormous damage has also been caused both to the natural environment and the economy. It was only by deploying large numbers of personnel, and thanks to the help of numerous volunteers, that the fires were able to be brought under control. Discussions on the possibility of promoting the use of voluntary fire services date back to 1996.

To what extent is expansion of voluntary fire services, such as already exist in the South Tyrol, Austria and Germany, planned? Is such expansion also supported in Mediterranean countries?

Reply

(4 March 2004)

The Council would refer the Honourable Member in particular to its reply to question E-2624/03, put to the Council by Michel-Ange Scarbonchi, concerning civil protection against forest fires.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/767 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/767

---

(2004/C 78 E/0817)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2929/03

by Olivier Dupuis (NI) to the Commission

(6 October 2003)

Subject:   Situation of Thich Tri Luc, a Vietnamese citizen enjoying HCR refugee status, kidnapped in Cambodia and awaiting trial in Vietnam

In its answer to Question E-2607/03 (1),. the Commission states that it is extremely concerned about the situation of the Venerable Thich Tri Luc (aged 49, secular name Pham Van Tuong), a member of the Unified Buddhist Church of Vietnam (UBCV) a long-standing human rights campaigner, who is being held in Ho Chi Minh City. His trial, originally announced by the Vietnamese Government for 1 August 2003, has been postponed sine die. The Vietnamese authorities have refused to answer questions from the United Nations High Commissioner. On 12 September, in flat contradiction to his previous statements, the Vietnamese Foreign Minister acknowledged that Thich Tri Luc had been secretly held for a year, claiming that he had been ‘arrested at the frontier post in Tay Ninh province’, on Vietnamese territory, on 26 July 2002; the Minister announced that he would be tried under Article 91 of the Penal Code, for having attempted to ‘escape abroad with the intention of contacting organisations there with a view to undermining the Vietnamese Government’. Persons charged under this Article face sentences ranging from three years to life imprisonment.

How has the Commission reacted to this blatant contempt for the UN's mechanisms for protecting refugees, and the major violations of human rights involved? Does the Commission intend to propose to the Member States that they raise this case of violation of refugee status with the relevant UN bodies? What measures does it intend to take to persuade the Vietnamese authorities to set the Venerable Thich Tri Luc at liberty immediately and unconditionally? Does the Commission not believe that the Vietnamese attitude in this matter constitutes sufficient grounds for radically revising the Union's aid and cooperation policy with Vietnam, particularly as regards the plan for legal reform over the next ten years?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(5 November 2003)

The Commission wishes to recall that its reply given to the Honourable Member's Written Question E-2607/03 (2) on the same issue remains entirely valid in the light of recent developments. The following elements complement the Commission's previous answer.

The circumstances of Thich Tri Luc's arrest remain unclear. The Commission is concerned about Luc's incommunicado detention. The Commission will therefore continue to seek clarifications from the Vietnamese authorities.

The case of Thich Tri Luc illustrates that the implementation and regular update of the ten year legal reforms plan of the Government of Vietnam is of crucial importance with a view to enhance good governance and a properly functioning judiciary system. These objectives are priorities for Community cooperation with Vietnam under the Country Strategy Paper 2002-2006.

---

(1)  OJ C 58 E, 6.3.2004, p. 186.

(2)  OJ C 58 E, 6.3.2004, p. 186.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/768 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/768

---

(2004/C 78 E/0818)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2940/03

by Rosa Miguélez Ramos (PSE) to the Council

(8 October 2003)

Subject:   Allocations from the Solidarity Fund

Following the ‘Prestige’ disaster, the European Parliament adopted two resolutions calling on the Commission ‘as a matter of urgency, to consider using all the necessary financial instruments to tackle the economic, social and environmental consequences and assist the economic sectors affected’ and demanding ‘the immediate adoption of measures to alleviate the damaged occasioned to those affected, through use of the Solidarity Fund’ (1) and to assist ‘the people in economic sectors affected by the oil pollution and restore the environment of the regions concerned’ (2).

Commissioner Barnier's reply to my question E-3659/02 (3) on 26 February 2003 stated that the Commission had received the formal request from the Spanish authorities on 14 January 2003 for mobilisation of the European Union Solidarity Fund to provide help with the clean-up costs of the oil slick damage to the Galician coastline caused by the sinking of the ‘Prestige’.

The Commission recalled that the Solidarity Fund was set up to provide assistance principally in the event of natural disasters and that it cannot be used to provide immediate financial assistance if the fairly specific qualifying criteria outlined in the Regulation are met.

On 23 September, Community institution representatives including Budgets Commissioner Schreyer and Council President Magri agreed to encourage mobilising the Solidarity Fund for three Member States: Spain, Italy and Portugal. The agreement reached signed EUR 8,6 million to the Spanish regions affected by the ‘Prestige’ disaster, EUR 47,6 million to the Italian regions recently hit by earthquakes, and EUR 48,5 million to counteract the effects of the criminally-started forest fires in Portugal.

What estimates does the Council have as to the economic damage caused by these three disasters?

What amounts have the governments of Spain, Portugal and Italy respectively asked the EU to provide from the Solidarity Fund to tackle the consequences of these disasters?

Why are the regions affected by the ‘Prestige’ disaster receiving less than one-fifth of what is to be received by the regions which suffered earthquakes in Italy and forest fires in Portugal?

Reply

(4 March 2004)

First of all the Council points out to the Honourable Parliamentarian that of the three disasters referred in the question only one, namely the forest fires in Portugal, can be considered as a major disaster in the meaning of regulation 2012/2002 establishing the European Solidarity Fund, as indeed in this case the damage sustained is higher than 0,6 % of GNI. This is not the case for the damages having resulted from the ‘Prestige’ oil spill nor for those caused by the recent earthquakes in Italy. Therefore, in these two last cases the possible intervention by the Solidarity Fund is in any event limited by the maximum percentage of 7,5 % of the total annual amount for assistance under the Fund, which is available for assistance under this specific heading for all damages caused by extraordinary regional disasters in a given year.

Furthermore, it should be pointed out that in the case of the damages caused by the ‘Prestige’ oil spill, a total amount of EUR 400 million has been made available from other Community instruments, such as in particular the Regional Fund and the Cohesion Fund, whereas in the case of the Italian earthquakes no intervention from the Structural Fund has been provided.

---

(1)  Texts Adopted', 19.12.2002 - P5_TA(2002)0629.

(2)  Texts Adopted', 21.11.2002 - P5_TA(2002)0575.

(3)  OJ C 161 E, 10.7.2003, p. 125.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/769 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/769

---

(2004/C 78 E/0819)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2944/03

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(8 October 2003)

Subject:   Cancellation of the special train carrying large numbers of officials and political group staff between the European Parliament's two meeting places

| 1. | Is the Commission aware that the train service between Brussels and Strasbourg, which are established by treaty as the European Parliament's two meeting places, operates only a few times a day and that the frequency of the service has recently been cut further so that although there is an hourly service between Brussels and Luxembourg there are very few through trains from Brussels to Luxembourg and Strasbourg? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is the Commission aware that the train service between Brussels and Strasbourg, which are established by treaty as the European Parliament's two meeting places, operates only a few times a day and that the frequency of the service has recently been cut further so that although there is an hourly service between Brussels and Luxembourg there are very few through trains from Brussels to Luxembourg and Strasbourg?

| 2. | Is the Commission also aware that the serious shortage of connections has hitherto been offset by special train No 105 for officials and political group staff on Monday mornings during the European Parliament's part-session weeks in Strasbourg, but that this very crowded train stopped running in September 2003? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Is the Commission also aware that the serious shortage of connections has hitherto been offset by special train No 105 for officials and political group staff on Monday mornings during the European Parliament's part-session weeks in Strasbourg, but that this very crowded train stopped running in September 2003?

| 3. | Is it the intention that passengers who have hitherto used the direct service between the two cities should be diverted onto the high-speed line between Brussels and Paris Nord linking up with the future high-speed rail line between Paris Est and Nancy or onto the high-speed line from Brussels to Liege to link up with high-speed line from Cologne to Frankfurt airport, both of which provide a more frequent service but involve a detour with changes of train and, above all, much longer journey times? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Is it the intention that passengers who have hitherto used the direct service between the two cities should be diverted onto the high-speed line between Brussels and Paris Nord linking up with the future high-speed rail line between Paris Est and Nancy or onto the high-speed line from Brussels to Liege to link up with high-speed line from Cologne to Frankfurt airport, both of which provide a more frequent service but involve a detour with changes of train and, above all, much longer journey times?

| 4. | Does the Commission share the fear that, as a result of these cuts, the thousands of people who have to travel frequently between Brussels and Strasbourg because of the EU's existence will increasingly have to use means of transport that cause much greater harm to the environment, such as plane and car? |
| --- | --- |

4.

Does the Commission share the fear that, as a result of these cuts, the thousands of people who have to travel frequently between Brussels and Strasbourg because of the EU's existence will increasingly have to use means of transport that cause much greater harm to the environment, such as plane and car?

| 5. | As the guardian of the treaties, does the Commission believe it has a role in ensuring and maintaining good connections between the European Parliament's two meeting places as established in 1997 by the treaties? Or does it believe that the market should be given free rein and that train passengers can be lumbered with finding their own solutions to the new problem they face? |
| --- | --- |

5.

As the guardian of the treaties, does the Commission believe it has a role in ensuring and maintaining good connections between the European Parliament's two meeting places as established in 1997 by the treaties? Or does it believe that the market should be given free rein and that train passengers can be lumbered with finding their own solutions to the new problem they face?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(7 November 2003)

The Commission has taken note of the decision by the Belgian national railway operator to cancel its service from Brussels to Strasbourg, during the plenary sessions of the Parliament in Strasbourg. Train 105 (Brussels-Luxembourg) is still in service, but the additional carriages attached to train 105 for the Luxembourg-Strasbourg extension of the journey during the plenary sessions of the Parliament are no longer in service as a result of maintenance works carried out in France between Metz and Strasbourg. This train was, and still is, accessible to all passengers having a valid ticket. The Commission would like to stress that, as already indicated in the replies to previous questions asked by the Honourable Member (1),. according to the provisions of Directive 91/440/EEC (2), railway undertakings shall be managed according to the principles which apply to commercial companies, which have to optimise their yields and to minimise their costs.

The Commission considers that a further opening of the market for international passenger services by rail will allow railway undertakings to offer new and competitive services, which best satisfy the requirements of the passengers. In this context, the Commission would like to remind the Honourable Member of its intention to table soon a proposal for the gradual opening up of the market for international passenger services by rail.

In addition, the Commission proposed on 1 October 2003 to consider as a priority project (No 28) of the Trans-European Network the Eurocap Rail, i.e. Brussels-Luxembourg-Strasbourg, which will enable the modernisation of the infrastructure and allow a shorter and more comfortable journey towards 2012 (3).

---

(1)  See the replies to Written Questions: E-1699/03, OJ C 51 E, 26.2.2004, p. 128, E-1720/03 (See page 722), E-1721/03, OJ C 33 E, 6.2.2004, p. 158 and E-2293/03 (See page 402).

(2)  Council Directive 91/440/EEC of 29 July 1991 on the development of the Community's railways, OJ L 237, 24.8.1991, as amended by Directive 2001/12 of the Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2001, OJ L 75, 15.3.2001.

(3)  Amended proposal for a Decision of the Parliament and of the Council, amending the amended proposal for a Decision of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Decision No 1692/96 EC on Community guidelines for the development of the trans-European transport network, COM(2003) 564 final.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/770 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/770

---

(2004/C 78 E/0820)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2960/03

by Armando Cossutta (GUE/NGL) to the Council

(8 October 2003)

Subject:   Middle East peace process

The recent resignation of the Prime Minister of the Palestinian National Authority, Mr Abu Mazen, has made it clear that the obstacles to a genuine peace process in the Middle East remain as severe as ever. There is no doubt that the PNAs actions are strongly influenced by the pressures and actions of the extreme fundamentalist groups, but it is also the case that Israel has not changed its policy.

The ‘targeted killings’ continue, aimed at alleged authors of terrorist acts — accused of such crimes only by the Israeli government — without recorded investigations or proper trials. The construction continues of the wall intended to cut off the occupied territories from the rest of the country.

In the light of this blockage of the implementation of the ‘road map’, can the Council answer the following questions:

| 1. | What is its position on the ‘targeted killings’? |
| --- | --- |

1.

What is its position on the ‘targeted killings’?

| 2. | Does it not consider such acts to be incompatible with the existing legal systems in the majority of the Union's Member States? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Does it not consider such acts to be incompatible with the existing legal systems in the majority of the Union's Member States?

| 3. | Should it not issue a declaration stating that no-one, and even less so a government, has the right to dictate or execute death sentences without any kind of trial? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Should it not issue a declaration stating that no-one, and even less so a government, has the right to dictate or execute death sentences without any kind of trial?

| 4. | What action will it take to urge the Israeli government to put an end to such practices? |
| --- | --- |

4.

What action will it take to urge the Israeli government to put an end to such practices?

| 5. | Does it intend to denounce these crimes under the EU/Israel agreements? |
| --- | --- |

5.

Does it intend to denounce these crimes under the EU/Israel agreements?

| 6. | What action will the Council take should the Israeli government refuse to put an end to these practices? |
| --- | --- |

6.

What action will the Council take should the Israeli government refuse to put an end to these practices?

Reply

(4 March 2004)

Like the Honourable Parliamentarian, the Council is of the view that the resignation of PM Abu Mazen has highlighted that serious obstacles to the Middle East Peace Process remain and that Israelis and Palestinians have not yet done enough for the serious implementation of the road map.

On the other points, the European Council on 16/17 October 2003 has taken a clear position:

| — | it calls on Israel to abstain from any punitive measures which are not in accordance with international law, including extra-judicial killings; |
| --- | --- |

—

it calls on Israel to abstain from any punitive measures which are not in accordance with international law, including extra-judicial killings;

| — | the European Council was also particularly concerned about the route marked out for the so-called security fence in the Occupied West Bank. The envisaged departure of the route from the ‘green line’ could prejudge future negotiations and make the two-State solution physically impossible to implement. It would cause further humanitarian and economic hardship to the Palestinians. Thousands of Palestinians west of the fence are being cut off from essential services in the West Bank, Palestinians east of the fence will lose access to land and water resources; |
| --- | --- |

—

the European Council was also particularly concerned about the route marked out for the so-called security fence in the Occupied West Bank. The envisaged departure of the route from the ‘green line’ could prejudge future negotiations and make the two-State solution physically impossible to implement. It would cause further humanitarian and economic hardship to the Palestinians. Thousands of Palestinians west of the fence are being cut off from essential services in the West Bank, Palestinians east of the fence will lose access to land and water resources;

| — | the EU regularly raises these issues with Israel, in particular on the occasion of the EU-Israel Association Council (see 18 November 2003) which offers a good opportunity to convey firm messages to the Government of Israel in this respect; |
| --- | --- |

—

the EU regularly raises these issues with Israel, in particular on the occasion of the EU-Israel Association Council (see 18 November 2003) which offers a good opportunity to convey firm messages to the Government of Israel in this respect;

| — | the European Council has urged all sides in the region to immediately implement policies conducive to dialogue and negotiations. |
| --- | --- |

—

the European Council has urged all sides in the region to immediately implement policies conducive to dialogue and negotiations.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/771 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/771

---

(2004/C 78 E/0821)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2962/03

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(8 October 2003)

Subject:   Damage to valuable works contained in the temple of St Sofia

According to the Turkish ‘Miliyet’ newspaper, around 550 invaluable religious paintings and relics (vestments, holy manuscripts, etc.) currently being stored in the temple of St Sofia in Istanbul, are in extremely poor condition since not even the basic minimum has been done by way of conservation. The temple became a repository for those works, which were brought in from disused churches in various regions of Turkey, when it was converted into a museum in 1935.

Is it possible to earmark funding for the conservation and restoration of these works in cooperation with the responsible authorities and from which programme?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(3 November 2003)

The Community's financial assistance programme for Turkey does not allow to provide support for conserving and restoring religious or cultural works, such as those stored in the Hagia Sofia. The programme is designed primarily to support Turkey's alignment with Union standards in the political, economic and legislative areas. Project proposals are prepared by the Turkish Government and are subject to approval by the Commission, which is given only for projects that contribute to meeting the priorities of the Accession Partnership, as adopted by the Council of Ministers on 15 May 2003.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/772 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/772

---

(2004/C 78 E/0822)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3008/03

by Karin Riis-Jørgensen (ELDR) to the Commission

(6 October 2003)

Subject:   Unequal conditions of competition for the fish processing industry in the EU Member States

The fish processing industry in the Northern EU Member States is completely dependent on having raw materials available under the same conditions as its competitors outside the EU. The EU countries often do not have sufficient access to raw materials in their own waters and are therefore forced to import them. One raw material which is giving rise to particular concern is herring.

While the Norwegian processing industry has cheap access to herring because of the large herring stocks in Norwegian waters, the Northern EU countries' producers are forced to pay higher prices — often an additional duty of 15 % — to have access to the same raw materials by importing them from none other than Norway.

By reason of various preferential agreements, it has at the same time become easier for foreign producers — including Norwegian producers — to supply the EU market with semi-finished and finished products. On the other hand there is, as we have seen, unequal access to raw materials. This gives rise to unequal conditions of competition.

What does the Commission propose to do to ensure that the herring industry in the EU states can operate under equal conditions of competition with the EU's neighbouring countries — including the herring industry in Norway.

A flood of preferential agreements and customs quotas has undermined the structure of customs duties on the import of fish and fisheries products, apparently without any benefit to anyone. As a result, the Northern EU countries' processing industry cannot obtain the raw materials it needs, while finished products from selected countries have easy access to the EU's market.

What does the Commission propose to do to promote a simpler and more transparent set of rules for customs duties on imported fish and fishery products?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(31 October 2003)

The Commission is well aware of the concerns which the Honourable Member expresses about the situation of supplies of herring as raw material for the Community's processing industry. In actual fact, there is a need to maintain and, as appropriate, improve the competitiveness of the processing industry throughout the Community with due regard to all relevant factors.

Over many years, motions to suspend the tariff for herring as raw material have formed the subject matter of rather protracted discussions with Member States. Yet, diametrically opposed views on this have been consistently held. Denmark's repeated calls for far-reaching tariff suspensions always encountered stiff opposition mainly from Ireland but also from the United Kingdom, both of whom argued with the peculiarities of the fisheries on pelagic fish stocks, the dependency of their respective fishing communities upon these fisheries and the principle of Community preference. This has resulted not in a simple and clear set rules for customs duties but rather in a mix of measures (duty-free period, autonomous tariff quota and a General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) quota) designed to balance these conflicting interests with each other.

Tariff concessions agreed with third countries may add to the complexity of applicable custom duties. Yet, these regimes have a logic of their own. Thus, the tariff quotas agreed upon with Norway and Iceland in the framework of European Economic Area (EEA) Enlargement negotiations have been shaped to take into consideration the impending enlargement of the Union and the interests of the incoming new Member States.

In the wake of EEA Enlargement negotiations, there have already been renewed calls for complete tariff suspensions for fresh herring and mackerel, on the one hand, and announcements of opposition to any further tariff alleviation for the said products, on the other. It also appears that it is not so much the present tariff situation, which exacerbates the supply needs of the processing industries of certain Member States, but rather the practice of many Community fishing vessels to land their catches of herring into Norwegian ports. This is due to the geographical particularities of the fisheries on Atlanto-Scandian herring in the Northeast Atlantic. One might query whether tariff policy is the appropriate tool to cope with that.

Another aspect of interest is a greatly improved stock situation of North Sea herring. The emergency measures, to which this stock has been subject over many years, are now paying off. Thus, huge quantities of herring will become available for the Community in the years to come. This might induce certain Member States to argue that the quantities of herring now available to the Community are of such a magnitude that adequate supplies of the Community's processing industries are ensured.

It is clear that ongoing World Trade Organisation (WTO) negotiations on market access and tariffs will lead to overall tariff reductions eventually. In the meantime, exploratory talks with Member States on a new multi-annual tariff quota system for the period 2004 to 2006 to address short-term needs are under way. The Commission approaches this with an open mind and hopes that this exploratory process will yield results which would allow to come forward with operative proposals capable of mustering the widest possible support from Member States.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/773 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/773

---

(2004/C 78 E/0823)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3061/03

by Elisabeth Schroedter (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(17 October 2003)

Subject:   Threat to the FFH protected area ‘Falkenseer Kuhlaake’ (No 537) from a road-building project to be carried out with assistance from the European Structural Funds

In spring 2000 the FFH protected area ‘Falkenseer Kuhlaake’ was not notified to the Commission as a single natural habitat, but rather, on the basis of scientific findings concerning the spread of the species in need of protection (CJEC judgment of 7 November 2000, Case C-371/98 (1)),. as two separate sites. A roughly 50-metre-wide corridor runs through the middle of the protected area. The German Land Brandenburg intends to use the corridor as the route of the northern section of the Falkensee by-pass (L20). The decision to exclude the strip of land in question cannot be justified on nature conservancy grounds, in particular because this area forms, along with the FFH protected area ‘Spandauer Forst’ (No 3445-301), a natural whole.

| 1. | (a) | Does the Commission share the view taken by the Brandenburg Land Government that the decision to divide and thus dismember the FFH protected area ‘Falkenseer Kuhlaake’ is consistent with the provisions of Directive 92/43/EEC (2) and that the excluded strip need not also be identified as a protected area, however logical such a move would be on nature conservancy grounds? If so, why does the Commission take the view that the by-pass must be routed through the protected area and why, in its view, does the road-building project take priority over nature conservancy? If not, what steps has the Commission taken, or will it take, in order to safeguard the protected status of the area as a whole? |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

(a)

Does the Commission share the view taken by the Brandenburg Land Government that the decision to divide and thus dismember the FFH protected area ‘Falkenseer Kuhlaake’ is consistent with the provisions of Directive 92/43/EEC (2) and that the excluded strip need not also be identified as a protected area, however logical such a move would be on nature conservancy grounds? If so, why does the Commission take the view that the by-pass must be routed through the protected area and why, in its view, does the road-building project take priority over nature conservancy? If not, what steps has the Commission taken, or will it take, in order to safeguard the protected status of the area as a whole?

| (b) | Does the Commission share the view of the Brandenburg Land Government that the planned road will have little impact on the neighbouring FFH protected areas ‘Falkenseer Kuhlaake’ and ‘Spandauer Forst’? |
| --- | --- |

(b)

Does the Commission share the view of the Brandenburg Land Government that the planned road will have little impact on the neighbouring FFH protected areas ‘Falkenseer Kuhlaake’ and ‘Spandauer Forst’?

If so, what arguments can it put forward to substantiate that view?

If not, will it call on the Brandenburg Land Government to carry out a detailed FFH impact study and to revise its plans on the basis of the findings of that study?

| 2. | Is the Commission aware that the Brandenburg Land Government is considering using resources from the European Structural Funds for this road-building project? Does the Commission approve of this plan and does it take the view that such a decision would be consistent with the regulation governing the Structural Funds and the horizontal task ‘protecting and improving the natural environment’ laid down in that regulation? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Is the Commission aware that the Brandenburg Land Government is considering using resources from the European Structural Funds for this road-building project? Does the Commission approve of this plan and does it take the view that such a decision would be consistent with the regulation governing the Structural Funds and the horizontal task ‘protecting and improving the natural environment’ laid down in that regulation?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(3 December 2003)

The Commission has not received a complaint, or any other information, on the planned construction of the by-pass ‘L 20’ in the corridor between the proposed sites of Community interest (‘pSCIs’) ‘Falkenseer Kuhlaake’ and ‘Spandauer Forst’ in Brandenburg. On the basis of the limited information provided in the written question, the Commission cannot decide whether or not Articles 4(1) and 6(3) of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (Habitats Directive), or any other Community law, may have been violated.

The Commission will now start an own-initiative investigation on the case. The German Government will be asked to provide additional information and to take a position on the case.

A decision to co-finance the project under the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) programme of Brandenburg has not been taken. To be eligible for ERDF funding, any project has to fully comply with Community environmental legislation in accordance with Council Regulation (EC) 1260/1999 of 21 June 1999 laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds (3).

---

(1)  OJ C 28, 27.1.2001, p. 2.

(2)  OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7.

(3)  OJ L 161, 26.6.1999.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/774 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/774

---

(2004/C 78 E/0824)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3066/03

by Alain Esclopé (EDD) to the Commission

(14 October 2003)

Subject:   Breaking-up of decommissioned US warships

The United States has decided to have hundreds of decommissioned US Navy warships, which are riddled with asbestos and contaminated with fuel oil, broken up in a port on the east coast of England. The towing of the ships to that port is exposing neighbouring national and international waters to serious environmental risks.

The logical course of action would have been for the ships to be broken up on US territory, rather than thousands of kilometres from their home port.

Pressure from US ecologists, combined with the financial incentives on offer, prompted the Americans to pass on the task of dealing with this ecological hazard to European countries which have already been badly affected by similar problems in recent years.

Against a background of world, and, more particularly, European, efforts to foster sustainable development, is it not strange that such practices should go unremarked?

It should be borne in mind that the Americans have adopted maritime legislation which authorises them to use military force to exclude vessels which pose an environmental risk from their territorial waters.

This story has demonstrated once again how easily safety issues are outweighed by financial considerations.

Does the Commission intend to take unilateral steps to remind the United States of its responsibilities, rather than simply allowing the countries concerned to act on their own account?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(10 November 2003)

Following a complaint received on this matter, the Commission is currently investigating whether Community legislation has been complied with. The Commission has received information that suggests that the ships may leak oil, PCB and asbestos and that there may be some uncertainty that the recycling facility in the United Kingdom is ready to receive the ships and recycle them in an environmentally sound manner.

Further, the commitment made in Johannesburg to protect our vulnerable marine environment and the experience learned from the ‘Erika’, ‘Prestige’ and ‘Tricolor’ disasters should lead us to a precautionary approach.

The Commission has therefore expressed its concerns to the administrations of both the United Kingdom and the United States.

On 20 October 2003, the Member of the Commission responsible for the Environment made a declaration in the Parliament on this issue.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/775 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/775

---

(2004/C 78 E/0825)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3088/03

by Bruno Gollnisch (NI) to the Commission

(20 October 2003)

Subject:   Pechiney-Alcan merger

Recently, the Commission decided, without further investigation, to authorise the merger of Alcan and Pechiney, which now form the world's leading aluminium group, while concentrating their decisionmaking structures in North America. Whatever the press may say, this is a hostile takeover.

Three years ago a similar merger between the two companies failed after Alcan refused to give up its plant in Norf. However, the Commission is now authorising it to choose between Norf and three of Pechiney's French sites (Neuf-Brisach, Annecy and Rugles). It seems clear that the latter sites will be sold off.

Will the Commission provide the names of the potential buyers of the units to be sold off, specifying in particular whether they are European or non-European?

Will the Commission explain what other fundamental changes have been made to the situation to allow it to alter its opinion on an Alcan-Pechiney merger?

Will it also explain what the condition regarding ‘removal of duplication’ between the two companies' activities means in terms of jobs?

Given that, if Pechiney had taken over Alcan rather than the reverse, it would have come up against the Canadian legal principle of ‘benefit to the country’, does the Commission consider that this operation is of economic benefit to the European Union and to the European aluminium sector?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(28 November 2003)

On 29 September 2003, the Commission has authorised the acquisition of aluminium producer Pechiney by Alcan. Whilst the Commission's investigation of the transaction indicated that the transaction would raise serious doubts in a number of markets, Alcan has proposed undertakings which the Commission considered sufficient to remove the competition problems identified.

Alcan has offered divestment proposals that contain either Alcan assets or Pechiney assets. After having carefully assessed the divestment packages, and only after Alcan had further improved its proposal, the Commission has come to the conclusion that both packages consist of equally viable businesses that are equally capable of removing the competition concerns identified by the Commission. The parties were able to demonstrate to the Commission that there is a wide interest from potential buyers, both European and non-European, for these assets. In this respect, it cannot be taken for granted that only Pechiney assets will be divested. The merging parties will now commence negotiations with potential buyers, and only afterwards, the potential buyer(s) will be presented to the Commission, who will then decide whether the proposed buyer(s) can be accepted. At this stage, it is therefore not possible to indicate who the potential buyer(s) might be.

It is important to stress that this case has benefited from a long pre-notification phase during which the Commission has started its market investigation prior to the actual notification. In addition, the markets investigated are not new to the Commission. A number of transactions in the aluminium industry, not the least the aborted Alcan/Pechiney transaction three years ago, have been investigated by the Commission in the past. What distinguishes this case most from the previously notified Alcan/Pechiney transaction is that this time, Alcan has proposed remedies that clearly aimed at solving the competition concerns on a first assessment basis. As these remedies were proposed early in the process and encompass ambitious, structural and clear commitments, the Commission was able to market test them extensively and improve the effectiveness and attractiveness of the remedy package further.

The effect of the acquisition of Pechiney on the number of people employed by Alcan has not been communicated to the Commission. Indeed, the Commission would like to underline that the objective of merger control is to make sure that, through a negative control, competitive structures are preserved. A regulatory framework that upholds effective competition usually provides appropriate incentives to firms to enhance their efficiency and thus to ensure their better survival in the respective markets. Further, dynamic competition between competitive firms tends to increase the rate of innovation, thereby raising the economy's rate of growth. Ultimately, the protection of competition is a very effective way to ensure growth and, thereby, stable and lasting jobs. Nevertheless, in the short term, efforts to improve the competitiveness of firms by means of mergers or acquisitions may involve restructuring and loss of employment.

In the specific case under consideration, Alcan, in order to obtain Commission's clearance on the operation, has committed to divest businesses and sell them off to independent third parties committed to develop them in order to create viable competitors. Those activities actually represent the largest part of the redundant assets between the two companies. For this reason, the remedy package is likely to limit a possible short-term impact of the transaction on the level of jobs in the Union.

With regard to the consideration of the economic benefits of the operation, the Commission, as also witnessed by the wording of the draft Commission Notice on the appraisal of horizontal mergers, is open to consider the benefits of the operations analysed as a counterbalance to the possible anti-competitive effects that it would create. Efficiencies can be one such mitigating factor, provided that they are at least in part passed on to consumers. However, concerning efficiencies, it belongs to the parties in the operation to put forward convincing arguments.

In this specific operation, the parties have not done so in their notification, although Alcan has communicated to the financial markets that this acquisition will create cost savings and synergies, improving the competitiveness of the company in the long term.

With regard to the national dimension of the operation, the Commission, in its competitive analysis, has to focus on how a transaction could affect the competitive dynamics of the markets concerned, irrespective of the identity and nationality of the notifying party or of the shareholders involved.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/777 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/777

---

(2004/C 78 E/0826)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3089/03

by Bruno Gollnisch (NI) to the Council

(20 October 2003)

Subject:   Alstom

Article 87 of the Treaty lays down the rules governing State aids and specifies which types may be considered as compatible with the common market, e.g. aid to promote the economic development of certain areas or activities, or to remedy a serious disturbance in the economy of a Member State, etc.

If Alstom, which employs tens of thousands of workers in Europe, were to go bakrupt, this would have a devastating effect on employment and the economy of entire regions and would undoubtedly cause a ‘disturbance’. And yet the Commission has decided to be particularly strict on this issue.

It is not uncommon for states to support companies experiencing difficulties. In such cases, consideration of the strategic nature of the industrial activity or the jobs situation should take precedence over a purely financial or economic analysis of the measures since the aid is clearly of a temporary and non-structural nature.

Does the Council consider that the EU texts, which have remained virtually unchanged since the beginning, are still appropriate for responding to the challenges of competition, which is now worldwide and, in may cases, unfair?

Is it prepared, in particular, to remove references in the relevant articles of the Treaty to competition and the operation of the common market and replace them with references to the need to preserve jobs and fight for the survival of strategic sectors?

Reply

(4 March 2004)

The attention of the Honourable Member is drawn to the fact that it is not within the Council's competencies to revise the text of the Treaty establishing the European Community. Such a revision can only take place within the framework of an intergovernmental conference and by subsequent ratification by the Member States.

Furthermore, it is recalled that the European Parliament has taken an active part in the work carried out by the European Convention, and has presumably been in a position to present views on the issue raised by the Honourable Member in that framework.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/777 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/777

---

(2004/C 78 E/0827)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3090/03

by Antonios Trakatellis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(14 October 2003)

Subject:   Declassification of forest land and forests and redefinition of the term ‘forest’ under new legislation proposed by the Greek Government.

Under the new forestry bill tabled by the Greek Government, around 3 million hectares of forest and forest land will be declassified. The proposed legislation will also redefine the term ‘forests’ and reset the legal limits for authorisation of land and clearance operations.

In view of this and the numerous grey areas existing under the proposed legislation:

| 1. | To what extent does this proposed legislation comply with the directives on the preservation of natural habitats (92/43/EEC (1)) and environmental impact assessment (85/337/EEC (2)). |
| --- | --- |

1.

To what extent does this proposed legislation comply with the directives on the preservation of natural habitats (92/43/EEC (1)) and environmental impact assessment (85/337/EEC (2)).

| 2. | How great is the danger which could arise from declassifying forest areas for construction or infrastructural development purposes, given that it could result in soil erosion and increase flood risks? |
| --- | --- |

2.

How great is the danger which could arise from declassifying forest areas for construction or infrastructural development purposes, given that it could result in soil erosion and increase flood risks?

| 3. | Has a general Community strategy and a programme of action been formulated for nature conservation and protection regarding forests and if so, are the new measures being proposed by the Greek Government in line with this? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Has a general Community strategy and a programme of action been formulated for nature conservation and protection regarding forests and if so, are the new measures being proposed by the Greek Government in line with this?

| 4. | To what extent is the new bill in line with Common Position (EC) No 46/2003 (3) of 13 June 2003 adopted by the Council with a view to adopting a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the monitoring of forests and environmental interactions in the Community (Forest Focus) and to what extent does the definition of the term ‘forest’ contained in this regulation coincide with that contained in the new Greek Government bill? |
| --- | --- |

4.

To what extent is the new bill in line with Common Position (EC) No 46/2003 (3) of 13 June 2003 adopted by the Council with a view to adopting a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the monitoring of forests and environmental interactions in the Community (Forest Focus) and to what extent does the definition of the term ‘forest’ contained in this regulation coincide with that contained in the new Greek Government bill?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(12 November 2003)

The Commission has not yet been officially informed about the prepared Greek forestry Law in question. Besides, the Law is currently a proposal and has not yet been adopted by the Greek Parliament. Given that the legislative procedure of adoption is ongoing, the Commission is not in a position to evaluate the possible effects of the future Law.

However, the Commission would like to draw the attention of the Honourable Member to the following:

| 1. | The Commission would like to underline that according to Article 1(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, the Directive shall not apply to projects the details of which are adopted by a specific act of national legislation, since the objectives of this Directive, including that of supplying information, are achieved through the legislative process. As regards Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora, the Commission would like to mention that the Directive does not explicitly refers to land use, but to habitat types. The designation of Sites of Community Interest under the Directive is based on the ecological quality of the habitats existing in a site and not on its classification as forest, agricultural area, wetland or other possible land uses. The proposal of Sites of Community Interest has not been based on land use criteria and the sites already proposed are not expected to change. The Commission, however, will evaluate the possible changes in classification that the law will introduce after its adoption and implementation, in order to assess if the proposed Sites of Community Interest could be affected. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The Commission would like to underline that according to Article 1(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, the Directive shall not apply to projects the details of which are adopted by a specific act of national legislation, since the objectives of this Directive, including that of supplying information, are achieved through the legislative process. As regards Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora, the Commission would like to mention that the Directive does not explicitly refers to land use, but to habitat types. The designation of Sites of Community Interest under the Directive is based on the ecological quality of the habitats existing in a site and not on its classification as forest, agricultural area, wetland or other possible land uses. The proposal of Sites of Community Interest has not been based on land use criteria and the sites already proposed are not expected to change. The Commission, however, will evaluate the possible changes in classification that the law will introduce after its adoption and implementation, in order to assess if the proposed Sites of Community Interest could be affected.

| 2. | Regarding the assessment on potential risks of increased soil erosion and flooding from the declassification of the Greek forests and their use for infrastructural development and construction purposes, this falls within the competence of the Greek authorities, in the framework of legal procedures granting permissions for such type of development and construction. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Regarding the assessment on potential risks of increased soil erosion and flooding from the declassification of the Greek forests and their use for infrastructural development and construction purposes, this falls within the competence of the Greek authorities, in the framework of legal procedures granting permissions for such type of development and construction.

| 3. | The EC Treaty makes no explicit provision for a comprehensive common forestry policy. However, in 1998 the Union has established a Union Forestry Strategy. The Strategy underlines that the management, conservation, protection and sustainable development of forests are vital concerns of existing Union policies. The Community is supporting Member States in the management and protection of forests: Council Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999 of 17 May 1999, on support for rural development from the European Agri-cultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) (4) for the management and protection of forests, the European Biodiversity Strategy and specifically the Action Plan for Natural resources (5) set guidelines for the conservation, protection and sustainable management of the forests. Neither of the previous Community legislation nor the Union Forest Strategy request compliance with a specific ‘forest’ definition. Greece has to comply with the requirements of the existing Community legislation. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The EC Treaty makes no explicit provision for a comprehensive common forestry policy. However, in 1998 the Union has established a Union Forestry Strategy. The Strategy underlines that the management, conservation, protection and sustainable development of forests are vital concerns of existing Union policies. The Community is supporting Member States in the management and protection of forests: Council Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999 of 17 May 1999, on support for rural development from the European Agri-cultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) (4) for the management and protection of forests, the European Biodiversity Strategy and specifically the Action Plan for Natural resources (5) set guidelines for the conservation, protection and sustainable management of the forests. Neither of the previous Community legislation nor the Union Forest Strategy request compliance with a specific ‘forest’ definition. Greece has to comply with the requirements of the existing Community legislation.

| 4. | The Commission's proposal for a Regulation concerning monitoring of forests and environmental interactions in the Community (6), on which the Council has adopted the Common Position (EC) No 46/2003 of 13 June 2003, is currently under its second reading. The Commission cannot make an assessment about the ‘forest’ definition in the Forest Focus and the definitions of forest under the proposed Greek Forestry Law. |
| --- | --- |

4.

The Commission's proposal for a Regulation concerning monitoring of forests and environmental interactions in the Community (6), on which the Council has adopted the Common Position (EC) No 46/2003 of 13 June 2003, is currently under its second reading. The Commission cannot make an assessment about the ‘forest’ definition in the Forest Focus and the definitions of forest under the proposed Greek Forestry Law.

---

(1)  OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7.

(2)  OJ L 175, 5.7.1985, p. 40.

(3)  OJ C 233 E, 30.9.2003, p. 1.

(4)  OJ L 160, 26.6.1999.

(5)  COM(2001) 162 final.

(6)  OJ C 20 E, 28.1.2003.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/779 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/779

---

(2004/C 78 E/0828)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3098/03

by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(20 October 2003)

Subject:   Margot Wallström and the EMU campaign

Margot Wallström was heavily involved during the last weeks of the recently concluded EMU campaign in Sweden.

Was the Commissioner on leave of absence from her normal duties at the Commission during this period?

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/779 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/779

---

(2004/C 78 E/0829)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3100/03

by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(20 October 2003)

Subject:   Commission's involvement in national campaigns

The Commission's administrative guide states that the Commission and its staff must be ‘courteous, objective and impartial’ in their dealings with the general public.

With particular reference to the requirement of impartiality, what is the Commission's practice with regard to the involvement of Commissioners and/or its staff in national campaigns in the run-up to referendums on EU- and EMU-related matters?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-3098/03 and E-3100/03 given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(19 November 2003)

As the Commission has repeatedly pointed out in answers to written or oral questions from Members of the European Parliament (1), its members are political figures who exercise a political role within the parameters of which they retain the right to express their personal opinions freely on their own responsibility.

The Code of Conduct for Commissioners states that ‘Commissioners may be active members of political parties or trade unions provided this not compromise their availability for the service of the Commission.’

---

(1)  See for example, the answers by President Prodi to Questions 2459/99, 2600/99 and 2628/99, OJ C 225 E, 8.8.2000, and answer by President Prodi to Question 2629/99, OJ C 46 E, 13.2.2001.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/780 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/780

---

(2004/C 78 E/0830)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3101/03

by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Council

(20 October 2003)

Subject:   EMU referendum and location of agencies

One of the arguments deployed in Sweden's EMU debate was that, if the Swedish people voted no in the referendum, Sweden's chances of being considered as a location for EU agencies, e.g. for the management of chemicals, would be diminished.

Now that the Swedish people have voted no to the single currency of the euro, does the Council consider that Sweden's chances of being considered as a location for an EU agency have worsened?

Reply

(4 March 2004)

The Council has not discussed the issue raised by the Honourable Member.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/780 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/780

---

(2004/C 78 E/0831)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3102/03

by Lissy Gröner (PSE) to the Commission

(17 October 2003)

Subject:   Discrimination against women in the Commission's new assessment system

The Commission has introduced a new assessment system. It appears that, under this system, women are being ‘punished’ with the deduction of points if they take a few months' extra leave after their maternity leave to care for their babies.

According to my information, a female Commission official had three ‘merit points’ retroactively deducted during her annual assessment for three months' parental leave, in contrast to the one point which is deducted for one year (= 12 months) seniority in grade.

In this context, the deduction of one point for each month of CCP is out of all proportion. The effects of this disproportionate downgrading will last for years (‘système sac à dos’) and it is all but impossible for the women concerned to catch up again.

Such a deduction indicates that women and mothers are being penalised and discriminated against, since the deduction of points on the grounds of CCP affects a disproportionate number of women who have taken parental leave.

The women concerned had merit points deducted retroactively, without any advance warning, and deductions were also made in the case of women who had applied for CCP before the relevant decision of 26 April 2002 had even been adopted.

| 1. | How can this point deduction be explained in the light of European directives on equal opportunities? |
| --- | --- |

1.

How can this point deduction be explained in the light of European directives on equal opportunities?

| 2. | In these conditions, how can the reconciliation of job and family propagated by the Commission be made a reality? |
| --- | --- |

2.

In these conditions, how can the reconciliation of job and family propagated by the Commission be made a reality?

| 3. | What is the connection between CCP on the one hand and merit on the other? |
| --- | --- |

3.

What is the connection between CCP on the one hand and merit on the other?

| 4. | Is the Commission aware of the ‘Mum's CV’ model introduced by Unilever, which rewards applicants who have spent time bringing up children with plus points on their applications? |
| --- | --- |

4.

Is the Commission aware of the ‘Mum's CV’ model introduced by Unilever, which rewards applicants who have spent time bringing up children with plus points on their applications?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(12 February 2004)

The deduction of merit points in cases of leave on personal grounds (‘CCP’) stems from Article 4(4) of the Commission Decision of 26 April 2002 on general provisions for implementing Article 43 of the Staff Regulations. The Article in question currently stipulates that the global mark for the reporting period is to be calculated on a pro rata basis (in relation to the number of months covered by the report) if the said report covers part of the year only. Footnote 6 states that such a situation would occur e.g. ‘when the jobholder has taken leave on personal grounds during part of the year’.

In answer to the Honourable Member's questions:

| 1. | Although the Directives referred to by the Honourable Member are addressed to the Member States, not to the European Institutions, Article 40 of the Staff Regulations makes provision for the same type of case. It already provides that a year's leave on personal grounds, renewable annually up to four times, may be granted to an official to raise a child under five years of age. Once the period of leave on personal grounds has expired, the officials concerned must be reinstated in a post in their category or service which corresponds to their grade.
  In future, if the Commission proposal amending the Staff Regulations of officials of the European Communities (1), is adopted (it is currently being scrutinised by Parliament and the Council), two new types of leave would be introduced: parental leave of up to six months in respect of each child, and family leave the total duration of which may not exceed nine months over the official's entire career. During these periods of leave, officials will retain their right to employment, their right to advancement to a higher step and their eligibility for promotion to a higher grade, and will receive a flat-rate allowance. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Although the Directives referred to by the Honourable Member are addressed to the Member States, not to the European Institutions, Article 40 of the Staff Regulations makes provision for the same type of case. It already provides that a year's leave on personal grounds, renewable annually up to four times, may be granted to an official to raise a child under five years of age. Once the period of leave on personal grounds has expired, the officials concerned must be reinstated in a post in their category or service which corresponds to their grade.

In future, if the Commission proposal amending the Staff Regulations of officials of the European Communities (1), is adopted (it is currently being scrutinised by Parliament and the Council), two new types of leave would be introduced: parental leave of up to six months in respect of each child, and family leave the total duration of which may not exceed nine months over the official's entire career. During these periods of leave, officials will retain their right to employment, their right to advancement to a higher step and their eligibility for promotion to a higher grade, and will receive a flat-rate allowance.

| 2. | The policy developments outlined above confirm the importance which the Commission attaches to improving provision for reconciling professional and family life. In this context, the Staff Regulations allow women to take maternity leave of at least 16 weeks, with an addition of up to four weeks' special leave for breast-feeding mothers. These periods of leave are treated as if the jobholder was in active employment and are therefore not subject to a pro rata deduction of merit points. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The policy developments outlined above confirm the importance which the Commission attaches to improving provision for reconciling professional and family life. In this context, the Staff Regulations allow women to take maternity leave of at least 16 weeks, with an addition of up to four weeks' special leave for breast-feeding mothers. These periods of leave are treated as if the jobholder was in active employment and are therefore not subject to a pro rata deduction of merit points.

| 3. | The aim of the new evaluation and promotion system is to provide the Commission with objective means of assessing the merits of every official each year on the basis of their efficiency, ability and conduct in the service. These three elements can clearly be best assessed while officials are in active service with one of the Institutions or seconded to another body.
  A deduction of merit points applies to every official or servant of the Communities, male or female, who has taken leave on personal grounds, whether it is related to raising children or other justified reasons. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The aim of the new evaluation and promotion system is to provide the Commission with objective means of assessing the merits of every official each year on the basis of their efficiency, ability and conduct in the service. These three elements can clearly be best assessed while officials are in active service with one of the Institutions or seconded to another body.

A deduction of merit points applies to every official or servant of the Communities, male or female, who has taken leave on personal grounds, whether it is related to raising children or other justified reasons.

| 4. | The Commission is aware that different organisations in the public and private sectors have various provisions for childbearing and childrearing employees. In adopting the policy improvements set out above the Commission has striven to ensure equity, and is aware that the new provisions now bear comparison with satisfactory standards achieved for public sector employees in Member States. |
| --- | --- |

4.

The Commission is aware that different organisations in the public and private sectors have various provisions for childbearing and childrearing employees. In adopting the policy improvements set out above the Commission has striven to ensure equity, and is aware that the new provisions now bear comparison with satisfactory standards achieved for public sector employees in Member States.

The Honourable Member may be interested to know that, in addition to these specific responses, the promotion committees set up pursuant to the general provisions for implementing Article 45 of the Staff Regulations have looked into the issues referred to by the Honourable Member and proposed that a certain number of points should be awarded to those officials who suffered from the deduction of merit points following a period of leave on personal grounds. They have noted, in particular, that — in the normal course of events — some officials had applied for leave on personal grounds before the Commission adopted the general provisions for implementing Article 43 of the Staff Regulations. Accordingly, the promotion committees' deliberations may well, in the context of this transitional year, result in a proposal for offsetting part of the reduction. In addition, the promotion committees have noted that the effect — in terms of promotion — of the deduction of merit points in 2003 was too strong in the context of a transition period based on increasing promotion thresholds (i.e. the ratio ‘lost points due to leave on personal grounds/promotion threshold’ is currently higher than it would be in a ‘stable’ system).

The Commission has taken all these observations into account and consequently proposes to correct retroactively all the deductions made in order to bring them in line with the estimated ratio in a stable system. This proposal is included in an annex to the new draft general provisions for implementing Article 45 of the Staff Regulations that were adopted on 21 January 2004 and are now subject to statutory consultations before final approval.

Once adopted, this decision would have the effect of significantly lowering the impact of leave on personal grounds on promotion possibilities. For example, the loss of 7 points (absence of an official with a mark of 14/20 during half the reference period) would be reduced to a loss of only 2,5 points (based on the hypothesis that the official in question's seniority in grade is 4 years and the average seniority in grade is 5 years).

---

(1)  OJ C 291 E, 26.11.2002.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/782 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/782

---

(2004/C 78 E/0832)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3120/03

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(22 October 2003)

Subject:   Noise pollution

Does the Commission intend to make available funding opportunities for local projects that will tackle the adverse effects of noise pollution in rural areas, for example, noise reduction barriers on motorways that run close to residential areas?

Can the Commission state how the Environmental Noise Directive will assist people living in rural areas but who suffer from the adverse effects (a reduced quality of life, stress) of persistent noise from nearby motorways?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(18 November 2003)

The Commission is not planning to establish an EU funding instrument specifically for tackling noise pollution. However, projects in this field could be given financial support under existing mechanisms, including the financial instrument for the environment (LIFE).

Under Directive 2002/49/CE (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 June 2002 relating to the assessment and management of environmental noise, which entered into force on 18 July 2002, the authorities in the Member States are required to draw up strategic noise maps in the vicinity of major transport infrastructure, including roads, and within the major conglomerations, on the basis of common indicators, to inform the public about exposure to noise and its effects, and to develop action plans to reduce noise, where necessary, and to preserve the quality of the acoustic environment where it is good.

With regard more especially to road infrastructure, noise maps and action plans have to be drawn up in 2007 and 2008, respectively, for major routes which have more than six million passenger vehicles a year. As a second stage, in 2012 and 2013, maps and action plans will have to be drawn up for major roads with more than three million passenger vehicles a year.

These maps and action plans will concern noise pollution generated by road infrastructure in urban areas as well as in rural areas.

---

(1)  OJ L 189, 18.7.2002.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/783 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/783

---

(2004/C 78 E/0833)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3137/03

by Mihail Papayannakis (GUE/NGL) to the Council

(23 October 2003)

Subject:   Right to apply for asylum

Does the Council believe that, in its present form, the amended proposal for a directive COM(2002) 326 final (1) on minimum standards on procedures for granting and withdrawing refugee status is compatible with the Member States' obligations arising from international conventions on refugees and asylum seekers? In particular, can the Council explain how it is guaranteeing the right to apply for asylum for all asylum seekers, including their access to the territory of the Member States? How is it guaranteeing their access to fair procedures for considering their applications and the right to appeal where asylum seekers are sent back to their country of origin while publication of the judicial decision granting asylum is pending?

Reply

(4 March 2004)

The Council's activities as regards the right to asylum are focused at present on the proposal for a Directive on minimum standards on procedures in Member States for granting and withdrawing refugee status.

The Council will take care to ensure that any future Community regulations in this area respect the rights and guarantees established by the international law instruments concerned, in particular the Geneva Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.

---

(1)  OJ C 291, 26.11.2002, p. 143.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/783 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/783

---

(2004/C 78 E/0834)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3167/03

by Roger Helmer (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(20 October 2003)

Subject:   Working and health care in the accession countries

Would the Commission please tell me whether the UK Government has a reciprocal arrangement in place with the ten accession States so that UK citizens will have the right to work in the new accession States immediately following their membership of the EU, or whether any of the accession States have derogations in place to prevent UK nationals working in their countries?

Would the Commission further tell me whether the new accession States have reciprocal health care agreements in place with the rest of the EU following their accession?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(14 November 2003)

According to the transitional arrangement agreed in the Accession Treaty, all current Member States are allowed to control and regulate the access of workers from the new Member States to their national labour markets under national rules for a maximum of seven years. This transitional arrangement does not apply to Cyprus and Malta. Thus, there will be complete free movement between the present Member States and these two countries and indeed between the other new Member States and Cyprus and Malta. Malta, however, has the right to impose a safeguard measure until 30 April 2011.

The new Member States have the option of applying equivalent restrictions to those Member States, which have restrictions in place against them. Therefore it is only by way of possible application of equivalent restrictions that new Member States can restrict the right of United Kingdom workers to be employed on their territory.

Some Member States have indicated that they intend to fully open their labour markets to workers from all the new Member States. Other present Member States intend to allow more restrictive access, which will differ depending on the new Member State in question.

For more specific information about existing agreements between the United Kingdom and new Member States, the Commission invites the Honourable Member to contact the United Kingdom Government.

Concerning the question whether the new Member States have reciprocal healthcare agreements with the rest of the Union following their accession, the Commission underlines that at Union level health care matters for migrant workers fall within the scope of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the Council of 14 June 1971 (1) on the application of social security schemes to employed persons and their families moving within the Community, which aims at protecting the social security rights of these workers and their family members when moving to another Member State. Upon accession this Regulation will replace all social security conventions concluded between the new Member States and present Member States. An exception from this general rule is only foreseen for those provisions of bilateral conventions, which are listed in Annex III of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 and therefore continue to apply. However, in order to be listed under this Annex these provisions have to fulfil certain criteria, such as being more favourable for the migrant worker or related to a historic context.

Annex II of the Accession Treaty, which contains all entries of the new Member States to the Annexes of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71, does not list any entry under Annex III of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 with regard to a social security convention between one of these countries and the United Kingdom, which should continue to apply.

---

(1)  OJ L 149, 5.7.1971.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/784 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/784

---

(2004/C 78 E/0835)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3168/03

by Michl Ebner (PPE-DE) to the Council

(27 October 2003)

Subject:   Ban on dangerous dog breeds

Unfortunately, my previous questions concerning a ban on dangerous dogs have had no effect. It is true that one or two Member States, Italy and Austria for example, have already taken measures against violent and aggressive dogs by making muzzles compulsory in public places, such as bus stops and parks, and introducing training schools for puppies, but these measures do not go far enough. Recently, we have again been confronted with terrible headlines about pitbulls attacking children and adults. It is not enough that individual Member States or regions tackle the behaviour of some breeds of dog. There must be a European directive banning dangerous dog breeds.

How many more people need to be bitten to death or mutilated in the Council's opinion?

How much longer must we wait before action is finally taken at Community level?

Reply

(4 March 2004)

The Council takes note of the problem raised by the Honourable Member in his question, but would point out that it is not able to respond, since the power of initiative lies with the Commission, which to date has not presented proposals to this effect.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/785 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/785

---

(2004/C 78 E/0836)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3180/03

by Mario Borghezio (NI) to the Commission

(20 October 2003)

Subject:   Protection by the EU of its floriculture sector

European floriculture has for some time witnessed unfair competition from products from countries outside the EU, where production entails the exploitation of child workers.

These products currently circulate freely within the European Union because they are not subject to any restrictions or specific phytosanitary checks.

Does the Commission not feel that control measures should be adopted urgently at all levels owing to the potential threat of these products carrying viruses and diseases?

Will it first ascertain whether or not child labour is being used in floricultural production outside the EU?

What financial measures has the Commission taken to foster and support the cultivation and promotion of European floricultural products?

Does it have any plans to impose import duties on the products in question?

Does it not consider that it would be appropriate to introduce a quality mark (PGI) for the various local products?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(14 January 2004)

The Union has a plant health regime based on 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 (1). This includes a list of organisms of which introduction into the Community is to be banned, and a list of plants and plant products that are to be subject to specific plant health checks when introduced into the Community. Consequently the country of origin and the Member States have to take appropriate measures as laid down in the Directive in order to prevent the introduction into or spread of harmful organisms within the Community.

Following continued interceptions by Member States of organisms harmful to floriculture products on imports, the plant health regime was significantly strengthened by Commission Directives 2002/36/EC of 29 April 2002 (2) and 2002/89/EC of 28 November 2002 (3) in order to ensure more effective protection.

On the question of control measures that might be adopted owing to the potential threat of viruses and diseases carried on imported products, it must be noted that once products have been legally imported into the Union Member States cannot introduce measures that restrict intra-Community trade unless they can show that these are non-discriminatory, proportionate and aimed at protecting the life and health of humans or plant or animal life.

Promotion of core labour standards, including prohibition and elimination of child labour, and of social development is a priority for the Commission as part of the strategy to harness globalisation in support of sustainable development. In trade policy the Commission promotes effective application of core labour standards through positive instruments and an incentive-based approach. Examples of this are the Union's Generalised System of Preferences (GSP), which allows for countries to receive additional preferences if they adhere to core labour standard principles, and the Cotonou Agreement between the Community and the 77 African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) States, which includes a specific provision on trade and labour standards. The Union is firmly opposed to any sanctions-based approach or any protectionism on labour right grounds. Nonetheless, if necessary the GSP can be temporarily withdrawn in respect of certain products if child labour, as defined in the relevant International Labour Organisation (ILO) Conventions, is being used (Article 26 of Council Regulation (EC) No 2501/2001 (4)).

The more general issue of combating the use of child labour also falls within the scope of the enhanced relations between the Commission and the ILO. A renewed exchange of letters was signed by the two institutions on 14 May 2001. This agreement also covers the worldwide promotion of core labour standards. Community support for ILO programmes and activities on combating child labour in developing countries will be included in the ‘Strategic Partnership between the Commission and the International Labour Organisation in the field of development cooperation’, a comprehensive strategy on child labour and education in the ACP States that is about to be launched. At this stage no specific consideration has been given to the floriculture sector. The ILO has developed some sector-specific activities in promotion of core labour standards in agriculture and related sectors including, through codes of conduct and capacity building, initiatives for workers' and employers' organisations on these issues.

To encourage and support the sector the Commission launched three campaigns (1997 to 2000) promoting flowers and live plants on the Union market. The budget for these was EUR 45 million.

Since 2000 the Commission has had an internal market promotion policy for agricultural products, including floriculture, under which programmes can be proposed twice a year by the sector. The relevant provisions are Regulation (EC) No 2826/2000 (5) and Regulation (EC) No 94/2002 (6), the latter amended by Regulation (EC) No 305/2002 (7), which contains the guidelines on floriculture promotion. The Community finances 50 % of the cost of these programmes.

So far seven programmes for the sector have been approved, in Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Italy, the Netherlands and Sweden.

The duty on imports of products of Chapter 6 of the Combined Nomenclature (Live trees and other plants; bulbs, roots and the like, cut flowers and ornamental foliage) ranges from 4 % to 12 %.

Some duty reductions can be granted under bilateral preferential agreements or as tariff concessions (Generalised System of Preferences).

Full particulars of the customs duties on imports into the Union of goods originating outside it can be found on the TARIC website, which is updated daily and can be found at (http://europa.eu.int/comm/ taxation_customs/dds/en/tarhome.htm).

Regulation (EC) No 2796/00 brought flowers and ornamental plants within the scope of Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 (8). Thus it is possible for the names of these products to be registered at Community level (on request by the Member State and provided the product meets the requirements stipulated in the latter Regulation) as either a protected geographical indication (PGI) or protected designation of origin (PDO).

---

(1)  OJ L 169, 10.7.2000; last amended by Commission Directive 2003/116/EC of 4 December 2003, OJ L 321, 6.12.2003.

(2)  OJ L 116, 3.5.2002.

(3)  OJ L 355, 30.12.2002.

(4)  Council Regulation (EC) No 2501/2001 of 10 December 2001 applying a scheme of generalised tariff preferences for the period from 1 January 2002 to 31 December 2004 — Statements on a Council Regulation applying a scheme of generalised tariff preferences for the period from 1 January 2002 to 31 December 2004, OJ L 346, 31.12.2001.

(5)  Council Regulation (EC) No 2826/2000 of 19 December 2000 on information and promotion actions for agricultural products on the internal market, OJ L 328, 21.12.2000.

(6)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 94/2002 laying down detailed rules for applying Council Regulation (EC) No 2826/2000 on information and promotion actions for agricultural products on the internal market, OJ L 17, 19.1.2002.

(7)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 305/2002 of 18 February 2002, OJ L 47, 19.2.2002.

(8)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 14 July 1992 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs, OJ L 208, 24.7.1992.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/787 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/787

---

(2004/C 78 E/0837)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3188/03

by Adeline Hazan (PSE) to the Commission

(27 October 2003)

Subject:   Harmonisation of civil status records in Europe

Having regard to:

| — | the principle of free movement for persons within the European Union, as enshrined in the Treaty of Amsterdam; |
| --- | --- |

—

the principle of free movement for persons within the European Union, as enshrined in the Treaty of Amsterdam;

| — | the lack of a common system for establishing civil status in Europe and the inconvenience suffered by European citizens as a result of problems in updating civil status records on a day-to-day basis; |
| --- | --- |

—

the lack of a common system for establishing civil status in Europe and the inconvenience suffered by European citizens as a result of problems in updating civil status records on a day-to-day basis;

| — | the legal restrictions imposed by the existence of the International Commission on Civil Status, based on the principle of an international agreement which only eight current EU Member States (Belgium, France, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Germany, Austria, Italy and Portugal) have thus far signed; |
| --- | --- |

—

the legal restrictions imposed by the existence of the International Commission on Civil Status, based on the principle of an international agreement which only eight current EU Member States (Belgium, France, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Germany, Austria, Italy and Portugal) have thus far signed;

| — | the importance of that committee's work on the issuing of certain civil status documents intended for the authorities in other countries, in particular as regards the establishment of computerised civil status records guaranteeing the protection of personal data and sufficiently reliable registration methods; |
| --- | --- |

—

the importance of that committee's work on the issuing of certain civil status documents intended for the authorities in other countries, in particular as regards the establishment of computerised civil status records guaranteeing the protection of personal data and sufficiently reliable registration methods;

| — | the cases where the non-inclusion of certain particulars on certificates (marriage, divorce, death) issued abroad may give rise to discrimination between European citizens; |
| --- | --- |

—

the cases where the non-inclusion of certain particulars on certificates (marriage, divorce, death) issued abroad may give rise to discrimination between European citizens;

| 1. | How can provision be made for exchanges of similar records, such as those concerning marriage, divorce or even death, as regards certificates issued abroad, between the civil status authorities of the Member States? |
| --- | --- |

1.

How can provision be made for exchanges of similar records, such as those concerning marriage, divorce or even death, as regards certificates issued abroad, between the civil status authorities of the Member States?

| 2. | What is the state of European law in this area? |
| --- | --- |

2.

What is the state of European law in this area?

| 3. | Which procedures could be harmonised at European level with a view to ensuring compatibility between civil status systems, in the interests of European citizens? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Which procedures could be harmonised at European level with a view to ensuring compatibility between civil status systems, in the interests of European citizens?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(12 December 2003)

As at 1 December 2003, no Community legislation governed the establishment of civil status records in the Member States.

The work undertaken by the International Commission on Civil Status has produced effective solutions but, as pointed out by the Honourable Member, they apply to only a small number of Member States.

The mutual recognition programme that was adopted at the end of 2000 and drew up, on the basis of the conclusions of the Tampere European Council, the list of tasks to be undertaken by the Community in the field of judicial cooperation in civil matters makes no provision for action in this area.

However, several petitions from European citizens relating to the difficulties encountered as a result of the disparity between the rules governing the establishment and updating of civil status records in the various Member States have been sent to the Commission.

As a result, the Commission could recommend that the matter be entered in a future work programme.

Since no study on the matter has been undertaken to date by the Commission, the nature of the current difficulties cannot be identified nor can solutions to remedy the situation be sketched out.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/788 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/788

---

(2004/C 78 E/0838)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3195/03

by Ursula Stenzel (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(30 October 2003)

Subject:   Recognition of the profession of (clinical) optometrist

Does the fact that that the profession of (clinical) optometrist, which is already well established in EU territory, particularly in the United Kingdom, Ireland and the Netherlands, does not exist in Austria and that EU citizens who have gained licences to practise their profession of (clinical) optometry in other EU Member States are barred from doing so in Austria represent a violation of European law, particularly with regard to freedom of establishment and the freedom to provide services?

Under European law, should Member States where the profession of (clinical) optometrist is not regulated by law not recognise this profession, enabling EU citizens to practise their profession under the same conditions in any EU Member State?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(1 December 2003)

Under the settled case law of the Court of Justice, in the absence of harmonisation of a particular professional activity Member States are in principle entitled to regulate the exercise of that activity, provided they respect the basic freedoms guaranteed by the EC Treaty (Judgment of 11 July 2002, Case C-294/00, Deutsche Paracelsus Schulen für Naturheilverfahren GmbH v. Kurt Gräbner).

According to the information available to the Commission, there is no exact Austrian equivalent of the profession of clinical optometrist as it exists in other Member States. In Austria this activity appears to be reserved for doctors.

In its Bouchoucha and Mac Quen judgments (Judgments of 3 October 1990, Case C-61/89, and 1 February 2001, Case C-l08/96), the Court of Justice stated that a Member State was not in breach of Article 43 of the EC Treaty if it introduced such a restriction on grounds of the general interest in the protection of public health.

In this connection, it should also be pointed out that according to Article 46(1) of the EC Treaty the protection of public health is one of the grounds which can justify restrictions on the freedom of establishment. Under Article 55 of the Treaty, the provisions of Article 46(1) also apply to the freedom to provide services.

The Commission is not in possession of any further information which would establish an infringement of Community law.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/788 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/788

---

(2004/C 78 E/0839)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3196/03

by Stavros Xarchakos (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(30 October 2003)

Subject:   Problems with construction activity, the protection of forests and building cooperatives in Greece

Over recent years in particular the situation in Greece regarding construction activity, the protection of forests and building cooperatives has become quite chaotic. The recent suicide (12 October 2003) of a public official in Athens focused public attention on the situation regarding the issuing of planning permission in a country where hundreds of thousands of unauthorised buildings have already been put up (according to statements by Mrs Vasso Papandreos the Minister responsible) and concerning the political pressure being brought to bear on Greek public servants.

In Greece there are a large number of building cooperatives with thousands of members who have for decades been paying annual (and additional) contributions (for example, the ‘I YGEIA SYN.PE’ medical cooperative in Saronida in Attica, founded in 1965 with 3090 members), without securing entitlement to building plots, despite the fact that many of these cooperatives are clearly situated outside forest areas. Members therefore are justifiably sceptical, while the Greek Government, which has ‘quite by chance’ suddenly remembered the existence of building cooperatives in the run-up to the Greek general elections, is also expressing concern regarding the political nature of this deadlock.

Furthermore, serious problems are arising in Greece regarding the new forestry bill and the quality of the thousands of unauthorised buildings which were put up rapidly and without planning permission or technical inspections to ensure that they are sufficiently stable. The owners of these unauthorised buildings have for years been misled by the Government, which keeps postponing action to resolve their pressing problems. At the same time the question of social justice arises for thousands of Greek citizens who feel they have been treated unfairly, having paid large sums for planning permission while others have put up houses without obtaining and paying for such permission.

In what other Member State of the European Union does unauthorised building take place on the same scale as in Greece? What information has the Commission received from the Greek authorities regarding the standard of workmanship of unauthorised buildings in Greece, where 52 % of EU seismic activity is concentrated? What precise definition of forest and forest land are being used for the purposes of Community legislation? Is there a case to be made regarding the members of building cooperatives who have been paying contributions for decades without obtaining building plots?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(4 December 2003)

The Commission would like to inform the Honourable Member that it 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. Furthermore, the Commission has never received information from the Greek authorities about the standards of workmanship of unauthorised buildings in Greece.

With regard to the definition of forest and forest land, the Commission would like to indicate that the Union Forestry Strategy does not include a definition of forest and forest land. National definitions of forests and forest land apply for Community legislation and financial instruments. The Regulation on ‘Forest Focus’, that has recently been approved, includes a definition of ‘forest’ and ‘other wooded land’, applicable to the actions that the Regulation will support.

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.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/789 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/789

---

(2004/C 78 E/0840)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3203/03

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(30 October 2003)

Subject:   Treatment of hospital waste in Attica

According to the ESDKNA (Association of Municipalities and Rural Communities of the Prefecture of Attica) most hospitals and private clinics in Attica do not send their hospital waste for incineration to the plant which is specifically intended for this purpose but prefer to use their own incinerating plant which fails to meet the necessary specifications (temperatures of 100° only compared with 1 600° in the ESDKNA plant), while in many cases such waste is simply buried along with domestic waste at designated sites. According to newspaper reports, of the 25 tonnes of hospital waste produced each day in Attica, only three tonnes is sent to the association's specialist incineration plant.

What provisions of Community legislation apply here? What is the situation in other Member States?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(27 November 2003)

The following Community legislation is the most relevant that applies to the management of animal and human health care waste:

| — | Council Directive 75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975 on waste (1); |
| --- | --- |

—

Council Directive 75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975 on waste (1);

| — | Council Directive 91/689/EEC of 12 December 1991 on hazardous waste (2); |
| --- | --- |

—

Council Directive 91/689/EEC of 12 December 1991 on hazardous waste (2);

| — | Council Regulation (EEC) No 259/93 of 1 February 1993 on the supervision and control of shipments of waste within, into and out of the European Community (3); |
| --- | --- |

—

Council Regulation (EEC) No 259/93 of 1 February 1993 on the supervision and control of shipments of waste within, into and out of the European Community (3);

| — | Parliament and Council Directive 94/62/EC of 20 December 1994 on packaging and packaging waste (4); |
| --- | --- |

—

Parliament and Council Directive 94/62/EC of 20 December 1994 on packaging and packaging waste (4);

| — | Council Directive 1999/31/EC of 26 April 1999 on the landfill of waste (5); |
| --- | --- |

—

Council Directive 1999/31/EC of 26 April 1999 on the landfill of waste (5);

| — | Directive 2000/76/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 4 December 2000 on the incineration of waste (6); |
| --- | --- |

—

Directive 2000/76/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 4 December 2000 on the incineration of waste (6);

| — | Commission Decision of 16 January 2001 (7) amending Commission Decision 2000/532/EC of 3 May 2000 (8) as regards the list of wastes; |
| --- | --- |

—

Commission Decision of 16 January 2001 (7) amending Commission Decision 2000/532/EC of 3 May 2000 (8) as regards the list of wastes;

| — | Council Decision 2003/33/EC of 19 December 2002 establishing criteria and procedures for the acceptance of waste at landfills pursuant to Article 16 of and Annex II to Directive 1999/31/EC (9). |
| --- | --- |

—

Council Decision 2003/33/EC of 19 December 2002 establishing criteria and procedures for the acceptance of waste at landfills pursuant to Article 16 of and Annex II to Directive 1999/31/EC (9).

The implementation of the Directives on waste, on hazardous waste and on packaging and packaging waste is described in the report from the Commission to the Council and the Parliament on the Implementation of Community Legislation (10). The report does not provide details on the amount of human health care waste recovered or disposed.

Regulation (EC) No 2150/2002 of the Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2002 on waste statistics (11) will, amongst other things, provide Community statistics on the production and management of health care wastes on a regular basis. The Commission will submit the first report to the Parliament and the Council on the statistics compiled pursuant to this Regulation by the end of 2007.

---

(1)  OJ L 194, 25.7.1975.

(2)  OJ L 377, 31.12.1991.

(3)  OJ L 30, 6.2.1993.

(4)  OJ L 365, 31.12.1994.

(5)  OJ L 182, 16.7.1999.

(6)  OJ L 332, 28.12.2000.

(7)  OJ L 47, 16.2.2001.

(8)  OJ L 226, 6.9.2000.

(9)  OJ L 11, 16.1.2003.

(10)  COM(2003)250 final, http://europa.eu.int/eur4ex/en/com/rpt/2003/com2003_0250en03.pdf

(11)  OJ L 332, 9.12.2002.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/790 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/790

---

(2004/C 78 E/0841)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3213/03

by Stavros Xarchakos (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(30 October 2003)

Subject:   Take-up of Community funding in the cultural sector in Greece

Can the Commission indicate the precise take-up of Community funding allocated under the second and third Community support framework (CSF) in the cultural sector in Greece? What are the principal cultural initiatives which have received such funding in Greece and what exact amounts have been allocated to each under the third CSF?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(8 December 2003)

Interventions in Greece under the Structural Funds in the cultural sector under the second and third Community Support Frameworks (CSF) aim to protect and develop the cultural heritage, develop modern culture and achieve a balanced development in the regional supply of, and demand for, cultural goods and services.

In terms of allocations to the cultural sector, the position is as follows:

| — | under the second CSF: EUR 208 million; |
| --- | --- |

—

under the second CSF: EUR 208 million;

| — | under the third CSF: EUR 960 million. |
| --- | --- |

—

under the third CSF: EUR 960 million.

The projects concerned relate to improving the buildings and technological infrastructure in existing museums, protecting and developing monuments and archaeological sites and reinforcing modern culture infrastructure and institutional structures.

Under the third CSF, interventions in this field are supported under the ‘Culture’ Operational Programme and the ‘Information Society’ Operational Programme. Additional actions can also be supported within the various regional operational programmes.

The Operational Programme for Culture has an allocation of EUR 604 million. It includes allocations for museums (EUR 192 million), archaeological sites (EUR 165 million), cultural centres (EUR 117 million) and the Athens and Thessalonica concert halls (EUR 114 million) and technical assistance (EUR 16 million).

The Operational Programme for the Information Society includes cultural actions with an allocation of EUR 129 million.

Under the regional operational programmes cultural interventions are allocated some EUR 227 million.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/791 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/791

---

(2004/C 78 E/0842)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3217/03

by Antonios Trakatellis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(31 October 2003)

Subject:   Monitoring of atmospheric pollution in Greece

Recently-published studies show that, even if atmospheric pollution levels are limited or relatively low, they have immediate effects on the health of urban dwellers and there have been warnings that Greece, and in particular the Athens area, may fail to meet the requirements of the World Health Organisation unless suitable measures are taken regarding environmental pollution.

In view of the fact that European Union limits regarding dangerous pollutants are being exceeded in Greece:

| 1. | What are the levels of concentration of volatile organic compounds, carcinogenic microparticles, benzene and ozone in the Attica region? |
| --- | --- |

1.

What are the levels of concentration of volatile organic compounds, carcinogenic microparticles, benzene and ozone in the Attica region?

| 2. | What measures have been taken by the Greek Government, in particular during summer when temperatures are particularly high, to combat atmospheric pollution? |
| --- | --- |

2.

What measures have been taken by the Greek Government, in particular during summer when temperatures are particularly high, to combat atmospheric pollution?

| 3. | To what extent did these measures correspond to European Union action in this area? |
| --- | --- |

3.

To what extent did these measures correspond to European Union action in this area?

| 4. | Has Greece taken action to transpose Directive 96/61/EC (1) into national law following the ruling by the European Court of Justice in case C-64/01; |
| --- | --- |

4.

Has Greece taken action to transpose Directive 96/61/EC (1) into national law following the ruling by the European Court of Justice in case C-64/01;

| 5. | Has Directive 2000/69/EC (2) relating to limit values for benzene and carbon monoxide in ambient air been incorporated into Greek legislation? |
| --- | --- |

5.

Has Directive 2000/69/EC (2) relating to limit values for benzene and carbon monoxide in ambient air been incorporated into Greek legislation?

| 6. | Has the Commission been notified of the transposition by Greece of Directive 1999/30/EC (3) relating to limit values for sulphur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide and oxides of nitrogen, particulate matter and lead in ambient air and has it forwarded the relevant questionnaire to the Greek authorities? |
| --- | --- |

6.

Has the Commission been notified of the transposition by Greece of Directive 1999/30/EC (3) relating to limit values for sulphur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide and oxides of nitrogen, particulate matter and lead in ambient air and has it forwarded the relevant questionnaire to the Greek authorities?

| 7. | Has Greece incorporated into its national legislation Directive 2001/81/EC (4) on national emission ceilings for certain atmospheric pollutants? |
| --- | --- |

7.

Has Greece incorporated into its national legislation Directive 2001/81/EC (4) on national emission ceilings for certain atmospheric pollutants?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(17 December 2003)

| 1. to 3. | Based on reports officially submitted to the Commission under the provisions of current Community legislation, annual concentrations of PM10 (i.e. particles with a diameter less than ten micrometre (μm)) in the Attica region are in the range of 50-70 microgramme per cubic meter μg/m3) thus clearly exceeding the limit value (plus margin of tolerance) of 46 μg/m3 for the year 2003. The daily limit value to be met in 2005 is 50 μg/m3, not to be exceeded more than 35 times a calendar year. In 2002 this concentration level was reported to be exceeded at stations in the Attica region in a range of 64 and 116 days.
  During the reporting period April-August 2002, the population information threshold for ozone of 180 μg/m3 (1 hour average) was exceeded on average on 17 days but at two stations on more than 30 days. The one hour maximum concentrations by far exceeded 200 μg/m3, with an absolute maximum of 316 μg/m3. Based on this year's report on ‘Air pollution by ozone in Europe’ roughly 17 % of the Greek stations which showed an exceedance of the information threshold also showed an exceedance of the alert threshold of 240 μg/m3. This alert threshold is laid down in the ‘new’ Directive 2002/3/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 12 February 2002 relating to ozone in ambient air (5) that came into force on 9 September 2003.
  Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) are not regulated under the existing ambient air quality legislation. The assessment of ambient air quality concerning benzene is to be reported to the Commission based on Council Directive 2000/69/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 16 November 2000 relating to limit values for benzene and carbon monoxide in ambient air, by the end of September 2004 for the first time. No information on VOCs and benzene in ambient air has been reported by Greece under Council Decision 97/101/EC of 27 January 1997, establishing a reciprocal exchange of information and data from networks and individual stations measuring ambient air pollution within the Member States (6).
  Current Community legislation on air quality (Air Quality Framework Directive (1996/62/EC (7)) and accompanying Daughter Directives (1999/30/EC (8), 2000/69/EC (9), 2002/3/EC)) sets out limit values for specific pollutants to be reached by certain attainment dates (e.g. 2005 for PM10). In the case of exceedance of a limit value plus a defined margin of tolerance (which decreases yearly reaching zero at the attainment date), Member States are obliged to submit plans and programmes to demonstrate how the limit value can be reached. These are due for the first time by the end of 2003. In particular concerning PM10, the Commission expects to receive these plans and programmes, since Greece did not provide so far the necessary justification to demonstrate that exceedances of PM10 are due to natural events.
  To combat ground-level ozone formation, along with acidification and soil eutrophication, national emission ceilings for VOC, sulphur dioxid (S02), potassium cobaltnitrite (N02) and ammonium reineckate (NH3) are to be met by 2010 under Directive 2001/81/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2001 on national emission ceilings for certain atmospheric pollutants. So far the Commission did not receive information on transposition of this Directive, which was due by 27 November 2002. The Directive requires Member States to draw up national programmes to show how they are going to meet their ceilings. So far, Greece did not inform the Commission of such a programme, which was due by 31 December 2002. |
| --- | --- |

1. to 3.

Based on reports officially submitted to the Commission under the provisions of current Community legislation, annual concentrations of PM10 (i.e. particles with a diameter less than ten micrometre (μm)) in the Attica region are in the range of 50-70 microgramme per cubic meter μg/m3) thus clearly exceeding the limit value (plus margin of tolerance) of 46 μg/m3 for the year 2003. The daily limit value to be met in 2005 is 50 μg/m3, not to be exceeded more than 35 times a calendar year. In 2002 this concentration level was reported to be exceeded at stations in the Attica region in a range of 64 and 116 days.

During the reporting period April-August 2002, the population information threshold for ozone of 180 μg/m3 (1 hour average) was exceeded on average on 17 days but at two stations on more than 30 days. The one hour maximum concentrations by far exceeded 200 μg/m3, with an absolute maximum of 316 μg/m3. Based on this year's report on ‘Air pollution by ozone in Europe’ roughly 17 % of the Greek stations which showed an exceedance of the information threshold also showed an exceedance of the alert threshold of 240 μg/m3. This alert threshold is laid down in the ‘new’ Directive 2002/3/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 12 February 2002 relating to ozone in ambient air (5) that came into force on 9 September 2003.

Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) are not regulated under the existing ambient air quality legislation. The assessment of ambient air quality concerning benzene is to be reported to the Commission based on Council Directive 2000/69/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 16 November 2000 relating to limit values for benzene and carbon monoxide in ambient air, by the end of September 2004 for the first time. No information on VOCs and benzene in ambient air has been reported by Greece under Council Decision 97/101/EC of 27 January 1997, establishing a reciprocal exchange of information and data from networks and individual stations measuring ambient air pollution within the Member States (6).

Current Community legislation on air quality (Air Quality Framework Directive (1996/62/EC (7)) and accompanying Daughter Directives (1999/30/EC (8), 2000/69/EC (9), 2002/3/EC)) sets out limit values for specific pollutants to be reached by certain attainment dates (e.g. 2005 for PM10). In the case of exceedance of a limit value plus a defined margin of tolerance (which decreases yearly reaching zero at the attainment date), Member States are obliged to submit plans and programmes to demonstrate how the limit value can be reached. These are due for the first time by the end of 2003. In particular concerning PM10, the Commission expects to receive these plans and programmes, since Greece did not provide so far the necessary justification to demonstrate that exceedances of PM10 are due to natural events.

To combat ground-level ozone formation, along with acidification and soil eutrophication, national emission ceilings for VOC, sulphur dioxid (S02), potassium cobaltnitrite (N02) and ammonium reineckate (NH3) are to be met by 2010 under Directive 2001/81/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2001 on national emission ceilings for certain atmospheric pollutants. So far the Commission did not receive information on transposition of this Directive, which was due by 27 November 2002. The Directive requires Member States to draw up national programmes to show how they are going to meet their ceilings. So far, Greece did not inform the Commission of such a programme, which was due by 31 December 2002.

| 4. | In its judgment of 7 March 2002, the Court of Justice stated that by failing to take the legislative, regulatory and administrative measures required to comply with Council Directive 9 6/61/EC of 24 September 1996 concerning integrated pollution prevention and control, Greece had failed to fulfil its obligations under that Directive. Following the judgment, the Greek authorities successively adopted and notified to the Commission Law 3010/2002, joint ministerial decision 15393/2332/2002 and joint ministerial decision 11014/703/9104/2003. Considering that Greece had complied with the obligation to transpose Directive 96/61/EC and with the requirements of the Court's judgment, the Commission closed the file on the matter. |
| --- | --- |

4.

In its judgment of 7 March 2002, the Court of Justice stated that by failing to take the legislative, regulatory and administrative measures required to comply with Council Directive 9 6/61/EC of 24 September 1996 concerning integrated pollution prevention and control, Greece had failed to fulfil its obligations under that Directive. Following the judgment, the Greek authorities successively adopted and notified to the Commission Law 3010/2002, joint ministerial decision 15393/2332/2002 and joint ministerial decision 11014/703/9104/2003. Considering that Greece had complied with the obligation to transpose Directive 96/61/EC and with the requirements of the Court's judgment, the Commission closed the file on the matter.

| 5. | Directive 2000/69/EC has not been transposed into Greek law. The Commission has initiated infringement proceedings under Article 226 of the EC Treaty and a reasoned opinion has been addressed to Greece. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Directive 2000/69/EC has not been transposed into Greek law. The Commission has initiated infringement proceedings under Article 226 of the EC Treaty and a reasoned opinion has been addressed to Greece.

| 6. | Directive 1999/30/EC was transposed into Greek law by Council Act 34/2002. This Act was notified to the Commission. |
| --- | --- |

6.

Directive 1999/30/EC was transposed into Greek law by Council Act 34/2002. This Act was notified to the Commission.

| 7. | Directive 2001/81/EC has not been transposed into Greek law. The Commission has initiated infringement proceedings under Article 226 of the EC Treaty and a reasoned opinion has been addressed to Greece. |
| --- | --- |

7.

Directive 2001/81/EC has not been transposed into Greek law. The Commission has initiated infringement proceedings under Article 226 of the EC Treaty and a reasoned opinion has been addressed to Greece.

---

(1)  OJ L 257, 10.10.1996, p. 26.

(2)  OJ L 313, 13.12.2000, p. 12.

(3)  OJ L 163, 29.6.1999, p. 41.

(4)  OJ L 309, 27.11.2001, p. 22.

(5)  OJ L 67, 9.3.2002.

(6)  OJ L 35, 5.2.1997.

(7)  Council Directive 96/62/EC of 27 September 1996 on ambient air quality assessment and management, OJ L 296, 21.11.1996.

(8)  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, OJ L 163, 29.6.1999.

(9)  Directive 2000/69/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 16 November 2000 relating to limit values for benzene and carbon monoxide in ambient air, OJ L 313, 13.12.2000.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/793 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/793

---

(2004/C 78 E/0843)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3224/03

by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission

(31 October 2003)

Subject:   EC Commission proposal to replace Council Regulation (EEC) No 3820/85 on Drivers' Hours

I have received several letters from charities and voluntary organisations concerned that the above new replacement regulation will not include the current exemption for ‘vehicles used as shops at local markets or for door-to-door selling or used for mobile banking, exchange or saving transactions, for worship, for the lending of books, records or cassettes, for cultural events or exhibitions and specially fitted for such uses’. They are concerned that their vehicles will not be able to comply with the financial and administrative implications of the new regulation, and will have to be withdrawn from service.

While I appreciate the importance of the new regulation, would the Commission consider reinstating the current exemption in order that voluntary organisations could continue to provide a service to the community?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(8 December 2003)

The Commission's proposal (1) seeks, amongst other things, to restrict the considerable number of exemptions, derogations, and special arrangements in the current Regulation (2) to those which are strictly necessary, thereby limiting any possible abuse. In drawing up its original proposal, the Commission was advised that this particular derogation was outdated and could be removed.

The Commission has received many similar letters from the United Kingdom concerning the need to retain this derogation for specialised Play-bus vehicles. Consultations with the United Kingdom Department of Transport have confirmed that this derogation, which the Commission proposal currently wishes to delete, is used by the United Kingdom authorities to exempt this particular charitable activity. It is noted that there are no other derogations which could cover this particular activity and so the Commission is open to taking a more flexible approach on this specific derogation in any future discussions on the proposal.

---

(1)  OJ C 51 E, 26.2.2002.

(2)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 3820/85 of 20 December 1985 on the harmonisation of certain social legislation relating to road transport, OJ L 370, 31.12.1985.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/794 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/794

---

(2004/C 78 E/0844)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3229/03

by Raffaele Costa (PPE-DE) and Jas Gawronski (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(31 October 2003)

Subject:   Funding for the Turin-Lyon rail link

It would appear that the EU intends not to include the rail link between Turin and Lyon in the 15 projects awarded priority funding, selected from the list of 29 projects previously identified by the European Plan for Growth, which included this railway link.

How can this be possible, given that this action is a strategic project for European integration, and that it has already reached a more advanced stage of planning than a number of the projects that have been selected? It should also to be taken into account that the project meets the five criteria laid down by President Prodi on 17 October 2003 (concerning projects that, Prodi requested, could produce results in the short term, that is, within three years).

These criteria are:

| 1. | readiness, |
| --- | --- |

1.

readiness,

| 2. | cross-border status serving the single market, |
| --- | --- |

2.

cross-border status serving the single market,

| 3. | ability to produce impact in the context of enlargement, |
| --- | --- |

3.

ability to produce impact in the context of enlargement,

| 4. | ecological sustainability, |
| --- | --- |

4.

ecological sustainability,

| 5. | technological innovation potential. |
| --- | --- |

5.

technological innovation potential.

The Turin-Lyon project fulfils all five of these criteria.

The President of the EIB recently indicated that the bank would fund projects that were ready to start, that would have a positive economic impact, be profitable (so as to attract private capital) and be capable of satisfying the demands of the countries affected by them, and it would seem that this project fulfils all these criteria. Given that, above all, studies by leading financial institutions (Crédit Agricole, San Paolo, Caisse des Dépôts and Dexia) have indicated that the project can be financed, with 30-35 % private capital, that is, the maximum level allowed for infrastructure projects of this kind, and that postponing funding by a further three years would be a waste of precious time, can the Commission provide information on the matter?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(3 December 2003)

Project number 6 ‘Lyon-Milan-Venice-Trieste’ has been one of the priorities of the trans-European transport network since the Essen European Council in 1994. The project's added value and its importance for the development of the trans-European transport network were clearly expressed in the Van Miert report published at the end of 2003, and the Commission has reiterated the importance it attaches to the project by including it among the declared projects of European interest and by extending the link in its proposal for a review of the trans-European transport network guidelines (TEN-T) to form the route ‘Lyon-Triest/Koper-Ljubljana-Budapest’.

This is also why the Commission included the cross-border section of the project (the Mont Cenis base tunnel) in the ‘Quick start programme’ of the European Growth Initiative which was adopted on 11 November 2003 at the request of the European Council. This section meets the necessary prerequisites, given the advanced progress made on the particularly difficult geological studies for the construction of this tunnel, its effect on the internal market and its environmental benefits. It is by far the most complex section to be constructed on this strategic route for the trans-European networks. Work on the technical, economic and financial studies and the test galleries is already in progress and is receiving considerable financial support from the Community. EUR 100 million (out of a total estimated cost of EUR 371 million) has already been programmed for the period 2001-2006, and most of this funding has already been paid. It is also possible that, under the TEN budget, the sums allocated to this project may be re-evaluated, within the limits of available Community resources, in the framework of the review of the indicative multiannual programme (IMP), and in line with the Growth Initiative.

With regard to the possibility of private sector participation in this project, the Commission is closely following the studies being carried out by the project promoter which are aimed at establishing a funding plan, including through a public-private partnership (the form of which has not yet been agreed). However, it is still too early to give a final answer regarding the importance of private sector participation, which, in many ways, will depend on choices made regarding the implementation of the project and the operation of the infrastructure, which are still at the discussion stage. Private sector participation will also depend on the adoption of a Commission proposal to amend Directive No 99/62 (1) (Eurovignette Directive), with the aim, among other things, of allowing heavy goods vehicle charges to be increased in sensitive areas to contribute to the funding of the construction of alternative infrastructures of European interest.

---

(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 infrastructures, OJ L 187, 20.7.1999.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/795 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/795

---

(2004/C 78 E/0845)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3238/03

by Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(3 November 2003)

Subject:   New arrangements regarding maritime cabotage in Greece

According to the Greek press, with a view to the new maritime cabotage arrangements which enter into force on 1 January 2004 in Greece, the Commission and the Greek Ministry for the Merchant Maritime have decided to set up a joint committee to examine issues relating to the institutional framework in Greece and the transition to the new provisions of Council Regulation (EEC) No 3577/92 (1) for ending preferential arrangements in the coastal navigation sector. The Association of Coastal Shipowners wishes to form part of the committee with a view to supporting full liberalisation in this sector. The press reports go on to say that the issues under discussion include contracts for crew members of Greek coastal vessels, the knowledge of Greek required of Community seamen wishing to work in Greece and age limits for passenger and car ferries applicable in Greece.

| 1. | In the Commission's opinion, in which areas will these arrangements be incompatible with Community law, specifically Regulation (EEC) No 3577/92 regarding preferential arrangements in the coastal navigation sector? |
| --- | --- |

1.

In the Commission's opinion, in which areas will these arrangements be incompatible with Community law, specifically Regulation (EEC) No 3577/92 regarding preferential arrangements in the coastal navigation sector?

| 2. | What measures must be taken by the Greek authorities by 1 January 2004 to avoid problems regarding the implementation of Community law? |
| --- | --- |

2.

What measures must be taken by the Greek authorities by 1 January 2004 to avoid problems regarding the implementation of Community law?

Answer given by Ms de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(8 December 2003)

The Commission has been telling the Greek authorities for a long time that the law in force needs to be amended in order to be compatible with Regulation (EEC) No 3577/92 (2), notably regarding the scope of public service, the rules on manning and the age requirement for vessels. The Regulation will be fully applicable from 1 January 2004.

The Commission never planned to set up a joint committee with the Greek authorities. It will take all the necessary measures, including infringement proceedings if necessary, to ensure that the Regulation is observed.

---

(1)  OJ L 364, 12.12.1992, p. 7.

(2)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 3577/92 of 7 December 1992 applying the principle of freedom to provide services to maritime transport within Member States, OJ L 364, 12.12.1992.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/796 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/796

---

(2004/C 78 E/0846)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3254/03

by José Ribeiro e Castro (UEN) to the Commission

(3 November 2003)

Subject:   List of priority projects — European Commission

According to media reports, the Commission submitted to the European Council meeting in Brussels a list of 13 projects considered to be a priority for the European Union and forming part of a wider set of 29 projects entailing a total investment of EUR 220 billion. According to the same source, these will have a 0,6 % impact on the growth of the EU's gross domestic product and will enable 400 000 jobs to be created each year.

The list does not include high-speed rail (TGV) links for the Iberian peninsula. This would have merited criticism from the states concerned which, as peripheral countries, fear that they will benefit only indirectly from the planned investments.

Given the above, will the Commission answer the following:

| — | can it confirm that it submitted this list of priorities to the European Council; |
| --- | --- |

—

can it confirm that it submitted this list of priorities to the European Council;

| — | can it confirm that the list does not include TGV links for the Iberian peninsula; |
| --- | --- |

—

can it confirm that the list does not include TGV links for the Iberian peninsula;

| — | how can it justify this decision, particularly in terms of the principles of economic and social cohesion, equal treatment and the completion of the internal market; |
| --- | --- |

—

how can it justify this decision, particularly in terms of the principles of economic and social cohesion, equal treatment and the completion of the internal market;

| — | what measures has it taken or does it intend to take to ensure that geographically remote Member States do not benefit in a merely indirect manner from the planned investments; |
| --- | --- |

—

what measures has it taken or does it intend to take to ensure that geographically remote Member States do not benefit in a merely indirect manner from the planned investments;

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(8 December 2003)

The Commission presented its supplementary proposal for revision of the Community guidelines for the development of the trans-European transport network (1) on 1 October 2003. The proposal includes new priority projects which have been added to the 14 adopted on the Essen list in 1994 and the projects proposed by the Commission in 2001 which have been endorsed by Parliament. The projects were selected on the basis of strict criteria which were included in the text of the proposal. The list of projects which the Commission regards as priorities consists in all of 26 projects which are due to be completed by 2020, representing an investment of EUR 220 billion.

Proposals for the Iberian high-speed rail links are included among the priority projects. The Lisbon/Porto-Madrid high-speed line is proposed as an extension to priority project 3 (south-west European high-speed rail link), which since 1994 has included the Madrid-Barcelona-Montpellier and Madrid-Vitoria-Dax links. This project has also been extended northwards in the form of the Montpellier-Nîmes and Dax-Bordeaux-Tours sections. Furthermore, the entire Iberian peninsula high-speed rail network (project 19), including the Vigo-Porto link, has been proposed as a priority project since 2001.

The projects regarded as priorities also include the Sines-Madrid-Paris rail freight link (project 16), which includes the Sines-Badajoz railway line and the Pyrenees rail crossing. All of these rail projects help to interconnect Portugal and Spain and to link them to the rest of the trans-European network.

The Iberian peninsula will also be able to benefit from the potential of the ‘motorways of the sea’, which are also included as a priority project (project 21) in the Commission's proposal of 1 October 2003.

In addition, in the framework of the European growth initiative launched by Mr Prodi, the European Council of 16 and 17 October 2003 invited ‘the Commission, the European Investment Bank (EIB) and the relevant formations of the Council to establish, without prejudice to the priorities identified in the Commission proposal, a “quick-start programme” identifying a list of projects in an enlarged Union’. The ‘quick-start programme’, adopted by the Commission on 11 November 2003 (2), does not call into question the priorities which the Commission has already defined, which must be adopted by Parliament and the Council by co-decision procedure, but is rather an initiative to give a quicker start to a number of advanced cross-border links to act as a fulcrum for all of these projects, all of which retain priority status. The projects included in this programme include the Lisbon-Madrid, Vigo-Porto and Perpignan-Figueras high-speed train links and the motorways of the sea. The Commission will present its proposal for the ‘quick-start programme’ in its report to the European Council in December 2003 on the European growth initiative.

---

(1)  COM(2003) 564 final.

(2)  COM(2003) 690 final.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/797 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/797

---

(2004/C 78 E/0847)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3266/03

by Torben Lund (PSE) to the Commission

(4 November 2003)

Subject:   Impact of genetically modified crops on nature

Week 42 saw articles published e.g. in The Financial Times and on the BBC's website about the sensational findings of an investigation into how far genetically modified crops impact on nature. The investigation was based on trials in England and documents that fields with GM crops in many cases destroy natural conditions to an even greater extent than conventional farming. It showed, for example, that there were fewer birds, butterflies and bees in the vicinity of fields containing GM crops when compared with fields containing conventional crops.

This being so, will the Commission explain how these frightening findings affect EU policy with particular reference to authorisation of GM products? Does it intend, in the light of these findings, to carry out new studies into GM production and its adverse impact on nature and does it believe that the rules for co-existence between GM crops and non-GM crops ought to be reviewed in the light of these findings? Lastly, will it indicate how GM producers are to be made financially liable for the negative changes they are imposing on nature?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(16 January 2004)

On 16 October 2003, eight reports on extensive crop trials carried out in the United Kingdom over the last three years, known as the Farm Scale Evaluations (hereafter FSE) research, were published. This work investigated the impact of the cultivation of three genetically modified (GM) Herbicide Tolerant Crops (hereafter HTC) (maize, spring-sown oilseed rape and beet) on the abundance and diversity of some key components of farmland wildlife in comparison with their conventional non-herbicide tolerant equivalents. During three years treatments have been made to several fields, one half having been sown with conventional seeds and the other half with GM seeds of the same crop. Both field halves have been managed by farmers as they would do under commercial agricultural practices.

As a main result, the FSE indicate that the effects from using HTC on the field biodiversity varied between crops. HT-maize was more positive to the field biodiversity than a conventional crop while HT-oilseed rape and HT-beet were more negative than conventional crops.

The United Kingdom trials were classified as experimental treatment releases. Such releases are now regulated under Part Β of Directive 2001/18^ (1) (previously Part Β of Directive 90/220/EEC (2), which was replaced by Directive 2001/18/EC on 17 October 2002). The authorisation of these releases involves a ‘decentralised’ procedure. This requires that the Member State in which the release is to take place has to conduct an environmental risk assessment prior to approval of the release. This Member State has sole responsibility for such releases, including appropriate management and inspection/control measures. Results of experimental releases of GMOs should be included in notifications for the placing on the market of the same GMOs.

Taking the above into account it is, therefore, important to consider the ACRE (the British Government's statutory advisory body on the release of GMOs) opinion of the implications of the results for any existing or pending or future releases of GM crops.

It should also be kept in mind that the FSE results are only applicable to the three crops studied and under the herbicides regimes applied. Potential extrapolation of the results to other types of GM crops would need further examination.

As stated in the report: ‘there is no evidence that adverse effects on biodiversity have arisen from the cultivation of a crop which has been modified through modern biotechnology.’ The different impact between the conventional half-field and the transgenic half-field could be explained by the change in herbicides regimes used on HTC and conventional crops.

Each GMO, before being released into the environment for research or commercial purposes, has to be assessed on a case-by-case basis. That means that each GMO is assessed in a specific way depending on the parental crop (maize or oilseed rape, etc.) and its biological characteristics (self-pollinating/cross-pollinating crop, insect-/wind pollinating crop, annual/biennial crop, etc.), on the newly inserted GM trait (herbicide tolerance, insect tolerance, etc.) as well as on the receptor environment.

In the case where new scientific data, with regard to the risks of the GMO(s) to human health or the environment, become available after consent has been granted, the notifier shall immediately take the measures necessary to protect human health and the environment, and inform the competent authority thereof in accordance with Article 20 of Directive 2001/18/EC.

These FSE reports do not provide relevant information for the management of co-existence. However, three further studies on gene flow from GM crops to non-GM crops have been published by the United Kingdom Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (3). The studies were based on modelling and field experiments. Their results are important to judge the efficiency of farm-scale management measures to limit admixture of GMOs in other crops. In this respect these studies could be of interest in the discussion on co-existence.

The Commission Recommendation of 23 July 2003, on the guidelines for the development of national strategies and best practices to ensure the co-existence of genetically modified crops with conventional and organic farming (4) addresses the question of responsibility for implementing the farm management measures necessary to limit the gene flow. As a general principle, during the phase of introducing a new type of crop in a region, this responsibility should be born by farmers who introduce the new production type. As regards liability in the case of economic damage resulting from admixture of GMOs to other crops the Commission recommends that Member States should examine their civil liability laws to find out whether the existing national laws offer sufficient and equal possibilities in this regard.

---

(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.

(2)  Council Directive 90/220/EEC of 23 April 1990, OJ L 117, 8.5.1990.

(3)  DEFRA press release: http://www.defra.gov.uk/news/2003/031013b.htm

(4)  OJ L 189, 29.7.2003.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/799 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/799

---

(2004/C 78 E/0848)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3298/03

by Ian Hudghton (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(3 November 2003)

Subject:   Effect of climatic change on cod stocks

There is widespread anecdotal evidence, supported by the fishermen with the real experience of fishing northern waters, that stocks of cod are moving north as sea temperatures increase. This is supported by scientific research including, notably, that which was published in Science Magazine vol. 296 No 5573 relating to work done by the Sir Alister Hardy Foundation for Ocean Science.

Does the Commission intend to factor in any such new evidence when making its recommendations to the Council prior to this December's Fisheries Council meeting?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(19 November 2003)

The Commission values the knowledge and experience of commercial fishermen and encourages them to make their views available to the scientific agencies that advise the Commission as well as directly to the Commission. However, when making a basis for conservation proposals that will have a large impact on fishing communities, it is appropriate to accord higher importance to the results of systematic and scientifically-designed surveys and monitoring systems than to anecdotal observations.

The work referred to indicates a northward shift in copepod distributions and the effect of this on distributions of fish is not clear. However, both science and industry concur that the remaining aggregations of cod are now located further north than their historic distribution patterns. In previous cases of stock collapse it has been the case that as fish stocks become smaller their area of distribution shrinks as the last few fish aggregate in the most favourable areas.

Indications of a reduction in the distribution of fish onto a smaller area are therefore an additional warning sign that the stock is at a low level and very vulnerable to exploitation.

The Commission will effectively have such factors in mind when preparing relevant conservation proposals.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/800 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/800

---

(2004/C 78 E/0849)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3299/03

by Horst Schnellhardt (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(7 November 2003)

Subject:   Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (Flora, Fauna and Habitats Directive)

| 1. | The main objective of the Flora, Fauna and Habitats Directive 92/43/EEC (1) is to conserve natural habitats in order to ensure biodiversity. The Natura 2000 programme accordingly prohibits any deterioration in the existing situation, thereby requiring Member States to take action as soon as any such deterioration is foreseeable.
  Does this mean that an existing form of usage must be upheld in order to maintain the status quo even where the benefit of such usage to mankind lapses? Can Member States be required to subsidise usage so that it can be maintained in order to conserve the status quo? |
| --- | --- |

1.

The main objective of the Flora, Fauna and Habitats Directive 92/43/EEC (1) is to conserve natural habitats in order to ensure biodiversity. The Natura 2000 programme accordingly prohibits any deterioration in the existing situation, thereby requiring Member States to take action as soon as any such deterioration is foreseeable.

Does this mean that an existing form of usage must be upheld in order to maintain the status quo even where the benefit of such usage to mankind lapses? Can Member States be required to subsidise usage so that it can be maintained in order to conserve the status quo?

| 2. | Once the areas of Community importance have been placed under protection, Member States must ensure monitoring of the conservation areas. Support for such monitoring has not so far been available from LIFE-Nature funding. Does the Commission intend to make financial resources available for monitoring? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Once the areas of Community importance have been placed under protection, Member States must ensure monitoring of the conservation areas. Support for such monitoring has not so far been available from LIFE-Nature funding. Does the Commission intend to make financial resources available for monitoring?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(3 December 2003)

Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (2) includes in Article 6(2) the obligation for Member States to take appropriate steps to avoid, in the 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, in so far as such disturbance could be significant in relation to the objectives of this Directive.

Member States are fully responsible for determining the way in which they will ensure compliance with Article 6(2) of the Directive, including, if necessary, guaranteeing the continuation of the present form of usage.

The same Directive includes, in Article 11, the obligation for Member States to undertake surveillance of the conservation status of the natural habitats and species referred to in Article 2 with particular regard to priority natural habitat types and priority species.

The LIFE financial instrument, through LIFE-Nature, allows support for the implementation of Directive 92/43/EEC and of the Natura 2000 network. It has, in that framework, supported surveillance and monitoring efforts in several Natura 2000 sites over the years. However, due to its limited scope, the LIFE programme cannot be used for the continued management of Natura 2000 sites in general, including monitoring activities. Any Community contribution for this purpose has to be seen in the light of Article 8 of the Directive, which foresees the co-financing of measures essential for the management of Natura 2000 sites. A Communication from the Commission on the application of Article 8 of Directive 92/43/EEC will be submitted soon to the Council and Parliament.

---

(1)  OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7.

(2)  OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/801 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/801

---

(2004/C 78 E/0850)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3316/03

by Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(10 November 2003)

Subject:   EAGGF corrections

Could the Commission provide information on the level of corrections imposed over the last five years by the European Agriculture Guidance and Guarantee Fund, Guarantee Section, for each Member State of the European Union?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(6 January 2004)

Since its reform in 1995, clearance of accounts has comprised two separate procedures:

| — | an annual financial clearance procedure based on certification of accounts submitted by independent bodies; |
| --- | --- |

—

an annual financial clearance procedure based on certification of accounts submitted by independent bodies;

| — | a compliance clearance procedure through which expenditure is recovered (by means of financial corrections) where Commission checks have found payments not effected in accordance with Community rules. Corrections relate to the 24 months preceding notification of the results of those checks to the Member State concerned (Article 7(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1258/1999 (1)). Financial corrections are made by Commission decisions. |
| --- | --- |

—

a compliance clearance procedure through which expenditure is recovered (by means of financial corrections) where Commission checks have found payments not effected in accordance with Community rules. Corrections relate to the 24 months preceding notification of the results of those checks to the Member State concerned (Article 7(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1258/1999 (1)). Financial corrections are made by Commission decisions.

The financial corrections made over the past five years were all decided under the reformed procedure and by means of the 15 Commission decisions resulting from compliance clearance (up to 23 July 2003, the date of the latest decision). A sixteenth decision is currently being prepared.

The total of EUR 2,27 billion recovered over that period breaks down as follows:

| (euro) |
| --- |
| Member State | Amount recovered |
| Belgium | 7 873 259,91 |
| Denmark | 32 415 872,67 |
| Germany | 106 099 916,44 |
| Greece | 519 551 784,76 |
| Spain | 474 884 455,96 |
| France | 325 740 770,28 |
| Ireland | 26 291 003,76 |
| Italy | 575 928 793,49 |
| Luxembourg | 403 570,23 |
| Netherlands | 11 737 138,74 |
| Austria | 938 528,59 |
| Portugal | 51 945 010,91 |
| Finland | 4 565 590,64 |
| Sweden | 3 185 416,91 |
| United Kingdom | 129 294 789,14 |
| Total: | 2 270 855 902,43 |

(euro)

Member State

Amount recovered

Belgium

7 873 259,91

Denmark

32 415 872,67

Germany

106 099 916,44

Greece

519 551 784,76

Spain

474 884 455,96

France

325 740 770,28

Ireland

26 291 003,76

Italy

575 928 793,49

Luxembourg

403 570,23

Netherlands

11 737 138,74

Austria

938 528,59

Portugal

51 945 010,91

Finland

4 565 590,64

Sweden

3 185 416,91

United Kingdom

129 294 789,14

Total:

2 270 855 902,43

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1258/1999 of 17 May 1999 on the financing of the common agricultural policy — OJ L 160, 26.6.1999.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/802 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/802

---

(2004/C 78 E/0851)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3318/03

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(10 November 2003)

Subject:   Issuing of EUR 1 banknotes

In its answer to my question No E-2628/02 (1), the Commission states that The possibility of EUR 1 or EUR 2 notes has no real support anywhere other than in Greece and Italy and comes up against strong opposition in some countries'. The recent meeting (7 October 2003) of the eurozone Ministers for Economic Affairs and Finance at the European Central Bank discussed speeding up the process of introducing a EUR 1 banknote.

Can the Commission specify the date on which EUR 1 banknotes will be issued?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(17 December 2003)

According to Article 106(1) of the EC Treaty the European Central Bank (ECB) has the exclusive right to authorise the issue of euro banknotes. Decisions on banknote denominations are therefore the responsibility of the ECB.

The Governing Council of the ECB decided on 24 April 2003 to put on hold the decision on the use of very low-denomination banknotes on the following grounds:

| — | a change in the denominational structure of the banknotes and coins shortly after the cash changeover is not advisable in view of the significant adaptation costs economic agents had to bear due to the cash changeover in 2002; |
| --- | --- |

—

a change in the denominational structure of the banknotes and coins shortly after the cash changeover is not advisable in view of the significant adaptation costs economic agents had to bear due to the cash changeover in 2002;

| — | the Eurosystem acknowledges the existence of some public support for the introduction of low-denomination euro banknotes, although limited, at this stage; |
| --- | --- |

—

the Eurosystem acknowledges the existence of some public support for the introduction of low-denomination euro banknotes, although limited, at this stage;

| — | the issuance of very low-denomination euro banknotes should be considered only after a few years when more experience on the use of euro banknotes and coins is available. |
| --- | --- |

—

the issuance of very low-denomination euro banknotes should be considered only after a few years when more experience on the use of euro banknotes and coins is available.

If a low-denomination banknote were issued, this would imply a parallel circulation between the same coin and banknote denomination. The ECB will reconsider this subject in autumn 2004.

---

(1)  OJ C 161 E, 10.7.2003, p. 30.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/802 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/802

---

(2004/C 78 E/0852)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3338/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(12 November 2003)

Subject:   Environmental protection for the Peschiera springs

A few months ago the municipality of Cittaducale in the province of Rieti drew up a preliminary contract of sale, to be completed before the end of the year, for the transfer of 32 hectares of land to the Italian company ACEA S.p.A.

This piece of land in the mountains contains one of the oldest mineral water springs in the country and an ancient cedar wood. However, the municipal administration has undertaken to turn the existing wood into an area of high forest, without taking account of the characteristics of the terrain and the hydrogeological impact, which might undermine the stability of the mountainside.

Furthermore, it is unclear what use the buyer will make of the water resource, which is one of the most important in the whole Rieti area.

However, the Community institutions have for many years been committed to safeguarding and conserving the environment, as is shown by the Council's common position of 13 June 2003 with a view to the adoption of a framework regulation called ‘Forest Focus’.

In view of all this, can the Commission say:

| 1. | whether all the measures envisaged in Article 174 of the EC Treaty have been adopted; |
| --- | --- |

1.

whether all the measures envisaged in Article 174 of the EC Treaty have been adopted;

| 2. | whether there is any funding to safeguard water resources; |
| --- | --- |

2.

whether there is any funding to safeguard water resources;

| 3. | what the situation is overall? |
| --- | --- |

3.

what the situation is overall?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(23 December 2003)

Based on the environmental chapter of the EC Treaty, the Union has adopted comprehensive legislation in the field of water resources protection, nature protection and environmental impact assessment.

Water resources protection: the Water Framework Directive (1) of 2000 establishes a protection of all waters, rivers, lakes, coastal waters and groundwater, with a legally binding obligation to achieve/maintain good status for all waters and to prohibit any deterioration of water status.

With a view to the aquifer addressed by the Honourable Member, it is important that groundwater status is defined in terms of chemical purity and of quantity. Measures of whatever nature leading to over-abstraction or to a lowering of the groundwater table are, as a rule not permitted.

Nature protection: the Peschiera springs at Cittaducale are subject to specific protection under the Habitats Directive (2): they are included in a site proposed by Italy as a site of Community importance (3). The site is, therefore, subject to the provisions of the Directive, in particular Article 6(2): the Member State has to take appropriate steps to avoid the deterioration of natural habitats and the habitats of the species for which the site has been proposed, in so far as such disturbance could be significant in relation to the objectives of the Directive. Approval of projects or plans that might have a significant impact on the site must follow the procedure set out in Article 6(3) and (4).

Environmental impact assessment: projects likely to have significant effects on the environment by virtue, ‘inter alia’, of their nature, size or location, are subject to an impact assessment under the Environmental Impact Assessment Directive (4) before development consent is given. The Directive provides for a list of projects where Member States have to determine — either through a case by case examination or according to thresholds or criteria — whether the project is likely to have significant effects on the environment. The relevant list (5) of projects contains, ‘inter alia’, certain afforestation measures ‘initial afforestation for the purposes of conversion to another type of land use’. Further information would be required on the intentions of the municipal administration to finally assess whether those measures fall within the scope of the Directive.

Forest Focus: the proposal for a Parliament and Council Regulation (6) concerning monitoring of forests in the Community (Forest Focus) aims at contributing to the protection of forests by means of monitoring and preventive measures against forest fires. It is therefore not applicable in this case.

Funding of measures to protect water resources: the Treaty stipulates that Member States shall finance the environment policy. However, a range of Community funding measures, such as Structural and Regional Policy, Common Agricultural Policy and the LIFE Financial Instrument, may contribute to financing water resources protection.

---

(1)  Directive 2000/60/EEC of the Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000, OJ L 327, 22.12.2000.

(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)  Site IT6020012, ‘Piana di S. Vittorino — Sorgenti del Peschiera’.

(4)  Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985, OJ L 175, 5.7.1985, 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, OJ L 73, 14.3.1997.

(5)  Annex II of Directive 85/337/EEC as amended by Council Directive 97/11/EC.

(6)  Due to recent votes by Parliament and Council, legislative coordinates not yet available, OJ C 20 E, 28.1.2003.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/804 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/804

---

(2004/C 78 E/0853)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3346/03

by Miquel Mayol i Raynal (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(13 November 2003)

Subject:   Amendments to the Majorca highway-planning programme

The current Majorca regional government (Conseil de Mallorca) has decided to amend the island's highway-planning programme (the Plan Director Sectorial de Carreteras) so as to incorporate into it a trunk road to be built between Inca and Manacor, two motorways (linking Inca with Sa Pobla and Llucmajor respectively), the addition of a third lane to the Palma-Inca motorway and the construction of a second ringroad around Palma. These amendments appear in Issue 141 of the Balearic Islands' Official Journal, which was published on 11 October 2003.

The amendments are not accompanied by any arrangements for the performance of proper environmental-impact assessment, even though the programme will undoubtedly have a major impact (including the destruction of an extensive rural area) in social, economic, environmental and land-use terms.

Is the Commission aware of the programme in question and of the amendments approved by the Majorca regional government, despite the fact that no suitable environmental-assessment plan has been drawn up?

What action — if any — is the Commission intending to take?

Does the Commission consider that the amendments to the programme constitute a direct attack on Articles 2 and 6 of the Nice Treaty?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(9 January 2004)

The Honourable Member refers to a modification of an existing highway-planning programme.

Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 (EIA Directive) (1) as amended by Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997 (2) deals with the environmental assessment of certain public and private projects. 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 under Annex I point 7(b) for which a mandatory EIA has to be carried out. For other projects, such as modification of an existing motorway, Annex II applies. 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.

At present, there is no provision in 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 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 so-called SEA Directive (3). 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 basis of the information provided by the Honourable Member, the Commission has no reason to assume, at this stage, that Community legislation is not being correctly applied.

---

(1)  OJ L 175, 5.7.1985.

(2)  OJ L 73, 14.3.1997.

(3)  OJ L 197, 21.7.2001.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/805 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/805

---

(2004/C 78 E/0854)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3364/03

by Christos Folias (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(10 November 2003)

Subject:   New regulatory framework for telecommunications

The new regulatory framework for telecommunications consists of the following four directives: 2002/19/EC (1) on access, 2002/20/EC (2) on authorisation, framework directive 2002/21/EC (3), and 2002/22/EC (4) on universal service. This framework is to support the development of competition and the resulting benefits to consumers and to promote the Lisbon objectives. The four directives should have been incorporated into national law by 24 July 2003 at the latest. The new measures under the directives were also to have been implemented on the same date.

Did all the Member States meet the deadline of 23 July 2003 for implementing the new regulatory framework? If not, which Member States did not do so?

In the event that some Member States have not duly complied with their obligations under the new framework, what measures will the Commission take — or what steps has it already taken — to ensure that the regulatory framework is implemented and within what timeframe?

Does the Commission agree that failure to transpose and implement the new regulatory framework undermines the efforts made to attain the Lisbon objectives?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(8 December 2003)

The Honourable Member is correct in surmising that not all Member States met the deadline of 24 July 2003 for transposition of the four Directives constituting the main elements of the new regulatory framework for electronic communications; that is the Framework Directive 2002/21/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002, the Access and Interconnection Directive 2002/19/EC of the Parliament and of the Council, the Authorisation Directive 2002/20/EC of the Parliament and of the Council and the Universal Service Directive 2002/22/EC of the Parliament and of the Council.

Consequently, on 6 October 2003 the Commission opened infringement proceedings under Article 226 of the EC Treaty for failure to notify transposition measures against those Member States which had not done so by that date. The Member States concerned were Belgium, Germany, Greece, Spain (5), France, Luxembourg, the Netherlands and Portugal.

On that occasion, the member of the Commission responsible for Information Society and Enterprise commented (6): ‘Following liberalisation of the European telecommunications markets in 1998, which has driven growth and innovation and the widespread availability of services to the public, the Commission now regards it as a priority to encourage timely transposition of the new framework for electronic communication. In addition to providing the legal predictability and regulatory flexibility necessary for continued investment in the sector, this will complement the eEurope objective of achieving competitive local access for internet services over broadband networks as cheaply as possible on a sustainable basis.’ The Commission, therefore, fully agrees with the Honourable Member on the importance of the full, effective and timely implementation of the new regulatory framework for the development of the electronic communications markets and the fulfilment of the Lisbon objectives.

Another important element of the new regulatory framework for electronic communications is the so-called ePrivacy Directive (7), the deadline for transposition of which was 31 October 2003. As of that date, only six Member States had notified transposition measures in relation to that Directive. These were Denmark, Spain, Italy, Austria, Sweden and the United Kingdom. Since then, Ireland has also adopted transposition measures. The Commission will therefore be opening infringement proceedings, in accordance with its normal procedures, against Member States which fail to notify transposition measures also in relation to the e Privacy Directive.

However, the Commission remains committed to using all available means to help resolve implementation problems with the Member States, and does not intend to rely on infringement proceedings alone. In this regard, the Commission continues to work together with the Member States' authorities and, in particular, with the independent national regulatory authorities, with a view to achieving consistent application of the framework throughout the Union. Such co-operation takes place in the Communications Committee (COCOM) and the European Regulators Group (ERG) as well as in the Radio Spectrum Committee (RSC) and the Radio Spectrum Policy Group (RSPG), but also in bilateral meetings with the Member States.

---

(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.

(5)  Since that date Spain has adopted transposition measures and the infringement proceedings in respect of that Member State will therefore be closed upon notification to the Commission of the measures concerned.

(6)  See Commission Press Release IP/03/1356 of 8.10.2003.

(7)  Directive 2002/58/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 12 July 2002 concerning the processing of personal data and the protection of privacy in the electronic communications sector (Directive on privacy and electronic communications), OJ L 201, 31.7.2002.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/806 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/806

---

(2004/C 78 E/0855)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3365/03

by Mihail Papayannakis (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(14 November 2003)

Subject:   Regeneration of the Psyrri district

One of the projects being undertaken in Athens with some Community funding with a view to unifying the archaeological sites is the so-called regeneration of the Psyrri district; it forms part of the old city and had low buildings, narrow streets and a working-class population pursuing traditional economic activities. Unfortunately, this regeneration is increasingly displacing the original inhabitants and traditional craftsmen and leading to the completely uncontrolled development of nightclubs which are a source of great inconvenience and pollution. Those directly affected have increasingly complained and made representations to the authorities, but without any result so far, despite the fact that it is generally recognised that infringements and illegal activities have taken place in the Psyrri district.

Will the Commission say whether it was aware of any planning objectives of this regeneration before financing the projects, whether it had given its approval and whether it has monitored their ‘implementation’? How is it possible for Community funds to be used to carry out projects which are destroying the urban and economic fabric at the very centre of the Greek capital?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(12 January 2004)

The integration of the Athens archaeological sites is one of the priorities included in the third Community Support Framework for Greece and is implemented by way of a series of projects. These projects concern the renovation of the sites and related cultural activities. As it does not concern projects in the sense of chapter V (‘major projects’) of the Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 of 21 June 1999 laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds (1), the national authorities are responsible for the selection of individual projects. The detailed planning and implementation is a matter for the designated managing authorities of the relevant programmes, in particular the operational programme ‘Culture’ and the regional operational programme ‘Attica’.

According to the information currently available to the Commission, no commercial activities of the kind described in the question of the Honourable Member have been supported under the programmes concerned.

---

(1)  OJ L 161, 26.6.1999.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/807 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/807

---

(2004/C 78 E/0856)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3373/03

by Alexander de Roo (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(14 November 2003)

Subject:   September floods in Malta and town of Qormi

On 15 September and 18 September 2003, Malta experienced some of the worst floods in its history. Among the towns worst hit was the town of Qormi, in particular the residents living in district Q009.

This area is a sensitive danger area. The Maltese Government commissioned a ‘Storm Water Plan’ for this area in 1997. The first phase of this plan, under the direction of Architect Robert Musumeci, was completed by the end of 1998. The second phase of the plan was never undertaken, despite the fact that, in November 2001, the Qormi Town Council sent a letter to the Minister, reminding him that, if phase 2 were not completed, people in Qormi would be exposed to the danger of floods.

This risk of floods in the Qormi area was further confirmed in the Central Malta local plan, dated June 2002, map number 70, issued by the ‘Malta Environment and Planning Authority’ (ΜΕΡΑ).

Unfortunately the Government did not heed such warnings.

Since the Maltese Government is applying to the EU Commission for funds from the Solidarity Fund for the damage caused by the floods of 15 and 18 September, can the Commission ensure that the Qormi Town Council receives part of this ‘Solidarity Fund’ compensation so that it can be used for the welfare of the Qormi residents?

Is the Commission aware that the same situation prevails in other parts of Malta such as Birkirkara — Msida, Mosta-Burmarrad, Pwales, for which no plan is in place to address irregular but repeated instances of flash flooding which will, in future, make applications for Solidarity Fund resources a recurring exercise?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(12 January 2004)

On 10 November 2003 the Maltese authorities presented to the Commission an application to mobilise the Solidarity Fund to help finance emergency measures following the disaster caused by the heavy storm and flooding that hit Malta between 15 and 17 September 2003. The application is currently being examined by the Commission. The Commission has not taken a decision on a grant yet.

Following Article 3 (2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 2012/2002 of 11 November 2002 establishing the European Union Solidarity Fund (1), grants may be used only for the following categories of emergency operations:

| — | Immediate restoration to working order of infrastructure and plant in the fields of energy, drinking water, wastewater, telecommunications, transport, health and education; |
| --- | --- |

—

Immediate restoration to working order of infrastructure and plant in the fields of energy, drinking water, wastewater, telecommunications, transport, health and education;

| — | Providing temporary accommodation and funding rescue services to meet the immediate needs of the population concerned; |
| --- | --- |

—

Providing temporary accommodation and funding rescue services to meet the immediate needs of the population concerned;

| — | Immediate securing of preventive infrastructures and measures of immediate protection of the cultural heritage; |
| --- | --- |

—

Immediate securing of preventive infrastructures and measures of immediate protection of the cultural heritage;

| — | Immediate cleaning-up of disaster-stricken areas, including natural zones. |
| --- | --- |

—

Immediate cleaning-up of disaster-stricken areas, including natural zones.

Longer term disaster prevention measures are not eligible for Solidarity Fund assistance. This does not exclude possible funding or co-financing of preventive measures from other sources of Community-funding if the relevant selection criteria for those sources are fulfilled.

The implementation of a possible grant, in particular the selection of individual operations would lie with the authorities of Malta and the Commission cannot intervene.

Absence of storm water plans or similar alleged shortcomings have no effect on the eligibility for grants from the Solidarity Fund. However, in their final report on the implementation of the Solidarity Fund grant, beneficiary states are obliged to give details on the preventive measures introduced or proposed in order to limit damage and to avoid, to the extent possible, a recurrence of similar disasters.

---

(1)  OJ L 311, 14.11.2002.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/808 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/808

---

(2004/C 78 E/0857)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3392/03

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(17 November 2003)

Subject:   Economic monitoring

| 1. | Will the Commission compare its monitoring of Member States' financial and economic performance each year, particularly its scrutiny of stability and convergence programmes, with the Article IV consultations and reports undertaken by the International Monetary Fund? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Will the Commission compare its monitoring of Member States' financial and economic performance each year, particularly its scrutiny of stability and convergence programmes, with the Article IV consultations and reports undertaken by the International Monetary Fund?

| 2. | In particular, will it state: (a) how many trained economists are allocated to report specifically on each Member State and how that compares with the staffing of IMF country desks, (b) what is the length of stay and staffing of missions to Member States and (c) what is a typical programme of such a visit, indicating the seniority and responsibilities of those interviewed? |
| --- | --- |

2.

In particular, will it state: (a) how many trained economists are allocated to report specifically on each Member State and how that compares with the staffing of IMF country desks, (b) what is the length of stay and staffing of missions to Member States and (c) what is a typical programme of such a visit, indicating the seniority and responsibilities of those interviewed?

| 3. | Will the Commission state whether it plans any changes or improvements in the manner of its monitoring in future? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Will the Commission state whether it plans any changes or improvements in the manner of its monitoring in future?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(19 December 2003)

The Honourable Member refers to the practices and the resources associated to the follow-up of the economic and financial situation of Member States by the Commission in comparison with the International Monetary Fund.

| 1. | The Commission routinely compares the outcome of its monitoring of the economies of Member States (and Acceding States). In particular, the assessment of stability and convergence programmes, with the outcome of the economic surveillance undertaken by the Fund, specifically, the Article IV consultations. Based on such comparisons, the Commission contributes to coordinating the Union's position on Article IV Consultations on Member States and Acceding Countries. This activity includes (since the start of the Economic and Monetary Union (EMU)) the Article IV consultations on the euro-area. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The Commission routinely compares the outcome of its monitoring of the economies of Member States (and Acceding States). In particular, the assessment of stability and convergence programmes, with the outcome of the economic surveillance undertaken by the Fund, specifically, the Article IV consultations. Based on such comparisons, the Commission contributes to coordinating the Union's position on Article IV Consultations on Member States and Acceding Countries. This activity includes (since the start of the Economic and Monetary Union (EMU)) the Article IV consultations on the euro-area.

| 2. | The number of trained economists in the Commission dedicated to the monitoring of the economic situation of individual Member States typically ranges from two (for the four largest economies) to one (for the other Member States). This would compare with a range from three to one in the geographical departments of the Fund. This number does not include either support staff (secretaries, assistants) or managerial staff (Heads of Unit and Director for the Commission, Heads of Division, Head of Department for the Fund).
  Concerning the Commission's missions dedicated to the specific follow-up of the economic situation in Member States, these include routine mission typically undertaken in connection with the Autumn and Spring forecasts and the preparation of the Report on the Implementation of the Broad Economic policy Guidelines, and ad hoc missions, undertaken on specific policy occasions (for example, in preparation of possible steps to be taken in the framework of the Excessive Deficit Procedure).
  The former typically include the economist(s) following the Member State in question and may or may not include the responsible Head of Unit. They last between one and three days. The programme typically includes meetings with the finance ministries, the Central bank and forecasting institutions, at operational and middle management level.
  The latter are typically headed by a Director (or the Director-General) and include the responsible Head of Unit and the economists following the Member State in question. They last between one and two days. The programme typically includes meeting with the finance ministries at senior management level.
  It needs to be noted that the resources and the contacts outlined above are supplemented, as far as the Commission is concerned, by the resources in the ‘horizontal’ (non-geographical services) and the contacts with officials from Member States on the occasion of official and unofficial meetings taking place at the seat of the European institutions. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The number of trained economists in the Commission dedicated to the monitoring of the economic situation of individual Member States typically ranges from two (for the four largest economies) to one (for the other Member States). This would compare with a range from three to one in the geographical departments of the Fund. This number does not include either support staff (secretaries, assistants) or managerial staff (Heads of Unit and Director for the Commission, Heads of Division, Head of Department for the Fund).

Concerning the Commission's missions dedicated to the specific follow-up of the economic situation in Member States, these include routine mission typically undertaken in connection with the Autumn and Spring forecasts and the preparation of the Report on the Implementation of the Broad Economic policy Guidelines, and ad hoc missions, undertaken on specific policy occasions (for example, in preparation of possible steps to be taken in the framework of the Excessive Deficit Procedure).

The former typically include the economist(s) following the Member State in question and may or may not include the responsible Head of Unit. They last between one and three days. The programme typically includes meetings with the finance ministries, the Central bank and forecasting institutions, at operational and middle management level.

The latter are typically headed by a Director (or the Director-General) and include the responsible Head of Unit and the economists following the Member State in question. They last between one and two days. The programme typically includes meeting with the finance ministries at senior management level.

It needs to be noted that the resources and the contacts outlined above are supplemented, as far as the Commission is concerned, by the resources in the ‘horizontal’ (non-geographical services) and the contacts with officials from Member States on the occasion of official and unofficial meetings taking place at the seat of the European institutions.

| 3. | The Commission is continuously looking for ways to improve its monitoring of the economies of Member States. Concerning missions in particular, the Commission Communication on strengthening the co-ordination of budgetary policies (1) mentions explicitly the intention to organise more frequent and comprehensive missions. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The Commission is continuously looking for ways to improve its monitoring of the economies of Member States. Concerning missions in particular, the Commission Communication on strengthening the co-ordination of budgetary policies (1) mentions explicitly the intention to organise more frequent and comprehensive missions.

---

(1)  COM(2002) 668 final.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/809 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/809

---

(2004/C 78 E/0858)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3398/03

by Stefano Zappalà (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(17 November 2003)

Subject:   Dumping by China on the world copper market

China has introduced protectionist arrangements for subsidising its copper industry, allowing it to operate on the world markets in such a way as to obtain undue and unfair advantages.

In particular, firms importing secondary raw materials (scrap) are directly reimbursed 30 % of VAT, while the remaining 70 % goes to a state company grouping the five main enterprises in the sector.

This unfair advantage is being used to create a monopoly on the main world markets in raw materials, at prices which are so high that other potential buyers cannot pay them.

In just four years, from 1998 to 2002, exports of copper scrap and alloy from the EU to China rose from 70 000 to 246 000 tonnes per annum.

The EU, which lacks copper ore of its own, is losing its copper scrap and alloy — the only resource available to it — thus ensuring that its manufacturing industry will suffer a dramatic decline in competitiveness leading to a reduction in activity and job losses.

These distortions are affecting the refining industry, which produces raw materials similar to those which we otherwise have to import, and, even more so, the sector producing semi-finished products, which relies, for over 50 % of its requirements, on the availability and accessibility in cost terms of scrap originating in the EU.

It is disappointing that the Commission, which has for a long time now been made aware of these circumstances by the professional associations and, more recently, also by Europa Metalli, has still not responded and has taken no steps to re-establish fair market conditions.

Can the Commission state what urgent action it will take against China's protectionist measures on the copper market, and, in particular, what measures it intends to take to secure an end to China's direct and indirect subsidies to its industry, and in particular the reimbursement of VAT?

Answer given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(15 December 2003)

The Commission is fully informed concerning the problems facing the European copper-processing industry with regard to supplies of secondary raw materials (i.e. scrap metal). The industry has been doubly hit by (i) the increasing scarcity of the products on the international markets, due primarily to the export restrictions imposed by Russia and certain other newly independent states and (ii) the considerable pressure on prices for those products as a result of strong demand from a number of Asian countries, particularly China.

To promote the development of its copper industry, China introduced in 2000 a scheme whereby part of the VAT paid on imports of scrap copper is refunded. The scheme was extended, with some alterations, in 2003. The European industry feels that this advantage enables Chinese operators to finance an aggressive policy of buying up a large share of the scrap for sale on international markets.

The Commission has taken account of the Community industry's concerns and has in recent months raised the issue with the Chinese authorities on a number of occasions in both bilateral and multilateral talks. It has asked for detailed information on VAT refunds through the World Trade Organisation's Transitional Review Mechanism' on China's trade policy. The Commission will use this information to assess whether the system is compatible with China's international obligations.

However, the Commission has not, as yet, noted a significant increase in imports of corresponding processed goods from China. Furthermore, the European industry has not submitted any anti-dumping or anti-subsidy complaint to the Commission, which cannot initiate the corresponding procedures itself, except in very exceptional cases.

The Commission, remaining in close contact with the Community industry, is monitoring this matter closely with a view to restoring normal competitive conditions.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/810 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/810

---

(2004/C 78 E/0859)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3408/03

by José Ribeiro e Castro (UEN) to the Commission

(17 November 2003)

Subject:   Illegal immigration — German Consular Services

The media have reported that German consular services in countries like Ukraine, Moldavia and Russia have been accused of being the principal culprits for the increase of pockets of illegal immigrants from Eastern Europe in Portugal, by the Portuguese Foreigners and Frontiers Service, General Labour Inspectorate and the High Commissariat for Immigration and Ethnic Minorities.

According to the report drawn up by these Portuguese institutions, entitled ‘Immigration from the East — a new fact, opportunities and challenges’, the negligence of the German consular services has enabled Eastern European citizens to enter the Schengen area, as tourists, and then stay on as illegal immigrants.

That this is the truth of the matter is confirmed by the survey carried out by Coimbra University's Social Studies Centre, using 735 Eastern European immigrants, which has highlighted the fact that six out of ten entered Portugal with visas issued by the German authorities.

What information does the Commission have as to the allegedly negligent actions of the German consular services in the countries of Eastern Europe?

What measures has it taken or does it intend to take to alert the German authorities, and make them aware of the need to exercise care and rigour?

What information does it have as to recent illegal immigration flows, and the means used to enter the Schengen area?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(29 January 2004)

The Commission has no information on the presence in Portugal of illegal immigrants from Eastern European countries who allegedly travelled on Schengen visas issued by Germany. It intends to seek information on this matter from the two Member States concerned and will inform the Honourable Member of the outcome of those enquiries.

An exchange of available information on illegal immigration takes place on a monthly basis within the Centre for Information, Discussion and Exchange on the Crossing of Frontiers and Immigration (Cirefi) working group of the Council. Furthermore, Europol regularly provides a bulletin on illegal immigration with a focus on criminal networks involved in human trafficking.

In addition, the Commission tabled on 25 November 2003 a proposal for a Council Decision establishing a secure web-based Information and Co-ordination Network for Member States' Migration Management Services (1). The Network is designed primarily to facilitate the exchange of strategic and tactical information on irregular or illegal migratory flows and trends.

Moreover, cooperation between immigration liaison officers posted to third countries is also relevant for the exchange of information on such developments. The Justice and Home Affairs Council reached political agreement on the Greek initiative for a Council Regulation on the creation of an immigration liaison officers' network on 2/3 October 2003. Its objective is to formalise the existence and functioning of such a network, drawing on experience gained with ongoing projects.

---

(1)  COM(2003) 727 final.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/811 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/811

---

(2004/C 78 E/0860)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3410/03

by Joan Valivé (ELDR) to the Commission

(18 November 2003)

Subject:   The NHP subsidies and environmental impact

On 1 November 2003, the Spanish Official Journal published the resolution setting out the environmental impact statement for the National Hydrological Plan's water transfers scheme authorised by Spanish Law 10/3001.

It is a fact that the transfer of water from the River Ebro to other catchment areas will alter the river's own ecological conditions, and also those of the Ebro delta. The Law in question provided for the drawing up of an Ebro Delta Integral Protection Plan.

The Ebro delta contains a nature reserve classed as a Natura 2000 Network special bird protection area, in accordance with Directive 92/43/EEC (1) and Directive 79/409/EEC (2).

Furthermore, the same Law provides for the possibility of incorporating transfers other than those envisaged in the scheme. The Catalan Autonomous Government carried out a study of an alternative transfer of water from the River Ródano to Catalunya's interior catchment areas, and forwarded this to the Spanish Government.

Does the Commission know that no assessment has been made of the environmental impact resulting from the future water transfer as provided for in the Ebro Delta ‘Integral Plan’.

Will the Commission make the granting of any EU subsidies to the National Hydrological Plan scheme conditional on the carrying out of assessments of the environmental impact on the Ebro delta and the establishment of the minimum guaranteed ecological flows?

---

(1)  OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7.

(2)  OJ L 103, 25.4.1979, p. 1.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/812 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/812

---

(2004/C 78 E/0861)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3411/03

by Joan Valivé (ELDR) to the Commission

(18 November 2003)

Subject:   Granting subsidies to the NHP and the Ródano water transfer

On 1 November 2003, the Spanish Official Journal published the resolution setting out the environmental impact statement for the National Hydrological Plan's water transfers scheme authorised by Spanish Law 10/3001.

It is a fact that the transfer of water from the River Ebro to other catchment areas will change the river's own ecological conditions, and also those of the Ebro delta and the surrounding marine ecosystem.

Furthermore, the same Law provides for the possibility of incorporating transfers other than those envisaged in the scheme. The Catalan autonomous government carried out a study of an alternative transfer of water from the River Ródano to Catalunya's interior catchment areas, and forwarded this to the Spanish Government. Catalunya's interior catchment areas contain 4,5 million inhabitants, whose current water supply is already problematic, and could become very much more so in the near future.

The transfer of water from the Ródano would involve a flow of between 10 and 20 m3/s, which would have a very reduced impact, given the average flow at the river mouth, which is approximately 1 700 m3/s.

Does the Commission know that no assessment has been made of the environmental impact resulting from the future water transfer as provided for in the Ebro delta ‘Integral Plan’, nor has any consideration been given to the possibilities offered by transferring water from the Ródano, as in the proposal referred to above.

Will the Commission make the granting of any EU subsidies to the National Hydrological Plan scheme conditional on the carrying out of assessments of the environmental impact on the Ebro delta, the establishment of the minimum guaranteed ecological flows, and the assessment of the repercussion of the Ródano water transfer?

Joint answer

to Written Questions E-3410/03 and E-3411/03

given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(19 January 2004)

The Commission is aware of the Spanish Government's Environmental Impact Statement in relation to the proposed Ebro transfer.

First of all the detailed Environmental Impact Assessment (30 volumes published in June 2003) does include some information on the probable environmental impact on the Ebro delta. However, the Commission is aware that the integrated plan for the protection of the delta has not yet been produced. It is this plan which will establish the management arrangements, including the flow regime, to protect the ecological and chemical status of the lower River Ebro and the Ebro delta.

In relation to the possibility of a transfer from the River Rhone, this option was addressed in the Strategic Environmental Assessment carried out by the Spanish authorities and published in January 2002.

Finally, with regard to use of Community funding mechanisms (structural funds or cohesion fund) all projects benefiting from Community financial support are required ‘inter alia’ to respect Community legislation and policies including environmental legislation and policies.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/813 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/813

---

(2004/C 78 E/0862)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3436/03

by Antonio Di Pietro (ELDR) to the Commission

(20 November 2003)

Subject:   Harmonisation of the European energy market

The company ‘Portovesme s.r.L’, located at Portovesme near Cagliari, is Italy's leading producer of non-ferrous metais, lead and zinc.

It is currently one of the most modern and integrated metallurgical plants in Europe, but in order to operate it needs large quantities of energy, which in Sardinia — in terms of lire — costs ITL 120-130 per kWh, whilst in other EU Member States, such as France or Germany, businesses in the sector pay the equivalent of ITL 50-60 per kWh.

Under these unfair conditions ‘Portovesme s.r.l.’ is no longer competitive and 1 500 workers may be laid off, a prospect which would be detrimental to the already critical employment situation in Sardinia.

Does the Commission not consider that such large-scale distortions of the market are caused by incomplete harmonisation in the energy sector? How does it intend to remedy this serious situation?

In addition to long-term solutions, is it possible to take specific action to support ‘Portovesme s.r.L’, in view of the special needs of island regions?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(16 January 2004)

According to the final report of the tenth (Italian) parliamentary Commission, which performed an extensive investigation on the status and perspectives of the energy sector, the reasons for the higher price of energy in Italy, in comparison with other Member States are in particular:

| (a) | a market that still lacks competition, |
| --- | --- |

(a)

a market that still lacks competition,

| (b) | the choice of more expensive fuels, |
| --- | --- |

(b)

the choice of more expensive fuels,

| (c) | the low conversion efficiency of power plants. |
| --- | --- |

(c)

the low conversion efficiency of power plants.

The action of the Commission has been focused on the first problem for several years, and two Directives (1) on this issue have now been adopted by the Council and Parliament, giving a strong impulse to the development of a single, efficient and competitive market throughout the Union, the internal electricity market. This in turn should, over a period of time, have a substantial effect in reducing the price differences for electricity among Member States. However, it is unlikely that price differences will disappear completely, because the remaining reasons concern national energy policies, which in conformity with the subsidiarity principle, are dealt with by each Member State.

---

(1)  Directive 96/92/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 19 December 1996 concerning common rules for the internal market in electricity, OJ L 27, 30.1.1997; Directive 2003/54/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2003 concerning common rules for the internal market in electricity and repealing Directive 96/92/EC — Statements made with regard to decommissioning and waste management activities, OJ L 176, 15.7.2003, which has to be implemented by Member States by 1 July 2004.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/814 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/814

---

(2004/C 78 E/0863)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3444/03

by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(20 November 2003)

Subject:   Teaching Portuguese language and culture in the Netherlands

Various Portuguese immigrants to the Netherlands have informed me that the Dutch Government wishes to abolish the subsidy for teaching Portuguese language and culture from 1 August 2004, thus jeopardising the teaching of the children of Portuguese residents of that country.

Portuguese is an official language of the European Union, and has one of the largest numbers of speakers in the world. What measures does the Commission intend to take in order to take due account of this situation, and guarantee that Portuguese citizens and their children are not discriminated against, and can continue to have free access to the teaching of Portuguese language and culture in the Netherlands?

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(16 December 2003)

Article 149 of the EC Treaty stipulates that the Member States are responsible ‘for the content of teaching and the organisation of education systems’. The Commission is therefore unable to take any action regarding the situation referred to by the Honourable Member.

However, by virtue of the powers conferred on it, the Commission is committed to promoting linguistic diversity and language learning. In July 2003, it adopted an action plan setting out the measures to be put in place at Community level in the period from 2004 to 2006 (1).

---

(1)  COM(2003)449 final.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/814 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/814

---

(2004/C 78 E/0864)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3452/03

by Mihail Papayannakis (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(20 November 2003)

Subject:   Exclusion of environmental NGOs from environmental education

Under the terms of a decision (47587/G7/15.05.03) by the Greek Ministry of Education, NGOs are not authorised to engage in any teaching or coordination activities and are thereby excluded from environmental education, an area in which many of them have for many years been making an effective contribution in Greece, as is the case in other Member States of the Union. The NGOs affected are the Arktouros Organisation, the Greek Association for the Protection of the Environment and Cultural Heritage, the Wild Life Protection Association, the Leftist Ecological Library, Medasset, SOS Mediterranean, the Association for the Study and Protection of the Mediterranean Seal, the Ecological Recycling Association and WWF-Greece. Many of the educational programmes and initiatives launched by these organisations are funded by the Community. Under the above ministerial decision these associations are now directly answerable to the Ministry of Education, which is not the case in other Member States of the Union. Does the Commission consider that the above decision complies with the letter and spirit of the environment and environmental education programmes funded by it and in which NGOs are fully entitled to participate?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(19 December 2003)

Environmental education is very important and environmental non-governmental organisations (NGOs) often play a significant part in this field. In the ‘Community action programme promoting nongovernmental organisations primarily active in the field of environmental protection’ one of the priority areas eligible for funding is environmental education.

It does not, however, fall within the competence of the Commission to comment on the policies and practices of individual Member States in this field.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/815 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/815

---

(2004/C 78 E/0865)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3463/03

by Christos Folias (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(21 November 2003)

Subject:   Fixing maximum profit margins for sales of fresh produce

In Greece maximum profit margins in the trade in fresh vegetable and fruit are laid down by Market Decree 14/1989, as amended by Market Decrees 16/1991 and 2/1992. These range from 7 % to 12 % for wholesale and 25 % to 40 % for retail prices.

In view of the above, will the Commission say:

| — | Is it aware of the existence of the above market decrees and the implementation thereof by the Greek authorities? |
| --- | --- |

—

Is it aware of the existence of the above market decrees and the implementation thereof by the Greek authorities?

| — | Is it permissible to establish a maximum profit margin for products for the wholesale and the retail trade? |
| --- | --- |

—

Is it permissible to establish a maximum profit margin for products for the wholesale and the retail trade?

| — | Under these conditions, how can fair competition be guaranteed and the law of supply and demand maintained? |
| --- | --- |

—

Under these conditions, how can fair competition be guaranteed and the law of supply and demand maintained?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(28 January 2004)

The Commission has not been informed by the Greek authorities about the specific measures introduced by Market Decree 14/1989 (1). However, Member States may and do adopt national legal measures to render the enforcement of a domestic policy applicable to a specific sector or industry more efficient, even though the sector is covered by a common organization of the market (a so-called ‘CMO’).

As the Honourable Member is aware, in 1972 the Council adopted a common organization of the market in fruit and vegetables (2). In sectors where a CMO applies, Member States are in principle no longer entitled to freely interfere with the price mechanisms of the CMO by, for example, implementing unilateral domestic laws having the direct or indirect effect of fixing prices in a certain sector. This, however, does not prohibit Member States such as Greece from adopting measures relating to price formation at the retail and consumption stages as long as such measures do not jeopardize the objectives or functioning of the CMO (3).

However, the Commission wishes to point out that it has to be differentiated between price fixing agreed on by undertakings and a price legislation adopted by public authorities. In the latter case, Member States have the responsibility to respect Articles 3, 10(2) and 81 et seq. of the EC Treaty.

The EC Treaty competition rules (Articles 81-86) apply to concerted practices between undertakings such as direct or indirect price fixing. According to Article 36 of the EC Treaty competition rules apply to agriculture to the extent determined by the Council within the framework of the requirements of the Common Agricultural Policy. Subject to certain exceptions, Council Regulation (EEC) No 26/62 (4) in substance also permits application of the competition rules to agricultural products.

Nevertheless, the European Court of Justice has ruled that, as regards the application of Article 3 and Article 81 of the EC Treaty to price rules, it must be observed that the purpose of such rules is not to compel traders to conclude agreements or to take any other action of the kind prohibited by Article 81(1) of the EC Treaty, but to entrust responsibility in pricing matters to the public authorities (5) and that Article 3 and Article 81 do not prohibit the adoption by Member States of such national rules providing for retail sale prices to be fixed by the public authorities (6).

From the point of view of the EC Treaty rules on free movement of goods (Articles 28-30), it should be noted that the maximum profit margin must be calculated on the basis of a purchase price which takes into account the import and procurement costs effectively borne by the retailers, in this way neutralizing the impact of distance and avoiding obstacles to commercial exchanges contrary to Article 28 of the EC Treaty (7).

---

(1)  Amended by Market Decrees 16/1991 and 2/1992.

(2)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 1035/72 of 18 May 1972 on the common organization of the market in fruit and vegetables, OJ L 118, 20.5.1972 which was replaced in 1996 by Council Regulation (EC) No 2200/96, of 28 October 1996, OJ L 297, 21.11.1996.

(3)  Judgment of 17 January 1980 in Joined Cases 95 and 96/79 Kefer and Delmelle (1980) ECR, p. 103.

(4)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 26/62 applying certain rules of competition to production of and trade in agricultural products, OJ B 30, 20.4.1962.

(5)  Judgment of 2 July 1985 in Case 188/86 Lefevre ((1987)) ECR 2963.

(6)  Judgment of 29 January 1985 in Case 231/83 Cullet v. Leclerc ((1985)) ECR 305.

(7)  Judgment of 24 January 1978 in Case 82/77, Openbaar Ministerie v. Van Tiggele, (1978) ECR 25.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/816 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/816

---

(2004/C 78 E/0866)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3465/03

by Caroline Jackson (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(21 November 2003)

Subject:   Dichlofluanid

Does the Commission believe that there is sufficient scientific evidence to justify a ban on dichlofluanid? If so, does the Commission have any plans to ban the use of dichlofluanid as a non-professional wood preservative in urban environments?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(8 January 2004)

Directive 98/8/EC of the Parliament and the Council of 16 February 1998 regulates the placing of biocidal products, such as wood preservatives, on the market (1). The Directive provides — among others — for a ten-year review programme of all active substances, which were used in biocidal products before 14 May 2000 (the so-called ‘existing’ active substances), in order to establish that they do not have unacceptable effects on the environment and on human or animal health.

According to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1896/2000 (2), all active substances had to be identified by 28 March 2002 and economic operators interested to continue placing their active substances on the market had to notify them by the same date (3). Notified substances will be evaluated in view of their possible inclusion in Annexes I or IA of the Directive if their impact on human and animal health and the environment is found to be acceptable. Active substances that are only identified will have to be phased out by 1 September 2006 at the latest.

The active substance dichlofluanid has been notified for use in product types 7 (film preservatives), 8 (wood preservatives), 10 (masonry preservatives) and 21 (antifouling products). Complete dossiers for active substances used in wood preservatives (and rodenticides) are scheduled to be evaluated first, and will have to be submitted by 28 March 2004. The United Kingdom has been designated as the Rapporteur Member State.

Dichlofluamid can be placed on the market in accordance with the current practice in the Member States until the evaluation of the dossier is completed and a decision has been taken on its inclusion or not, as the case may be, in annex I or IA of the Directive. If the evaluation results in unacceptable risks, the substance will not be included in an annex of the Directive and it will no longer be possible to use it in wood preservatives. If the risks are found acceptable dichofluanid will be included in the appropriate annex, together with all conditions or restrictions that are deemed necessary. Interested parties can subsequently apply for authorisation/registration of wood preservatives containing the substance.

---

(1)  OJ L 123, 24.4.1998.

(2)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 1896/2000 of 7 September 2000 on the first phase of the programme referred to in Article 16(2) of Directive 98/8/EC of the Parliament and of the Council on biocidal products (Text with EEA relevance), OJ L 228, 8.9.2000.

(3)  The deadline of 28 March 2002 was extended by Commission Regulation (EC) 1687/2002 until 31 January 2003, for the notification of substances that had only been identified, or substances that had been notified only for certain product types.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/817 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/817

---

(2004/C 78 E/0867)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3475/03

by Mihail Papayannakis (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(24 November 2003)

Subject:   Protection of the Caretta caretta turtle

Despite repeated expressions of concern regarding the Caretta caretta turtle in Zakynthos, and the decision regarding the operation of the Zakynthos marine park, the situation, according to reliable information, appears to be worsening rather than improving. Following the Commission's recent contacts, visits and inspections can it indicate what results were obtained and what action it intends to take to ensure progress regarding protection for the turtle and the practical functioning of the marine park?

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/817 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/817

---

(2004/C 78 E/0868)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3507/03

by Paul Lannoye (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(25 November 2003)

Subject:   Protection of loggerhead turtles in Greece

It has been clearly shown that there has been no progress in the development of the Maríne Park on Zakynthos and the measures to protect the loggerhead turtle, negotiated and funded by the Commission, and that they have, on the contrary, met with opposition, both at local level and from the Greek Government.

Can the Commission confirm this information? What was the outcome of the recent on-site inspections carried out by the Commission?

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/817 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/817

---

(2004/C 78 E/0869)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3528/03

by John Bowis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(28 November 2003)

Subject:   Protection of the caretta — caretta turtle

Will the Commission give the results of its recent inspection of the maritime park of Zakynthos (Greece) and the protection of the caretta — caretta turtle?

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/818 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/818

---

(2004/C 78 E/0870)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3532/03

by María Bergaz Conesa (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(28 November 2003)

Subject:   Protection of the Caretta caretta tortoise

Reliable sources indicate that no progress is being made with the measures to protect the Caretta caretta tortoise, nor those to protect the Zakynthos Maríne Park, although the Commission has negotiated and funded such measures, and that on the contrary, the measures are in difficulties due to opposition, at both local and Greek governmental level.

Is this true?

What were the results of the Commission's recent on-the-spot inspections?

Joint answer

to Written Questions E-3475/03, E-3507/03, E-3528/03 and E-3532/03

given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(21 January 2004)

In its Judgement delivered on 30 January 2002 (1), the Court declared that ‘by failing to take, within the prescribed time-limit, the requisite measures to establish and implement an effective system of strict protection for the sea turtle Caretta caretta on Zakinthos so as to avoid any disturbance of the species during its breeding period and any activity which might bring about deterioration or destruction of its breeding sites, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 12(1)(b) and (d) of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (2).’

In July 2002, the Greek authorities notified the Commission that measures had been taken to comply with the Judgement. Following a visit in September 2002, the Commission ascertained that the legal framework for the protection of the sea turtle was insufficient and that the necessary specific measures, on the ground, for the protection of the species were not effectively implemented. Considering that the Greek authorities had not taken all the requisite measures to comply with the Court Judgement, the Commission addressed a 228 letter of formal notice to Greece in December 2002. In their reply of March 2003, the Greek authorities described the measures taken and enclosed a detailed calendar for the remaining actions.

In order to check whether all necessary measures had been taken to protect the sea turtle Caretta caretta and comply with the above-mentioned Court judgment, a Commission delegation visited the island of Zakynthos from 7 to 9 September 2003. The delegation met with all the authorities and stakeholders concerned and visited the breeding beaches of Caretta caretta.

It can be concluded that substantial progress has been made towards the establishment and effective implementation of a system of strict protection for the sea turtle Caretta caretta on Zakynthos. The majority of the actions announced in 2002 have been put in place, while the adoption and implementation of the remaining measures are ongoing. This progress is due, in particular, to the operation of the National Maríne Park of Zakynthos (NMPZ) and the good collaboration with the competent local authorities. However, the Commission delegation noted that no surveillance takes place at Daphni beach because of local opposition.

It should also be stressed that some measures, such as information/awareness actions, a monitoring and surveillance programme, environmental management systems on economic activities and delineation and marking of the NMPZ marine area, are co-financed by a LIFE project. In relation to this, a Commission delegation visited the island of Zakynthos on 20 October 2003 to verify the progress of these co-financed measures. The Commission delegation also noted the absence of surveillance at Daphni and requested that the competent local authorities and the beneficiary of the LIFE project (NMPZ) intensify their efforts to resolve the problem.

In addition, the infringement formed part of the agenda of the meeting between the Commission and Greek authorities on the implementation of Community environmental law in Greece, which took place on 30/31 October 2003. The Greek authorities announced a short-term calendar for the adoption of the remaining actions. For the most part, these actions involve the financing of the NMPZ, the supervision of the marine area, the adoption of the ‘Regulation of Administration and Management of the NMPZ’ and the definitive delineation of the high water mark (αιγιαλός') and of the coastline (‘ακτογραμμή’) on all the nesting beaches. The latter is expected to resolve the property conflicts. The written notification of this information to the Commission is underway.

The Commission will assess this additional information and will not hesitate to take appropriate measures to ensure that Greece complies with the Court Judgement of 30 January 2002.

---

(1)  Judgment of 30 January 2002, Commission v. Hellenic Republic, Case C-103/00, ECR 2002, p.1 147.

(2)  OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/819 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/819

---

(2004/C 78 E/0871)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3481/03

by Richard Corbett (PSE) to the Commission

(24 November 2003)

Subject:   ‘Valdastico Sud’ motorway

Is the Commission aware of the proposed ‘Valdastico Sud’ motorway that the Italian Government proposes to build through from Vicenza to Badia Polesine, near Rovigo, with devastating effect on a World Heritage site?

Does the Commission consider that European legislation on environmental impact assessment has been complied with in this case? Is it aware that the original assessment of the Italian Environment Commission was negative, following which Mr Berlusconi' government, by decree of 19 September 2002, replaced 23 of its 36 members, leading to a positive assessment of the plan on 18 December 2002?

Finally can the Commission confirm that the project has no interest from the perspective of trans-European transport networks?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(22 January 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 (EIA Directive) as amended by Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997 (1) 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 Annexes I and II to the Directive. The construction of motorways appears in Annex I point 7(b), which means that an environmental impact assessment (EIA) must be carried out.

In such a case, the Italian authorities should take measures to ensure that an environmental impact assessment procedure is carried out which includes (a) a description of the aspects of the environment likely to be significantly affected by the proposed project, such as archaeological heritage, landscape, population (as per Article 5 and Annex IV), (b) consultations with the public and other competent authorities responsible for the environment and (c) publication of the decision containing conditions attached to the development consent, the main reasons and considerations on which the decision is based and a description, where necessary, of the main measures to avoid, reduce and, if possible, offset the major adverse effects. The result of the consultations and the information gathered pursuant to Articles 5 and 6 must be taken into consideration in the development consent procedure.

The fact that the project in question is likely to have a negative impact on the environment (including landscape and historic heritage) is not, under the Directive, an obstacle to granting the development consent, provided the procedural requirements of the Directive are complied with. Once an environmental impact assessment has been carried out in accordance with the Directive, the decision as to whether to grant development consent is at the discretion of the competent authority of the Member State.

The Commission has already looked into the matter raised by the Honourable Member and found no evidence of any breach of the Directive in this specific case. The fact that the Italian Government replaced 23 of the 26 members of the Commission in charge of delivering an opinion on the project and that, subsequently, that Commission approved the project, does not represent a breach of Directive 85/337/EEC as amended.

The Commission can confirm that as the project does not form part of the trans-European transport network it does not qualify for any co-financing from the TEN-T budget.

---

(1)  OJ L 73, 14.3.1997.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/820 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/820

---

(2004/C 78 E/0872)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3488/03

by Albert Maat (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(24 November 2003)

Subject:   Statements by individual Commissioners against Commission policy

The Netherlands' Commissioner recently spoke out in the Dutch press against European agriculture policy, recently reformed on the basis of a Commission proposal.

Is it possible for serving Commissioners to oppose Commission policy in public?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(19 February 2004)

As the Commission has frequently recalled in replies to written and oral questions by Members of Parliament (1), the Members of the Commission are politicians carrying out a political function who, while honouring the obligations imposed by this function, remain free to express their personal opinions quite independently and on their own responsibility.

As regards outside activities, the Code of Conduct for Commissioners states that ‘Commissioners may be active members of political parties or trade unions, provided that this does not compromise their availability for service in the Commission.’

In the case referred to by the Honourable Member, the comments of the Commissioner responsible for the internal market should be regarded as falling within the above definition and should not therefore be interpreted as impairing the principle of collegiate responsibility.

---

(1)  See for example, the answers given by the Commission to Questions 2459/99, 2600/99 and 2628/99, OJ C 225 E, 8.8.2000 and the answer to Question 2629/99, OJ C 46 E, 13.2.2001.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/820 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/820

---

(2004/C 78 E/0873)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3505/03

by Hiltrud Breyer (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(24 November 2003)

Subject:   Information on the level of EU funding granted to Saarland between January 1997 and December 2002

| 1. | For what measures was EU funding granted to Saarland between 1997 and 2002, and what were the sums involved from:






  (a) | the European Social Fund; |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

For what measures was EU funding granted to Saarland between 1997 and 2002, and what were the sums involved from:

(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 individual programmes and funds for cross-border projects involving Saarland and, respectively, Luxembourg, Belgium and Lorraine? |
| --- | --- |

2.

How much was paid from the individual programmes and funds for cross-border projects involving Saarland and, respectively, Luxembourg, Belgium and Lorraine?

Supplementary answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(4 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.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/821 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/821

---

(2004/C 78 E/0874)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3513/03

by Adriana Poli Bortone (UEN) and Cristiana Muscardini (UEN) to the Commission

(25 November 2003)

Subject:   Water

Could the Commission say whether any (and, if so, how many) of the Member Sates have so far complied with Article 24 of Directive 2000/60/EC (1)? Will the Commission be able to report to Parliament by January 2004? In 2002, did the Commission submit to the Regulatory Committee the plan referred to in Article 19 of the Directive, and what effect has that plan had as regards a possible resolution — or, indeed, action — in respect of the rules relating to water?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(19 January 2004)

Article 24 of the Water Framework 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, requires the transposition of the Directive into national legislation by 22 December 2003. The 10 Acceding Countries will have to complete transposition of the Directive by the date of accession.

The Commission will report on the state of transposition and notification shortly after the deadlines have passed. The Commission will initiate legal proceedings on ‘non-communication’ for those countries which do not give notification in time.

Article 19 paragraph 1 of the Water Framework Directive requires the Commission to inform the Committee established under Article 21 of an ‘indicative plan of measures having an impact on water legislation which intends to propose in the near future, including any emerging from the proposals, control measures and strategies developed under Article 16’. On 6 May 2003, the Commission reported to the first meeting of the Committee on the state of development of the Daughter Directives on priority substances (Article 16) and groundwater (Article 17). The documents for the Committee meeting were sent to Parliament through the regular transmission routes.

In addition to the formal reports to the Committee, the Commission is working closely with the Member States, the Candidate and European Economic Area (EEA) Countries, stakeholders, non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and other organisations, including the European Environment Agency, in the development of new water policies through the Expert Advisory Fora which were established in 2001. In this respect, the Expert Advisory Forum on Groundwater successfully finalised its work in June 2003 and enabled the Commission to present its proposal on 19 September 2003 (2).

Six meetings of the Expert Advisory Forum on Priority Substances have already taken place from March 2001 to November 2003. The preparatory work is still ongoing and the next meeting is scheduled for 8 March 2004.

---

(1)  OJ L 327, 22.12.2000, p. 1.

(2)  COM(2003) 550 final.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/822 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/822

---

(2004/C 78 E/0875)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3518/03

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(25 November 2003)

Subject:   Bioptic driving

| 1. | Will the Commission outline the minimum vision standards (including acuity and vision fields) for driving licensure stipulated by EU regulation? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Will the Commission outline the minimum vision standards (including acuity and vision fields) for driving licensure stipulated by EU regulation?

| 2. | Will it also outline the specific vision standards (that go beyond the EU minimum) for each Member State? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Will it also outline the specific vision standards (that go beyond the EU minimum) for each Member State?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(15 January 2004)

| 1. | The minimal vision requirements for obtaining a driving licence can be found in Article 6 of Annex III of Council Directive 91/439/EEC of 29 July 1991 (1). The Commission does not anticipate proposing any revisions to this Directive on the question of minimum vision standards. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The minimal vision requirements for obtaining a driving licence can be found in Article 6 of Annex III of Council Directive 91/439/EEC of 29 July 1991 (1). The Commission does not anticipate proposing any revisions to this Directive on the question of minimum vision standards.

| 2. | All Member States have introduced visual requirements that correspond with the minimum requirements of the above mentioned Directive. As the Honourable Member has been informed of in the Commission's reply to his previous questions E-1231/03 (2), E-2568/03 (3) and E-2569/03 (4), a special working group for vision has been established in 2003 which plans to screen the legislation/actual situation in the different Member States during the coming year 2004. The results of this examination will be made public by the Commission as soon as they are available. |
| --- | --- |

2.

All Member States have introduced visual requirements that correspond with the minimum requirements of the above mentioned Directive. As the Honourable Member has been informed of in the Commission's reply to his previous questions E-1231/03 (2), E-2568/03 (3) and E-2569/03 (4), a special working group for vision has been established in 2003 which plans to screen the legislation/actual situation in the different Member States during the coming year 2004. The results of this examination will be made public by the Commission as soon as they are available.

---

(1)  OJ L 237, 24.8.1991.

(2)  OJ C 58 E, 6.3.2004, p. 52.

(3)  OJ C 58 E, 6.3.2004, p. 181.

(4)  See page 129.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/822 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/822

---

(2004/C 78 E/0876)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3541/03

by Chris Davies (ELDR) to the Commission

(28 November 2003)

Subject:   US ‘ghost ships’ moored in the UK

Under its responsibilities for the application of environmental and transport legislation, what is the position of the Commission on the risks posed by the four ships from the US Reserve Fleet, known as the ghost fleet, which are now moored at and in transit to Hartlepool?

What is the Commission's position on the legality of US ghost ships being transported to the UK, particularly in relation to the age and condition of the vessels and the oil, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and asbestos within their structures?

What is the Commission's position on the legality of US ghost ships being dismantled in the UK, particularly in relation to the disposal of asbestos?

Does the Commission have any powers to ensure that the ghost ships are returned to the US at the earliest opportunity, and if so what steps has the Commission taken?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(22 January 2004)

The Commission is currently investigating a complaint filed against the United Kingdom in relation to the shipment of four end-of-life ships from the United States to the United Kingdom for recovery in order to find out whether obligations under the Community Waste Shipment Regulation and other pieces of Community environmental legislation were complied with.

Under the 1993 Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) agreement on shipments of waste destined for recovery — which is implemented into Community legislation in the Waste Shipment Regulation (EEC) No 259/93 (1) — all waste destined for recovery can travel almost freely within the OECD area. The only requirement is that a shipment is notified in advance to the competent authorities of dispatch, destination and transit and that it is consented to by these authorities. It is therefore the decision of these individual authorities/Member States to assess and consider if they have the necessary facilities and capacity to receive and treat the end of life ships which were subject to notification.

In the framework of the correspondence between the Commission and the United Kingdom authorities, the latter informed the Commission that the notification of shipment which was issued is invalid since the receiving facility does not possess all the necessary permits. They also informed the Commission that the ships would be returned to the United States provided that their state and weather conditions allow for an environmentally safe transportation. Therefore, there is currently no recovery operation envisaged in the United Kingdom (with the exception of the temporary storage of these ships pending their return to the United States) and at this stage, it is obsolete to assess the original notification. Should the United Kingdom authorities take any decision about further handling of the ships, the Commission will investigate whether they are in line with obligations under the Waste Shipment Regulation and other Community environmental directives.

As stated above, the United Kingdom authorities informed the Commission that the ships should be returned to the United States provided that their state and weather conditions allow for an environmentally safe transportation.

In relation to situations where a shipment cannot be completed as planned, the Waste Shipment Regulation stipulates in Article 25(1) that: ‘Where a shipment of waste to which the competent authorities concerned have consented cannot be completed in accordance with the terms of the consignment note or the contract referred to in Articles 3 and 6, the competent authority of dispatch shall, within 90 days after it has been informed thereof, ensure that the notifier returns the waste to its area of jurisdiction or elsewhere within the State of dispatch unless it is satisfied that the waste can be disposed of or recovered in an alternative and environmentally sound manner.’

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 259/93 of 1 February 1993 on the supervision and control of shipments of waste within, into and out of the Community, OJ L 30, 6.2.1993.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/824 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/824

---

(2004/C 78 E/0877)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3548/03

by Antonios Trakatellis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(28 November 2003)

Subject:   Public works in Greece: shortcomings and defects regarding the Port of Igoumenitsa and the Egnatia highway

Many projects receiving funding from the second and third Community support frameworks in Greece are characterised by major shortcomings and numerous defects. Aside from the risk to personal safety, inadequate planning, incomplete surveys and defective workmanship can also cause major geological and infrastructural damage. One example of this is the new Port of Igoumenitsa, recently inaugurated by the Prime Minister. Concerns are now being expressed in the Greek Parliament that this is a classic example of an engineering project being dogged by delays, overspending and failure to meet basic preconditions such as rainwater drainage. The same applies to the Egnatia highway project which is being affected by flooding, causing a build up of debris around bridges in Igoumenitsa, thereby obstructing the normal flow of the watercourse towards the sea. As a result, the heavy rains of 19 October 2003 caused extensive damage to the road network and to farmland in Thesprotia.

| 1. | What view does the Commission take of engineering methods in Greece and to what extent is it acceptable for Community funding to be provided for projects which are substandard in terms of planning, surveying and workmanship? |
| --- | --- |

1.

What view does the Commission take of engineering methods in Greece and to what extent is it acceptable for Community funding to be provided for projects which are substandard in terms of planning, surveying and workmanship?

| 2. | Who bears responsibility for inadequate planning, incomplete surveys and substandard workmanship and to what extent can the Community be considered contractually liable under the terms of Article 288 of the EC Treaty? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Who bears responsibility for inadequate planning, incomplete surveys and substandard workmanship and to what extent can the Community be considered contractually liable under the terms of Article 288 of the EC Treaty?

| 3. | Will the Commission request information from the special quality control adviser (ESPEL) concerning this particular case (Port of Igoumenitsa and Egnatia highway) and investigate the reasons for the shortcomings and defects which have occurred, and what measures will it take to avoid substandard workmanship on future projects? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Will the Commission request information from the special quality control adviser (ESPEL) concerning this particular case (Port of Igoumenitsa and Egnatia highway) and investigate the reasons for the shortcomings and defects which have occurred, and what measures will it take to avoid substandard workmanship on future projects?

| 4. | Is it possible to provide direct funding, in response to an application made through the appropriate channels, for the planning and implementation of a rainwater drainage project near the new Port of Igoumenitsa and for efforts to resolve problems arising in connection with the Egnatia highway project? |
| --- | --- |

4.

Is it possible to provide direct funding, in response to an application made through the appropriate channels, for the planning and implementation of a rainwater drainage project near the new Port of Igoumenitsa and for efforts to resolve problems arising in connection with the Egnatia highway project?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(28 January 2004)

The implementation of assistance, including designing, studying and constructing of Public Works, in accordance with Community law is the responsibility of the Member States. It is, therefore, the responsibility of the Greek authorities to ensure conformity with the legislation in force as well as to guarantee the quality of the construction work. The Community therefore has no contractual responsibility in this regard.

According to the information that the Commission has received from the Greek authorities, the works carried out in the New Port of Igoumenitsa bear no relation to the problems mentioned in the Honourable Member's question, because these works are geographically remote and unrelated to the rivers that caused the floods mentioned. According to the same authorities, the extreme weather conditions of 19 October 2003 caused the Lycopodi river to flow at more than double the maximum rate forecasted by the approved Technical studies of the Egnatia project, which was the sole reason for the overflow. The extent of damage to the Lykopodi river adjustments is currently being assessed.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/825 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/825

---

(2004/C 78 E/0878)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3551/03

by Paulo Casaca (PSE) to the Commission

(1 December 2003)

Subject:   Goatmeat subsidies — Application of Regulation 2550/2001 of 21 December 2001 to the Azores

Annex I(5) of Regulation 2550/2001 (1) of 21 December 2001, laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation 2529/2001 (2) of 19 December 2001 on the common organisation of the market in sheepmeat and goatmeat as regards premium schemes, includes the whole of Portugal, with the exception of the Azores, as an area eligible for receiving the goat premium.

What criteria were used for excluding the Azores from goatmeat subsidies, when the rest of Portugal was included?

Given the Council's recent decision fixing the available milk quota for the Azores at the 1999/2000 marketing year levels, does the Commission not think that there is now a need to permit other alternatives for agriculture in the Azores?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(22 January 2004)

On the eligibility of particular zones for the goat premium, Article 4(2) of Regulation (EC) No 2529/2001 states:

| | A producer keeping she-goats on his holding may qualify on application for a premium for maintaining she-goats (goat premium).
  This premium shall be granted to producers in specific areas where the production meets the following two criteria:






  — | goat rearing is mainly directed towards the production of goatmeat; |
| --- | --- | --- |

A producer keeping she-goats on his holding may qualify on application for a premium for maintaining she-goats (goat premium).

This premium shall be granted to producers in specific areas where the production meets the following two criteria:

—

goat rearing is mainly directed towards the production of goatmeat;

| — | goat and sheep rearing techniques are similar in nature. |
| --- | --- |

—

goat and sheep rearing techniques are similar in nature.

A list of such areas shall be established following the procedure referred to in Article 25(2).

The Azores can of course be included in Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 2550/2001 provided that the above requirements are met. We are not aware that they are met and Portugal's representatives on the relevant management committee have never asked for the Azores to be included.

The Honourable Member will note that if goat rearing is directed mainly to milk production the first requirement is not met. Moreover inclusion of zones in Annex I may be followed by retrospective verification on the spot of compliance with the criteria.

On the need for opening up more agricultural alternatives in the Azores, the Honourable Member should bear in mind that:

| — | as in other Union territories, farmers in the Azores are beneficiaries under the measures adopted for common organisation of the markets; |
| --- | --- |

—

as in other Union territories, farmers in the Azores are beneficiaries under the measures adopted for common organisation of the markets;

| — | the Azores benefit from both the Union's rural development programmes and the Poseima programmes. In both cases the national authorities and the Azorean regional authorities have an important role in determining what specific measures are to be given priority under the provisions in force and hence in the opening up of viable alternatives to Azorean farmers; |
| --- | --- |

—

the Azores benefit from both the Union's rural development programmes and the Poseima programmes. In both cases the national authorities and the Azorean regional authorities have an important role in determining what specific measures are to be given priority under the provisions in force and hence in the opening up of viable alternatives to Azorean farmers;

| — | both the Azores' milk quota and the Portuguese national ceiling for the suckler cow premium have recently been increased; |
| --- | --- |

—

both the Azores' milk quota and the Portuguese national ceiling for the suckler cow premium have recently been increased;

| — | national and regional aids can also be granted provided these are consonant with the single market rules and Community law. |
| --- | --- |

—

national and regional aids can also be granted provided these are consonant with the single market rules and Community law.

---

(1)  OJ L 341, 22.12.2001, p. 105.

(2)  OJ L 341, 22.12.2001, p. 3.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/826 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/826

---

(2004/C 78 E/0879)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3557/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(1 December 2003)

Subject:   Irregularities in DG Agriculture highlighted by the Court of Auditors

In Special Report No 9/2003 (1) covering, among other things, the issue of price of cereals, sugar, meat and milk, the Court of Auditors drew attention to a high risk of fraud in the activities of the Commission's Directorate-General for Agriculture.

It would appear that there have been major delays in the procedure for setting prices and export refunds and that over a two-and-a-half-year period two officials leaked the prices set for cereals before the markets opened, for personal gain.

It would also appear that the two officials were discovered and removed from their posts, but only to be transferred to another service within the same DG.

Further anomalies also appear to exist within the DG, particularly within the management set-up. In particular, a Court of Auditors senior official has stated that, despite the fact that a five-year rotation rule is applied in respect of all such posts elsewhere, the rule has never been implemented within the DG.

Given the above and the scandals that have only too often rocked the EU's administration in recent times, would the Commission state:

| 1. | whether the above information is correct, and whether it can provide further details on the issue of prices and the allegations of fraud? |
| --- | --- |

1.

whether the above information is correct, and whether it can provide further details on the issue of prices and the allegations of fraud?

| 2. | why, if such anomalies do in fact exist, it has not conducted any enquiries and taken suitable action? |
| --- | --- |

2.

why, if such anomalies do in fact exist, it has not conducted any enquiries and taken suitable action?

| 3. | how it is that, despite the commitment made by the Commission President to ensuring transparency in administrative structures, irregularities are still to be found within its directorates-general? |
| --- | --- |

3.

how it is that, despite the commitment made by the Commission President to ensuring transparency in administrative structures, irregularities are still to be found within its directorates-general?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(5 February 2004)

We cannot find in Special Report No 9/2003 by the European Court of Auditors any reference to a high risk of fraud in connection with the Directorate-General for Agriculture's activities.

Nor do we understand to what considerable delays in setting prices and export refunds the Honourable Member refers.

On the matter of allegations against our officials, at this stage we have only the information supplied by the Belgian judicial authorities, namely that, following a report by the European Anti-Fraud Office to the Brussels Royal Public Prosecutor's Office in 2001, an investigation was launched by an examining magistrate in Brussels. It was conducted by the Belgian authorities in appropriate confidentiality and led to the arrest of two people in Belgium, one an official of the Directorate-General for Agriculture, who was subsequently released. The case has been referred to the Belgian courts and investigation continues. It is therefore too soon to give details of the charges brought.

We will take whatever action the outcome of the proceedings indicates as necessary.

Given that criminal proceedings were under way, disciplinary proceedings were started against the official concerned. They have been suspended pending a final judgment. Under Article 88 of the Staff Regulations the official has already been suspended from duty.

Under our internal reform programme the Directorate-General for Agriculture is in the process of making significant improvements in market management procedures and their supervision. But no internal control system can be entirely foolproof.

Our rules on staff rotation have been applied throughout the Directorate-General for Agriculture.

---

(1)  OJ C 211, 5.9.2003, p. 1.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/827 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/827

---

(2004/C 78 E/0880)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3558/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(1 December 2003)

Subject:   Right to vote for immigrants in EU Member States

A debate recently opened in Italy on whether third-country nationals who have resided legally in the country for at least six years should be given the right to vote in local elections.

There are major disparities in the current legislation in the Member States (in France and Germany, for example, non-Community nationals do not have the right to vote; in the United Kingdom, this right is granted only to EU and Commonwealth citizens, in Spain to immigrants from the former colonies and in Portugal to Brazilians, Peruvians, Argentines, Uruguayans, Norwegians and Israelis; and in Ireland, Sweden, Denmark, the Netherlands and Finland, the right to vote is granted to immigrants of all nationalities).

Given that the Tampere European Council conclusions set out a number of principles, including that of the legal status of third-country nationals being approximated to that of Member States' nationals and that of a person, who has resided legally in a Member State for a period of time to be determined and who holds a long-term residence permit, being granted a set of uniform rights which are as near as possible to those enjoyed by EU citizens,

Can the Commission:

| 1. | state whether studies have been conducted into the matter at European level? |
| --- | --- |

1.

state whether studies have been conducted into the matter at European level?

| 2. | clearly state its position on the right to vote in local and parliamentary elections for non-Community nationals legally resident in the EU? |
| --- | --- |

2.

clearly state its position on the right to vote in local and parliamentary elections for non-Community nationals legally resident in the EU?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(29 January 2004)

The Tampere European Council (1999) set the guidelines for a common Union asylum and immigration policy. This policy includes the element of fair treatment of third country nationals residing legally in the territory of the 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 Union citizens.

This is concretised by the proposal for a Council Directive concerning the status of third country nationals who are long-term residents (1), which was adopted by the Council on 25 November 2003. In its recent Communication on immigration, integration and employment (2) the Commission suggested that Member States consider granting political rights to long-term residents, in particular at local level, when transposing this Directive into national law. The Commission indeed believes that granting long-term resident third-country nationals political rights is important for the integration process and that the new Treaty should provide a basis for so doing. Until its entry into force there is no legal basis to do so.

The Commission has carried out a study on ‘The legal status of third-country nationals who are long-term residents in a Member State of the European Union’ (April 2000) which includes a comparison of access to voting rights for third-country nationals. The Commission is, furthermore, aware of a number of studies carried out by independent researchers concerning third-country nationals' political integration and participation in democratic processes. Under the 6th Research Framework Programme 2002-2006 priority has been given to research in the field of nationality, and a comparative study on rules regulating the acquisition and loss of nationality in the Member States will commence in 2004. The study will also examine the status of quasi-citizenship for third-country nationals that are granted in several Member States on the basis of long-term residence.

---

(1)  OJ C 240 E, 28.8.2001.

(2)  COM(2003) 336 final.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/828 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/828

---

(2004/C 78 E/0881)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3578/03

by Michl Ebner (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(5 December 2003)

Subject:   Environmentally friendly diesel fuel

GECAM is the name of a new diesel fuel developed and marketed by Cam-Technologies research teams at the beginning of 1997. By virtue of its particular composition, this environmentally friendly fuel cuts emissions of pollutants (fine particulates and nitrogen oxides). The advantage of GECAM is that sooting and fuel consumption are reduced through improved combustion due to its 10 % water content. Carbon dioxide emissions are some 5 % lower than with traditional diesel fuels, given almost identical fuel consumption over a given distance. This environmentally friendly fuel is increasingly used in public road transport in almost all major cities in Italy, without any adjustment of the engine being necessary.

Many engines in public transport vehicles no longer meet European emission standards.

Will the Commission say by which means (including financial means) it is promoting environmentally friendly fuels?

Does it not agree that the introduction of environmentally friendly diesel fuels such as GECAM throughout Europe would make sense? If so, what measures are being taken to promote such a move in public transport?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(27 January 2004)

The Commission promotes the introduction of environmental friendly fuels and, following the Communication on alternative fuels in 2001 (1), is currently studying the technical and economic status and developments of alternative fuels for road transport. For this purpose the ‘Alternative Fuels Contact Group’ has been established. The work of this group is focusing on natural gas and hydrogen, and on measures by which the Community could promote their use. Commission efforts have focussed on alternative fuels that have the potential of achieving 5 % market share Union-wide by 2020. Dispersions of diesel fuel and water, such as developed by CAM-Technologies and by other manufacturers, are known by the Commission to be used in a few cities in France and Italy as a fuel for public transport and in some small scale trials in other Member States but are not included in this work. A study on the eco-balance of alternative fuels recently launched by the Commission also includes an assessment of these emulsion fuels.

At the proposal of the Commission, two important legal instruments were adopted in 2003 for the promotion of environmentally friendly fuels.

Directive 2003/30/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 8 May 2003 (2) sets reference values of 2 % in 2005 and 5,75 % in 2010 for the targets to be adopted by Member States as the minimum proportion of biofuels and other renewable fuels to be placed on their markets.

Council Directive 2003/96/EC of 27 October 2003 restructuring the Community framework for the taxation of energy products and electricity (3) gives the possibility to Member States of applying a reduced level of taxation to environmentally-friendly fuels. For instance, according to Article 16 of this Directive, a tax reduction is allowed under certain conditions when a motor fuel contains water.

---

(1)  COM(2001) 547 final.

(2)  OJ L 123, 17.5.2003.

(3)  OJ L 283, 31.10.2003.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/829 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/829

---

(2004/C 78 E/0882)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3579/03

by Christoph Konrad (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(5 December 2003)

Subject:   Hunting season for carrion crows in the EU

| 1. | Is the Commission aware that in transposing the EU bird protection directive into national law EU Member States have adopted widely differing rules on the hunting season for carrion crows? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is the Commission aware that in transposing the EU bird protection directive into national law EU Member States have adopted widely differing rules on the hunting season for carrion crows?

| 2. | How does the Commission view the fact that farmers, forestry owners and hunters in Germany suffer far greater economic losses than in other EU Member States owing to the fact that the hunting season is restricted in that country? Does it consider that this practice places this interest group in Germany at a disadvantage? |
| --- | --- |

2.

How does the Commission view the fact that farmers, forestry owners and hunters in Germany suffer far greater economic losses than in other EU Member States owing to the fact that the hunting season is restricted in that country? Does it consider that this practice places this interest group in Germany at a disadvantage?

| 3. | What view does the Commission take of the fact that other countries frequently issue derogations for hunting carrion crows, while the competent German authorities refuse to do so? |
| --- | --- |

3.

What view does the Commission take of the fact that other countries frequently issue derogations for hunting carrion crows, while the competent German authorities refuse to do so?

| 4. | What conditions must be met for such a derogation or the extension of the hunting period to be permissible? |
| --- | --- |

4.

What conditions must be met for such a derogation or the extension of the hunting period to be permissible?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(29 January 2004)

| 1. | The rules governing the fixing of hunting seasons under Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds (1) are given in Article 7 of the Directive. The Commission, with the Member States, has compiled information on the pre-nuptial migration and reproduction periods of all huntable species in each Member State in order to facilitate the application of the fixing of hunting seasons in accordance with the Directive (2). |
| --- | --- |

1.

The rules governing the fixing of hunting seasons under Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds (1) are given in Article 7 of the Directive. The Commission, with the Member States, has compiled information on the pre-nuptial migration and reproduction periods of all huntable species in each Member State in order to facilitate the application of the fixing of hunting seasons in accordance with the Directive (2).

| 2. | The Commission has received no evidence that restrictions on hunting has resulted in greater economic losses in Germany than in other Member States. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The Commission has received no evidence that restrictions on hunting has resulted in greater economic losses in Germany than in other Member States.

| 3. | Derogations are permissible under Article 9 of the Directive for the purpose of, ‘inter alia’, preventing ‘serious damage to crops, livestock, forests, fisheries and water’. It is the Member States who decide whether the application of a derogation is necessary, provided that there is no other satisfactory solution. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Derogations are permissible under Article 9 of the Directive for the purpose of, ‘inter alia’, preventing ‘serious damage to crops, livestock, forests, fisheries and water’. It is the Member States who decide whether the application of a derogation is necessary, provided that there is no other satisfactory solution.

| 4. | The possibilities for use of derogations are restricted. They must be justified in relation to the overall objectives of the Directive and comply with the specific conditions for derogations described in Article 9 of Directive 79/409/EEC. Non-respect of any one of these conditions may render a derogation invalid. |
| --- | --- |

4.

The possibilities for use of derogations are restricted. They must be justified in relation to the overall objectives of the Directive and comply with the specific conditions for derogations described in Article 9 of Directive 79/409/EEC. Non-respect of any one of these conditions may render a derogation invalid.

---

(1)  OJ L 103, 25.4.1979.

(2)  Key concepts of Article 7(4) of Directive 79/409/EEC — Period of Reproduction and prenuptial Migration of Annex II Bird Species in the EU, http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/nature/directive/intro_en.pdf

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/830 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/830

---

(2004/C 78 E/0883)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3581/03

by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(5 December 2003)

Subject:   Shrimp fishing in Svalbard

Svalbard shrimp fishing by the Community fleet is seriously impeded by the obligation that no more than four EU fishing fleet units be present at any one time. This practice has been imposed for some years, and there is thus a danger that it will become established, with all the negative consequences it presupposes for the Community fleet, which is unable to take up the full fishing effort allocated to it yearly (519 days). In addition, this limitation is imposed in the brief months in which access can be had to the region, due to the adverse weather conditions which prevail there for most of the year. The Commission's reply of 8 May 2002 to my previous Written Question E-1037/02 (1) stated that it was fully aware of the problems which the situation of the Svalbard shrimp fishery posed for the Member States concerned, and that it would ‘continue to endeavour to engage the Norwegian authorities in a dialogue, which will lead to improved access conditions for the Community shrimp fleet’. No progress whatever has been forthcoming, and certain Community fleets, e.g. the fleet working in NAFO, have seen their catches seriously reduced, which means that an additional effort to find alternatives is called for.

Can the Commission tell me why there have been no improvements in the situation of the Community shrimp fleet?

Given that the fishing effort is already limited by the number of vessels, can the Commission not negotiate the abolition of the ‘at any one time’ obligation, or simply not accept it?

Do the EU's bilateral relations with Norway not permit of a reasonable improvement of the situation for our shrimp fleet?

What steps has the Commission taken to improve the presence of the Community shrimp fleet in Svalbard?

What new steps is it intending to take so as to improve the current situation which, from any point of view, is unsatisfactory?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(26 January 2004)

The question of improved access conditions for the Community shrimp fleet fishing in the Svalbard area has been discussed with Norway on several occasions and most recently at a high level meeting in March 2003.

Norway is not willing to consider an increase in fishing days but has indicated that they could consider an increase in the number of vessels allowed in the area at the same time. However, they link such an increase in the number of vessels with, for them, a satisfactory solution to a number of other outstanding issues, including improved conditions for Norwegian export of shrimp to the Union.

The Commission has agreed with Norway to have a high level meeting again in principal in June 2004 to continue the dialogue and to find among other issues a satisfactory solution to the access problems for Community vessels fishing shrimp at Svalbard.

---

(1)  OJ C 229 E, 26.9.2002, p. 172.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/831 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/831

---

(2004/C 78 E/0884)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3592/03

by Karl-Heinz Florenz (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(5 December 2003)

Subject:   Deposits on disposable drinks packaging in Germany from an environmental point of view

For around 10 years, disposable packaging has been collected in Germany ‘inter alia’ as lightweight packaging under the Dual System. As a result of the introduction of a deposit on disposable drinks packaging (‘Dosenpfand’) on 1 October 2003, an as yet undetermined quantity of disposable drinks containers now carries a compulsory deposit. This packaging is collected at sales points and transported separately for subsequent recycling.

How does the Commission view this procedure, in particular when comparing the previous collection and recycling system with the present, separate collection and recycling system from an environmental point of view?

Does the Commission intend to carry out a comparative environmental assessment, or will Germany be asked to submit a comparative environmental assessment?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(29 January 2004)

Take-back systems for packaging waste have to fulfil the criteria of Article 7 of the packaging and packaging waste Directive 94/62/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 1994 (1). This includes, in particular, the non-discriminatory access of economic operators, including importers, to such systems. There is, however, no requirement to set up such systems in a particular way (dual systems, deposit systems, etc.). This article only briefly refers to environmental aspects and states that requirements regarding the protection of environmental and consumer health need to be taken into account, without specifying in what way this must be done.

The Commission is not aware of comparative studies between dual systems and systems based on one-way deposits. Available information, therefore, is of a qualitative nature only. One-way deposits will normally have higher logistical requirements. These higher logistical requirements may also be associated to specific environmental impacts. However, systems based on one-way deposits will also achieve higher return rates and may reduce littering. Furthermore, the quality of the collected material may be better because of a lower content of impurities than in material collected by dual systems.

The Commission has no intention of carrying out a comparative environmental assessment or requiring Germany to carry out such an assessment because it will be difficult to obtain unambiguous results and there is no requirement to choose the best system from an environmental point of view. Therefore, an assessment of the environmental performance of various take-back systems would be unlikely to produce results that would influence the assessment of the conformity of the German one-way deposits with Community legislation. The open infringement procedure against Germany exclusively concerns the Internal Market aspects of this article.

However, the Commission has put to debate options on how to develop producer responsibility systems within the Thematic Strategy on Waste Prevention and Recycling. Furthermore, the Commission has launched a study on the implementation of Directive 94/62/EC and options to strengthen prevention and re-use of packaging. While this study will not concern the comparison between various take-back systems for one-way packaging directly, it may address effects by such systems of encouraging re-usable packaging.

---

(1)  OJ L 365, 31.12.1994.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/832 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/832

---

(2004/C 78 E/0885)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3593/03

by Baroness Sarah Ludford (ELDR) to the Commission

(5 December 2003)

Subject:   Cost of passports across the European Union Member States

The cost of an adult passport in the United Kingdom has increased greatly since 1997, and today costs over GBP 40 to purchase.

Can the Commission detail the cost of an adult passport in the 14 other Member States, given that a passport serves as both a national and an EU document?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(29 January 2004)

Fixing the cost of passports is a competence which belongs to Member States.

The cost of obtaining a passport within each Member State may vary according to several factors, notably the duration of its validity.

A comparative analysis shows that the cost of the British passport is very close to the average of the other Member States, which is around EUR 50.

The Commission will provide the Honourable Member and the Parliament's Secretariat with a table detailing the cost of passports in all Member States.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/832 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/832

---

(2004/C 78 E/0886)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3600/03

by Roberto Bigliardo (UEN) to the Commission

(5 December 2003)

Subject:   Overflying Brussels — extension of Zaventem airport

The new Belgian Minister of Transport Bert Anciaux is about to launch a plan to move a number of flight paths from the area near ‘Zaventem National’ airport to the city of Brussels, following a decision taken in June 2003 by an administrative court (Cour d'Arbitrage) calling for flights to be spread over several routes, in response to complaints from 47 people living in the vicinity of the airport.

According to articles published in the Belgian press this decision was taken in the name of a principle of ‘solidarity’ according to which the noise pollution should be spread among all the inhabitants of Brussels.

| 1. | Can the Commission say whether the initiatives taken by the Minister and the decision of the ‘Cour d'Arbitrage’ are in line with the Community directives on the subject? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Can the Commission say whether the initiatives taken by the Minister and the decision of the ‘Cour d'Arbitrage’ are in line with the Community directives on the subject?

| 2. | Is it normal that the new flight plan for Brussels airport should be implemented without assessing the impact of the noise it would generate? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Is it normal that the new flight plan for Brussels airport should be implemented without assessing the impact of the noise it would generate?

| 3. | Can the Commission say whether the extension of Zaventem airport meets all the current environmental standards? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Can the Commission say whether the extension of Zaventem airport meets all the current environmental standards?

| 4. | In any event, can the Commission say whether the Minister's initiative is compatible with the status of Brussels as the seat of the Community institutions and, above all, whether moving a substantial proportion of the air traffic to densely populated areas does not pose additional security problems (terrorist acts) for the European and international institutions based in Brussels? |
| --- | --- |

4.

In any event, can the Commission say whether the Minister's initiative is compatible with the status of Brussels as the seat of the Community institutions and, above all, whether moving a substantial proportion of the air traffic to densely populated areas does not pose additional security problems (terrorist acts) for the European and international institutions based in Brussels?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(5 February 2004)

There exists no Community legislation which establishes detailed provisions concerning decisions by competent authorities on flight paths. Although, with the adoption of Directive 2002/49/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 25 June 2002 on the assessment and management of environmental noise (1), harmonised noise descriptors are introduced (by 18 July 2005), as well as the obligation to prepare noise maps (by 30 June 2007) and action plans (by 18 July 2002), that Directive does not impose limit values for ambient noise. In the absence of such mandatory Community norms, it is not possible for the Commission to intervene solely on the basis of possible excessive exposure to noise.

According to the information which was published in the Belgian press, a working group (composed of experts from BIAC, Belgocontrol and the Belgian Directorate-General of aviation) assisted the Belgian Minister of Transport in preparing an action plan, whilst further work regarding the establishment of a cadastral survey of aviation noise is underway.

Since, in the present context, 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), as amended by Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997 (3) (Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) — Directive), relates to the construction of airports and airport changes/extensions, the new flight plan does not seem to be subject to the requirements of this Directive.

There are no other environmental standards established for airports. Airport changes/extensions are covered by the EIA Directive. 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. According to the information at the disposal of the Commission, an EIA was carried out for the extension of Zaventem airport in the beginning of the 90's. Changes such as the introduction of new flight plans or the allocation of air router to existing runways are not covered by the definition of ‘a project’ under the EIA Directive.

The Commission is currently investigating whether the public consultation foreseen under Flemish legislation meets the requirements of the EIA Directive.

The Commission will continue to monitor all relevant developments under Community law in this file.

---

(1)  OJ L 189, 18.7.2002.

(2)  OJ L 175, 5.7.1985.

(3)  OJ L 73, 14.3.1997.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/833 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/833

---

(2004/C 78 E/0887)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3606/03

by Michl Ebner (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(5 December 2003)

Subject:   Special conditions for transport by heavy goods vehicles

The cheapest and simplest way of transporting goods has always been by truck. At the same time, the resulting environmental pollution has been getting worse each year. The far more environmentally friendly alternative of rail transport cannot compete with the comparatively cheap option of transport by road and is therefore unacceptable to many companies.

Can the Commission answer the following:

| — | is it true that the European Union grants concessions to hauliers? If so, of what nature; |
| --- | --- |

—

is it true that the European Union grants concessions to hauliers? If so, of what nature;

| — | is it also the case that haulage firms benefit from fuel concessions from the EU? If so, of what nature; |
| --- | --- |

—

is it also the case that haulage firms benefit from fuel concessions from the EU? If so, of what nature;

| — | what has been or is being done to investigate the real costs of road transport? |
| --- | --- |

—

what has been or is being done to investigate the real costs of road transport?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(28 January 2004)

In principle, aid granted to transport undertakings is, when deemed to be State aid within the meaning of Article 87 of the EC Treaty, incompatible with the common market. However, Article 87(2) and (3) provides that, where certain conditions are met, such aid may be considered or declared compatible with the common market. It is essentially the ‘Community guidelines on State aid for environmental protection’ (1) which specify which State aid may qualify as one of the exceptions specified in Article 87. The guidelines indicate that, in principle, only aid measures which serve to attain a higher level of environmental protection than is required at Community level may be authorised. The same philosophy emerges from the directives relating to measures to be taken against the emission of gaseous and particulate pollutants from motor vehicles (2).

Regarding the concessions which may be granted for fuels, Council Directive 2003/96/EC of 27 October 2003 restructuring the Community framework for the taxation of energy products and electricity (3) authorises Member States to continue to apply reduced rates of taxation in the cases listed in an annex to the Directive. That annex refers to national measures applying a differentiated rate of excise duty on gas oil, particularly in order to encourage the use of fuels which are more environmentally friendly. By virtue of Article 18, several Member States may in addition allow temporary derogations from the new minimum levels set by the Directive for excise duties on gas oil. Such temporary derogations are subject to the condition that rates of duty be gradually brought into line with the levels stipulated by the Directive. Lastly, a specific, though not reduced, rate has been introduced for commercial gas oil to give Member States which so wish the option of applying differentiated rates of duty for different uses of gas oil.

Turning to payment by the road haulage industry of the costs linked to using road infrastructure, on 23 July 2003 the Commission adopted a 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 (4). The proposed directive constitutes a framework within which Member States, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, may provide positive economic incentives for transport operations via a price structure which better reflects the costs to society. The new framework proposed by the Commission establishes a set of common rules for charging heavy goods vehicles weighing more than 3,5 tonnes. In particular, it enables Member States to vary tolls according to the technical and environmental characteristics of vehicles, levels of congestion and the characteristics of the relevant route in the road network.

---

(1)  OJ C 37, 3.2.2001.

(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. 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 Directive 70/220/EEC, OJ L 350, 28.12.1998.

(3)  OJ L 283, 31.10.2003.

(4)  COM(2003) 448 final.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/835 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/835

---

(2004/C 78 E/0888)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3614/03

by Esko Seppänen (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(5 December 2003)

Subject:   Cultivation of sweet rowanberries

The Commission has exclusive competence for agricultural support. Hence this question: have the authorities of a Member State acted correctly in not allocating agricultural support to all farmers on the same basis but allocating it according to their place of residence? The Finnish authorities have not granted the appropriate support to farmers who cultivate sweet rowanberries in what the authorities consider to be the ‘wrong’ part of the country, i.e. in an area which is not a berry cultivation area. Are rowanberries which have been bred so as to make them sweet defined as berries or fruit?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(29 January 2004)

Member States can as their priorities dictate subsidize particular crops provided that the aid is compatible with Community law. Up to now they have had to submit all such proposed aids to the Commission for clearance as compatible (see Community guidelines for State aid in the agriculture sector (1)). We have however recently adopted as part of the CAP reform a set of rules (2) under which Member States will be able to grant agricultural aids falling into certain categories without first having to request our approval. These block exemptions will speed up implementation of the new agricultural State aids and also facilitate implementation of the national programmes to raise environmental, animal welfare and hygiene standards in agriculture.

In the absence of precise information on the measure to which the Honourable Member refers we cannot comment on its compatibility with Community law.

On the question of whether the fruit (pihlajanmarja in Finnish) yielded by the rowan tree (Sorbus aucuparia) is a fruit or a berry, we consider that it is a berry and hence also a fruit, since berries are by definition also fruits.

---

(1)  OJ C 28, 1.2.2000.

(2)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 1/2004 of 23 December 2003 on the application of Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty to State aid to small and medium-sized enterprises active in the production, processing and marketing of agricultural products, OJ L 1, 3.1.2004.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/835 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/835

---

(2004/C 78 E/0889)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3615/03

by Esko Seppänen (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(5 December 2003)

Subject:   Fishing for migratory salmon

The main spawning areas for wild salmon in the Baltic include the rivers which flow into the Gulf of Bothnia. When salmon swim out to sea from their spawning areas, they can be freely caught even by those who do not have any duty to take measures to preserve migratory salmon stocks. Are the existing restrictions on fishing sufficient to preserve fish stocks, and could Member States' quotas take account of their measures to preserve stocks in the rivers where the fish reproduce?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(21 January 2004)

The regulation at Community level of the fishery for salmon in the Baltic Sea includes total allowable catches (TACs) and quotas as well as technical measures, with a view to ensuring a sustainable utilisation of the resources. As is general within the framework of the Common Fisheries Policy the Commission bases its proposals concerning TACs and fishing quotas on scientific advice. By using these working methods, the Commission believes indeed that the existing regulation of fishery will allow us to preserve stocks.

As regards the allocation of quotas, the quotas for individual Member States are based on the concept of relative stability which is one of the important elements of the Common Fisheries Policy — see Article 20(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002 (1). However, at the level of the International Baltic Sea Fisheries Commission (IBSFC) and within the framework of the Salmon Action Plan 1997-2010, Recommendation No XIX which was adopted in 2002 might lead to some changes in the future along the lines that the Honourable Member is suggesting. In the afore-mentioned Resolution, it is stated that IBSFC will decide on additional fishing possibilities on surplus reared salmon, which will be allocated to the Parties in relation to their release of smolt. It should also be noted that in order to utilise these additional fishing possibilities, the Party in question shall prove that it can target only reared salmon, by conducting fishery for the additional fishing possibilities in defined terminal fishery areas and by participating in a comprehensive adipose fin clipping programme which will allow for distinction between wild and reared salmon. The purpose of this new harvesting strategy is to shift fishery from the mixed wild and reared salmon fishery to a fishery that mainly targets reared salmon populations.

---

(1)  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.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/836 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/836

---

(2004/C 78 E/0890)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3616/03

by Esko Seppänen (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(5 December 2003)

Subject:   Setting fishing quotas for the new Member States

How does the Commission intend to set appropriate fishing quotas in the Baltic when the new Member States join the Union, and will it be possible, for example, to include in them obligations on the new Member States with regard to salmon restocking?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(21 January 2004)

The relative stability keys for the first allocation of fishing quotas to the new Member States are laid down in the Treaty of Accession. For the Baltic Sea, the allocation keys are based on current practice in the International Baltic Sea Fisheries Commission (IBSFC). The total allowable catches (TACs) for the Baltic Sea in 2004 were agreed at the Annual Session of the IBSFC in September-October 2003 and the results are transposed into the Community legislation through the TAC and Quota Regulation for 2004.

As regards salmon restocking, there are currently no such obligations on the Member States in Community legislation and there will thus not be any for the new Member States either. However at IBSFC level, where the new Member States bordering the Baltic Sea are all involved, there is a series of Recommendations regarding the Salmon Action Plan 1997-2010, which includes that ‘wild salmon populations shall be re-established in potential salmon rivers’.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/837 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/837

---

(2004/C 78 E/0891)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3630/03

by Carles-Alfred Gasòliba i Böhm (ELDR) to the Commission

(5 December 2003)

Subject:   Unspent Structural Fund resources

The preliminary draft amending budget No 7 to the 2003 budget, submitted by the Commission (1) establishes a considerable total of resources to be returned to the Budgetary Authority in the pre-2000 period, due to the low uptake of the Structural Funds: no less than EUR 5 000 million. This Community ‘saving’ will be allocated between the Member States in terms of their revenue contributions.

What are the Commission estimates for unused Structural Fund resources pre-2000 by Member State and by Fund?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(10 February 2004)

The amending Budget presented by the Commission on 29 October 2003 (2) and adopted by the budgetary authority was a response to the Court of Auditors, which stresses in its report on the 2002 financial year the necessity for the Commission to bring available appropriations into line with actual needs as soon as it becomes aware that there is a risk of underutilisation.

Although the Member States had estimated that the payment appropriations for 2003 should cover almost all the remainder still to be paid in respect of the 1994-99 programmes, the closure files were not sent to the Commission until 31 March 2003 — the cut-off date stipulated by the Regulation — and were often incomplete. Concern to maintain the quality of the requisite controls at the time of closure consequently led to identification of that underutilisation risk.

The adoption of that amending budget in the course of operations, which indicates progress in steering implementation, did not prevent reducing the remainder still to be paid in respect of 1994-1999 from 15,6 billion to 9 billion in 2003, a reduction of 41 %.

The estimate of funding which would ultimately remain unutilised by the Member States in respect of all the 1994-1999 programmes is still very provisional and may still change significantly. Indeed, while some partial or final closures have already given rise to recoveries or decommitments, the total amount of unutilised funding will not be known until after all the programmes have been finally closed and the requisite adversarial procedures completed in the event of financial corrections.

The following table gives an estimate, by Fund and Member State, of resources which might not be utilised in respect of 1994-1999 programmes for Objectives 1 to 6 and for the Community Initiatives. The figures correspond to projects which could not be finished or which ultimately cost less than forecast. They include the financial corrections made by the Commission, e.g. in cases of ineligible expenditure, and may change in the light of any financial corrections still to come.

| Country | EAGGF | FIFG | ERDF | ESF | Total |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Belgium | 19 | 3 | 145 | 53 | 220 |
| Denmark | 7 | 13 | 18 | 8 | 46 |
| Germany | 92 | 5 | 425 | 213 | 735 |
| Greece | 29 | 11 | 440 | 40 | 520 |
| Spain | 85 | 29 | 228 | 48 | 390 |
| France | 180 | 27 | 807 | 489 | 1 503 |
| Ireland | 3 | 1 | 62 | 268 | 334 |
| Italy | 212 | 21 | 432 | 489 | 1 154 |
| Luxembourg | 2 | 1 | 4 | 3 | 10 |
| Netherlands | 3 | 15 | 143 | 362 | 523 |
| Austria | 18 | 0 | 15 | 16 | 49 |
| Portugal | 31 | 5 | 106 | 49 | 191 |
| Finland | 11 | 3 | 36 | 42 | 92 |
| Sweden | 5 | 6 | 44 | 22 | 77 |
| United Kingdom | 19 | 9 | 775 | 353 | 1 156 |
| Unspecified | 0 | 0 | 100 | 0 | 100 |
| Total | 716 | 149 | 3 780 | 2 455 | 7 100 |

Country

EAGGF

FIFG

ERDF

ESF

Total

Belgium

19

3

145

53

220

Denmark

7

13

18

8

46

Germany

92

5

425

213

735

Greece

29

11

440

40

520

Spain

85

29

228

48

390

France

180

27

807

489

1 503

Ireland

3

1

62

268

334

Italy

212

21

432

489

1 154

Luxembourg

2

1

4

3

10

Netherlands

3

15

143

362

523

Austria

18

0

15

16

49

Portugal

31

5

106

49

191

Finland

11

3

36

42

92

Sweden

5

6

44

22

77

United Kingdom

19

9

775

353

1 156

Unspecified

0

0

100

0

100

Total

716

149

3 780

2 455

7 100

These amounts totalling EUR 7,1 billion represent on average 5 % of the 1994-1999 programmes (even less in present value). This means that, 10 years after their launch, the programmes' implementation rate is over 95 %.

---

(1)  SEC(2003) 1111 final, 29 October 2003.

(2)  SEC(2003) 1111.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/838 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/838

---

(2004/C 78 E/0892)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3636/03

by Salvador Jové Peres (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(2 December 2003)

Subject:   Reform of the CMO in olive oil

Regulation (EC) No 1638/98 (1) amending the common organisation of the market in oils and fats lays down that: ‘No aid ... may be paid to olive growers in respect of additional olive trees or the relevant areas planted after 1 May 1998’.

Under the recent Commission proposal, aid for olive oil would be calculated on the basis of the aid received in the period 2000-2002. Olive groves begin to yield fruit five years after being established, and only reach full productive capacity ten years after planting. As a consequence, the entitlements for olive trees planted between 1990 and 1 May 1998 would, despite their being eligible for aid, be inferior to those for other olive trees. Similarly, the Council regulation of 1998 established guaranteed national quantities which, if exceeded, trigger the application of penalties, and therefore the granting of less aid. In this way, if the approach announced by the Commission were to be applied, there would be a reduction in the aid entitlements for olive trees planted between 1988 and 1 May 1998. Olive groves that are the subject of restructuring or replanting measures in these periods would also be affected by both sets of circumstances.

The Commission has commissioned studies and investigations — Olistat, Olisig, Oliarea and Olicount, Olicount 2000, Oliarea and Geomatics — to obtain reliable information on Community olive groves, and has been able to use GIS for this.

What surface area of olive groves planted prior to 1998 in each Member State would not have come into full production in 2000? What surface area of olive groves subject to restructuring or replanting measures in each Member State would not have come into full production in 2000? How many producers fall into each of these two categories in each Member State?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(8 January 2004)

Under CAP reform principles the Commission is proposing that the national ceiling 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. It should be noted that in all three leading producer countries (Greece, Italy Spain) the national guaranteed quantity was exceeded during that period.

Under the reform proposal presented by the Commission additional trees planted after 1 May 1998 will be excluded from any support. As the Honourable Member says, new trees do not reach full productivity until ten years after planting. There are therefore a number of groves eligible under the new provisions that during the reference period produced less (and hence generated less aid) than a grove of mature trees. It is to deal with this type of situation that Council Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 (2) requires Member States to apply a percentage reduction (not more than 3 %) to reference amounts in order to constitute a national reserve. By using this to establish reference amounts for farmers in a special situation or in areas undergoing restructuring Member States will be able to ensure equality of treatment for all producers.

On numbers of young olive trees, the Olistat study in 1998 gave for Spain a figure of 66,4 million (23 %) out of a total of 287,9 million maintained trees. For the other Member States the corresponding proportion was France 11 %, Greece 14 %, Italy 19 % and Portugal 14 %.

---

(1)  OJ L 210, 28.7.1998, p. 32.

(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.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/839 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/839

---

(2004/C 78 E/0893)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3640/03

by Herbert Bösch (PSE) and Johannes Swoboda (PSE) to the Commission

(9 December 2003)

Subject:   Withdrawal of direct cross-border rail connections

From 14 December 2003 new train timetables will become operational in Austria, Switzerland and Germany. Certain direct overnight train services, viz. Vienna/Brussels (EN 324 Donau Walzer), Brussels/Vienna (EN 325 Donau Walzer), Brussels/Chur (D 499) and Chur/Brussels (D 499) no longer appear in the new timetables. The Vienna/Amsterdam, Amsterdam/Vienna direct overnight connection had already been withdrawn in mid-December 2002. These services are being or have been discontinued even although the trains were and are generally well used, and gave a significant boost to summer and Christmas tourism in resorts in Austria. Austrian Federal Railways (ÖBB) were concerned to maintain the service to and from Brussels and Amsterdam, but the railway companies in Belgium, Germany and the Netherlands were opposed, for various reasons, to continuing them. ÖBB does not, however, have the capacity to maintain these trans-European rail connections on its own.

Can the Commission state how many direct trains between Member State capitals and third-countries bordering on the EU have been withdrawn in the last five years?

What action is the Commission taking to promote cross-border passenger transport, in particular against the backdrop of EU initiatives to promote trans-European networks? What arrangements is the Commission making to ensure that the liberalisation process at European level will not mean a deterioration in the service to users? Can the Commission provide a breakdown of the take-up of TEN appropriations by Member State over the last five years? What impact does failure to implement railway projects have on rail users?

Can the Commission Member responsible state what trends have been identified in cross-border freight and passenger traffic by road and by rail in the European Union since 1995, and provide a forecast of future trends over the next ten years? What has been the trend in transit traffic through Austria since 1995, and what scenarios does the Commission Member anticipate for Austrian transit traffic over the next ten years?

What priority should, in the Commission Member's opinion, be set for cross-border freight and passenger traffic in coming years in the European Union, in Austria in particular, as between rail or road? What will be the impact on the ease of access to particular European regions by public transport? What actions has the Commission already taken to implement its objectives, and what further actions will follow?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(6 February 2004)

The Commission is aware that a large number of international train services operated cooperatively between national railway undertakings have been discontinued. According to information received from these undertakings, the services in question often made heavy losses, and in the absence of any public service subsidies, the undertakings chose to withdraw them for reasons of sound financial management.

Cumbersome cooperation arrangements and the absence of any commercial benefit for many undertakings involved in the cooperation are another reason why these services are not being maintained.

The Commission considers that this sector of the market would benefit from being liberalised in order to promote a more commercial approach and allow a single undertaking to assume responsibility for the services from start to finish.

The implementation of the first railway package in 2003 created a new legal framework which should facilitate such operations by international groups of undertakings and ultimately by any interested railway undertaking, when the services are fully liberalised in accordance with Parliament's wishes. The creation of RailNetEurope in December 2003, which brings together all infrastructure managers, will promote the development of international train paths which can be used by undertakings wishing to set up such services on a more dynamic commercial basis — essential if they are to head off the strong competition from low-price airlines and regular bus services, which are developing rapidly in Europe.

The Commission, being aware of the challenges facing the rail sector in the transport system, has undertaken in the first and second railway packages, with which Parliament is very familar, and in the third package, soon to be adopted, to establish a comprehensive European regulatory framework intended to revitalise the sector by allowing it to offer safe, high-quality services on a European scale, the only prerequisite for its future success given the other modes of transport which are constantly being improved. It hopes to have the firm support of Parliament in this long-term project, which will involve a major cultural change in the rail sector.

The Commission will send the information requested on traffic statistics and investments directly to the Honourable Members and to Parliament's Secretariat.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/840 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/840

---

(2004/C 78 E/0894)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3641/03

by Antonios Trakatellis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(9 December 2003)

Subject:   Definition of ‘forest’: divergence between the definition in a Greek bill and in the Forest Focus regulation

The Regulation concerning monitoring of forests and environmental interactions in the Community (Forest Focus) (1) provides that ‘forest’ means land with tree crown cover (or equivalent stocking level) of more than 10 % and area of more than 0,5 ha (Article 3.a). The Greek government recently tabled a bill in the Greek parliament on the protection of forest ecosystems, the establishment of a forest register, the regulation of property titles over forestry and woodlands in general and other provisions. In total contradiction with the Community definition this bill seeks for reasons of political expediency to define ‘forest’ in such a way as to declassify woodlands and to allow development there. Specifically, this bill — a copy of which I have sent to the Commission — defines ‘forest’ as an area of at least 0,3 ha with tree crown cover of at least 25 % of the area.

| 1. | Given that each Member State is obliged to comply with the requirements of existing legislation and that the Forest Focus Regulation forms part of Community legalisation, what measures does the Commission, as guardian of the Treaties, intend to take to ensure compliance with its provisions and in particular the definition of ‘forest’? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Given that each Member State is obliged to comply with the requirements of existing legislation and that the Forest Focus Regulation forms part of Community legalisation, what measures does the Commission, as guardian of the Treaties, intend to take to ensure compliance with its provisions and in particular the definition of ‘forest’?

| 2. | Is the definition of ‘forest’ proposed by the Greek government more restrictive than the Community's definition and does it exclude land covered by the Community definition? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Is the definition of ‘forest’ proposed by the Greek government more restrictive than the Community's definition and does it exclude land covered by the Community definition?

| 3. | Does the proposed definition of ‘forest’ diverge from the Community definition? In which Member States is ‘forest’ defined more restrictively than under the Community definition and in which others is it defined more broadly in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity (please provide a table with existing definitions)? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Does the proposed definition of ‘forest’ diverge from the Community definition? In which Member States is ‘forest’ defined more restrictively than under the Community definition and in which others is it defined more broadly in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity (please provide a table with existing definitions)?

| 4. | How does the Commission intend to avert fragmentation and the exclusion of land and changes in the classification of dwellings which are at present protected by the Community in accordance with Directive 92/43/EEC (2) (Natura 2000), and what measures does it intend to take to maintain and preserve existing forests, protect biodiversity and ensure the sustainable management of forests? |
| --- | --- |

4.

How does the Commission intend to avert fragmentation and the exclusion of land and changes in the classification of dwellings which are at present protected by the Community in accordance with Directive 92/43/EEC (2) (Natura 2000), and what measures does it intend to take to maintain and preserve existing forests, protect biodiversity and ensure the sustainable management of forests?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(2 February 2004)

Community legislation does not provide for a comprehensive common forestry policy although the management, conservation and sustainable development of forests are of course addressed through several Union policies.

The draft Greek forest bill has been made available by the Honourable Member to the Commission. However, the draft in question has been substantially modified during the legislative procedure prior to adoption. Once the adopted text of the bill becomes available, the Commission could foresee an assessment of the compatibility of the Greek forest law with Community legislation.

| 1. to 3. | The Commission stresses that the forest related definitions provided in Article 3 of Regulation (EC) No 2152/2003 of the Parliament and of the Council of 17 November 2003 concerning monitoring of forests and environmental interactions in the Community (Forest Focus) (3) have to be applied by Member States only for the purpose of this Regulation. National forest definitions can still be applied for other purposes such as national monitoring systems. |
| --- | --- |

1. to 3.

The Commission stresses that the forest related definitions provided in Article 3 of Regulation (EC) No 2152/2003 of the Parliament and of the Council of 17 November 2003 concerning monitoring of forests and environmental interactions in the Community (Forest Focus) (3) have to be applied by Member States only for the purpose of this Regulation. National forest definitions can still be applied for other purposes such as national monitoring systems.

| 4. | With regard to Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora, hereafter ‘Habitats Directive’, it is recalled that this directive makes explicit references to habitat types and not to land use. The habitat types and species listed in Annexes I and II should be included in the Natura 2000 network of sites, following the procedure set out in Article 4 and the selection criteria established by Annexe III of the Directive. The designation of Sites of Community Importance under the Directive is therefore based on the ecological quality of the habitats and species existing in a site and not on the site's land use classification.
  The recently tabled Greek forest law will not modify the classification of the habitat types included in the Habitats Directive and the list of Sites of Community Importance proposed by Greece. Since the Greek proposal of Sites of Community Importance was based on the selection criteria of Annexe III and not on land use criteria, this list is not expected to change. The list of selected sites of Community Importance for the Mediterranean region is expected to be adopted by the Commission by the end of 2004.
  As regards the identification of proposed Sites of Community Importance, it should be borne in mind that Member States have a general obligation to act in such a way as to ensure that the aims of the Directive are not jeopardised. Even in the absence of a Community list, Member States authorities must at least abstain from all activities that may seriously compromise the integrity of a site on the national list, that may cause the deterioration of a natural habitat or significantly disturb species. Furthermore, it should be stressed that the provisions of Articles 12, 13 and 14, which cover certain plant and animal species, are applicable from the date of implementation of the Directive, i.e. 10 June 1994.
  Regarding management of the sites, within six years of the adoption of the list of sites of Community Importance for the Mediterranean region, each Member State concerned should designate them as Special Areas of Conservation and establish relevant priorities.
  Following the adoption and the implementation of the Greek law, the Commission will assess the impact that the possible changes in land use classification may have on the proposed Sites of Community Importance and will take all appropriate measures to ensure the application of Community environmental legislation. |
| --- | --- |

4.

With regard to Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora, hereafter ‘Habitats Directive’, it is recalled that this directive makes explicit references to habitat types and not to land use. The habitat types and species listed in Annexes I and II should be included in the Natura 2000 network of sites, following the procedure set out in Article 4 and the selection criteria established by Annexe III of the Directive. The designation of Sites of Community Importance under the Directive is therefore based on the ecological quality of the habitats and species existing in a site and not on the site's land use classification.

The recently tabled Greek forest law will not modify the classification of the habitat types included in the Habitats Directive and the list of Sites of Community Importance proposed by Greece. Since the Greek proposal of Sites of Community Importance was based on the selection criteria of Annexe III and not on land use criteria, this list is not expected to change. The list of selected sites of Community Importance for the Mediterranean region is expected to be adopted by the Commission by the end of 2004.

As regards the identification of proposed Sites of Community Importance, it should be borne in mind that Member States have a general obligation to act in such a way as to ensure that the aims of the Directive are not jeopardised. Even in the absence of a Community list, Member States authorities must at least abstain from all activities that may seriously compromise the integrity of a site on the national list, that may cause the deterioration of a natural habitat or significantly disturb species. Furthermore, it should be stressed that the provisions of Articles 12, 13 and 14, which cover certain plant and animal species, are applicable from the date of implementation of the Directive, i.e. 10 June 1994.

Regarding management of the sites, within six years of the adoption of the list of sites of Community Importance for the Mediterranean region, each Member State concerned should designate them as Special Areas of Conservation and establish relevant priorities.

Following the adoption and the implementation of the Greek law, the Commission will assess the impact that the possible changes in land use classification may have on the proposed Sites of Community Importance and will take all appropriate measures to ensure the application of Community environmental legislation.

---

(1)  COD 2002/0164 C5-0292/2003, Regulation not yet published in the OJ.

(2)  OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7.

(3)  OJ L 324, 11.12.2003.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/842 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/842

---

(2004/C 78 E/0895)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3644/03

by Salvador Jové Peres (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(9 December 2003)

Subject:   Reform of the COM in olive oil

Following the introduction of production aids for table olives, EU 15 production increased by around 70 %. Given that there are no surpluses and that it is unlikely that consumption would have increased on this scale, the most plausible explanation is that the introduction of production aids has substantially improved transparency in the table olives market.

In the light of the possible abolition of the link with production, to what extent does the Commission feel that there is a danger that transparency will be lost in the table olives and olive oil market? Against this background, how does it assess the risks as regards loss of quality in the olive oil market and the appearance of oils of doubtful origin?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(22 January 2004)

The Commission takes the view that an aid scheme cannot be justified on the sole ground that checks on granting it make it easier to tell production volumes and verify product quality.

We intend to continue fighting lack of market transparency and oil quality fraud using the arrangements already in place, namely the provisions drawn up by the Community on quality standards and testing for authenticity and quality that fall to be applied by the Member States (using their anti-fraud organisations where appropriate) through national programmes to be notified to the Commission. This approach allows oils to be tested from the production stage up to retail sale.

We are also proposing more intensive action programmes for the sector's professional organisations, which should be encouraged to set up traceability, guarantee and inspection schemes for both olive oils and table olives.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/843 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/843

---

(2004/C 78 E/0896)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3649/03

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(9 December 2003)

Subject:   Serious delays in payments by the International Organisation for Migration in Geneva relating to the German forced labour compensation programme

| 1. | Is the Commission aware of the delays in disbursing the EUR 5 billion which was made available by the German Government and German businesses in June 2000 as a contribution to compensation payments for unpaid slave labour performed under degrading conditions during the Second World War? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is the Commission aware of the delays in disbursing the EUR 5 billion which was made available by the German Government and German businesses in June 2000 as a contribution to compensation payments for unpaid slave labour performed under degrading conditions during the Second World War?

| 2. | Is the Commission furthermore aware that this money is being managed by the International Organisation for Migration (IOM) in Geneva with a view to making payments of a maximum of EUR 7 700 per person, in the form of the ‘IOM/German forced labour compensation programme’? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Is the Commission furthermore aware that this money is being managed by the International Organisation for Migration (IOM) in Geneva with a view to making payments of a maximum of EUR 7 700 per person, in the form of the ‘IOM/German forced labour compensation programme’?

| 3. | Has the Commission heard that, of the 600 000 Dutch forced labourers who worked in Germany, 15 443 have claimed compensation and that so far only 1928 have been awarded it? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Has the Commission heard that, of the 600 000 Dutch forced labourers who worked in Germany, 15 443 have claimed compensation and that so far only 1928 have been awarded it?

| 4. | Has the Commission also heard that the reasons for this delay are that claimants are required to communicate in languages other than those they have learned themselves, that attempts to telephone the organisation lead only to a voicemail box where it is possible to leave a message, that letters are left unanswered and that documentary evidence has to be submitted which does not exist? |
| --- | --- |

4.

Has the Commission also heard that the reasons for this delay are that claimants are required to communicate in languages other than those they have learned themselves, that attempts to telephone the organisation lead only to a voicemail box where it is possible to leave a message, that letters are left unanswered and that documentary evidence has to be submitted which does not exist?

| 5. | Does the Commission also know of similar complaints from former forced labourers living in countries other than the Netherlands concerning the poor functioning or complete breakdown of this IOM programme? |
| --- | --- |

5.

Does the Commission also know of similar complaints from former forced labourers living in countries other than the Netherlands concerning the poor functioning or complete breakdown of this IOM programme?

| 6. | Is it a satisfactory outcome that payment of this compensation to people whose average age is 80 should be delayed for many years to come or that the compensation should not be paid at all? |
| --- | --- |

6.

Is it a satisfactory outcome that payment of this compensation to people whose average age is 80 should be delayed for many years to come or that the compensation should not be paid at all?

| 7. | What can the Commission do to help find a quick and equitable solution to this problem, which is not confined to any one country? |
| --- | --- |

7.

What can the Commission do to help find a quick and equitable solution to this problem, which is not confined to any one country?

Source: TV Nederland 1, ‘Netwerk’, 25 November 2003 (www.netwerk.tv).

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/843 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/843

---

(2004/C 78 E/0897)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3971/03

by Mario Borghezio (NI) to the Commission

(5 January 2004)

Subject:   Failure by Germany to compensate former Italian military internees (IMIs)

The International Organisation for Migration (IOM), which was commissioned by the German foundation ‘Remembrance, Responsibility and Future’ to consider claims for compensation for slave labour and forced labour during the Second World War, has not only incorrectly excluded a large proportion of Italian applicants from the payment of compensation, but has also so far failed to pay the sums owing to those deemed eligible for compensation.

Applicants are entitled to appeal against these decisions to the IOM's appeals body in Geneva (IOM Appeals Body, P.O. Box 174, CH-1211, Geneva 19, Switzerland) although, according to the IOM's own communication to Italian applicants of 11 November 2002, this body is bound by the decision of the German Government and German foundation that Italian military internees had prisoner of war status during the Second World War, excluding them from compensation.

Does the Commission not see an urgent need to take action to ensure the payment of compensation, so far refused or delayed, for this serious violation of the human rights of these elderly and vulnerable survivors of the tragic experience of war?

Joint answer

to Written Questions E-3649/03 and E-3971/03

given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(11 February 2004)

The Commission is not aware of the legal and factual details regarding the implementation of the German forced labour compensation programme by the International Organisation for Migration (IOM) because it is a matter for the German Government, which has set out the details of this programme in a German Law. It is, therefore, for the German Government to decide the conditions for eligibility. Equally, it depends on the procedures foreseen by this Law as to how the persons concerned may appeal regarding the delays in payments.

In any case, Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the Council of 14 June 1971 (1) does not apply to schemes in favour of war victims. The Commission would, therefore, like to refer to its reply to Written Question E-2757/00 by Mr Alavanos (2) regarding the same compensation programme, and in particular to the fact that the Petitions Committee of the Parliament had, therefore, decided that it would address the Petitions Committee of the German Bundestag in order to try to improve the situation of these victims.

---

(1)  OJ L 149, 5.7.1971; last 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.

(2)  OJ C 136 E, 8.5.2001.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/844 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/844

---

(2004/C 78 E/0898)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3652/03

by Dana Scallon (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(2 December 2003)

Subject:   Stem cells and stem-cell lines

Has the Commission funded the production of any stem cells and stem-cell lines? How many projects were funded? In which countries? How much money was spent?

How many embryos were used to create the two stem-cell lines in the UK and the seven stem-cell lines in Sweden?

Does this represent the total number of stem cell lines created in Europe since 27 June 2002?

Has the European Commission funded the import of any embryonic stem cells or embryonic stem cell lines? How many have been imported? How much did they cost?

Answer given by Mr Busquin on behalf of the Commission

(16 January 2004)

No Community funds have been spent until now on research activities aiming at producing human embryonic stem cell lines.

In the Fifth Framework Programme (1998-2002), around 60 research activities having at least one stem cell research activity component, have been funded. A list of these projects is sent direct to the Honourable Member and to the Secretariat general of the Parliament. Among those, only two projects have a research component aiming to involve existing human embryonic stem cell lines. All these projects represent in total a community contribution of close to EUR 90 million. However, the information regarding the specific amount of money only dedicated to stem cell research within these projects is not available to the Commission. Regarding the countries involved, most of the Member States are represented as well as third countries such as, Switzerland, Israel, Hungary, Norway, etc. More details on the participants of these projects and the countries involved can be found on the internet site of Cordis (1).

The information on the number of embryos used to create the two stem cell lines in the United Kingdom and the seven stem cell lines in Sweden is not available to the Commission.

The Commission does not have definitive information on the total number of human embryonic stem cell lines created in Europe since 27 June 2002. The picture regarding the total number of such lines created in Europe is continuously evolving. Because the procurement of human embryonic stem cells from supernumerary embryos is now allowed by law in seven other Member States (B, DK, GR, ES, F, NL, FI), it is probable that new lines are under development. In particular, the report provided by Astrid Thors, rapporteur appointed by the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market to draft an opinion on the proposal for a Council Decision amending Council Decision 2002/834/EC of 30 September 2002 (2) on the specific programme for research, technological development and demonstration: ‘Integrating and strengthening the European research area’ (2002-2006) (3), mentions that three lines could be available in Helsinki but does not say anything about their date of production.

All the human embryonic stem cell lines used, until now, in the Community funded projects are existing lines created outside the Union. As mentioned above, two projects are concerned in the Fifth Framework Programme: one plans to work on two lines imported from the American National Institute of Health registry and the other involves an Israeli line for research activities performed in Israel. In the current Sixth Framework Programme and following the first call for proposals, one proposal that involves a component of research with a human embryonic stem cell line from the American National Institute of Health registry could receive funds. As indicated in paragraph 1, the Commission is not in a position to know if the costs of importation have been included in the Union contracts. The average cost for the lines listed in the American National Institute of Health registry is USD 5 000-6 000 per line, but only for research use.

---

(1)  http://dbs.cordis.lu/fep/LIFE/LIFE_PROJ1_search.html

(2)  OJ L 294, 29.10.2002.

(3)  COM(2003) 390.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/845 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/845

---

(2004/C 78 E/0899)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3656/03

by Salvador Jové Peres (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(9 December 2003)

Subject:   High quality code NC 1003 00 barley imports

What quantities has each Member State imported annually of the corresponding annual Community customs tariff quota of 50 000 tons of code NC 1003 00 high quality barley for malt production for use in manufacturing certain beers aged in barrels containing beechwood, at a tariff of 50 % of the total tariff type in force from 1996 until 2002?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(26 January 2004)

The following table shows each Member State's imports from 1996 to 2002 of malting barley for production of beer aged in barrels containing beechwood.

| (Tonnes) |
| --- |
| Member State | Licences applied for |
| 1996 | 1997 | 1998 | 1999 | 2000 | 2001 | 2002 |
| Belgium | 2 483 | 733 | 3 167 | 5 626 | 6 552 | 1 483 | 0 |
| Ireland | 6 474 | 14 635 | 6 775 | 14 966 | 14 903 | 3 588 | 0 |
| United Kingdom | 16 706 | 20312 | 18 964 | 19 456 | 14 866 | 8 504 | 2 000 |
| Total EU | 25 663 | 35679 | 28 905 | 40 048 | 36 322 | 13 575 | 2 000 |

(Tonnes)

Member State

Licences applied for

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

Belgium

2 483

733

3 167

5 626

6 552

1 483

0

Ireland

6 474

14 635

6 775

14 966

14 903

3 588

0

United Kingdom

16 706

20312

18 964

19 456

14 866

8 504

2 000

Total EU

25 663

35679

28 905

40 048

36 322

13 575

2 000

The reason why the figures for the second half of 2001 and for 2002 are much lower than in previous years is that during that period the non-quota import duty on barley was low or even nil for long periods, thus reducing the advantage of using the quota.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/846 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/846

---

(2004/C 78 E/0900)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3657/03

by Giovanni Procacci (ELDR) to the Commission

(2 December 2003)

Subject:   Storage of nuclear waste

The Italian Government has issued a decree stipulating that all nuclear waste currently in Italy is to be stored in Scanzano Jonico, in a rock-salt deposit a few metres underground.

The storage location is less than one kilometre from the sea and close to a river, a few metres from a gas field and in an earthquake-prone area.

According to studies carried out in the USA on waste stored in saline formations, over time radioactive material generates a rise in temperature and movement in the saline fluids which causes corrosion of the containers and therefore release of waste into the environment; scientists cannot guarantee that over time the presence of the waste will not be dangerous for the town's population.

In view of the above, can the Commission intervene by blocking this ridiculous decision, both because it constitutes a real threat for the residents of the area living a few metres from the site, and because it is detrimental to the Metapontino plain, an area located in the centre of Basilicata, Puglia and Calabria which plays host to the most developed agrifood businesses in the south of Italy and has areas with excellent tourist facilities?

How does the Commission intend to deal with the issue of radioactive waste at Community level, with a view to protecting citizens' health to the highest possible degree?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(6 January 2004)

Concerning the proposal to construct a radioactive waste repository in the municipality of Scanzano Jonico in Italy, the Commission notes that the original decree of the Italian government has been amended and that Scanzano Jonico is but one option amongst other potential sites to be identified and assessed by a commission of experts.

The Commission recalls that each Member State is responsible for the management of all spent fuel and radioactive waste under its jurisdiction.

The Commission has already taken steps to ensure the protection of the public and the environment. In its proposed new Directive on the management of spent fuel and radioactive waste under discussion in the Council, Member States will be required to prepare programmes for the safe management of such wastes, including their disposal.

However, existing european legislation already requires that certain steps must take place before any development approval is given.

Council 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 (1) requires an assessment of, ‘inter alia’, any government plan or programme to dispose of radioactive waste. However, Member States have until 21 July 2004 to transpose this Directive into national legislation.

Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment, as amended by Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997 (2), requires an assessment to be carried out of, ‘inter alia’, of the environmental impact of any facilities designed for the final disposal or long-term storage of radioactive waste or irradiated nuclear fuel. Radiological effects will form part of the impacts to be assessed.

If development consent is granted, specific measures under the Euratom Treaty and secondary legislation will be applicable. All practices involving radioactive materials are subject to Council Directive 96/29/Euratom of 13 May 1996 laying down basic safety standards for the health protection of the general public and workers against the dangers of ionizing radiation (3). In addition, there are notification requirements under Article 37 of the Euratom Treaty in the case of disposal of radioactive waste.

The Commission would also like to refer the Honourable Member to the reply P-3519/03 by Mr Turco (4).

---

(1)  OJ L 197, 21.7.2001.

(2)  OJ L 73, 14.3.1997.

(3)  OJ L 159, 29.6.1996.

(4)  See page 570.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/847 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/847

---

(2004/C 78 E/0901)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3663/03

by Paulo Casaca (PSE) to the Commission

(9 December 2003)

Subject:   Undisclosed research on organic farming

Electronic information networks contain details of contracts, bearing the reference ‘QLK-2000-0112’, for research into current trends in organic farming and food and conversion of production, which were concluded under the fifth research framework programme and apparently covered all the Member States.

Several of the studies produced under those contracts are obtainable in electronic or other forms and dated 2002 or 2003.

It is also possible, using the Agriculture Directorate-General's site, to consult recently dated working documents and reports on exactly the same subject. Strangely, however, their bibliographies do not mention any of the studies produced under the fifth framework programme, which were presumably already in preparation in 2000.

Can the Commission say whether it is true that two different Commission departments were engaged in parallel activities related to the same subject, employing similar techniques (surveys), but did not pool their efforts and did not even bother to tell each other what they were doing?

Can it say why it has deliberately withheld the ‘QLK-2000-01112’ studies from public consultation?

Does it have any idea of the costs to economic, social, and administrative players entailed in its policy of non-communication and excessive secrecy, starting with the overlapping within its own departments?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(22 January 2004)

The overall objective of project QLK5-2000-01112 is the assessment of the market potential for conversion-grade products (produced by farms under conversion from conventional to organic). Its focus is mainly on conversion products, but it also addresses issues related to certified organic farming products and looks at solutions for policy makers to help farmers during the conversion period from conventional to organic farming methods of production.

The project gathers and analyses relevant data from six Union countries (it does not cover all the Member States): Denmark, Ireland, Italy, Portugal, United Kingdom, Austria.

The surveys are only one part of the project (78 man-months out of a total of 212 man-months). Most of the activities of the participants are related to literature and background research, farm case studies and feasibility studies aimed at the analysis of the data collected and production of national and comparative reports on the state of conversion and organic farming markets.

The final aim of the project is to produce recommendations to policy makers and to disseminate the results of the projects to all the stakeholders through a series of open workshops to be held in the participating countries. A final workshop will be held in Brussels in March 2004.

The main dissemination activity foreseen by the project is the organisation of the national workshops, planned for November/December 2003 and currently ongoing, and the final workshop in Brussels, originally planned for December 2003 but postponed to March 2004.

There was no secret at all about this project, in fact a web page was opened at the beginning of the project (1) and all the information about the project activities are available there, as well as contact details of the participants. The website has not been updated with interim reports (despite the contractors having being asked to do so) but this lack of information is not due to a Commission decision or fault. However, the final reports will be made available on the web page after the final workshop and after their approval by the Commission (Spring 2004).

Concerning the ‘Organic farming’ heading on the Directorate General (DG) Agriculture website, no studies or research reports appear here, only reports and documents written by the Commission services. However, on the DG Agriculture website there is another heading, ‘Research’, which provides a gateway to the Cordis database, where it is possible to search for information on all the research projects completed or currently underway. The two services, DG Agriculture and DG Research, are in constant consultation with each other. A joint workshop between DG Research, DG Agriculture and the Joint Research Centre was organised in February 2002 in order to assess the situation concerning available studies and projects on organic farming, and to establish what further projects were needed. Additionally, in September 2002, DG Research organised a seminar on organic farming research in Brussels, with presentations of research projects that have been carried out on this subject. Documents and conclusions from this seminar are available on the EU-AgriNet website (2).

Currently, contracts for a number of research projects addressing issues relevant to agriculture and food production are about to be signed, after a successful evaluation of the first call for proposals of the Research and Technological Development (RTD)'s 6th Framework Programme. Several of these projects have been negotiated in close collaboration between the relevant services of DG Research and DG Agriculture.

---

(1)  http://www.rdg.ac.uk/AgriStrat/conversion/

(2)  http://europa.eu.int/comm/research/agriculture/index_en.html

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/849 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/849

---

(2004/C 78 E/0902)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3667/03

by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(2 December 2003)

Subject:   Building of a dam in the lower Sabor

The River Sabor, which rises in Spain, in the Parada mountains, runs for over a hundred kilometres through the province of Trás-os-Montes, in Portugal, and flows into the River Douro near Torre de Moncorvo.

The Sabor valley has a great variety of habitats and plant and animal species: 17 of the different kinds of habitats to be found there are included in the Community Habitats Directive (transposed into Portuguese domestic law by Executive Law No 140/99), and four of these are regarded as conservation priorities.

The environmental impact assessment (EIA) of the project to build a dam in the lower Sabor states that, as far as flora is concerned, the site under study is an area with distinctive and indeed unique characteristics in the Portuguese national context. The Sabor valley also has the most extensive and best preserved holm-oak and cork oak groves in Trás-os-Montes, remnants of the Mediterranean forest that long ago was presumably the main feature throughout the Terra Quente region of Trás-os-Montes. In addition, olive trees are grown on a substantial scale in the region, which produces high-grade olive oil.

The importance of the Sabor valley from the point of view of fauna has been recognised to the extent that the site covered by the dam project is encompassed wholly within a Special Protection Area and partly within the Natura 2000 network.

The valley likewise has significant assets of ethnographic, historical, and archaeological interest, some closely linked to the traditions of the local population.

Furthermore, the fact that the International Douro Natural Park and the Côa Archaeology Park are situated nearby could be turned to account for sustainable development.

| 1. | Will Community funding be provided for the plan to build a dam on the River Sabor? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Will Community funding be provided for the plan to build a dam on the River Sabor?

| 2. | What Community support can be granted to promote an alternative sustainable development project for the Sabor valley, to protect and enhance its natural, landscape, and cultural heritage, without building the dam? |
| --- | --- |

2.

What Community support can be granted to promote an alternative sustainable development project for the Sabor valley, to protect and enhance its natural, landscape, and cultural heritage, without building the dam?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(8 January 2004)

The Project to build a dam in the Sabor River in Trás-os-Montes was the object of a complaint to the Commission, which was registered under number 2003/4523. The complaint concerns the possible infringement of Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds (1) and Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (2).

The complaint concerns the possible damage to the sites of Community interest proposed by Portugal under Directive 92/43/EEC ‘Morais’ and ‘Rios Sabor e Maçãs’ as well as to the special protection area ‘Rios Sabor e Maçãs’ designated by Portugal under Directive 79/409/EEC. The Commission has written to the Portuguese authorities requesting information on the situation in the light of Community Law.

The Portuguese authorities have not requested Community financing for the project.

The zone concerned by this project is included in the Objective 1 areas for structural funds. Projects for the sustainable development of the area, therefore, qualify generally for Community co-financing. The management of those funds at national level is the responsibility of the Portuguese authorities. Projects for the protection of the natural values that led to the inclusion in the Natura 2000 network of the sites mentioned above are also eligible for Community co-financing in the framework of the LIFE-Nature programme. The Commission's proposal for a new Regulation extending the LIFE programme until the end of 2006 is presently being discussed in the Council and Parliament and, therefore, details are not yet available.

---

(1)  OJ L 103, 25.4.1979.

(2)  OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/850 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/850

---

(2004/C 78 E/0903)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3698/03

by Torben Lund (PSE) to the Commission

(10 December 2003)

Subject:   Contravention of ban on fishing with drift nets and of the habitats directive

CNN's home page revealed on 24 November 2003 how dolphins are being killed in their ten thousands because fishermen in the Mediterranean area are using illegal drift nets. As well as dolphins, these drift nets are also killing sharks and turtles.

According to CNN, both Italian and French fishermen are contravening the ban on drift net fishing and therefore appear to be in breach of Council Regulation (EC) No 1239/98 of 8 June 1998 (1) amending Regulation (EC) No 894/97 (2) laying down certain technical measures for the conservation of fishery resources as well as Article 12(4) of the habitats directive.

Can the Commission state whether the CNN report is correct and, if so, what action it intends to take in the light of this information and when it intends to intervene? How does it consider that this information can be reconciled with existing EU legislation? What will the consequences be for a fisherman caught in the act of fishing with illegal drift nets and how does the Commission anticipate that fishermen in other countries will perceive these infringements and themselves be motivated to comply with the EU legislation?

According to CNN, there are at least 75 French vessels and at least 100 Italian ones fishing illegally with drift nets and it would be scandalous if the Commission were not to intervene immediately to save more dolphins from being killed.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(21 January 2004)

We do not have detailed particulars of the CNN website presentation of 24 November 2003 to which the Honourable Member refers but have been told about use of drift nets in the Mediterranean by certain Community vessels. We are assessing the situation and have already been in contact with the relevant authorities.

Using drift nets to take certain migratory species is now an infringement of Community law. Fisherman doing so are therefore liable to administrative penalisation or criminal proceedings under the provisions that Member States are required to introduce by the Regulation on conservation and sustainable exploitation of fisheries resources under the Common Fisheries Policy and the Regulation establishing a control system applicable to the common fisheries policy (3).

It is not our business to comment on what view fishermen may take of infringements of Community law committed by other fishermen. We do all that we can to ensure that fishing is properly policed by the Member States. That applies not just to the prohibition on drift nets but to all the resource conservation and management rules.

---

(1)  OJ L 171, 17.6.1998, p. 1.

(2)  OJ L 132, 23.5.1997, p. 1.

(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; Regulation (EC) No 2847/93 establishing a control system applicable to the common fisheries policy, OJ L 261, 20.10.1993, last amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 2846/98 of 17 December 1998, OJ L 358, 31.12.1998.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/851 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/851

---

(2004/C 78 E/0904)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3701/03

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

(10 December 2003)

Subject:   Misappropriation of Community funds intended for the Palestinian National Authority

Knowing that:

| — | on 15 September 2003 the International Monetary Fund reported that, over the 1995-2000 period, USD 900 million had been paid from the Palestinian National Authority's fund into a special account controlled directly by Yasser Arafat; |
| --- | --- |

—

on 15 September 2003 the International Monetary Fund reported that, over the 1995-2000 period, USD 900 million had been paid from the Palestinian National Authority's fund into a special account controlled directly by Yasser Arafat;

| — | at the end of October 2003 a group of Palestinian Legislative Council members belonging to the Democratic Block called for a committee of inquiry to be set up for the purpose of investigating the hundreds of thousands of dollars belonging to the Palestinian people which had allegedly ended up in secret Swiss bank accounts controlled directly by Yasser Arafat; |
| --- | --- |

—

at the end of October 2003 a group of Palestinian Legislative Council members belonging to the Democratic Block called for a committee of inquiry to be set up for the purpose of investigating the hundreds of thousands of dollars belonging to the Palestinian people which had allegedly ended up in secret Swiss bank accounts controlled directly by Yasser Arafat;

| — | Lesley Stahl, a reporter on the prestigious television programme Sixty Minutes (broadcast by the US television network CBS), has calculated how much it costs each day for Mrs Suah Arafat (the wife of President Yasser Arafat) to stay in Paris (reputedly USD 16 000); |
| --- | --- |

—

Lesley Stahl, a reporter on the prestigious television programme Sixty Minutes (broadcast by the US television network CBS), has calculated how much it costs each day for Mrs Suah Arafat (the wife of President Yasser Arafat) to stay in Paris (reputedly USD 16 000);

| — | since 1994 the European Union has paid over EUR 1 500 million to the Palestinian Authority under the Oslo ‘peace agreements’. |
| --- | --- |

—

since 1994 the European Union has paid over EUR 1 500 million to the Palestinian Authority under the Oslo ‘peace agreements’.

The Commission:

| — | what action has it taken in order to verify what the IMF stated in September 2003 and in order to ensure that money belonging to the people of Europe and paid to the PNA no longer ends up in special accounts which are beyond scrutiny; |
| --- | --- |

—

what action has it taken in order to verify what the IMF stated in September 2003 and in order to ensure that money belonging to the people of Europe and paid to the PNA no longer ends up in special accounts which are beyond scrutiny;

| — | does it not think that, since the reports from various European and international press sources all tally, the Arafat family's expenses are met to a not-inconsiderable extent out of the funding paid by the EU to the PNA; |
| --- | --- |

—

does it not think that, since the reports from various European and international press sources all tally, the Arafat family's expenses are met to a not-inconsiderable extent out of the funding paid by the EU to the PNA;

| — | does it not consider that the EU funding (which continues to be paid to the PNA) should be suspended until it is known whether the committee of inquiry called for by the members of the Palestinian parliament can be set up and can begin its investigatory work? |
| --- | --- |

—

does it not consider that the EU funding (which continues to be paid to the PNA) should be suspended until it is known whether the committee of inquiry called for by the members of the Palestinian parliament can be set up and can begin its investigatory work?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(17 February 2004)

The IMF report more specifically refers to the non-consolidation in the Palestinian Authority's (PA) budget of certain revenues (petroleum excises paid by Israel, tobacco and alcohol excises and revenue from commercial activities) generated by state monopolies and commercial assets over the period between 1995 and April 2000. The commercial activities did not come under the budget controlled by the Ministry of Finance and in any case have no relation to the funds paid by the Commission between 2001 and 2002. The international donor community was aware of the off-budget activities.

For that reason, together with the IMF and the Commission, made its assistance subject to very strict conditions:

| 1. | the creation of a Single Treasury Account; |
| --- | --- |

1.

the creation of a Single Treasury Account;

| 2. | prior auditing of the monopolies' assets; |
| --- | --- |

2.

prior auditing of the monopolies' assets;

| 3. | the consolidation of all commercial activities in a Palestine Investment Fund (PIF) under the aegis of the Ministry of Finance. |
| --- | --- |

3.

the consolidation of all commercial activities in a Palestine Investment Fund (PIF) under the aegis of the Ministry of Finance.

As a result:

| 1. | the PIF was set up in September 2002, enabling the commercial activities to be consolidated; |
| --- | --- |

1.

the PIF was set up in September 2002, enabling the commercial activities to be consolidated;

| 2. | more than half of the PIF's assets have already been audited by Standard and Poor's and the results published on the PIF's internet site; (1) and |
| --- | --- |

2.

more than half of the PIF's assets have already been audited by Standard and Poor's and the results published on the PIF's internet site; (1) and

| 3. | the PIF is now under a management board chaired by the Ministry of Finance and the net profits from its activities are transferred directly to the Authority's budget. |
| --- | --- |

3.

the PIF is now under a management board chaired by the Ministry of Finance and the net profits from its activities are transferred directly to the Authority's budget.

In short, it is thanks to the action of the international community, the IMF and the European Union that the revenue from commercial activities could be consolidated in the budget.

In 2001 and 2002, budget aid from the Commission accounted on average for about 8 % of total PA budget expenditure. Since this aid is fungible, it is impossible to link the Commission's support to a particular item of expenditure. The conditions linked to budget aid from the Commission and the work of the Task Force on Palestinian Reform have had a very significant impact on the transparency of the PA's budget management. Thanks to them, the budgets of the Authority and of each Ministry, including the President's office, have gradually been subjected to greater financial discipline. It should also be pointed out that the Single Treasury Account and the supervisory mechanisms used by the Commission are the same as those used by the Israeli Government when it transfers revenue collected on behalf of the Palestinian Authority.

The Commission stopped direct budget aid after the resumption of transfers by the Israeli Government and replaced it with targeted support for payments of arrears to the private and social sectors. The Ad Hoc Liaison Committee has asked donors to step up their efforts and to increase the level of financial support to the Palestinian budget, while the Commission will continue to attach conditions to its financial assistance to ensure greater transparency in public finances.

The Commission is unaware of a decision by the Palestinian Legislative Council to set up a committee of inquiry into the allegations of misappropriation of funds in the Palestinian Authority. It is nevertheless true that a number of Palestinian Members of Parliament have voiced concern at allegations to that effect. The Commission is carefully monitoring any discussion of the matter by the Legislative Council.

---

(1)  http://www.pa-inv-fund.com

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/853 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/853

---

(2004/C 78 E/0905)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3734/03

by Johanna Boogerd-Quaak (ELDR) to the Commission

(10 December 2003)

Subject:   High fees for residence cards

Citizens of EU Member States are regularly confronted with high fees when applying for a residence card in the Netherlands.

| 1. | Is the Netherlands allowed to charge a fee of EUR 285 rather than EUR 28 to extend the validity of a residence card of a Belgian woman because her Dutch husband has never lived or worked outside the Netherlands? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is the Netherlands allowed to charge a fee of EUR 285 rather than EUR 28 to extend the validity of a residence card of a Belgian woman because her Dutch husband has never lived or worked outside the Netherlands?

| 2. | Is the Netherlands allowed to charge a fee of EUR 980 in the above case for a permanent residence permit, on the basis of the Netherlands' Aliens Act (Article 21)? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Is the Netherlands allowed to charge a fee of EUR 980 in the above case for a permanent residence permit, on the basis of the Netherlands' Aliens Act (Article 21)?

| 3. | Is it true that the European Commission launched an inquiry in October 1998 into the manner in which the Netherlands applies Community law on the free movement of persons? Is this inquiry complete, and what conclusions has it drawn? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Is it true that the European Commission launched an inquiry in October 1998 into the manner in which the Netherlands applies Community law on the free movement of persons? Is this inquiry complete, and what conclusions has it drawn?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(9 February 2004)

The Dutch legislation transposing Community law on the right of residence provides that Union citizens who reside in the Netherlands on the basis of Community law may obtain a temporary residence card of up to five years. The duration of validity of the card depends on the capacity in which the Union citizen applies for it (job seeker, worker, inactive person, student).

Irrespective of the capacity in which a Union citizen applies for a residence card, Community law on free movement provides that residence cards must be issued and renewed free of charge or on payment of an amount not exceeding the duties and taxes charged for the issue of identity cards to nationals. According to the Commission's information, the cost of temporary residence cards issued to Union citizens in the Netherlands has increased to EUR 28. Since national identity cards, for nationals, cost EUR 28,77, this increase is non-discriminatory with respect to the cost of national identity cards and is, therefore, in conformity with Community law.

Dutch legislation also provides for the possibility to obtain a permanent residence card. The cost of this document is EUR 226,89 according to the Commission's information. However, Union citizens are not obliged to apply for this more expensive type of document.

According to the information provided by the Honourable Member, it would appear that a Belgian woman has been charged EUR 980 for a permanent residence card in the Netherlands and EUR 285 to renew it. The amounts charged exceed what is foreseen in the above-mentioned legislation and would seem to be contrary to these rules.

The Commission started an infringement procedure against the Netherlands in 1995 on the application to Union nationals of regulations governing permits to take up permanent residence (‘vergunning tot vestiging’) and in particular, on the costs of such permits. At that time, the note ‘vestigingsvergunning’ was placed on the Union residence card, therefore one single document was issued. Following a reasoned opinion sent in November 1997, the Dutch authorities guaranteed that two different documents would be issued from that time onwards: the Union residence card (E document) and the permanent residence permit (A document), the application for the latter being completely voluntary. Union nationals could opt between applying for a permanent residence permit or applying for the extension of the period of validity of the E document and they would be informed of that choice. The higher costs of the fees were not related to the Union residence permit but only to the permanent residence permit and therefore the case was closed in 1999.

In view of the increasing number of complaints received on the cost of permanent resident cards by Union nationals, the Commission will contact the Dutch authorities in order to verify what are the current costs of permanent residence cards and ask them whether, and in what way, Union nationals are informed about their right to obtain only a temporary residence permit at the same price as that charged to nationals for identity cards.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/854 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/854

---

(2004/C 78 E/0906)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3749/03

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 Massa

In its answer to question E-1052/03 (1), which asked whether the municipality of Massa had submitted projects and secured funding under the LIFE III programme, the Commission stated that a number of proposals had been submitted but they had not been funded.

Can the Commission say why the projects submitted were not considered suitable?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(16 January 2004)

The Commission informs the Honourable Member that the proposal submitted by the municipality of Massa under the LIFE III Programme for 2000 was not co-financed. The Commission informed the applicant of the reasons in its letter of 10 September 2001. The municipality of Massa did not submit any proposals in 2002 or 2003.

---

(1)  OJ C 280 E, 21.11.2003, p. 104.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/854 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/854

---

(2004/C 78 E/0907)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3750/03

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 Florence

In its answer to question E-1049/03 (1), which asked whether the municipality of Florence had submitted projects and secured funding under the LIFE III programme, the Commission stated that a number of proposals had been submitted but they had not been funded.

Can the Commission say why the projects submitted were not considered suitable?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(20 January 2004)

The Commission informs the Honourable Member that the two proposals submitted by the municipality of Firenze under the LIFE III Programme for 2002 were not co-financed.

Proposal LIFE02 ENV/IT/000074 failed criterion 3 ‘Coherence and quality’. The beneficiary was informed in the Commission's letter of 2 September 2002.

Although proposal LIFE02 ENV/IT/000087 passed the selection criteria, its score was insufficiently high, relative to other proposals to qualify for co-financing. The beneficiary was informed in our letter of 2 September 2002.

The municipality of Firenze did not submit any proposals in 2000 or 2003.

---

(1)  OJ C 280 E, 21.11.2003, p. 104.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/855 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/855

---

(2004/C 78 E/0908)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3762/03

by Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(11 December 2003)

Subject:   Commission proceedings against Greece for infringing Community legislation in the telecommunications sector

In response to a recent question I tabled on the provision of the ADSL service in Greece (E-3072/03 (1)), the Commissioner responsible stated that ‘Greece has not yet transposed the new Community [regulatory] framework [for electronic communications]’ and that ‘the Commission has been informed of the slow progress in the provision of broadband services in Greece’. He also states that the ‘the Commission has initiated infringement proceedings against Greece for non-communication of the transposition measures.’ As regards the limited margin between wholesale and retail prices for the provision of ADSL lines, he states that the Commission is following the case closely and will ‘either bring infringement proceedings ... or use its powers under the EC Treaty competition rules’ should the behaviour by OTE prove to be incompatible with its obligations under Article 82 of the EC Treaty.

Will the Commission say:

| 1. | When did it bring infringement proceedings for non-communication of the transposition measures into Greek domestic legislation, what deadlines has it given the Greek government and what measures does it envisage taking should Greece fail to meet these deadlines? |
| --- | --- |

1.

When did it bring infringement proceedings for non-communication of the transposition measures into Greek domestic legislation, what deadlines has it given the Greek government and what measures does it envisage taking should Greece fail to meet these deadlines?

| 2. | When is a decision expected to be taken on the behaviour by OTE regarding the margin between wholesale and retail prices, and what measures does it intend to take in the event of an infringement of Community competition legislation? |
| --- | --- |

2.

When is a decision expected to be taken on the behaviour by OTE regarding the margin between wholesale and retail prices, and what measures does it intend to take in the event of an infringement of Community competition legislation?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(3 February 2004)

| 1. | The Commission opened four infringement proceedings against Greece, in particular for non- transposition of the Framework Directive (2), the Universal Service Directive (3), the Authorisation Directive (4) and the Access Directive (5). In this context, the Commission sent on 6 October 2003 four Letters of Formal Notice (LFN) to Greece. A deadline of two months was given to Greece to reply to the LFN until 6 December 2003. Greece has recently replied informing the Commission that a draft law has already been prepared by the Ministry following a public consultation. Nevertheless, the Commission's concerns expressed in the Letters of Formal Notice were not satisfied by the reply of Greece and in view of the situation the Commission has decided to proceed to the next phase of the infringement proceedings and send Reasoned Opinions to Greece.
  Relevant information on the proceedings was made public by the Commission in a press release on 8 October 2003 and 17 December 2003 (6) as well as the 9th Implementation Report (7) published recently. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The Commission opened four infringement proceedings against Greece, in particular for non- transposition of the Framework Directive (2), the Universal Service Directive (3), the Authorisation Directive (4) and the Access Directive (5). In this context, the Commission sent on 6 October 2003 four Letters of Formal Notice (LFN) to Greece. A deadline of two months was given to Greece to reply to the LFN until 6 December 2003. Greece has recently replied informing the Commission that a draft law has already been prepared by the Ministry following a public consultation. Nevertheless, the Commission's concerns expressed in the Letters of Formal Notice were not satisfied by the reply of Greece and in view of the situation the Commission has decided to proceed to the next phase of the infringement proceedings and send Reasoned Opinions to Greece.

Relevant information on the proceedings was made public by the Commission in a press release on 8 October 2003 and 17 December 2003 (6) as well as the 9th Implementation Report (7) published recently.

| 2. | The National Communications and Post Commission (EETT), the Greek Regulator, is in principle responsible for reviewing the tariffs applied by OTE. In this context, the EETT needs to ensure that price squeezes are not practised by any party. The Commission has already provided guidance to National Regulatory Authorities (NRAs) in its 1998 ‘Access Notice’ (8) to monitor possible price squeezes (see in articular paragraphs 117 and 118). NRAs in other Member States have already applied price squeeze tests in line with this notice, in particular on the network architecture and network protocol (xDSL) markets. It is, in the first place, the responsibility of the NRAs to inquire about any possible anticompetitive behaviour by any operator, given of course, that they are sufficiently equipped with all necessary powers. The Commission, on the other hand, examines any formal complaints submitted to it by any interested party identifying possible infringements of the Community competition rules. So far, no such complaint has been received. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The National Communications and Post Commission (EETT), the Greek Regulator, is in principle responsible for reviewing the tariffs applied by OTE. In this context, the EETT needs to ensure that price squeezes are not practised by any party. The Commission has already provided guidance to National Regulatory Authorities (NRAs) in its 1998 ‘Access Notice’ (8) to monitor possible price squeezes (see in articular paragraphs 117 and 118). NRAs in other Member States have already applied price squeeze tests in line with this notice, in particular on the network architecture and network protocol (xDSL) markets. It is, in the first place, the responsibility of the NRAs to inquire about any possible anticompetitive behaviour by any operator, given of course, that they are sufficiently equipped with all necessary powers. The Commission, on the other hand, examines any formal complaints submitted to it by any interested party identifying possible infringements of the Community competition rules. So far, no such complaint has been received.

---

(1)  See page 218.

(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)  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 (Universal Service Directive), OJ L 108, 24.4.2002.

(4)  Directive 2002/20/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on the authorisation of electronic communications networks and services (Authorisation Directive), OJ L 108, 24.4.2002.

(5)  Directive 2002/19/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on access to, and interconnection of, electronic communications networks and associated facilities (Access Directive), OJ L 108, 24.4.2002.

(6)  IP/03/1356 and IP/03/1750.

(7)  Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions (COM(2003) 715 final), Report on the Implementation of the EU Electronic Communications Regulatory Package.

(8)  Notice on the application of the competition rules to access agreements in the telecommunications sector — Framework, relevant markets and principles, OJ C 265, 22.8.1998.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/856 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/856

---

(2004/C 78 E/0909)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3776/03

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(5 December 2003)

Subject:   US GAAP

Could the Commission clarify whether CESR has been asked to provide an answer on what it believes constitutes ‘equivalent’ accounting standards in its advice on Level 2 implementing measures for the Prospectus Directive (2003/71/EC (1)) Article 20(3) and Section 4.2 of the Commission's mandate of 7 February 2003 (CESR 03-038)?

Given the worrying trend of Asian companies looking to Asian rather than EU markets in the absence of clarification on EU policy, can the Commission make a clear statement of intention to recognise US GAAP as equivalent for non-EU issuers?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(28 January 2004)

The first provisional mandate of 18 March 2002 sent to the Committee of European Securities Regulations (CESR) by the Commission requested advice related to the detailed content of prospectuses. Article 7 and its implementing measures cover the minimum information requirements to be included in a prospectus for both Union and non Union issuers prepared according to Community requirements. This advice might also have a bearing on any possible measures implementing Articles 20(3) of the Prospectus Directive (2003/71/EC) (2). These implementing measures need to address the issue of the financial information to be given by third countries issuers in line with existing Community legislation that already address this issue in Directive 2001/34/EC (3).

CESR proposed in its advice a general principle requiring that the national accounting standards to be used by third country issuers in their prospectuses drafted under Union laws when presenting their financial information should be ‘equivalent’ to Regulation (EC) No 1606/2002 (4) of the Parliament and of the Council of 19 July 2002 on the application of international accounting standards.

As to the second question, regarding recognition of US GAAP (5), the situation is as follows. CESR proposed a solution introducing a transitional period for the application of the general principle of equivalence described above, which would allow internationally accepted accounting standards to be used by third country issuers in their prospectuses when presenting their financial information. In its draft implementing measures with respect to the Prospectus Directive (2003/71/EC), the Commission proposes to follow CESR's advice of a transitional period until 2007. The Commission will reflect in due course on further detailed arrangements for the application of the general principle of equivalence.

---

(1)  OJ L 345, 31.12.2003, p. 64.

(2)  Directive 2003/71/EC of the 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 (Text with EEA relevance), OJ L 345, 31.12.2003.

(3)  Directive 2001/34/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 28 May 2001 on the admission of securities to official stock exchange listing and on information to be published on those securities, OJ L 184, 6.7.2001.

(4)  OJ L 243, 11.9.2002.

(5)  Generally Accepted Accounting Principles in the United States.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/857 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/857

---

(2004/C 78 E/0910)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3795/03

by Chris Davies (ELDR) to the Commission

(11 December 2003)

Subject:   Meeting UN sustainable fishing targets

Will the Commission outline its 12-year step-by-step strategy to ensure that by 2015, the date set by the UN World Summit on Sustainable Development, all fishing activity within EU waters is taking place in a sustainable manner?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(16 January 2004)

The Commission will make all efforts to observe the commitment made at the Johannesburg World Summit on Sustainable Development to ‘Maintain or restore stocks to levels that can produce the maximum sustainable yield with the aim of achieving these goals for depleted stocks on an urgent basis and where possible not later than 2015’.

In order to achieve this objective, the Commission will make use of the legal instruments adopted during the recent reform of the Common Fisheries Policy, and in particular the following:

| — | the setting of recovery plans for stocks which are outside safe biological limits, in accordance with Article 5 of Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002 (1). At present the Commission has made proposals for recovery plans concerning five stocks of cod and one stock of hake, which have been recently adopted by the Council, and has made proposals for hake and nephrops in the Iberian peninsula and for the stocks of sole in the western Channel and in the Bay of Biscay. Other proposals may follow afterwards; |
| --- | --- |

—

the setting of recovery plans for stocks which are outside safe biological limits, in accordance with Article 5 of Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002 (1). At present the Commission has made proposals for recovery plans concerning five stocks of cod and one stock of hake, which have been recently adopted by the Council, and has made proposals for hake and nephrops in the Iberian peninsula and for the stocks of sole in the western Channel and in the Bay of Biscay. Other proposals may follow afterwards;

| — | the setting of management plans for maintaining and exploiting stocks within safe biological limits, in accordance with Article 6 of the above-mentioned Regulation; |
| --- | --- |

—

the setting of management plans for maintaining and exploiting stocks within safe biological limits, in accordance with Article 6 of the above-mentioned Regulation;

| — | the adoption, where required, of the emergency measures foreseen in Article 7 of the same Regulation; |
| --- | --- |

—

the adoption, where required, of the emergency measures foreseen in Article 7 of the same Regulation;

| — | the adjustment of fishing capacity and the elimination of structural aid leading to its increase, as foreseen in Chapter III of the same Regulation and in subsequent implementing legislation. |
| --- | --- |

—

the adjustment of fishing capacity and the elimination of structural aid leading to its increase, as foreseen in Chapter III of the same Regulation and in subsequent implementing legislation.

As a complement of the above-mentioned strategy, and with a view to improving the effectiveness of the measures, the Commission also envisages:

| — | an improvement of the scientific basis for management decisions, based on the Communication ‘Improving scientific and technical advice for Community fisheries management’ (2003/C 47/06); |
| --- | --- |

—

an improvement of the scientific basis for management decisions, based on the Communication ‘Improving scientific and technical advice for Community fisheries management’ (2003/C 47/06);

| — | an improvement of the participation of the relevant stakeholders in the decision-taking process, through the setting of Regional Advisory Committees as indicated in Article 31 of Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002 and the proposal for a Council Regulation establishing Regional Advisory Councils under the Common Fisheries Policy (2); |
| --- | --- |

—

an improvement of the participation of the relevant stakeholders in the decision-taking process, through the setting of Regional Advisory Committees as indicated in Article 31 of Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002 and the proposal for a Council Regulation establishing Regional Advisory Councils under the Common Fisheries Policy (2);

| — | an improvement of the enforcement of fisheries management measures in the lines indicated in the Communication ‘Towards uniform and effective implementation of the Common Fisheries Policy’ (3). |
| --- | --- |

—

an improvement of the enforcement of fisheries management measures in the lines indicated in the Communication ‘Towards uniform and effective implementation of the Common Fisheries Policy’ (3).

As far as stocks outside Community waters are concerned, the Commission will contribute to attain maximum sustainable conditions by developing the policy outlined in a number of recent policy documents, and in particular in the Communication from the Commission on an integrated framework for fisheries partnership agreements with third countries (4) and in the Communication ‘Community action plan for the eradication of illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing’ (5).

---

(1)  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 359, 31.12.2002.

(2)  COM(2003) 607 final.

(3)  COM(2003) 130 final.

(4)  COM(2002) 637 final.

(5)  COM(2002) 180 final.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/858 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/858

---

(2004/C 78 E/0911)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3796/03

by Chris Davies (ELDR) to the Commission

(11 December 2003)

Subject:   Maríne Stewardship Council

What support, financial or otherwise, does the Commission give to the Maríne Stewardship Council?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(23 January 2004)

The Maríne Stewardship Council (MSC) certification scheme is a private initiative which rewards certain fishing practices with a distinctive label at the request of fishing operators so consumers can direct their choices towards their products. The Commission has no legal instruments to give financial support to this type of private initiative, although it is recognised that they might contribute to sustainable fisheries in certain conditions. The Commission is currently in the process of drawing up a Communication which will propose the principles and conditions under which certification schemes and eco-labels should operate in the context of the Common Fisheries Policy.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/859 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/859

---

(2004/C 78 E/0912)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3797/03

by Chris Davies (ELDR) to the Commission

(11 December 2003)

Subject:   Sustainable fisheries

What use has the Commission made to date, or does it intend to make, of Maríne Stewardship Council certification as a means of developing a sustainable fisheries strategy?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(21 January 2004)

The Maríne Stewardship Council (MSC) certification scheme is a private initiative which rewards certain fishing practices with a distinctive label at the request of fishing operators so that consumers can direct their choices towards their products. While the Commission has no intention of promoting the use of any private certification scheme as a means of developing a sustainable fisheries strategy, it will continue to use its initiative powers to propose legislation and transmit guidelines to fishing, processing and marketing fish in a context of sustainability.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/859 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/859

---

(2004/C 78 E/0913)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3821/03

by Joan Vallvé (ELDR) to the Commission

(12 December 2003)

Subject:   Environmental impact of the extension of the Eivissa Airport

My question E-0209/03 (1) of 3 February 2003 addressed the environmental impact which would be caused by the scheme to enlarge Eivissa Airport.

In its reply of 14 March 2003, the Commission stated that it was processing a complaint lodged in this connection. On 11 September 2003, in Question E-2745/03 (2) I asked whether the Commission had reached any specific conclusions as a result of the complaint lodged.

Mrs Wallström's latest reply, of 16 October 2003, stated that the Commission had approached the Spanish authorities to request full details of the scheme in question, a copy of the impact statement and of the measures adopted to respect the obligations deriving from Article 6 of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992, on the conservation of natural habitats and woodland fauna and flora (3).

Furthermore, the Commission said that it intended that this case should form part of an exchange with the Spanish authorities within the framework of the bilateral meeting to be held on October 2003, which would consider the whole picture of complaints and infringements in the environmental sphere involving Spain.

Has the Commission now received the information requested from the Spanish authorities? Has the planned bilateral meeting been held? If so, what conclusions were reached with regard to resolving the problem of the infringement of various EU environmental directives in connection with the enlargement of Eivissa Airport?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(5 February 2004)

As was announced in the reply to the Honourable Member's Written Question E-2745/03, the Commission has discussed with the Spanish authorities the application of Community Environmental Law to the project of the enlargement of Ibiza airport, during the bilateral meeting held in Madrid in October 2003. Subsequently the Spanish authorities have sent a report containing their comments on the facts raised.

This report indicates that the Enlargement Project of Ibiza Airport is currently undergoing an impact assessment procedure according to the provisions of Community Law.

The Spanish authorities claim that they have taken into account the allegations made by different organizations and institutions in the course of this procedure. They have consequently modified the project so as to restrict the foreseen works to the area situated beyond the limits of the Natura 2000 site ES0000084 (Ses Salines d'Eivissa i Formentera). As a matter of fact, the only interventions included currently in the project are a new runway for emergency landings and a new platform for fire-fighting drills.

The Commission is currently assessing the information provided by the Spanish authorities. As soon as this assessment is complete, the Commission will be able to draw its conclusions on this case.

---

(1)  OJ C 222 E, 18.9.2003, p. 163.

(2)  See page 161.

(3)  OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/860 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/860

---

(2004/C 78 E/0914)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3825/03

by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(12 December 2003)

Subject:   Abandoned mines

In various EU countries, including Portugal, there are mines which have been abandoned in a very bad state, with waste water leaching out and forming pools which pollute nearby watercourses and land, thereby presenting a threat to the environment and public health.

There are a number of particularly serious cases, such as the uranium mines in Portugal. There is in fact a programme for the recovery of mines, but financial resources are scarce and thus work to prevent environmental deterioration progresses very slowly.

Can the Commission therefore say:

| 1. | what research has been done on abandoned mines in the EU Member States, in particular uranium mines, and what projects exist to prevent environmental damage and safeguard public health; |
| --- | --- |

1.

what research has been done on abandoned mines in the EU Member States, in particular uranium mines, and what projects exist to prevent environmental damage and safeguard public health;

| 2. | what support has been given to Portugal for this purpose; |
| --- | --- |

2.

what support has been given to Portugal for this purpose;

| 3. | what other forms of support will be possible in the short term, bearing in mind the serious situations in Portugal and the financial problems faced by the country? |
| --- | --- |

3.

what other forms of support will be possible in the short term, bearing in mind the serious situations in Portugal and the financial problems faced by the country?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(6 February 2004)

The Commission has, for many years, been well aware of the problems posed by uranium mining and milling sites once the economic activity at the site has come to an end. These abandoned mines, if they are not properly managed and subjected to remediation, can pose an important radiological risk to man and the environment.

The problem is particularly acute in a number of the countries of Central and Eastern Europe and has been the subject of studies under the PHARE and related programmes. A number of Member States, that in the past were involved in uranium mining (including Germany, France and Sweden), have carried out research on the remediation of such sites. However, no Community-funded research has been carried out inside the Union during any of the recent research framework programmes.

The results of a study undertaken for the Commission and published in 1999 once again highlighted concerns about such sites (1). The report describes a methodology for radiological assessment, a characterisation of different restoration options in terms of performance and cost, and a decision aiding framework using multi-attribute utility functions as well as action levels for intervention referring to international guidance.

Under Article 53 of Council Directive 96/29/Euratom (2), it is the responsibility of the Member States to take the necessary steps to reduce the radiological effects of past practices — which includes past uranium mining activities-, such as the area demarcation, monitoring of exposures, implementation of intervention measures, etc.

In the framework of the PRIME programme, two studies relative to the uranium mines were proposed by Portugal and have already been approved. The total cost of these studies is EUR 2,754 million of which EUR 1,656 million will be co-financed by the Community through the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF). The Portuguese authorities have informed the Commission that a further four projects related to rehabilitation of uranium mines are being studied for a total investment of EUR 12,86 million.

---

(1)  Investigation of a possible basis for a common approach with regard to the restoration of areas affected by lasting radiation exposure as a result of past or old practice or work activity, ‘CARE’, available at http://europa.eu.int/ comm/energy/nuclear/radioprotection/publication/doc/115_en.pdf

(2)  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 ionizing radiation, OJ L 159, 29.6.1996.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/861 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/861

---

(2004/C 78 E/0915)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3826/03

by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(12 December 2003)

Subject:   Environmental problems caused by small and medium-sized dairy farms

The need to maintain the competitiveness and profitability of small dairy farms in the face of the current common agricultural policy has led to the concentration of small and medium-sized farms with between 30 and 50 or 60 cows in rural areas where there are no facilities for treating waste or other possibilities of environmental assistance for small and medium-sized farms.

Generally speaking such farmers do not have the financial and technical means to solve by themselves the environmental problems created by their farms. This causes serious conflict in various areas in northern Portugal where such holdings are concentrated.

Can the Commission say:

| 1. | what forms of Community support can be used to help small and medium-sized dairy farmers with the investments needed to solve the environmental problems caused by their farms; |
| --- | --- |

1.

what forms of Community support can be used to help small and medium-sized dairy farmers with the investments needed to solve the environmental problems caused by their farms;

| 2. | what steps it intends to take to safeguard the existence of family farming and reconcile dairy farming with environmental protection? |
| --- | --- |

2.

what steps it intends to take to safeguard the existence of family farming and reconcile dairy farming with environmental protection?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(3 February 2004)

The Common Agricultural Policy, with its second pillar, the Rural Development Policy, provides for possibilities of aid schemes, which may have as a particular target group small and medium agricultural holdings. The conditions for granting aid are fixed in Council Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999 of 17 May 1999 concerning support for rural development from the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) and amending and repealing certain Regulations (1). Member States design Rural Development Programmes according to their specific needs.

The Portuguese authorities offer in their regional and national Operational Programmes the following possibilities:

| — | ‘Support for investments in agricultural holdings’; |
| --- | --- |

—

‘Support for investments in agricultural holdings’;

| — | ‘Diversification in small-scale agriculture’. |
| --- | --- |

—

‘Diversification in small-scale agriculture’.

These two measures can also support investments to comply with recently introduced environmental standards.

Conservation of the environment and of natural resources

This measure foresees support for collective actions for environmental improvement in area with agricultural holdings and agro-industry, in particular for the pre-treatment of waste water from animal husbandry and agro-industry.

Until 31 December 2002 the possibility existed to support investments to comply with standards, not necessarily only recently introduced. Portugal made use of this possibility under the above mentioned measure 2.

In addition, and subject to the measures available in the Portuguese agri-environment part of rural development, farmers (including dairy farmers) who respect good farm practice, which includes respect for statutory environmental requirements, and agree to undertake agri-environment measures are eligible for support under this measure. It is primarily a matter for Portugal to draw up appropriate measures ensuring they go beyond good farm practice.

The reform of the Common Agricultural Policy agreed in June 2003 enhances the support possibilities under Rural Development. Firstly, additional Community funds generated by modulation of direct aids will be available from 2006 onwards. The Member States can attribute a priority in the use of these funds, for example, to support small and medium-sized farmers to improve their environmental performance.

Secondly, the maximum aid intensity for investments young farmers may undertake has been increased thus opening further possibilities for this important group.

Thirdly, as regards support for meeting standards, i.e. in the area of environment, an additional measure ‘meeting standards’ has been introduced, providing for possibilities to partly cover farmers' additional operational cost resulting from the introduction of newly introduced standards.

A series of other measures has been introduced or enhanced with the reform. The Portuguese authorities can adapt their Rural Development programming documents to take account of the new possibilities open to them under the reform.

---

(1)  OJ L 160, 26.6.1999.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/862 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/862

---

(2004/C 78 E/0916)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3837/03

by Emmanouil Bakopoulos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(12 December 2003)

Subject:   Privatisation of the Post Office Savings Bank

Acting on behalf of the Greek government, the Greek Finance Minister, Mr Christodoulakis, has announced the decision to privatise the Post Office Savings Bank.

Has the Commission been informed about this matter by the Greek government?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(30 January 2004)

As regards privatisation, the Commission notes that Article 295 (ex-Article 222) of the EC Treaty guarantees the neutrality of the Community concerning public or private ownership of undertakings. There is no obligation for the Member States to inform the Commission of their intention to sell or to buy undertakings, nor does the Commission ever require or impede privatisation of public undertakings.

If the privatisation process involves the grant of State aids, Member States must inform the Commission in accordance with the notification requirement of Article 87(3) of the EC Treaty.

The Greek authorities have not informed the Commission so far of any intention to grant State aids in the framework of the privatisation of the Post Office Savings Bank.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/863 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/863

---

(2004/C 78 E/0917)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3841/03

by Proinsias De Rossa (PSE) to the Commission

(12 December 2003)

Subject:   Protection of the consumer interest under the new EU regulatory framework for electronic communications (Directives 2002/20/EC, 2002/21/EC)

The Irish Commission for Communications Regulation, in response to consumer complaints about charge increases and poor services, has stated that the advent of the new EU regulatory framework for electronic communications (Directives 2002/20/EC (1), 2002/21/EC (2)) means that it is no longer the responsible body in this area.

Could the Commission clarify the situation as regards the regulation of retail television operators under the new regulatory framework? Is the Commission in contact with the Irish Government over the apparent regulatory void that now exists in relation to retail broadcasting operators in Ireland? What action is it proposing to take to ensure this matter is addressed?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(3 February 2004)

The Irish authorities have notified the Commission that the Commission for Communications Regulation (ComReg) is the designated national regulatory authority (NRA) in Ireland for the implementation of the new Community regulatory framework on electronic communications networks and services. One of ComReg's responsibilities is, therefore, to ensure that users derive maximum benefit in terms of choice, price and quality. More specifically, 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, obliges the NRA to ensure a high level of protection for consumers, in particular by ensuring the availability of simple and inexpensive dispute resolution procedures. It also contains a provision to ensure that NRAs are able to require operators to publish comparable, adequate and up-to-date information on the quality of their services.

As regards the specific question of retail television services, it must be stated that the regulation of the provision of TV content services falls outside the scope of the new framework, including the consumer protection measures referred to above. On the other hand, the provision of transmission services for television signals is covered by the new framework. However, this does not automatically imply that regulatory measures should be taken in a Member State in relation to the retail market for these transmission services. The framework primarily addresses wholesale markets, including the wholesale broadcast transmission market, in order to ensure the promotion of competition and to ensure that users derive maximum benefit in terms of choice, price and quality.

It is conceivable that retail broadcast transmission services could be subject to regulation under the new framework, provided that all of the detailed requirements of the framework are met. These requirements are such that NRAs would only be in a position to impose regulatory obligations on retail broadcast transmission services if a market analysis demonstrated that the wholesale market was not competitive and that the imposition of regulatory obligations on operators in that wholesale market would not be sufficient to achieve the competition and consumer protection objectives of the Community framework. Only in this case would regulations, such as some form of price control, be considered as an appropriate and proportionate remedy for the lack of effective competition identified. The Commission has been informed by ComReg that it is currently undertaking its market analysis of the wholesale broadcast transmission market, in conformity with the Community regulatory framework.

While the Commission is not aware at this time of any specific regulatory void in relation to the Community rules as they relate to the provision of broadcast transmission services, including the provisions regarding the protection of users of these services, it is actively monitoring the situation as part of its assessment of the conformity of the measures notified by Ireland to transpose the new framework. The Commission takes note of the suggestions that ComReg may no longer be responsible in this area, and will examine this situation with the Irish authorities to ensure that Ireland is fully meeting its obligations with regard to the framework in general, and the protection of users of broadcast transmission services in particular.

---

(1)  OJ L 108, 24.4.2002, p. 21.

(2)  OJ L 108, 24.4.2002, p. 33.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/864 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/864

---

(2004/C 78 E/0918)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3860/03

by Reimer Böge (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(8 December 2003)

Subject:   Designation of bird protection zones in Schleswig-Holstein

In a letter dated 2 April 2003 to the German Foreign Minister, Mr Joschka Fischer, Commissioner Wallström set out the Commission position with regard, ‘inter alia’, to the designation of bird protection zones in Schleswig-Holstein.

| 1. | Does the Commission maintain its interpretation of the law whereby, in order to guarantee adequate and sustainable protection of bird protection zones, Special Protection Zones (SPZs) should be designated in which the attainment of the preservation objectives is to be ensured by the establishment of a total, individual and area-based protected status in law? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Does the Commission maintain its interpretation of the law whereby, in order to guarantee adequate and sustainable protection of bird protection zones, Special Protection Zones (SPZs) should be designated in which the attainment of the preservation objectives is to be ensured by the establishment of a total, individual and area-based protected status in law?

| 2. | In the Commission's view, once a bird protection zone has been designated as an SPZ, is long-term contractual environmental protection required as a preservation measure, or might other measures suffice which guarantee the attainment of a specific protection objective but, in particular in the case of the larger SPZs, provide opportunities for more flexible management and, in so doing, may enable a balance to be struck between the preservation of the significant species and other interests? |
| --- | --- |

2.

In the Commission's view, once a bird protection zone has been designated as an SPZ, is long-term contractual environmental protection required as a preservation measure, or might other measures suffice which guarantee the attainment of a specific protection objective but, in particular in the case of the larger SPZs, provide opportunities for more flexible management and, in so doing, may enable a balance to be struck between the preservation of the significant species and other interests?

| 3. | Has the Commission received from Schleswig-Holstein any reports on individual instances where the possibility provided for in Section 33(4) of the Federal Law on the Protection of Nature of designating a protection area has not been used because an equivalent level of protection may be ensured by contractual agreements or legal or administrative provisions? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Has the Commission received from Schleswig-Holstein any reports on individual instances where the possibility provided for in Section 33(4) of the Federal Law on the Protection of Nature of designating a protection area has not been used because an equivalent level of protection may be ensured by contractual agreements or legal or administrative provisions?

| 4. | It is self-evident that not all of the categories to be protected pursuant to the German Law on the Protection of Nature necessarily correspond to those in the protection objectives set out in the Wild Birds Directive and/or the Habitats Directive. Might the requirements of the EU Directives be met more effectively if the protection categories ‘Special Protection Zone under the Wild Birds Directive’ and ‘Special Protection Zone under the Habitats Directive’ were to be incorporated into the German Law on the Protection of Nature as well as being given individual protected status in law? |
| --- | --- |

4.

It is self-evident that not all of the categories to be protected pursuant to the German Law on the Protection of Nature necessarily correspond to those in the protection objectives set out in the Wild Birds Directive and/or the Habitats Directive. Might the requirements of the EU Directives be met more effectively if the protection categories ‘Special Protection Zone under the Wild Birds Directive’ and ‘Special Protection Zone under the Habitats Directive’ were to be incorporated into the German Law on the Protection of Nature as well as being given individual protected status in law?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(21 January 2004)

According to Article 4(1) of Directive 79/409/EEC (1), Member States have to classify the most suitable territories in number and size as special protection areas (SPAs) for the conservation of the birds listed in Annex I of the Directive. According to Article 4(2) of the Directive, the same applies for regularly occurring migratory birds not listed in Annex I. According to Article 4(3) of the Directive, Member States shall send the Commission all relevant information so that it may take appropriate initiatives with a view to the coordination necessary to ensure that the SPAs form a coherent whole which meets the protection requirements of the birds in question. According to Article 4(4) of the Directive, Member States have to take appropriate steps to avoid the pollution or deterioration of habitats or any other disturbances of the birds in the SPAs.

The Birds Directive does not set out precise criteria as to the legal protection regime for the SPAs. It is primarily up to the Member States to develop these regimes in accordance with the requirements and aims of the Directive. However, some criteria may be drawn from the jurisprudence of the Court of Justice.

According to the Court, Member States must provide SPAs with a protection regime that is capable, in particular, of ensuring both the survival and reproduction of the bird species listed in Annex I to the Birds Directive and the breeding, moulting, and wintering of migratory species not listed in Annex I, which are, nevertheless, regular visitors (2). In the same case, the defendant Member State could not rely on the fact that the area in question was state-owned to justify doing without a legal protection regime (3). On another occasion, the Court held that the general protection of wetlands under French water legislation was not sufficient to provide a legal protection regime for an SPA. The Court also found that agro-environmental measures, because voluntary and purely hortative in nature in relation to farmers, were insufficient (4). In a recent case, the Court held that conditional legislation was not sufficient to provide the required permanent protection regime (5).

In conclusion, the protection regime has to be permanent, unconditional, and specifically designed to meet the protection requirements of the Birds Directive. In order to ensure efficient protection of the SPA and the birds thereon, it must, moreover, be general, i.e. having effects for and against everyone. According to the Commission, this requirement excludes both short and long term contractual protection regimes as the only means to establish a protection regime. On the other hand, it may be useful to apply such contracts in combination with a general protection regime laying down specific protection requirements for the site in question, which have effect for and against everyone. The compatibility of such combined regimes with the requirements of the Birds Directive would have to be determined on a case-to-case basis.

The Commission has informally received two examples of ‘alternative’ protection regimes in Schleswig-Holstein. The first concerns the area ‘Lauenburgische Seen’, which shall be partly designated as an SPA. The protection regime shall consist of a combination of a nature protection area (‘Naturschutzgebiet’) and a landscape protection area (‘Landschaftsschutzgebiet’) under German law. The second example concerns the ‘Riesenwohld’ forest, which has been proposed as a Site of Community Interest (pSCI) according to Article 4(1) of Directive 92/43/EEC (6). Protection shall be provided by means of a contract between the owner of the forest and Schleswig-Holstein. Both examples are currently under investigation by the Commission.

As was mentioned above, it is for the Member States to decide how the requirements of the Directives shall be implemented. The Commission will only examine whether or not, on the basis of the method chosen, the requirements of the Directives are met.

---

(1)  Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds, OJ L 103, 25.4.1979.

(2)  Judgement of 18 March 1999 in Case C-166/97, Commission/France (Seine Estuary), para. 21.

(3)  Judgement of 18 March 1999, supra note 1, para. 24.

(4)  Judgement of 25 November 1999 in Case C-96/98, Commission/France (Swamps of Poitou) paras 26 and 27.

(5)  Judgement of 6 March 2003 in Case C-240/00, Commission/Finland, paras 19 and 30.

(6)  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.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/866 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/866

---

(2004/C 78 E/0919)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3863/03

by Mario Borghezio (NI) to the Commission

(8 December 2003)

Subject:   European Evidence Warrant — a proposal threatening individual freedom?

The Commission's recent proposal for a framework decision introducing a European evidence warrant for gathering evidence in other Member States (1) may constitute a further dangerous and illiberal move towards a European judicial area outside the control of national parliaments.

The decision contains the same terms as the arrest warrant and goes even farther, since the conviction of a suspect may be based solely on evidence obtained by the State obliged to comply with the terms of the warrant and the decision provides no minimum guarantees regarding the validity of such evidence in a court of law in the country requesting the warrant.

Since only a few Member States have so far adopted the legislation needed to implement the framework decision on the arrest warrant and in view of the various criticisms and doubts raised, does the Commission not consider the submission of this new proposal for a framework decision to be premature? Does it not consider it should even be withdrawn immediately?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(16 January 2004)

The Honourable Member's question concerns in particular the validity in the requesting country of evidence obtained from another country using a European Evidence Warrant. The Honourable Member raises the concern that the proposal provides no minimum guarantees regarding the validity of such evidence.

The Commission's proposal does not directly address the issue of the admissibility of evidence obtained using a European Evidence Warrant. The extent to which any objects, documents or data obtained by such warrant are admissible as evidence in criminal proceedings will therefore — like any other evidence — be controlled by each country's courts in accordance with the relevant national law. As a safeguard to help protect fundamental rights, the proposal provides that the judicial authority issuing the warrant must certify that the objects, documents or data sought by the warrant are (a) necessary and proportionate for the proceedings in questions, (b) could be obtained under the law of the issuing country in similar circumstances if they were available on the territory of the issuing country, and (c) are likely to be admissible in the proceedings for which they are sought. In addition, the judicial authority issuing the warrant can request — and in some circumstances require — that the warrant be executed in compliance with certain formalities. This should help ensure that the evidence is obtained in a way that does indeed meet the requirements of the law of the issuing country.

The Commission therefore does not agree that its proposal for a European Evidence Warrant constitutes a dangerous and illiberal move as suggested by the Honourable Member. Nor does the Commission agree with the suggestion that it should withdraw its proposal.

---

(1)  COM(2003) 688 final.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/866 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/866

---

(2004/C 78 E/0920)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3871/03

by Alexander de Roo (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(16 December 2003)

Subject:   Connection between the Ebro water transfer and the Júcar-Vinalopó water transfer

The transfer of water from the Ebro to the Spanish south-east involves the building of a canal which, in the projected section between the River Júcar and the River Vinalopó, will converge with the canal provided for in the water transfer from the Júcar to the Vinalopó. The Spanish authorities intend to achieve both transfers by building both channels, which will leave the River Júcar at points scarcely 30 4miles apart to converge near Villena. The government has not explained why it has decided to construct these two adjacent canals virtually simultaneously, with the same purpose of transferring water, at colossal financial and environmental cost, and furthermore, it has not explained why it wants the EU to co-fund them. The government cannot justify the existence of sufficient water resources in the Júcar to carry out this transfer, and the supposed surpluses to be transferred, as shown in the Hydrological Plan of the Júcar Basin, no longer exist. The declining water resources of the Júcar have fallen even more steeply in recent years. This means that regular transfer could only comprise a reduced volume of water through the Júcar-Vinalopó canal if adequate resources were being brought into the Júcar beforehand so as to rebalance the system in both water flow and quality terms. We should not forget that the studies which the Commission already has in its possession, in research file 2001/4649 of the National Hydrological Plan, show that it is more and more doubtful whether the Ebro transfer can in fact meet both requirements. For that reason, the Júcar-Vinalopó transfer project is entirely dependent on the Ebro transfer, of which it forms an indissoluble part, and would only be viable if the latter were equally viable. But, on the other hand, if the Ebro transfer were finally implemented, the Júcar-Vinalopó canal would be redundant thanks to the major Tous-Villena canal, which would mean that there would be no point in building it. From the standpoint of the rational and efficient use of public funds, the Júcar-Vinalopó transfer constitutes a logical problem which has no solution: without the Ebro transfer it is not viable because it will lack sufficient water flow, and with the Ebro transfer it is not viable either, because it will be a redundant infrastructure.

Under these circumstances, how can the Commission justify funding this infrastructure?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(18 February 2004)

According to official correspondence from the Spanish authorities, there is no linkage between the proposed Ebro transfer and the Júcar Vinalopó transfer. This means that no water from the Proposed Ebro transfer will be introduced into the Júcar river. The proposed Júcar-Vinalopó transfer is an independent project with the water for the transfer to be made available as a result of water savings resulting from improved irrigation systems. Nevertheless, this fact is independent from the proposed transfer of 315 hm3 of water from the Ebro transfer to the Júcar river hydrological district.

With regard to the possible duplication of the transfer infrastructure, namely the Júcar Vinalopó canal and Tous-Villena conduction, which is a combination of different sections of canal, pressure pipeline and tunnels, the latter being part of the infrastructure linked to the proposed Ebro transfer, it would indeed appear to be the case that the two canals will be constructed in close proximity to each other. Nevertheless, the Júcar-Vinalopó transfer is at a higher level than the Tous-Villena conduction, which would not allow for the transfer from one conduction to another. In the area in which both conductions are equi-distant, the Tous-Villena one goes through a tunnel, which makes any connection even more unlikely. It should be stressed once more that the two transfers are completely independent from each other, without any plan to link them in the future.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/867 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/867

---

(2004/C 78 E/0921)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3873/03

by Luigi Vinci (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(16 December 2003)

Subject:   Motorway and high-speed rail routes — Corridor 5 and Friuli-Venezia Giulia region

Italian Law 443 of 21 December 2001 provides for the development of Corridor 5 by constructing a third motorway link (Quarto d'Altino — Sistiana) and a high-speed rail link (Ronchi south — Trieste). Accordingly, two preliminary projects were presented, by Autovie Venete (road) and Italferr (rail), together with impact assessments which did not, however, include either the strategic environmental impact assessment or the comparative examination of alternatives required under Directive 2001/42/EC (1) of 27 June 2001.

These projects have not been integrated with other transport infrastructures planned under the framework agreement subscribed by the central government and the regions on 20 September 2002. Indeed, their simultaneous presentation suggests the intention of pressing ahead with both even though alternatives have not been examined.

For the motorway link, there is no reference to environmental impact assessments for five sites of Community importance: Paludi di Porpetto IT3320032, Bosco Boscat IT3320032, Laghi di Doberdó and Pietrarossa IT3330003, Foce del Timavo IT3330004, or Falesie di Duino IT3340001, not to mention four special protected areas or areas of special environmental interest as defined by the relevant decisions of the regional governments.

For the rail link (of only 30 km), there is no assessment of the potential interferences with the karst cavities in the Isonzo area (which would be traversed by four double galleries over 24 km), while proper consideration is not given to the intermodal benefits of the link with the port of Trieste (high-speed stretch under the hill of Cattinara).

The studies of the transport experts are contradictory as regards the projected traffic flows for the two modes: Autovie Venete predicts a rise in average vehicle numbers per day from 39 000 to 52 000 by 2011, while the railway company claims it will win 3,1 million tonnes' worth of goods traffic and 1,6 million passengers from the roads by 2025.

Despite the provisions of the Aarhus Convention, incorporated via national law 108/2001 and regional law 43/1990, the only two copies available of the preliminary project are those to be found at the regional headquarters in Trieste and Venice. No information has been supplied to the local authorities or the public.

Can the Commission take steps to ascertain whether these measures are not in breach of Directives 85/337/EEC (2), 97/11/EC (3) and 90/313/EEC (4) on environmental impact assessment and the right to information, and Directive 92/43/EEC (5) (the habitats directive) and Directive 2001/42/EC regarding the obligation to supply interested parties (see Article 6) with all economic and environmental assessments relating to projects?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(9 February 2004)

The Honourable Member refers to the development of Corridor 5 which comprises the construction of a third motorway (Quarto d'Altino — Sistiana) and a high-speed rail link (Ronchi south — Trieste). According to the information provided by the Honourable Member two preliminary projects were presented, by Autovie Venete (road) and Italferr (rail), together with impact assessments which did not, however, include either the strategic environmental impact assessment or the comparative examination of alternatives required under 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.

At present Community 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. 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.

However, once application for the construction of the particular projects is made, then Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 (EIA Directive) as amended by Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997 and dealing with the environmental assessment of certain public and private projects is 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. Motorways and high-speed railways are found in Annex I point 7(a) and (b) for which a mandatory EIA has to be carried out. Member States have to adopt the necessary measures in order to ensure that, inasmuch as relevant and reasonable, the environmental impact assessment includes an assessment of the impacts on the environment, including, ‘inter alia’, an outline of the main alternatives studies by the developer and an indication of the main reasons for this choice as well as a description of the aspects of the environment likely to be significantly affected by the project such as fauna, flora, landscape. The description of the effects should also cover the direct and indirect effects and any secondary, cumulative, short, medium and long-term effects.

In addition, the Directive requires that consultations with other competent authorities responsible for the environment and with the public concerned have to be carried out. While the detailed arrangements for such information and consultation shall be determined by the Member States, they have to ensure that the request for development consent and the information on the environmental assessment are made available to the public within a reasonable time in order to give the public concerned the opportunity to express an opinion before the development consent is granted. This would imply specifying in particular the places where the information on the project and on the environmental assessment can be consulted, as well as the way in which the public concerned is to be consulted.

Council Directive 90/313/EEC of 7 June 1990 on the freedom of access to information on the environment obliges public authorities to make available information relating to the environment to any natural or legal person at his request and without his having to prove an interest, unless refusal would be justified on the grounds provided by the Directive. An obligation to actively disseminate information is only defined in the Directive as regards general information on the state of the environment by such means as the periodic publication of descriptive reports. On the basis of the information provided by the Honourable Member, it cannot be concluded that Directive 90/313/EEC is not being correctly applied.

According to the information provided by the Honourable Member, the projects in question could have a significant impact on five sites proposed for inclusion in the Natura 2000 list of sites of Community importance under the Habitats Directive, Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora. They are therefore subject to the provisions of Articles 6(3) and (4) of that Directive, which define the conditions under which a project likely to have a significant impact on a site of Community importance or a special protection area can be authorised by the competent authorities. These conditions include the obligation to do an adequate assessment of the effects of the project on the site from the point of view of nature conservation.

On the basis of the information provided by the Honourable Member, it seems that development consent has not been granted for the project. The Commission has, therefore, at this stage no reason to assume that the EIA and Habitats Directives are not being correctly applied.

---

(1)  OJ L 197, 21.7.2001, p. 30.

(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.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/869 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/869

---

(2004/C 78 E/0922)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3875/03

by Francesco Fiori (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(16 December 2003)

Subject:   Reform of the COM in tobacco

The contents of Commission communication (1) were — despite the extreme sensitivity of the problems examined — substantially controversial, as well as being incomplete, with respect to the analysis offered of the consequences for the EU's tobacco-producing areas.

Besides, the Commission has published the relevant data and documents — whether produced by its own services or commissioned from outside — inexplicably late in the day (see, for example, the assessment of the COM in tobacco by COGEA). The speed-up of the timetable for the ‘reform’ of the COM in tobacco has made it impossible for the producers to examine and debate the COGEA report in sufficient detail, while the report's numerous annexes have still not been made availabnle.

When does the Commission intend to publish this information?

It is known that, for the report, the Commission asked the University of Parma to prepare analyses of the potential impact on the EU regions mainly concerned of the different options set out in the proposal for the reform of the COM in raw tobacco. Our Greek colleagues have refered to a similar approach made to the University of Thessaloniki; we are not aware of cases in other producer Member States.

Can the Commission state whether the documents relating to the above-mentioned analyses were ever actually produced? If so, can it state whether it will itself publish them in good time, in accordance with the legislative timetable for the proposal for reform of the COM in tobacco now under discussion?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(27 January 2004)

The Commission has published the different analyses on the Common Market Organisation (CMO) for tobacco as soon as they were ready for publication and the COGEA report (evaluation report on tobacco production in the Union) which is specifically mentioned was made public on the Commission's website as soon as it was approved by the Commission on the 8 October 2003.

The Annexes to the COGEA report have not been made public on the website, because Annexes to reports on the internet are normally not published, but they are always available on request.

The Commission has recently requested the University of Parma and the University of Thessalonica to carry out an assessment of the effects of the proposal from the Commission. The two universities mentioned have been chosen because it seems that these universities are the only ones in the Union who have the capacity to make such assessments.

The Commission has, in the drafting process discussed the different aspects of the reform of the CMO for tobacco with both Member States authorities, and the different parties involved in the tobacco sector, including representatives from the administrations of the regions concerned.

A copy of the COGEA report including the Annexes is sent directly to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's secretariat.

---

(1)  COM(2003) 554, 23 September 2003.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/870 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/870

---

(2004/C 78 E/0923)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3879/03

by Olle Schmidt (ELDR) to the Commission

(16 December 2003)

Subject:   Rules governing eel fishing

The migration of eels in Europe has fallen by between 90 and 95 % since the 1950s. Accordingly the Commission's proposal (1) on measures to save the eel is of great importance.

Naturally the long-term management of the eel population must come first. However, the burden of saving the eels must be shared equally among all the areas over which the species is distributed in Europe. It is not reasonable to have new rules imposing a total ban on eel fishing in Northern Europe while at the same Southern Europe continues to fish for elvers on a large scale for consumption or breeding.

Fishing should be reduced, but this reduction should be spread over the whole of Europe. However, the Commission is side-stepping the most important measure to save the eel, namely the transplantation of the eel fry which the French, Spaniards and Portuguese are currently catching in large numbers for consumption or eel farming.

In the south of Sweden there is a small-scale eel fishery which is of great importance for local traditions. That being so, what can the Commission do to adapt the new rules on eel fishing so that the responsibility and burden is shared by the whole of Europe?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(26 January 2004)

The Commission agrees that eel fisheries should be managed in an equitable way across Europe, for the benefit of all parties concerned, and with contributions to conservation to be made in a fair and balanced manner.

Sustainable eel stocks can best be maintained by ensuring that sufficient glass eel recruit from the estuaries to populate the river basins, sufficient yellow eel survive the riverine fisheries, and finally that sufficient silver eel survive the downstream migrations to join the stock of spawning fish. Either environmental measures or fisheries-related measures (or both), should be used, and even then only in a consistent and fair way. Member States should retain responsibility for implementing measures at a local level to reach these objectives. In the longer term, the Commission is committed to proposing a Community-wide system for eel management that is equitable in respect of management action taken in different areas and in different life stages.

However, given the immediate scientific concerns about the state of the eel stock, short-term and emergency measures are also needed. The measures that will have the largest immediate contribution to the spawning stock of adult eel are to ensure the highest possible survival of silver eel during their downstream migration. The Commission will therefore focus on this topic as a matter of urgency when developing its proposals, and will consider ways to reduce the mortality of silver eel due to both fishing and to environmental modifications.

---

(1)  COM(2003)573.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/871 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/871

---

(2004/C 78 E/0924)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3886/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(16 December 2003)

Subject:   Alcatel Italia and the seat of the European Satellite Agency

In June 2003 the management of Alcatel presented its financial plans, which including cutting about 1 300 jobs, most of them in Italy (at Cittaducale in the province of Rieti and Battipaglia in the province of Salerno). It should be remembered that Alcatel, as well as producing telecommunications equipment, is Europe's biggest supplier of satellite technology. Its employees are therefore what are commonly known as ‘highly-specialised’ workers. Although the closure of these plants will lead to an employment crisis which would hit specialised workers, many of whom are women and young people, there is also a possibility that the European Satellite Agency may be set up in Lazio. For this possibility to become a reality, the competent Italian authorities and the entities involved are trying to plead the casue of the Lazio region as the ideal location. In the light of the employment problems which closure of the Alcatel plants would cause, the choice of Rome (or another municipality in Lazio) as the headquarters takes on even greater importance.

In view of the above, can the Commission say:

| 1. | whether the threatened crisis involving Alcatel may influence the decision concerning the seat of the Satellite Agency; |
| --- | --- |

1.

whether the threatened crisis involving Alcatel may influence the decision concerning the seat of the Satellite Agency;

| 2. | whether it intends to back Rome's application to become the seat of the Satellite Agency, in view of the possibility of finding new jobs for specialised workers who would otherwise be threatened with unemployment? |
| --- | --- |

2.

whether it intends to back Rome's application to become the seat of the Satellite Agency, in view of the possibility of finding new jobs for specialised workers who would otherwise be threatened with unemployment?

Answer given by Ms de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(4 February 2004)

| 1. | To date, as specified in the Commission's proposal for a Regulation on the future structures for the management of the Galileo satellite radionavigation programme (1), it has been proposed only to set up a ‘Supervisory Authority’ responsible for representing and defending public interests during the deployment and operational phases of the programme. Its staff will be limited in number (less than 50 people), so unfortunately this will not solve the problem of the 1 300 jobs lost in Cittaducale. Moreover, the duties performed by this public authority will be very different from the work of a private company. |
| --- | --- |

1.

To date, as specified in the Commission's proposal for a Regulation on the future structures for the management of the Galileo satellite radionavigation programme (1), it has been proposed only to set up a ‘Supervisory Authority’ responsible for representing and defending public interests during the deployment and operational phases of the programme. Its staff will be limited in number (less than 50 people), so unfortunately this will not solve the problem of the 1 300 jobs lost in Cittaducale. Moreover, the duties performed by this public authority will be very different from the work of a private company.

| 2. | Work on this proposal for a Regulation has only just begun in the Council and the question of the Supervisory Authority's headquarters has not yet been discussed. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Work on this proposal for a Regulation has only just begun in the Council and the question of the Supervisory Authority's headquarters has not yet been discussed.

---

(1)  COM(2003)471 final.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/872 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/872

---

(2004/C 78 E/0925)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3888/03

by Jan Mulder (ELDR) to the Commission

(16 December 2003)

Subject:   Winding-up of contracts in the Eurostat affair

As a result of the irregularities uncovered earlier this year at Eurostat, on 23 July 2003 the European Commission terminated its contracts with the company CESD-Communautaire. A number of firms worked as subcontractors to CESD-Communautaire. These bona fide subcontractors are in danger of being the victims of the situation that has arisen as a result of claims on CESD-Communautaire not being paid.

| 1. | As the Internal Audit Department completed its screening of all Eurostat contracts on 27 October 2003, can the Commission explain how it intends to deal with claims from bona fide subcontractors of firms whose contracts have been cancelled by the European Commission as a result of the Eurostat affair? |
| --- | --- |

1.

As the Internal Audit Department completed its screening of all Eurostat contracts on 27 October 2003, can the Commission explain how it intends to deal with claims from bona fide subcontractors of firms whose contracts have been cancelled by the European Commission as a result of the Eurostat affair?

| 2. | In its answer will the Commission cover claims on CESD-Communautaire in general, and sub-project RU51NL in particular? |
| --- | --- |

2.

In its answer will the Commission cover claims on CESD-Communautaire in general, and sub-project RU51NL in particular?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(20 February 2004)

On 23 July 2003 the Commission instructed its departments to terminate its existing contractual relationships with four bodies in accordance with the terms laid down in the contract. However, the termination of the contracts in question did not release the Commission from the obligation to pay the remuneration for the parts of the contracts that had been performed. The bodies were accordingly paid for the services they had rendered where there was no dispute regarding the assessment of the work.

In the case of the subcontractors, as a rule, the relationships between the Community's contractors and any subcontractors they use are governed exclusively by agreements concluded between these parties, and the Community is not bound by such agreements. This is the case with the claims held by the subcontractors of CESD-Communautaire (1) in respect of the project referred to by the Honourable Member. However, in so far as the Commission has paid CESD-Communautaire for the services rendered, there is to the Commission's knowledge nothing to stop CESD-Communautaire paying off any money it owes its subcontractors.

---

(1)  ‘Centre européen de formation des statisticiens économistes des pays en voie de développement.’

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/873 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/873

---

(2004/C 78 E/0926)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3891/03

by Patricia McKenna (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(10 December 2003)

Subject:   Renewable energy in Ireland

On 3 December, the Irish Commission for Energy Regulation announced a decision to block access to the grid for wind energy beyond a capacity of 800 MW (for the whole island), based on advice from ESB National Grid. The report on which this advice is based states that 2000 MW can be accommodated on the grid with minimal constraints (1). According to the report's authors, those constraints could be largely or wholly eliminated through appropriate grid development, and revised network operating strategies. The Irish Government has not transposed the Directive 2001/77/EC (2) on Electricity from Renewable Sources, despite the 27 October deadline, and its officials seem to take the view that transposition is not necessary. However, the actions of the Regulator would seem to conflict with Article 7 of that Directive, which bestows considerable grid access and dispatch rights on renewable energy.

Will the Commission now oblige Ireland to transpose that Directive, and ensure that all measures are taken to ensure grid access, as required by Article 7, where any restriction is for strictly safety and reliability reasons and not lack of necessary investment or technical and procedural modifications?

Surely these actions by ESB National Grid are equivalent to those that arose in previous Commission decisions (3), in that ESB is making such decisions while it is simultaneously the owner and current operator of the network, and a player in the market, including the renewable energy market? There is also growing evidence of cross-subsidisation by ESB, for example in its own Regulatory Accounts. Will the Commission now reconsider its approach to these competition issues in the Irish electricity market, as expressed in its answer to my questions P-2460/03 (4) and E-2457/03 (5)?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(20 January 2004)

The 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 (6), in its Article 7, bestows considerable grid access and dispatch rights on electricity from renewable energy as mentioned in the letter of the Honourable Member.

Under this Article, Member States shall put into place a legal framework or require transmission system operators and distribution systems operators to set up and publish their standard rules relating to the cost-bearing of technical adaptations as grid reinforcements, which are necessary in order to integrate new producers feeding electricity produced from renewable energy sources into the interconnected grid.

Sharing of costs of grid reinforcement shall be regulated by a legal framework with mechanisms based on objective, transparent and non-discrimination criteria against electricity from renewable energy sources.

The Commission is carefully analysing the laws, regulations and administrative provisions which will be brought into force by Member States to comply with Directive 2001/77/EC. In the case of Ireland, the Commission started an infringement procedure on 25th November 2003 for non communication of the national execution measures under Directive 2001/77/EC.

In the light of the transposition, the Commission will ensure that all measures are taken to ensure a fair grid access as required in Article 7.

Regarding the State Aid aspects, the Commission takes the same view as in the previous Commission answers to questions P-2460/03 and E-2457/03.

---

(1)  The impacts of increased levels of wind penetration on the electricity systems of ROI and NI', final report, Garrad Hassan, ESBI, UCC for CER and OFREG-NI, 11-02-2003, page 85; (link).

(2)  OJ L 283, 27.10.2001, p. 33.

(3)  B& I Line/Sealink decision [1992] 5 CMLR 255 and subsequent Stena/Sea Containers decision 94/19/EC, 21/12/93.

(4)  See page 407.

(5)  OJ C 70 E, 20.3.2004.

(6)  OJ L 283, 27.10.2001.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/874 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/874

---

(2004/C 78 E/0927)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3908/03

by Olle Schmidt (ELDR) to the Commission

(17 December 2003)

Subject:   Freedom of movement in the EU and risk of abuse of welfare systems

1 May 2004 will be an historic day — West and East Europe reunited after decades of separation. While we should welcome this occasion, we should also be aware of some of the issues which may arise in connection with it, in particular those associated with freedom of movement. In the spring, when the borders open to citizens in the ten new Member States, where in general the standard of welfare is lower than in the rest of the EU, there is a risk of abuse of the welfare systems in the current Member States. To obtain a residence permit, students are required to be self-supporting, whereas there is no such requirement of workers. The Court of Justice has ruled that the minimum working time for definition as employment is ten hours per week for some form of consideration, not necessarily money. Ten hours' employment now entitles the employee to a residence permit, which opens the door to the Member States' welfare systems. Transitional rules are not an acceptable measure to prevent this as it would be discriminatory.

As these issues are currently the subject of intensive debate in most Member States, will the Commission say whether it intends to introduce general measures, applying to all EU citizens, in order to combat abuse and whether it will take the initiative to redefine the term ‘employed’ in order to prevent abuse of the Member States' welfare systems?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(12 February 2004)

During the preparations for enlargement, specific attention was paid to the issue of free movement of people following enlargement. In particular, it was studied in detail the issue of the likely size and impact of mobility in the post-enlargement period.

The overall conclusion from the analyses indicates that mobility from the new Member States to the current 15 Member States is estimated to remain rather limited. These conclusions are in line with previous enlargement experiences, in particular when Spain and Portugal joined the European Community. Also at that time, it was observed that the improvement in expectations as well as the better opportunities available to improve one's standard of living and quality of life encourages people to remain in their home country.

Free movement of persons and non-discrimination on the basis of nationality are fundamental rights for community nationals within the European Union. Furthermore, labour mobility is facilitated to better match demand and supply on the European labour markets.

To facilitate the transition at the moment of enlargement, a number of specific measures have been foreseen to accompany the principle of free movement.

The following has been agreed for all Acceding Countries, except Malta and Cyprus. It should be stressed that these measures will only apply to free movement of salaried workers and that in relation to other categories of citizens (self-employed, students, inactive or retired people) Community provisions regarding the right to free movement and residence will apply from the day of accession.

For the first two years after accession, the current Member States will admit workers from the future Member States under national rules. Current Member States may completely liberalise access to their labour markets during these two years, but through national measures.

Two years after accession, the Commission will report on the situation and the current Member States will have to announce whether they intend to continue with national measures for a maximum three years after the initial two-year transitional period, or whether they intend to apply Community rules on the free movement of workers.

It is only if a current Member State can show serious disturbances in the labour market, or a threat of such disturbances, that they will be able to say that they continue to restrict access to their labour markets for an additional two years.

Germany and Austria have the right to apply flanking national measures to address serious disturbances or the threat thereof, in specific sensitive service sectors (such as construction or industrial cleaning) on their labour markets, which could arise in certain regions from cross-border provision of services, involving the movement of workers.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/875 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/875

---

(2004/C 78 E/0928)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3916/03

by Maurizio Turco (NI), Marco Pannella (NI), Marco Cappato (NI), Gianfranco Dell'Alba (NI), Benedetto Della Vedova (NI) and Olivier Dupuis (NI) to the Commission

(17 December 2003)

Subject:   Unsatisfactory standards in Italy for checking that medical staff have the necessary professional qualifications

Knowing that:

| — | on 5 September 2003 Mr Fabio Gaetano Arcuri suffered an accident resulting in a fracture and dislocation of the left shoulder and went to the accident and emergency department of the San Giacomo hospital in Rome for treatment; |
| --- | --- |

—

on 5 September 2003 Mr Fabio Gaetano Arcuri suffered an accident resulting in a fracture and dislocation of the left shoulder and went to the accident and emergency department of the San Giacomo hospital in Rome for treatment;

| — | he was seen by the so-called Dr Robert Ingravalle a consultant in the hospital's orthopaedic department; |
| --- | --- |

—

he was seen by the so-called Dr Robert Ingravalle a consultant in the hospital's orthopaedic department;

| — | as Dr Ingravalle considered that emergency surgery was required, he referred Mr Arcuri to the Pio XI private clinic in Rome where, the day after his discharge from the San Giacomo hospital, he underwent the planned surgery which was carried out by Dr Ingravalle himself; |
| --- | --- |

—

as Dr Ingravalle considered that emergency surgery was required, he referred Mr Arcuri to the Pio XI private clinic in Rome where, the day after his discharge from the San Giacomo hospital, he underwent the planned surgery which was carried out by Dr Ingravalle himself;

| — | the operation was unsuccessful and Mr Arcuri not only had to undergo further surgery but also lengthy and expensive rehabilitation; he subsequently made inquiries about the consultant from the orthopaedic department of the San Giacomo hospital and, to great surprise, he soon found that the Dr Ingravalle had never obtained a degree in medicine and that his name had never appeared on the professional register of surgeons; |
| --- | --- |

—

the operation was unsuccessful and Mr Arcuri not only had to undergo further surgery but also lengthy and expensive rehabilitation; he subsequently made inquiries about the consultant from the orthopaedic department of the San Giacomo hospital and, to great surprise, he soon found that the Dr Ingravalle had never obtained a degree in medicine and that his name had never appeared on the professional register of surgeons;

| — | it also emerged from reports in the press and on television that Mr Ingravalle had been practising at San Giacomo hospital for more than 15 years and had even attended congresses as a spokesman and appeared on public service broadcasting programmes as a well-known orthopaedic specialist; |
| --- | --- |

—

it also emerged from reports in the press and on television that Mr Ingravalle had been practising at San Giacomo hospital for more than 15 years and had even attended congresses as a spokesman and appeared on public service broadcasting programmes as a well-known orthopaedic specialist;

| — | the situation arose because of inadequate checks on appointments to the public service and cooperation with private clinics; |
| --- | --- |

—

the situation arose because of inadequate checks on appointments to the public service and cooperation with private clinics;

| — | as Mr Arcuri's case shows, this puts the health of patients treated by the national health service and the private health system at serious risk of harm. |
| --- | --- |

—

as Mr Arcuri's case shows, this puts the health of patients treated by the national health service and the private health system at serious risk of harm.

Does the Commission intend to take this matter up with the Italian authorities and investigate whether existing legislation in Italy meets the necessary standards when it comes to checks designed to ensure that patients are treated by medical staff with the necessary professional qualifications?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(18 February 2004)

First of all it is appropriate to stress that the question by the Honourable Members deals with a situation that presents no cross-border elements and is purely internal to Italy.

Secondly, while according to 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 (1), the exercise of the medical profession is reserved to holders of one of the qualifications listed in the relevant annexes or the publication in accordance with Article 41, it is in principle the responsibility of the competent institutions of the Member States to see that this principle is respected.

Third, the situation to which the Honourable Members refer concerns the exercising of the profession of a specialist doctor by a person who, according to their information, does not hold any medical qualification whatsoever and must, hence, be considered as an individual case. The Commission does not dispose of any information which would lead to the conclusion that medical professions in Italy are systematically exercised by persons with no training and no qualifications. If this were the case, the Commission would certainly not hesitate to initiate the steps foreseen in the EC-Treaty, and particularly in Article 226.

---

(1)  OJ L 165, 7.7.1993.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/876 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/876

---

(2004/C 78 E/0929)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3917/03

by Nelly Maes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(17 December 2003)

Subject:   European approval of government support for the livestock market in Leeuwarden

As a result of the outbreak of foot and mouth disease in Friesland in 2001, the livestock market in Leeuwarden had to be closed down. In order to reopen it had to meet extremely strict conditions, requiring major investment. With the help of funds from the province of Friesland, the municipality of Leeuwarden and the private sector, the necessary investments were made and the market reopened.

The Friesland provincial council decided to set up a foot and mouth disease emergency fund amounting to EUR 6 353 000 and at the same time approved the granting of compensation under that fund.

In spring 2002 the foot and mouth disease compensation arrangements were forwarded to Brussels for approval. That approval is still awaited and until it is received the support earmarked for the livestock market cannot be paid. As a result of this delay, the FEC (Frisian Expocentre), the largest investor, is facing major cash flow problems and possible bankruptcy, with the potential loss of hundreds of jobs.

| 1. | What is the problem with the granting of government aid to the Frisian Expocentre (public/private ownership) for investment in the livestock market as a result of the foot and mouth epidemic in Friesland in 2001? |
| --- | --- |

1.

What is the problem with the granting of government aid to the Frisian Expocentre (public/private ownership) for investment in the livestock market as a result of the foot and mouth epidemic in Friesland in 2001?

| 2. | Why is the procedure for granting European approval for the support referred to in paragraph 1 taking so long? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Why is the procedure for granting European approval for the support referred to in paragraph 1 taking so long?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(9 February 2004)

The Commission wishes to assure the Honourable Member that it is fully aware of the precarious situation of the sectors affected by the foot-and-mouth crisis in 2001.

The Frisian authorities notified the Commission of several measures related to the foot-and-mouth crisis in 2001.

As to the measures notified in spring 2002, the Commission assumes that the Honourable Member refers to State Aid N 315/02 (Foot-and-mouth disease compensation fund Friesland). This measure with a budget of EUR 6 353 000 was approved by Commission Decision C(2003)128 of 13 February 2003.

Furthermore, the Frisian authorities notified two additional measures (N 665/02 and N 667/02) in particular related to the Leeuwarden cattle market in October 2002. These measures involve ‘inter alia’ investment aid for FEC (Frisian Expocentre).

As to the first question asked by the Honourable Member, the Commission is not yet in a position to establish whether the above-mentioned measures are compatible with the common market.

As to the duration of the procedure, these measures were notified to the Commission by letters of 11 October 2002 from the Dutch Permanent Representation to the Union.

Due to the fact that the original notification did not contain all necessary information, the Commission asked the Dutch authorities for additional information. On the request of the Dutch authorities, a meeting was held after which the Dutch authorities decided to adapt the measures. From the examination of the modified measures, it appeared that the information was not complete. By letter of 22 October 2003, the Commission has asked for additional information. So far, this letter has remained unanswered.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/877 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/877

---

(2004/C 78 E/0930)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3926/03

by Jacqueline Foster (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(16 December 2003)

Subject:   Distortion of competition in the diamond industry

In the Commission's current investigations into the compatibility with EC competition law of De Beers' Supplier of Choice distribution system and its proposed exclusive purchase agreement with Alrosa, what steps does the Commission intend to take to prevent De Beers from drastically reducing competition by effectively destroying the secondary market for the independent supply of rough diamonds to non-sightholders, in particular given that:

| — | the vast majority of desirable rough diamonds are sold by De Beers/DTC to strictly controlled sightholders for manufacture, |
| --- | --- |

—

the vast majority of desirable rough diamonds are sold by De Beers/DTC to strictly controlled sightholders for manufacture,

| — | that former sightholders which were pure dealers and independent suppliers of rough diamonds to the secondary market have been eliminated under the Supplier of Choice selection procedure, and |
| --- | --- |

—

that former sightholders which were pure dealers and independent suppliers of rough diamonds to the secondary market have been eliminated under the Supplier of Choice selection procedure, and

| — | that De Beers intends to take control of the distribution of rough diamonds to the secondary market through its subsidiary Diamdel? |
| --- | --- |

—

that De Beers intends to take control of the distribution of rough diamonds to the secondary market through its subsidiary Diamdel?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(20 January 2004)

On 16 January 2003 the Commission announced that it had authorised the distribution system known as ‘De Beers's Supplier of Choice’ (SoC) following the changes that De Beers had made to the original system notified to the Commission and after conducting a detailed market survey to find out the views of actual and potential clients of De Beers regarding the modified system. On completion of the survey, the Commission published in November 2002 in the Official Journal of the European Union a notice summarising the content of the modified system and formally inviting interested parties to present their observations. Overall, the reactions of third parties were not negative.

When giving the go-ahead, the Commission undertook to monitor the market closely and reserved the right to reopen the file if any change in the factual and legal circumstances concerning a key aspect of the agreements led it to alter its position.

As indicated in its answer to Oral Question H-0637/03 by Mr R. Corbett (1), the Commission confirms that it intends to abide fully by its commitment. It is, therefore, continuing to monitor closely De Beers' implementation of the system in order to ascertain whether the Community competition rules are being complied with.

A number of sightholders have lodged complaints with the Commission regarding the compatibility of the system with the Community competition rules. These complaints are being vetted in accordance with the Commission's normal procedures under Articles 81 and 82 of the EC Treaty.

The Commission cannot as yet indicate to the Honourable Member the measures it might take as it does not possess all the information needed to decide on the matter in full knowledge of the facts. In particular, it cannot yet say whether the three events referred to in the Honourable Member's question have actually taken place and, even if they have, it cannot give an assessment as to whether they are compatible with Articles 81 and 82.

It is only after examining the information obtained when vetting the complaints that the Commission will decide whether implementation of the system gives rise to competition problems.

At the same time, the Commission is pressing ahead with its examination of the agreement between Alrosa and De Beers with a view to verifying its compatibility with Articles 81 and 82.

---

(1)  Oral answer of 18.11.2003.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/878 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/878

---

(2004/C 78 E/0931)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3927/03

by Freddy Blak (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(18 December 2003)

Subject:   Modular road trains on European roads

At present it is only Sweden and Finland which are taking advantage of exemptions to use modular road trains up to 25,25 m in length.

Two modular road trains take up less space than three normal lorries, which help reduce the congestion on the European road network. It also means a reduction in the number of drivers and thus in the risk to road safety.

The introduction of modular road trains will also mean lower emissions per tonne of transported goods, with clear benefits to the environment.

What measures does the Commission propose to take to introduce modular road trains into transnational transport throughout the EU — with a view to reducing emissions in the transport sector and congestion on the European road network?

What is the Commission doing to incorporate the environmental dimension into regulations on weight and dimensions?

Answer given by Ms de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(9 February 2004)

Although economic considerations could support the argument for increasing the weight and dimensions of road haulage vehicles, such a measure would very probably have a negative overall impact, in that instead of encouraging modal transfer from road to rail (as recommended by the Commission in its 2001 White Paper on common transport policy) it would do the opposite. The environmental consequences would therefore be uncertain and the increase in the number of longer and heavier lorries on the road could have a negative impact on safety.

The last time the Directive on weights and measures (1) was amended, the Member States and the Commission took the view that the rules on weight and dimensions should remain stable in the long term. (The amendment concerned buses and coaches only.)

The Commission is still exchanging views on the subject with the Member States within a group of experts.

---

(1)  Directive 2002/07/EC of the European Parliament and of the Councill of 18 February 2002 amending Council Directive 96/53/EC laying down for certain road vehicles circulating within the Community the maximum authorised dimensions in national and international traffic and the maximum authorised weights in international traffic, OJ L 67, 9.3.2002.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/879 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/879

---

(2004/C 78 E/0932)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3929/03

by Stavros Xarchakos (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(19 December 2003)

Subject:   Increase in inflation in Greece

Many EU countries (and particularly Greece) have seen substantial price increases since the introduction of the euro, which have meant a very considerable erosion of consumer income. The Greek press recently announced that fresh increases in the prices of staple goods such as flour are imminent, and this will certainly have a knock-on effect in the market. It should be borne in mind that producers in agricultural regions in Greece, for instance in Thessaly, are complaining that Greece imports wheat from as far afield as Australia, even though agricultural cooperatives have stocks of thousands of tonnes of unsold first-class Greek wheat (to cite but one instance, in one village in the Prefecture of Larissa there are 700 tonnes of wheat which have remained unsold for months).

Is it contrary to Community legislation to impose very heavy fines and other penalties on undertakings which continually put prices up, engage in speculation or trick consumers — for instance by advertising ‘price freezes’ while blatantly increasing prices? What kind of penalties might be imposed and what might the maximum fine be? Could penalties also be imposed on undertakings which announce a given sales price for products (for example, through press advertising or labels on shelves), while charging a different price to consumers? What have been the three largest fines or other most severe penalties imposed on undertakings in the eurozone over the last two years since the introduction of the euro? What is the largest fine or other penalty imposed for the same reasons on a Greek undertaking since 1 January 2002?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(19 February 2004)

It is not, in principle, contrary to Community law for a Member State to fine companies that increase prices to excessive levels, cheat consumers or provide misleading information about prices. Moreover, Member States must make sure that the relevant Community legislation is complied with, viz. the harmonised Community rules on consumer protection and Community competition rules (1).

These rules establish a frame of reference for the actions of firms and prohibit a certain number of practices that are regarded as unacceptable.

Community consumer legislation regulates unfair or deceptive behaviour towards consumers and certain practices regarding the display of prices. The main instrument is Directive 84/450/EEC (2), as amended (3), relating to misleading advertising, which aims to put in place in Member States effective means of monitoring, taking action against and imposing penalties on those who target consumers with misleading advertising. Moreover, Directive 98/6/EC on the indication of prices (4) requires indication of the selling price and the price per unit of measurement of products offered by traders to consumers in order to improve consumer information and provides that Member States must lay down effective, proportionate and dissuasive penalties for infringements of these provisions. Lastly in June 2003, the Commission presented a proposal for a Directive aimed at ensuring full harmonisation of the requirements relating to unfair business practices within the EU (5). The most important element of this proposal is the general ban on unfair practices, as defined in the proposal and which include misleading and aggressive practices.

All of these provisions of Community consumer legislation will, when incorporated into national law by the Member States, ensure that traders who mislead consumers as regards prices are identified.

Community competition law prohibits firms from abusing a dominant position where trade between Member States is affected. It would, for example, be considered an abuse to sell at excessive prices or to give discriminatory advantages to certain customers, thereby putting competitors at a disadvantage.

Community competition law also prohibits restrictive practices and concerted practices between undertakings, with decisions of associations of undertakings ranking as such, that serve to increase prices (6).

It also lays down fines for infringement of its rules. The fine may not exceed 10 % of the firm's global turnover in the preceding business year (Article 15(2) of Regulation No 17/62 (7) and, from 1 May 2004, Article 23(2) of Regulation No 1/2003 (8)).

The three largest fines imposed at Community level for restrictive practices engaged in by firms in the euro zone in the last two years were: EUR 118 125 000 (on Degussa in the Methionine decision) (9), EUR 249 600 000 (on Lafarge in the Plasterboard decision) (10) and EUR 99 000 000 (on Hoechst in the Sorbates decision) (11)... For abuse of a dominant position, the largest fines were: Deutsche Telecom (EUR 12 600 000) (12) and Wanadoo (EUR 10 350 000) (13). No fine has been imposed at Community level in the last two years on a Greek firm.

---

(1)  From 1 May 2004, the relationship between Community competition rules (restrictive practices and abuse of a dominant position) and national competition law will be governed by Article 3 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles81 and 82 of the Treaty, OJ L 1, 4.1.2003. As regards unilateral acts by companies (as opposed to restrictive practices between companies), the Member States may apply even stricter competition rules than those laid down in Community law.

(2)  Council Directive 84/450/EEC of 10 September 1984 relating to the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning misleading advertising, OJ L 250, 19.9.1984.

(3)  Directive 97/55/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 October 1997 amending Directive 84/450/EEC concerning misleading advertising so as to include comparative advertising, OJ L 290, 23.10.1997.

(4)  Parliament and Council Directive 98/6/EC of 16 February 1998 on consumer protection in the indication of the prices of products offered to consumers, OJ L 80, 18.3.1998.

(5)  Proposal for a Parliament and Council Directive concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the Internal Market and amending Directives 84/450/EEC, 97/7/EC and 98/27/EC (Unfair Commercial Practices Directive), (COM(2003) 356 final).

(6)  As with abuse of a dominant position, this is prohibited only where the practice in question affects trade between Member States.

(7)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 17/62: First Regulation implementing Articles 85 (now Article 81) and 86 (now Article 82) of the EEC Treaty, OJ Ρ 13, 21.2.1962, p. 204.

(8)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty, OJ L 1, 4.1.2003.

(9)  Commission Decision of 2 July 2002, OJ L 255, 8.10.2003.

(10)  Commission Decision of 27 November 2002, not yet published.

(11)  Commission Decision of 1 October 2003, not yet published.

(12)  Commission Decision of 21 May 2003, OJ L 263, 14.10.2003.

(13)  Commission Decision of 16 July 2003, not yet published.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/881 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/881

---

(2004/C 78 E/0933)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3932/03

by Rodi Kratsa-Tsagaropoulou (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(19 December 2003)

Subject:   Sexual exploitation of children

The recent report by the German section of Unicef on child exploitation states that the phenomenon is growing with particular speed in western, northern and southern Slovakia and Moldova. There are numerous other studies informing us that young girls and boys are offered voluntarily or pimped by their own parents. The child trafficking routes mentioned are from Russia, Ukraine, Hungary, Finland and the Baltic states to the EU, in particular to Germany and the Netherlands, and also from Romania to Italy, Turkey and Cyprus. According to statistics published by the United Nations in Berlin on 30 October 2003, children are increasingly forming part of the illegal sex industry, charging prices ranging from EUR 5 to EUR 25.

What is the Commission's position on these facts? In view of the increasing risks that enlargement will bring with it, does it intend to take specific measures and initiatives in 2004 to reduce this phenomenon? Does it have a report on the Union's policies that have been implemented to date to deal with this scourge? What does it believe are the reasons for the lack of success in combating these phenomena?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(11 February 2004)

Trafficking in human beings — and trafficking in children in particular — is an abhorrent and worrying phenomenon. It involves practices such as coercive sexual exploitation, labour exploitation in conditions akin to slavery exploitation in begging and juvenile delinquency as well as domestic servitude.

The Commission has been actively engaged since 1996 in developing a comprehensive and multi-disciplinary approach towards the prevention of, and the fight against, trafficking in human beings involving all relevant actors — non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and social authorities, judicial, law enforcement and migration authorities. Child exploitation, child trafficking or child pornography are matters of particular concern in this context. Programmes such as Daphne, STOP and AGIS have been continuously used to financially support exchange and research projects in the areas concerned.

In December 2001, the Commission issued a Communication: ‘Combating trafficking in human beings and combating the sexual exploitation of children and child pornography’ (1). Meanwhile, on the basis of proposals of the Commission, the Council adopted two Framework Decisions on combating trafficking in human beings (2) and on combating the sexual exploitation of children and child pornography (3). In 2002, the Commission supported the elaboration of the Brussels Declaration on Preventing and Combating Trafficking in Human Beings. The document contains, ‘inter alia’, specific recommendations concerning child trafficking. Further to the Brussels Declaration, the Commission set up the Experts Group on Trafficking in Human Beings that is currently preparing a report aiming at the implementation of the Brussels Declaration. The Commission intends to issue a Communication and an action plan taking the findings of the group into due consideration. In this context the problem of child trafficking shall also be addressed.

Furthermore, the Commission will ensure proper follow-up to the Council Resolution of 2001 on the contribution of civil society in finding missing or sexually exploited children. As required by the resolution, a study has been drawn up on the actual extent of the phenomenon of missing and sexually exploited children as well as on the role of civil society organisations and relevant legal issues. The study was financed from the STOP and Daphne Programmes and has been carried out and almost finished by the Belgian organisation Child Focus together with the Ghent University and partner organisations in Member States and Accession Countries. Once the results have been presented and published, the Commission will report on them to the Council.

Finally, the Daphne II programme should be adopted during the first half of 2004. It will cover the period 2004-2008 with a budget of EUR 50 million. All new Member States will be able to participate fully in this programme. Therefore, the Commission is convinced that local organisations from that particular region will be active in the fight against this phenomenon.

---

(1)  COM(2000) 854 final.

(2)  OJ L 203, 1.8.2002.

(3)  OJ L 13, 20.1.2004.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/882 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/882

---

(2004/C 78 E/0934)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3933/03

by Samuli Pohjamo (ELDR) and Mikko Pesälä (ELDR) to the Commission

(19 December 2003)

Subject:   Recognition of the ergonomic saddle chair in the EU's chair classifications

Salli Systems, the Finnish manufacturer of saddle chairs, has asked for help in securing recognition for its product. Salli Systems makes chairs which take account of ergonomics in connection with sedentary work. The problem is that, according to Salli Systems, standards for chairs do not at present recognise this new concept, and this is causing difficulties in the marketing of the chair. Salli Systems has requested help in obtaining recognition of its business idea.

Salli Systems' saddle chair is ergonomically designed so as to minimise medical problems caused by sedentary office work. The traditional sitting posture causes disorders because it is not physiologically appropriate to maintain an angle of approximately 90° between the pelvis and the thighs, and indeed such an angle is not in fact maintained: when the thighs are horizontal, the pelvis tilts backwards and the back bends. As a result, it is difficult to lean actively against a back rest in the orthodox manner and to concentrate on sedentary work. This is overwhelmingly the most common individual factor behind back pain. The cost of poor sitting postures is substantial in terms of worsening back pain, tiredness caused by sitting, and impairment of labour efficiency and productivity.

The requirements of good ergonomics are currently best met by sitting in a rider's posture, using a saddle chair. As a result, the thighs open up and are angled approximately 45° downwards, and the ischia support the weight of the body without imposing any extra pressure on muscles or ducts. This type of posture is significantly healthier, more comfortable and safer than the traditional one.

What can the Commission do to promote recognition of this business idea and how can the saddle chair be incorporated into existing chair classifications and standards?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(9 February 2004)

It is clearly not within the Commission's remit to promote particular business ideas. Although ergonomic chairs can help prevent certain health problems and should therefore be available on the market, it is for users to choose the type of chairs most adapted to their needs.

As far as classification and standards for chairs are concerned, these are aspects that are better dealt with by industry itself in the first instance, in particular through voluntary standardisation activities within the European Standardisation Committee (CEN).

As far as worker protection at the workplace is concerned, 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 (1) provides that the employer shall take the measures necessary for the safety and health protection of workers, including prevention of risks.

Moreover, the individual Council Directive 90/270/EEC of 29 May 1990, on the minimum safety and health requirements for work with display screen equipment (2), establishes that employers are obliged to perform an analysis of workstations, including work chair, in order to evaluate the safety and health conditions. The employer shall take appropriate measures to remedy the risks found, on the basis of the afore-mentioned evaluation. The same Directive details minimum requirements for work chairs such as stability, adjustability and comfort.

---

(1)  OJ L 183, 29.6.1989.

(2)  OJ L 156, 21.6.1990.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/883 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/883

---

(2004/C 78 E/0935)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3935/03

by Bert Doorn (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(19 December 2003)

Subject:   Court with jurisdiction in international civil and commercial matters under Regulation (EC) No 44/2001

In its report on civil and commercial matters (Wallis report — A5-0253/2003), adopted in plenary on 2 September, the European Parliament urged the Commission to evaluate and, if necessary, propose an amendment to Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 (1).

I recently again heard about a problem regarding the application of this regulation. An employee from Germany was working in the Netherlands under a Dutch employment contract. Under German law, an employment contract may be terminated by means of unilateral dismissal, but not under Netherlands law. When an employment dispute arose, the Dutch employer was required by Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 to ask a German court to dissolve the employment contract, a procedure completely unknown to the German court.

Does the Commission agree that the above leads to complicated procedures and places an unnecessary administrative and financial burden on businesses in border regions and their employees?

Will the Commission, as requested by Parliament, take measures to avoid such undesirable situations in future?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(12 February 2004)

In its legislative resolution of 2 September 2003 the European Parliament, whilst rejecting the initiative of the Kingdom of the Netherlands, called upon the Commission to give proper consideration to the issue of problems resulting, particularly in border areas, from the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of the Member State in which the employee is domiciled for legal action brought by the employer for judicial annulment of an employment contract.

The report adopted by the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market suggests firstly examining whether, and to what extent, problems have arisen or are likely to arise and secondly, depending on the outcome of that analysis, considering amending legislation.

Within its general responsibility for monitoring the implementation and functioning of adopted legislation the Commission can certainly look at the issue that the Honourable Member is raising, or at any other difficulty with Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 that may be brought to its attention. As regards the issue in question, it has to be noted that the relatively short period since the entry into force of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 makes it somewhat difficult, due to the absence of much accessible case law, to shed light on the question of where and to what extent the jurisdictional rule of Article 20(1) has led to practical problems in cases such as those mentioned in the written question. However, the Commission database which will become operational at some point in 2004, providing access to decisions of the Member States' courts on the interpretation of the Regulation will be of considerable value in that respect. Furthermore, the European Judicial Network could certainly be an appropriate forum to look further into this matter. Note has to be taken of the fact, however, that even after the issue had been brought to the Member States' attention by the Netherlands initiative, no other Member State, including those sharing a border with the Netherlands, has reported any similar difficulties to the Commission or lent any support to the initiative.

As regards the underlying substantive issue, the Commission confirms that it is firmly attached to the principle of the protection of the employee as the weaker party and shares the view expressed in the report by the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market that this principle should be retained. In that context, it needs to be underscored that if it could be established that in very specific cases the application of Article 20 of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 is not indispensable to protect the weaker party of an individual employment contract, several solutions would be conceivable, without necessarily creating a new jurisdictional rule. Some specific possibilities are already mentioned in the report of the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market. For example, the suggestion to require the employee's consent to the bringing of proceedings in the Member State where he habitually carries out his work would not require any change to the Regulation as that possibility already exists pursuant to Article 21. Thus, if it were demonstrated that the application of Article 20 of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 creates practical problems in specific situations, all possible options would have to be carefully analysed, including the possibility that they could be successfully resolved within the current framework of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001, for example by resorting to choice-of-court agreements pursuant to Article 21.

---

(1)  OJ L 12, 16.1.2001, p. 1.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/885 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/885

---

(2004/C 78 E/0936)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3937/03

by Elisabeth Jeggle (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(16 December 2003)

Subject:   European Regulation on yogurt

During an investigation of the requirements for yogurt and yogurt products undertaken by the Commission in December 2002, it was found that these vary greatly between the different Member States. Some of the Member States, such as the southern European countries and Denmark, recognise only the classic Bulgarian-style yogurt, in which cultures of Streptococcus thermophilus and Lactobacillus bulgaricus are used.

However, in other Member States such as Germany, the Netherlands, England, Ireland, Sweden and Finland, ‘mild yogurt’, in which other Lactobacillus species are used instead of Lactobacillus bulgaricus, is permitted in addition to the classic Bulgarian-style yogurt. Furthermore, the Member States have different requirements for the use of the designation ‘heat-treated yogurt product’.

It should be borne in mind in this context that in April 2002 the EC and the Member States approved the Codex Standard for fermented milk products, and that Article 13 of Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 (1) calls on the Member States and the Community to ensure consistency between international technical standards and food law. In view of the fact that during talks on the Codex Standard for fermented milk final approval was granted by all the Member States and the Commission, it would seem reasonable to expect that a proposal would be made for European harmonisation on the basis of Article 13 of Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 and the Codex Standard.

However in reality the draft put forward by the Commission, the latest version of which is dated 20 August 2003, differs significantly in both its basic principles and its details from the Codex Standard for fermented milk products.

What is the reason for this lack of consistency between Commission policy and the Codex Standard? It should be noted that under the Codex Standard the EU is considered a single state, in which all products must be able to circulate freely, including ‘heat-treated yogurt products’.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(26 January 2004)

As mentioned in the reply to Written Question E-2397/03 by Mr Vallvé (2), the Commission is examining the need for yogurt legislation.

A first document prepared by the Commission services forms the basis for technical discussions with experts. Up to now, the Commission has not decided to make a proposal for legislation on yogurt.

Should this decision be taken, there will be ample opportunity to discuss every aspect, including the question asked by the Honourable Member, with Member States and the Parliament.

---

(1)  OJ L 31, 1.2.2002, p. 1.

(2)  OJ C 65 E, 13.3.2004.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/886 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/886

---

(2004/C 78 E/0937)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3950/03

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(22 December 2003)

Subject:   Incentives to halt the continuing cancellation of rapid and direct long-distance international train services

| 1. | Is the Commission aware that the trend towards cancelling rapid and direct long-distance train services between major cities, operating across different European internal borders at night, is continuing in the new railway timetables that came into force on 14 December 2003, which see the cancellation of the direct night train services between Brussels and Vienna (EN 224/225 Donau-Walzer) and Brussels/Chur (D 498/499)? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is the Commission aware that the trend towards cancelling rapid and direct long-distance train services between major cities, operating across different European internal borders at night, is continuing in the new railway timetables that came into force on 14 December 2003, which see the cancellation of the direct night train services between Brussels and Vienna (EN 224/225 Donau-Walzer) and Brussels/Chur (D 498/499)?

| 2. | Did the cancellations in 2002 and 2003 come about because the national railway companies in the Netherlands, Belgium and Germany cancelled services under government pressure to make savings, rendering it impossible for Austria and Switzerland to maintain the connections? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Did the cancellations in 2002 and 2003 come about because the national railway companies in the Netherlands, Belgium and Germany cancelled services under government pressure to make savings, rendering it impossible for Austria and Switzerland to maintain the connections?

| 3. | Can the Commission say what mode of transport the many passengers on these express train services will use in the future? To what extent will the cancellations introduced on 14 December 2003 contribute to a further shift in international passenger traffic to cars and planes? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Can the Commission say what mode of transport the many passengers on these express train services will use in the future? To what extent will the cancellations introduced on 14 December 2003 contribute to a further shift in international passenger traffic to cars and planes?

| 4. | Are international services largely destined to disappear or will they at most continue in the form of short-distance stopping trains and a few busy high-speed lines such as Brussels/Paris? |
| --- | --- |

4.

Are international services largely destined to disappear or will they at most continue in the form of short-distance stopping trains and a few busy high-speed lines such as Brussels/Paris?

| 5. | Is the reason why railways in Europe are becoming less and less international the fact that all forms of public transport have become loss-making in the age of the car and low-cost airlines, while most EU Member States are only prepared to make up the losses of their domestic railway services but do not feel that they are responsible for international connections? |
| --- | --- |

5.

Is the reason why railways in Europe are becoming less and less international the fact that all forms of public transport have become loss-making in the age of the car and low-cost airlines, while most EU Member States are only prepared to make up the losses of their domestic railway services but do not feel that they are responsible for international connections?

| 6. | Will the Commission continue to put its faith in market forces until international rail services have virtually disappeared or is it planning incentives to encourage railway companies to reinstate full international passenger services, for example by allowing the EU to cover the inevitable operating deficits on international services that the Member States are not prepared to finance? |
| --- | --- |

6.

Will the Commission continue to put its faith in market forces until international rail services have virtually disappeared or is it planning incentives to encourage railway companies to reinstate full international passenger services, for example by allowing the EU to cover the inevitable operating deficits on international services that the Member States are not prepared to finance?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(13 February 2004)

According to the information gathered by the companies concerned, international services often operate at a heavy loss and, as they do not receive public service subsidies, companies prefer to halt them for reasons of sound financial management. The cumbersome nature of cooperation arrangements between the Member States is also a reason why these services do not develop better. The Commission believes this sector of the market would be better served if it were liberalised in order to promote a more commercial approach and to allow a single undertaking to take on responsibility for a through service.

There is nothing to stop the authorities of the Member States from concluding contracts with railway companies to provide international services which would otherwise not be profitable, in particular as regards cross-border services, provided that the provisions of Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69 (1) are complied with. This depends on the willingness of the national, regional or local authorities, and the availability of sufficient funds to conclude contracts.

The implementation of the first railway package (2) in 2003 created a new legal framework which should make it easier for international groups of companies and subsequently any railway company interested to carry out such operations when these services are fully liberalised, as called for by Parliament. The creation in December 2003 of RailNetEurope, which brings together all the infrastructure managers, will promote the creation of international slots which could be used by companies which wish to introduce these services on a more dynamic commercial basis, which is essential to head off the strong competition from low-cost airlines and the regular coach services which are rapidly developing in Europe.

The Commission, which is well aware of the challenges posed by the railway sector in the transport industry, has undertaken, with the first and second railway packages, with which Parliament is very familiar, and a third package which it plans to adopt shortly, to put in place a full European regulatory framework to revitalise the industry by enabling it to offer a high standard of safe services at the European level, which is the prerequisite for its future success given the other modes of transport which are constantly improving.

---

(1)  Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69 of the Council of 26 June 1969 on action by Member States concerning the obligations inherent in the concept of a public service in transport by rail, road and inland waterway, OJ L 156, 28.6.1969, as amended by Council Regulation (EEC) No 1893/91 of 20 June 1991, OJ L 169, 29.6.1991.

(2)  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 Directive 95/18/EC 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.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/887 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/887

---

(2004/C 78 E/0938)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3954/03

by Gian Gobbo (NI) to the Commission

(16 December 2003)

Subject:   Issue of one-euro banknotes

In many countries, and especially in Italy, the introduction of the euro and the accompanying replacement of national currencies has led to a significant rise in inflation, particularly in consumer and retail prices.

The rise in inflation is depressing consumption and significantly reducing the purchasing power of the most vulnerable sectors of Europe's population, especially pensioners.

Consumers often still find themselves unprepared for using the new European currency.

Had the Commission anticipated these consequences?

Does the Commission not consider that it would be desirable to allow the issue of one-euro banknotes, thus giving consumers the instant psychological impression that the notes are in fact worth more, particularly in Italy?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(15 January 2004)

The Commission's analysis of the evolution of the harmonised consumer price index shows that the introduction of the euro impinged on the inflation rate, although the effect has been very limited. In the euro area as a whole, only up to 0,3 % rate points at most of the euro area inflation rate of 2,3 % in 2002 (2,6 % for Italy) can be attributed to the introduction of the euro. Price increases in certain sectors were somewhat higher (e.g. restaurants, hotels, services, etc.), although their impact on the overall harmonised consumer price index is rather small since such items only represent a small share of the overall consumer basket.

The latest Eurobarometer survey (published on 15 December 2003) indicates that consumers appreciate the euro. In particular the results concerning the euro banknotes and coins show that in general citizens handle the single currency very well. 92 % (92 % in Italy) do not have any problems in handling the euro banknotes, while 71 % (75 % in Italy) find it easy to distinguish and use the coins.

The same survey also points out that only 31 % of the euro area citizens are in favour of a one-euro banknote. Support for such a banknote only originates from two countries, where a majority (76 % in Italy, 70 % in Greece) would welcome the introduction of a one-euro banknote. However, in the ten other euro-area countries, there is a clear majority (exceeding 60 % in all cases and even reaching almost 90 % in a number of countries) against the introduction of such an additional banknote.

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 look into the matter.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/888 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/888

---

(2004/C 78 E/0939)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3982/03

by Miquel Mayol i Raynal (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(6 January 2004)

Subject:   Political rights of the Macedonian minority in Greece

The Macedonian minority in Greece is represented within the European Free Alliance by the Rainbow Party (Ouranio Toxo).

Following repeated unlawful acts and threats, this party was physically prevented from holding a conference in preparation for the European elections by Greek fascist-inspired organisations.

Despite numerous appeals to the Greek authorities at both local and national level, the authorities have taken no action against these organisations. The party conference, originally scheduled for 30 November and subsequently put back to 7 December, has been postponed indefinitely because of the risks involved.

Is the Commission aware of this attack on the political rights of minorities?

Does the Commission know the reasons for the Greek authorities' inaction on the matter?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(29 January 2004)

The Commission will approach the Greek authorities for information about the facts to which the Honourable Member refers.

It will let him have the results of its examination of the case as soon as possible.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/888 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/888

---

(2004/C 78 E/0940)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3997/03

by Raffaele Costa (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(7 January 2004)

Subject:   Prince/Euro programme

In May 2003 the Commission issued a call for proposals under the Prince/Euro programme. The objective was the realisation of communication and information initiatives on the euro aimed at particular sections of the public, in order to respond to requests for specific information on the introduction of the euro. The total budget was approximately EUR 5 million. The Commission further expressed the intention of granting subsidies, preferably within the EUR 50 000 to 300 000 range.

Can the Commission supply a complete list of both successful and unsuccessful candidates in respect of these projects? Can it also provide information on the proofs supplied individually by the successful candidates, as required by the call for proposals itself, to confirm that the EU subsidy has had the expected publicity impact?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(20 February 2004)

One of the objectives of the Prince programme consisted in targeting specific categories of operator and sections of the public with a view to preparing the transition to the euro. This was done by organising transnational information initiatives involving at least three Member States (of which one formed part of the euro area) and with a multiplier effect.

On the basis of the selection criteria (1) applied, the Commission chose 34 projects from the 158 proposals received, i.e. 27,42 %.

With the selected recipients, the Commission reached a wide variety of information multipliers among the sections of the public indicated in the notice:

| Target group | Number of projects |
| --- | --- |
| Small and medium-sized entreprises | 11 |
| Civil society (general public) | 2 |
| Young people in schools (ages 6-18) | 9 |
| Vulnerable groups | 10 |
| Regional and local authorities; outermost regions | 2 |
| Total Projects Selected | 34 |

Target group

Number of projects

Small and medium-sized entreprises

11

Civil society (general public)

2

Young people in schools (ages 6-18)

9

Vulnerable groups

10

Regional and local authorities; outermost regions

2

Total Projects Selected

34

In view of the limited internal resources it was able to mobilise, the Commission evaluated all these projects on receiving applications and when they were completed. Reports submitted by recipients were vetted to assess whether qualitative objectives had been met for the target groups concerned. With a view to measuring the impact of the recipients' activities, the Commission asked them to use the most widespread communication techniques (publications, CD-ROMs, conferences and seminars, website, exhibitions, converters, brochures, posters, etc.). Compliance with the quantitative objectives (size of the relevant target groups and volume of material disseminated) was also evaluated.

These information initiatives took place in partner countries (at least three), had a multiplier effect and, in general, were given media coverage. The Commission takes that the view that, overall, this constitutes evidence of completion of the planned publicity measures.

The Commission will send the full list of recipients and a list of unsuccessful candidates direct to the Honourable Member and Parliament's Secretariat.

---

(1)  The ten selection criteria are listed in the call for proposals published in the Official Journal of the European Union:

| — | The relevance of the project to the needs of the target audiences and the objectives of the actions; |
| --- | --- |

—

The relevance of the project to the needs of the target audiences and the objectives of the actions;

| — | The quality and consistency of the proposed means of achieving the objectives; |
| --- | --- |

—

The quality and consistency of the proposed means of achieving the objectives;

| — | The consistency of the budget with these means; Grants obtained previously (Community contracts or loans); |
| --- | --- |

—

The consistency of the budget with these means; Grants obtained previously (Community contracts or loans);

| — | The innovative nature of the project (objectives, methods); |
| --- | --- |

—

The innovative nature of the project (objectives, methods);

| — | The reality of the actions' European transnational or transregional dimension; |
| --- | --- |

—

The reality of the actions' European transnational or transregional dimension;

| — | The expected multiplier effect within the target group; |
| --- | --- |

—

The expected multiplier effect within the target group;

| — | The presence or absence of other co-financers — searching for other financial partners is encouraged and will be taken into account when the files are examined; |
| --- | --- |

—

The presence or absence of other co-financers — searching for other financial partners is encouraged and will be taken into account when the files are examined;

| — | The technical ability of the applicant and its partners to implement the proposed project; |
| --- | --- |

—

The technical ability of the applicant and its partners to implement the proposed project;

| — | The publicity given to the project. |
| --- | --- |

—

The publicity given to the project.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/890 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/890

---

(2004/C 78 E/0941)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-4000/03

by Herbert Bösch (PSE) to the Commission

(7 January 2004)

Subject:   Reforms at Eurostat

The reforms introduced at Eurostat following the financial irregularities there include a new organisational structure. Social statistics, which used to come under Directorate E, have been transferred to Directorate D (previously Business Statistics) while population statistics have been transferred to the department responsible for external relations.

The minutes of the 51st meeting of the Statistical Programme Committee held on 20 November 2003 state that Eurostat should concentrate on its core business. They also mention that there is scope for savings in the social statistics sphere where a series of negative priorities could be identified: house building, time use survey, healthcare, discrimination, disabled people, the homeless, in other words, a whole range of social statistics.

| 1. | Can the Commission say what projects will be or have been cut or abandoned since July 2003? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Can the Commission say what projects will be or have been cut or abandoned since July 2003?

| 2. | Does the Commission share the view that social statistics will continue to be a negative priority? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Does the Commission share the view that social statistics will continue to be a negative priority?

| 3. | Does the Commission not see it as paradoxical to cut statistics relating to disabled people in the European Year for People with Disabilities? Does the Commission consider that gender mainstreaming or combating racism and discrimination against women are consistent with cuts in statistics on discrimination? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Does the Commission not see it as paradoxical to cut statistics relating to disabled people in the European Year for People with Disabilities? Does the Commission consider that gender mainstreaming or combating racism and discrimination against women are consistent with cuts in statistics on discrimination?

| 4. | Have cuts already been made in the statistical component of enlargement? |
| --- | --- |

4.

Have cuts already been made in the statistical component of enlargement?

| 5. | Have there been delays in publishing statistics in the last few months or are such delays imminent? If so, which statistics were concerned and what were the reasons? |
| --- | --- |

5.

Have there been delays in publishing statistics in the last few months or are such delays imminent? If so, which statistics were concerned and what were the reasons?

| 6. | Is Eurostat's establishment plan too small for it to carry out activities that go beyond its core business? If so, how many additional posts are required to enable it to operate satisfactorily and has the Commission already planned for these extra posts or requested additional funds for staff expenditure, and if not why not? |
| --- | --- |

6.

Is Eurostat's establishment plan too small for it to carry out activities that go beyond its core business? If so, how many additional posts are required to enable it to operate satisfactorily and has the Commission already planned for these extra posts or requested additional funds for staff expenditure, and if not why not?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(8 March 2004)

Despite the events of 2003, constant efforts were made to ensure that the essential statistics were produced. A great deal of thought still had to be given to the matter, involving the Member States in the Statistical Programming Committee (SPC) and the other Directorates-General in the Commission, designed to focus Eurostat's statistical work on priority requests. A scale of priorities was thus laid down, based on the requirements of the Treaty, existing regulations, the needs of the common policies and the duty to inform the public. The statistical programme for 2004 was drawn up on this basis, presented to the SPC for its opinion and adopted by the Commission on 5 February 2004. It sets out in detail for each subject area all the work in progress and the new work, in order of priority. This document is being sent direct to the Honourable Member and to the Parliament's Secretariat.

The annual statistical programme contributes to the priorities of the five-year statistical programme, one of which is completion of the social agenda. Social aspects are also taken into account in all statistics relating to the internal market. The work programme finally adopted by the Commission does in fact include some of the social statistics referred to by the Honourable Member, such as those on disabled persons or time use surveys, plus of course statistics on social protection, living conditions and household incomes, the labour force and employment.

The Commission is indeed mindful of the needs of disabled people and the requirement for statistical information, especially in relation to the European Year for People with Disabilities. For instance, Theme 35 ‘Health and Safety’ of the 2004 Statistical Programme refers to the further development of a common module on disability in the context of the European Health Interview Survey. Commission policy on gender mainstreaming is not affected since all individual data will continue to be collected by gender and this dimension will feature systematically in the presentation of the statistics. Concerning racism and discrimination against women, the Commission has never collected statistics on these topics, which would incidentally be very difficult to quantify using available statistical methods. Regarding statistics on homelessness, an exploratory study carried out by Eurostat revealed that it is very difficult to collect crosscountry comparable statistics on this issue, and that there is still a sore lack of statistical capacity or political will to collect this type of statistics at the national level.

The assistance programmes for statistics for the acceding and remaining candidate countries will continue according to long-term planning. The Honourable Member will be aware that the Accession Treaty provides for continued institution-building assistance in the field of statistics for the ten acceding countries even after accession, under the Transition Facility.

Despite the termination of certain contracts connected with the preparation of statistical publications, the pace and quality of dissemination of statistical information has been maintained, as shown by the stable number of press releases issued by Eurostat or the 10 % increase in the number of titles published in 2003 in the ‘Statistics in Focus’ series. The Honourable Member's attention is drawn to the new strategy applied to the dissemination of statistical information. On the basis of the principle that statistical information is a public service, all the statistical data produced and gathered by Eurostat should be accessible free of charge to users and available on the Internet. This strategy is set out in greater detail in the Action Plan for Eurostat referred to below.

On the staffing side, a detailed internal review of the allocation of human resources was conducted in January 2004 in order to match Eurostat's resources to the priorities to be applied in the work programme and to organise as efficiently as possible the reintegration of certain activities which in the past had been outsourced. Some additional posts were awarded in the final allocation of human resources for 2004 and the additional requirements are being considered in connection with the annual policy strategy for 2005.

Finally the Commission has been informed of the 2004 Action Plan for Eurostat, which determines the work priorities and the arrangements for implementing the statistical programme and takes stock of all the actions undertaken by Eurostat and those planned for 2004. This Action Plan is being sent direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/891 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/891

---

(2004/C 78 E/0942)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-4005/03

by Anna Terrón i Cusí (PSE) to the Commission

(7 January 2004)

Subject:   Discrimination against Community children as regards access to sports federations in Spain

Any person who is a national of a Member State enjoys citizenship of the European Union, and any form of discrimination against them on the grounds of their nationality is prohibited under the Treaties and Articles 4 and 8 of the Draft European Constitution.

Article 31 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child recognises the right of children to rest and leisure, to engage in play and recreational activities appropriate to their age and to participate freely in cultural life and the arts.

Article 24 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union lays down children's right to the protection and care necessary for their well-being.

Serious cases of discrimination against girls and boys are arising in Spain as regards access to sports leagues, as a result of administrative obstacles or the refusal of sports federations to grant them membership, despite the fact that they are Community citizens.

What is the Commission's view of the refusal by Spanish sports federations to grant membership cards to children who are Member State nationals, when this refusal means that they are unable to play sport?

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(10 February 2004)

On the subject of difficulties encountered by young foreigners concerning access to sports activities organised by certain federations in Spain, the Honourable Member is referred to the answer given by the Commission to Written Question P-3911/03 from Mrs Valenciano Martinez-Orozco (1).

---

(1)  See page 335.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/892 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/892

---

(2004/C 78 E/0943)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-4009/03

by Antonio Di Pietro (ELDR) to the Commission

(22 December 2003)

Subject:   Reform of the tobacco CMO

Under the draft revision of the Common Market Organisation (CMO) in tobacco, the Commission has made provision for Europe to progressively abandon the production of tobacco on its territory.

Specifically, the proposal envisages that from 2005 there will be a drastic revision of the aid system, which will lead in 2007 to the abolition of the Community fund for tobacco.

While concerns regarding the very serious public health problems caused by tobacco are understandable, it should be noted that dismantling this productive sector will have dramatic implications for at least 110 000 families of European agricultural workers, 400 000 seasonal jobs and 30 000 jobs in the processing industry.

Has the Commission made provision for appropriate social safety valves to safeguard the jobs of workers in this sector? Would it be possible to maintain at least a partial link between aid and production?

Without compromising the wish to combat cigarette addiction effectively, particularly among the young, does the Commission not believe that — since Europe already imports 80 % of its tobacco requirements from non-EU countries — even were it to import 100 %, this would change nothing with regard to the vital battle against tobacco consumption?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(30 January 2004)

The proposal for a reform of the raw tobacco sector implies that the product-specific support to tobacco will be replaced by an income support to producers as in the June 2003 Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) reform, and that the majority of the raw tobacco producers will continue to receive the same support as they receive today without being bound to produce tobacco.

The Community Tobacco Fund will be abolished as from 2007 because the financing of this fund is linked to the product-specific support which disappears, but 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 shall be used in the Member States where the funds contributing to the envelope are collected. The funds in the envelope shall be administered according to the rural development legislation and will contribute to improvements of the infrastructure in the tobacco producing regions and to support producers who want to shift to other products or to other economic activities.

The funding in the Community Tobacco Fund used for reconversion, etc. amounts only to approximately EUR 14 million in 2004, while the funding in the financial envelope from 2007 onwards will amount to EUR 205 million.

The increased funding for improvements of the infrastructure and support of the producers shift to other products or other economic activities should ensure that the economic situation for the producers and workers in the tobacco producing regions will not have the dramatic implications evoked by the Honourable Member.

As concerns the question on the fight against tobacco addiction, it can be said that, while the removal 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 a better coherence with public health policies is essential to maintain the confidence and trust of Union citizens.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/893 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/893

---

(2004/C 78 E/0944)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-4016/03

by Salvador Garriga Polledo (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(9 January 2004)

Subject:   Free movement of pharmaceutical products in the EU

Freedom of movement for the Union's citizens has enabled numerous citizens of Member States to settle in Member States other than their country of origin, in order to enjoy a more comfortable lifestyle and higher living standards.

This has, however, led to a considerable number of problems. One of these concerns the variations in medicines as between one Member States and another, which means many non-nationals cannot take their usual medicines in their host country for the treatment of physical illnesses, above all those of a chronic nature.

Can the Commission state what possibilities exist for an EU citizen resident in a Member State other than his country of origin to be supplied with his usual medicines in his new host country, via the relevant pharmaceutical establishments?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(20 February 2004)

As a matter of fact, an EU citizen resident in a Member State other than his country of origin may find his usual medicines in his new host country provided those medicines have received marketing authorisation in that Member State or have received a Community marketing authorisation.

In the case of distance selling where the EU citizen concerned would like to have his usual medicines supplied by a pharmacist established in his country of origin, the following must be noted:

| — | Article 14 of Directive 97/7/EC (1), provides that Member States, in order to ensure a higher level of consumer protection, may introduce or maintain restrictions on the marketing of certain goods or services, particularly medicinal products, within their territory by means of distance contracts, with due regard for the EC Treaty. |
| --- | --- |

—

Article 14 of Directive 97/7/EC (1), provides that Member States, in order to ensure a higher level of consumer protection, may introduce or maintain restrictions on the marketing of certain goods or services, particularly medicinal products, within their territory by means of distance contracts, with due regard for the EC Treaty.

| — | In its recent judgement of 11 December 2003 on Case C-322/01, the European Court of Justice ruled that a national prohibition on the sale by mail order of medicinal products, the sale of which is restricted to pharmacies in the Member State concerned, may be considered as a restriction to the free movement of goods (Article 28 of the EC Treaty). That measure may, nevertheless, be justified by one of the grounds foreseen in Article 30 of the EC Treaty, in particular the protection of the health and life of humans provided that the measure in question is necessary for the effective protection of health and life of humans and that there are no other measures available which are less restrictive of intra-Community trade. |
| --- | --- |

—

In its recent judgement of 11 December 2003 on Case C-322/01, the European Court of Justice ruled that a national prohibition on the sale by mail order of medicinal products, the sale of which is restricted to pharmacies in the Member State concerned, may be considered as a restriction to the free movement of goods (Article 28 of the EC Treaty). That measure may, nevertheless, be justified by one of the grounds foreseen in Article 30 of the EC Treaty, in particular the protection of the health and life of humans provided that the measure in question is necessary for the effective protection of health and life of humans and that there are no other measures available which are less restrictive of intra-Community trade.

| — | According to the Court prescription medicines must, for these purposes, be distinguished from nonprescription medicines. Thus, a national prohibition on the sale by mail order of medicinal products, the sale of which is restricted to pharmacies in the Member State concerned may be justified in so far as the prohibition covers medicinal products subject to prescription. However, an absolute prohibition on the sale by mail order of medicinal products which are not subject to prescription in the Member State concerned cannot be justified on the basis of Article 30 of the EC Treaty. |
| --- | --- |

—

According to the Court prescription medicines must, for these purposes, be distinguished from nonprescription medicines. Thus, a national prohibition on the sale by mail order of medicinal products, the sale of which is restricted to pharmacies in the Member State concerned may be justified in so far as the prohibition covers medicinal products subject to prescription. However, an absolute prohibition on the sale by mail order of medicinal products which are not subject to prescription in the Member State concerned cannot be justified on the basis of Article 30 of the EC Treaty.

---

(1)  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 — Statement by the Council and the Parliament re Article 6(1) — Statement by the Commission re Article 3(1), first indent, OJ L 144, 4.6.1997.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/894 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/894

---

(2004/C 78 E/0945)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-4022/03

by Christos Folias (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(22 December 2003)

Subject:   Comparative data in the olive oil sector

Will the Commission say whether it has comparative data on the results of controls carried out by its services over the last five years in olive oil producing countries as part of annual economic adjustments in the olive oil sector? If so what is this data? Have any penalties been imposed on the basis of the results of these controls in each olive oil producing Member State and if so, which ones?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(26 January 2004)

The expenditure related to the common market organisation of olive oil is part of the expenditure under the European Agriculture Guidance and Guarantee Fund-Guarantee section (EAGGF). The Commission carries out its controls of this expenditure in the framework of the clearance of accounts (1).

On the basis of the clearance of accounts procedure, the Commission adopts separate decisions — ‘ad-hoc decisions’ — that aim to exclude expenditure for which a Member State fails to provide the Commission with reasonable assurance as to the effectiveness of the management and control procedures used to check the legality and regularity of the aid scheme.

In the case of the olive oil production aid such financial corrections have been applied in recent years to several Member States. Corrections have been applied as a flat-rate percentage of the total expenditure related to the aid scheme per financial year.

For the financial year 1998 and 1999 Greece and Spain have seen their expenditure corrected by 5 % (2) and Italy by 2 % (3). No corrections were applied to Portugal and France.

For the financial year 2000 Greece has again seen its expenditure corrected by 5 % and Italy by 2 % (4). In the case of Spain the clearance of accounts procedure has not yet been finalised for this financial year. No corrections were applied to France and Portugal.

The financial impact of these corrections can be summarized as follows:

| (per million euros) |
| --- |
| | 1998 | 1999 | 2000 |
| Greece | 50,8 | 21,0 | 24,1 |
| Spain | 48,5 | 45,5 | N/A |
| Italy | 9,1 | 12,5 | 13,0 |

(per million euros)

1998

1999

2000

Greece

50,8

21,0

24,1

Spain

48,5

45,5

N/A

Italy

9,1

12,5

13,0

For financial years 2001 to 2003 the clearance of accounts procedure is still ongoing concerning the relevant Member States, and appropriate financial corrections will be applied in due course.

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1258/1999 of 17 May 1999 on the financing of the common agricultural policy, OJ L 160, 26.6.1999.

(2)  Commission Decision 2001/557/EC of 11 July 2001 excluding from Community financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), OJ L 200, 25.7.2001 and Commission Decision 2003/536/EC of 22 July 2003 excluding from Community financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) (Greece), OJ L 184, 23.7.2003, and Commission Decision 2001/137/EC of 5 February 2001 excluding from Community financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), OJ L 50, 21.2.2001 and Commission Decision 2002/881/EC of 5 November 2002 excluding from Community financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), OJ L 306, 8.11.2002 (Spain).

(3)  Commission Decision 2002/523/EC of 28 June 2002 excluding from Community financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), OJ L 170, 29.6.2002.

(4)  Commission Decision 2002/881/EC of 5 November 2002 (Greece and Italy).

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/895 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/895

---

(2004/C 78 E/0946)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-4023/03

by Jean-Louis Bernié (EDD) to the Commission

(5 January 2004)

Subject:   Natura 2000

In its judgment of 19 January 1994 (Case C-435/92), the Court of Justice considered that ‘any hunting activity is liable to disturb wildlife and that it may in many cases affect the state of conservation of the species concerned, independently of the extent to which it depletes numbers ... Those disturbances are reported to have an adverse impact on the level of energy of each individual and the mortality rate of all the populations concerned.’.

In its reasoned opinion issued to France on 13 September 1994, the Commission took the view that Article 7 does not allow hunting within special protection areas, that hunting is bound to affect the living conditions of birds, even if there is a guarantee that they will not be killed, and that beating, shooting and the presence of hunters and their dogs are incompatible with the objectives of reproduction and survival specified in Article 4.

The Commission went on to point out that the aim of the financial support granted to France for developing special protection areas had been to establish hunting-free nature reserves quickly.

Lastly, it stated that, in its view, that hunting within such areas could not under any circumstances be justified by citing imperative reasons of overriding public interest within the meaning of Article 6(4) of Directive 92/43/EEC (1).

However, both the Commission and the Member States maintain that hunting will continue in the Natura 2000 network, in which no disturbances to wildlife will be permitted.

On what legal bases and on what case law is the Commission relying for its assertion that hunting and protected areas (SPAs and SACs) will be compatible?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(5 February 2004)

The safeguards applying to Natura 2000 sites, given under Article 6 of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora, are framed so as to be of general application. There are no specific provisions concerning the practice of hunting and Natura 2000. Therefore, the approach to hunting must be based on the general principles that also apply to other human activities that have potential to be detrimental to the conservation objectives of a site.

There is no specific Community case law with respect to hunting and Natura 2000 sites. To the extent that existing case law is relevant to the general protection regime applying to Natura 2000, the Commission has sought to reflect this in its guidance document on the provisions of Article 6 of Directive 92/43/EEC (2). It also takes account of other case law emerging since the publication of this document. The Honourable Member is also referred to the new guidance document on hunting which refers to this topic (3).

---

(1)  OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7.

(2)  Managing Natura 2000 sites. The provisions of Article 6 of the ‘Habitats’ Directive 92/43/EEC. Available at http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/nature/legis.htm

(3)  Guidance document on hunting under Council Directive 79/409/EEC on the conservation of wild birds. Available at http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/nature/sustainable_hunting.htm

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/896 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/896

---

(2004/C 78 E/0947)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-4024/03

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(9 January 2004)

Subject:   Free-standing ovens

Further to the Commission's answer to Written Question E-3307/03 (1), will it state whether free-standing ovens with a shoulder height oven/grill compartment have been banned in the UK as result of Council Directive 73/23/EEC (2) (or any other EU legislation)?

Will the Commission provide a list of free-standing ovens (by make and model) that are prohibited from being placed on the market in the UK by Council Directive 73/23/EEC?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(12 February 2004)

Further to the Commission's response to the Honourable Member's Written Question E-3307/03 with respect to Directive 73/23/EEC (3), the Commission is not aware of measures taken in the United Kingdom to restrict the free movement or placing on the market of any free-standing oven with a shoulder height oven/grill compartment.

Market surveillance is the responsibility of the Member States and the Commission is not directly involved unless the Member State concerned notifies such a measure under the safeguard clause procedure as described at Article 9 of the above Directive. In this respect, no such notification has been received to-date.

---

(1)  OJ C 70 E, 20.3.2004.

(2)  OJ L 77, 26.3.1973, p. 29.

(3)  Council Directive 73/23/EEC of 19 February 1973 on the harmonization of the laws of Member States relating to electrical equipment designed for use within certain voltage limit, OJ L 77, 26.3.1973 amended by Council Directive 93/68/EEC of 22 July 1993, OJ L 220, 30.8.1993.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/897 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/897

---

(2004/C 78 E/0948)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-4025/03

by Claude Moraes (PSE) to the Commission

(9 January 2004)

Subject:   UN investigation in East Timor

One of my constituents has brought an ongoing UN investigation to my attention.

In 1975, five journalists were killed in East Timor whilst reporting on the Indonesian invasion. One of these journalists was a relative of my constituent. Initial reports stated the deaths were the results of crossfire, but it was later revealed (in the mid-1990s) that they were targeted and killed by Indonesians.

The UN administration has taken up this case, and although they were reportedly near to making arrests in 2001, no decisions or action has been taken.

My constituent is very concerned that justice has not been done. Could the Commission state what it can do to help the progression of this case?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(10 February 2004)

Five journalists, Malcolm Rennie (Scotland), Brian Peters (England), Greg Shackleton (Australian), Tony Stewart (New Zealand) and Gary Cunningham (Australia), all working for Australian television channels, were brutally killed in the village of Balibo, Maliana District, East Timor in October 1975. Whilst the facts of the case are widely known as a result of media coverage and continued lobbying for justice by family members, no arrests or prosecutions have ever taken place.

The United Nations Transitional Administration in East Timor (Untaet) had a full governance mandate from the Security Council, and investigation of this and other historical cases was undertaken by UN Police investigators. By the time the Untaet mission ended in May 2002, investigation had reached the stage where evidence had been gathered and numerous unsuccessful requests for co-operation had been made to Indonesia for access to witnesses. The European Union also raised the case with the Indonesian Government in 2002. None of these requests bore fruit.

Prosecutions for murder cannot be undertaken because of the expiry of relevant statutes of limitation, (18 years in the Indonesian Penal Code, 15 years in the Portuguese Penal Code) although it might be possible with further investigation to maintain charges for war crimes (there being no statute of limitation for war crimes under the Geneva Convention).

Since 20 May 2002 East Timor attained full independence, and prosecuting authority passed from Untaet to the institutions of the sovereign nation. A case such as this falls within the mandate of the Prosecutor General, and relevant files, including the files developed by Untaet, should be transferred to his office.

The Commission's Delegation in Dili, East Timor, has contacted the Prosecutor General who denied that the files had been officially transferred to him. The Prosecutor General informed the victim's relatives accordingly, when he met them in October 2003 (when they travelled to Timor-Leste for the inauguration of the ‘Balibo Flag House’ commemorating the Balibo five).

The Prosecutor General has assured the Commission's Delegation in East Timor that he will continue the investigation as soon as the case documents are transferred to him.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/898 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/898

---

(2004/C 78 E/0949)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-4030/03

by Juan Naranjo Escobar (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(12 January 2004)

Subject:   Under-utilisation of payment appropriations

According to the recent annual report of the Court of Auditors of the European Union, under the 2002 budget a total of EUR 85 144 was disbursed in payment appropriations, out of an available total of EUR 98 579. This represents a utilisation rate of 86,4 %.

This figure, together with those for the previous years (82,3 % for 2001, 87,9 % for 2000), confirms that the under-utilisation of payment appropriations is endemic and is the rule, not the exception. The mismatches appear primarily in category 2, one reason being that in the first years the programming stage consumes considerable time, resources and energy. Despite this, can the Commission state how it interprets the fact that under Internal Policies only 82,5 % of the payment appropriations available were executed in 2002, or that under External Actions only 86 % were utilised in 2001?

Answer given by Mrs Schreyer on behalf of the Commission

(20 February 2004)

The 2002 overall implementation rate of payments was indeed 86 %, exceeding the 2001 rate of 82 %.

The under-implementation amounted to some EUR 13,1 billion, comprising mainly:

| — | EUR 1,4 billion for Agriculture; |
| --- | --- |

—

EUR 1,4 billion for Agriculture;

| — | EUR 8,1 billion for the Structural Funds; |
| --- | --- |

—

EUR 8,1 billion for the Structural Funds;

| — | EUR 1,4 billion for Internal policies; |
| --- | --- |

—

EUR 1,4 billion for Internal policies;

| — | EUR 0,5 billion for External actions; and |
| --- | --- |

—

EUR 0,5 billion for External actions; and

| — | EUR 0,9 billion for Pre-accession aid. |
| --- | --- |

—

EUR 0,9 billion for Pre-accession aid.

A detailed table providing the breakdown of the underimplementation of payments for:

| — | the budgetary appropriations; |
| --- | --- |

—

the budgetary appropriations;

| — | carryovers; |
| --- | --- |

—

carryovers;

| — | third party appropriations; |
| --- | --- |

—

third party appropriations;

is sent direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat.

The main reason for the underimplementation of the structural funds was that for the 1994-1999 programmes the actual implementation was lower than forecast by the Member States, whereas for the new 2000-2006 programmes the implementation rate reached 91 % (compared to 70 % in 2001).

For Internal policies, about 50 % of the under-implementation of payments actually relate to third party appropriations. For reasons of budgetary principles, these contributions have to be entered into the budget together with the related commitments, even in cases where the payments will actually be made only in subsequent years, when the programmes or projects are implemented. These appropriations are carried over automatically to enable this. Without third party appropriations, the unused payments amounted to some EUR 700 million, and mainly concerned ‘Research and development’ due to delays in legal commitments and contractors' cost statements. Overall, it has to be emphasised that the implementation of payments increased in 2002 by a very substantial amount of almost EUR 1,3 billion, compared to 2001.

For External actions, the reason for the under-utilisation of payment appropriations was a combination of programmes committed late in the year (implying related payments in the subsequent year) and an increase in the payments' budget by the Parliament over the Commission's proposed PDB. The main affected programmes were for ‘Cooperation with the Balkan countries’, ‘Assistance to partner countries in eastern Europe and central Asia’, ‘Other Cooperation measures’, ‘Humanitarian aid’ and ‘Cooperation with developing Latin American countries’. Overall, the implementation of payments for External actions increased in 2002 by EUR 200 million, compared to 2001. The RAL has also been stabilised for external actions, compared to the annual increases in the past.

Generally, payments are demand driven. As the main rule, the Commission can only make a payment after the specific conditions for a payment have been met by the beneficiary, e.g., after a contract has been signed, a project has progressed or been finalised and/or the beneficiary has submitted the final accounts for the financial aid. By and large, these events are not under the Commission's control. A prudent financial management requires that the Commission scrupulously controls such pre-conditions for payments. As the budget for 2002 is mainly already established on the beginning of 2001, the forecasts on when certain payments will actually take place is therefore based on quite a large degree of uncertainties regarding external circumstances, implying a risk of over-budgeting, as was the case in 2002.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/899 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/899

---

(2004/C 78 E/0950)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-4039/03

by Christos Folias (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(12 January 2004)

Subject:   Optometry in Greece

The Greek Parliament recently voted to amend and complete legislation on the National Health Service and to regulate other matters falling within the remit of the Ministry of Health and Welfare concerning the activities of establishments selling optical products. Among other measures this legislation prohibits opticians from practising optometry and allows pharmacists to sell presbyopic lenses and solutions for contact lenses.

Is this provision banning opticians from practising optometry and permitting pharmacists to do so in line with EU legislation?

Does the EU have rules determining which optical products may be sold exclusively by opticians?

Will the Commission say which authorities at Greek prefectural level are responsible for imposing the sanctions provided by the law on opticians operating illegally?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(17 February 2004)

There are no specific Community rules governing the activity of either opticians or optometrists. As for pharmacists, their activity has been the subject of two directives: Council Directives 85/432/EEC and 85/433/EEC concerning, respectively, the coordination of provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in respect of certain activities in the field of pharmacy, and 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 pharmac (1). However, these directives do no deal with the question of the extent to which pharmacists are entitled to sell optical products or to exercise activities in this field.

Given the lack of harmonisation with regard to these professional activities, the Member States retain in principle the authority to define the practice of the activities in question. However, they must exercise their authority in this field while respecting the fundamental freedoms guaranteed by the EC Treaty, especially respect for the freedom of establishment laid down in Article 43 of the EC Treaty.

As Community law stands at the moment, and on the basis of the information which is currently available, the Commission nevertheless considers that there is no provision in Community law which prevents Greece from forbidding opticians to practice optometry or from allowing pharmacists to sell certain optical products. This viewpoint is furthermore confirmed by the case law of the Court of Justice concerning similar situation (2).

There are no harmonised rules at an EU level determining optical products that may be sold exclusively by opticians. The Court of Justice has consistently held that in the absence of any such rules, national authorities may introduce certain selling arrangements as long as those provisions apply to all relevant traders operating within the national territory and as long as they affect in the same manner, in law and in fact, the marketing of domestic products and of those from other Member States. Provided that those conditions are fulfilled, such rules fall outside the scope of Article 28 of the EC Treaty on the free movement of goods.

The Commission does not consider that it has the authority to answer the last question asked by the honourable Member. This question is a matter solely for the Greek authorities.

---

(1)  OJ L 253, 24.6.1985.

(2)  See ‘Mac Quen’ judgement of 1 February 2001, case C-108/96, Reports 2001, p. I-837, and ‘Gräbner’ judgement of 11 July 2002, case C-294/00, Reports 2002, p. I-6515.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/900 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/900

---

(2004/C 78 E/0951)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-4040/03

by Glyn Ford (PSE), Kathalijne Buitenweg (Verts/ALE), Claude Moraes (PSE) and Anna Terrón i Cusí (PSE) to the Commission

(12 January 2004)

Subject:   MEDEA Programme and Article 13 of the Treaty

Will the Commission outline its plans for incorporating the concerns of Article 13 of the Treaty in the MEDEA Programme? Is the Commission aware how far behind it is here compared to other areas of its work?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(12 February 2004)

The MEDEA programme referred to in the question was launched by the Andalusian autonomous government (Junta de Andalucia) as part of the Euromed Audiovisual I Regional Programme. Its purpose is to devise Euro-Mediterranean audiovisual projects. MEDEA was selected by the Commission in 2000 and its three-year funding has been extended up to September 2004 without any change to the Community contribution.

The eligibility criteria set out in the call for proposals in the MEDEA project (point 4) are in keeping with the principles enshrined in Article 13 of the EC Treaty on the measures necessary ‘to combat discrimination based on the grounds of sex, race or ethnic origin, religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation’.

Point 4 of the call for proposals open to the 27 partners states that ‘ ... special attention will be paid to projects that promote common values, as a statement of the identity of the area, creating an awareness of their contribution to international material and ethical progress, such as the fight against racism and xenophobia, intolerance, mistrust, stereotypes and prejudices; and promote activities to protect young people and human dignity.’

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/901 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/901

---

(2004/C 78 E/0952)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-4041/03

by John Bowis (PPE-DE) and Ria Oomen-Ruijten (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(12 January 2004)

Subject:   The implementation of worker safety directives and protection of healthcare workers and their patients

It is estimated that 1 million needlestick injuries occur in Europe each year. Between 60 and 80 % of these go unreported.

Studies show that a combination of training, safer working practices and the use of medical devices incorporating needlestick protection technology can prevent a large number of these potentially fatal injuries.

Every day Europe's healthcare workers are exposed to potentially fatal blood-borne pathogens, including hepatitis B, hepatitis C and HIV, resulting from needlestick and other medical ‘sharps’ injuries.

Does the Commission agree that action needs to be taken in the form of the provision of specific EU guidelines to ensure consistent implementation of effective measures to prevent needlestick and other medical ‘sharps’ injuries across Europe?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(13 February 2004)

The Commission considers the protection of the health and safety of healthcare workers to be extremely important.

Directive 2000/54/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 September 2000 on the protection of workers from risks related to exposure to biological agents at work (1) contains provisions designed to prevent these workers from the risk of becoming infected, and lays down minimum requirements in this area.

The Directive sets out employers' obligations in terms of risk prevention. For example, in the case of any activity likely to involve a risk of exposure to biological agents, the nature, degree and duration of workers' exposure must be determined in order to make it possible to assess any risk to the workers' health or safety and to lay down the measures to be taken. It is up to Member States to implement the provisions of the Directive.

The objective of Council Directive 89/655/EEC of 30 November 1989 concerning the minimum safety and health requirements for the use of work equipment by workers at work (2) is to guarantee a better standard of safety for workers in the use of work equipment, such as medical equipment used in hospitals. The employer must select the work equipment to be used on the basis of the specific working conditions and the risks for workers, in order to eliminate or minimise these risks. Where it is not possible to use work equipment which does not pose a risk to workers' health and safety, the employer must minimise this risk. Workers must also be provided with adequate instructions and training on the use of work equipment.

At Community level, the European Agency for Safety and Health at Work is developing specific measures in the healthcare sector. Various information on health and safety at work in the healthcare sector, and in particular on the prevention of injuries from needles or other sharp instruments, is available on the Agency's website (3). Important information includes guidelines on the prevention of needle injuries, examples of good practice, and studies and recommendations in this area, from the Member States, from other European countries and from outside Europe.

The Commission analyses constantly the situation regarding the prevention of health and safety risks for workers in all sectors, including the healthcare sector. Should its analysis reveal the need to develop new Community instruments in this particular area, the Commission would not hesitate to propose the appropriate measures.

---

(1)  OJ L 262, 17.10.2000.

(2)  OJ L 393, 30.12.1989 (as amended by Directive 95/63/EC, OJ L 335, 30.12.1995, and Directive 2001/45/EC, OJ L 195, 19.7.2001).

(3)  http://europe.osha.eu.int/good_practice/sector/healthcare/fr/indexbytopic.phphttp://europe.osha.eu.int/good_practice/sector/healthcare/fr/indexbytopic11.php?id=274

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/902 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/902

---

(2004/C 78 E/0953)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-4042/03

by Kathalijne Buitenweg (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(12 January 2004)

Subject:   Bullying at school

Children must be able to feel safe at school. Bullying and other verbal and physical violence, both in the classroom and elsewhere, must be controlled and prevented. With a view to this, the EU Member States decided in 1997 to set up the project ‘Violence at Schools’.

The project was to run for two years and to involve exchanges of information and cross-border activities and projects. A group of experts was established to advise on the activities. After two years, the Council was to evaluate the Violence at Schools project.

| 1. | How was the Violence at Schools project evaluated? |
| --- | --- |

1.

How was the Violence at Schools project evaluated?

| 2. | Is it true that there was never any follow-up to the project, and if so, why not? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Is it true that there was never any follow-up to the project, and if so, why not?

| 3. | Is making schools safe, including controlling bullying, currently an objective of Community policy or of any of the education programmes? Does it, for example, fall under the following objective of the Comenius programme: developing and disseminating methods for combating educational exclusion and school failure, promoting the integration of pupils with special educational needs, and promoting equal opportunities in all sectors of education? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Is making schools safe, including controlling bullying, currently an objective of Community policy or of any of the education programmes? Does it, for example, fall under the following objective of the Comenius programme: developing and disseminating methods for combating educational exclusion and school failure, promoting the integration of pupils with special educational needs, and promoting equal opportunities in all sectors of education?

| 4. | If the answer to question 3 is negative, is the Commission working on initiatives to place this topic on the European educational agenda? |
| --- | --- |

4.

If the answer to question 3 is negative, is the Commission working on initiatives to place this topic on the European educational agenda?

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(10 February 2004)

| 1. and 2. | Sixteen projects were funded in the framework of the Council's conclusions from 22 September 1997 initiating pilot activities concerning violence in school. They were in operation from 1997-1999 and had built-in internal and/or external evaluation. The expert group mentioned in the Council conclusions was continuously informed about the progress of the projects.
  Six projects on violence in school emerged partly as a follow-up to projects funded in the framework of the initiative Violence at Schools'. They were funded from 1999-2001 in the framework of the Connect initiative.
  A complete evaluation of the Connect initiative was carried out and published in 2002. It contains detailed information on each of the six projects as well as overall conclusions. The conclusions mention among other issues the lack of intercommunication and exchange of experience. All of the projects were, however, said to have had very good potential in each of their fields. It is known to be a common difficulty for this type of project to ensure continuity especially in terms of funds. The conclusions mention in this context that two of the six projects at the time of the evaluation had presented pre-proposals in the framework of Socrates, Comenius 3 (networks). |
| --- | --- |

1. and 2.

Sixteen projects were funded in the framework of the Council's conclusions from 22 September 1997 initiating pilot activities concerning violence in school. They were in operation from 1997-1999 and had built-in internal and/or external evaluation. The expert group mentioned in the Council conclusions was continuously informed about the progress of the projects.

Six projects on violence in school emerged partly as a follow-up to projects funded in the framework of the initiative Violence at Schools'. They were funded from 1999-2001 in the framework of the Connect initiative.

A complete evaluation of the Connect initiative was carried out and published in 2002. It contains detailed information on each of the six projects as well as overall conclusions. The conclusions mention among other issues the lack of intercommunication and exchange of experience. All of the projects were, however, said to have had very good potential in each of their fields. It is known to be a common difficulty for this type of project to ensure continuity especially in terms of funds. The conclusions mention in this context that two of the six projects at the time of the evaluation had presented pre-proposals in the framework of Socrates, Comenius 3 (networks).

| 3. and 4. | Quality projects to combat violence in schools can be funded through the Comenius action of the Socrates programme.
  Between 2001 and 2003, five projects out of a total of 186 projects selected for funding in the framework of the Comenius 2.1 European Cooperation Projects for the Training of School Education Staff were working in the field of violence in school. The theme is covered by one of the 21 networks selected in the framework of Comenius 3 within the same period. |
| --- | --- |

3. and 4.

Quality projects to combat violence in schools can be funded through the Comenius action of the Socrates programme.

Between 2001 and 2003, five projects out of a total of 186 projects selected for funding in the framework of the Comenius 2.1 European Cooperation Projects for the Training of School Education Staff were working in the field of violence in school. The theme is covered by one of the 21 networks selected in the framework of Comenius 3 within the same period.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/903 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/903

---

(2004/C 78 E/0954)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-4044/03

by Theresa Villiers (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(12 January 2004)

Subject:   Free passes for local residents to the grounds of heritage and tourist sites

| 1. | Can the Commission confirm that under forthcoming EU regulation, heritage and tourist sites will be unable to provide people with free passes to their grounds based on geographical proximity? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Can the Commission confirm that under forthcoming EU regulation, heritage and tourist sites will be unable to provide people with free passes to their grounds based on geographical proximity?

| 2. | As a result of such a European law, will heritage and tourist sites, such as Hampton Court Palace in London for example, be obliged to revoke the passes giving free access to their grounds to local residents? |
| --- | --- |

2.

As a result of such a European law, will heritage and tourist sites, such as Hampton Court Palace in London for example, be obliged to revoke the passes giving free access to their grounds to local residents?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(17 February 2004)

In its Judgment of 16 January 2003 in Case C-388/01 on admission to museums in Italy, the Court of Justice 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.

According to consolidated 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 be acceptable only if it were based on overriding reasons in the general interest — in other words, not purely economic reasons — and if it respected the principles of necessity and proportionality.

In its proposal for a Directive on services in the internal market adopted on 13 January 2004, the Commission upholds the principle, as expounded in the case-law of the Court of Justice, of prohibiting distinctions based on nationality and place of residence, with respect to terms of access to services.

It is in the light of these principles that the competent national authorities should examine cases where there are differences in fees for admission to tourist sites, such as those mentioned in the question by the Honourable Member, and should take the appropriate measures on the basis of the particular features of each situation in order to avoid discrimination between nationals of the various Member States.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/904 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/904

---

(2004/C 78 E/0955)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-4049/03

by Francesco Speroni (NI) to the Commission

(7 January 2004)

Subject:   GM products

Is there any rule requiring establishments serving food to the public to indicate the use of products containing GM substances when the latter exceed the threshold laid down by the relevant legislation?

If not, does the Commission consider that legislation imposing such a requirement should be introduced in the interests of fair trading and food safety?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(18 February 2004)

Neither the Community legislation in force (1) nor the provisions of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 (2), which will apply from April 2004, include any obligation on restaurants or mass caterers to label as such foods obtained from, or containing ingredients obtained from, genetically modified organisms.

The new rules on labelling of foods containing GM material, and in particular Article 12(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003, apply to foods delivered as such to final consumers or mass caterers. This means they apply only to foods which are delivered by mass caterers to consumers in their original state; on the other hand, the labelling obligations do not apply to foods subjected to processing or preparation.

Article 14(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 provides the possibility of adopting, through the committee procedure, specific rules concerning the information to be provided by mass caterers supplying food to final consumers. As yet, no such action has been taken.

The broader question of the information to be provided to consumers by catering establishments is being addressed as part of the general review of food labelling legislation.

---

(1)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 49/2000 of 10 January 2000 amending Council Regulation (EC) No 1139/98 concerning the compulsory indication on the labelling of certain foodstuffs produced by genetically modified organisms of particulars other than those provided for in Directive 79/112/EEC, OJ L 6, 11.1.2000.

(2)  Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2003 on genetically modified food and feed (Text with EEA relevance), OJ L 268, 18.10.2003.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/904 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/904

---

(2004/C 78 E/0956)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-4050/03

by Theresa Villiers (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(7 January 2004)

Subject:   Proposal for a directive concerning credit for consumers

| 1. | Could the Commission state its position on the appropriate level of harmonisation? Does the Commission accept that its approach of full harmonisation is not appropriate to the EU context and causes unnecessary problems in some Member States? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Could the Commission state its position on the appropriate level of harmonisation? Does the Commission accept that its approach of full harmonisation is not appropriate to the EU context and causes unnecessary problems in some Member States?

| 2. | In his letter of 28 July 2003 to the Committee chairman and rapporteurs, the Director-General of DG Health and Consumer Protection indicated that the Commission recognises that measures must be proportionate. Could the Commission explain how this is consistent with the far-reaching changes proposed, which will affect all domestic consumer credit as well as cross-border credit, particularly in the light of the Director-General's comment that ‘a radical alternative would be to refrain from Community regulation of doorstep selling of credit since the cross-border aspect is absent or extremely limited (border regions)’, the rationale of which might be applied to further areas of the proposal? On what basis has the Commission established a need for the directive in its present form? |
| --- | --- |

2.

In his letter of 28 July 2003 to the Committee chairman and rapporteurs, the Director-General of DG Health and Consumer Protection indicated that the Commission recognises that measures must be proportionate. Could the Commission explain how this is consistent with the far-reaching changes proposed, which will affect all domestic consumer credit as well as cross-border credit, particularly in the light of the Director-General's comment that ‘a radical alternative would be to refrain from Community regulation of doorstep selling of credit since the cross-border aspect is absent or extremely limited (border regions)’, the rationale of which might be applied to further areas of the proposal? On what basis has the Commission established a need for the directive in its present form?

| 3. | Could the Commission state what impact assessment was undertaken in relation to:






  (a) | overdrafts, |
| --- | --- | --- |

3.

Could the Commission state what impact assessment was undertaken in relation to:

(a)

overdrafts,

| (b) | surety agreements, and |
| --- | --- |

(b)

surety agreements, and

| (c) | the right of withdrawal and, if so, what were the results of the Commission's analysis? |
| --- | --- |

(c)

the right of withdrawal and, if so, what were the results of the Commission's analysis?

If no impact assessment was undertaken, could the Commission clarify the basis on which it deemed it necessary to propose the draft in this form?

| 4. | Given the need to promote legal certainty, would the Commission agree that it is preferable to make changes to sectoral legislation, for example on money-laundering, data protection or unfair contract terms, instead of making changes in an unrelated legislative act, which could be interpreted as subsequent amendment of existing legislation? Would the Commission accept, for example, that Article 7 of the proposal would not even allow for identification checks if interpreted literally, contradicting Article 3.6 of the Money Laundering Directive 2001/97/EC (1)? |
| --- | --- |

4.

Given the need to promote legal certainty, would the Commission agree that it is preferable to make changes to sectoral legislation, for example on money-laundering, data protection or unfair contract terms, instead of making changes in an unrelated legislative act, which could be interpreted as subsequent amendment of existing legislation? Would the Commission accept, for example, that Article 7 of the proposal would not even allow for identification checks if interpreted literally, contradicting Article 3.6 of the Money Laundering Directive 2001/97/EC (1)?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(6 February 2004)

Before presenting its proposal, the Commission carried out thorough and comprehensive preparatory work, including a number of studies on consumer credit in general and on over-indebtedness. The proposed Directive was drafted following extensive consultation with all stakeholders, including Member States, the finance industry, and consumer representatives, and all provisions of the Directive are inspired by existing national provisions. Full harmonisation of core areas was already announced in the Commission's Consumer Policy Strategy 2002-2006. In March 2003, this strategy received strong support from the Parliament in its Resolution on the Commission communication to the European Parliament, the Council, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on ‘Consumer Policy Strategy 2002-2006’ (2) and the Council also agreed to the objective in May 2003.

The consumer credit proposal covers both domestic and cross-border transactions. This feature is not disproportionate to the implementation of the EC Treaty objective of consumer protection, as explained by (former) Director General Robert J. Coleman in his letter of 28 July 2003 to the Committee chairpersons and rapporteurs.

The Commission has proposed to include a provision on a number of unfair contract terms more specifically related to consumer credit, taking into account the fact that certain terms relating to financial services are excluded in the framework of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts (3). The Commission is awaiting the views of the Parliament on the proposal. Given the ongoing work in Council and in the absence of a clear Parliament opinion, the Commission has neither taken any position nor drawn any conclusions on how provisions of the proposal could be changed. To do so in the absence of the informed opinion of the Parliament would deprive Parliament of its central role in the co-decision process.

---

(1)  OJ L 344, 28.12.2001, p. 76.

(2)  COM(2002) 208 — C5-0329/2002 — 2002/2173(COS).

(3)  OJ L 95, 21.4.1993.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/906 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/906

---

(2004/C 78 E/0957)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-4052/03

by Christos Folias (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(12 January 2004)

Subject:   Support for the various Churches

As part of the policy to protect the cultural heritage and the specific cultural characteristics of Member States, will the Commission say whether it provides concrete funding, through cultural or other programmes, for the restoration of places of worship, the conservation of icons and other church treasures and the development of religious monuments?

If so, does it have at its disposal a qualitative and quantitative survey of the measures which have received funding, broken down by action and country?

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(12 February 2004)

The Commission does not administer any funding intended solely for the restoration or conservation of churches or church treasures.

The Commission would also like to draw the Honourable Member's attention to the fact that one of the objectives of the Culture 2000 programme is to encourage measures which enhance, at European level, the common cultural heritage of European significance, disseminate know-how and promote good practice concerning its conservation and safeguarding.

This programme supports projects which are jointly run and financed by at least three operators from a minimum of three countries participating in the programme.

The Honourable Member may wish to consult the website below for further information and a detailed list of all projects supported by the Culture 2000 programme in 2000, 2001, 2002 and 2003 (as well as the bodies in receipt of funding, the partners involved and the amounts awarded) (http://europa.eu.int/comm/culture/eac/indexen.html).

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/906 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/906

---

(2004/C 78 E/0958)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-4060/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(8 January 2004)

Subject:   European citizenship

Article 8 of the draft EU Constitution guarantees ‘all citizens of the Union’ the freedom to move and reside in the territory of the Member States, together with the other civil rights inherent in citizenship.

The article confines itself to defining Union citizens as those who are nationals of a Member States, without adding anything regarding the issue — much debated and fundamentally important — of the conditions and procedures for acquiring the status of citizen. The requirement of citizenship is in fact, according to the letter of Article 8, the only distinction between those who reside and move freely on the territory of Europe and the citizens of a third country. No mention is made of ‘intermediate’ legal positions such as that of temporary residents, nor are the implications of immigration considered. Each Member State continues to be responsible for the conditions governing the acquisition of national citizenship and the policies regarding the entry, residence and integration of non-Community citizens, despite the fact that immigration involves both the countries which constitute the external borders of the Community and the countries of transit and establishment. There are a number of questions related to the debate on citizenship: the regulation of legal and illegal flows, integrated border management, the fight against organised crime, maritime borders, the new post-enlargement frontiers and the right of asylum. Each of these issues has until now all too often been tackled by making a distinction between the two kinds of citizenship — national citizenship and a parallel and secondary European citizenship — and providing different and non-coordinated solutions, which cause considerable administrative problems and enormous disparities in treatment, despite the shared values which underlie the creation and growth of the Union.

In view of this apparent basic omission in the draft Constitution and the need to extend the debate on the issues raised, so as to bring about as soon as possible the harmonisation of legislation in order to make the rules on the subject the same for all the Member States, can the Commission say:

| 1. | what tangible measures have been taken to promote the harmonisation of legislation on the acquisition of national citizenship and the status of residents; |
| --- | --- |

1.

what tangible measures have been taken to promote the harmonisation of legislation on the acquisition of national citizenship and the status of residents;

| 2. | what developments there have been in the discussions on a uniform Community immigration policy; |
| --- | --- |

2.

what developments there have been in the discussions on a uniform Community immigration policy;

| 3. | what it thinks about the possibility of including the issue of European citizenship in the Constitution, not least in view of its political, religious and social implications? |
| --- | --- |

3.

what it thinks about the possibility of including the issue of European citizenship in the Constitution, not least in view of its political, religious and social implications?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(12 February 2004)

Guidelines for a common immigration and asylum policy were set at the Tampere European Council in October 1999. This policy includes the element of fair treatment of third country nationals residing legally on the territory of the 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 and third country nationals should be granted a set of uniform rights, which are as near as possible to those enjoyed by EU citizens.

With regard to acquisition of national citizenship, it should be noted that the Community does not have legal competence to introduce harmonising legislation nor has this competence been included in the current draft EU Constitution, and the Commission is therefore not envisaging any legislative measures in this field in the near future.

Concerning the development of a uniform Community policy on immigration and the legal status of third-country nationals, the Commission has worked towards achieving the targets set in Tampere and to this end a number of policy measures and directives have been proposed by the Commission to ensure free movement and basic economic and social rights for third-country nationals. In particular the Directive concerning the status of third-country nationals who are long-term residents (1), is harmonising the legal status of third-country nationals, who are resident in the EU.

The Commission is of the opinion that civic citizenship (comprising a common set of core rights and obligations for third country nationals) and the granting of political rights is important for the integration process.

---

(1)  Commission proposal of 13.3.2001, COM(2001)127 final. The Proposal was adopted by the Council on the 25 November 2003.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/907 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/907

---

(2004/C 78 E/0959)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-4062/03

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(13 January 2004)

Subject:   Health and safety of workers — complaint 00/4404, SG(2000) A/3828/2

After examining complaint 00/4404, SG(2000) A/3828/2 and sending its representative to hold meetings in Greece, the Commission reportedly decided to initiate an infringement procedure against the Hellenic Republic and send it a letter of formal notice, to which the Greek Government has replied.

In view of the increasing number of complaints and the commonly held belief in Greece that the departments responsible for implementing Directive 89/391/EEC (1) on the health and safety of workers are not performing their task satisfactorily and employers continue to breach the rules on health and safety at work, what are the main points of the Commission's letter of formal notice and what was the Greek authorities' answer?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(20 February 2004)

As stated by the Honourable Member, with regard to complaint 2000/4404, the Commission has sent a letter of formal notice to the Greek Government, to which the Greek authorities have replied.

The letter of formal notice concerns the application under Greek law of Council Directive 89/391/EEC of 12 June 1989 on the implementation of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health of workers at work (2), and the individual Directives adopted under it. In particular, it reiterates the Member States' obligation to ensure appropriate monitoring and surveillance of provisions adopted to transpose Community directives. Failure to enforce such provisions, or failure to enforce them properly, constitutes an infringement of Community law and may give rise to infringement proceedings before the Court of Justice.

The Commission would like to inform the Honourable Member that it has officially asked the Greek Government for its comments on this subject, especially details of the checks carried out and the occupational accident rate.

The Greek authorities have provided detailed and reasoned replies to the letter of formal notice. In view of the complexity of the matter, the Commission is currently examining the Greek authorities' response and will take the necessary action in the light of the results of this examination and taking account of any information received subsequently.

---

(1)  OJ L 183, 29.6.1989, p. 1.

(2)  OJ L 183, 29.6.1989.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/908 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/908

---

(2004/C 78 E/0960)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-4063/03

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(13 January 2004)

Subject:   Workers on one-day contracts

The Greek organisations OPAP and ODIE have employed workers for a great many years on ‘one-day contracts’, i.e. they have renewed their contracts every day for between 5 and 20 years. The outcome of this strategy is that the workers are unable to enjoy their basic labour and social security rights, such as maternity leave and benefit, on the grounds given by the social security organisations that they are working on one-day contracts. These employment contracts are in flagrant violation of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, Community legislation such as Directives 1999/70/EC (1), 76/207/EEC (2), 86/613/EEC (3) and 92/85/EEC (4), and of the case-law of the Court of Justice.

Does the Commission consider such employment contracts to be acceptable? What measures will it take to enable the above workers to enjoy all their labour rights? Can the provisions of Directive 1999/70/EC be applied to those workers?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(13 February 2004)

Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP is applicable to fixed-term workers as defined in law, collective agreements or practice in each Member State.

Thus, if the persons with daily fixed-term contracts are considered to be workers in Greece, the Directive is applicable. If instead they are considered to be providers of services, they are not covered by the Directive.

According to Clause 5 of the Directive, the Member States must introduce measures to prevent abuse arising from the use of successive fixed-term contracts, either by requiring objective reasons for renewing the contracts, providing for a maximum duration or providing for a maximum number of renewals. The measures introduced must be sufficient to prevent abuse. If there are fixed-term workers with contracts which are renewed daily during several years, this does not seem to be compatible with Clause 5 of the Directive.

The Commission is currently in active contact with the Greek authorities to ensure the correct transposition of the Directive.

---

(1)  OJ L 175, 10.7.1999, p. 43.

(2)  OJ L 39, 14.2.1976, p. 40.

(3)  OJ L 359, 19.12.1986, p. 56.

(4)  OJ L 348, 28.11.1992, p. 1.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/909 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/909

---

(2004/C 78 E/0961)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-4073/03

by Giovanni Fava (PSE) to the Commission

(8 January 2004)

Subject:   Waste-to-energy plant

The President of the Region of Sicily, acting as special Commissioner for waste, has issued an order for the construction of a large waste-to-energy plant for the incineration of waste, combined with a waste dump, at Paternó in the province of Catania.

The location chosen for the plant and the dump is only 5 km from a residential area in ‘Contrada Valanghe’, recognised by the European Community as a site of Community interest (SIC-ITA 060015) because of its geological features and local flora and fauna. Furthermore, the area in question borders on another site of Community interest (SIC-ITA 070025), the Pietralunga stretch of the River Simeto, where there are important archaeological remains.

On the basis of this information, does the Commission not consider that the decision to adopt this provision, taken by the President of the Region of Sicily and the local authorities, is in serious conflict with the Community's desire to safeguard these sites for the above-mentioned reasons?

Does the Commission not consider that the choice of a site only 5 km from a residential area as the location for a waste-to-energy plant and a waste dump endangers the safety and health of the local population?

Finally, does the Commission not consider that the decision to build the waste-to-energy plant in an area where crops with a protected designation of origin are grown and organic farming is carried out seriously jeopardises the local economy and development model?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(5 February 2004)

According to Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 (1), (Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Directive) 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 (2), the construction of a waste incineration plant and of a waste dump might, depending on their dimensions, require an EIA. The location of the planned facilities, both from the point of view of distance to populated areas and of the economic activities being developed in the area, is necessarily one of the elements that have to be taken into account in the assessments or in the decision whether or not to submit the projects to an assessment.

In addition to those requirements, 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 (3), and near a second site proposed under the same Directive. 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.

More generally, all new incinerators, regardless of their location, are required to respect the emission standards and other conditions laid down in Directive 2000/76/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 4 December 2000 on the incineration of waste (4). Moreover, if the installations fall within the scope of Council Directive 96/61/EC of 24 September 1996, concerning integrated pollution prevention and control (5), as is apparently the case, the competent authority shall fix in the permit emission limit values, equivalent parameters and 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. This means that the competent authority may, if needed, set more stringent permit conditions than those stipulated by the waste incineration Directive itself.

It is not clear from the information provided by the Honourable Member whether an environmental impact assessment or a specific assessment of the impact of the planned installation on the two proposed Sites of Community Importance were carried out and, if so, what were their conclusions. Since it is also unclear whether construction permits have already been issued, the Commission does not have any elements that might indicate a possible violation of Directive 92/43/EEC.

---

(1)  OJ L 175, 5.7.1985.

(2)  OJ L 73, 14.3.1997.

(3)  OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.

(4)  OJ L 332, 28.12.2000.

(5)  OJ L 257, 10.10.1996.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/910 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/910

---

(2004/C 78 E/0962)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-4080/03

by Chris Davies (ELDR) to the Commission

(14 January 2004)

Subject:   Pets' passports

A Portuguese citizen has contacted me to express concern that in his country the keeping of ferrets for any purpose is illegal, and that pet ferrets may be confiscated and killed or placed in a zoo.

My understanding is that pet ferrets have been included within the EU pets' passport scheme, and travel within the EU will be possible if they have been vaccinated and carry the appropriate marking.

Has the Commission issued any warnings or guidance to ferret owners about travel to Portugal?

In the course of its discussions with Member States about the pets' passport scheme has the Commission explored the issues posed by different national laws on the legality of keeping certain pets?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(16 February 2004)

The ban on the keeping of ferrets in Portugal does not come under the scope of Regulation (EC) No 998/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 May 2003 on the animal health requirements applicable to the non-commercial movement of pet animals (1), as it is based on considerations other than health.

Article 2 (third paragraph) of the said Regulation states that ‘provisions based on considerations other than those relating to animal health requirements, and intended to restrict the movement of certain species or breeds of pet animals, shall not be affected by this Regulation’.

Therefore, any other issue which might arise in connection with the non-commercial movement of the animals in question falls under the jurisdiction of the Member States. According to the information received from the Portuguese authorities, the ban referred to is based on environmental protection considerations.

In order to meet its obligations under Regulation (EC) No 998/2003, Portugal has adopted implementing provisions in the form of Decree No 314/2003 of 17 December 2003. This Decree also imposes an additional obligation, in the case of ferrets, to obtain a permit from the Environment Ministry, which in the light of the above-mentioned provisions of Article 2, cannot be regarded as contravening the Community Regulation.

---

(1)  OJ L 146, 13.6.2003.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/911 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/911

---

(2004/C 78 E/0963)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-4086/03

by Olle Schmidt (ELDR) to the Commission

(14 January 2004)

Subject:   Company-specific aid to Eftec in connection with relocation from Hässleholm in Sweden to Wales

The Eftec company in Hässleholm manufactures rust-prevention products for the auto industry. Welsh authorities have confirmed that the company has received financial support in connection with the company's relocation from Hässleholm to Wales. SEK 6 million has been paid in establishment grants and is being used to expand the new factory at Rhigos, Aberdare. Information indicates that Eftec will probably receive SEK 6 million a year for six years, which would cover the wind-up costs of up to SEK 30 million.

This information indicates that the EU's competition policy is moving in the wrong direction. Clearly, the objective in the EU is to remove all company-specific aid such as that recently paid to Eftec. Instead, the EU should concentrate on aid of a general nature, such as aid for infrastructure and general training schemes. Aid to individual companies, as recently granted to Eftec, merely serves to distort the market and is extremely unfair on the regions concerned. The decision to close down affects 22 employees.

Can the Commission confirm the abovementioned information that Eftec is receiving establishment grants of SEK 6 million per year over a six-year period? Does the Commission consider that this development is consistent with the objectives of EU competition policy?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(17 February 2004)

The Commission takes note of the information which the Honourable Member submitted concerning possible aid in favour of the company Eftec. According to this information, the company is receiving grants of SEK 30 million over a six-year period for an expansion of its factory in Rhigos, Aberdare. The Honourable Member indicated that this aid is granted in connection with the company's relocation from Hässleholm (Sweden) to Wales.

The Directorate-General for Competition of the Commission will carry out the necessary investigations in connection with the information that the Honourable Member has provided in order to establish whether the project in question involves any State aid incompatible with the competition rules of the EC Treaty. It will inform the Honourable Member of the outcome as soon as possible.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/912 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/912

---

(2004/C 78 E/0964)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-4087/03

by Chris Davies (ELDR) to the Commission

(14 January 2004)

Subject:   Data Protection Supervisor

When will the Commission appoint a Data Protection Supervisor, when will he/she take office, and when will the Commission expect this person to provide an independent assessment regarding the release of information relevant to the dispute between the Commission, the European Ombudsman and Parliament in the matter of the Bavarian Lager Company?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(18 February 2004)

In accordance with Article 42 of Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 (1), the Parliament and the Council appoint by common accord the European Data Protection Supervisor and the Assistant Supervisor. That appointment took place on 22 December 2003 (2), and as a result, Mr Peter Hustinx and Mr Joaquím Bayo Delgado have been nominated repectively as European Data Protection Supervisor and Assistant Supervisor. They have taken office in early February 2004.

According to Article 41 of the above-mentioned Regulation, the European Data Protection Supervisor is a fully independent supervisory authority. It is, therefore, not for the Commission to determine which activities that authority should conduct or the timeframe to address them.

---

(1)  Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European 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.

(2)  Decision 2004/55/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 22 December 2003 appointing the independent supervisory body provided for in Article 286 of the EC Treaty (European Data Protection Supervisor), OJ L 12, 17.1.2004.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/912 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/912

---

(2004/C 78 E/0965)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0005/04

by Olivier Dupuis (NI) to the Commission

(16 January 2004)

Subject:   Persecution of Uighur Organisations based in the European Union

The Government of the People's Republic of China has just published a wanted list of ethnic Uighur ‘terrorists’ abroad, and has called for their arrest and extradition in a renewed attempt to curb the political activities of Uighur activists outside China by branding their political activities as ‘terrorism’, thus garnering international support for its ongoing crackdown in the Xinjiang Uighur Autonomous Region (XUAR). The official document published by the Chinese Ministry of Public Security listed four Uighur groups as ‘terrorist organisations’. They include the World Uighur Youth Congress (WUYC) and the East Turkistan Information Center (ETIC). Both are political groups based in Germany, publicise reports of ongoing abuses against Uighurs in China and advocate self-determination for the region. The statement also listed 11 individuals as alleged ‘terrorists’, including the presidents of WUYC and ETIC. All are living abroad and the Chinese authorities have called on other states to arrest and extradite them to China.

The Chinese authorities continue to make little or no distinction between violent opposition and the peaceful exercise of the right to freedom of expression, association and religion. China considers any advocacy of greater autonomy or independence as ‘ethnic separatism’, which qualifies as a State Security crime under Chinese laws. Several hundred Uighurs accused of involvement in such activities have been executed since the mid-1990s, thousands of others have been detained and imprisoned after unfair trials and torture, and growing restrictions have been placed on the Islamic clergy and the practice of Islam in the region.

What action is the Commission going to take to prevent people supporting freedom and democracy in China, be they inside the PRC or outside, from paying with torture or even their lives for their belief in the Rule of Law and fundamental rights? Was this issue raised during the last EU-PRC summit in Beijing and if so, what was decided both by the EU and the PRC's authorities?'

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(17 February 2004)

The EU attaches the utmost importance to the situation of human rights throughout the world and has made it a major element of its policy towards third countries. The right to freedom of expression, association and religion has always been very high on the agenda of the EU-China dialogue on human rights, most recently during the last session held in Beijing on 27/28 November 2003. This has also been regularly addressed in the framework of the political dialogue, as was the case during the last EU-China bilateral Summit which took place in Beijing on 30 October 2003.

The EU has consistently called the Chinese authorities to fully respect these rights, with a special emphasis put on the rights of the minorities, especially the Uighur Community. With regard to the latter, the EU's long standing position has been to underline that the fight against terrorism should always be conducted in a manner which respects human rights and that a clear distinction should be made between peaceful expression of dissent and violent action.

Moreover the EU has, in its dialogue, also expressed concerns at ongoing reports on widespread use of torture in China. In its view, the entry into force on 1 January 2004 of a new regulation of the Ministry of Public Security designed to stop practices such as torture to secure confessions or investigate offences is a welcome step whose implementation will be closely monitored. It is also to be noted that China agreed in principle at the last session of the human rights dialogue to engage in triangular cooperation with the EU and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) on torture prevention.

These matters will again be addressed during the next session of the human rights dialogue to be held in Dublin on 26/27 February 2004.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/914 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/914

---

(2004/C 78 E/0966)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0014/04

by Johanna Boogerd-Quaak (ELDR) to the Commission

(9 January 2004)

Subject:   Relationship between cancelled flights and PNR

In mid-December the US and the European Commission reached an agreement in principle on the transfer of passenger data to the US. The deal included agreement on the amount of data to be provided, the storage of data, information for passengers and legal proceedings in the US. The agreement has still to be debated by the Council and the European Parliament. In the meantime, the US, which still receives all unfiltered information concerning passengers, has blocked six Air France flights.

With a view to the debate in the European Parliament:

| 1. | How does this action fit with the agreement and in particular the conditions agreed? |
| --- | --- |

1.

How does this action fit with the agreement and in particular the conditions agreed?

| 2. | Can the unilateral cancelling of flights — even following consultations between Foreign Ministers — be regarded as contravening international trade agreements? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Can the unilateral cancelling of flights — even following consultations between Foreign Ministers — be regarded as contravening international trade agreements?

| 3. | Does the agreement, which has not yet been submitted to Parliament, include provisions laying down conditions under which flights may be cancelled? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Does the agreement, which has not yet been submitted to Parliament, include provisions laying down conditions under which flights may be cancelled?

| 4. | How are such decisions taken, having regard to the following aspects:






  — | wider EU-US relations; |
| --- | --- | --- |

4.

How are such decisions taken, having regard to the following aspects:

—

wider EU-US relations;

| — | safety and confidence of passengers; |
| --- | --- |

—

safety and confidence of passengers;

| — | cost aspect for airlines? |
| --- | --- |

—

cost aspect for airlines?

| 5. | How does cooperation between European and American security authorities work in this connection? |
| --- | --- |

5.

How does cooperation between European and American security authorities work in this connection?

| 6. | How are airlines informed, and what responsibility do they have? |
| --- | --- |

6.

How are airlines informed, and what responsibility do they have?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(16 February 2004)

The Commission would like to refer the Honourable Member to the Declaration made by the Vice-President of the Commission who is in charge of Energy and Transport, on behalf of the Commission, on the 12 January 2004, during the debate on aviation security which took place during the plenary session of the Parliament in Strasbourg.

In particular, the Commission made it clear that there was no link between the agreement reached with United States (US) Customs and Border Protection on Passenger Name Records (PNR) in December 2003 and the actions of the US authorities over the Christmas period, which led to a number of flight cancellations. Indeed, the Commission understands that the threat alert emanated not from PNR data, but rather from information gathered by the US intelligence services.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/915 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/915

---

(2004/C 78 E/0967)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0024/04

by Avril Doyle (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(20 January 2004)

Subject:   Financial support for an organisation facilitating the independence of people with disabilities

As 2003, the European Year of People with Disabilities draws to a close, can the Commission advise on possible sources of funding for a European umbrella group (the ENIL, European Network on Independent Living) representing and promoting the interests of people with disabilities or limited mobility?

In addition to conducting information campaigns and providing support systems for those affected, the organisation would address basic infrastructural requirements necessary for independent living. Equality and empowerment would be cornerstones of the movement with an emphasis on self-help through the operation of associated networks of people living independently. Expertise and resources pertaining to this area across the Community would thereby be maximised.

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(9 February 2004)

In respect of the Financial Regulation of the European Institutions (1), all Community funding must be allocated through fully open and transparent procedures.

For example, Articles 109 and 110 of the new Financial Regulation, clearly states that:

| — | the award of grants shall be subject to the principles of transparency and equal treatment. They may not be cumulative or awarded retrospectively and they must involve co-financing; |
| --- | --- |

—

the award of grants shall be subject to the principles of transparency and equal treatment. They may not be cumulative or awarded retrospectively and they must involve co-financing;

| — | grants shall be subject to an annual programme, to be published at the start of the year, with the exception of crisis management aid and humanitarian aid operations. |
| --- | --- |

—

grants shall be subject to an annual programme, to be published at the start of the year, with the exception of crisis management aid and humanitarian aid operations.

This work programme shall be implemented through the publication of calls for proposals save in duly substantiated exceptional cases of urgency or where the characteristics of the beneficiary leave no other choice for a given action;

| — | all grants awarded in the course of a financial year shall be published annually with due observance of the requirements of confidentiality and security; |
| --- | --- |

—

all grants awarded in the course of a financial year shall be published annually with due observance of the requirements of confidentiality and security;

Consequently, all calls for tenders and for proposals are published on the Internet in line with the new financial procedures and are accessible on the Europa web site and/or on thematic (i.e. Education and Culture, Employment and Social Affairs, Information Society) web sites from each Directorate-General.

These sites give full information on all the funding possibilities available through the various actions in favour of disabled persons financed under the different Community programs, actions or projects.

There is the possibility to consult on-line the web site of the Employment and Social Affairs Directorate-General, at the following address: (http://europa.eu.int/comm/dgs/employment_social/index_en.htm).

In the thematic section ‘calls for tender and proposals’ specific information, concerning the budgetary allocation under the framework of the anti-discrimination programme (call for projects for support to European level non-governmental organisations) and the new budget line recently adopted by the Parliament (Pilot projects on Mainstreaming of Disability Issues: follow up of the European Year of People with Disabilities 2003) can easily be found.

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities, OJ L 248, 16.9.2002.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/916 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/916

---

(2004/C 78 E/0968)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0025/04

by Avril Doyle (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(20 January 2004)

Subject:   Possibility of ‘BSE’ (OSE?) in sheep

In the UK in September 2003, some 28 sheep tested positive for a TSE but negative for scrapie, raising the possibility that they could have ‘BSE’, which is linked to the human vCJD.

Given the potential negative implications that this could entail for human health, lamb consumption and animal welfare (in terms of mass slaughter), can the Commission advise:

| 1. | What was the outcome of UK investigations into this incidence? How have the puzzling DEFRA (Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs) results been interpreted? |
| --- | --- |

1.

What was the outcome of UK investigations into this incidence? How have the puzzling DEFRA (Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs) results been interpreted?

| 2. | What progress has been made at EU level in the survey to ascertain levels of scrapie in Member States? |
| --- | --- |

2.

What progress has been made at EU level in the survey to ascertain levels of scrapie in Member States?

| 3. | Does the EU have concerns about a BSE-type infection in sheep (ovine spongiform encephalopathy?) as a distinct disease from scrapie? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Does the EU have concerns about a BSE-type infection in sheep (ovine spongiform encephalopathy?) as a distinct disease from scrapie?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(10 February 2004)

| 1. | The United Kingdom reported in September 2003 that in the course of the transmissible spongiform encephalopathy (TSE) testing of healthy slaughtered sheep between April 2002 and March 2003, positive reactions obtained in 28 sheep using the Biorad screening test could not be confirmed by the routine confirmatory method. The reason for this discrepancy is unknown, but there are a number of possible reasons, for example extremely low levels of scrapie or the presence of a hitherto unrecognized strain of scrapie. The Commission has asked the Community Reference Laboratory for TSEs in Weybridge to include these results in the discussions of its strain-typing expert group. The Commission stresses, however, that it has no reason to believe that these results are likely to indicate the presence of bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) in sheep. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The United Kingdom reported in September 2003 that in the course of the transmissible spongiform encephalopathy (TSE) testing of healthy slaughtered sheep between April 2002 and March 2003, positive reactions obtained in 28 sheep using the Biorad screening test could not be confirmed by the routine confirmatory method. The reason for this discrepancy is unknown, but there are a number of possible reasons, for example extremely low levels of scrapie or the presence of a hitherto unrecognized strain of scrapie. The Commission has asked the Community Reference Laboratory for TSEs in Weybridge to include these results in the discussions of its strain-typing expert group. The Commission stresses, however, that it has no reason to believe that these results are likely to indicate the presence of bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) in sheep.

| 2. | In line with the recommendation of the Scientific Steering Committee (SSC) opinion of 19 October 2001, Member States have been carrying out an intensive active TSE monitoring programme on sheep and goats since early 2002. Up to the end of November 2003, 600 000 healthy slaughter animals and 200 000 risk animals had been tested in the EU, in addition to continuing passive surveillance of clinical cases. This combined surveillance has led to the confirmation of 3 344 cases of TSE in sheep and goats during this period, and has greatly improved the estimation of prevalence of the disease in most Member States. It has also led to the confirmation of the first cases of scrapie in two Member States (Portugal and Finland). |
| --- | --- |

2.

In line with the recommendation of the Scientific Steering Committee (SSC) opinion of 19 October 2001, Member States have been carrying out an intensive active TSE monitoring programme on sheep and goats since early 2002. Up to the end of November 2003, 600 000 healthy slaughter animals and 200 000 risk animals had been tested in the EU, in addition to continuing passive surveillance of clinical cases. This combined surveillance has led to the confirmation of 3 344 cases of TSE in sheep and goats during this period, and has greatly improved the estimation of prevalence of the disease in most Member States. It has also led to the confirmation of the first cases of scrapie in two Member States (Portugal and Finland).

| 3. | The Commission has long been aware of the theoretical possibility that BSE infection may have entered the sheep and goat population. For this reason, on a precautionary basis, certain specified risk materials are removed from sheep and goats at slaughter and destroyed by rendering and incineration. The Commission has also frequently discussed with Member States the issue of contingency planning for the possible discovery of BSE in sheep and goats under natural conditions, and has asked Member States to formulate individual BSE contingency plans based on an agreed model. on behalf of the Commission, the Community Reference Laboratory for TSEs is also co-ordinating a strain-typing expert group which is developing a method to carry out differential testing on scrapie cases confirmed in the Community, in order to exclude the possibility that these animals are suffering from BSE. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The Commission has long been aware of the theoretical possibility that BSE infection may have entered the sheep and goat population. For this reason, on a precautionary basis, certain specified risk materials are removed from sheep and goats at slaughter and destroyed by rendering and incineration. The Commission has also frequently discussed with Member States the issue of contingency planning for the possible discovery of BSE in sheep and goats under natural conditions, and has asked Member States to formulate individual BSE contingency plans based on an agreed model. on behalf of the Commission, the Community Reference Laboratory for TSEs is also co-ordinating a strain-typing expert group which is developing a method to carry out differential testing on scrapie cases confirmed in the Community, in order to exclude the possibility that these animals are suffering from BSE.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/917 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/917

---

(2004/C 78 E/0969)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0028/04

by Philip Bushill-Matthews (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(9 January 2004)

Subject:   Age discrimination

Could the Commission confirm whether it intended the Age Discrimination Directive (Council Directive 2000/78/EC (1) of 27 November 2000) to outlaw the giving of long-service awards or celebratory parties for employees of say 25 years' service?

Has the Commission had any queries from any Member State in this regard?

Given that some employers in the UK are concerned that younger workers might regard such rewards as discriminatory and could sue, would the Commission agree that official clarification would be helpful to avoid such an eventuality?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(13 February 2004)

Council's Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 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.

The Commission considers that the giving of long-service medals or other methods of celebrating long service would not be considered as discriminatory as they are awarded on the basis of seniority rather than age as such.

---

(1)  OJ L 303, 2.12.2000, p. 16.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/917 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/917

---

(2004/C 78 E/0970)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0029/04

by Heinz Kindermann (PSE) to the Commission

(9 January 2004)

Subject:   Closure of veterinary border control point at Pomellen, Germany

According to a Commission consultation document, the veterinary border control point at Pomellen in Germany is one of those to be taken off the list of authorised EU veterinary border control points when enlargement occurs (i.e. in principle on 1 May 2004). Four months before enlargement, however, the Commission has yet to provide any official information concerning the future of veterinary control points at the borders with the accession countries. However, the operating authorities — in this case the administrative district of Uecker-Randow — require definite information in order to put an end to the uncertainty affecting their planning.

The EU has granted the 10 accession countries wide-ranging transitional arrangements in the veterinary and food sector (slaughterhouses, milk producers, etc.) on condition that their non-EU-compliant products are marketed only in the relevant accession country and do not therefore enter the internal market.

| 1. | Can the Commission say definitely when the veterinary border control point at Pomellen will lose its EU authorisation and thereby its responsibility for veterinary checks at the border? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Can the Commission say definitely when the veterinary border control point at Pomellen will lose its EU authorisation and thereby its responsibility for veterinary checks at the border?

| 2. | In the event of closure, must the EU funding provided to build the veterinary border control point be repaid, even if the closure is the result of an EU decision? |
| --- | --- |

2.

In the event of closure, must the EU funding provided to build the veterinary border control point be repaid, even if the closure is the result of an EU decision?

| 3. | How does the Commission intend to ensure that non-EU-compliant products do not enter the EU's internal market? Is it possible to maintain veterinary checks at the borders with the future Member States for the duration of the transitional arrangements? |
| --- | --- |

3.

How does the Commission intend to ensure that non-EU-compliant products do not enter the EU's internal market? Is it possible to maintain veterinary checks at the borders with the future Member States for the duration of the transitional arrangements?

| 4. | Does the Commission consider that there is a need to maintain the veterinary border control point at the internal customs office at Pomellen in the context of the draft regulation concerning the future official checks on consignments of food and feed before they enter the territory of a Member State, i.e. Germany? |
| --- | --- |

4.

Does the Commission consider that there is a need to maintain the veterinary border control point at the internal customs office at Pomellen in the context of the draft regulation concerning the future official checks on consignments of food and feed before they enter the territory of a Member State, i.e. Germany?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(1 March 2004)

The Commission signalled its intentions concerning border inspection posts in Applicant Countries in the consultation document recently placed on the Directorate General Health and Consumer Protection web site. Based upon the annex to the consultation document, the Commission has drawn up a draft Commission Decision ‘adapting Commission Decision 2001/881/EC (1) as regards additions and deletions to the list of border inspection posts in view of the accession of the Czech Republic, Estonia, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Malta, Poland, Slovenia and Slovakia’. This draft Decision adds certain new border inspection posts in Applicant Countries and deletes certain others in Germany, Italy and Austria. Pommellen is amongst those that are to be deleted. The Decision, once adopted, will come into effect on 1 May 2004 for both additions and deletions.

Funding was provided to the veterinary border control point at Pomellen under Commission Decision 94/83/EC (2), which itself is not affected by the closure of this border control point.

The Commission is working on two measures concerning controls in the enlarged single market. One concerns the marketing of products that will be in stock at accession, and the other concerns products coming from establishments in transition. This will ensure that products from these establishments in any applicant country are clearly identified as being authorised to remain only on the market of the applicant country in which the establishment of origin is situated.

The draft regulation on official food and feed controls does not aim at modifying the regime of veterinary checks carried out on products of animal origin imported from third countries and examined pursuant to Directive 97/78/EC (3).

Furthermore, the Commission does not see any need to maintain veterinary controls at internal EU borders after accession as this would be contrary to the veterinary acquis as laid down in Directives 89/662/EEC (4) for products, and 90/425/EEC (5) for live animals.

---

(1)  Commission Decision 2001/881/EC of 7 December 2001 drawing up a list of border inspection posts agreed for veterinary checks on animals and animal products from third countries and updating the detailed rules concerning the checks to be carried out by the experts of the Commission, OJ L 326, 11.12.2001.

(2)  Commission Decision 94/83/EC of 2 February 1994 on Community financial assistance to improve the system of veterinary controls at the Community's external frontier in Germany, OJ L 42, 15.2.1994.

(3)  Council Directive 97/78/EC of 18 December 1997 laying down the principles governing the organisation of veterinary checks on products entering the Community from third countries, OJ L 24, 30.1.1998.

(4)  Council Directive 89/662/EEC of 11 December 1989 concerning veterinary checks in intra-Community trade with a view to the completion of the internal market, OJ L 395, 30.12.1989.

(5)  Council Directive 90/425/EEC of 26 June 1990 concerning veterinary and zoo-technical checks applicable in intraCommunity trade in certain live animals and products with a view to the completion of the internal market, OJ L 224, 18.8.1990.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/919 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/919

---

(2004/C 78 E/0971)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0036/04

by Jules Maaten (ELDR) to the Commission

(20 January 2004)

Subject:   SARS outbreak in China and the Philippines

Another case of SARS has come to light in China. The virus found bears similarities with a virus found in civet cats. A probable case of SARS has also been reported in the Philippines. The patient is a woman who had been living in Hong Kong. As a result, the Philippine authorities confined to their homes 34 people who had come into contact with the woman.

| 1. | It is clear from the last SARS epidemic that the SARS virus can strike at lightning speed. The Commission's reply of 18 July 2003 to my Written Question E-1651/03 (1) indicated that, to date, the EU had no crisis management plans to combat this kind of outbreak. |
| --- | --- |

1.

It is clear from the last SARS epidemic that the SARS virus can strike at lightning speed. The Commission's reply of 18 July 2003 to my Written Question E-1651/03 (1) indicated that, to date, the EU had no crisis management plans to combat this kind of outbreak.

| 2. | Can the EU now in fact take action within 24 hours of a SARS outbreak coming to light? Are measures already in preparation to screen passengers travelling from the People's Republic of China or the Philippines to Europe's airports? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Can the EU now in fact take action within 24 hours of a SARS outbreak coming to light? Are measures already in preparation to screen passengers travelling from the People's Republic of China or the Philippines to Europe's airports?

| 3. | Does the consumption of civet cats or similar animals occur in the EU or in future Member States, and, if so, is the EU in a position to take action against this? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Does the consumption of civet cats or similar animals occur in the EU or in future Member States, and, if so, is the EU in a position to take action against this?

| 4. | Does the Commission consider it desirable to place people in quarantine should an outbreak of the SARS virus occur in Europe? |
| --- | --- |

4.

Does the Commission consider it desirable to place people in quarantine should an outbreak of the SARS virus occur in Europe?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(19 February 2004)

Health authorities in China recently announced a confirmed case and two suspected cases of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS).

| 1. | A questionnaire on SARS preparedness prepared by the Commission has been distributed to Member States, Acceding Countries and European Economic Area (EEA)/European Free Trade Association (EFTA) Countries, including Switzerland. The returns show that vigilance with respect to SARS in all these countries is high and that a high level of preparedness is being pursued. |
| --- | --- |

1.

A questionnaire on SARS preparedness prepared by the Commission has been distributed to Member States, Acceding Countries and European Economic Area (EEA)/European Free Trade Association (EFTA) Countries, including Switzerland. The returns show that vigilance with respect to SARS in all these countries is high and that a high level of preparedness is being pursued.

| 2. | New technical guidance documents on SARS have been agreed with the Member States including the revised Union case definition of SARS. They include instructions to facilitate rapid communication among the Member States and the Commission in case SARS re-emerges in the Union. The documents are published on the internet. Concerning the measures to be implemented at airports, the World Health Organisation strongly points to the evidence that the screening of incoming passengers (entry screening) from countries with SARS-affected areas is not an effective measure to control the spread of SARS. |
| --- | --- |

2.

New technical guidance documents on SARS have been agreed with the Member States including the revised Union case definition of SARS. They include instructions to facilitate rapid communication among the Member States and the Commission in case SARS re-emerges in the Union. The documents are published on the internet. Concerning the measures to be implemented at airports, the World Health Organisation strongly points to the evidence that the screening of incoming passengers (entry screening) from countries with SARS-affected areas is not an effective measure to control the spread of SARS.

| 3. | The Commission is not aware that civet cats are consumed in Europe and their meat cannot be legally imported. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The Commission is not aware that civet cats are consumed in Europe and their meat cannot be legally imported.

| 4. | The EU, in co-operation with the Member States and through the EU Network of Communicable diseases, now has a strong system in place to monitor and co-ordinate the response to the SARS virus. If SARS returns, intensive surveillance will be applied again and the recommended measures to control SARS (ie case detection, patient isolation and infection control, and contact tracing), will be restored. These measures have proved to be effective in the past and will form the basis of future measures. A great deal was learnt from the SARS outbreak. The EU should move to a position where a system for obtaining advice on a Europe-wide scale is in place. The European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control proposed by the Commission should contribute to this and be relied upon for timely and effective interventions to deal with threats like SARS. |
| --- | --- |

4.

The EU, in co-operation with the Member States and through the EU Network of Communicable diseases, now has a strong system in place to monitor and co-ordinate the response to the SARS virus. If SARS returns, intensive surveillance will be applied again and the recommended measures to control SARS (ie case detection, patient isolation and infection control, and contact tracing), will be restored. These measures have proved to be effective in the past and will form the basis of future measures. A great deal was learnt from the SARS outbreak. The EU should move to a position where a system for obtaining advice on a Europe-wide scale is in place. The European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control proposed by the Commission should contribute to this and be relied upon for timely and effective interventions to deal with threats like SARS.

---

(1)  OJ C 11 E, 15.1.2004, p. 208.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/920 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/920

---

(2004/C 78 E/0972)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0040/04

by Elspeth Attwooll (ELDR) to the Commission

(20 January 2004)

Subject:   Size of the Commission

Can the Commission provide information on the number of fonctionnaires employed by the Commission at the various grades (A, B, C, D, etc.)?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(12 February 2004)

The Commission interprets the question from the Honourable Member as referring to officials in active employment (Staff Regulations Article 36).

The permanent staff employed by the Commission on 1 January 2004 was 18 603 officials. The breakdown of officials per category, as defined in the Staff Regulations, under all budget lines, was as follows:

| Category | Number |
| --- | --- |
| A | 6891 |
| LA | 1 670 |
| Β | 3712 |
| C | 5 722 |
| D | 608 |
| Total | 18603 |

Category

Number

A

6891

LA

1 670

Β

3712

C

5 722

D

608

Total

18603

Furthermore, the Commission informs the Honourable Member that, at the same date, the Commission employed 2 409 temporary agents.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/920 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/920

---

(2004/C 78 E/0973)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0041/04

by Elspeth Attwooll (ELDR) to the Commission

(20 January 2004)

Subject:   Trade between Scotland and the rest of the European Union

What key actions, either at the EU or domestic level, does the Commission believe are needed to improve trade between Scotland and the rest of the European Union?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(23 February 2004)

The Commission believes that any measures taken to eliminate remaining regulatory barriers to trade between Member States or to reduce the costs of trading will:

| (a) | improve trade between Scotland and the rest of the European Union, and, |
| --- | --- |

(a)

improve trade between Scotland and the rest of the European Union, and,

| (b) | by increasing competition, stimulate prosperity. |
| --- | --- |

(b)

by increasing competition, stimulate prosperity.

Increasing prosperity will, in turn, improve trade still further and so create a virtuous economic circle. The Commission believes this to be true whether the measures are taken at the EU or national level.

At the EU level, Member States must implement the full Internal Market Strategy (1). But on the basis of subsidiarity, some of the Strategy's Priority Actions could be implemented by Scotland too: notably Priority Actions 1 and 2 (increasing the free movement of goods and services, notably by ensuring that market surveillance authorities apply the principle of mutual recognition), 5 (opening up public procurement), 8 (simplifying regulation), 9 (enforcing Internal Market rules) and 10 (ensuring that information on trading inside the Internal Market is easily available).

Beyond that, initiatives should be taken that facilitate trade between Scotland and the rest of the EU or reduce its cost — possible examples of such initiatives could include infrastructure investments or enhanced export promotion of Scottish products. The Accession Countries, in particular, offer significant new opportunities for Scottish businesses.

---

(1)  Communication from the Commission to the Council, the Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, Internal Market Strategy Priorities 2003-2006, COM(2003) 238 final.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/921 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/921

---

(2004/C 78 E/0974)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0057/04

by Camilo Nogueira Román (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(20 January 2004)

Subject:   Welfare expenditure in the Spanish state and the situation in the EU

According to the Spanish National Statistical Institute, welfare expenditure in the Union accounted for 28,4 % of GDP in 1995 but only 27,3 % in 2000. Spending per inhabitant per annum varies enormously between Member States — from EUR 7 754 in Denmark and 7 035 in Germany to EUR 3 715 in the Spanish state and 3 765 in Portugal, the latter two being the lowest levels in the EU.

Does the Commission intend to take any type of economic or legislative measures aimed at reducing this disturbing gap affecting the populations of the different Member States?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(23 February 2004)

The Treaty of the European Union establishes in Article 137 that the Community shall support and complement the activities of Member States in the field of social security and social protection of workers, and allows the Council to adopt measures designed to encourage cooperation between Member States, excluding any harmonisation of their laws and regulations.

In this context, the Commission does not intend to propose any financial or legislative measures aimed directly at reducing the differences in per capita spending on social protection as these would amount to a substantial interference of the EU in the organisation and financing of social protection systems, which should remain a competence of Member States.

The Commission prefers to encourage Member States to become increasingly engaged in the modernisation of social protection systems through the application of the open method of coordination which is based on common objectives, monitoring of performances through common indicators and the exchange of experiences.

Moreover, differences in social protection expenditure per inhabitant are not only determined by policy, as they also reflect different levels of economic performance, age structures and the strength of informal solidarity networks as those based on the family.

It should also be noted that the evolution over time of social protection expenditure as a share of gross domestic product (GDP) is generally countercyclical. The share rises as growth slows down and falls during an economic upswing.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/922 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/922

---

(2004/C 78 E/0975)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0058/04

by Giuseppe Di Lello Finuoli (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(12 January 2004)

Subject:   Funding by the Italian State and the Region of Campania for the programme contract submitted by Agrifuturo S.c.a.r.l.

With reference to the questioner's numerous previous questions on the subject, none of which has received a proper answer, the Commission has now had more than a year to examine the documents concerning the programme agreement with Agrifuturo. It is hard to believe that it has been impossible to decipher these documents after such a long time and, on the basis of this examination, to take some decision which could be communicated to the questioner before the end of the parliamentary term. Can the Commission please give a swift and comprehensive answer regarding the compatibility of the programme with point 4.9 of the 2000-2006 regional operational programme for Campania?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(30 January 2004)

We have not had the documents on financing of the programme contract with Agrofuturo S.c.a.r.l. for more than a year. The Italian authorities sent them to us through the Permanent Representation under cover of a letter dated 15 May 2003.

On the basis of the information transmitted the Agrofuturo dossier has been transferred to the register of unnotified (illegal) aids.

A new request for information is at present in preparation.

We can assure the Honourable Member that a decision, whatever it turns out to be, will be adopted as soon as possible after the Italian authorities' reply is received.

It should be remembered that under Article 13(2) of 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 (1) in cases of possible unlawful State aid the Commission is not bound by the normal two month time limit for examination of the case.

---

(1)  OJ L 83, 27.3.1999.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/923 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/923

---

(2004/C 78 E/0976)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0060/04

by Hiltrud Breyer (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(20 January 2004)

Subject:   Chromium (VI) in leather

On 18 June 2003, Directive 2003/53/EC (1) of the European Parliament and the Council amending for the 26th time Council Directive 79/769/EEC (2) relating to restrictions on the marketing and use of certain dangerous substances and preparations, including chromium (VI) in cement, came into force.

Various tests by industrial occupational health and safety agencies in Germany and the German TV programme ‘ARD Ratgeber Bauen und Wohnen’ (ARD Guide to building and living) have now shown that not only cement, but also many leather work gloves can contain extremely high levels of chromium (VI). In the case of the gloves tested, the limits imposed in the above directive were exceeded many times over. Various publications have shown this to be the case, and also for other leather products such as work shoes.

| 1. | Is the Commission aware of these findings? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is the Commission aware of these findings?

| 2. | Does the Commission also intend to restrict the marketing of leather containing chromium (VI)? If so, when and how would this take place? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Does the Commission also intend to restrict the marketing of leather containing chromium (VI)? If so, when and how would this take place?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(23 February 2004)

The Commission is not aware of the specific recent results of investigations in Germany that have reported high levels of chromium (VI) in a number of leather consumer products. Normally, any measure based on such findings would have been communicated to the Commission and the other Member States through the rapid notification and exchange of information system (RAPEX) of the Directive 2001/95/EEC of the Parliament and of the Council of 3 December 2001 on general product safety (3). To date there has been no official notification on the subject by the German authorities.

Within the framework of the Council Regulation (EEC) No 793/93 (4) a Risk Assessment (RA) of certain chromium (VI) compounds has been performed. A Risk Reduction Strategy is expected at the end of 2004.

According to the RA-report, the treatment processes applied for leather (and wood) goods within the EU are such that any exposure of consumers would be expected to be exclusively to chromium in the trivalent state and not to chromium in the hexavalent state. The report however pointed out that there was no information available concerning leather (and wood) goods imported from third countries and hence no assessment was made of the potential human health risks from the possible presence of chromium (VI) in such imported goods.

In recent months, however, the Commission has become aware of a number of scientific and lay press publications reporting the presence and release of chromium (VI) in leather consumer products (gloves, wrist bands, leather garments etc.). The Commission intends to initiate a systematic enquiry with the Member States to obtain all available information on the matter.

On the basis of the available information, the Commission will seek the advice of one of its Scientific Committees concerning the health risks that may be associated with the release of chromium (VI) in leather products with a view to implement appropriate risk reduction measures.

---

(1)  OJ L 178, 17.7.2003, p. 24.

(2)  OJ L 262, 27.9.1976, p. 201.

(3)  OJ L 11, 15.1.2002.

(4)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 793/93 of 23 March 1993 on the evaluation and control of the risks of existing substances, OJ L 184, 5.4.1993.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/924 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/924

---

(2004/C 78 E/0977)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0064/04

by Camilo Nogueira Román (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(20 January 2004)

Subject:   Alarming rise in unemployment in Galicia: 7 465 newly unemployed people in December 2003 out of a total of 23 419 for Spain as a whole, bringing the rate of unemployment in Galicia to 12,36 %

There was a steep rise in the number of unemployed people in Spain in December 2003, with 23 419 new jobless, the worst rise in the last ten years. Of these 7 465, or 32 % of the total, were in Galicia, although the region accounts for only 7 % of the population. The unemployment rate in Galicia is now 12,36 %. This adverse trend, further evidence of a link between low income and unemployment, calls for special measures to tackle both serious problems simultaneously, particularly in Objective 1 regions such as Galicia.

Is the Commission already aware of this negative trend in employment in Galicia? Is it willing to consider special development measures to combat unemployment, in liaison with the Galician and Spanish authorities?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(10 February 2004)

The Commission closely monitors developments in the employment situation in all of Spain's autonomous communities.

As regards Galicia, for the 2000-2006 programming period, the regional authorities submitted a regional development plan to the Commission that reflected the region's potential and weaknesses and included some employment-related measures. In response to this plan, the Commission decided to actively contribute to development in Galicia by co-financing its Integrated Operational Programme for 2000-2006. This programme stems from the Community Support Framework defining the development strategy for the Spanish regions covered by Objective 1, including creating and maintaining jobs.

The Structural Funds contributed EUR 3 430 million out of a total budget of EUR 5 087 million. The financial breakdown by Fund was as follows:

| (million euro) |
| --- |
| EC Participation | ERDF | ESF | EAGGF |
| Total: 3 430,058 | 2 335,7 | 392 | 702 358 |
| 100,00 % | 68,10 % | 11,43 % | 20,48 % |

(million euro)

EC Participation

ERDF

ESF

EAGGF

Total: 3 430,058

2 335,7

392

702 358

100,00 %

68,10 %

11,43 %

20,48 %

This operational programme can be modified according to the way in which the region's job market evolves. The mid-term evaluation, laid down in Article 42 of Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 (1), has recently been finalised. It will form the basis for any modification of the programme deemed necessary and for possible reprogramming.

---

(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.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/925 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/925

---

(2004/C 78 E/0978)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0065/04

by Bill Newton Dunn (ELDR) to the Commission

(13 January 2004)

Subject:   Post-60 flying in Europe

I am informed that France, Italy and Portugal may be ignoring EU rules that state that airline pilots between the ages of 60 and 65 can act as captain of flights in European airspace. I understand that these countries ban post-60 flying.

Can the Commission confirm whether this is the case and if so, provide information as to the action it intends to take to tackle this discriminatory behaviour, which is in breach of EU rules?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(18 February 2004)

Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 puts in place a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation (1), 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. Under Article 18 of the Directive, Member States may, 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 (this has been requested by Belgium, Denmark, Germany, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom).

Article 2(5) of Directive 2000/78/EC provides that it is without prejudice to measures laid down by national law which are necessary in a democratic society for public security and for the protection of health.

In addition, 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

On the basis of the information available, the Commission is of the opinion that the setting of a compulsory retirement age for pilots falls within the differences of treatment based on age which could be justifiable under the above-mentioned provisions. It is legitimate to take precautions to ensure that the air safety and protection of passengers is paramount and that pilots are 100 % fit. The setting of a compulsory retirement age of 60 by a Member State (based on international standards of the International Civil Aviation Organisation), appears to be a necessary and proportionate way to achieve this aim. On the basis of the above, the Commission therefore does not intend at present to take action against the three Member States mentioned by the Honourable Member.

---

(1)  OJ L 303, 2.12.2000.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/926 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/926

---

(2004/C 78 E/0979)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0067/04

by Bill Newton Dunn (ELDR) to the Commission

(20 January 2004)

Subject:   Retirement benefits

A constituent of mine has recently been made redundant from a Dutch-owned construction company, based in the UK. The firm is now in the hands of administrators. My constituent has been advised that his pension and those of his colleagues will not be paid in full, despite having paid into the pension fund for many years. He has been told that an average sum of 17 % may be available but he has not been told to what amount the figure of 17 % refers.

Can the Commission confirm whether there are any EU rules that would prevent employees from being left in this awful position? If so, can the Commission clarify whether any action could be taken in this case? If there is no relevant EU law, can the Commission state whether any such legislation will be drawn up in the future?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(6 February 2004)

Article 8 of Council Directive 80/987/EEC of 20 October 1980 on the protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer (1) obliges Member States to ensure that the necessary measures are taken to protect the interests of employees and of persons having already left the employer's undertaking or business at the date of the onset of the employer's insolvency in respect of rights conferring on them immediate or prospective entitlement to old-age benefits, including survivor's benefits, under supplementary company or inter-company pension schemes outside the national statutory social security scheme. Article 3(4)(b) of Council Directive 2001/23/EC of 12 March 2001 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the safeguarding of employee's rights in the event of transfers of undertakings, businesses or parts of undertakings or businesses (2) contains a similar provision with regard to situations involving the transfer of undertakings, businesses or parts of undertakings or businesses.

Due to several reports recently received and suggesting that the interests of employees and of persons having already left the employer's undertaking or business might not be sufficiently protected in specific Member States, the Commission is currently complementing and updating the information it disposes of about the arrangements for implementing Article 8 of Council Directive 80/987/EEC and Article 3(4) of Council Directive 2001/23/EC in the Member States. Should this analysis establish the existence of clear and serious transposition deficits, the Commission will take the necessary measures to ensure full compliance with Community law.

---

(1)  OJ L 283, 28.10.1980.

(2)  OJ L 82, 22.3.2001.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/926 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/926

---

(2004/C 78 E/0980)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0069/04

by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(20 January 2004)

Subject:   Support for cleaning lakes in the Cantanhede municipal district

Between Cantanhede and Figueira da Foz in Portugal, the Vela, Salgueira and Mata lakes, which, with their respective drainage ditches, need to be cleaned and decontaminated and have their vegetation cut back and their sludge and mud removed, which could then be dumped and spread as fertiliser in the neighbouring woods.

What possible Community aid is available for carrying out this work as a matter of urgency, with a view to preserving the eco-system of the lakes and breed quality fish for angling purposes, as the historical right of the local people, with the creation of a normal seasonal fishing ban?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(26 February 2004)

The lakes mentioned by the Honourable Member are located within a site of Community importance proposed by Portugal under Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (1), with the name ‘Dunas de Mira, Gandara e Gafanhas’. Projects for the conservation or improvement of the conservation status of the habitats and species of Community interest present in the site are therefore eligible for Community financing under the Nature branch of the LIFE programme. Information on the programme can be found on the Internet, at (http://www.europa.eu.int/ comm/environment/life/home.htm).

The measures described by the Honourable Member cannot be seen, in themselves, as falling under the scope of LIFE-Nature. They could, however, be integrated in a more general project for improving the conservation status of the habitats and species present in the site.

As far as the structural funds are concerned, the operations mentioned by the Honourable Member could be financed either by the national environmental programme, under the measures covering the conservation of the lagoon ecosystems, or through the operational programme for the Centro region, which foresees a specific measure for environment. In both scenarios, the promoters should send their requests to the Portuguese authorities.

---

(1)  OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/927 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/927

---

(2004/C 78 E/0981)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0076/04

by Proinsias De Rossa (PSE) to the Commission

(20 January 2004)

Subject:   Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 and blind and partially sighted registration

The Commission's proposals to update Regulation No 1408/71 (1) seek to build on health-care entitlements across the EU and improve cooperation and mutual information between authorities in Member States.

Will the proposed amendments tackle the problems caused by inconsistent criteria for registration as blind or partially sighted across Member States? Will the proposed changes ensure that when an individual is registered as blind or partially sighted and qualifies for the corresponding entitlements in one Member State, they automatically have equal status and entitlements across the EU without having to undergo additional procedures?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(23 February 2004)

The Commission proposal (2) to amend 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, must be seen in the context of the introduction of the European Health Insurance Card, and, therefore, it concerns in particular insured persons who are staying temporarily in a Member State other than the one where they are insured. First of all, the proposal aims to harmonise the entitlement to benefits in kind of all categories of insured persons in this situation. This means that all insured persons should be entitled to all benefits in kind which become medically necessary during a temporary stay in another Member State, taking into account the nature of these benefits and the expected duration of the stay. The second objective of the proposal is to provide all insured persons with direct access to the care provider during their temporary stay in another Member State by abolishing the obligation to contact in advance the sickness insurance institution of the place of stay. A third measure proposed by the Commission, concerns the effectiveness of the application of the Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 by introducing a new Article which defines on the one hand the relationship between the persons covered by the Regulation and the social security institutions and on the other hand improves the mutual cooperation between the institutions of the Member State.

With regard to blind and partially sighted persons, the proposed amendments to Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 will thus improve the access to benefits in kind during a temporary stay in a Member State other than the one where they are insured and registered. However, the above-mentioned proposal does not provide for harmonised criteria for registration as a blind or partially sighted person nor for mutual recognition of the registration as a blind or partially sighted person.

---

(1)  OJ L 149, 5.7.1971, p. 2.

(2)  COM(2003) 378 final.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/928 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/928

---

(2004/C 78 E/0982)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0083/04

by Dirk Sterckx (ELDR) to the Commission

(14 January 2004)

Subject:   Restrictions on freedom of movement for Flemish travel guides on trips abroad

It is reported that Flemish travel guides volunteering to accompanying groups on cultural trips to Italy, Spain, France and Greece can face serious problems when providing their services as guides in the Dutch language. They run the risk of being fined or even arrested by the local authorities because local rules and regulations do not permit foreigners to act as guides in their locality. These, however, are guides who, their volunteer status notwithstanding, undoubtedly have the necessary professional qualifications and training (in, for example, history of art) to enable a group to benefit from their expertise.

Does the Commission not consider that any such local rules and regulations prohibiting foreign guides from providing their services to groups they accompany on visits to public places are incompatible with the free movement of persons as laid down in the Treaty?

If so, will the Commission take the necessary steps to prevent such infringements, and will it lay down a set of rules, by analogy with the new proposal for a directive on the recognition of professional qualifications, that will meet the needs of this category of qualified volunteers by enabling them to provide their services to their own groups, on a personal basis and in their own language, on visits to other countries, without the risk of incurring penalties.

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(11 February 2004)

The Commission would like first of all to recall that the Treaty provisions which are relevant to the question, i.e. Article 49 of the EC Treaty on the freedom to provide services, only apply to activities of a commercial nature. It is unclear, on the basis of the information provided by the Honourable Member, whether the activities carried out by travel guides who volunteer to accompany groups of tourists from other Member States on their visits to Greece, Spain, France and Italy are to be considered as commercial activities falling under the relevant articles of the EC Treaty.

As concerns any activities of a commercial character under Community law, the following reasoning applies: The Court of Justice has held in its rulings of 26 February 1991 in the cases C-180/89, C-154/89 and C-198/89 concerning the freedom to provide services for the profession of tourist guides that: ‘the general interest in the proper appreciation of places and things of historical interest and the widest possible dissemination of knowledge of artistic and cultural heritage of a country’ can constitute an overriding reason justifying a restriction on the freedom to provide services.

However, in accordance with the principle of proportionality, the application of national rules to providers of services established in another Member State must be appropriate for securing the attainment of the objective which they pursue and must not go beyond what is necessary in order to attain it (see Court of Justice ruling of 25 July 1991 in case C-76/90). On the basis of information provided, the Commission has analysed national rules which might restrict the freedom to provide services for tourist guides who accompany a closed group of tourists on a tour from another Member State in the light of the EC Treaty, in particular Article 49 and the Court's jurisprudence. As a consequence, the Commission has sent on the basis of Article 226 of the EC Treaty, a letter of formal notice to Italy on 19 December 2003.

The Commission is certainly ready to examine the situation in other Member States on the basis of further information which the Honourable Member might provide.

The proposal for a Directive of the Parliament and of the Council on the recognition of professional qualifications (1) stipulates that the Member States may not, for reasons relating to professional qualifications, restrict the freedom to provide services when the beneficiary is legally established in another Member State. It contributes to a further simplification of requirements with regard to the provision of services, as compared to establishment, and clarifies the concept of the provision of services. The adoption of this proposal would, therefore, provide further certainty and guarantees for tourist guides providing services into different Member States.

---

(1)  OJ C 181 E, 30.7.2002.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/929 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/929

---

(2004/C 78 E/0983)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0087/04

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(21 January 2004)

Subject:   Use by casinos of EU rules in support of their fight against the Netherlands government policy aimed at limiting compulsive gambling

| 1. | Is the Commission aware of Question No 462 put on 11 November 2003 by the Netherlands Member of Parliament De Wit (socialist party) to the Ministers of Justice and Economic Affairs on the Netherlands policy regarding games of chance, and the answer given on 12 December 2003 by Minister Donner to the effect that an EU Member State can restrict the supply of games of chance for reasons of public interest, such as combating gambling addiction, and that this certainly applies if the Member State itself does not encourage people to take part in lotteries, games of chance or betting for the sake of financial gain for its own treasury? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is the Commission aware of Question No 462 put on 11 November 2003 by the Netherlands Member of Parliament De Wit (socialist party) to the Ministers of Justice and Economic Affairs on the Netherlands policy regarding games of chance, and the answer given on 12 December 2003 by Minister Donner to the effect that an EU Member State can restrict the supply of games of chance for reasons of public interest, such as combating gambling addiction, and that this certainly applies if the Member State itself does not encourage people to take part in lotteries, games of chance or betting for the sake of financial gain for its own treasury?

| 2. | Does the Commission share the view of Minister Donner as expressed in this answer? Does this mean that in future foreign casino chains will not be able to establish themselves in the Netherlands on the grounds of freedom of movement within the internal market? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Does the Commission share the view of Minister Donner as expressed in this answer? Does this mean that in future foreign casino chains will not be able to establish themselves in the Netherlands on the grounds of freedom of movement within the internal market?

| 3. | Is it aware that currently a number of companies, such as ‘JVH Gaming’ from Tilburg and the French firm ‘Tranchant’ are nonetheless using EU rules in support of their attempts to obtain licences to open casinos in the Netherlands and to interpret licences to run slot machine arcades more broadly as authorisation to open full casinos? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Is it aware that currently a number of companies, such as ‘JVH Gaming’ from Tilburg and the French firm ‘Tranchant’ are nonetheless using EU rules in support of their attempts to obtain licences to open casinos in the Netherlands and to interpret licences to run slot machine arcades more broadly as authorisation to open full casinos?

| 4. | Is the Commission also aware that the firms referred to in paragraph 3 take the view that refusal of their requests for licences are in violation of EU regulations? In the opinion of the Commission, is there any justification for this view? |
| --- | --- |

4.

Is the Commission also aware that the firms referred to in paragraph 3 take the view that refusal of their requests for licences are in violation of EU regulations? In the opinion of the Commission, is there any justification for this view?

| 5. | Does the Commission share the view that, given the public interest and the need to combat compulsive gambling, games of chance of this kind should continue to fall within the decision-making remit of the national authorities? |
| --- | --- |

5.

Does the Commission share the view that, given the public interest and the need to combat compulsive gambling, games of chance of this kind should continue to fall within the decision-making remit of the national authorities?

| 6. | Is the Commission prepared to close any possible loopholes in European legislation which might allow firms to circumvent the legislation of the national governments concerned? |
| --- | --- |

6.

Is the Commission prepared to close any possible loopholes in European legislation which might allow firms to circumvent the legislation of the national governments concerned?

Source: The Dutch newspaper BN-De Stem of 6 January 2004.

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(3 March 2004)

In response to the Honourable Member's written question, the Commission was not aware neither of the Dutch Parliamentary exchange between Mr De Wit and Minister Donner nor of the specific situation described by the Honourable Member and concerning certain companies which are apparently seeking to enter the Dutch casino market. The Commission cannot therefore take a specific position on these issues at this stage.

Nevertheless it would like to remind that the European Court of Justice has ruled on several occasions (and more recently in the Gambelli judgment, see case C-243/01) that restrictions to gambling services in the form of licences or other authorisation procedures constitute restrictions to both the freedom of establishment (Article 43 EC Treaty) and the free movement of services (Article 49 EC Treaty).

Having regard to the Honourable Member's fifth and sixth questions, the Commission recognises that such restrictions can be justified by general interest objectives, such as public order (notably the fight against fraud) and consumer protection (in particular the dangers to minors and of compulsive gambling). However, in line with the ECJ case-law, the Commission considers that such national restrictions must be proportionate in meeting those general interest objectives, in other words, that they must not go beyond what is necessary to attain them.

The Commission, therefore, believes that restrictions to establishment and to cross-border provision in this field need to be assessed in the light of the specific risks associated with the relevant gambling activities. For the moment, no specific secondary EU legislation exists in this field. However, in consideration of the increasing cross-border mobility of consumers and of the increased provision of distance gambling services, the Commission has announced that it will launch a study on this issue during the course of 2004. It has also included these services in its recent proposal for a Directive on services in the Internal Market (1). This text mainly requires Member States to assess the existing restrictions in the framework of a joint screening exercise with the Commission and stakeholders, to be carried out within one year after the adoption of the proposed Directive. The proposed Directive also provides for a derogation to the application of the principle of country of origin to such services until the time that European harmonisation in this field might exist.

The question of the need for such European harmonisation will be assessed in the light of the results of the mutual evaluation foreseen in the Services Directive by Member States as well as of the Commission's above-mentioned study. The Commission believes that this constructive and collaborative approach will ensure a European solution that allows for a high level of protection of both public order and consumer protection in the area of gambling services.

---

(1)  COM(2004) 2 final.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/930 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/930

---

(2004/C 78 E/0984)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0095/04

by Mihail Papayannakis (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(21 January 2004)

Subject:   Public hospital INMI L. Spallanzani in Italy

According to reports in the Italian press, the ultra-modern public hospital in Rome, INMI L. Spallanzani, which specialises in infectious diseases, is gradually being converted into a ‘national security’ medical establishment. This means that it will be equipped — if it has not been already — with maximum security laboratories for combating level 4 bacteria and viruses (Ebola, bacillus etc.).

As the hospital is located in one of the most densely populated areas of Rome, will the Commission say whether the hospital has obtained the necessary certification to operate from international and European organisations, particularly in regard to storing level 4 pathogenic bacteria and viruses? Does the Commission know whether an agreement has been signed between Italy and the USA to combat biological terrorism?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(23 February 2004)

Authorisation of hospitals and of their laboratories and any associated certification are matters for the Member States.

There are no requirements for authorisation or notification at European level on this matter; however Bio-Security Level 4 structures usually seek international certification.

A framework agreement concerning co-operation in research between Italy and the United States has been signed and ratified by ordinance DL/22 in January 2004. This framework agreement includes three fields: rare diseases, cancer and bio terrorism.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/931 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/931

---

(2004/C 78 E/0985)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0106/04

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(22 January 2004)

Subject:   Use in shops of escalators which meet European safety standards but are apparently unsafe for children

| 1. | Is the Commission aware that there are escalators in existence in shops which comply with European safety standards for escalators, but seem nevertheless to be extremely dangerous in practice, particularly for young children, who are dragged to the ground at the end of the escalator by the moving rubber handrail, and could be injured or killed as a result? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is the Commission aware that there are escalators in existence in shops which comply with European safety standards for escalators, but seem nevertheless to be extremely dangerous in practice, particularly for young children, who are dragged to the ground at the end of the escalator by the moving rubber handrail, and could be injured or killed as a result?

| 2. | Is the Commission aware that such an accident happened to a child in 1998 in a shoe shop in the Dutch town of Spijkenisse and that on 7 January 2004 a judge in Haarlem ordered the chain of shops responsible to pay compensation of EUR 45 000 for the permanent kidney and liver damage sustained? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Is the Commission aware that such an accident happened to a child in 1998 in a shoe shop in the Dutch town of Spijkenisse and that on 7 January 2004 a judge in Haarlem ordered the chain of shops responsible to pay compensation of EUR 45 000 for the permanent kidney and liver damage sustained?

| 3. | Did the Netherlands Ministry of Social Affairs and Employment file a report on this incident, which was investigated in 1998 by the Netherlands factory and shop inspectorate, which could be used as a basis for incorporating this experience into an amendment to the European safety standards for escalators? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Did the Netherlands Ministry of Social Affairs and Employment file a report on this incident, which was investigated in 1998 by the Netherlands factory and shop inspectorate, which could be used as a basis for incorporating this experience into an amendment to the European safety standards for escalators?

| 4. | Is the Commission aware that escalators of the same kind as the one on which the accident took place in 1998 are still in use in half of large stores, and that every year in the Netherlands 550 people who have been injured on escalators need medical treatment? |
| --- | --- |

4.

Is the Commission aware that escalators of the same kind as the one on which the accident took place in 1998 are still in use in half of large stores, and that every year in the Netherlands 550 people who have been injured on escalators need medical treatment?

| 5. | Are Member States which themselves do nothing to counteract this problem in breach of their obligations, or should they wait for European legislation? |
| --- | --- |

5.

Are Member States which themselves do nothing to counteract this problem in breach of their obligations, or should they wait for European legislation?

| 6. | Why have the European safety standards for escalators still not been tightened up, six years after this accident? Is this because of lack of information? |
| --- | --- |

6.

Why have the European safety standards for escalators still not been tightened up, six years after this accident? Is this because of lack of information?

| 7. | What can be done to improve safety standards in the short term? What is the Commission doing to encourage this? |
| --- | --- |

7.

What can be done to improve safety standards in the short term? What is the Commission doing to encourage this?

Source: TV Nederland 1, ‘Netwerk’ of 11 January 2004.

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(2 March 2004)

| 1. to 4. | The Commission has, until the question posed by the Honourable Member, not been informed of the accidents and other related events that have taken place in the Netherlands.
  When considering the safety of existing escalators it is important to note that different legal requirements and procedures apply depending on when the escalators were placed on the market and put into service. New escalators placed on the market and put into service in the European Economic Area from 1 January 1995 must comply with the essential health and safety requirements of the Machinery Directive (1). Application of the technical specifications of harmonised European standards is one voluntary means of fulfilling the relevant essential health and safety requirements of the Machinery Directive. Escalators placed on the market and put into service in the Community before 1 January 1995 were subject to the existing national legislation at the moment of installation, with exception for the period between 1 January 1993 and 31 December 1995 when the Machinery Directive could be voluntarily applied. |
| --- | --- |

1. to 4.

The Commission has, until the question posed by the Honourable Member, not been informed of the accidents and other related events that have taken place in the Netherlands.

When considering the safety of existing escalators it is important to note that different legal requirements and procedures apply depending on when the escalators were placed on the market and put into service. New escalators placed on the market and put into service in the European Economic Area from 1 January 1995 must comply with the essential health and safety requirements of the Machinery Directive (1). Application of the technical specifications of harmonised European standards is one voluntary means of fulfilling the relevant essential health and safety requirements of the Machinery Directive. Escalators placed on the market and put into service in the Community before 1 January 1995 were subject to the existing national legislation at the moment of installation, with exception for the period between 1 January 1993 and 31 December 1995 when the Machinery Directive could be voluntarily applied.

| 5. | It should be noted that, regardless of when an escalator was installed, Member States are responsible for ensuring that the escalators on their territory are safe. It is also important to keep in mind that accidents can also occur with ‘safe’ escalators fulfilling all legal requirements in the case of unforeseeable misuse.
  The two harmonised standards giving presumption of conformity with the relevant essential health and safety requirements for escalators are:






  — | EN 115: 1995 Safety rules for the construction and installation of escalators and passenger conveyors (2); |
| --- | --- | --- |

5.

It should be noted that, regardless of when an escalator was installed, Member States are responsible for ensuring that the escalators on their territory are safe. It is also important to keep in mind that accidents can also occur with ‘safe’ escalators fulfilling all legal requirements in the case of unforeseeable misuse.

The two harmonised standards giving presumption of conformity with the relevant essential health and safety requirements for escalators are:

—

EN 115: 1995 Safety rules for the construction and installation of escalators and passenger conveyors (2);

| — | EN 115.A1: 1998 Safety rules for the construction and installation of escalators and passenger conveyors — Amendment 1 (3). |
| --- | --- |

—

EN 115.A1: 1998 Safety rules for the construction and installation of escalators and passenger conveyors — Amendment 1 (3).

The Commission has not been notified of any shortcomings in the harmonised standards on escalators.

| 6. | The harmonised standards on escalators are currently being revised by the standardisation organisation CEN, Technical Committee 10, Working Group 2 (CEN/TC10/WG2), in order to take account of the experience gained from using the current standards. The working group plans to finalise the drafting of the new standard by the end of 2004, followed by the final vote of the national standardisation organisations being members of CEN and adoption during 2005. |
| --- | --- |

6.

The harmonised standards on escalators are currently being revised by the standardisation organisation CEN, Technical Committee 10, Working Group 2 (CEN/TC10/WG2), in order to take account of the experience gained from using the current standards. The working group plans to finalise the drafting of the new standard by the end of 2004, followed by the final vote of the national standardisation organisations being members of CEN and adoption during 2005.

| 7. | The Commission will undertake to bring the concern on risks relating to handrails to the Machinery Directive Working Group, which unites the different stakeholders such as Member State Authorities, Industry, standardisers, unions, consumers, etc., in order to ensure that stakeholders are aware of the ongoing revision and that care is taken to take account of all available information when drafting a new escalator standard. |
| --- | --- |

7.

The Commission will undertake to bring the concern on risks relating to handrails to the Machinery Directive Working Group, which unites the different stakeholders such as Member State Authorities, Industry, standardisers, unions, consumers, etc., in order to ensure that stakeholders are aware of the ongoing revision and that care is taken to take account of all available information when drafting a new escalator standard.

---

(1)  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.

(2)  OJ C 165, 1.7.1995.

(3)  OJ C 317, 15.10.1998.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/932 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/932

---

(2004/C 78 E/0986)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0108/04

by Charles Tannock (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(22 January 2004)

Subject:   Fiat in Italy acting in a joint venture in China providing vans to the People's Republic of China for the purposes of mobile exectution

Is the Commission aware of allegations that Fiat of Italy acting through a joint venture in China have tendered a fleet of vans to the People's Republic of China, expressly modified for the purposes of becoming mobile execution vans?

The People's Republic of China maintain that this is a more humane procedure as it will enable execution by intravenous lethal injection rather than firing squad and effectively accelerate the process.

Is the Commission of the opinion that even if the death penalty is permissible under international law, there should be a fair and lengthy appeals process before execution takes place? Therefore given that these mobile execution vans preclude any form of appeal for those convicted of capital offences (which in the People's Republic of China can include ‘economic crimes’) this will inevitably result in miscarriages of justice. Therefore, if the allegations prove to be true, Fiat of Italy should be condemned for participating in such a tender.

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(13 February 2004)

The Commission has no information on the possible involvement of European companies in invitations to tender published by the People's Republic of China for the purchase of vehicles for the purpose of executions.

In its bilateral dialogue with China on human rights, the EU has never stopped reiterating its fundamental opposition to the death penalty, regardless of the methods used, including that cited by the Honourable Member. It has also regularly pressed — and will continue to press — the Chinese authorities, in the present circumstances, to see that the fundamental rights of the condemned, including the right to appeal against their sentence, are respected in full.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/933 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/933

---

(2004/C 78 E/0987)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0109/04

by Claude Moraes (PSE) to the Commission

(19 January 2004)

Subject:   Sikhs and the banning of religious articles of faith

Is the European Commission aware of the implications for the Sikh community in any EU Member State which is considering the banning of religious articles of faith?

Is any action or analysis of this situation, which is of deepening concern to ethnic minority Europeans, being taken at EU level?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(17 February 2004)

The Commission is monitoring the developments the Honourable Member refers to through an ongoing dialogue with religious and ideological groups, based on deep respect for religious diversity. Should violations of fundamental rights (including freedom of religion) occur, under Community law, the Commission would take the appropriate action to ensure that these rights were respected.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/933 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/933

---

(2004/C 78 E/0988)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0126/04

by Jean Lambert (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(19 January 2004)

Subject:   Permits for capture, breeding and trading of protected species in Greece in violation of EU legislation

From August 2002 to January 2003, Greece has issued permits to a private company to capture and use as breeding stock for subsequent selling a large number of reptiles and amphibians (ranging from 220 to 600 per species to a total of 8 540) from a large number of species (a total of 90 species), without any other restrictions about the place, the time and the circumstances of the capture. The permits include authorisations to capture many species included in the Habitats Directive, among them one priority species (macrovipera schweizeri).

There are no reports regarding the overall population of the species concerned or impact assessments on the consequences of the permits to the natural populations of these species. The permits were issued without the knowledge of the relevant National Scientific CITES committee.

The authorisations concerning specific species are alarming.

For example:

| — | the capture of 320 individuals of chamaeleo africanus, when the best available estimate of the size of the European population is 300, found exclusively in only one locality in Greece, or |
| --- | --- |

—

the capture of 320 individuals of chamaeleo africanus, when the best available estimate of the size of the European population is 300, found exclusively in only one locality in Greece, or

| — | the capture of 600 individuals of vipera ursinii (listed in Habitats Directive Annex II, in CITES Annex I), as well as several species listed in Annexes II and III. |
| --- | --- |

—

the capture of 600 individuals of vipera ursinii (listed in Habitats Directive Annex II, in CITES Annex I), as well as several species listed in Annexes II and III.

Is the Commission aware of these permits and the apparent breach of EU legislation, in particular Council Directive 92/43/EEC (1) on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora, in addition to international commitments under the CITES and Bern Conventions, by the Greek authorities?

What measures will the Commission take to stop the implementation of the permits in question without further delay, and to prevent permits which risk prejudicing the attainment of the objectives of EU legislation from being issued by the Greek authorities in the future?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(9 February 2004)

The Commission would like to inform the Honourable Member that, on the basis of a complaint (No 2003/4831) regarding the issue by the Ministry of Agriculture of authorisations to collect and breed a number of Greek wildlife species included in the Annexes II and/or IV of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora, it has opened a file in order to examine if this practice complies with the obligations under Articles 12 and 16 of this Directive. The Commission would like to assure the Honourable Member that it will continue the investigation of the complaint and will not hesitate to take all necessary measures needed for assuring that Greece acts in conformity with Community Law.

With regard to the possibility of an infringement 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 (2) (CITES), Articles 5 and 8 of this Regulation allow commercial trade in the species included in Annexes A, B and C, if these have been legally taken from the wild in the territory of a Member State. Consequently, any breach of this Regulation would only arise in respect of such species listed in the Regulation (not other species) and then only if it can be established that the Greek authorities issued permits for such species in defiance of their own laws or of Council Directive 92/43/EEC.

---

(1)  OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7.

(2)  OJ L 61, 3.3.1997.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/934 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/934

---

(2004/C 78 E/0989)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0147/04

by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(20 January 2004)

Subject:   Combating the use of drugs in sport

In his first speech to the newly elected European Parliament, on 21 July 1999, Commission President Prodi gave three examples of what ‘renewal’ meant to him. One of these was the fight against drug use in the world of sport. Prodi said, ‘We must demonstrate that we are doing our best to contribute at European level to the search for solutions to these problems, since issues such as this go beyond national borders’.

Can the Commission give an update on the measures taken and results achieved in this policy area?

Has real progress been made in cooperation between the various national and regional anti-drug agencies?

Is the Commission aware that in Belgium at least criminal organisations active in propagating illegal hormones in the meat industry are now extending their activities to include drugs in amateur, recreational and professional sport, and has it devised measures to combat this?

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(20 February 2004)

The Honourable Member refers to the speech made by the President of the Commission to the Parliament on 21 July 1999, in which he mentioned the combating of doping as one example of action designed to bring the Union closer to European citizens.

The Commission immediately began work on specific measures to combat doping. It has done its utmost within the limits of its powers, given that the EC Treaty does not permit harmonisation in the specific area of sport. The Commission's work has therefore been designed to promote awareness-raising, cooperation and coordination, especially through the organisation of networks and the financing of projects. The Commission has always focused on prevention — information, education and research — as opposed to a more repressive approach, which is sometimes necessary but often inadequate.

At the Commission's request, an opinion on doping in sport was issued on 11 November 1999 by the European Group on Ethics. Shortly afterwards, on 1 December 1999, a Community support plan, which was given a favourable reception by Parliament, was adopted. This plan made it possible, among other things, to co-finance 16 pilot projects in 2000-2001 and 16 more in 2001-2002. The total amount of funding was EUR 7 360 212. Of the more important projects, mention should be made of the first transnational study devoted to doping practices in body-building premises in Europe, whose publication struck a cord in many quarters. An external evaluation of the first 16 pilot projects has been carried out and sent to Parliament.

The Commission has also taken an active part in the establishment of the new World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA). In the start-up phase of the agency, it defended the principles of independence and transparency. However, owing to an incompatibility between the administrative and financial rules of the Community and those of this Agency, the Commission has been unable to contribute to its operating budget. On the other hand, EUR 2 million in subsidies were granted to specific projects for combating doping, such as the establishment of an athlete's passport or the training of observers of the Agency, who are present at major sporting events.

As far as progress achieved in cooperation between the various players involved in combating doping is concerned, action in this area is becoming increasingly intergovernmental. While it is true that the establishment of the World Anti-Doping Agency against the background of the 1999 Lausanne Conference was the result of excellent cooperation between the Commission, the Council and the International Olympic Committee, the fact remains that the Member States have preferred the intergovernmental approach (WADA, Council of Europe, United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation).

Finally, the Commission is aware of the existence of organisations that supply illegal substances to sportsmen. It has asked the Member States to join it in studying the possible ways of tackling this problem. In March 2002, the Commission organised, at La Toja (Spain), in cooperation with the Spanish Presidency, the first seminar bringing together officials of the Ministries of Sport and colleagues from the border police and customs. However, although most of the Member States are aware of the seriousness of the problem, it did not prove possible to adopt conclusions following this meeting.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/936 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/936

---

(2004/C 78 E/0990)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0157/04

by Catherine Guy-Quint (PSE) to the Commission

(22 January 2004)

Subject:   Twinnings with Bulgaria and Romania

I would like to draw your attention to the arrangements for 2004 as regards the future of twinnings between EU countries and candidate countries. I note that twinnings with Bulgaria and Romania have been excluded from the selection procedures described in Call for proposals No 64/03 published by the Directorate-General for Education and Culture, when no mention of such a restriction is to be found in any of the documents deriving from the interinstitutional work that preceded the publication of that call for proposals. My question therefore relates both to the legal validity of that interpretation and to the political appropriateness of these countries not being eligible to receive Community grants for twinnings.

With the aim of providing the Community action programme to promote active European citizenship (civic participation) with the formal legal basis which the new 2002 Financial Regulation requires for Community grants, and following the forwarding of the European Commission's basic proposal (1) and the European Parliament's report (A5-0368/2003), Parliament issued an opinion on the proposal for a Council decision on 20 November 2003. The report made no reference to the possible restriction of twinnings with candidate countries whose accession had been confirmed for 2004. Quite the contrary, it stated that ‘As part of the enlargement of the European Union, it is essential that there should be a significant increase over 2003 in the volume of appropriations made available to town twinning schemes.’

Furthermore, from a political perspective, it seems relevant to point to the usefulness of supporting town twinning activities fostering active European citizenship. In the current context of extending the scope of European citizenship to future Member States, all states should be able to benefit from these measures, without distinction. The very large numbers of twinnings in those countries supports this view. Romania, for example, has, since 1990, participated in over 231 twinning projects funded by the European Commission, making for an average markedly higher than many Member States (source: Directorate-General for Education and Culture). Why, in that case, break the continuity of something that has been pursued for many years in terms of know-how, experience exchanges and therefore of creating a requisite sense of European citizenship in those countries which are to accede to the Union?

As Mrs Reding stated at the ‘Golden stars of town-twinning’ awards ceremony on 14 May 2003, European integration (at local level) would not be where it is today without the efforts and goodwill of people who devote their time to creating partnerships with citizens and organisations from other towns and cities across Europe. Three of the ten prizes awarded at that ceremony went to projects initiated by candidate countries. I would therefore like to know why and on what legal bases the Commission is creating a distinction between the candidate countries as regards eligibility for a measure that is of benefit to them all, and whose success is widely acknowledged.

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(13 February 2004)

The Commission entirely shares the Honourable Member's opinion regarding the importance of town-twinning activities involving candidate countries and in no way seeks to make a distinction between candidate countries, nor to exclude Romania and Bulgaria, nor Turkey for that matter, from the possibilities offered in this field by the recently adopted Community action programme to promote active European citizenship (civic participation).

The proposal for a Council decision presented by the Commission (2) and adopted by the Council on 26 January 2004 provides for this programme to be open to the candidate countries, and the call for proposals EAC No 64/03 also mentions these countries as being eligible, subject to the conclusion of agreements establishing the arrangements for their participation.

In accordance with the decisions of the Association Councils, which lay down the principles, conditions and general arrangements for the participation of candidate countries in all Community programmes as part of the pre-accession strategy, the specific arrangements for participation in each programme must be the subject of a Memorandum of Understanding to be concluded between the Commission and the country expressing an interest. Just as Community grants are subject to the adoption of the decision establishing the programme, which alone provides the formal legal basis required by the new Financial Regulation for Community grants, so the grants intended for candidate countries are subject to these Memoranda of Understanding.

The same approach is followed for all candidate countries, i.e. Bulgaria, Romania and Turkey. In accordance with the provisions of the Accession Treaty, the countries acceding in 2004 participate in the Community programmes as Member States.

Aware of the importance of the twinning movement for the three candidate countries, even before the adoption of the programme at Community level, the Commission has already contacted the Missions of these countries to give them the relevant information concerning the procedures to be followed.

---

(1)  COM(2003)276.

(2)  COM(2003) 276 final.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/937 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/937

---

(2004/C 78 E/0991)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0158/04

by Brice Hortefeux (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(22 January 2004)

Subject:   Aviation safety

The airline disaster at Sharm el-Sheikh, where a Boeing 737 belonging to the company Flash Airlines crashed into the Red Sea killing 148 people, underlines the urgent need to address the issue of aviation safety.

On 9 October 2003, in its vote at second reading on the safety of third countries aircraft using community airports, the European Parliament called for rapid implementation of the directive, whereas the Council favoured a later entry into force. The crash of the Flash Airlines plane shows that we cannot and must not wait any longer.

We must act as swiftly as possible, as we did a few months ago with the legislation concerning single-hull tankers. A blacklist of ‘floating dustbins’ has now been drawn up. We must do the same for ‘flying dustbins’ and ensure that the information relating to airline companies that fail to respect safety conditions is made public.

In the light of the above, what measures will the European Commission take to prevent other disasters of this type in the future?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(16 February 2004)

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 current system of monitoring foreign airlines which were highlighted by this disaster, in particular by making controls 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 of inspections. Once this Directive is applied by the Member States, the Commission will have detailed information on all the checks carried out at Community airports. This information will allow the Commission to draw public attention to undertakings which pose a high safety risk.

Directive 2003/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 June 2003 on occurrence reporting in civil aviation (2) provides for the improvement of accident prevention through the analysis of events leading to aviation accidents.

Once the results of the inquiry into this disaster are known, the Commission will assess the need, if any, to amend or strengthen these measures or adopt new ones.

In the short term, the Commission will also examine ways of improving transparency in the field of air transport, in particular with regard to informing the public on the safety of airlines.

---

(1)  OJ C 103, 30.4.2002.

(2)  OJ L 167, 4.7.2003.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/938 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/938

---

(2004/C 78 E/0992)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0178/04

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(29 January 2004)

Subject:   Funding from the Culture 2000 programme for the conservation of valuable cultural works stored in Aghia Sofia

In its answer to my question No E-2962/03 (1), the Commission states that ‘The Community's financial assistance programme for Turkey does not allow to provide support for conserving and restoring religious or cultural works, such as those stored in the Aghia Sofia.’

These valuable cultural works, principally in the Byzantime tradition, are being ruined, forgotten in the vaults of the church, a fact which has aroused strong feelings among Turkish public opinion. The Culture 2000 programme has been extended by two years from 5 May 2003 and provides for cultural cooperation with third countries not taking part in the programme, such as Turkey, by allowing funding for projects taking place in a third country which focus on the common cultural heritage of the countries participating in the project. In the light of these considerations, can the Commission confirm that if a Member State submits such a project it will be eligible for funding? What is the deadline for submitting such proposals? Will the Commission inform and encourage the Turkish authorities to take advantage of the opportunities offered by the Culture 2000 programme to conserve and restore these valuable cultural works?

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(5 March 2004)

The Commission would like to draw the Honourable Member's attention to the fact that the legislative procedure relating to the extension of the Culture 2000 programme (2) is still under way. The Commission cannot therefore provide any specific information at this point concerning the guidelines of the call for proposals for projects to be carried out in 2005.

Under current procedures, however, in order to be eligible, projects funded under the action for ‘annual cooperation projects in third countries’ must be carried out in a country which is not participating in the programme and must involve the cooperation of at least four organisations (one project leader, two co-organisers and one associated partner). These four organisations must include three cultural institutions belonging to three countries participating in the programme and one cultural institution from the third country concerned.

With regard to future calls for proposals, the publication dates will depend largely on the deadlines imposed by the legislative procedure approving the programme's extension and then by the deadlines for approval of the calls for proposals by the Management Committee.

In accordance with the current regulations, the Commission will ensure that information on the call for proposals is distributed widely, for example in the Official Journal of the European Union and on the Culture 2000 website: (http://europa.eu.int/comm/culture/eac/index_en.html).

---

(1)  See page 771.

(2)  COM(2004) 79 final.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/939 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/939

---

(2004/C 78 E/0993)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0193/04

by Ward Beysen (NI) to the Commission

(22 January 2004)

Subject:   Parallel trade

During the Plenary Session of June 2003, the European Commission promised in answering my oral question (H-0315/03) (1), that it would ‘one way or the other [...] adopt its position — positive or negative — on the supply quota systems by the end of this year’. This was in response to my asking why the Commission was not acting against pharmaceutical manufacturers who refuse to play by the EU's competition and single market rules.

So far, the Commission has not published its position on the supply quota systems. I would appreciate Commission explaining why this is the case.

Parallel trade in medicines is the only competition to patented drugs in Europe and delivers savings of millions of euros per year to government and patients.

Of course, the big pharmaceutical companies do not like these traders because their actions undercut their huge billion-dollar annual profits. But is it not time that their profits and the way they do business — for example by spending more money per annum on marketing than on research and development — were challenged more rigorously?

Despite losing its appeal in the recent Bayer (Adalat) case (joined cases C-2/01 Ρ and C-3/01 P), the Commission must act urgently to uphold the principles of the single market and ensure that pharmaceutical manufacturers respect competition law. I would welcome the reaction of the European Commission to the recent ECJ ruling in this case and ask the Commission to make known its position on the application of Article 82 as soon as possible.

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(19 February 2004)

As the Honourable Member mentions, on 6 January 2004, the Court of Justice dismissed the Commission's appeal in the Bayer (Adalat) case (2). While it must be noted that the issue at stake in this case was a narrow one (i.e. the concrete proof of an agreement within the meaning of Article 81(1) of the EC Treaty), the outcome has a direct impact on the assessment of the supply quota systems under Article 81 of the EC Treaty. However, the case-law of the Court of Justice does not seem to rule out the possibility that there might be grounds for challenging supply quota systems in the pharmaceutical sector pursuant to Article 82 of the EC Treaty which prohibits companies from abusing their dominant position.

In this respect, the Commission informs the Honourable Member that in the course of 2003 it has filed an amicus brief in the preliminary ruling case which is currently pending before the Court of Justice and which concerns the question of whether supply quota systems, such as the one implemented by GSK in Greece, may infringe Article 82 EC Treaty (3). In the Commission's view, supply quotas which are designed to impede parallel trade and affect competition may indeed infringe Article 82 unless there is a clear objective justification. However, this preliminary ruling case does not address questions related to the definition of the relevant market or the finding of dominance. These are the issues that the Commission is examining at present. A definitive finding of abuse requires indeed that the Commission establishes — in line with the required standard of proof — that the pharmaceutical companies are dominant for at least some of the products which are subject to supply quotas.

---

(1)  Oral answer of 3.6.2003.

(2)  Joined Cases C-2/01 Ρ and C-3/01 P.

(3)  Case C-53/03, Syfait, OJ C 101, 26.4.2003.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/940 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/940

---

(2004/C 78 E/0994)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0206/04

by Renato Brunetta (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(23 January 2004)

Subject:   Unlawful imposition of identification marks for sports craft in the Venice lagoon

The Venice Commissioner for wave action decreed, by virtue of Order No 19/2002 of 14 May 2002, that ‘all motorised sports craft exceeding a power of 10 hp must, before they can circulate in the Venice lagoon, bear the requisite identification mark ... applied to both sides of their stern’. The registration of craft (irrespective of size) is based on engine power, regardless of whether or not the engine is removable.

The identification marks are issued against payment of EUR 25 (EUR 50 in the case of renewal or loss). The Order is based on Articles 32 to 34 of the Rules on lagoon navigation in the Province of Venice (Doc. No 247721 of 25.06.1998) which lays down registration and transfer of ownership procedures, and in essence the holding of registers on sports vessels, defined on the basis not of length, tonnage or any other criterion, but simply on that of engine power, whether removable or not, where this exceeds 10 hp and is for sports use.

The Order is based on a general provision set out in Article 11(3) of Legislative decree No 422 of 19 November 1997, although Italy transposed Directive 94/25/EC (1) into national law by virtue of Law No 52 of 6 February 1996 and sports craft were removed from the maritime registers.

A definitive legal framework governing pleasure boats was recently introduced in Italy by way of Law No 172 of 8.7.2003, Article 13(1) of which refers to ‘sports craft, vessels with hulls measuring 10 metres or less ...’, while the second paragraph of that Article provides that ‘sports craft shall be exempt from the requirement on entry in the register referred to in Article 9 ...’. There are therefore no applicable registration plates, identification marks or registers.

The claim that there is a need for identification of these craft by means of registration plates or identification marks is invalid because:

| — | all motorised vessels are issued with an engine certificate, which is then attached to the insurance certificates; |
| --- | --- |

—

all motorised vessels are issued with an engine certificate, which is then attached to the insurance certificates;

| — | all boatmasters must have an identity/insurance document (all sports craft in circulation can be identified via their insurance plates, as can their circulation period (annual or quarterly insurance) and their installed power); |
| --- | --- |

—

all boatmasters must have an identity/insurance document (all sports craft in circulation can be identified via their insurance plates, as can their circulation period (annual or quarterly insurance) and their installed power);

| — | the identification of an offending vessel at distance by means of its registration plate or identification mark has never been accepted as sufficient evidence in court (photos and/or offence reports are required); |
| --- | --- |

—

the identification of an offending vessel at distance by means of its registration plate or identification mark has never been accepted as sufficient evidence in court (photos and/or offence reports are required);

| — | an inventory/census is kept of sports craft in circulation. |
| --- | --- |

—

an inventory/census is kept of sports craft in circulation.

In the light of the above, what initiatives will the Commission take to put a end to this clear breach of Community law?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(11 February 2004)

Directive 94/25/EC (2), to which the Honourable Member refers in his written question, is based on Article 95 of the EC Treaty and has therefore, as its primary objective to ensure the establishment and functioning of the internal market. The Directive harmonises the design and construction requirements with which recreational craft have to comply as a condition for placing them on the market and putting them into service.

The Directive does not contain provisions aimed at harmonising the conditions of use of recreational craft after they have been placed on the market and put into service. Its Article 2(2) explicitly specifies that the provisions of the Directive shall not prevent Member States from adopting, in compliance with the EC Treaty, provisions concerning navigation on certain waters for the purpose of protection of the environment, the fabric of waterways, and ensuring the safety of waterways, providing that this does not require modification to craft conforming to the Directive.

Assessment of the Ordinance No 19/2002 issued by the Commissioner of the Governement delegated for the maritime traffic in the lagoon of Venice (ordinanza no 19/2002 emanata dal Commissario del Governo Delegato al Traffico Acqueo nella Laguna di Venezia) has led the Commission to conclude that the imposition of identification marks on the sides of recreational craft as a condition for their operation in the lagoon of Venice does not require the modification of the design or construction of craft conforming with the Directive and therefore respects the conditions of Article 2(2) of the Directive.

---

(1)  OJ L 164, 30.6.1994, p. 15.

(2)  Directive 94/25/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 16 June 1996 on the approximation of laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States relating to recreational craft.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/941 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/941

---

(2004/C 78 E/0995)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0207/04

by Harald Ettl (PSE) to the Commission

(23 January 2004)

Subject:   Further action by the Commission on the portability of supplementary pension rights

On 12 June 2002, the Commission initiated the first-stage consultation of social partners on the portability of supplementary pension rights, which identified the following problems: conditions governing the acquisition of occupational pension rights, the preservation of acquired rights, the transferability of rights, rights to information and the taxation of cross-border benefits.

Unfortunately, the second-stage consultation of social partners on measures to improve the portability of occupational pension rights, which was launched on 15 September 2003, did not produce any results either.

The Commission invited the social partners to inform it, where appropriate, of their resolve to undertake negotiations and whether they wish to adopt a global approach or concentrate on certain aspects of portability. The ETUC stated at a meeting of its Executive Committee on 16/17 October 2003 that it was prepared to undertake negotiations with its European partners. On 19 November 2003, the UNICE rejected the Commission's proposals and made it clear that it was not willing to negotiate on the issues proposed by the Commission (1).

What further action does the Commission intend to take on this issue, which is of relevance to all workers who have had jobs in several Member States during their working life?

Will a proposal for a directive be drafted or will the matter be shelved?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(19 February 2004)

The Commission regrets that the social partners will not hold negotiations with a view to limiting the loss of supplementary pension rights as a result of occupational mobility within the same country or different countries. In the Member States the social partners have the possibility of adapting the rules of their supplementary schemes so as to provide better protection for the rights of persons who change jobs and hence supplementary pension schemes. However, the social partners do not necessarily make use of this possibility, and the Member States in which supplementary schemes are the most common have introduced minimum requirements in order to protect workers who change jobs. These requirements cover the eligibility conditions for schemes, qualifying periods, revaluing of dormant rights (rights of persons who have left a scheme but not yet reached retirement age) and procedures for the transfer of rights.

The Commission is in the process of examining the potential benefits of adopting a binding act introducing similar minimum requirements at Community level. It will take account of Member States' experience, drawing on the expertise of the Pensions Forum.

Furthermore, the adoption of Directive 2003/41/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 June 2002 on the activities and supervision of institutions for occupational retirement provision (2) will allow supplementary pension schemes to be established at the level of European groups of undertakings, which will facilitate occupational mobility within such groups.

Certain Member States have tax rules which affect pension funds and restrict the freedom to provide services and freedom of movement for workers. The Commission has started infringement proceedings against several Member States, for example against Belgium in respect of various issues, including the specific tax on transfers of capital to foreign pension funds (3).

---

(1)  UNICE, 19.11.2003.

(2)  OJ L 235, 23.9.2003.

(3)  IP/03/1756.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/942 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/942

---

(2004/C 78 E/0996)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0208/04

by Ioannis Averoff (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(23 January 2004)

Subject:   Practical problems with town-twinning scheme

In keeping with the spirit of the Commission's White Paper on Governance, the town-twinning scheme forms part of the EU's endeavours to enhance European awareness through dialogue with its citizens with a view to their active participation in developments in Europe.

However, at a time when there is increasing emphasis on the importance of this process, particularly at this historic moment ahead of enlargement of the Union when there is a need to heighten the public's awareness of the significance of a European identity, the town-twinning scheme is running into problems. In breach of the procedure for the payment of subsidies in this connection, the programmes which were approved and carried out in March 2003 remain unsubsidised without any official notification or justification on the part of the responsible Commission department. Not only does this state of affairs negate the very objectives of the scheme, it also puts the local authorities in a very difficult position as they have borne the financial brunt of organising the scheme and are, obviously, accountable to their citizens.

Will the Commission state the reasons for the delays in paying the subsidies? What will it do henceforth to ensure that the twinning scheme operates as it should?

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(17 February 2004)

The Commission attaches great importance to the town-twinning scheme and to the need for funding to be organised in a manner which is acceptable to beneficiaries.

With this in mind, the grant award system has been made as simple as possible. Calculations are based on flat rates, new simplified forms have been designed, and a user's guide has been produced for beneficiaries.

However, several factors influence the implementation of the scheme's funding arrangements.

For example, the new Financial Regulation has significant repercussions in terms of the award and payment procedures.

The Commission strictly adheres to the payment procedures contained in the call for proposals and the new Financial Regulation. The disbursement of grants is therefore dependent on the submission of documentary evidence by the beneficiary at the end of the activity. Although the volume of documentary evidence has been reduced, in nearly 25 % of cases beneficiaries have had to be contacted again because the documentation they submitted was incomplete. This is the reason for most of the payment delays.

Nevertheless, on the whole, the situation has improved considerably.

The Commission would like to reassure the Honourable Member that everything is being done to catch up on the backlog and pay the sums due as soon as possible.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/943 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/943

---

(2004/C 78 E/0997)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0223/04

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(30 January 2004)

Subject:   Unemployment rate in Greece

According to the Greek Statistical Service, the rate of unemployment in Greece is 8,9 %, corresponding to a total of 392 200 people, whereas figures published by the Greek Manpower Employment Organisation (OAED) on 19 January give the number of registered unemployed as 585 788 or 13,2 % of the economically active population.

Can the Commission, in cooperation with the Greek Government, clarify the discrepancy between the figures produced by the OAED and those published by the Greek Statistical Service?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(5 March 2004)

The data that Eurostat uses to calculate monthly unemployment rates come from the National Statistical Service of Greece. The most recent data available from Greece refer to the second quarter 2003 (data until June 2003) as shown in the Eurostat databases. Data for Greek unemployment rates are identical between Eurostat and the National Statistical Service of Greece. However, in Greece, the data are published in non-seasonally adjusted form (Second quarter 2003, 8,9 %) and in Eurostat in seasonally adjusted form (Second quarter 2003, 9,2 %). Eurostat publishes seasonally adjusted series for all the Member States and Acceding and Candidate Countries.

Eurostat has no comments on the other national data providers. Eurostat is interested in the harmonised data or the sources for the harmonised data, which in the unemployment statistics area are provided by the National Statistical Service of Greece. Data from other national services may be based on different concepts and rules for which the Commission has neither reason, nor obligation to verify or approve.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/943 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/943

---

(2004/C 78 E/0998)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0224/04

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(2 February 2004)

Subject:   ‘Militaria e Dintorni in Europa’ (Militaria Fair)

For a number of years a Militaria Fair has been held in Rome which, because of its specialist nature, has gained such importance that it is now the only fair of its kind in central/southern Italy. The fair was designed to attract collectors of military memorabilia from Italy and abroad (items come from France, the United Kingdom, Germany, Spain, Greece, Poland, the United States and Russia) and others interested in the subject.

Thanks to the professional approach of the Organising Committee and the special nature of the objects exhibited, the Militaria Fair has outgrown its original format and has become an event of historical and cultural significance. Over the years there have been exhibitions of uniforms, documents, arms and antiques of major historical importance, such as Enrico Toti's bicycle, the personal effects of Giuseppe Mazzini, Guglielmo Marconi's instruments, Garibaldi's sword, Chiaffredo Bergia's decorations and vast collections of toy soldiers, originals or reproductions made by expert craftsmen, which are miniature masterpieces.

The importance acquired by the Militaria Fair over the years is reflected in the sponsorship it has secured for each edition from the Lazio Region, the Province of Rome, the city of Rome and the XVIIth district in which the fair actually takes place. Institutions are also involved, for instance the Historical museum of the Carabinieri, the Customs Service, the Rome traffic police, the Military section of the Italian Red Cross, along with historical associations such as the Garibaldini and the Mentana Museum and, of course, private individuals.

However, the costs (including rent for the exhibition area, fixtures and fittings, organisation and insurance costs and publicity) far exceed the potential proceeds from ticket sales and fees for stands.

Can the Commission say whether grants are available for initiatives of this kind?

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(17 February 2004)

The Commission supports the initiatives for transnational cooperation in the cultural sector, but only within the framework and on the basis of the selection criteria for the Culture 2000 programme which is the sole financing and planning instrument for cultural cooperation in the Union.

This programme is intended to support projects coproduced and cofinanced by at least three operators from at least three countries participating in the programme.

The Honourable Member can find further information on the following websites (in English and French respectively): (http://europa.eu.int/comm/culture/index_en.htm).

The Commission is not aware of any projects of this type put forward by other Member States.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/944 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/944

---

(2004/C 78 E/0999)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0231/04

by Alexander de Roo (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(26 January 2004)

Subject:   EIB loan to Schiphol Airport

For the financing of its fifth runway (known as the ‘Polderbaan’), Schiphol Airport successfully applied for a European Investment Bank loan of EUR 150 million.

Friends of the Earth Netherlands claims that the loan was approved (on 15 February 2002) before the requisite environmental impact assessment into the use of the ‘Polderbaan’ was completed (on 11 March 2002).

According to a report entitled: ‘Flying with Big Business: The European Investment Bank and the Aviation Industry’, published in November 2003 by Friends of the Earth International and CEE Bankwatch Network, the same applied to the expansion of Sofia Airport in Bulgaria, except that, in that particular instance, no EIA was carried out at all.

On what date did the EIB inform the European Commission of its intention to grant a soft loan to Schiphol Airport, and was that information accompanied by an environmental impact assessment that may be made public?

Does the Commission share my view that the EIB should have waited for the result of the EIA referred to above before approving the loan? How will the Commission approach the EIB with a view to reversing the matter?

How will the Commission approach the EIB with a view to ensuring that such circumstances do not recur?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(17 February 2004)

The European Investment Bank (EIB) submitted to the Commission the necessary information for the Consultation foreseen under Article 21 of the Bank's statute on 29 November 2001. According to this information a formal Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) had been carried out already in 1995 satisfying the needs of the 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 modified by Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997 (2). In addition, according to the information submitted by the EIB in the framework of the above consultation, planning approvals which follow an EIA had also been granted by the appropriate authorities. The EIB loan agreement puts a legal obligation on the project promoter to comply with any relevant legislation, including environmental legislation. On this basis, the Commission did not raise any further questions with respect to the environmental impact. The submission of additional specific documentation, studies, etc. is not foreseen under the Article 21 consultation procedure.

In a reply to the Friends of the Earth, Netherlands, of December 2002, copied to the Commission, the EIB explained that a further EIA was completed on 11 March 2002. This EIA did not specifically concern the operation of the fifth runway, but rather the adaptation of noise and other environmental parameters at Schiphol Airport as a whole, in the light of the new Aviation Act. Nonetheless, the Commission and the EIB will ask the Dutch Authorities to provide further information on this EIA so that it can be verified if this assessment falls within the framework of the Council Directive 85/337/EEC.

More generally, in addition to the Article 21 consultation procedure where the Commission has an opportunity to express a formal opinion on the EIB's operation, the Commission and EIB services have established regular contacts in an effort to better integrate the environmental approaches of the two institutions. In view of its importance in the overall authorisation procedure for any given project, the question of the EIA procedure on the basis of the above-mentioned Directive has been the subject of many working sessions between the Commission and the Bank services. In particular it has been recognised that, as a result of a formal EIA, certain aspects of a project may change. It is, therefore, of interest also to the promoter and consequently to the financing institution to wait for the completion of the formal EIA in order to have the final design and the final cost of the project.

The Commission will continue to pay particular attention to the correct implementation of the EIA Directive both in the framework of the Article 21 consultation procedure and the contacts at technical level.

---

(1)  OJ L 175, 5.7.1985.

(2)  OJ L 73, 14.3.1997.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/945 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/945

---

(2004/C 78 E/1000)

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?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(3 March 2004)

The Commission is collecting the information it needs to answer the question. It will communicate its findings as soon as possible.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/946 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/946

---

(2004/C 78 E/1001)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0249/04

by Christopher Heaton-Harris (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(3 February 2004)

Subject:   Private Eye

A recent edition of the UK satirical publication, Private Eye, contained an apology to Commissioner Kinnock for a story it had printed. The publication also claimed it had paid Commissioner Kinnock substantial damages.

Could the Commission state how much money Commissioner Kinnock received in damages from Private Eye?

Could the Commission verify that Commissioner Kinnock is taking legal action against another publication, The Sprout, concerning the same article? If so has the Commissioner received any damages from The Sprout?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(17 February 2004)

Private Eye and Sprout published allegations which were seriously defamatory and, consequently, Mr Kinnock, Vice-President of the Commission, sued both publications seeking a public apology, damages and costs. After legal representations, both publications printed apologies saying that they ‘accept unreservedly that there is and was no basis for allegations against Mr Kinnock’ and ‘Without exception we withdraw the allegations and criticisms of Mr Kinnock and apologise to him’.

They also said that ‘In recognition of the seriousness of the allegations against Mr Kinnock and the complete absence of any justification for them, we have agreed to make a substantial payment in damages to Mr Kinnock’.

Payment for damages and costs has been received from both publications.

It is Mr Kinnock's custom to use damages paid for defamation for payments to charities of his choice and, naturally, is continuing in this case. It is not his custom to publicise the sums received or the names of those charities although, sometimes, the charity payment has been publicised by others.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/947 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/947

---

(2004/C 78 E/1002)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0253/04

by Geoffrey Van Orden (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(27 January 2004)

Subject:   The Construction Products Directive

| 1. | DG Enterprise is presently consulting EU Member States prior to making recommendations to the European Parliament for the revision of the Construction Products Directive 89/106/EEC (1). It is understood that the timescale for this project has now been extended. Can the Commission please advise us of the reason for the delay and the new timetable for completing the project? |
| --- | --- |

1.

DG Enterprise is presently consulting EU Member States prior to making recommendations to the European Parliament for the revision of the Construction Products Directive 89/106/EEC (1). It is understood that the timescale for this project has now been extended. Can the Commission please advise us of the reason for the delay and the new timetable for completing the project?

| 2. | While the majority of EU Member States are requiring CE marking of products to indicate compliance with the Construction Products Directive, it is understood that four Member States are interpreting the directive differently and are not requiring mandatory CE marking. Can the European Commission please confirm that this anomaly will be removed and that all EU Member States will have to introduce a mandatory requirement for CE marking to indicate compliance with the directive? |
| --- | --- |

2.

While the majority of EU Member States are requiring CE marking of products to indicate compliance with the Construction Products Directive, it is understood that four Member States are interpreting the directive differently and are not requiring mandatory CE marking. Can the European Commission please confirm that this anomaly will be removed and that all EU Member States will have to introduce a mandatory requirement for CE marking to indicate compliance with the directive?

| 3. | Prior to CE marking, the Construction Products Directive requires attestation that the products conform to the requirements of harmonised European Norms. However, it is recognised that the CE marking is not a quality mark. For good reasons, quality marking continues to be required and the fire protection and security industry is working with relevant Notified Bodies within EU Member States in an attempt to have the testing necessary for quality marking in one Member State recognised in all other Member States. This will reduce overall product introduction costs and therefore benefit the EU as well as making European products more competitive on world markets. Will the Commission support the fire protection and security industry in achieving this ‘one stop testing’ objective? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Prior to CE marking, the Construction Products Directive requires attestation that the products conform to the requirements of harmonised European Norms. However, it is recognised that the CE marking is not a quality mark. For good reasons, quality marking continues to be required and the fire protection and security industry is working with relevant Notified Bodies within EU Member States in an attempt to have the testing necessary for quality marking in one Member State recognised in all other Member States. This will reduce overall product introduction costs and therefore benefit the EU as well as making European products more competitive on world markets. Will the Commission support the fire protection and security industry in achieving this ‘one stop testing’ objective?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(18 February 2004)

The Commission plans to carry out a revision of the Construction Products Directive, 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 (hereafter the CPD), but so far it has not made any commitments or established any specific timetable for this task.

The aim of the revision of the CPD should be to improve its functioning. The preparatory work for the revision should detect the existing problems and draw from the experience gathered. This work has been carried out during 2003. The timetable for preparing recommendations for its amendment will be fixed as soon as the extent of changes to be made in the system is known.

The Commission is aware that the CPD does not expressly require CE marking and that its text suggests that CE marking is only a prerequisite for obtaining the benefits offered by the CPD. The Commission has always pleaded that the CE marking be affixed as soon as the conditions for its application exist, that is when the harmonised technical specifications are in place. It has conducted a dialogue in the framework of the Standing Committee on Construction in order to come to a uniform interpretation, which would substantially facilitate the role of the market surveillance authorities. However, the Commission did not find it opportune to initiate legal actions before the Member States had the chance to apply the CPD correctly and before a consensus on a uniform interpretation of the CPD is reached.

This aspect would also have to be examined within the framework of a revision of the CPD.

The only mark required for those construction products, for which harmonised technical specifications exist, is the CE marking. Any other marking may only be voluntary.

The information accompanying the CE marking shows the performance of the product, or how good the product is in relation to the relevant characteristic covered by the harmonised technical specification. The CE marking is a single mark necessary to access freely the Internal Market. A product may bear voluntary marks only if they provide an added value and are not liable to cause confusion with the CE marking. Initiatives taken in the voluntary certification field should be exclusively market driven. The Commission does not intend to intervene in this field, unless quality marks were to impair the Internal Market.

---

(1)  OJ L 40, 11.2.1989, p. 12.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/948 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/948

---

(2004/C 78 E/1003)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0284/04

by Joachim Wuermeling (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(5 February 2004)

Subject:   BEUC

The European consumers' organisation BEUC regularly publishes expensive brochures printed in four colours on glossy paper, which promote the Commission's proposals in the field of consumer protection. For example, I am aware of the brochures on the Consumer Credit Directive and the Directive on health information on foodstuffs.

| 1. | Does the Commission subsidise these publications from the EU budget? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Does the Commission subsidise these publications from the EU budget?

| 2. | What institutional funding does the BEUC receive from the EU budget? |
| --- | --- |

2.

What institutional funding does the BEUC receive from the EU budget?

| 3. | Does the Commission believe that it is the BEUC's task to support the Commission's proposals with such forms of advertising? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Does the Commission believe that it is the BEUC's task to support the Commission's proposals with such forms of advertising?

| 4. | What view does the Commission take of the allegation, made by Dr Beate Kohler-Koch on 15 May 2003 in Berlin, that the consumer associations are being exploited for the Commission's public relations work? |
| --- | --- |

4.

What view does the Commission take of the allegation, made by Dr Beate Kohler-Koch on 15 May 2003 in Berlin, that the consumer associations are being exploited for the Commission's public relations work?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(4 March 2004)

| 1. | The Commission does not grant any specific Community funding for the production of publications by the BEUC. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The Commission does not grant any specific Community funding for the production of publications by the BEUC.

| 2. | Every year, following a call for proposals, the Commission awards operational grants to European consumer organisations. This leads to a greater involvement of these organisations in Community policies, one of the three key objectives of the Strategy for Consumer Policy (2002-2006) which is supported by the Parliament. Moreover, this form of financial support has a clear legal basis in the provision for financing consumer-oriented activities (1). This total funding cannot exceed 50 % of the expenditure for eligible activities.
  The total Community funding to be awarded to the BEUC under these operational grants amounts to EUR 1 172 790 in 2004.
  Furthermore, the Commission regularly, and following a call for proposals, grants subsidies to specific projects which aim to promote consumer interests in Member States (Articles 2 C and 6 of Decision No 283/1999 and action 18 of Decision No 20/2004, aforementioned).
  Following the call for proposals published in September 2002 (2), the project ‘European Consumer Law Group’ submitted by the BEUC was selected (Community contribution requested: EUR 56 422,79).
  The subsidies awarded will be published shortly on the Internet site of the Directorate-General for Health and Consumer Protection. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Every year, following a call for proposals, the Commission awards operational grants to European consumer organisations. This leads to a greater involvement of these organisations in Community policies, one of the three key objectives of the Strategy for Consumer Policy (2002-2006) which is supported by the Parliament. Moreover, this form of financial support has a clear legal basis in the provision for financing consumer-oriented activities (1). This total funding cannot exceed 50 % of the expenditure for eligible activities.

The total Community funding to be awarded to the BEUC under these operational grants amounts to EUR 1 172 790 in 2004.

Furthermore, the Commission regularly, and following a call for proposals, grants subsidies to specific projects which aim to promote consumer interests in Member States (Articles 2 C and 6 of Decision No 283/1999 and action 18 of Decision No 20/2004, aforementioned).

Following the call for proposals published in September 2002 (2), the project ‘European Consumer Law Group’ submitted by the BEUC was selected (Community contribution requested: EUR 56 422,79).

The subsidies awarded will be published shortly on the Internet site of the Directorate-General for Health and Consumer Protection.

| 3. | There is no connection between the subsidies awarded by the Commission and the statement of views of the BEUC. The Commission's objective is to enable consumers to promote their interests in order to be on an equal footing with the other forces in civil society represented at Community level. One of the criteria for awarding subsidies is the widest possible dissemination of the results of the activities and projects supported, without bias as to their content.
  The statement of views of the BEUC, its proposals for objectives and its work programme are adopted by the General Assembly of its members. The BEUC is a federation of 36 national and independent consumer organisations in Europe, including the Federation of German Consumer Organisations (VZVB) and the Stiftung Warentest. |
| --- | --- |

3.

There is no connection between the subsidies awarded by the Commission and the statement of views of the BEUC. The Commission's objective is to enable consumers to promote their interests in order to be on an equal footing with the other forces in civil society represented at Community level. One of the criteria for awarding subsidies is the widest possible dissemination of the results of the activities and projects supported, without bias as to their content.

The statement of views of the BEUC, its proposals for objectives and its work programme are adopted by the General Assembly of its members. The BEUC is a federation of 36 national and independent consumer organisations in Europe, including the Federation of German Consumer Organisations (VZVB) and the Stiftung Warentest.

| 4. | The Commission was unaware of either the remarks made by Dr Beate Kohler-Koch or the criticism levelled against it. |
| --- | --- |

4.

The Commission was unaware of either the remarks made by Dr Beate Kohler-Koch or the criticism levelled against it.

---

(1)  Decision No 283/1999/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 January 1999 establishing a general framework for Community activities in favour of consumers, OJ L 34, 9.2.1999 for the years 1999 to 2003 and Decision No 20/2004/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 December 2003 establishing a general framework for financing Community actions in support of consumer policy for the years 2004 to 2007 (Text with EEA relevance), OJ L 5, 09.01.2004.

(2)  OJ C 218, 14.9.2002.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/949 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/949

---

(2004/C 78 E/1004)

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. | Can it say why it has not yet responded to the complaints concerning the high airport taxes charged by Spata airport. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Can it say why it has not yet responded to the complaints concerning the high airport taxes charged by Spata airport.

| 3. | Can it say 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.

Can it say 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?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(3 March 2004)

The Commission is collecting the information it needs to answer the question. It will communicate its findings as soon as possible.

---

(1)  OJ L 130, 25.5.1994, p. 1.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/950 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/950

---

(2004/C 78 E/1005)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0310/04

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(6 February 2004)

Subject:   Further reduction of educational facilities for the long-established Sorbian-speaking community in Lausitz, eastern Germany

| 1. | Is the Commission aware that in Lausitz, the Sorbian-speaking part of the east German Länder of Brandenburg and Saxony, a fresh conflict is brewing over educational facilities available to the Sorbian community, who belong to the Slavonic language group and who have lived in the region for centuries, as a result of the planned closure of the school in the village of Most (Heinersbrück) to the north-east of Chośebuz (Cottbus), after the school in Chrósčicy (Crostwitz) to the west of Budišin (Bautzen) was threatened with closure last year, and that problems have arisen because of a lack of teaching staff able to give lessons in Sorbian at Chośebuz secondary school? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is the Commission aware that in Lausitz, the Sorbian-speaking part of the east German Länder of Brandenburg and Saxony, a fresh conflict is brewing over educational facilities available to the Sorbian community, who belong to the Slavonic language group and who have lived in the region for centuries, as a result of the planned closure of the school in the village of Most (Heinersbrück) to the north-east of Chośebuz (Cottbus), after the school in Chrósčicy (Crostwitz) to the west of Budišin (Bautzen) was threatened with closure last year, and that problems have arisen because of a lack of teaching staff able to give lessons in Sorbian at Chośebuz secondary school?

| 2. | Does the Commission recall the justified efforts made by the EU to safeguard the use of Albanian, a language discriminated against and placed under threat by the authorities, in the north-west of the (former Yugoslav) Republic of Macedonia? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Does the Commission recall the justified efforts made by the EU to safeguard the use of Albanian, a language discriminated against and placed under threat by the authorities, in the north-west of the (former Yugoslav) Republic of Macedonia?

| 3. | How does the Commission view the fact that inhabitants of EU Member States, who are not immigrants but live on the territory historically inhabited by their ancestors, are being forced to change their choice of language because they are compelled by official policy to use a language other than their own for their education, participation in the political process, information or employment? |
| --- | --- |

3.

How does the Commission view the fact that inhabitants of EU Member States, who are not immigrants but live on the territory historically inhabited by their ancestors, are being forced to change their choice of language because they are compelled by official policy to use a language other than their own for their education, participation in the political process, information or employment?

| 4. | Does the Commission view the guaranteeing of linguistic and cultural diversity in Europe as one of its central tasks, thereby preventing ethnic divisions, possible outbreaks of violence and the creation of second-class citizens deprived of education and administration in their own language? |
| --- | --- |

4.

Does the Commission view the guaranteeing of linguistic and cultural diversity in Europe as one of its central tasks, thereby preventing ethnic divisions, possible outbreaks of violence and the creation of second-class citizens deprived of education and administration in their own language?

| 5. | How is the Commission encouraging Member States to resolve this kind of problem, bearing in mind Member States' own powers and in keeping with Articles 49 and 151 of the EC Treaty, the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms? Is the Commission calling for a raising of awareness of the diversity of peoples, languages and cultures in order to create a Europe permanently free of ethnic conflict? |
| --- | --- |

5.

How is the Commission encouraging Member States to resolve this kind of problem, bearing in mind Member States' own powers and in keeping with Articles 49 and 151 of the EC Treaty, the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms? Is the Commission calling for a raising of awareness of the diversity of peoples, languages and cultures in order to create a Europe permanently free of ethnic conflict?

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(8 March 2004)

| 1. | The Commission has taken note of the information on the situation involving Slavonic-speaking Sorbians based in Lausitz. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The Commission has taken note of the information on the situation involving Slavonic-speaking Sorbians based in Lausitz.

| 2. | The use of Albanian as an official language in the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia has been one of the core components of the negotiation of the Framework Agreement signed in Ohrid in August 2001 to settle peace and guarantee the unity and multi-ethnic dimension of the country. Minority languages are recognised as official languages in addition to the Macedonian language, for those minorities reaching 20 % of the population. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The use of Albanian as an official language in the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia has been one of the core components of the negotiation of the Framework Agreement signed in Ohrid in August 2001 to settle peace and guarantee the unity and multi-ethnic dimension of the country. Minority languages are recognised as official languages in addition to the Macedonian language, for those minorities reaching 20 % of the population.

| 3. | In the area of education, Article 149 of the EC Treaty provides that the content of teaching and the organisation of education systems are the responsibility of the Member States. |
| --- | --- |

3.

In the area of education, Article 149 of the EC Treaty provides that the content of teaching and the organisation of education systems are the responsibility of the Member States.

| 4. | In order to safeguard cultural and linguistic diversity, which is recognised as an integral part of the European cultural heritage, the Community acts within the limits of the powers conferred on it by the Treaties. In application of Article 151 (4) of the EC Treaty, which provides that cultural aspects must be taken into account in all Community action, projects to promote and safeguard regional and minority languages have been financed under existing Community actions and programmes such as Socrates and Interreg. |
| --- | --- |

4.

In order to safeguard cultural and linguistic diversity, which is recognised as an integral part of the European cultural heritage, the Community acts within the limits of the powers conferred on it by the Treaties. In application of Article 151 (4) of the EC Treaty, which provides that cultural aspects must be taken into account in all Community action, projects to promote and safeguard regional and minority languages have been financed under existing Community actions and programmes such as Socrates and Interreg.

| 5. | The rights of minorities are among the principles common to the Member States, which are listed in Article 6 of the Treaty on European Union. These principles have been solemnly reaffirmed by the Charter of fundamental rights of the European Union (1). Article 22 calls for cultural, religious and linguistic diversity to be respected. It should also be noted, however, that Article 51 of the Charter provides that its provisions are addressed to the institutions and bodies of the Union with due regard for the principle of subsidiarity and to the Member States only when they are implementing Union law.
  In its action plan, ‘Promoting Language Learning and Linguistic Diversity’ (2), the Commission proposes measures to be taken at EU level from 2004 to 2006 in order to create a language-friendly environment. |
| --- | --- |

5.

The rights of minorities are among the principles common to the Member States, which are listed in Article 6 of the Treaty on European Union. These principles have been solemnly reaffirmed by the Charter of fundamental rights of the European Union (1). Article 22 calls for cultural, religious and linguistic diversity to be respected. It should also be noted, however, that Article 51 of the Charter provides that its provisions are addressed to the institutions and bodies of the Union with due regard for the principle of subsidiarity and to the Member States only when they are implementing Union law.

In its action plan, ‘Promoting Language Learning and Linguistic Diversity’ (2), the Commission proposes measures to be taken at EU level from 2004 to 2006 in order to create a language-friendly environment.

---

(1)  OJ C 364, 18.12.2000.

(2)  COM(2003) 449 final.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/951 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/951

---

(2004/C 78 E/1006)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0314/04

by Ulpu Iivari (PSE) to the Commission

(2 February 2004)

Subject:   Effect of EU support on the shift of jobs within the EU

Wärtsila Oyj, a public limited company, is transferring its engine production from Turku in Finland to Trieste in Italy. What is happening in this case is that production and jobs are shifting from one Member State to another. Under certain circumstances support channelled via the EU Structural Funds can also lead to a situation in which companies are tempted to relocate production based in one EU country to another enjoying more attractive levels of support. The overall impact of such relocation can be very considerable in the country losing production and jobs.

| 1. | What kind of action does the Commission believe to be necessary to ensure that, instead of causing jobs to shift from one part of the EU to another, Structural Fund and other forms of EU support serve to create new jobs? |
| --- | --- |

1.

What kind of action does the Commission believe to be necessary to ensure that, instead of causing jobs to shift from one part of the EU to another, Structural Fund and other forms of EU support serve to create new jobs?

| 2. | What steps will the Commission take to harmonise protection against dismissal for employees and the dismissal costs incurred by employers within the EU area? |
| --- | --- |

2.

What steps will the Commission take to harmonise protection against dismissal for employees and the dismissal costs incurred by employers within the EU area?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(3 March 2004)

| 1. | Job shifts from one part of the EU to another should not be seen as related to Structural Fund interventions. Such shifts are rather linked to globalisation and differences in national policies (eg. labour and tax legislation) and practices.
  The Structural Funds aim to strengthen economic and social cohesion across the EU. In this respect, support for job creation is an essential tool within the wide scope of financed interventions. In particular, the European Social Fund (ESF) finances employment aids (according to Article 3.2.b of Regulation (EC) No 1784/1999 of the Parliament and of the Council of 12 July 1999 on the European Social Fund (1)). Such aids can be granted to enterprises for job creation and for job maintenance and recruitment of disadvantaged and disabled workers. Obviously, employment aids must be compatible with the common market rules and with the state aid rules as defined in Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty and implemented in the Regulations concerned (e.g. Commission Regulation (EC) No 2204/2002 of 12 December 2002 on the application of Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty to state aid for employment (2)).
  The ESF also promotes entrepreneurship. ESF support to various actions, including training and guidance, allows individuals to obtain the necessary knowledge and skills to set-up and run businesses. Support is also offered to entrepreneurs with a view to enable them to extend their economic activities. This entails the creation of new and better job places.
  Moreover, the rule aiming at avoiding the unfair competition between the regions was introduced by Article 30.4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 of 21 June 1999 laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds (3). According to it, Member States must ensure that an operation retains the contribution from Structural Funds only if it does not, within five years of the date of the decision concerning Structural Funds contribution, undergo substantial modifications which could affect the nature of the operation, its implementation conditions or give to a firm or a public body an undue advantage. Moreover, the modification cannot result from a change in the nature of ownership as regards infrastructure or from change in location in a productive activity. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Job shifts from one part of the EU to another should not be seen as related to Structural Fund interventions. Such shifts are rather linked to globalisation and differences in national policies (eg. labour and tax legislation) and practices.

The Structural Funds aim to strengthen economic and social cohesion across the EU. In this respect, support for job creation is an essential tool within the wide scope of financed interventions. In particular, the European Social Fund (ESF) finances employment aids (according to Article 3.2.b of Regulation (EC) No 1784/1999 of the Parliament and of the Council of 12 July 1999 on the European Social Fund (1)). Such aids can be granted to enterprises for job creation and for job maintenance and recruitment of disadvantaged and disabled workers. Obviously, employment aids must be compatible with the common market rules and with the state aid rules as defined in Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty and implemented in the Regulations concerned (e.g. Commission Regulation (EC) No 2204/2002 of 12 December 2002 on the application of Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty to state aid for employment (2)).

The ESF also promotes entrepreneurship. ESF support to various actions, including training and guidance, allows individuals to obtain the necessary knowledge and skills to set-up and run businesses. Support is also offered to entrepreneurs with a view to enable them to extend their economic activities. This entails the creation of new and better job places.

Moreover, the rule aiming at avoiding the unfair competition between the regions was introduced by Article 30.4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 of 21 June 1999 laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds (3). According to it, Member States must ensure that an operation retains the contribution from Structural Funds only if it does not, within five years of the date of the decision concerning Structural Funds contribution, undergo substantial modifications which could affect the nature of the operation, its implementation conditions or give to a firm or a public body an undue advantage. Moreover, the modification cannot result from a change in the nature of ownership as regards infrastructure or from change in location in a productive activity.

| 2. | The Commission would like to remind the Honourable Member that several Community Directives may apply to relocations of production with job losses. In recent years, the European Union has developed a workers involvement policy for dealing adequately with the social consequences in cases of restructuring of enterprises. As a result of that policy restructuring operations must be preceded by information and consultation of employees' representatives with the aim of avoiding or reducing its social impact, in accordance with Community Directives on ‘Collective Redundancies’ (4), ‘Transfers of Undertakings’ (5), ‘European Works Councils’ (6) and, from March 2005 onwards, “Information and Consultation” (7).
  The Commission advocates the idea that, when restructuring, 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 (8).
  Furthermore, in January 2002 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 have recently sent to the Commission the results of their joint work on this topic. They consist of a set of reference orientations which should guide companies and their workers when restructuring occurs. The Commission very much hopes that those results as well as other follow-up actions contribute to disseminate throughout Europe good practices of corporate restructuring, thus helping companies and their workers to address adequately the social dimension involved. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The Commission would like to remind the Honourable Member that several Community Directives may apply to relocations of production with job losses. In recent years, the European Union has developed a workers involvement policy for dealing adequately with the social consequences in cases of restructuring of enterprises. As a result of that policy restructuring operations must be preceded by information and consultation of employees' representatives with the aim of avoiding or reducing its social impact, in accordance with Community Directives on ‘Collective Redundancies’ (4), ‘Transfers of Undertakings’ (5), ‘European Works Councils’ (6) and, from March 2005 onwards, “Information and Consultation” (7).

The Commission advocates the idea that, when restructuring, 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 (8).

Furthermore, in January 2002 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 have recently sent to the Commission the results of their joint work on this topic. They consist of a set of reference orientations which should guide companies and their workers when restructuring occurs. The Commission very much hopes that those results as well as other follow-up actions contribute to disseminate throughout Europe good practices of corporate restructuring, thus helping companies and their workers to address adequately the social dimension involved.

---

(1)  OJ L 213, 13.8.1999.

(2)  OJ L 337, 13.12.2002.

(3)  OJ L 161, 26.6.1999.

(4)  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 (This Directive consolidates Directives 75/129/EEC and 92/56/EEC).

(5)  Council Directive 2001/23/EC of 12 March 2001 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the safeguarding of employees’ rights in the event of transfers of undertakings, businesses or parts of undertakings or businesses, OJ L 82, 22.3.2001.

(6)  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.

(7)  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 European Community, OJ L 80, 23.3.2002.

(8)  COM(2002) 347 final.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/953 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/953

---

(2004/C 78 E/1007)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0330/04

by Luigi Vinci (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(10 February 2004)

Subject:   Hospitals for ‘national defence’ in Italy

According to a series of articles published in the Italian press the L. Spallanzani hospital in Rome, which specialises in infectious diseases, is gradually becoming a hospital for ‘national defence’. This means that it is to have — if it does not already have — high-security laboratories to combat level-4 bacteria and viruses (Ebola, smallpox, infectious diseases, etc.).

Since the hospital is located in one of the most densely populated districts of Rome, can the Commission say whether it has obtained the required certification from international and European bodies allowing it to accommodate the necessary BSL4 chambers and, more specifically, in accordance with what forms of certification the L. Spallanzani hospital houses the highly pathogenic level 4 bacteria and viruses?

Finally, can the Commission say whether it knows of any bilateral agreements between Italy and the United States to combat bioterrorism?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(4 March 2004)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to written E-0095/04 by Mr Papayannakis (1)

---

(1)  See page 930.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/953 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/953

---

(2004/C 78 E/1008)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0454/04

by Ioannis Marínos (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(10 February 2004)

Subject:   Unemployment benefits in Greece

The main opposition party in Greece alleges that the Greek authorities only grant unemployment benefits to those persons who remain unemployed for 12 months, and that they take benefits away from those who go over this period, even if only by one day. It also alleges that unemployment benefits in Greece amount to barely 60 % of the Community average.

Is this practice by the Greek authorities compatible with Community regulations on the unemployed and long-term unemployment?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(4 March 2004)

The Commission has no direct competence in the field of unemployment insurance. It is therefore up to each Member State to organise its own unemployment benefit systems. Community legislation that applies to unemployment benefit schemes only concerns the rights of migrant workers and equal treatment of men and women. It does not harmonise benefit levels or the design of such schemes in the Member States. It should also be noted that benefit levels often reflect national earning levels.

Information on unemployment benefit schemes in other Member States is available in the Mutual Information System on Social Protection (Missoc) on the Commission's web site: (http://europa.eu.int/comm/employmentsocial/missoc/indexen.html).

The EU currently encourages Member States in their efforts to modernise labour markets through the European Employment Strategy, in particular by making unemployment insurance schemes more supportive of active and preventive measures for the unemployed. The aim is to prevent inflow into long-term unemployment and to promote the sustainable integration into employment of unemployed and inactive people.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/954 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/954

---

(2004/C 78 E/1009)

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?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(5 March 2004)

The Commission is collecting the information it needs to answer the question. It will communicate its findings as soon as possible.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/954 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/954

---

(2004/C 78 E/1010)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0542/04

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(26 February 2004)

Subject:   Active publication of information about subsidies and ratios between payments to large and small farms under the CAP

| 1. | Is the Commission aware of the report by the British organisation Oxfam which indicates that seven large land-owners in Britain receive an average of GBP 285 714 per annum in cereal subsidies from the EU, while 15 181 small farmers in Britain receive an annual average of only GBP 3 632 in EU cereal subsidies? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is the Commission aware of the report by the British organisation Oxfam which indicates that seven large land-owners in Britain receive an average of GBP 285 714 per annum in cereal subsidies from the EU, while 15 181 small farmers in Britain receive an annual average of only GBP 3 632 in EU cereal subsidies?

| 2. | Can the Commission confirm that a very large proportion of these subsidies goes to the affluent regions of Eastern England and Lincolnshire and that this allocation ratio, which benefits large farmers, also will not change significantly after the proposed agricultural policy reform? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Can the Commission confirm that a very large proportion of these subsidies goes to the affluent regions of Eastern England and Lincolnshire and that this allocation ratio, which benefits large farmers, also will not change significantly after the proposed agricultural policy reform?

| 3. | Is the Commission aware of similar situations in other EU Member States, particularly those where there are big disparities in the size of arable and livestock farms? Are such situations most extreme in the southern Member States? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Is the Commission aware of similar situations in other EU Member States, particularly those where there are big disparities in the size of arable and livestock farms? Are such situations most extreme in the southern Member States?

| 4. | Can the Commission outline the distribution of EU farm subsidies to Dutch farmers in 2001, 2002 and 2003, broken down according to farm size? If so, how soon can it do so? If not, why not? |
| --- | --- |

4.

Can the Commission outline the distribution of EU farm subsidies to Dutch farmers in 2001, 2002 and 2003, broken down according to farm size? If so, how soon can it do so? If not, why not?

| 5. | Can the Commission tell me which ten Dutch legal persons received most in EU farm subsidies in 2001, 2002 and 2003 and how much farm subsidy they received? If so, how soon can it do so? If not, why not? |
| --- | --- |

5.

Can the Commission tell me which ten Dutch legal persons received most in EU farm subsidies in 2001, 2002 and 2003 and how much farm subsidy they received? If so, how soon can it do so? If not, why not?

| 6. | Does the Commission agree that the European public have a right to complete information about where EU farm subsidies go, who receives them and what kind of farms benefit most/least from them? If not, why not? |
| --- | --- |

6.

Does the Commission agree that the European public have a right to complete information about where EU farm subsidies go, who receives them and what kind of farms benefit most/least from them? If not, why not?

| 7. | Will the Commission, in consultation with the Council, take measures to try to make such transparency possible in every EU Member State? If so, what steps will it take, and how soon? If not, why not? |
| --- | --- |

7.

Will the Commission, in consultation with the Council, take measures to try to make such transparency possible in every EU Member State? If so, what steps will it take, and how soon? If not, why not?

Sources:

| — | Dutch newspaper ‘de Volkskrant’, 23 January 2004: ‘Rijkste Britten innen meeste landbouwsubsidies’ (Rich Britons receive most farm subsidies). |
| --- | --- |

—

Dutch newspaper ‘de Volkskrant’, 23 January 2004: ‘Rijkste Britten innen meeste landbouwsubsidies’ (Rich Britons receive most farm subsidies).

| — | http://www.oxfam.org.uk/press/releases/subsidies220104.htm |
| --- | --- |

—

http://www.oxfam.org.uk/press/releases/subsidies220104.htm

| — | http://www.oxfam.org.uk/press/releases/subsidies220104_facts.htm |
| --- | --- |

—

http://www.oxfam.org.uk/press/releases/subsidies220104_facts.htm

| — | http://www.minlnv.nl/infomart/parlemnt/2003/par03100.htm |
| --- | --- |

—

http://www.minlnv.nl/infomart/parlemnt/2003/par03100.htm

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(9 March 2004)

The Commission is collecting the information it needs to answer the question. It will communicate its findings as soon as possible.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/955 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/955

---

(2004/C 78 E/1011)

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?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(22 March 2004)

The Commission is collecting the information it needs to answer the question. It will communicate its findings as soon as possible.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/956 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/956

---

(2004/C 78 E/1012)

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?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(22 March 2004)

The Commission is collecting the information it needs to answer the question. It will communicate its findings as soon as possible.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/956 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/956

---

(2004/C 78 E/1013)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0545/04

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(26 February 2004)

Subject:   CAP: consequences of the distribution of the reduction in income in agriculture and financing of techniques which promote animal welfare or are environmentally sound for use on small farms

| 1. | Is the Commission aware of the report commissioned by the Netherlands Minister of Agriculture, Nature Management and Fisheries and submitted on 1 April 2003 by the Agricultural Economics Research Institute (LEI) which analyses the impact of the Commission's reform proposals on developments in agriculture and particularly on farm incomes, and which indicates in particular that in the Netherlands the areas under cereals and fodder maize will decline substantially while cultivation of potatoes and vegetables will increase, the area of pastureland will increase by 5 % and family incomes will fall by 28,4 % from their present level of approximately EUR 30 000, the largest fall being 49 % in dairy farming? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is the Commission aware of the report commissioned by the Netherlands Minister of Agriculture, Nature Management and Fisheries and submitted on 1 April 2003 by the Agricultural Economics Research Institute (LEI) which analyses the impact of the Commission's reform proposals on developments in agriculture and particularly on farm incomes, and which indicates in particular that in the Netherlands the areas under cereals and fodder maize will decline substantially while cultivation of potatoes and vegetables will increase, the area of pastureland will increase by 5 % and family incomes will fall by 28,4 % from their present level of approximately EUR 30 000, the largest fall being 49 % in dairy farming?

| 2. | How is this decline in income likely to work out for the EU as a whole in the categories less than 25 ha, 25-50 ha, 50-75 ha, 75-100 ha, 100-500 ha, 500-1 000 ha and more than 1 000 ha, broken down in percentages by type of farm in arable farming and livestock farming? |
| --- | --- |

2.

How is this decline in income likely to work out for the EU as a whole in the categories less than 25 ha, 25-50 ha, 50-75 ha, 75-100 ha, 100-500 ha, 500-1 000 ha and more than 1 000 ha, broken down in percentages by type of farm in arable farming and livestock farming?

| 3. | In the reform plans, the Commission rightly intends to emphasise farming which promotes animal welfare and is environmentally sound, as an additional condition for payment of subsidies. How will the Commission ensure that this emphasis does not result in the most subsidies going to large farms which have greater resources by means of which to apply new and expensive techniques, while smaller farms which have already opted to adopt organic cultivation methods unaided are placed at a disadvantage? |
| --- | --- |

3.

In the reform plans, the Commission rightly intends to emphasise farming which promotes animal welfare and is environmentally sound, as an additional condition for payment of subsidies. How will the Commission ensure that this emphasis does not result in the most subsidies going to large farms which have greater resources by means of which to apply new and expensive techniques, while smaller farms which have already opted to adopt organic cultivation methods unaided are placed at a disadvantage?

| 4. | Small farms in the new Member States which currently operate without new environmentally friendly techniques are particularly likely to find themselves at a disadvantage as regards the share they receive of grants to help finance desirable technical innovations. What will the Commission do to prevent this? |
| --- | --- |

4.

Small farms in the new Member States which currently operate without new environmentally friendly techniques are particularly likely to find themselves at a disadvantage as regards the share they receive of grants to help finance desirable technical innovations. What will the Commission do to prevent this?

| 5. | In view of the anticipated unintended effects, will the Commission amend elements of its reform plans? |
| --- | --- |

5.

In view of the anticipated unintended effects, will the Commission amend elements of its reform plans?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(22 March 2004)

The Commission is collecting the information it needs to answer the question. It will communicate its findings as soon as possible.

---

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/957 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/957

---

(2004/C 78 E/1014)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0616/04

by Klaus Hänsch (PSE) to the Commission

(1 March 2004)

Subject:   Allocation of EU resources

As regards the allocation of EU resources to the district (Kreis) of Mettmann and the cities of Duisburg, Düsseldorf, Neuss, Remscheid, Solingen and Wuppertal (in North Rhine-Westphalia), will the Commission give:

| 1. | The total amount and breakdown of EU structural resources received under the individual funds and the various Community programmes and initiatives? |
| --- | --- |

1.

The total amount and breakdown of EU structural resources received under the individual funds and the various Community programmes and initiatives?

| 2. | The amount of EU resources allocated since 1999 under other budgetary headings for pilot projects or — as direct aid — to universities, research establishments, enterprises and other bodies in the above-mentioned cities and the district of Mettmann? |
| --- | --- |

2.

The amount of EU resources allocated since 1999 under other budgetary headings for pilot projects or — as direct aid — to universities, research establishments, enterprises and other bodies in the above-mentioned cities and the district of Mettmann?

| 3. | The number of jobs created or maintained by means of this assistance? |
| --- | --- |

3.

The number of jobs created or maintained by means of this assistance?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(4 March 2004)

The Commission is collecting the information it needs to answer the question. It will communicate its findings as soon as possible.

---