# Official Journal C 88E/2004

| | ISSN 1725-2423 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 88E |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 478 April 2004 |

ISSN 1725-2423

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 88E

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 478 April 2004

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | I   (Information) |
| | EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT |
| | WRITTEN QUESTIONS WITH ANSWER (Part 1) |
| 2004/C 088E/1 | E-2236/02 by Gabriele Stauner to the CommissionSubject: Award of Commission contracts to audit firms (Supplementary Answer) | 1 |
| 2004/C 088E/2 | P-0043/03 by Gian Gobbo to the CommissionSubject: Introduction of a minimum rate of excise duty on wine | 2 |
| 2004/C 088E/3 | E-0052/03 by Hanja Maij-Weggen to the CommissionSubject: Human rights situation in Vietnam | 3 |
| 2004/C 088E/4 | E-0084/03 by Carlos Bautista Ojeda to the CommissionSubject: EU/Morocco policies | 4 |
| 2004/C 088E/5 | E-0086/03 by Roger Helmer to the CommissionSubject: Killing of children in Honduras | 5 |
| 2004/C 088E/6 | E-0097/03 by Phillip Whitehead to the CommissionSubject: The rights of street children in Honduras and Guatemala | 5 |
| Joint answer to Written Questions E-0086/03 and E-0097/03 |
| 2004/C 088E/7 | E-0238/03 by Marjo Matikainen-Kallström to the CommissionSubject: Clarification of the status of the Northern Dimension in the EU budget | 6 |
| 2004/C 088E/8 | E-0258/03 by Bob van den Bos to the CommissionSubject: Enlargement and development cooperation | 7 |
| 2004/C 088E/9 | E-0278/03 by Gianfranco Dell’Alba to the CommissionSubject: Irregularities in the election process in Cambodia | 8 |
| 2004/C 088E/0 | P-0325/03 by Marco Pannella to the CommissionSubject: Increasing violations of fundamental human rights of Montagnard population in the Vietnamese highlands | 10 |
| 2004/C 088E/1 | E-0356/03 by Bill Newton Dunn and Baroness Sarah Ludford to the CommissionSubject: Human rights abuses in Honduras | 11 |
| 2004/C 088E/2 | E-0434/03 by Erik Meijer to the CommissionSubject: Sterilisation of young Roma women in Slovakia on the basis of misleading information or without their consent | 12 |
| 2004/C 088E/3 | E-0569/03 by Freddy Blak to the CommissionSubject: Refund of registration fee in respect of exports from Denmark (Supplementary Answer) | 13 |
| 2004/C 088E/4 | E-0609/03 by José Ribeiro e Castro to the CommissionSubject: EU/East Timor 1999-2003: cooperation, development, human rights, assistance, etc | 14 |
| 2004/C 088E/5 | E-0824/03 by Paul Rübig to the CommissionSubject: Restrictions on the transfer of securities in the Czech Republic | 16 |
| 2004/C 088E/6 | E-0904/03 by Jan Mulder to the CommissionSubject: Use of agricultural diesel in border areas | 17 |
| 2004/C 088E/7 | P-1139/03 by Joke Swiebel to the CommissionSubject: Extortion against holidaymakers travelling through Bulgaria | 18 |
| 2004/C 088E/8 | E-1142/03 by Stavros Xarchakos to the CommissionSubject: Protection of archaeological museum exhibits in Iraq | 19 |
| 2004/C 088E/9 | E-1148/03 by Graham Watson to the CommissionSubject: Seychelles | 20 |
| 2004/C 088E/0 | E-1150/03 by Graham Watson to the CommissionSubject: Seychelles | 20 |
| Joint answer to Written Questions E-1148/03 and E-1150/03 |
| 2004/C 088E/1 | E-1282/03 by Ria Oomen-Ruijten to the CommissionSubject: Red diesel in agricultural vehicles | 21 |
| 2004/C 088E/2 | E-1295/03 by José Ribeiro e Castro to the CommissionSubject: Cuba - political prisoners | 22 |
| 2004/C 088E/3 | E-1311/03 by Bill Newton Dunn to the CommissionSubject: The imprisonment of Dr Oscar Ellis Biscet by the Cuban authorities | 22 |
| 2004/C 088E/4 | E-1347/03 by Charles Tannock to the CommissionSubject: Human rights abuses in Cuba | 22 |
| Joint answer to Written Questions E-1295/03, E-1311/03 and E-1347/03 |
| 2004/C 088E/5 | E-1312/03 by Bill Newton Dunn to the CommissionSubject: The situation of Mrs Siham Qandah, a Jordanian Christian | 23 |
| 2004/C 088E/6 | E-1334/03 by Luigi Cocilovo to the CommissionSubject: VAT on books | 24 |
| 2004/C 088E/7 | E-1339/03 by Maurizio Turco and Marco Cappato to the CommissionSubject: Persecution of homosexuals in the Palestinian Authority territories and Israeli expulsions of Palestinian homosexuals | 25 |
| 2004/C 088E/8 | P-1345/03 by Mario Borghezio to the CommissionSubject: EU penalties for collusion by European banks with the Baghdad regime | 26 |
| 2004/C 088E/9 | E-1382/03 by Erik Meijer to the CommissionSubject: Consequences of the Copenhagen criteria for suppressing oppositions, restricting free expression of opinion, banning organisations and increasing the prison population | 27 |
| 2004/C 088E/0 | P-1384/03 by Gian Gobbo to the CommissionSubject: Turkish occupation of Iraqi Kurdistan | 28 |
| 2004/C 088E/1 | E-1414/03 by Graham Watson to the CommissionSubject: Burma refugee acceptance into Thailand | 29 |
| 2004/C 088E/2 | E-1417/03 by Bob van den Bos, Margrietus van den Berg, Maria Martens and Joost Lagendijk to the CommissionSubject: Situation of religious minorities in Gujarat, India | 30 |
| 2004/C 088E/3 | E-1467/03 by Charles Tannock to the CommissionSubject: Killing of Street Children in Guatemala and Honduras | 31 |
| 2004/C 088E/4 | E-1469/03 by Paulo Casaca to the CommissionSubject: Wave of arrests in Cuba | 32 |
| 2004/C 088E/5 | E-1471/03 by Herman Schmid to the CommissionSubject: Prisoners at Guantanamo Bay | 33 |
| 2004/C 088E/6 | E-1484/03 by Charles Tannock to the CommissionSubject: Graduation of General Sector Preferences Sector V imports with respect to employment alternatives to illegal drug production in Colombia | 34 |
| 2004/C 088E/7 | E-1492/03 by Margrietus van den Berg to the CommissionSubject: Coffee negotiations | 35 |
| 2004/C 088E/8 | E-1497/03 by Glyn Ford to the CommissionSubject: Destruction of EU property in Palestine | 35 |
| 2004/C 088E/9 | E-1559/03 by Claude Moraes to the CommissionSubject: The situation in Somalia | 36 |
| 2004/C 088E/0 | P-1630/03 by Nelly Maes to the CommissionSubject: Forced sterilisation of Roma women | 37 |
| 2004/C 088E/1 | E-1665/03 by Luigi Vinci to the CommissionSubject: Kurdish language teaching in Turkey | 38 |
| 2004/C 088E/2 | E-1678/03 by José Ribeiro e Castro to the CommissionSubject: Angola - child soldiers | 39 |
| 2004/C 088E/3 | E-1693/03 by Erik Meijer to the CommissionSubject: Underhand method of awarding contracts for reconstruction and management in Iraq to US firms by the US Army | 40 |
| 2004/C 088E/4 | E-1694/03 by Erik Meijer to the CommissionSubject: Ongoing and permanent take-over of the Iraqi economy and oil reserves by US firms | 41 |
| Joint answer to Written Questions E-1693/03 and E-1694/03 |
| 2004/C 088E/5 | E-1695/03 by Mario Mantovani and Antonio Tajani to the CommissionSubject: Humanitarian emergency in Iraq: the plight of children, disabled people and the elderly in hospitals. | 42 |
| 2004/C 088E/6 | E-1732/03 by Freddy Blak to the CommissionSubject: Discriminatory Danish excise duty on beer | 44 |
| 2004/C 088E/7 | E-1833/03 by Anna Karamanou to the CommissionSubject: Iraq — serious danger to civilians from unexploded landmines and looting activities | 45 |
| 2004/C 088E/8 | P-1840/03 by Michael Cashman to the CommissionSubject: Post-Iraq-War aid | 45 |
| 2004/C 088E/9 | E-1844/03 by Bill Miller to the CommissionSubject: Treatment of gays, lesbians and transsexuals in Poland | 46 |
| 2004/C 088E/0 | E-1848/03 by Luigi Vinci to the CommissionSubject: Investigation into the chairman of the Diyarbakir Human Rights Association | 47 |
| 2004/C 088E/1 | E-1858/03 by Proinsias De Rossa to the CommissionSubject: EU funding for rehabilitation of torture survivors | 48 |
| 2004/C 088E/2 | E-1897/03 by Nelly Maes to the CommissionSubject: Food aid for Zimbabwe | 49 |
| 2004/C 088E/3 | P-1923/03 by Helena Torres Marques to the CommissionSubject: EU funds for the Caribbean tourism sector (follow-up to the reply given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission to Written Question P-0743/03) | 50 |
| 2004/C 088E/4 | E-1928/03 by Maria Carrilho to the CommissionSubject: Aid to uprooted people in Asia and Latin America: revision of Regulation (EC) No 2130/2001 of 29 October 2001 | 51 |
| 2004/C 088E/5 | E-1949/03 by Christa Randzio-Plath to the CommissionSubject: TEKEL alcohol monopoly | 52 |
| 2004/C 088E/6 | E-1954/03 by Jannis Sakellariou to the CommissionSubject: Human rights situation facing Yezidi in Georgia | 53 |
| 2004/C 088E/7 | E-1984/03 by Alexandros Alavanos to the CommissionSubject: Turkish violations of Greek airspace | 54 |
| 2004/C 088E/8 | E-2050/03 by Konstantinos Hatzidakis to the CommissionSubject: Harassment of a Greek passenger plane by Turkish warplanes | 54 |
| 2004/C 088E/9 | E-2083/03 by Rodi Kratsa-Tsagaropoulou to the CommissionSubject: Violations of Greek air space by Turkish aircraft and security of the inhabitants of the Aegean | 55 |
| Joint answer to Written Questions E-1984/03, E-2050/03 and E-2083/03 |
| 2004/C 088E/0 | E-1985/03 by Anna Karamanou to the CommissionSubject: Scandal involving illegal sterilisations in Slovakia | 55 |
| 2004/C 088E/1 | E-2004/03 by Salvador Garriga Polledo to the CommissionSubject: World Medicines Bank for poor countries | 56 |
| 2004/C 088E/2 | E-2019/03 by Bart Staes to the CommissionSubject: Anti-dumping duty on bicycles imported from China | 57 |
| 2004/C 088E/3 | E-2022/03 by Lennart Sacrédeus to the CommissionSubject: Arrest of Nobel Peace Prize laureate Aung San Suu Kyi | 58 |
| 2004/C 088E/4 | E-2024/03 by Maurizio Turco to the CommissionSubject: Violation of freedom of worship in Turkmenistan | 59 |
| 2004/C 088E/5 | E-2028/03 by Erik Meijer to the CommissionSubject: Greek customs authorities’ unnecessarily lengthy procedure of collecting up EU citizens’ passports at the border with Macedonia, a procedure that is also open to fraud (Supplementary Answer) | 60 |
| 2004/C 088E/6 | E-2055/03 by Bartho Pronk to the CommissionSubject: Trade union rights for police officers in Latvia | 61 |
| 2004/C 088E/7 | E-2058/03 by Nelly Maes to the CommissionSubject: ACP bananas | 62 |
| 2004/C 088E/8 | E-2091/03 by Paulo Casaca to the CommissionSubject: Rules for calculating aid for tropical products from ACP countries | 62 |
| Joint answer to Written Questions E-2058/03 and E-2091/03 |
| 2004/C 088E/9 | E-2066/03 by Maurizio Turco to the CommissionSubject: Republic of Italy: application of the directive on VAT in connection with intra-Community supplies | 64 |
| 2004/C 088E/0 | P-2078/03 by Ilda Figueiredo to the CommissionSubject: Portuguese milk quota | 65 |
| 2004/C 088E/1 | E-2086/03 by Glenys Kinnock to the CommissionSubject: Situation of Christians in Egypt | 65 |
| 2004/C 088E/2 | E-2089/03 by José Gil-Robles Gil-Delgado to the CommissionSubject: Clarification concerning the budget line for non-governmental organisations involved in combating torture | 66 |
| 2004/C 088E/3 | P-2104/03 by Bob van den Bos to the CommissionSubject: Burmese Rohingya refugees | 67 |
| 2004/C 088E/4 | P-2155/03 by Hanja Maij-Weggen to the CommissionSubject: Position of the Rohingya in Bangladesh | 68 |
| Joint answer to Written Questions P-2104/03 and P-2155/03 |
| 2004/C 088E/5 | E-2116/03 by Claude Moraes to the CommissionSubject: The situation in Sudan | 69 |
| 2004/C 088E/6 | E-2130/03 by Markus Ferber to the CommissionSubject: Commission support for NGOs | 69 |
| 2004/C 088E/7 | E-2162/03 by Herbert Bösch to the CommissionSubject: Budget line B7-7010: no call for proposals in 2003 and its consequences for addressing the human rights of disabled people | 70 |
| 2004/C 088E/8 | E-2184/03 by Maurizio Turco to the CommissionSubject: Further violations of religious freedom in Turkmenistan | 71 |
| 2004/C 088E/9 | P-2198/03 by Niall Andrews to the CommissionSubject: Safeguarding human rights in Mexico | 72 |
| 2004/C 088E/0 | E-2223/03 by Paulo Casaca to the CommissionSubject: Secret European Union agreements with third parties on nuclear power | 73 |
| 2004/C 088E/1 | E-2229/03 by José Ribeiro e Castro to the CommissionSubject: Oil revenue, Angola, transparency | 74 |
| 2004/C 088E/2 | E-2244/03 by Elspeth Attwooll to the CommissionSubject: Wild birds directive in Malta | 75 |
| 2004/C 088E/3 | P-2303/03 by José Ribeiro e Castro to the CommissionSubject: Cuba - European Commission delegation - human rights | 76 |
| 2004/C 088E/4 | E-2304/03 by Emma Bonino to the CommissionSubject: Opening of a European Commission delegation in Yemen | 76 |
| 2004/C 088E/5 | E-2308/03 by José Ribeiro e Castro to the CommissionSubject: Africa - oil - poverty | 77 |
| 2004/C 088E/6 | E-2321/03 by Freddy Blak to the CommissionSubject: Number of Commission officials dealing with external relations | 78 |
| 2004/C 088E/7 | E-2345/03 by Erik Meijer and Alexander de Roo to the CommissionSubject: Protection of unspoiled natural and cultural landscapes with a potential for ecotourism in the mountain region in the Polish province of Dolnoslaœkie, Lower Silesia | 79 |
| 2004/C 088E/8 | E-2346/03 by Erik Meijer and Alexander de Roo to the CommissionSubject: Devastation of previously unspoiled natural and cultural landscapes and destruction of ecotourism due to the increase in opencast mining and quarrying in the Polish province of Dolnoslaœkie, Lower Silesia | 79 |
| Joint answer to Written Questions E-2345/03 and E-2346/03 |
| 2004/C 088E/9 | E-2354/03 by Mary Honeyball to the CommissionSubject: Local government in ACP countries | 82 |
| 2004/C 088E/0 | E-2363/03 by Stavros Xarchakos to the CommissionSubject: Research by a Turkish vessel in Greek territorial waters in the Aegean | 83 |
| 2004/C 088E/1 | E-2392/03 by Anna Karamanou to the CommissionSubject: Stoning of Semsiye Allak in the village of Yalim, Turkey | 84 |
| 2004/C 088E/2 | E-2402/03 by Mario Borghezio to the CommissionSubject: Turkey: book-burning and State jobs for 15000 imams | 85 |
| 2004/C 088E/3 | E-2442/03 by Jürgen Zimmerling to the CommissionSubject: Help for Madagascar | 85 |
| 2004/C 088E/4 | E-2490/03 by Bob van den Bos and Bashir Khanbhai to the CommissionSubject: Food aid to Ethiopia | 87 |
| 2004/C 088E/5 | E-2504/03 by Esko Seppänen to the CommissionSubject: Double taxation of returning migrants | 88 |
| 2004/C 088E/6 | E-2512/03 by Koenraad Dillen to the CommissionSubject: Support for victims of the crisis in the Palestinian territories | 88 |
| 2004/C 088E/7 | P-2514/03 by Dorette Corbey to the CommissionSubject: Medicinal products: specific exception to patent rights | 90 |
| 2004/C 088E/8 | E-2531/03 by Gabriele Stauner to the CommissionSubject: Carpetbaggers and thieves in Kosovo | 91 |
| 2004/C 088E/9 | E-2542/03 by Maurizio Turco to the CommissionSubject: Violation of religious freedom in Russia | 93 |
| 2004/C 088E/0 | E-2551/03 by Avril Doyle to the CommissionSubject: EU failure to disburse overseas aid | 94 |
| 2004/C 088E/1 | E-2552/03 by Jules Maaten to the CommissionSubject: The case of Vinh Binh Trinh in Vietnam | 96 |
| 2004/C 088E/2 | E-2558/03 by Robert Evans to the CommissionSubject: Human rights in Peru | 97 |
| 2004/C 088E/3 | E-2563/03 by Maurizio Turco to the CommissionSubject: Compatibility between the violence perpetrated by the Sudanese dictatorial regime and the agreement initialled by the European Union and Sudan | 98 |
| 2004/C 088E/4 | E-2574/03 by Margrietus van den Berg to the CommissionSubject: Violation of international directives by a Dutch company in the DRC | 99 |
| 2004/C 088E/5 | E-2579/03 by Erik Meijer to the CommissionSubject: Confiscation of euro bank notes belonging to, and robbery of, families of Turkish origin from EU Member States during their annual journey home through Bulgaria | 100 |
| 2004/C 088E/6 | E-2585/03 by Konstantinos Hatzidakis to the CommissionSubject: Taxation of low-proof alcoholic beverages | 102 |
| 2004/C 088E/7 | E-2588/03 by Marco Pannella to the CommissionSubject: Execution of Faramaz Mohammadi, the 19-year-old leader of the student movement at Tabriz University (Iran) | 103 |
| 2004/C 088E/8 | E-2593/03 by Graham Watson to the CommissionSubject: Persecution of Christians in Pakistan | 104 |
| 2004/C 088E/9 | E-2594/03 by Claude Moraes to the CommissionSubject: Persecution of Christians | 104 |
| 2004/C 088E/0 | E-2604/03 by Alexandros Alavanos to the CommissionSubject: Protection of excavations at ancient Salamis, Cyprus | 105 |
| 2004/C 088E/1 | E-2613/03 by Maurizio Turco, Marco Pannella, Marco Cappato and Gianfranco Dell’Alba to the CommissionSubject: Crimen Sollicitationis Instruction issued by the Supreme and Holy Congregation of the Holy Office of the Holy See to cover up sexual abuse by clergy | 106 |
| 2004/C 088E/2 | E-2615/03 by Philip Claeys to the CommissionSubject: New responsibilities for Commissioner Verheugen | 107 |
| 2004/C 088E/3 | E-2664/03 by Terence Wynn to the CommissionSubject: Manufactured products from third countries | 108 |
| 2004/C 088E/4 | E-2703/03 by Luigi Vinci to the CommissionSubject: The sociologist Mehmet Bercet and the head of the Goc-Der refugee organisation, Sefika Gurbuz, on trial in Turkey for inciting racial hatred | 109 |
| 2004/C 088E/5 | E-2725/03 by Jules Maaten to the CommissionSubject: Corruption at the Bulgarian border | 110 |
| 2004/C 088E/6 | E-2742/03 by Richard Corbett to the CommissionSubject: Slovakia | 111 |
| 2004/C 088E/7 | E-2743/03 by Richard Corbett to the CommissionSubject: Slovakia | 112 |
| 2004/C 088E/8 | E-2744/03 by Richard Corbett to the CommissionSubject: Slovakia | 112 |
| 2004/C 088E/9 | E-2759/03 by Fernando Fernández Martín to the CommissionSubject: Method of calculating financial assistance to traditional ACP banana suppliers | 113 |
| 2004/C 088E/0 | E-2775/03 by Jules Maaten to the CommissionSubject: Unlawful detention of an EU citizen in Thailand | 114 |
| 2004/C 088E/1 | E-2784/03 by Cristiana Muscardini, Antonio Mussa and Adriana Poli Bortone to the CommissionSubject: Elections in Albania | 115 |
| 2004/C 088E/2 | E-2804/03 by Elisabeth Jeggle to the CommissionSubject: Urbs Asia Contract No Ala/95-21-b7-3010/39 | 116 |
| 2004/C 088E/3 | E-2815/03 by Glyn Ford to the CommissionSubject: Arrest and detention of Rev. Rinaldy Damanik in Central Sulawesi, Indonesia | 117 |
| 2004/C 088E/4 | P-2854/03 by Rodi Kratsa-Tsagaropoulou to the CommissionSubject: The MEDA Programme and women | 117 |
| 2004/C 088E/5 | E-2884/03 by Charles Tannock to the CommissionSubject: Persecution of Christians in Egypt | 118 |
| 2004/C 088E/6 | E-2889/03 by Samuli Pohjamo and Mikko Pesälä to the CommissionSubject: Need for a minimum import price for, and import duty on, Norwegian salmon and rainbow trout | 118 |
| 2004/C 088E/7 | E-2919/03 by Marco Cappato and Maurizio Turco to the CommissionSubject: Case of Italian citizen Maurizio Trotta, imprisoned in Romania | 120 |
| 2004/C 088E/8 | E-2922/03 by Claude Moraes to the CommissionSubject: Commercial sanctions against Burma | 121 |
| 2004/C 088E/9 | E-2934/03 by José Ribeiro e Castro to the CommissionSubject: Cuba - Spanish Cultural Centre | 122 |
| 2004/C 088E/0 | E-2953/03 by Maurizio Turco and Marco Cappato to the CommissionSubject: Sentence of death by stoning in Nigeria | 123 |
| 2004/C 088E/1 | E-2955/03 by Maurizio Turco and Marco Cappato to the CommissionSubject: Yet another case of persecution of homosexuals in Egypt | 123 |
| 2004/C 088E/2 | E-2988/03 by Bart Staes and Jan Dhaene to the CommissionSubject: Forest Law Enforcement, Governance and Trade Action Plan | 124 |
| 2004/C 088E/3 | E-2995/03 by Rodi Kratsa-Tsagaropoulou to the CommissionSubject: Damage to valuable relics contained in the temple of St Sophia | 125 |
| 2004/C 088E/4 | E-3013/03 by Marco Cappato to the CommissionSubject: The case of the Tunisian journalist Néziha Rejiba | 126 |
| 2004/C 088E/5 | E-3025/03 by Konstantinos Hatzidakis to the CommissionSubject: Human rights violations against Greeks on the island of Imbros through the Turkish national land register | 127 |
| 2004/C 088E/6 | E-3032/03 by Jonas Sjöstedt to the CommissionSubject: Denigration by Turkey of its ethnic minorities | 128 |
| 2004/C 088E/7 | E-3045/03 by Proinsias De Rossa to the CommissionSubject: Child labour | 129 |
| 2004/C 088E/8 | E-3133/03 by José Ribeiro e Castro to the CommissionSubject: Angola - Falcone | 130 |
| 2004/C 088E/9 | E-3143/03 by Stavros Xarchakos to the CommissionSubject: Automobile prices in Greece and ban on diesel motors in Athens and Thessaloniki | 131 |
| 2004/C 088E/0 | E-3159/03 by Dirk Sterckx to the CommissionSubject: Unequal treatment of professional removal firms importing loads into the EU from non-Member States as a result of differing interpretations of Regulation (EEC) 918/83 | 132 |
| 2004/C 088E/1 | E-3163/03 by Bill Miller to the CommissionSubject: Regional policy in Hungary | 134 |
| 2004/C 088E/2 | E-3185/03 by Geoffrey Van Orden to the CommissionSubject: Duty free allowances in the Canary Islands | 135 |
| 2004/C 088E/3 | E-3223/03 by Anna Karamanou to the CommissionSubject: Children sentenced to death in the Philippines | 136 |
| 2004/C 088E/4 | E-3244/03 by Margrietus van den Berg to the CommissionSubject: Policy Coherence for Development Network | 137 |
| 2004/C 088E/5 | E-3252/03 by Baroness Sarah Ludford to the CommissionSubject: International Criminal tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) | 137 |
| 2004/C 088E/6 | E-3263/03 by Erik Meijer to the CommissionSubject: Powers of the region of Wallonia to approve arms exports, and the use of such weapons to repress the people of Nepal | 138 |
| 2004/C 088E/7 | E-3292/03 by Claude Moraes to the CommissionSubject: Shariah Law | 139 |
| 2004/C 088E/8 | P-3303/03 by Luigi Vinci to the CommissionSubject: Turkey and latest report of the Human Rights Association of Turkey (IHD) | 140 |
| 2004/C 088E/9 | P-3375/03 by Antonios Trakatellis to the CommissionSubject: Nuclear safety: plant decommissioning and incorporation of costs | 141 |
| 2004/C 088E/0 | E-3382/03 by Cristiana Muscardini to the CommissionSubject: Kidnapping of a Médecins Sans Frontières volunteer | 142 |
| 2004/C 088E/1 | E-3399/03 by Olle Schmidt to the CommissionSubject: Azerbaijan | 143 |
| 2004/C 088E/2 | P-3402/03 by Anna Karamanou to the CommissionSubject: Cross amputation of sixteen-year-old in Sudan | 144 |
| 2004/C 088E/3 | E-3435/03 by Stavros Xarchakos to the CommissionSubject: Act of provocation by Bulgaria towards a Member State | 144 |
| 2004/C 088E/4 | E-3443/03 by José Ribeiro e Castro to the CommissionSubject: Palestinian authority - diversion of funds | 145 |
| 2004/C 088E/5 | E-3449/03 by Peter Skinner to the CommissionSubject: Smokes Direct, Spain | 146 |
| 2004/C 088E/6 | E-3462/03 by Helmuth Markov to the CommissionSubject: Plans for weight restrictions at the Guben-Gubinek border crossing and EU funds | 147 |
| 2004/C 088E/7 | E-3478/03 by Baroness Sarah Ludford to the CommissionSubject: Colombian flower imports and GSP | 148 |
| 2004/C 088E/8 | E-3484/03 by Bartho Pronk to the CommissionSubject: Follow-up to Written Question E-2055/03 on the Latvian Police Law prohibiting police officers from forming trade unions | 149 |
| 2004/C 088E/9 | P-3485/03 by Torben Lund to the CommissionSubject: EEA, Norway and taxation of EU workers | 150 |
| 2004/C 088E/0 | E-3565/03 by Herbert Bösch to the CommissionSubject: Enlargement preparations in EU border regions | 150 |
| 2004/C 088E/1 | E-3589/03 by José Ribeiro e Castro to the CommissionSubject: Syria - US sanctions | 151 |
| 2004/C 088E/2 | E-3609/03 by Giovanni Pittella, Marco Cappato, Giovanni Fava, Glyn Ford, Sérgio Marques and Emilio Menéndez del Valle to the CommissionSubject: Sending EU observers to Venezuela | 152 |
| 2004/C 088E/3 | E-3623/03 by Ioannis Marínos to the CommissionSubject: Discriminatory policy against the Greek inhabitants of Imbros and Tenedos in Turkey | 153 |
| 2004/C 088E/4 | E-3635/03 by José Ribeiro e Castro to the CommissionSubject: Cabo Verde - special status vis-à-vis the EU | 154 |
| 2004/C 088E/5 | P-3695/03 by Margrietus van den Berg to the CommissionSubject: MTR of CSPs in Asia and Latin America | 155 |
| 2004/C 088E/6 | E-3819/03 by Stavros Xarchakos to the CommissionSubject: Circulation in Greece of private vehicles fitted with Community numberplates | 156 |
| 2004/C 088E/7 | E-3824/03 by Cristiana Muscardini to the CommissionSubject: Labels of origin for imports | 158 |
| 2004/C 088E/8 | E-3902/03 by Roberta Angelilli to the CommissionSubject: Made in Europe label for goods made in the Member States | 159 |
| Joint answer to Written Questions E-3824/03 and E-3902/03 |
| 2004/C 088E/9 | E-3958/03 by José Ribeiro e Castro to the CommissionSubject: Russia - parliamentary elections | 160 |
| 2004/C 088E/0 | E-3965/03 by Mario Borghezio to the CommissionSubject: Measures against China for abusive use of the EC symbol | 161 |
| 2004/C 088E/1 | E-3975/03 by Paulo Casaca to the CommissionSubject: Respect for equal treatment for staff at the Commission delegation in Brazil | 162 |
| 2004/C 088E/2 | E-3989/03 by Theresa Villiers to the CommissionSubject: EU rules on sales and servicing | 163 |
| 2004/C 088E/3 | E-4004/03 by Claude Moraes to the CommissionSubject: Disabled children in Russia | 165 |
| 2004/C 088E/4 | E-0012/04 by José Ribeiro e Castro to the CommissionSubject: EU-India Summit - closer relations | 166 |
| 2004/C 088E/5 | E-0049/04 by Camilo Nogueira Román to the CommissionSubject: EU aid to Iran to tackle the tragic consequences of the Bam earthquake | 167 |
| 2004/C 088E/6 | E-0072/04 by José Ribeiro e Castro to the CommissionSubject: Suspected traffic in human organs - Mozambique | 168 |
| 2004/C 088E/7 | E-0143/04 by José Ribeiro e Castro to the CommissionSubject: Trafficking in human organs - Mozambique | 169 |
| Joint answer to Written Questions E-0072/04 and E-0143/04 |
| 2004/C 088E/8 | E-0154/04 by Margrietus van den Berg to the CommissionSubject: Kleptocrat tax | 170 |
| 2004/C 088E/9 | E-0187/04 by Brice Hortefeux to the CommissionSubject: Auditing of company accounts | 171 |
| 2004/C 088E/0 | E-0214/04 by Giles Chichester to the CommissionSubject: Details of EU funding to the Palestinian Authority | 172 |
| 2004/C 088E/1 | E-0270/04 by Brice Hortefeux to the CommissionSubject: Follow-up to regulation on cross-border payments | 173 |
| 2004/C 088E/2 | E-0272/04 by Mario Borghezio to the CommissionSubject: Timisoara international port | 174 |
| 2004/C 088E/3 | E-0288/04 by Marco Cappato to the CommissionSubject: Drug eradication programme in Colombia | 174 |
| 2004/C 088E/4 | E-0320/04 by Gary Titley to the CommissionSubject: Illegal logging and timber trade | 175 |
| 2004/C 088E/5 | E-0362/04 by Graham Watson to the CommissionSubject: Latvian passport names | 176 |
| 2004/C 088E/6 | E-0378/04 by Hartmut Nassauer and Bernd Lange to the CommissionSubject: Planned draft second directive on limit values providing for the establishment of an indicative occupational exposure limit value, inter alia for nitrogen monoxide (NO) | 177 |
| 2004/C 088E/7 | E-0382/04 by Stavros Xarchakos to the CommissionSubject: Free movement between Greece and the rest of the EU | 179 |
| 2004/C 088E/8 | E-0384/04 by Roberta Angelilli to the CommissionSubject: Ansaldo-Breda: infringement of laws protecting workers from exposure to asbestos | 181 |
| 2004/C 088E/9 | E-0411/04 by Charles Tannock and John Bowis to the CommissionSubject: Persecution of the Ahmadiyya Muslim community in Bangladesh | 183 |
| 2004/C 088E/0 | E-0413/04 by Charles Tannock and Theresa Villiers to the CommissionSubject: Migrating birds and Habitat Directives with regard to the republic of Malta | 183 |
| 2004/C 088E/1 | E-0419/04 by Anna Karamanou to the CommissionSubject: Bride burning in Pakistan | 184 |
| 2004/C 088E/2 | E-0429/04 by John Bowis to the CommissionSubject: The case of Rev. Rinaldy Damanik, Indonesia | 186 |
| 2004/C 088E/3 | E-0465/04 by José Ribeiro e Castro to the CommissionSubject: Establishing the Made in EU label | 186 |
| 2004/C 088E/4 | E-0501/04 by Jorge Hernández Mollar to the CommissionSubject: Measures to tackle the Ulysses syndrome | 188 |
| 2004/C 088E/5 | E-0510/04 by Sérgio Marques to the CommissionSubject: Stage reached in the implementation of aid to Venezuela | 188 |
| 2004/C 088E/6 | E-0517/04 by Antonios Trakatellis to the CommissionSubject: Release of toxic waste by a fire at an industrial plant in Thessaloniki and non-compliance by Greece with ECJ judgment on hazardous waste | 190 |
| 2004/C 088E/7 | 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 (Supplementary Answer) | 191 |
| 2004/C 088E/8 | E-0559/04 by Mario Borghezio to the CommissionSubject: EU subsidises First Lady Suha Arafat’s high life in Paris | 193 |
| 2004/C 088E/9 | E-0574/04 by Monica Frassoni to the CommissionSubject: Garigliano nuclear power station | 194 |
| 2004/C 088E/0 | E-0583/04 by Nirj Deva to the CommissionSubject: EU aid money to Zimbabwe | 195 |
| 2004/C 088E/1 | E-0585/04 by Bill Miller to the CommissionSubject: WTO talks Cancun and Geneva | 196 |
| 2004/C 088E/2 | E-0624/04 by Marjo Matikainen-Kallström to the CommissionSubject: Dumping of imported Norwegian and Faeroese rainbow trout | 197 |
| 2004/C 088E/3 | E-0640/04 by Camilo Nogueira Román to the CommissionSubject: Surprising presence of names of Union bodies such as OLAF in confused news from Israeli institutions with regard to the use of EU funds by the Palestinian President | 197 |
| 2004/C 088E/4 | E-0649/04 by Esko Seppänen to the CommissionSubject: Roma people in Slovakia | 198 |
| 2004/C 088E/5 | E-0660/04 by Roger Helmer to the CommissionSubject: NGO funding | 199 |
| 2004/C 088E/6 | E-0665/04 by Gerhard Schmid to the CommissionSubject: Safety standards for image editing of scanned banknotes | 199 |
| 2004/C 088E/7 | E-0666/04 by Mihail Papayannakis to the CommissionSubject: Breach of environmental legislation | 200 |
| 2004/C 088E/8 | E-0667/04 by Proinsias De Rossa to the CommissionSubject: Reopening of western rail corridor between Sligo and Cork in Ireland | 201 |
| 2004/C 088E/9 | E-0674/04 by Proinsias De Rossa to the CommissionSubject: Iarnrod Eireann’s rail freight operations | 202 |
| Joint answer to Written Questions E-0667/04 and E-0674/04 |
| 2004/C 088E/0 | E-0670/04 by Proinsias De Rossa to the CommissionSubject: Commission investigation into discharges of oil at Poolbeg Peninsula, Dublin | 203 |
| 2004/C 088E/1 | E-0675/04 by Proinsias De Rossa to the CommissionSubject: Transfrontier Shipments of Waste Regulation | 203 |
| 2004/C 088E/2 | E-0684/04 by Erik Meijer to the CommissionSubject: Parmalat and incentives arising from poor tax legislation in the Netherlands for foreign businesses with dishonest intentions | 204 |
| 2004/C 088E/3 | E-0686/04 by Paulo Casaca to the CommissionSubject: European hydrogen platform | 205 |
| 2004/C 088E/4 | E-0724/04 by María Herranz García to the CommissionSubject: Rules on labelling wines | 206 |
| 2004/C 088E/5 | E-0749/04 by Paul Rübig to the CommissionSubject: Introduction of the sector approach in EU development cooperation | 207 |
| 2004/C 088E/6 | E-0762/04 by José García-Margallo y Marfil to the CommissionSubject: Commission proposals for follow-up to the financial services action plan | 208 |
| 2004/C 088E/7 | E-0763/04 by José García-Margallo y Marfil to the CommissionSubject: Role of the public authorities in the follow-up period to the financial services action plan | 209 |
| 2004/C 088E/8 | E-0764/04 by José García-Margallo y Marfil to the CommissionSubject: Use of pre-accession funds | 210 |
| 2004/C 088E/9 | E-0765/04 by José García-Margallo y Marfil to the CommissionSubject: Rating agencies and access to privileged information | 212 |
| 2004/C 088E/0 | E-0773/04 by Maurizio Turco to the CommissionSubject: Violation of religious freedom in Belgium | 213 |
| 2004/C 088E/1 | E-0774/04 by Maurizio Turco to the CommissionSubject: Violation of religious freedom in Cyprus | 214 |
| 2004/C 088E/2 | E-0777/04 by Maurizio Turco to the CommissionSubject: Violation of religious freedom in Hungary | 215 |
| 2004/C 088E/3 | E-0778/04 by Maurizio Turco to the CommissionSubject: Violation of religious freedom in Lithuania | 216 |
| 2004/C 088E/4 | E-0779/04 by Maurizio Turco to the CommissionSubject: Violation of religious freedom in Poland | 217 |
| Joint answer to Written Questions E-0774/04, E-0777/04, E-0778/04 and E-0779/04 |
| 2004/C 088E/5 | E-0784/04 by Proinsias De Rossa to the CommissionSubject: Family reunification | 220 |
| 2004/C 088E/6 | E-0789/04 by Cristiana Muscardini, Sergio Berlato, Roberta Angelilli, Roberto Bigliardo, Antonio Mussa, Sebastiano Musumeci, Mauro Nobilia, Adriana Poli Bortone and Franz Turchi to the CommissionSubject: International wine piracy — amendment of Regulation (EC) No 753/2002 | 221 |
| 2004/C 088E/7 | E-0790/04 by Roberto Bigliardo to the CommissionSubject: Presence of dangerous dioxin in the town of Acerra (Na), Italy | 223 |
| 2004/C 088E/8 | E-0794/04 by Paul Rübig to the CommissionSubject: Regulation (EC) No 141/2000 on orphan medicinal products | 224 |
| 2004/C 088E/9 | E-0795/04 by Patricia McKenna to the CommissionSubject: Derrybrien wind farm bogslide | 226 |
| 2004/C 088E/0 | E-0798/04 by Mihail Papayannakis to the CommissionSubject: Amfilokhia and the Ramsar Convention | 226 |
| 2004/C 088E/1 | E-0800/04 by María Bergaz Conesa to the CommissionSubject: Dr Moliner de Serra Hospital (Valencia, Spain) and waste-water treatment | 227 |
| 2004/C 088E/2 | E-0801/04 by Monica Frassoni to the CommissionSubject: Exceptional hunting and wild bird conservation - Sardinia | 228 |
| 2004/C 088E/3 | E-0808/04 by Erik Meijer to the CommissionSubject: Guarantees, with a view to enjoying equal rights, for persons who have suffered discrimination or neglect in the appraisal of qualifications obtained in other Member States | 229 |
| 2004/C 088E/4 | E-0817/04 by Stefano Zappalà to the CommissionSubject: Finnish customs duties | 230 |
| 2004/C 088E/5 | E-0820/04 by Ilda Figueiredo to the CommissionSubject: Agriculture - negotiations in the context of the WTO | 232 |
| 2004/C 088E/6 | E-0835/04 by Antonio Di Pietro to the CommissionSubject: Amendment of rules on wine labelling | 233 |
| 2004/C 088E/7 | E-0845/04 by Giorgio Celli to the CommissionSubject: Construction of a health and wellness centre in the wetland of Es Salobrar — Es Trenc, Mallorca, Balearics | 234 |
| 2004/C 088E/8 | E-0847/04 by Monica Frassoni to the CommissionSubject: Mineral water extraction plant at Padernello di Paese (Treviso) | 235 |
| 2004/C 088E/9 | P-0850/04 by Salvador Jové Peres to the CommissionSubject: Correction for irregular grant of supplementary processed tomato quotas | 237 |
| 2004/C 088E/0 | E-0864/04 by Nelly Maes to the CommissionSubject: Linguistic diversity | 238 |
| 2004/C 088E/1 | E-0868/04 by José Ribeiro e Castro to the CommissionSubject: Large families | 238 |
| 2004/C 088E/2 | E-0876/04 by Struan Stevenson to the CommissionSubject: Illegal fishing in waters around the Azores | 240 |
| 2004/C 088E/3 | E-0881/04 by Ilda Figueiredo to the CommissionSubject: Incinerator installation in the Central Region (Portugal) | 241 |
| 2004/C 088E/4 | P-0902/04 by Alexandros Alavanos to the CommissionSubject: Talks for a settlement in Cyprus | 242 |
| 2004/C 088E/5 | E-0904/04 by Richard Corbett to the CommissionSubject: Mercedes-Benz car warranties | 242 |
| 2004/C 088E/6 | E-0905/04 by Richard Corbett to the CommissionSubject: Bicycle helmets | 243 |
| 2004/C 088E/7 | E-0908/04 by Paolo Bartolozzi to the CommissionSubject: Services of general interest | 244 |
| 2004/C 088E/8 | P-0913/04 by Philip Bradbourn to the CommissionSubject: Driver attestation checks | 245 |
| 2004/C 088E/9 | E-0914/04 by Caroline Lucas to the CommissionSubject: Illegal bird-trapping in Cyprus | 246 |
| 2004/C 088E/0 | E-0916/04 by Proinsias De Rossa to the CommissionSubject: Ireland and maritime safety legislation | 247 |
| 2004/C 088E/1 | E-0917/04 by Proinsias De Rossa to the CommissionSubject: Ireland’s compliance with the Waste Framework Directive in relation to the treatment of urban waste water | 247 |
| 2004/C 088E/2 | E-0920/04 by Proinsias De Rossa to the CommissionSubject: Treatment of waste oils in Ireland | 248 |
| 2004/C 088E/3 | E-0929/04 by Glyn Ford to the CommissionSubject: Promotion of dairy products | 249 |
| 2004/C 088E/4 | E-0933/04 by John Purvis to the CommissionSubject: Energy from the Commonwealth of Independent States | 250 |
| 2004/C 088E/5 | P-0935/04 by Hans Kronberger to the CommissionSubject: European environment and health strategy - SCALE | 250 |
| 2004/C 088E/6 | E-0938/04 by Margrietus van den Berg to the CommissionSubject: Religious minorities in Gujarat | 251 |
| 2004/C 088E/7 | E-0940/04 by Robert Evans to the CommissionSubject: Churches in Indonesia | 252 |
| 2004/C 088E/8 | E-0941/04 by Robert Evans to the CommissionSubject: GMOs | 253 |
| 2004/C 088E/9 | E-0943/04 by Cristiana Muscardini to the CommissionSubject: Research programme and multiple sclerosis | 254 |
| 2004/C 088E/0 | E-0950/04 by Paul Rübig to the CommissionSubject: Hindrances to traffic on the River Danube | 255 |
| 2004/C 088E/1 | P-0958/04 by Manuel dos Santos to the CommissionSubject: Risk transfer in the loan establishment operation carried out by the Portuguese Government | 256 |
| 2004/C 088E/2 | E-0971/04 by José Ribeiro e Castro to the CommissionSubject: Venezuela - referendum | 257 |
| 2004/C 088E/3 | E-0972/04 by José Ribeiro e Castro to the CommissionSubject: Natura Network - funding | 258 |
| 2004/C 088E/4 | E-0977/04 by John Bowis to the CommissionSubject: Health insurance in the Czech Republic | 259 |
| 2004/C 088E/5 | E-0978/04 by Christopher Huhne to the CommissionSubject: Ingredients in food products | 260 |
| 2004/C 088E/6 | E-0980/04 by Luigi Vinci to the CommissionSubject: Instructions from the Army High Command in Turkey | 261 |
| 2004/C 088E/7 | E-0981/04 by Giovanni Pittella and Guido Sacconi to the CommissionSubject: Protection and conservation of the marine environment | 262 |
| 2004/C 088E/8 | E-0984/04 by Piia-Noora Kauppi to the CommissionSubject: The role of tiredness in road accidents | 263 |
| 2004/C 088E/9 | P-0992/04 by Francesco Fiori to the CommissionSubject: Telecommunications | 264 |
| 2004/C 088E/0 | E-0994/04 by Proinsias De Rossa to the CommissionSubject: Child protection and future EU programmes aimed at young people | 265 |
| 2004/C 088E/1 | E-0995/04 by Bartho Pronk to the CommissionSubject: Restrictive measures planned by some EU Member States contrary to the right of equal treatment granted by the EU | 266 |
| 2004/C 088E/2 | P-0999/04 by Daniel Hannan to the CommissionSubject: Connection of high tension pylon lines in the Municipality of Civitella Paganico | 267 |
| 2004/C 088E/3 | E-1008/04 by Albert Maat and Neil Parish to the CommissionSubject: OIE conference on vaccination against animal diseases | 268 |
| 2004/C 088E/4 | P-1009/04 by Johannes Voggenhuber to the CommissionSubject: Lobau motorway | 269 |
| 2004/C 088E/5 | E-1010/04 by Johannes Voggenhuber to the CommissionSubject: Lobau motorway | 270 |
| 2004/C 088E/6 | E-1015/04 by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna to the CommissionSubject: Shrimp fishing in Svalbard | 271 |
| 2004/C 088E/7 | E-1023/04 by Ilda Figueiredo to the CommissionSubject: Modernisation of the Portuguese fishing fleet | 272 |
| 2004/C 088E/8 | P-1027/04 by Marie Isler Béguin to the CommissionSubject: Respect for Community environmental legislation | 273 |
| 2004/C 088E/9 | P-1028/04 by Nicole Thomas-Mauro to the CommissionSubject: Tension in the steel markets | 275 |
| 2004/C 088E/0 | P-1038/04 by Avril Doyle to the CommissionSubject: Proposed directive to inspect Sellafield nuclear facilities | 276 |
| 2004/C 088E/1 | P-1039/04 by Daniel Cohn-Bendit to the CommissionSubject: Commissioner Reding standing in the European elections | 277 |
| 2004/C 088E/2 | E-1051/04 by Paulo Casaca to the CommissionSubject: Reaffirmation of the Commission’s position on the validity of Article 15 of Regulation (EC) No 1954/2003 | 277 |
| 2004/C 088E/3 | E-1076/04 by Christopher Heaton-Harris to the CommissionSubject: Cockle and mussel fishermen | 278 |
| 2004/C 088E/4 | P-1078/04 by Philip Claeys to the CommissionSubject: Political neutrality of the Info-Point Europe of the Province of Flemish Brabant | 279 |
| 2004/C 088E/5 | P-1083/04 by Rolf Linkohr to the CommissionSubject: Project-related mechanisms under the Kyoto Protocol | 280 |
| 2004/C 088E/6 | P-1105/04 by Massimo Carraro to the CommissionSubject: Raw materials | 280 |
| 2004/C 088E/7 | P-1148/04 by Renato Brunetta to the CommissionSubject: Availability of ferrous metal scrap on the Union market | 281 |
| 2004/C 088E/8 | E-1161/04 by Mario Mauro to the CommissionSubject: Foundry sector: shortages of raw materials | 281 |
| Joint answer to Written Questions P-1105/04, P-1148/04 and E-1161/04 |
| 2004/C 088E/9 | E-1110/04 by Christine De Veyrac to the CommissionSubject: Transeuropean transport networks | 282 |
| 2004/C 088E/0 | E-1114/04 by Proinsias De Rossa to the CommissionSubject: Civil protection | 283 |
| 2004/C 088E/1 | P-1181/04 by Salvador Jové Peres to the CommissionSubject: Correction for irregular grant of supplementary processed tomato quotas | 284 |
| 2004/C 088E/2 | P-1199/04 by Helmuth Markov to the CommissionSubject: VAT levy on EU aid | 285 |
| 2004/C 088E/3 | P-1202/04 by Françoise Grossetête to the CommissionSubject: Definitions of waste and waste management and treatment methods | 286 |
| | WRITTEN QUESTIONS WITH ANSWER (Part 2) |
| 2004/C 088E/4 | E-0811/02 by Michl Ebner to the CommissionSubject: Harmonisation of rules on motor vehicles | 288 |
| 2004/C 088E/5 | E-1776/02 by Patricia McKenna to the CommissionSubject: Discrimination against visually impaired people | 289 |
| 2004/C 088E/6 | P-2081/02 by Christoph Konrad to the CommissionSubject: Use of Objective 2 funding in North-Rhine-Westphalia | 289 |
| 2004/C 088E/7 | E-2280/02 by Emilia Müller to the CommissionSubject: Relaxing of the ban on the use of bonemeal in animal feed | 290 |
| 2004/C 088E/8 | E-2677/02 by Chris Davies to the CommissionSubject: Fire safety | 291 |
| 2004/C 088E/9 | E-2970/02 by Christa Prets to the CommissionSubject: Culture 2000 programme — closing date for submitting projects for St Petersburg 2003 | 292 |
| 2004/C 088E/0 | E-3331/02 by Mihail Papayannakis to the CommissionSubject: Community Information Society Programme | 293 |
| 2004/C 088E/1 | E-3361/02 by Maria Sanders-ten Holte to the CommissionSubject: Insurance | 294 |
| 2004/C 088E/2 | P-3496/02 by Paulo Casaca to the CommissionSubject: State aid for small-scale coastal shipping on the Azores | 295 |
| 2004/C 088E/3 | E-3540/02 by Chris Davies to the CommissionSubject: Health inequalities | 297 |
| 2004/C 088E/4 | E-3566/02 by Freddy Blak to the CommissionSubject: Contracts between Eurostat and Eurogramme | 297 |
| 2004/C 088E/5 | E-3607/02 by Mary Banotti to the CommissionSubject: Interchangeability of postage stamps of the euro zone | 298 |
| 2004/C 088E/6 | P-3626/02 by Alexandros Alavanos to the CommissionSubject: Implementation by Greece of Directive 1999/70/EC | 299 |
| 2004/C 088E/7 | P-3650/02 by Paul Rübig to the CommissionSubject: More SME-friendly structuring of tendering conditions for EU third-state assistance programmes | 300 |
| 2004/C 088E/8 | E-3676/02 by Toine Manders to the CommissionSubject: Incapacity for work | 301 |
| 2004/C 088E/9 | E-3737/02 by Ilda Figueiredo to the CommissionSubject: ABEJ - Solidarités’ | 303 |
| 2004/C 088E/0 | E-3780/02 by Kathleen Van Brempt to the CommissionSubject: Implementation of Regulation (EC) No 1259/1999: reports by the Member States concerning environmental measures and aid schemes in agriculture | 303 |
| 2004/C 088E/1 | E-3817/02 by Erik Meijer to the CommissionSubject: Effective measures to render it impossible once and for all for EU residents to benefit from child labour elsewhere | 305 |
| 2004/C 088E/2 | P-3824/02 by Jan Wiersma to the CommissionSubject: Roma citizens - Buhusi | 306 |
| 2004/C 088E/3 | P-3906/02 by Anna Karamanou to the CommissionSubject: Problem of malnutrition in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank | 307 |
| 2004/C 088E/4 | P-3907/02 by Ilda Figueiredo to the CommissionSubject: Economic and social consequences of EU enlargement | 308 |
| 2004/C 088E/5 | E-3916/02 by Juan Naranjo Escobar to the CommissionSubject: Gambling on the Net | 310 |
| 2004/C 088E/6 | E-3917/02 by Juan Naranjo Escobar to the CommissionSubject: Border regions | 310 |
| 2004/C 088E/7 | E-0046/03 by Pasqualina Napoletano and Giovanni Pittella to the CommissionSubject: Crisis in Venezuela | 312 |
| 2004/C 088E/8 | E-0070/03 by Erik Meijer to the CommissionSubject: Rise of fuel-inefficient and unsafe off-road vehicles in the United States and measures to prevent similar developments in the EU | 313 |
| 2004/C 088E/9 | E-0106/03 by Luciano Caveri to the CommissionSubject: Fire in the Mont Blanc tunnel | 314 |
| 2004/C 088E/0 | P-0110/03 by Peter Liese to the CommissionSubject: Vaccination against smallpox in the Member States | 315 |
| 2004/C 088E/1 | E-0131/03 by Joan Colom i Naval to the CommissionSubject: Implementation of budget heading B2-1411 (Support for regions bordering candidate countries) | 316 |
| 2004/C 088E/2 | E-0141/03 by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna to the CommissionSubject: EU-Guinea-Bissau international fisheries agreement and development cooperation | 317 |
| 2004/C 088E/3 | P-0215/03 by Marco Cappato to the CommissionSubject: Drug-related escalation of violence in Bolivia | 318 |
| 2004/C 088E/4 | E-0226/03 by Guido Podestà and Amalia Sartori to the CommissionSubject: Regulatory obstacles to intra-Community trade in gold products — breach of Article 28 of the EC Treaty | 319 |
| 2004/C 088E/5 | E-0230/03 by Helle Thorning-Schmidt to the CommissionSubject: Implications of enlargement for jobs of customs agents | 320 |
| 2004/C 088E/6 | E-0267/03 by Laura González Álvarez to the CommissionSubject: Abuse of a dominant position and misleading advertising by the airlines Spanair and Iberia (Spain) | 321 |
| 2004/C 088E/7 | E-0303/03 by Roger Helmer to the CommissionSubject: Malta’s accession to the EU | 322 |
| 2004/C 088E/8 | P-0370/03 by José Ribeiro e Castro to the CommissionSubject: Closure of the Clarks factory in Portugal — Community aid — Relocation | 323 |
| 2004/C 088E/9 | E-0430/03 by Rosa Miguélez Ramos to the CommissionSubject: Prestige: State aid | 324 |
| 2004/C 088E/0 | E-0432/03 by Dorette Corbey to the CommissionSubject: Air pollution: exceeding of threshold values for particulate matter | 325 |
| 2004/C 088E/1 | P-0547/03 by Struan Stevenson to the CommissionSubject: Beef and live cattle exports to the Lebanon and Egypt | 326 |
| 2004/C 088E/2 | E-0570/03 by Freddy Blak to the CommissionSubject: Punitive charges on imported vehicles | 327 |
| 2004/C 088E/3 | E-0610/03 by José Ribeiro e Castro to the CommissionSubject: EU/São Tomé and Príncipe 1999-2003: cooperation, development, human rights, assistance, etc | 328 |
| 2004/C 088E/4 | E-0611/03 by José Ribeiro e Castro to the CommissionSubject: EU/Guinea-Bissau 1999-2003: cooperation, development, human rights, assistance, etc | 329 |
| 2004/C 088E/5 | E-0612/03 by José Ribeiro e Castro to the CommissionSubject: EU/Cape Verde 1999-2003: cooperation, development, human rights, assistance, etc | 329 |
| 2004/C 088E/6 | E-0613/03 by José Ribeiro e Castro to the CommissionSubject: EU/Mozambique 1999-2003: cooperation, development, human rights, assistance, etc | 329 |
| 2004/C 088E/7 | E-0614/03 by José Ribeiro e Castro to the CommissionSubject: EU/Angola 1999-2003: cooperation, development, human rights, assistance, etc | 329 |
| Joint answer to Written Questions E-0610/03, E-0611/03, E-0612/03, E-0613/03 and E-0614/03 |
| 2004/C 088E/8 | E-0697/03 by Brice Hortefeux to the CommissionSubject: Harmonising size labelling systems | 331 |
| 2004/C 088E/9 | E-0761/03 by Charles Tannock to the CommissionSubject: EU requirements relating to the erection of mobile telephone masts | 332 |
| 2004/C 088E/0 | E-0867/03 by Roberta Angelilli to the CommissionSubject: Economic crisis in Venezuela | 333 |
| 2004/C 088E/1 | E-0937/03 by Roberta Angelilli to the CommissionSubject: Support for EU citizens living in Venezuela | 334 |
| Joint answer to Written Questions E-0867/03 and E-0937/03 |
| 2004/C 088E/2 | E-0896/03 by Klaus-Heiner Lehne to the CommissionSubject: The German tax authorities’ practices with regard to turnover tax | 335 |
| 2004/C 088E/3 | E-0900/03 by Richard Corbett to the CommissionSubject: Internal market restrictions | 336 |
| 2004/C 088E/4 | E-0921/03 by José Ribeiro e Castro to the CommissionSubject: East Timor — 1999 massacres; trial of those responsible; Indonesia; human rights | 337 |
| 2004/C 088E/5 | E-1180/03 by Marco Pannella, Emma Bonino, Marco Cappato, Gianfranco Dell’Alba and Benedetto Della Vedova to the CommissionSubject: Secret Vietnamese prison set up next to the Cambodian border for the detention of Montagnards repatriated after having requested asylum; cases of arrest, torture and disappearance | 339 |
| 2004/C 088E/6 | E-1181/03 by Marco Pannella, Emma Bonino, Marco Cappato, Gianfranco Dell’Alba and Benedetto Della Vedova to the CommissionSubject: Arrest by the Vietnamese authorities of Montagnards suspected of supporting the Montagnard Foundation, of being Christians and of recruiting members for the Transnational Radical Party | 340 |
| 2004/C 088E/7 | E-1182/03 by Marco Pannella, Emma Bonino, Marco Cappato, Gianfranco Dell’Alba and Benedetto Della Vedova to the CommissionSubject: Individual cases of arbitrary arrest and torture of Montagnards (Degar) by the Vietnamese authorities. | 341 |
| Joint answer to Written Questions E-1180/03, E-1181/03 and E-1182/03 |
| 2004/C 088E/8 | E-1209/03 by Alexandros Alavanos to the CommissionSubject: Distribution of infant milk in African countries | 342 |
| 2004/C 088E/9 | E-1247/03 by Robert Evans to the CommissionSubject: Burmese refugees | 343 |
| 2004/C 088E/0 | P-1251/03 by Carlos Bautista Ojeda to the CommissionSubject: Crisis in the European tourist industry | 343 |
| 2004/C 088E/1 | P-1287/03 by Olivier Dupuis to the CommissionSubject: Macabre electoral farce in Chechnya | 344 |
| 2004/C 088E/2 | E-1290/03 by Camilo Nogueira Román to the CommissionSubject: Anti-dumping measures applicable to the import of ferroalloys; the problem of the firm Ferroatlántica, located in Cee and Dumbria on the Costa da Morte in Galicia | 345 |
| 2004/C 088E/3 | E-1294/03 by José Ribeiro e Castro to the CommissionSubject: Venezuela - democratic solution to the crisis | 346 |
| 2004/C 088E/4 | E-1296/03 by José Ribeiro e Castro to the CommissionSubject: Clashes in southern Nigeria | 347 |
| 2004/C 088E/5 | E-1310/03 by Bill Newton Dunn to the CommissionSubject: The situation of the Nigerian national, Mr Abubakir, a practising Christian | 349 |
| 2004/C 088E/6 | E-1316/03 by Hanja Maij-Weggen to the CommissionSubject: Autonomy of the Indonesian province of Papua | 349 |
| 2004/C 088E/7 | E-1317/03 by Nelly Maes to the CommissionSubject: Implementation of Community programmes in Slovakia | 350 |
| 2004/C 088E/8 | E-1321/03 by José Ribeiro e Castro to the CommissionSubject: Angola - return of refugees | 352 |
| 2004/C 088E/9 | P-1336/03 by Ilka Schröder to the CommissionSubject: Persecution of homosexuals in the Palestinian autonomous areas | 353 |
| 2004/C 088E/0 | E-1400/03 by Roberta Angelilli to the CommissionSubject: Seat of the European Food Safety Authority | 354 |
| 2004/C 088E/1 | E-1576/03 by Chris Davies to the CommissionSubject: EU-wide energy taxation | 356 |
| 2004/C 088E/2 | E-1580/03 by Chris Davies to the CommissionSubject: Data analyses of illegal drugs in the EU | 356 |
| 2004/C 088E/3 | P-1607/03 by Antonio Tajani to the CommissionSubject: Repeated violations of human rights in Cuba | 357 |
| 2004/C 088E/4 | E-1629/03 by Eija-Riitta Korhola to the CommissionSubject: Promoting fair-trade products in the EU | 358 |
| 2004/C 088E/5 | P-1631/03 by Carlos Coelho to the CommissionSubject: Discrimination on grounds of nationality | 359 |
| 2004/C 088E/6 | E-1640/03 by Erik Meijer to the CommissionSubject: Lack of money for maintaining infrastructure and for cofinancing projects in Member States which use tax cuts to gain a competitive advantage | 360 |
| 2004/C 088E/7 | E-1641/03 by Erik Meijer to the CommissionSubject: Failure to grant Slovene nationality to persons who in 1991 were residents of the then Yugoslav republic of Slovenia and had Yugoslav nationality | 362 |
| 2004/C 088E/8 | E-1646/03 by María Rodríguez Ramos to the CommissionSubject: Application of the safeguard clause in respect of imports into the EU of tinned mandarin-orange segments from China | 363 |
| 2004/C 088E/9 | E-1920/03 by Carlos Bautista Ojeda to the CommissionSubject: Imports of preserved mandarin segments from China | 363 |
| 2004/C 088E/0 | E-1921/03 by Carlos Bautista Ojeda to the CommissionSubject: Preserved mandarin segments from China | 364 |
| Joint answer to Written Questions E-1646/03, E-1920/03 and E-1921/03 |
| 2004/C 088E/1 | E-1677/03 by José Ribeiro e Castro to the CommissionSubject: Cuba - Cotonou | 365 |
| 2004/C 088E/2 | P-1680/03 by Anna Karamanou to the CommissionSubject: Torture and inhuman treatment of women in Turkish jails | 366 |
| 2004/C 088E/3 | P-1708/03 by Emma Bonino to the CommissionSubject: Murder of Joyce Miamuna Katai, State Commissioner for women’s affairs and social development of the Nigerian State of Nasarawa | 367 |
| 2004/C 088E/4 | P-1746/03 by Proinsias De Rossa to the CommissionSubject: Carrickmines Castle archeological finds (Supplementary Answer) | 368 |
| 2004/C 088E/5 | E-1750/03 by José Ribeiro e Castro to the CommissionSubject: Cooperation with Angola: stability — demobilisation of UNITA | 369 |
| 2004/C 088E/6 | E-1751/03 by José Ribeiro e Castro to the CommissionSubject: Venezuela - unemployment and referendum | 370 |
| 2004/C 088E/7 | E-1767/03 by Charles Tannock to the CommissionSubject: Persecution of Christians in Indonesia | 372 |
| 2004/C 088E/8 | E-1776/03 by Claude Moraes to the CommissionSubject: Child asthma and allergic diseases | 373 |
| 2004/C 088E/9 | E-1800/03 by Christopher Huhne to the CommissionSubject: SARS and airline air recycling | 373 |
| 2004/C 088E/0 | P-1806/03 by Konstantinos Hatzidakis to the CommissionSubject: Settlement of payments to EU Member States under the second CSF | 375 |
| 2004/C 088E/1 | E-1821/03 by Christopher Huhne to the CommissionSubject: Sausage meat | 375 |
| 2004/C 088E/2 | P-1931/03 by Horst Schnellhardt to the CommissionSubject: Introduction of European food standards legislation in the accession countries | 376 |
| 2004/C 088E/3 | P-1933/03 by Dana Scallon to the CommissionSubject: Social development | 377 |
| 2004/C 088E/4 | E-1948/03 by Roger Helmer to the CommissionSubject: Lithuanian referendum | 378 |
| 2004/C 088E/5 | E-1960/03 by Elspeth Attwooll to the CommissionSubject: Road transport managers | 379 |
| 2004/C 088E/6 | E-2011/03 by Ioannis Marínos to the CommissionSubject: Application of the Community acquis in Cyprus | 380 |
| 2004/C 088E/7 | E-2029/03 by Erik Meijer to the CommissionSubject: Increase in charges for transit visas authorising people travelling between present and future Members States of the EU to enter Serbia | 381 |
| 2004/C 088E/8 | E-2077/03 by Paulo Casaca to the CommissionSubject: Community support for torture victims | 382 |
| 2004/C 088E/9 | E-2131/03 by Mihail Papayannakis to the CommissionSubject: Re-opening of mineral extraction plant at Pergamon (Bergama) | 383 |
| 2004/C 088E/0 | E-2139/03 by Maurizio Turco to the CommissionSubject: Violation of religious freedom and legal restrictions on the exercising of religious activity in Belarus. | 383 |
| 2004/C 088E/1 | E-2183/03 by Maurizio Turco to the CommissionSubject: Further violations of religious freedom and legal restrictions on religious practice in Belarus | 384 |
| Joint answer to Written Questions E-2139/03 and E-2183/03 |
| 2004/C 088E/2 | E-2140/03 by Maurizio Turco to the CommissionSubject: Violation of freedom of religion in Uzbekistan | 385 |
| 2004/C 088E/3 | E-2146/03 by John Bowis to the CommissionSubject: Commission response to Council Conclusions on health matters | 387 |
| 2004/C 088E/4 | E-2161/03 by Glenys Kinnock to the CommissionSubject: Support for accession and ACP countries | 388 |
| 2004/C 088E/5 | E-2177/03 by Christopher Huhne to the CommissionSubject: Procurement | 389 |
| 2004/C 088E/6 | P-2199/03 by Marco Pannella to the CommissionSubject: Imprisonment in Cuba, in inhuman and degrading conditions, of 75 opposition figures sentenced by show trial in April 2003, and the particular case of Martha Beatriz Roque Cabello | 390 |
| 2004/C 088E/7 | E-2217/03 by Maurizio Turco to the CommissionSubject: Violation of religious freedom in Slovenia | 391 |
| 2004/C 088E/8 | E-2227/03 by Michael Cashman to the CommissionSubject: Human rights in Western Sahara | 392 |
| 2004/C 088E/9 | E-2231/03 by Bill Newton Dunn to the CommissionSubject: Human rights abuses in Burma | 393 |
| 2004/C 088E/0 | P-2252/03 by Glenys Kinnock to the CommissionSubject: Uncommitted and unspent EC funds in South Africa | 394 |
| 2004/C 088E/1 | E-2256/03 by Maurizio Turco to the CommissionSubject: Violations of religious freedom with regard to Pentecostal Church evangelists in Belarus | 395 |
| 2004/C 088E/2 | P-2262/03 by Mario Mastella to the CommissionSubject: Serious political, social and economic crisis in Venezuela | 396 |
| 2004/C 088E/3 | P-2286/03 by Ozan Ceyhun to the CommissionSubject: Customs regulations at the Serbia and Montenegro (former Yugoslavia) border | 397 |
| 2004/C 088E/4 | E-2296/03 by Alejo Vidal-Quadras Roca to the CommissionSubject: Autonomous Community levy on the premises occupied by large commercial enterprises | 398 |
| 2004/C 088E/5 | E-2307/03 by José Ribeiro e Castro to the CommissionSubject: Timor — 1999 massacres; trial of those responsible; Indonesia — human rights | 399 |
| 2004/C 088E/6 | P-2310/03 by Baroness Sarah Ludford to the CommissionSubject: EU nationals imprisoned in Japan | 400 |
| 2004/C 088E/7 | E-2317/03 by Armando Cossutta to the CommissionSubject: European citizens’ right to privacy | 401 |
| 2004/C 088E/8 | E-2357/03 by Maurizio Turco to the CommissionSubject: Violation of religious freedom against Muslims in Uzbekistan | 402 |
| 2004/C 088E/9 | E-2359/03 by Maurizio Turco to the CommissionSubject: Violation of religious freedom in Kosovo | 403 |
| 2004/C 088E/0 | E-2360/03 by Maurizio Turco to the CommissionSubject: Violation of religious freedom and legal restrictions on religious activity in Slovakia | 404 |
| 2004/C 088E/1 | E-2361/03 by Maurizio Turco to the CommissionSubject: Violation of religious freedom in Belarus by means of a new concordat conferring greater power on the Orthodox Church | 405 |
| 2004/C 088E/2 | P-2370/03 by Anna Karamanou to the CommissionSubject: Gang rape of women by British troops in Kenya | 406 |
| 2004/C 088E/3 | P-2371/03 by Michael Cashman to the CommissionSubject: EU-Egypt Association Agreement | 407 |
| 2004/C 088E/4 | P-2372/03 by Eija-Riitta Korhola to the CommissionSubject: Transfer of EU citizens being held prisoner to prisons in their home countries | 408 |
| 2004/C 088E/5 | E-2401/03 by Avril Doyle to the CommissionSubject: Exemption from VAT on postage for charities | 409 |
| 2004/C 088E/6 | E-2420/03 by Erik Meijer to the CommissionSubject: Repeated Israeli accusations against Palestinian media and school textbooks and the consequent continued campaign against payments from the EU | 410 |
| 2004/C 088E/7 | E-2471/03 by Catherine Stihler to the CommissionSubject: Italy and compliance with animal welfare regulation | 411 |
| 2004/C 088E/8 | E-2476/03 by Juan Naranjo Escobar to the CommissionSubject: Reduced VAT for hotels, restaurants and cafés in the European Union | 412 |
| 2004/C 088E/9 | E-2478/03 by Miet Smet to the CommissionSubject: Women’s rights in Afghanistan | 413 |
| 2004/C 088E/0 | E-2486/03 by Maurizio Turco to the CommissionSubject: Violation of religious freedom in Uzbekistan with respect to Adventists and members of the Asia Protestant Church | 414 |
| 2004/C 088E/1 | E-2487/03 by Maurizio Turco to the CommissionSubject: Violations of religious freedom in Turkmenistan and protection of Muslim and Russian Orthodox communities | 414 |
| 2004/C 088E/2 | E-2543/03 by Maurizio Turco to the CommissionSubject: Violation of religious freedom in Armenia | 415 |
| Joint answer to Written Questions E-2486/03, E-2487/03 and E-2543/03 |
| 2004/C 088E/3 | E-2500/03 by Christopher Huhne to the CommissionSubject: Beef exports | 416 |
| 2004/C 088E/4 | E-2507/03 by Paolo Bartolozzi to the CommissionSubject: Charges in the tourist industry | 417 |
| 2004/C 088E/5 | E-2571/03 by Maurizio Turco to the CommissionSubject: Violations of freedom of religion in Azerbaijan | 418 |
| 2004/C 088E/6 | E-2576/03 by Philip Claeys to the CommissionSubject: Enlargement Weekly only in English | 419 |
| 2004/C 088E/7 | P-2590/03 by Claude Moraes to the CommissionSubject: Situation in Liberia | 420 |
| 2004/C 088E/8 | P-2617/03 by Emma Bonino to the CommissionSubject: Infringements of legality in Lebanon | 420 |
| 2004/C 088E/9 | E-2620/03 by Richard Howitt to the CommissionSubject: Human rights abuses in Colombia | 422 |
| 2004/C 088E/0 | E-2621/03 by Piia-Noora Kauppi to the CommissionSubject: Enhanced consumer safety through additional private certification marks | 423 |
| 2004/C 088E/1 | P-2646/03 by Elizabeth Lynne to the CommissionSubject: Customs classification of ostomy appliances | 425 |
| 2004/C 088E/2 | E-2661/03 by Ian Hudghton to the CommissionSubject: Missing persons in Cyprus | 426 |
| 2004/C 088E/3 | E-2667/03 by Jean Lambert to the CommissionSubject: Illegal timber trade (Indonesia) and the FLEGT | 427 |
| 2004/C 088E/4 | E-2674/03 by María Rodríguez Ramos to the CommissionSubject: Application of the safeguard clause in respect of EU imports of tinned satsuma segments from China | 428 |
| 2004/C 088E/5 | E-2676/03 by Ulrich Stockmann to the CommissionSubject: US market access for DHL Airways | 429 |
| 2004/C 088E/6 | E-2677/03 by Bernd Lange to the CommissionSubject: Circumventing more stringent exhaust emission values by unsuitable categorisation | 431 |
| 2004/C 088E/7 | E-2690/03 by Erik Meijer to the CommissionSubject: Freedom of cantons in Switzerland to turn themselves into a tax haven for international companies. | 432 |
| 2004/C 088E/8 | E-2700/03 by Glenys Kinnock to the CommissionSubject: Inquiry into the kidnapping of Peter Shaw | 433 |
| 2004/C 088E/9 | E-2701/03 by Geoffrey Van Orden to the CommissionSubject: Child protection funding in Bulgaria | 434 |
| 2004/C 088E/0 | P-2723/03 by Francisca Sauquillo Pérez del Arco to the CommissionSubject: European Initiative for Democracy and Human Rights and indigenous peoples | 435 |
| 2004/C 088E/1 | P-2726/03 by Nelly Maes to the CommissionSubject: Russian minority’s schools in Latvia | 435 |
| 2004/C 088E/2 | P-2727/03 by Antonio Tajani to the CommissionSubject: Telekom Serbia | 437 |
| 2004/C 088E/3 | E-2741/03 by Richard Corbett to the CommissionSubject: Croatia | 438 |
| 2004/C 088E/4 | E-2796/03 by Erik Meijer to the CommissionSubject: Uncertainties regarding the need for financial compensation by national authorities for regional projects no longer receiving EU regional funding after 2006 | 438 |
| 2004/C 088E/5 | E-2843/03 by Astrid Thors to the CommissionSubject: Placement of children in institutions in Latvia | 439 |
| 2004/C 088E/6 | E-2856/03 by Jens-Peter Bonde to the CommissionSubject: Status of the Turkish language | 440 |
| 2004/C 088E/7 | E-2857/03 by Graham Watson to the CommissionSubject: Seychelles | 441 |
| 2004/C 088E/8 | E-2859/03 by Mario Borghezio to the CommissionSubject: Quantity of European funding for the Palestinian Islamic fundamentalist organisation Hamas | 441 |
| 2004/C 088E/9 | E-2904/03 by Miet Smet to the CommissionSubject: CARDS Programme | 441 |
| 2004/C 088E/0 | E-2956/03 by Bart Staes to the CommissionSubject: Increased financial support for the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) | 442 |
| 2004/C 088E/1 | P-2972/03 by Bill Newton Dunn to the CommissionSubject: EU funding in Kenya | 443 |
| 2004/C 088E/2 | P-2990/03 by Professor Sir Neil MacCormick to the CommissionSubject: Benes Decrees (October 2002) | 444 |
| 2004/C 088E/3 | E-2997/03 by Bill Newton Dunn to the CommissionSubject: Double taxation in Finland and UK | 445 |
| 2004/C 088E/4 | E-3006/03 by Joachim Wuermeling to the CommissionSubject: Tax exemptions in the Czech Republic | 446 |
| 2004/C 088E/5 | P-3020/03 by Anna Karamanou to the CommissionSubject: Human rights in Romania — underage marriages in the gypsy community | 446 |
| 2004/C 088E/6 | P-3023/03 by Anders Wijkman to the CommissionSubject: Combating meningitis in Africa | 447 |
| 2004/C 088E/7 | P-3057/03 by Bartho Pronk to the CommissionSubject: Human rights situation in Guatemala, particularly the situation of Mr Rogoberto Dueñas Morales | 448 |
| 2004/C 088E/8 | E-3080/03 by David Bowe to the CommissionSubject: Water supply in Palestine | 449 |
| 2004/C 088E/9 | E-3081/03 by David Bowe to the CommissionSubject: Sewage systems in Palestine | 450 |
| 2004/C 088E/0 | E-3082/03 by David Bowe to the CommissionSubject: Alleged Israeli dumping of toxic waste in Palestine | 450 |
| Joint answer to Written Questions E-3080/03, e-3081/03 and E-3082/03 |
| 2004/C 088E/1 | P-3110/03 by María Sornosa Martínez to the CommissionSubject: Withdrawal of Community funding for the Juan XXIII project in Alicante (Spain) | 451 |
| 2004/C 088E/2 | P-3132/03 by José Ribeiro e Castro to the CommissionSubject: Cuba - Sakharov Initiative | 451 |
| 2004/C 088E/3 | E-3147/03 by Ilda Figueiredo to the CommissionSubject: Recent escalation of Israeli aggression in the Middle East | 452 |
| 2004/C 088E/4 | P-3179/03 by Glyn Ford to the CommissionSubject: Cambodian deadlock | 453 |
| 2004/C 088E/5 | E-3181/03 by Antonio Tajani to the CommissionSubject: Sending EU representatives to observe the referendum on Chavez | 454 |
| 2004/C 088E/6 | E-3190/03 by Roberta Angelilli to the CommissionSubject: Promotion of the pilot responsible for the Cermis tragedy | 455 |
| 2004/C 088E/7 | P-3247/03 by Baroness Sarah Ludford to the CommissionSubject: Annual report on Turkey | 456 |
| 2004/C 088E/8 | E-3249/03 by Richard Howitt, Jean Lambert and Renate Sommer to the CommissionSubject: Annual report on Turkey | 456 |
| Joint answer to Written Questions P-3247/03 and E-3249/03 |
| 2004/C 088E/9 | E-3253/03 by Cristiana Muscardini to the CommissionSubject: Somalia: internal situation, refugees and terrorism | 457 |
| 2004/C 088E/0 | E-3270/03 by Baroness Sarah Ludford to the CommissionSubject: Progress in Cameroon | 458 |
| 2004/C 088E/1 | E-3277/03 by Cristiana Muscardini to the CommissionSubject: New relations with Libya | 459 |
| 2004/C 088E/2 | E-3319/03 by Alexandros Alavanos to the CommissionSubject: Mines and migrants on the Greek-Turkish border | 460 |
| 2004/C 088E/3 | E-3347/03 by Esko Seppänen to the CommissionSubject: Enlargement and social security advantages | 461 |
| 2004/C 088E/4 | E-3369/03 by Cees Bremmer to the CommissionSubject: Detention of EU citizen in Thailand | 462 |
| 2004/C 088E/5 | E-3476/03 by Charles Tannock to the CommissionSubject: Disappearance of Ethiopian, a former coordinator for EU Aid | 463 |
| 2004/C 088E/6 | E-3496/03 by José Ribeiro e Castro to the CommissionSubject: Colombia - ELN hostages | 463 |
| 2004/C 088E/7 | E-3497/03 by José Ribeiro e Castro to the CommissionSubject: Georgia - parliamentary elections | 464 |
| 2004/C 088E/8 | E-3500/03 by Michl Ebner to the CommissionSubject: Accession of Croatia to the EU | 465 |
| 2004/C 088E/9 | E-3517/03 by Baroness Sarah Ludford to the CommissionSubject: Fair trade | 466 |
| 2004/C 088E/0 | E-3521/03 by Anne Van Lancker to the CommissionSubject: Human rights violations in the USA | 466 |
| 2004/C 088E/1 | E-3550/03 by José Ribeiro e Castro to the CommissionSubject: Zimbabwe - Censorship and repression | 467 |
| 2004/C 088E/2 | E-3560/03 by José Ribeiro e Castro to the CommissionSubject: Al-Qa’ida - international funding networks | 468 |
| 2004/C 088E/3 | E-3567/03 by Chris Davies to the CommissionSubject: Water for Life | 470 |
| 2004/C 088E/4 | E-3570/03 by Gerhard Schmid to the CommissionSubject: Setting-up of mobile customs control units in the Federal Republic of Germany after the accession of the Czech Republic to the European Union | 472 |
| 2004/C 088E/5 | E-3591/03 by José Ribeiro e Castro to the CommissionSubject: Côte d’Ivoire - the war breaks out again | 473 |
| 2004/C 088E/6 | E-3674/03 by Ilda Figueiredo to the CommissionSubject: Textile and clothing industry | 474 |
| 2004/C 088E/7 | E-3851/03 by Baroness Sarah Ludford to the CommissionSubject: Ratification of international conventions in the field of human rights | 475 |
| 2004/C 088E/8 | E-3859/03 by Raffaele Costa to the CommissionSubject: Funding of small Tacis Programme projects | 476 |
| 2004/C 088E/9 | E-3881/03 by Emmanouil Bakopoulos to the CommissionSubject: Encroachment on the Almyra wetlands in the prefecture of Xanthi | 477 |
| 2004/C 088E/0 | E-3967/03 by Gian Gobbo to the CommissionSubject: Compensation for expropriated property of Istrian refugees in Croatia | 478 |
| 2004/C 088E/1 | E-3977/03 by Paulo Casaca to the CommissionSubject: Mediation in Nepal | 478 |
| 2004/C 088E/2 | E-3982/03 by Miquel Mayol i Raynal to the CommissionSubject: Political rights of the Macedonian minority in Greece (Supplementary Answer) | 479 |
| 2004/C 088E/3 | E-4010/03 by Reino Paasilinna to the CommissionSubject: Safeguarding electricity supplies | 480 |
| 2004/C 088E/4 | E-4027/03 by Geoffrey Van Orden to the CommissionSubject: Capital gains tax deductions | 481 |
| 2004/C 088E/5 | E-0008/04 by Philip Claeys to the CommissionSubject: Accession of Cyprus, immigration | 482 |
| 2004/C 088E/6 | P-0027/04 by Marco Pannella to the CommissionSubject: Ongoing campaign of murder and torture by Vietnamese Government officials: arrest of Mr Nih, 41 years old, Christian and TRP supporter, on 13 December 2003 in Dak Doa | 483 |
| 2004/C 088E/7 | E-0089/04 by Astrid Thors to the CommissionSubject: Management of nuclear waste in Russia | 484 |
| 2004/C 088E/8 | E-0091/04 by Ilka Schröder to the CommissionSubject: Effects of including Hamas on the list of terrorist organisations | 485 |
| 2004/C 088E/9 | E-0097/04 by Jean Lambert to the CommissionSubject: Saint Lucia environmental aid | 486 |
| 2004/C 088E/0 | E-0113/04 by Raina Echerer and Eurig Wyn to the CommissionSubject: Maltese language for the next parliamentary term | 487 |
| 2004/C 088E/1 | E-0202/04 by Michl Ebner to the CommissionSubject: Lack of clarity in the rules excluding firms from applying for projects funded by the EU | 488 |
| 2004/C 088E/2 | E-0226/04 by Margrietus van den Berg to the CommissionSubject: Starch factories and developing countries | 490 |
| 2004/C 088E/3 | E-0254/04 by Elspeth Attwooll to the CommissionSubject: Global TB Drug Facility | 491 |
| 2004/C 088E/4 | E-0266/04 by John McCartin to the CommissionSubject: Imports of poultry meat into the EU | 492 |
| 2004/C 088E/5 | P-0302/04 by Christa Randzio-Plath to the CommissionSubject: Working conditions for female flower workers in Africa, Asia and Latin America | 492 |
| 2004/C 088E/6 | E-0306/04 by Gerhard Schmid to the CommissionSubject: Use of sky marshals | 494 |
| 2004/C 088E/7 | E-0318/04 by Glenys Kinnock to the CommissionSubject: People with mental disabilities in Russia | 495 |
| 2004/C 088E/8 | P-0341/04 by Philip Claeys to the CommissionSubject: Introduction of a Made in the EU label | 496 |
| 2004/C 088E/9 | E-0352/04 by Roberta Angelilli to the CommissionSubject: The Parmalat case and its repercussions on milk and cheese production in Lazio | 497 |
| 2004/C 088E/0 | E-0403/04 by Erik Meijer to the CommissionSubject: Distortion of competition to the detriment of the environment and of working conditions in the cheap production of the semi-finished product primary aluminium in Iceland | 498 |
| 2004/C 088E/1 | E-0406/04 by Jules Maaten and Jan Mulder to the CommissionSubject: Discrimination against a Netherlands onion farmer in Poland | 500 |
| 2004/C 088E/2 | E-0446/04 by Torben Lund to the CommissionSubject: Freedom of the press in Russia | 501 |
| 2004/C 088E/3 | E-0449/04 by Charles Tannock to the CommissionSubject: Monolithic rock-hewn churches in Lilibela, Ethiopia | 502 |
| 2004/C 088E/4 | E-0461/04 by José Ribeiro e Castro to the CommissionSubject: Zimbabwe - EP resolution | 502 |
| 2004/C 088E/5 | E-0492/04 by José Ribeiro e Castro to the CommissionSubject: Mozambique — possible trafficking in human organs — threats to EU citizens | 503 |
| 2004/C 088E/6 | E-0493/04 by Ilda Figueiredo to the CommissionSubject: Closure of the Panasqueira mines in Portugal | 505 |
| 2004/C 088E/7 | E-0500/04 by Salvador Garriga Polledo to the CommissionSubject: Protecting the dignity of Arab women | 506 |
| 2004/C 088E/8 | E-0516/04 by Anna Karamanou to the CommissionSubject: Illegal transplantation of children’s organs in Albania intended for patients in EU countries | 506 |
| 2004/C 088E/9 | E-0518/04 by Elena Paciotti to the CommissionSubject: Violation of the fundamental rights of an EU citizen by the USA | 507 |
| 2004/C 088E/0 | E-0536/04 by John Bowis to the CommissionSubject: Colombia | 508 |
| 2004/C 088E/1 | E-0539/04 by Ilda Figueiredo to the CommissionSubject: Implementation of the Structural Funds in Portugal | 509 |
| 2004/C 088E/2 | E-0571/04 by Herbert Bösch to the CommissionSubject: Addressing the needs of disabled people in development cooperation funded by the EU | 510 |
| 2004/C 088E/3 | E-0572/04 by Graham Watson to the CommissionSubject: Czech psychiatric hospitals | 512 |
| 2004/C 088E/4 | E-0577/04 by José Ribeiro e Castro to the CommissionSubject: Cuba - Sakharov Initiative | 512 |
| 2004/C 088E/5 | E-0584/04 by Nirj Deva to the CommissionSubject: EU aid money to Zimbabwe | 513 |
| 2004/C 088E/6 | E-0606/04 by Camilo Nogueira Román to the CommissionSubject: The Spanish Government’s respect for the principle of additionality in the funding of the Structural Funds and the Cohesion Fund | 515 |
| 2004/C 088E/7 | E-0609/04 by Ulrich Stockmann to the CommissionSubject: Customs and enlargement | 515 |
| 2004/C 088E/8 | E-0616/04 by Klaus Hänsch to the CommissionSubject: Allocation of EU resources (Supplementary Answer) | 516 |
| 2004/C 088E/9 | E-0620/04 by Concepció Ferrer to the CommissionSubject: Export of military ammunition to African countries as hunting ammunition | 517 |
| 2004/C 088E/0 | P-0626/04 by Juan Ferrández Lezaun to the CommissionSubject: The Spanish NHP alternatives | 518 |
| 2004/C 088E/1 | E-0627/04 by María Sornosa Martínez to the CommissionSubject: Failure to comply with Community legislation during border veterinary checks in Spain | 518 |
| 2004/C 088E/2 | E-0628/04 by María Sornosa Martínez to the CommissionSubject: Documentary irregularities when authorising third-country products during Spanish border checks | 519 |
| Supplementary joint answer to Written Questions E-0627/04 and E-0628/04 |
| 2004/C 088E/3 | E-0715/04 by José García-Margallo y Marfil to the CommissionSubject: Polish VAT increase for citrus fruit | 520 |
| 2004/C 088E/4 | P-0822/04 by María Sornosa Martínez to the CommissionSubject: Distortion of competition by Poland in respect of other EU products | 521 |
| Joint answer to Written Questions E-0715/04 and P-0822/04 |
| 2004/C 088E/5 | E-0725/04 by Daniela Raschhofer to the CommissionSubject: Accession of Latvia | 522 |
| 2004/C 088E/6 | E-0728/04 by Roberta Angelilli to the CommissionSubject: Ansaldo-Breda: possible monitoring of EU funding (Supplementary Answer) | 523 |
| 2004/C 088E/7 | P-0733/04 by Giuseppe Di Lello Finuoli to the CommissionSubject: European cofinancing of the Gazzi-Annunziata tramline in Messina under the Multifund Operational Programme 1994-1999 | 524 |
| 2004/C 088E/8 | E-0740/04 by José García-Margallo y Marfil to the CommissionSubject: Agency to combat tax fraud | 525 |
| 2004/C 088E/9 | E-0742/04 by José García-Margallo y Marfil to the CommissionSubject: Regional impact of the Growth Initiative | 526 |
| 2004/C 088E/0 | E-0744/04 by José García-Margallo y Marfil to the CommissionSubject: Encouraging the participation of SMEs in innovative and R&D projects | 527 |
| 2004/C 088E/1 | E-0747/04 by José García-Margallo y Marfil to the CommissionSubject: Safeguard clause relating to satsuma imports | 528 |
| 2004/C 088E/2 | E-0760/04 by José García-Margallo y Marfil to the CommissionSubject: Implementation of the financial services action plan (FSAP) in the new Member States | 529 |
| 2004/C 088E/3 | E-0772/04 by Maurizio Turco to the CommissionSubject: Violation of religious freedom in Austria | 529 |
| 2004/C 088E/4 | E-0775/04 by Maurizio Turco to the CommissionSubject: Violation of religious freedom in Germany | 531 |
| 2004/C 088E/5 | E-0776/04 by Maurizio Turco to the CommissionSubject: Violation of religious freedom in Greece | 532 |
| 2004/C 088E/6 | E-0786/04 by Proinsias De Rossa to the CommissionSubject: Police cooperation and human rights | 534 |
| 2004/C 088E/7 | P-0788/04 by Giacomo Santini to the CommissionSubject: Importation of dumped copper sulphate | 535 |
| 2004/C 088E/8 | E-0806/04 by Antonio Di Pietro to the CommissionSubject: Tremonti Law - Mediaset | 536 |
| 2004/C 088E/9 | P-0810/04 by José Ribeiro e Castro to the CommissionSubject: Mozambique - Nampula - murder of a missionary | 537 |
| 2004/C 088E/0 | E-0813/04 by Johanna Boogerd-Quaak to the CommissionSubject: Agri-environmental payments | 538 |
| 2004/C 088E/1 | E-0815/04 by Charles Tannock to the CommissionSubject: The mass detention of Eritrean evangelical Christians | 539 |
| 2004/C 088E/2 | E-0821/04 by Ilda Figueiredo to the CommissionSubject: Signing of the Agadir Agreement | 540 |
| 2004/C 088E/3 | E-0833/04 by Catherine Stihler to the CommissionSubject: VAT rating of 0 % or 5 % on all audio-books | 541 |
| 2004/C 088E/4 | E-0852/04 by Michl Ebner to the CommissionSubject: Building projects in East Africa | 542 |
| 2004/C 088E/5 | E-0854/04 by Roger Helmer to the CommissionSubject: Common external tariffs | 543 |
| 2004/C 088E/6 | E-0874/04 by Salvador Garriga Polledo to the CommissionSubject: Boycott of polio vaccinations by Nigerian fundamentalists | 546 |
| 2004/C 088E/7 | E-0878/04 by Antonio Di Pietro to the CommissionSubject: The Acque Albule water company of Tivoli (Italy) | 547 |
| 2004/C 088E/8 | E-0889/04 by Nelly Maes to the CommissionSubject: Elections in Iran | 548 |
| 2004/C 088E/9 | E-0899/04 by Patricia McKenna to the CommissionSubject: Larger Member State representation on the ECB board | 549 |
| 2004/C 088E/0 | E-0918/04 by Proinsias De Rossa to the CommissionSubject: Random motor insurance checks in Ireland on vehicles from other Member States | 549 |
| 2004/C 088E/1 | E-0919/04 by Proinsias De Rossa to the CommissionSubject: Trafficking in human beings | 550 |
| 2004/C 088E/2 | E-0922/04 by Proinsias De Rossa to the CommissionSubject: VAT on postal services | 551 |
| 2004/C 088E/3 | E-0939/04 by Robert Evans to the CommissionSubject: Ethiopia | 552 |
| 2004/C 088E/4 | E-0946/04 by Ilda Figueiredo to the CommissionSubject: School milk in Portugal | 553 |
| 2004/C 088E/5 | E-0955/04 by Philip Claeys to the CommissionSubject: Statements by Commissioner Verheugen concerning Turkey’s possible accession to the Union | 554 |
| 2004/C 088E/6 | E-0986/04 by Richard Corbett to the CommissionSubject: Blood diamonds | 554 |
| 2004/C 088E/7 | E-0990/04 by Jan Wiersma to the CommissionSubject: The recent clashes between Syrian Kurds and the Syrian authorities (March 2004) | 555 |
| 2004/C 088E/8 | E-0997/04 by Dominique Souchet to the CommissionSubject: Placing on the market of plant protection products | 556 |
| 2004/C 088E/9 | E-1003/04 by Daniel Hannan to the CommissionSubject: Romanian motorway project | 558 |
| 2004/C 088E/0 | E-1004/04 by Daniel Hannan to the CommissionSubject: Threat to peace and democracy in Adjara | 559 |
| 2004/C 088E/1 | E-1012/04 by Mario Borghezio to the CommissionSubject: Who is trying to block the investigations into fraud in Euroland? | 560 |
| 2004/C 088E/2 | E-1021/04 by Paolo Bartolozzi to the CommissionSubject: Imported goods in transit held up by customs | 560 |
| 2004/C 088E/3 | E-1054/04 by Franz Turchi to the CommissionSubject: Increase in European School fees | 562 |
| 2004/C 088E/4 | E-1065/04 by Anna Karamanou to the CommissionSubject: Legal operation of paedophile networks in Europe — new Dutroux? | 562 |
| 2004/C 088E/5 | E-1069/04 by Nicole Thomas-Mauro to the CommissionSubject: Inconsistency of the Commission’s position on wine | 564 |
| 2004/C 088E/6 | E-1073/04 by Proinsias De Rossa to the CommissionSubject: Architectural quality in urban and rural environments | 565 |
| 2004/C 088E/7 | E-1074/04 by Proinsias De Rossa to the CommissionSubject: Human rights and the Cotonou Agreement | 566 |
| 2004/C 088E/8 | E-1080/04 by Proinsias De Rossa to the CommissionSubject: Human rights defenders | 567 |
| 2004/C 088E/9 | P-1092/04 by Jean Lambert to the CommissionSubject: Caste discrimination | 567 |
| 2004/C 088E/0 | E-1097/04 by Adriana Poli Bortone to the CommissionSubject: Regulation (EC) No 2331/2003 | 569 |
| 2004/C 088E/1 | P-1104/04 by Francesco Speroni to the CommissionSubject: Fig bananas | 570 |
| 2004/C 088E/2 | P-1123/04 by Roy Perry to the CommissionSubject: Recourse to civil courts | 571 |
| 2004/C 088E/3 | P-1124/04 by Professor Sir Neil MacCormick to the CommissionSubject: Tax concessions for stud farms | 572 |
| 2004/C 088E/4 | P-1126/04 by Véronique De Keyser to the CommissionSubject: Use of structural funds | 572 |
| 2004/C 088E/5 | P-1141/04 by Göran Färm to the CommissionSubject: European patent rights in the USA | 573 |
| 2004/C 088E/6 | E-1145/04 by Ilda Figueiredo to the CommissionSubject: Establishment of a Community inspection body | 573 |
| 2004/C 088E/7 | P-1154/04 by Brice Hortefeux to the CommissionSubject: Fight against terrorism | 574 |
| 2004/C 088E/8 | P-1155/04 by Marco Formentini to the CommissionSubject: Request for the Commission to intervene in the dispute between the company Invesmart bv and the Czech Republic regarding the bankrupt Union Banka | 575 |
| 2004/C 088E/9 | P-1201/04 by Roberta Angelilli to the CommissionSubject: Municipality of Rome — failure to comply with Commission Decision 2000/628/EC in relation to State aid granted to ACCL | 576 |
| | WRITTEN QUESTIONS WITH ANSWER (Part 3) |
| 2004/C 088E/0 | E-3077/01 by Luis Berenguer Fuster to the CommissionSubject: The case concerning State aid for the Terra Mítica theme park (Alicante) | 578 |
| 2004/C 088E/1 | P-2951/02 by Rosa Miguélez Ramos to the CommissionSubject: Allocation of structural funds (Supplementary Answer) | 579 |
| 2004/C 088E/2 | E-3207/02 by Kathleen Van Brempt to the CommissionSubject: Nicotine sweets (Supplementary Answer) | 579 |
| 2004/C 088E/3 | P-3445/02 by Wolfgang Ilgenfritz to the CommissionSubject: Vehicle leasing abroad — transfer of the place where the service is supplied to the home Member State — amendment of the VAT Directive | 580 |
| 2004/C 088E/4 | E-3512/02 by Herman Vermeer to the CommissionSubject: Problem of mutual recognition in the port of Antwerp involving a visa issued by a Schengen state (Supplementary Answer) | 581 |
| 2004/C 088E/5 | E-3753/02 by Kathleen Van Brempt to the CommissionSubject: Kerosene tax | 582 |
| 2004/C 088E/6 | E-3801/02 by Jules Maaten to the CommissionSubject: Tobacco excise on medicinal herbal cigarettes | 583 |
| 2004/C 088E/7 | P-3926/02 by Niels Busk to the CommissionSubject: Production levy in France (Supplementary Answer) | 584 |
| 2004/C 088E/8 | P-0020/03 by Claude Moraes to the CommissionSubject: Caste-based discrimination in India | 585 |
| 2004/C 088E/9 | E-0079/03 by Margot Keßler to the CommissionSubject: The situation of people with mental disabilities in applicant countries | 586 |
| 2004/C 088E/0 | E-0113/03 by Mogens Camre to the CommissionSubject: Migrant workers from the new Member States | 587 |
| 2004/C 088E/1 | E-0130/03 by Margrietus van den Berg to the CommissionSubject: Implementing paragraph 6 of the Doha Declaration on TRIPS and public health | 589 |
| 2004/C 088E/2 | E-0170/03 by Bob van den Bos to the CommissionSubject: Bangladesh | 590 |
| 2004/C 088E/3 | E-0242/03 by Nirj Deva to the CommissionSubject: Human rights in Bangladesh | 590 |
| Joint answer to Written Questions E-0170/03 and E-0242/03 |
| 2004/C 088E/4 | P-0176/03 by Ilda Figueiredo to the CommissionSubject: Consequences of the liberalisation of agriculture worldwide | 591 |
| 2004/C 088E/5 | P-0207/03 by Daniel Hannan to the CommissionSubject: Maltese referendum | 592 |
| 2004/C 088E/6 | E-0208/03 by Patricia McKenna to the CommissionSubject: General Agreement on Trade in Services | 593 |
| 2004/C 088E/7 | E-0247/03 by Charles Tannock to the CommissionSubject: Potential abuse of the EU Association Agreement | 594 |
| 2004/C 088E/8 | P-0264/03 by Joachim Wuermeling to the CommissionSubject: Discrimination against EU investors in the Czech Republic | 595 |
| 2004/C 088E/9 | E-0277/03 by Brian Simpson to the CommissionSubject: Soda ash imports | 596 |
| 2004/C 088E/0 | P-0306/03 by Hanja Maij-Weggen to the CommissionSubject: Human rights situation in Zimbabwe | 597 |
| 2004/C 088E/1 | E-0401/03 by Roy Perry to the CommissionSubject: Transparency in the application of broadcasting legislation in the Czech Republic | 598 |
| 2004/C 088E/2 | E-0796/03 by Concepció Ferrer to the CommissionSubject: Bureaucracy and the EDF | 599 |
| 2004/C 088E/3 | E-0830/03 by Roberta Angelilli to the CommissionSubject: Use of funds from the Culture 2000 programme by the City of Frosinone | 600 |
| 2004/C 088E/4 | E-0892/03 by Roberta Angelilli to the CommissionSubject: Use of funds from the Culture 2000 programme by the municipality of Fiumicino | 600 |
| 2004/C 088E/5 | E-0978/03 by Roberta Angelilli to the CommissionSubject: Use of funds from the Culture 2000 programme by the municipality of Ancona | 601 |
| 2004/C 088E/6 | E-0979/03 by Roberta Angelilli to the CommissionSubject: Use of funds from the Culture 2000 programme by the municipality of Carrara | 601 |
| 2004/C 088E/7 | E-0980/03 by Roberta Angelilli to the CommissionSubject: Use of funds from the Culture 2000 programme by the municipality of Firenze | 602 |
| 2004/C 088E/8 | E-0981/03 by Roberta Angelilli to the CommissionSubject: Use of funds from the Culture 2000 programme by the municipality of Livorno | 602 |
| 2004/C 088E/9 | E-0982/03 by Roberta Angelilli to the CommissionSubject: Use of funds from the Culture 2000 programme by the municipality of Macerata | 603 |
| 2004/C 088E/0 | E-0983/03 by Roberta Angelilli to the CommissionSubject: Use of funds from the Culture 2000 programme by the municipality of Massa | 603 |
| 2004/C 088E/1 | E-0984/03 by Roberta Angelilli to the CommissionSubject: Use of funds from the Culture 2000 programme by the municipality of Perugia | 604 |
| 2004/C 088E/2 | E-0985/03 by Roberta Angelilli to the CommissionSubject: Use of funds from the Culture 2000 programme by the municipality of Pesaro | 604 |
| 2004/C 088E/3 | E-0986/03 by Roberta Angelilli to the CommissionSubject: Use of funds from the Culture 2000 programme by the municipality of Pisa | 605 |
| 2004/C 088E/4 | E-0987/03 by Roberta Angelilli to the CommissionSubject: Use of funds from the Culture 2000 programme by the municipality of Pistoia | 605 |
| 2004/C 088E/5 | E-0988/03 by Roberta Angelilli to the CommissionSubject: Use of funds from the Culture 2000 programme by the municipality of Prato | 606 |
| 2004/C 088E/6 | E-0989/03 by Roberta Angelilli to the CommissionSubject: Use of funds from the Culture 2000 programme by the municipality of Siena | 606 |
| 2004/C 088E/7 | E-0990/03 by Roberta Angelilli to the CommissionSubject: Use of funds from the Culture 2000 programme by the municipality of Terni | 607 |
| Supplementary joint answer to Written Questions E-0830/03, E-0892/03, E-0978/03, E-0979/03, E-0980/03, E-0981/03, E-0982/03, E-0983/03, E-0984/03, E-0985/03, E-0986/03, E-0987/03, E-0988/03, E-0989/03 and E-0990/03 |
| 2004/C 088E/8 | E-0915/03 by Claude Moraes to the CommissionSubject: EU/UN World Food Programme figures | 608 |
| 2004/C 088E/9 | E-1117/03 by Bart Staes to the CommissionSubject: Labelling of foodstuffs after enlargement | 609 |
| 2004/C 088E/0 | E-1297/03 by José Ribeiro e Castro to the CommissionSubject: Massacres in Kashmir | 610 |
| 2004/C 088E/1 | E-1342/03 by Benedetto Della Vedova to the CommissionSubject: The right to religious freedom in India | 611 |
| 2004/C 088E/2 | E-1507/03 by Ilda Figueiredo to the CommissionSubject: Bankruptcy of Grundig AG and how to safeguard jobs in Portugal (Supplementary Answer) | 612 |
| 2004/C 088E/3 | P-1555/03 by Eija-Riitta Korhola to the CommissionSubject: Averting alcohol-related harm in Finland | 613 |
| 2004/C 088E/4 | E-1690/03 by Anders Wijkman to the CommissionSubject: Bushmeat | 614 |
| 2004/C 088E/5 | E-1706/03 by Gabriele Stauner to the CommissionSubject: Medstat and Medstat II programmes | 615 |
| 2004/C 088E/6 | E-1716/03 by Mogens Camre to the CommissionSubject: Poul Nielsen’s statements on the USA’s presence in Iraq | 617 |
| 2004/C 088E/7 | E-1768/03 by John Cushnahan to the CommissionSubject: Rehabilitation of torture victims | 618 |
| 2004/C 088E/8 | E-1891/03 by Margrietus van den Berg and Jan Wiersma to the CommissionSubject: Iran’s nuclear activities | 619 |
| 2004/C 088E/9 | E-1902/03 by Lord Inglewood to the CommissionSubject: VAT and the European art market | 620 |
| 2004/C 088E/0 | E-2041/03 by Maurizio Turco to the CommissionSubject: Violation of religious freedom in Russia through exclusive cooperation agreements with the Russian Orthodox Church | 620 |
| 2004/C 088E/1 | E-2224/03 by Paulo Casaca to the CommissionSubject: Additional Protocol for Nuclear Material Safeguards | 621 |
| 2004/C 088E/2 | E-2266/03 by Erik Meijer to the CommissionSubject: Financing of, and agreements with the EU concerning, construction in future EU Member States of camps to accommodate refugees seeking admission to the present Member States | 622 |
| 2004/C 088E/3 | E-2527/03 by Glenys Kinnock to the CommissionSubject: Rum | 625 |
| 2004/C 088E/4 | P-2622/03 by Philip Claeys to the CommissionSubject: Relations with Libya | 626 |
| 2004/C 088E/5 | E-2660/03 by Elisabeth Jeggle to the CommissionSubject: Checks on invalid MOT (road worthiness inspection) disks in EU Member States | 627 |
| 2004/C 088E/6 | P-2697/03 by Francesco Fiori to the CommissionSubject: Anomalies in the customs treatment of, and health requirements applied to, imported chicken and turkey | 628 |
| 2004/C 088E/7 | E-2910/03 by Joan Vallvé to the CommissionSubject: Difficulties at the German-Polish border | 629 |
| 2004/C 088E/8 | E-2957/03 by Mogens Camre to the CommissionSubject: Commission’s proposed amendment of Directive 94/35/EC (Supplementary Answer) | 630 |
| 2004/C 088E/9 | P-2992/03 by Rodi Kratsa-Tsagaropoulou to the CommissionSubject: Drugs production in Afghanistan | 631 |
| 2004/C 088E/0 | E-3021/03 by Anna Karamanou to the CommissionSubject: Child trafficking in Afghanistan | 633 |
| 2004/C 088E/1 | E-3031/03 by Ilda Figueiredo to the CommissionSubject: Community subsidies in the cultural sphere (Supplementary Answer) | 634 |
| 2004/C 088E/2 | P-3091/03 by Glenys Kinnock to the CommissionSubject: Peter Shaw/Georgia | 636 |
| 2004/C 088E/3 | E-3117/03 by Maurizio Turco to the CommissionSubject: Illegal imports of textile products from China | 636 |
| 2004/C 088E/4 | E-3220/03 by Christopher Heaton-Harris to the CommissionSubject: Financial Regulations and DG Enlargement | 637 |
| 2004/C 088E/5 | E-3221/03 by Christopher Heaton-Harris to the CommissionSubject: Financial Regulations and DG Development and Humanitarian Aid | 638 |
| 2004/C 088E/6 | E-3257/03 by Margrietus van den Berg to the CommissionSubject: VAT - recycling firms | 639 |
| 2004/C 088E/7 | E-3305/03 by Claude Moraes to the CommissionSubject: Human rights in Tunisia | 641 |
| 2004/C 088E/8 | E-3310/03 by Philip Claeys to the CommissionSubject: Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan oil pipeline; violations of the acquis communautaire by Turkey | 642 |
| 2004/C 088E/9 | P-3331/03 by Anne Van Lancker to the CommissionSubject: Defunding HIV/AIDS prevention programmes for refugees | 642 |
| 2004/C 088E/0 | E-3357/03 by Stavros Xarchakos to the CommissionSubject: Affront to the church of Ayia Sofia in Istanbul | 643 |
| 2004/C 088E/1 | E-3366/03 by Avril Doyle to the CommissionSubject: Human rights situation in Chechnya | 644 |
| 2004/C 088E/2 | E-3377/03 by Elisabeth Schroedter and Inger Schörling to the CommissionSubject: Oil extraction by Russia in the Baltic Sea, near the Curonian Spit (D6 oil deposit) | 645 |
| 2004/C 088E/3 | E-3380/03 by Christos Zacharakis and Konstantinos Hatzidakis to the CommissionSubject: Representations to the Egyptian authorities to implement the principles of democracy and the protection of human rights | 647 |
| 2004/C 088E/4 | P-3391/03 by Luigi Vinci to the CommissionSubject: Negotiations between Turkey and the Commission on the case against Leyla Zana | 648 |
| 2004/C 088E/5 | E-3396/03 by Roberta Angelilli to the CommissionSubject: Failure to pay compensation to Italian exiles in former Yugoslavia | 648 |
| 2004/C 088E/6 | P-3401/03 by Alexandros Alavanos to the CommissionSubject: The Loizidou case | 649 |
| 2004/C 088E/7 | E-3467/03 by John Bowis to the CommissionSubject: Chad-Cameroon pipeline | 650 |
| 2004/C 088E/8 | E-3676/03 by Ilda Figueiredo to the CommissionSubject: Petition by CNASTI (Portugal) | 651 |
| 2004/C 088E/9 | E-3857/03 by Raffaele Costa to the CommissionSubject: Development aid programme for India | 652 |
| 2004/C 088E/0 | E-3868/03 by Piia-Noora Kauppi, Riitta Myller, Samuli Pohjamo and Ari Vatanen to the CommissionSubject: Taxation temperature of fuel | 653 |
| 2004/C 088E/1 | E-3880/03 by Emmanouil Bakopoulos to the CommissionSubject: Pet passports | 654 |
| 2004/C 088E/2 | E-3920/03 by Graham Watson to the CommissionSubject: ECHO | 655 |
| 2004/C 088E/3 | P-3936/03 by Christopher Heaton-Harris to the CommissionSubject: Italtrend | 656 |
| 2004/C 088E/4 | E-3959/03 by José Ribeiro e Castro to the CommissionSubject: Africa - food shortage and security of food supply | 656 |
| 2004/C 088E/5 | E-3972/03 by Erik Meijer to the CommissionSubject: Campaign in Bulgaria against distribution and management of funds for civil society development by the EU delegation in Sofia and ways of assuaging the associated annoyance | 659 |
| 2004/C 088E/6 | E-3973/03 by Erik Meijer to the CommissionSubject: National Council for Ethnic and Demographic Issues (NCEDI) ignored when allocating EU funds for social participation in Bulgaria | 659 |
| 2004/C 088E/7 | E-4011/03 by Erik Meijer to the CommissionSubject: Implementation of PHARE project BG 0102.06 in Bulgaria: major disparities between the proposals drafted and the actual allocation of funding | 660 |
| 2004/C 088E/8 | E-4012/03 by Erik Meijer to the CommissionSubject: Implementation of PHARE project BG 0102.06 in Bulgaria: late announcement of decisions and controversial payment arrangements | 660 |
| 2004/C 088E/9 | E-4013/03 by Erik Meijer to the CommissionSubject: Implementation of PHARE project BG 0102.06 in Bulgaria: lack of information as to who is responsible for management, decision-making and assessment | 661 |
| 2004/C 088E/0 | E-4014/03 by Erik Meijer to the CommissionSubject: Implementation of PHARE project BG 0102.06 in Bulgaria: delays in implementation and uncertainty regarding the disbursement of the resulting outstanding appropriations | 661 |
| Joint answer to Written Questions E-3972/03, E-3973/02, E-4011/03, E-4012/03, E-4013/03 and E-4014/03 |
| 2004/C 088E/1 | E-3974/03 by Paulo Casaca to the CommissionSubject: Reform of the support system for ACP banana producers | 663 |
| 2004/C 088E/2 | E-3992/03 by Giles Chichester and Geoffrey Van Orden to the CommissionSubject: Presentation of the peer review on the Kozloduy nuclear power plant | 664 |
| 2004/C 088E/3 | E-3993/03 by Giles Chichester and Geoffrey Van Orden to the CommissionSubject: Review of the closure dates for the Kozloduy nuclear power plant units | 664 |
| Joint answer to Written Questions E-3992/03 and E-3993/03 |
| 2004/C 088E/4 | E-4019/03 by Margrietus van den Berg to the CommissionSubject: Burma Forum | 666 |
| 2004/C 088E/5 | E-4038/03 by Herbert Bösch to the CommissionSubject: Processing of radioactive waste in Ukraine | 666 |
| 2004/C 088E/6 | E-4051/03 by Hiltrud Breyer to the CommissionSubject: Export of nuclear facilities to the People’s Republic of China | 667 |
| 2004/C 088E/7 | E-4058/03 by Elspeth Attwooll to the CommissionSubject: Gun laws in Turkey | 669 |
| 2004/C 088E/8 | E-4077/03 by Chris Davies to the CommissionSubject: NGOs | 669 |
| 2004/C 088E/9 | E-4081/03 by Chris Davies to the CommissionSubject: Tuberculosis | 670 |
| 2004/C 088E/0 | E-4083/03 by Bob van den Bos and Johanna Boogerd-Quaak to the CommissionSubject: Burma | 671 |
| 2004/C 088E/1 | E-4084/03 by Miet Smet to the CommissionSubject: Suspension of cooperation agreements and postponement in signing cooperation agreements | 672 |
| 2004/C 088E/2 | P-4088/03 by Dana Scallon to the CommissionSubject: Reproductive health definition | 675 |
| 2004/C 088E/3 | P-0002/04 by Bernd Posselt to the CommissionSubject: Definition of sexual and reproductive health | 675 |
| 2004/C 088E/4 | E-0007/04 by Philip Claeys to the CommissionSubject: Accession of Cyprus, official languages | 676 |
| 2004/C 088E/5 | E-0032/04 by Erik Meijer to the CommissionSubject: Long-term stateless-person status of one category of permanent residents of the three future EU Member States that were internal states of the Soviet Union until 1991 | 676 |
| 2004/C 088E/6 | E-0034/04 by Erik Meijer to the CommissionSubject: Duty-free cigarettes sold over the Internet at half price in Romania and sent by private individuals | 678 |
| 2004/C 088E/7 | E-0085/04 by Matti Wuori to the CommissionSubject: Missing NGO legal framework in Malta | 679 |
| 2004/C 088E/8 | E-0096/04 by Alexandros Alavanos to the CommissionSubject: Israeli arms for Turkey in exchange for water | 679 |
| 2004/C 088E/9 | E-0104/04 by José Ribeiro e Castro to the CommissionSubject: Namibia - Farms threatened with occupation | 680 |
| 2004/C 088E/0 | E-0116/04 by Dana Scallon to the CommissionSubject: Leader II projects - Blue Dragon case | 681 |
| 2004/C 088E/1 | E-0118/04 by Monica Frassoni and Daniel Cohn-Bendit to the CommissionSubject: Elimination of voters from Maltese electoral lists | 682 |
| 2004/C 088E/2 | E-0120/04 by Adriana Poli Bortone to the CommissionSubject: Death of 20 Albanian nationals | 683 |
| 2004/C 088E/3 | E-0137/04 by Jillian Evans to the CommissionSubject: The case of Mrs Siham Qandah, Jordan | 684 |
| 2004/C 088E/4 | E-0144/04 by José Ribeiro e Castro to the CommissionSubject: Cuba - Commission delegation | 685 |
| 2004/C 088E/5 | E-0146/04 by José Ribeiro e Castro to the CommissionSubject: Venezuela referendum | 686 |
| 2004/C 088E/6 | E-0148/04 by Cees Bremmer to the CommissionSubject: Human rights in Burma | 687 |
| 2004/C 088E/7 | E-0188/04 by Marco Cappato to the CommissionSubject: Abduction of two Ivorians | 688 |
| 2004/C 088E/8 | E-0213/04 by Sir Robert Atkins to the CommissionSubject: The Pharmaceutical Tariff Elimination Agreement (Zero for Zero) | 689 |
| 2004/C 088E/9 | E-0216/04 by Marco Pannella to the CommissionSubject: Violation of religious freedom in Vietnam | 690 |
| 2004/C 088E/0 | E-0218/04 by Eija-Riitta Korhola to the CommissionSubject: Practical measures under the EU’s policy on Chechnya | 692 |
| 2004/C 088E/1 | E-0221/04 by Maurizio Turco to the CommissionSubject: Investigations by the Milan public prosecutor into the auditors Grant Thornton and Deloitte in connection with the Parmalat scandal | 693 |
| 2004/C 088E/2 | E-0248/04 by Glenys Kinnock to the CommissionSubject: Roma children in Bulgaria | 693 |
| 2004/C 088E/3 | P-0312/04 by Elspeth Attwooll to the CommissionSubject: Development aid | 694 |
| 2004/C 088E/4 | E-0401/04 by Concepció Ferrer to the CommissionSubject: River Ebro water transfer | 695 |
| 2004/C 088E/5 | P-0409/04 by Carlos Coelho to the CommissionSubject: Rights inherent in European citizenship | 696 |
| 2004/C 088E/6 | E-0427/04 by Christopher Huhne to the CommissionSubject: Residence of nationals in another Member State | 697 |
| 2004/C 088E/7 | E-0496/04 by María Sornosa Martínez and María Valenciano Martínez-Orozco to the CommissionSubject: Research into Spanish Labour Ministry bursaries (Supplementary Answer) | 698 |
| 2004/C 088E/8 | E-0526/04 by Matti Wuori to the CommissionSubject: Enlargement of Arinaga port (Gran Canaria, Spain) | 699 |
| 2004/C 088E/9 | E-0527/04 by Matti Wuori to the CommissionSubject: Enlargement of Arinaga port (Gran Canaria, Spain) | 699 |
| Joint answer to Written Questions E-0526/04 and E-0527/04 |
| 2004/C 088E/0 | E-0569/04 by Herbert Bösch to the CommissionSubject: Leonardo da Vinci programme (Supplementary Answer) | 700 |
| 2004/C 088E/1 | E-0661/04 by Alexander de Roo to the CommissionSubject: Public procurement for the Júcar-Vinalopó water transfer | 702 |
| 2004/C 088E/2 | E-0669/04 by Proinsias De Rossa to the CommissionSubject: Professional qualifications | 703 |
| 2004/C 088E/3 | E-0676/04 by Proinsias De Rossa to the CommissionSubject: Bushmeat - resource allocation | 703 |
| 2004/C 088E/4 | E-0677/04 by Proinsias De Rossa to the CommissionSubject: Bushmeat: timber concession wildlife management | 704 |
| 2004/C 088E/5 | E-0678/04 by Proinsias De Rossa to the CommissionSubject: Bushmeat - Biodiversity Action Plan | 704 |
| 2004/C 088E/6 | E-0681/04 by Proinsias De Rossa to the CommissionSubject: Bushmeat - poverty assessments | 704 |
| Joint answer to Written Questions E-0676/04, E-0677/04, E-0678/04 and E-0681/04 |
| 2004/C 088E/7 | E-0682/04 by Proinsias De Rossa to the CommissionSubject: Bushmeat: Development Strategies | 705 |
| 2004/C 088E/8 | P-0687/04 by Marcelino Oreja Arburúa to the CommissionSubject: Infringement of the principle of the freedom of movement of goods | 706 |
| 2004/C 088E/9 | E-0708/04 by Erik Meijer to the CommissionSubject: Disappearance of last-remaining sources of income for Roma population in eastern Slovakia and resultant looting, violent clashes and migration | 707 |
| 2004/C 088E/0 | P-0721/04 by Daniela Raschhofer to the CommissionSubject: Benes Decree No 33/1945: the case of Hugo Salm | 709 |
| 2004/C 088E/1 | E-0756/04 by José García-Margallo y Marfil to the CommissionSubject: Repercussions of European financial market integration at national and regional level | 710 |
| 2004/C 088E/2 | E-0811/04 by Enrique Monsonís Domingo and Joan Vallvé to the CommissionSubject: Pests affecting citrus fruit | 711 |
| 2004/C 088E/3 | P-0841/04 by Cristiana Muscardini to the CommissionSubject: Female sexual mutilation | 712 |
| 2004/C 088E/4 | E-0853/04 by Terence Wynn to the CommissionSubject: New Regulation on sugar export and dispatch from outermost regions | 714 |
| 2004/C 088E/5 | E-0877/04 by Patricia McKenna to the CommissionSubject: Conflict resolution in Sudan | 715 |
| 2004/C 088E/6 | E-0901/04 by Graham Watson to the CommissionSubject: The treatment of animals in livestock markets | 716 |
| 2004/C 088E/7 | E-0921/04 by Proinsias De Rossa to the CommissionSubject: Israeli nuclear arms | 717 |
| 2004/C 088E/8 | P-0956/04 by Brian Crowley to the CommissionSubject: Decoupling, farm retirement and families | 718 |
| 2004/C 088E/9 | P-0985/04 by Antonio Di Pietro to the CommissionSubject: Disappearance of children in Mozambique | 718 |
| 2004/C 088E/0 | P-1000/04 by Michiel van Hulten to the CommissionSubject: Publication by Commissioner Bolkestein of a book entitled De grenzen van Europa | 720 |
| 2004/C 088E/1 | P-1007/04 by Manuel Medina Ortega to the CommissionSubject: Breakdown of the POSEI item in the 2004 Budget | 721 |
| 2004/C 088E/2 | E-1064/04 by André Brie to the CommissionSubject: Inconsistencies relating to the reconstruction of the road S 282 A in the Free State of Saxony (Supplementary Answer) | 721 |
| 2004/C 088E/3 | E-1081/04 by Maria Sanders-ten Holte to the CommissionSubject: The smaller European Schools | 722 |
| 2004/C 088E/4 | P-1125/04 by Daniela Raschhofer to the CommissionSubject: EU programmes with Turkey — potential consequences of full membership | 724 |
| 2004/C 088E/5 | P-1190/04 by Joan Vallvé to the CommissionSubject: Forum of Cultures 2004 | 724 |
| 2004/C 088E/6 | P-1200/04 by Charles Tannock to the CommissionSubject: The progress in Ukraine being recognised by the EU as having Market Economy Status (MES) | 725 |
| 2004/C 088E/7 | P-1203/04 by Gianfranco Dell’Alba to the CommissionSubject: Suspected irregularities in the management of European Development Fund (EDF) resources for Project 8.ACP.PNG.003 (Supplementary Answer) | 726 |
| | Corrigenda |
| 2004/C 088E/8 | Corrigendum to the answer to Written Question P-2323/03 by Mrs Schreyer on behalf of the Commission | 728 |

Notice No

Contents

page

I   (Information)

EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT

WRITTEN QUESTIONS WITH ANSWER (Part 1)

2004/C 088E/1

E-2236/02 by Gabriele Stauner to the CommissionSubject: Award of Commission contracts to audit firms (Supplementary Answer)

1

2004/C 088E/2

P-0043/03 by Gian Gobbo to the CommissionSubject: Introduction of a minimum rate of excise duty on wine

2

2004/C 088E/3

E-0052/03 by Hanja Maij-Weggen to the CommissionSubject: Human rights situation in Vietnam

3

2004/C 088E/4

E-0084/03 by Carlos Bautista Ojeda to the CommissionSubject: EU/Morocco policies

4

2004/C 088E/5

E-0086/03 by Roger Helmer to the CommissionSubject: Killing of children in Honduras

5

2004/C 088E/6

E-0097/03 by Phillip Whitehead to the CommissionSubject: The rights of street children in Honduras and Guatemala

5

Joint answer to Written Questions E-0086/03 and E-0097/03

2004/C 088E/7

E-0238/03 by Marjo Matikainen-Kallström to the CommissionSubject: Clarification of the status of the Northern Dimension in the EU budget

6

2004/C 088E/8

E-0258/03 by Bob van den Bos to the CommissionSubject: Enlargement and development cooperation

7

2004/C 088E/9

E-0278/03 by Gianfranco Dell’Alba to the CommissionSubject: Irregularities in the election process in Cambodia

8

2004/C 088E/0

P-0325/03 by Marco Pannella to the CommissionSubject: Increasing violations of fundamental human rights of Montagnard population in the Vietnamese highlands

10

2004/C 088E/1

E-0356/03 by Bill Newton Dunn and Baroness Sarah Ludford to the CommissionSubject: Human rights abuses in Honduras

11

2004/C 088E/2

E-0434/03 by Erik Meijer to the CommissionSubject: Sterilisation of young Roma women in Slovakia on the basis of misleading information or without their consent

12

2004/C 088E/3

E-0569/03 by Freddy Blak to the CommissionSubject: Refund of registration fee in respect of exports from Denmark (Supplementary Answer)

13

2004/C 088E/4

E-0609/03 by José Ribeiro e Castro to the CommissionSubject: EU/East Timor 1999-2003: cooperation, development, human rights, assistance, etc

14

2004/C 088E/5

E-0824/03 by Paul Rübig to the CommissionSubject: Restrictions on the transfer of securities in the Czech Republic

16

2004/C 088E/6

E-0904/03 by Jan Mulder to the CommissionSubject: Use of agricultural diesel in border areas

17

2004/C 088E/7

P-1139/03 by Joke Swiebel to the CommissionSubject: Extortion against holidaymakers travelling through Bulgaria

18

2004/C 088E/8

E-1142/03 by Stavros Xarchakos to the CommissionSubject: Protection of archaeological museum exhibits in Iraq

19

2004/C 088E/9

E-1148/03 by Graham Watson to the CommissionSubject: Seychelles

20

2004/C 088E/0

E-1150/03 by Graham Watson to the CommissionSubject: Seychelles

20

Joint answer to Written Questions E-1148/03 and E-1150/03

2004/C 088E/1

E-1282/03 by Ria Oomen-Ruijten to the CommissionSubject: Red diesel in agricultural vehicles

21

2004/C 088E/2

E-1295/03 by José Ribeiro e Castro to the CommissionSubject: Cuba - political prisoners

22

2004/C 088E/3

E-1311/03 by Bill Newton Dunn to the CommissionSubject: The imprisonment of Dr Oscar Ellis Biscet by the Cuban authorities

22

2004/C 088E/4

E-1347/03 by Charles Tannock to the CommissionSubject: Human rights abuses in Cuba

22

Joint answer to Written Questions E-1295/03, E-1311/03 and E-1347/03

2004/C 088E/5

E-1312/03 by Bill Newton Dunn to the CommissionSubject: The situation of Mrs Siham Qandah, a Jordanian Christian

23

2004/C 088E/6

E-1334/03 by Luigi Cocilovo to the CommissionSubject: VAT on books

24

2004/C 088E/7

E-1339/03 by Maurizio Turco and Marco Cappato to the CommissionSubject: Persecution of homosexuals in the Palestinian Authority territories and Israeli expulsions of Palestinian homosexuals

25

2004/C 088E/8

P-1345/03 by Mario Borghezio to the CommissionSubject: EU penalties for collusion by European banks with the Baghdad regime

26

2004/C 088E/9

E-1382/03 by Erik Meijer to the CommissionSubject: Consequences of the Copenhagen criteria for suppressing oppositions, restricting free expression of opinion, banning organisations and increasing the prison population

27

2004/C 088E/0

P-1384/03 by Gian Gobbo to the CommissionSubject: Turkish occupation of Iraqi Kurdistan

28

2004/C 088E/1

E-1414/03 by Graham Watson to the CommissionSubject: Burma refugee acceptance into Thailand

29

2004/C 088E/2

E-1417/03 by Bob van den Bos, Margrietus van den Berg, Maria Martens and Joost Lagendijk to the CommissionSubject: Situation of religious minorities in Gujarat, India

30

2004/C 088E/3

E-1467/03 by Charles Tannock to the CommissionSubject: Killing of Street Children in Guatemala and Honduras

31

2004/C 088E/4

E-1469/03 by Paulo Casaca to the CommissionSubject: Wave of arrests in Cuba

32

2004/C 088E/5

E-1471/03 by Herman Schmid to the CommissionSubject: Prisoners at Guantanamo Bay

33

2004/C 088E/6

E-1484/03 by Charles Tannock to the CommissionSubject: Graduation of General Sector Preferences Sector V imports with respect to employment alternatives to illegal drug production in Colombia

34

2004/C 088E/7

E-1492/03 by Margrietus van den Berg to the CommissionSubject: Coffee negotiations

35

2004/C 088E/8

E-1497/03 by Glyn Ford to the CommissionSubject: Destruction of EU property in Palestine

35

2004/C 088E/9

E-1559/03 by Claude Moraes to the CommissionSubject: The situation in Somalia

36

2004/C 088E/0

P-1630/03 by Nelly Maes to the CommissionSubject: Forced sterilisation of Roma women

37

2004/C 088E/1

E-1665/03 by Luigi Vinci to the CommissionSubject: Kurdish language teaching in Turkey

38

2004/C 088E/2

E-1678/03 by José Ribeiro e Castro to the CommissionSubject: Angola - child soldiers

39

2004/C 088E/3

E-1693/03 by Erik Meijer to the CommissionSubject: Underhand method of awarding contracts for reconstruction and management in Iraq to US firms by the US Army

40

2004/C 088E/4

E-1694/03 by Erik Meijer to the CommissionSubject: Ongoing and permanent take-over of the Iraqi economy and oil reserves by US firms

41

Joint answer to Written Questions E-1693/03 and E-1694/03

2004/C 088E/5

E-1695/03 by Mario Mantovani and Antonio Tajani to the CommissionSubject: Humanitarian emergency in Iraq: the plight of children, disabled people and the elderly in hospitals.

42

2004/C 088E/6

E-1732/03 by Freddy Blak to the CommissionSubject: Discriminatory Danish excise duty on beer

44

2004/C 088E/7

E-1833/03 by Anna Karamanou to the CommissionSubject: Iraq — serious danger to civilians from unexploded landmines and looting activities

45

2004/C 088E/8

P-1840/03 by Michael Cashman to the CommissionSubject: Post-Iraq-War aid

45

2004/C 088E/9

E-1844/03 by Bill Miller to the CommissionSubject: Treatment of gays, lesbians and transsexuals in Poland

46

2004/C 088E/0

E-1848/03 by Luigi Vinci to the CommissionSubject: Investigation into the chairman of the Diyarbakir Human Rights Association

47

2004/C 088E/1

E-1858/03 by Proinsias De Rossa to the CommissionSubject: EU funding for rehabilitation of torture survivors

48

2004/C 088E/2

E-1897/03 by Nelly Maes to the CommissionSubject: Food aid for Zimbabwe

49

2004/C 088E/3

P-1923/03 by Helena Torres Marques to the CommissionSubject: EU funds for the Caribbean tourism sector (follow-up to the reply given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission to Written Question P-0743/03)

50

2004/C 088E/4

E-1928/03 by Maria Carrilho to the CommissionSubject: Aid to uprooted people in Asia and Latin America: revision of Regulation (EC) No 2130/2001 of 29 October 2001

51

2004/C 088E/5

E-1949/03 by Christa Randzio-Plath to the CommissionSubject: TEKEL alcohol monopoly

52

2004/C 088E/6

E-1954/03 by Jannis Sakellariou to the CommissionSubject: Human rights situation facing Yezidi in Georgia

53

2004/C 088E/7

E-1984/03 by Alexandros Alavanos to the CommissionSubject: Turkish violations of Greek airspace

54

2004/C 088E/8

E-2050/03 by Konstantinos Hatzidakis to the CommissionSubject: Harassment of a Greek passenger plane by Turkish warplanes

54

2004/C 088E/9

E-2083/03 by Rodi Kratsa-Tsagaropoulou to the CommissionSubject: Violations of Greek air space by Turkish aircraft and security of the inhabitants of the Aegean

55

Joint answer to Written Questions E-1984/03, E-2050/03 and E-2083/03

2004/C 088E/0

E-1985/03 by Anna Karamanou to the CommissionSubject: Scandal involving illegal sterilisations in Slovakia

55

2004/C 088E/1

E-2004/03 by Salvador Garriga Polledo to the CommissionSubject: World Medicines Bank for poor countries

56

2004/C 088E/2

E-2019/03 by Bart Staes to the CommissionSubject: Anti-dumping duty on bicycles imported from China

57

2004/C 088E/3

E-2022/03 by Lennart Sacrédeus to the CommissionSubject: Arrest of Nobel Peace Prize laureate Aung San Suu Kyi

58

2004/C 088E/4

E-2024/03 by Maurizio Turco to the CommissionSubject: Violation of freedom of worship in Turkmenistan

59

2004/C 088E/5

E-2028/03 by Erik Meijer to the CommissionSubject: Greek customs authorities’ unnecessarily lengthy procedure of collecting up EU citizens’ passports at the border with Macedonia, a procedure that is also open to fraud (Supplementary Answer)

60

2004/C 088E/6

E-2055/03 by Bartho Pronk to the CommissionSubject: Trade union rights for police officers in Latvia

61

2004/C 088E/7

E-2058/03 by Nelly Maes to the CommissionSubject: ACP bananas

62

2004/C 088E/8

E-2091/03 by Paulo Casaca to the CommissionSubject: Rules for calculating aid for tropical products from ACP countries

62

Joint answer to Written Questions E-2058/03 and E-2091/03

2004/C 088E/9

E-2066/03 by Maurizio Turco to the CommissionSubject: Republic of Italy: application of the directive on VAT in connection with intra-Community supplies

64

2004/C 088E/0

P-2078/03 by Ilda Figueiredo to the CommissionSubject: Portuguese milk quota

65

2004/C 088E/1

E-2086/03 by Glenys Kinnock to the CommissionSubject: Situation of Christians in Egypt

65

2004/C 088E/2

E-2089/03 by José Gil-Robles Gil-Delgado to the CommissionSubject: Clarification concerning the budget line for non-governmental organisations involved in combating torture

66

2004/C 088E/3

P-2104/03 by Bob van den Bos to the CommissionSubject: Burmese Rohingya refugees

67

2004/C 088E/4

P-2155/03 by Hanja Maij-Weggen to the CommissionSubject: Position of the Rohingya in Bangladesh

68

Joint answer to Written Questions P-2104/03 and P-2155/03

2004/C 088E/5

E-2116/03 by Claude Moraes to the CommissionSubject: The situation in Sudan

69

2004/C 088E/6

E-2130/03 by Markus Ferber to the CommissionSubject: Commission support for NGOs

69

2004/C 088E/7

E-2162/03 by Herbert Bösch to the CommissionSubject: Budget line B7-7010: no call for proposals in 2003 and its consequences for addressing the human rights of disabled people

70

2004/C 088E/8

E-2184/03 by Maurizio Turco to the CommissionSubject: Further violations of religious freedom in Turkmenistan

71

2004/C 088E/9

P-2198/03 by Niall Andrews to the CommissionSubject: Safeguarding human rights in Mexico

72

2004/C 088E/0

E-2223/03 by Paulo Casaca to the CommissionSubject: Secret European Union agreements with third parties on nuclear power

73

2004/C 088E/1

E-2229/03 by José Ribeiro e Castro to the CommissionSubject: Oil revenue, Angola, transparency

74

2004/C 088E/2

E-2244/03 by Elspeth Attwooll to the CommissionSubject: Wild birds directive in Malta

75

2004/C 088E/3

P-2303/03 by José Ribeiro e Castro to the CommissionSubject: Cuba - European Commission delegation - human rights

76

2004/C 088E/4

E-2304/03 by Emma Bonino to the CommissionSubject: Opening of a European Commission delegation in Yemen

76

2004/C 088E/5

E-2308/03 by José Ribeiro e Castro to the CommissionSubject: Africa - oil - poverty

77

2004/C 088E/6

E-2321/03 by Freddy Blak to the CommissionSubject: Number of Commission officials dealing with external relations

78

2004/C 088E/7

E-2345/03 by Erik Meijer and Alexander de Roo to the CommissionSubject: Protection of unspoiled natural and cultural landscapes with a potential for ecotourism in the mountain region in the Polish province of Dolnoslaœkie, Lower Silesia

79

2004/C 088E/8

E-2346/03 by Erik Meijer and Alexander de Roo to the CommissionSubject: Devastation of previously unspoiled natural and cultural landscapes and destruction of ecotourism due to the increase in opencast mining and quarrying in the Polish province of Dolnoslaœkie, Lower Silesia

79

Joint answer to Written Questions E-2345/03 and E-2346/03

2004/C 088E/9

E-2354/03 by Mary Honeyball to the CommissionSubject: Local government in ACP countries

82

2004/C 088E/0

E-2363/03 by Stavros Xarchakos to the CommissionSubject: Research by a Turkish vessel in Greek territorial waters in the Aegean

83

2004/C 088E/1

E-2392/03 by Anna Karamanou to the CommissionSubject: Stoning of Semsiye Allak in the village of Yalim, Turkey

84

2004/C 088E/2

E-2402/03 by Mario Borghezio to the CommissionSubject: Turkey: book-burning and State jobs for 15000 imams

85

2004/C 088E/3

E-2442/03 by Jürgen Zimmerling to the CommissionSubject: Help for Madagascar

85

2004/C 088E/4

E-2490/03 by Bob van den Bos and Bashir Khanbhai to the CommissionSubject: Food aid to Ethiopia

87

2004/C 088E/5

E-2504/03 by Esko Seppänen to the CommissionSubject: Double taxation of returning migrants

88

2004/C 088E/6

E-2512/03 by Koenraad Dillen to the CommissionSubject: Support for victims of the crisis in the Palestinian territories

88

2004/C 088E/7

P-2514/03 by Dorette Corbey to the CommissionSubject: Medicinal products: specific exception to patent rights

90

2004/C 088E/8

E-2531/03 by Gabriele Stauner to the CommissionSubject: Carpetbaggers and thieves in Kosovo

91

2004/C 088E/9

E-2542/03 by Maurizio Turco to the CommissionSubject: Violation of religious freedom in Russia

93

2004/C 088E/0

E-2551/03 by Avril Doyle to the CommissionSubject: EU failure to disburse overseas aid

94

2004/C 088E/1

E-2552/03 by Jules Maaten to the CommissionSubject: The case of Vinh Binh Trinh in Vietnam

96

2004/C 088E/2

E-2558/03 by Robert Evans to the CommissionSubject: Human rights in Peru

97

2004/C 088E/3

E-2563/03 by Maurizio Turco to the CommissionSubject: Compatibility between the violence perpetrated by the Sudanese dictatorial regime and the agreement initialled by the European Union and Sudan

98

2004/C 088E/4

E-2574/03 by Margrietus van den Berg to the CommissionSubject: Violation of international directives by a Dutch company in the DRC

99

2004/C 088E/5

E-2579/03 by Erik Meijer to the CommissionSubject: Confiscation of euro bank notes belonging to, and robbery of, families of Turkish origin from EU Member States during their annual journey home through Bulgaria

100

2004/C 088E/6

E-2585/03 by Konstantinos Hatzidakis to the CommissionSubject: Taxation of low-proof alcoholic beverages

102

2004/C 088E/7

E-2588/03 by Marco Pannella to the CommissionSubject: Execution of Faramaz Mohammadi, the 19-year-old leader of the student movement at Tabriz University (Iran)

103

2004/C 088E/8

E-2593/03 by Graham Watson to the CommissionSubject: Persecution of Christians in Pakistan

104

2004/C 088E/9

E-2594/03 by Claude Moraes to the CommissionSubject: Persecution of Christians

104

2004/C 088E/0

E-2604/03 by Alexandros Alavanos to the CommissionSubject: Protection of excavations at ancient Salamis, Cyprus

105

2004/C 088E/1

E-2613/03 by Maurizio Turco, Marco Pannella, Marco Cappato and Gianfranco Dell’Alba to the CommissionSubject: Crimen Sollicitationis Instruction issued by the Supreme and Holy Congregation of the Holy Office of the Holy See to cover up sexual abuse by clergy

106

2004/C 088E/2

E-2615/03 by Philip Claeys to the CommissionSubject: New responsibilities for Commissioner Verheugen

107

2004/C 088E/3

E-2664/03 by Terence Wynn to the CommissionSubject: Manufactured products from third countries

108

2004/C 088E/4

E-2703/03 by Luigi Vinci to the CommissionSubject: The sociologist Mehmet Bercet and the head of the Goc-Der refugee organisation, Sefika Gurbuz, on trial in Turkey for inciting racial hatred

109

2004/C 088E/5

E-2725/03 by Jules Maaten to the CommissionSubject: Corruption at the Bulgarian border

110

2004/C 088E/6

E-2742/03 by Richard Corbett to the CommissionSubject: Slovakia

111

2004/C 088E/7

E-2743/03 by Richard Corbett to the CommissionSubject: Slovakia

112

2004/C 088E/8

E-2744/03 by Richard Corbett to the CommissionSubject: Slovakia

112

2004/C 088E/9

E-2759/03 by Fernando Fernández Martín to the CommissionSubject: Method of calculating financial assistance to traditional ACP banana suppliers

113

2004/C 088E/0

E-2775/03 by Jules Maaten to the CommissionSubject: Unlawful detention of an EU citizen in Thailand

114

2004/C 088E/1

E-2784/03 by Cristiana Muscardini, Antonio Mussa and Adriana Poli Bortone to the CommissionSubject: Elections in Albania

115

2004/C 088E/2

E-2804/03 by Elisabeth Jeggle to the CommissionSubject: Urbs Asia Contract No Ala/95-21-b7-3010/39

116

2004/C 088E/3

E-2815/03 by Glyn Ford to the CommissionSubject: Arrest and detention of Rev. Rinaldy Damanik in Central Sulawesi, Indonesia

117

2004/C 088E/4

P-2854/03 by Rodi Kratsa-Tsagaropoulou to the CommissionSubject: The MEDA Programme and women

117

2004/C 088E/5

E-2884/03 by Charles Tannock to the CommissionSubject: Persecution of Christians in Egypt

118

2004/C 088E/6

E-2889/03 by Samuli Pohjamo and Mikko Pesälä to the CommissionSubject: Need for a minimum import price for, and import duty on, Norwegian salmon and rainbow trout

118

2004/C 088E/7

E-2919/03 by Marco Cappato and Maurizio Turco to the CommissionSubject: Case of Italian citizen Maurizio Trotta, imprisoned in Romania

120

2004/C 088E/8

E-2922/03 by Claude Moraes to the CommissionSubject: Commercial sanctions against Burma

121

2004/C 088E/9

E-2934/03 by José Ribeiro e Castro to the CommissionSubject: Cuba - Spanish Cultural Centre

122

2004/C 088E/0

E-2953/03 by Maurizio Turco and Marco Cappato to the CommissionSubject: Sentence of death by stoning in Nigeria

123

2004/C 088E/1

E-2955/03 by Maurizio Turco and Marco Cappato to the CommissionSubject: Yet another case of persecution of homosexuals in Egypt

123

2004/C 088E/2

E-2988/03 by Bart Staes and Jan Dhaene to the CommissionSubject: Forest Law Enforcement, Governance and Trade Action Plan

124

2004/C 088E/3

E-2995/03 by Rodi Kratsa-Tsagaropoulou to the CommissionSubject: Damage to valuable relics contained in the temple of St Sophia

125

2004/C 088E/4

E-3013/03 by Marco Cappato to the CommissionSubject: The case of the Tunisian journalist Néziha Rejiba

126

2004/C 088E/5

E-3025/03 by Konstantinos Hatzidakis to the CommissionSubject: Human rights violations against Greeks on the island of Imbros through the Turkish national land register

127

2004/C 088E/6

E-3032/03 by Jonas Sjöstedt to the CommissionSubject: Denigration by Turkey of its ethnic minorities

128

2004/C 088E/7

E-3045/03 by Proinsias De Rossa to the CommissionSubject: Child labour

129

2004/C 088E/8

E-3133/03 by José Ribeiro e Castro to the CommissionSubject: Angola - Falcone

130

2004/C 088E/9

E-3143/03 by Stavros Xarchakos to the CommissionSubject: Automobile prices in Greece and ban on diesel motors in Athens and Thessaloniki

131

2004/C 088E/0

E-3159/03 by Dirk Sterckx to the CommissionSubject: Unequal treatment of professional removal firms importing loads into the EU from non-Member States as a result of differing interpretations of Regulation (EEC) 918/83

132

2004/C 088E/1

E-3163/03 by Bill Miller to the CommissionSubject: Regional policy in Hungary

134

2004/C 088E/2

E-3185/03 by Geoffrey Van Orden to the CommissionSubject: Duty free allowances in the Canary Islands

135

2004/C 088E/3

E-3223/03 by Anna Karamanou to the CommissionSubject: Children sentenced to death in the Philippines

136

2004/C 088E/4

E-3244/03 by Margrietus van den Berg to the CommissionSubject: Policy Coherence for Development Network

137

2004/C 088E/5

E-3252/03 by Baroness Sarah Ludford to the CommissionSubject: International Criminal tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY)

137

2004/C 088E/6

E-3263/03 by Erik Meijer to the CommissionSubject: Powers of the region of Wallonia to approve arms exports, and the use of such weapons to repress the people of Nepal

138

2004/C 088E/7

E-3292/03 by Claude Moraes to the CommissionSubject: Shariah Law

139

2004/C 088E/8

P-3303/03 by Luigi Vinci to the CommissionSubject: Turkey and latest report of the Human Rights Association of Turkey (IHD)

140

2004/C 088E/9

P-3375/03 by Antonios Trakatellis to the CommissionSubject: Nuclear safety: plant decommissioning and incorporation of costs

141

2004/C 088E/0

E-3382/03 by Cristiana Muscardini to the CommissionSubject: Kidnapping of a Médecins Sans Frontières volunteer

142

2004/C 088E/1

E-3399/03 by Olle Schmidt to the CommissionSubject: Azerbaijan

143

2004/C 088E/2

P-3402/03 by Anna Karamanou to the CommissionSubject: Cross amputation of sixteen-year-old in Sudan

144

2004/C 088E/3

E-3435/03 by Stavros Xarchakos to the CommissionSubject: Act of provocation by Bulgaria towards a Member State

144

2004/C 088E/4

E-3443/03 by José Ribeiro e Castro to the CommissionSubject: Palestinian authority - diversion of funds

145

2004/C 088E/5

E-3449/03 by Peter Skinner to the CommissionSubject: Smokes Direct, Spain

146

2004/C 088E/6

E-3462/03 by Helmuth Markov to the CommissionSubject: Plans for weight restrictions at the Guben-Gubinek border crossing and EU funds

147

2004/C 088E/7

E-3478/03 by Baroness Sarah Ludford to the CommissionSubject: Colombian flower imports and GSP

148

2004/C 088E/8

E-3484/03 by Bartho Pronk to the CommissionSubject: Follow-up to Written Question E-2055/03 on the Latvian Police Law prohibiting police officers from forming trade unions

149

2004/C 088E/9

P-3485/03 by Torben Lund to the CommissionSubject: EEA, Norway and taxation of EU workers

150

2004/C 088E/0

E-3565/03 by Herbert Bösch to the CommissionSubject: Enlargement preparations in EU border regions

150

2004/C 088E/1

E-3589/03 by José Ribeiro e Castro to the CommissionSubject: Syria - US sanctions

151

2004/C 088E/2

E-3609/03 by Giovanni Pittella, Marco Cappato, Giovanni Fava, Glyn Ford, Sérgio Marques and Emilio Menéndez del Valle to the CommissionSubject: Sending EU observers to Venezuela

152

2004/C 088E/3

E-3623/03 by Ioannis Marínos to the CommissionSubject: Discriminatory policy against the Greek inhabitants of Imbros and Tenedos in Turkey

153

2004/C 088E/4

E-3635/03 by José Ribeiro e Castro to the CommissionSubject: Cabo Verde - special status vis-à-vis the EU

154

2004/C 088E/5

P-3695/03 by Margrietus van den Berg to the CommissionSubject: MTR of CSPs in Asia and Latin America

155

2004/C 088E/6

E-3819/03 by Stavros Xarchakos to the CommissionSubject: Circulation in Greece of private vehicles fitted with Community numberplates

156

2004/C 088E/7

E-3824/03 by Cristiana Muscardini to the CommissionSubject: Labels of origin for imports

158

2004/C 088E/8

E-3902/03 by Roberta Angelilli to the CommissionSubject: Made in Europe label for goods made in the Member States

159

Joint answer to Written Questions E-3824/03 and E-3902/03

2004/C 088E/9

E-3958/03 by José Ribeiro e Castro to the CommissionSubject: Russia - parliamentary elections

160

2004/C 088E/0

E-3965/03 by Mario Borghezio to the CommissionSubject: Measures against China for abusive use of the EC symbol

161

2004/C 088E/1

E-3975/03 by Paulo Casaca to the CommissionSubject: Respect for equal treatment for staff at the Commission delegation in Brazil

162

2004/C 088E/2

E-3989/03 by Theresa Villiers to the CommissionSubject: EU rules on sales and servicing

163

2004/C 088E/3

E-4004/03 by Claude Moraes to the CommissionSubject: Disabled children in Russia

165

2004/C 088E/4

E-0012/04 by José Ribeiro e Castro to the CommissionSubject: EU-India Summit - closer relations

166

2004/C 088E/5

E-0049/04 by Camilo Nogueira Román to the CommissionSubject: EU aid to Iran to tackle the tragic consequences of the Bam earthquake

167

2004/C 088E/6

E-0072/04 by José Ribeiro e Castro to the CommissionSubject: Suspected traffic in human organs - Mozambique

168

2004/C 088E/7

E-0143/04 by José Ribeiro e Castro to the CommissionSubject: Trafficking in human organs - Mozambique

169

Joint answer to Written Questions E-0072/04 and E-0143/04

2004/C 088E/8

E-0154/04 by Margrietus van den Berg to the CommissionSubject: Kleptocrat tax

170

2004/C 088E/9

E-0187/04 by Brice Hortefeux to the CommissionSubject: Auditing of company accounts

171

2004/C 088E/0

E-0214/04 by Giles Chichester to the CommissionSubject: Details of EU funding to the Palestinian Authority

172

2004/C 088E/1

E-0270/04 by Brice Hortefeux to the CommissionSubject: Follow-up to regulation on cross-border payments

173

2004/C 088E/2

E-0272/04 by Mario Borghezio to the CommissionSubject: Timisoara international port

174

2004/C 088E/3

E-0288/04 by Marco Cappato to the CommissionSubject: Drug eradication programme in Colombia

174

2004/C 088E/4

E-0320/04 by Gary Titley to the CommissionSubject: Illegal logging and timber trade

175

2004/C 088E/5

E-0362/04 by Graham Watson to the CommissionSubject: Latvian passport names

176

2004/C 088E/6

E-0378/04 by Hartmut Nassauer and Bernd Lange to the CommissionSubject: Planned draft second directive on limit values providing for the establishment of an indicative occupational exposure limit value, inter alia for nitrogen monoxide (NO)

177

2004/C 088E/7

E-0382/04 by Stavros Xarchakos to the CommissionSubject: Free movement between Greece and the rest of the EU

179

2004/C 088E/8

E-0384/04 by Roberta Angelilli to the CommissionSubject: Ansaldo-Breda: infringement of laws protecting workers from exposure to asbestos

181

2004/C 088E/9

E-0411/04 by Charles Tannock and John Bowis to the CommissionSubject: Persecution of the Ahmadiyya Muslim community in Bangladesh

183

2004/C 088E/0

E-0413/04 by Charles Tannock and Theresa Villiers to the CommissionSubject: Migrating birds and Habitat Directives with regard to the republic of Malta

183

2004/C 088E/1

E-0419/04 by Anna Karamanou to the CommissionSubject: Bride burning in Pakistan

184

2004/C 088E/2

E-0429/04 by John Bowis to the CommissionSubject: The case of Rev. Rinaldy Damanik, Indonesia

186

2004/C 088E/3

E-0465/04 by José Ribeiro e Castro to the CommissionSubject: Establishing the Made in EU label

186

2004/C 088E/4

E-0501/04 by Jorge Hernández Mollar to the CommissionSubject: Measures to tackle the Ulysses syndrome

188

2004/C 088E/5

E-0510/04 by Sérgio Marques to the CommissionSubject: Stage reached in the implementation of aid to Venezuela

188

2004/C 088E/6

E-0517/04 by Antonios Trakatellis to the CommissionSubject: Release of toxic waste by a fire at an industrial plant in Thessaloniki and non-compliance by Greece with ECJ judgment on hazardous waste

190

2004/C 088E/7

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 (Supplementary Answer)

191

2004/C 088E/8

E-0559/04 by Mario Borghezio to the CommissionSubject: EU subsidises First Lady Suha Arafat’s high life in Paris

193

2004/C 088E/9

E-0574/04 by Monica Frassoni to the CommissionSubject: Garigliano nuclear power station

194

2004/C 088E/0

E-0583/04 by Nirj Deva to the CommissionSubject: EU aid money to Zimbabwe

195

2004/C 088E/1

E-0585/04 by Bill Miller to the CommissionSubject: WTO talks Cancun and Geneva

196

2004/C 088E/2

E-0624/04 by Marjo Matikainen-Kallström to the CommissionSubject: Dumping of imported Norwegian and Faeroese rainbow trout

197

2004/C 088E/3

E-0640/04 by Camilo Nogueira Román to the CommissionSubject: Surprising presence of names of Union bodies such as OLAF in confused news from Israeli institutions with regard to the use of EU funds by the Palestinian President

197

2004/C 088E/4

E-0649/04 by Esko Seppänen to the CommissionSubject: Roma people in Slovakia

198

2004/C 088E/5

E-0660/04 by Roger Helmer to the CommissionSubject: NGO funding

199

2004/C 088E/6

E-0665/04 by Gerhard Schmid to the CommissionSubject: Safety standards for image editing of scanned banknotes

199

2004/C 088E/7

E-0666/04 by Mihail Papayannakis to the CommissionSubject: Breach of environmental legislation

200

2004/C 088E/8

E-0667/04 by Proinsias De Rossa to the CommissionSubject: Reopening of western rail corridor between Sligo and Cork in Ireland

201

2004/C 088E/9

E-0674/04 by Proinsias De Rossa to the CommissionSubject: Iarnrod Eireann’s rail freight operations

202

Joint answer to Written Questions E-0667/04 and E-0674/04

2004/C 088E/0

E-0670/04 by Proinsias De Rossa to the CommissionSubject: Commission investigation into discharges of oil at Poolbeg Peninsula, Dublin

203

2004/C 088E/1

E-0675/04 by Proinsias De Rossa to the CommissionSubject: Transfrontier Shipments of Waste Regulation

203

2004/C 088E/2

E-0684/04 by Erik Meijer to the CommissionSubject: Parmalat and incentives arising from poor tax legislation in the Netherlands for foreign businesses with dishonest intentions

204

2004/C 088E/3

E-0686/04 by Paulo Casaca to the CommissionSubject: European hydrogen platform

205

2004/C 088E/4

E-0724/04 by María Herranz García to the CommissionSubject: Rules on labelling wines

206

2004/C 088E/5

E-0749/04 by Paul Rübig to the CommissionSubject: Introduction of the sector approach in EU development cooperation

207

2004/C 088E/6

E-0762/04 by José García-Margallo y Marfil to the CommissionSubject: Commission proposals for follow-up to the financial services action plan

208

2004/C 088E/7

E-0763/04 by José García-Margallo y Marfil to the CommissionSubject: Role of the public authorities in the follow-up period to the financial services action plan

209

2004/C 088E/8

E-0764/04 by José García-Margallo y Marfil to the CommissionSubject: Use of pre-accession funds

210

2004/C 088E/9

E-0765/04 by José García-Margallo y Marfil to the CommissionSubject: Rating agencies and access to privileged information

212

2004/C 088E/0

E-0773/04 by Maurizio Turco to the CommissionSubject: Violation of religious freedom in Belgium

213

2004/C 088E/1

E-0774/04 by Maurizio Turco to the CommissionSubject: Violation of religious freedom in Cyprus

214

2004/C 088E/2

E-0777/04 by Maurizio Turco to the CommissionSubject: Violation of religious freedom in Hungary

215

2004/C 088E/3

E-0778/04 by Maurizio Turco to the CommissionSubject: Violation of religious freedom in Lithuania

216

2004/C 088E/4

E-0779/04 by Maurizio Turco to the CommissionSubject: Violation of religious freedom in Poland

217

Joint answer to Written Questions E-0774/04, E-0777/04, E-0778/04 and E-0779/04

2004/C 088E/5

E-0784/04 by Proinsias De Rossa to the CommissionSubject: Family reunification

220

2004/C 088E/6

E-0789/04 by Cristiana Muscardini, Sergio Berlato, Roberta Angelilli, Roberto Bigliardo, Antonio Mussa, Sebastiano Musumeci, Mauro Nobilia, Adriana Poli Bortone and Franz Turchi to the CommissionSubject: International wine piracy — amendment of Regulation (EC) No 753/2002

221

2004/C 088E/7

E-0790/04 by Roberto Bigliardo to the CommissionSubject: Presence of dangerous dioxin in the town of Acerra (Na), Italy

223

2004/C 088E/8

E-0794/04 by Paul Rübig to the CommissionSubject: Regulation (EC) No 141/2000 on orphan medicinal products

224

2004/C 088E/9

E-0795/04 by Patricia McKenna to the CommissionSubject: Derrybrien wind farm bogslide

226

2004/C 088E/0

E-0798/04 by Mihail Papayannakis to the CommissionSubject: Amfilokhia and the Ramsar Convention

226

2004/C 088E/1

E-0800/04 by María Bergaz Conesa to the CommissionSubject: Dr Moliner de Serra Hospital (Valencia, Spain) and waste-water treatment

227

2004/C 088E/2

E-0801/04 by Monica Frassoni to the CommissionSubject: Exceptional hunting and wild bird conservation - Sardinia

228

2004/C 088E/3

E-0808/04 by Erik Meijer to the CommissionSubject: Guarantees, with a view to enjoying equal rights, for persons who have suffered discrimination or neglect in the appraisal of qualifications obtained in other Member States

229

2004/C 088E/4

E-0817/04 by Stefano Zappalà to the CommissionSubject: Finnish customs duties

230

2004/C 088E/5

E-0820/04 by Ilda Figueiredo to the CommissionSubject: Agriculture - negotiations in the context of the WTO

232

2004/C 088E/6

E-0835/04 by Antonio Di Pietro to the CommissionSubject: Amendment of rules on wine labelling

233

2004/C 088E/7

E-0845/04 by Giorgio Celli to the CommissionSubject: Construction of a health and wellness centre in the wetland of Es Salobrar — Es Trenc, Mallorca, Balearics

234

2004/C 088E/8

E-0847/04 by Monica Frassoni to the CommissionSubject: Mineral water extraction plant at Padernello di Paese (Treviso)

235

2004/C 088E/9

P-0850/04 by Salvador Jové Peres to the CommissionSubject: Correction for irregular grant of supplementary processed tomato quotas

237

2004/C 088E/0

E-0864/04 by Nelly Maes to the CommissionSubject: Linguistic diversity

238

2004/C 088E/1

E-0868/04 by José Ribeiro e Castro to the CommissionSubject: Large families

238

2004/C 088E/2

E-0876/04 by Struan Stevenson to the CommissionSubject: Illegal fishing in waters around the Azores

240

2004/C 088E/3

E-0881/04 by Ilda Figueiredo to the CommissionSubject: Incinerator installation in the Central Region (Portugal)

241

2004/C 088E/4

P-0902/04 by Alexandros Alavanos to the CommissionSubject: Talks for a settlement in Cyprus

242

2004/C 088E/5

E-0904/04 by Richard Corbett to the CommissionSubject: Mercedes-Benz car warranties

242

2004/C 088E/6

E-0905/04 by Richard Corbett to the CommissionSubject: Bicycle helmets

243

2004/C 088E/7

E-0908/04 by Paolo Bartolozzi to the CommissionSubject: Services of general interest

244

2004/C 088E/8

P-0913/04 by Philip Bradbourn to the CommissionSubject: Driver attestation checks

245

2004/C 088E/9

E-0914/04 by Caroline Lucas to the CommissionSubject: Illegal bird-trapping in Cyprus

246

2004/C 088E/0

E-0916/04 by Proinsias De Rossa to the CommissionSubject: Ireland and maritime safety legislation

247

2004/C 088E/1

E-0917/04 by Proinsias De Rossa to the CommissionSubject: Ireland’s compliance with the Waste Framework Directive in relation to the treatment of urban waste water

247

2004/C 088E/2

E-0920/04 by Proinsias De Rossa to the CommissionSubject: Treatment of waste oils in Ireland

248

2004/C 088E/3

E-0929/04 by Glyn Ford to the CommissionSubject: Promotion of dairy products

249

2004/C 088E/4

E-0933/04 by John Purvis to the CommissionSubject: Energy from the Commonwealth of Independent States

250

2004/C 088E/5

P-0935/04 by Hans Kronberger to the CommissionSubject: European environment and health strategy - SCALE

250

2004/C 088E/6

E-0938/04 by Margrietus van den Berg to the CommissionSubject: Religious minorities in Gujarat

251

2004/C 088E/7

E-0940/04 by Robert Evans to the CommissionSubject: Churches in Indonesia

252

2004/C 088E/8

E-0941/04 by Robert Evans to the CommissionSubject: GMOs

253

2004/C 088E/9

E-0943/04 by Cristiana Muscardini to the CommissionSubject: Research programme and multiple sclerosis

254

2004/C 088E/0

E-0950/04 by Paul Rübig to the CommissionSubject: Hindrances to traffic on the River Danube

255

2004/C 088E/1

P-0958/04 by Manuel dos Santos to the CommissionSubject: Risk transfer in the loan establishment operation carried out by the Portuguese Government

256

2004/C 088E/2

E-0971/04 by José Ribeiro e Castro to the CommissionSubject: Venezuela - referendum

257

2004/C 088E/3

E-0972/04 by José Ribeiro e Castro to the CommissionSubject: Natura Network - funding

258

2004/C 088E/4

E-0977/04 by John Bowis to the CommissionSubject: Health insurance in the Czech Republic

259

2004/C 088E/5

E-0978/04 by Christopher Huhne to the CommissionSubject: Ingredients in food products

260

2004/C 088E/6

E-0980/04 by Luigi Vinci to the CommissionSubject: Instructions from the Army High Command in Turkey

261

2004/C 088E/7

E-0981/04 by Giovanni Pittella and Guido Sacconi to the CommissionSubject: Protection and conservation of the marine environment

262

2004/C 088E/8

E-0984/04 by Piia-Noora Kauppi to the CommissionSubject: The role of tiredness in road accidents

263

2004/C 088E/9

P-0992/04 by Francesco Fiori to the CommissionSubject: Telecommunications

264

2004/C 088E/0

E-0994/04 by Proinsias De Rossa to the CommissionSubject: Child protection and future EU programmes aimed at young people

265

2004/C 088E/1

E-0995/04 by Bartho Pronk to the CommissionSubject: Restrictive measures planned by some EU Member States contrary to the right of equal treatment granted by the EU

266

2004/C 088E/2

P-0999/04 by Daniel Hannan to the CommissionSubject: Connection of high tension pylon lines in the Municipality of Civitella Paganico

267

2004/C 088E/3

E-1008/04 by Albert Maat and Neil Parish to the CommissionSubject: OIE conference on vaccination against animal diseases

268

2004/C 088E/4

P-1009/04 by Johannes Voggenhuber to the CommissionSubject: Lobau motorway

269

2004/C 088E/5

E-1010/04 by Johannes Voggenhuber to the CommissionSubject: Lobau motorway

270

2004/C 088E/6

E-1015/04 by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna to the CommissionSubject: Shrimp fishing in Svalbard

271

2004/C 088E/7

E-1023/04 by Ilda Figueiredo to the CommissionSubject: Modernisation of the Portuguese fishing fleet

272

2004/C 088E/8

P-1027/04 by Marie Isler Béguin to the CommissionSubject: Respect for Community environmental legislation

273

2004/C 088E/9

P-1028/04 by Nicole Thomas-Mauro to the CommissionSubject: Tension in the steel markets

275

2004/C 088E/0

P-1038/04 by Avril Doyle to the CommissionSubject: Proposed directive to inspect Sellafield nuclear facilities

276

2004/C 088E/1

P-1039/04 by Daniel Cohn-Bendit to the CommissionSubject: Commissioner Reding standing in the European elections

277

2004/C 088E/2

E-1051/04 by Paulo Casaca to the CommissionSubject: Reaffirmation of the Commission’s position on the validity of Article 15 of Regulation (EC) No 1954/2003

277

2004/C 088E/3

E-1076/04 by Christopher Heaton-Harris to the CommissionSubject: Cockle and mussel fishermen

278

2004/C 088E/4

P-1078/04 by Philip Claeys to the CommissionSubject: Political neutrality of the Info-Point Europe of the Province of Flemish Brabant

279

2004/C 088E/5

P-1083/04 by Rolf Linkohr to the CommissionSubject: Project-related mechanisms under the Kyoto Protocol

280

2004/C 088E/6

P-1105/04 by Massimo Carraro to the CommissionSubject: Raw materials

280

2004/C 088E/7

P-1148/04 by Renato Brunetta to the CommissionSubject: Availability of ferrous metal scrap on the Union market

281

2004/C 088E/8

E-1161/04 by Mario Mauro to the CommissionSubject: Foundry sector: shortages of raw materials

281

Joint answer to Written Questions P-1105/04, P-1148/04 and E-1161/04

2004/C 088E/9

E-1110/04 by Christine De Veyrac to the CommissionSubject: Transeuropean transport networks

282

2004/C 088E/0

E-1114/04 by Proinsias De Rossa to the CommissionSubject: Civil protection

283

2004/C 088E/1

P-1181/04 by Salvador Jové Peres to the CommissionSubject: Correction for irregular grant of supplementary processed tomato quotas

284

2004/C 088E/2

P-1199/04 by Helmuth Markov to the CommissionSubject: VAT levy on EU aid

285

2004/C 088E/3

P-1202/04 by Françoise Grossetête to the CommissionSubject: Definitions of waste and waste management and treatment methods

286

WRITTEN QUESTIONS WITH ANSWER (Part 2)

2004/C 088E/4

E-0811/02 by Michl Ebner to the CommissionSubject: Harmonisation of rules on motor vehicles

288

2004/C 088E/5

E-1776/02 by Patricia McKenna to the CommissionSubject: Discrimination against visually impaired people

289

2004/C 088E/6

P-2081/02 by Christoph Konrad to the CommissionSubject: Use of Objective 2 funding in North-Rhine-Westphalia

289

2004/C 088E/7

E-2280/02 by Emilia Müller to the CommissionSubject: Relaxing of the ban on the use of bonemeal in animal feed

290

2004/C 088E/8

E-2677/02 by Chris Davies to the CommissionSubject: Fire safety

291

2004/C 088E/9

E-2970/02 by Christa Prets to the CommissionSubject: Culture 2000 programme — closing date for submitting projects for St Petersburg 2003

292

2004/C 088E/0

E-3331/02 by Mihail Papayannakis to the CommissionSubject: Community Information Society Programme

293

2004/C 088E/1

E-3361/02 by Maria Sanders-ten Holte to the CommissionSubject: Insurance

294

2004/C 088E/2

P-3496/02 by Paulo Casaca to the CommissionSubject: State aid for small-scale coastal shipping on the Azores

295

2004/C 088E/3

E-3540/02 by Chris Davies to the CommissionSubject: Health inequalities

297

2004/C 088E/4

E-3566/02 by Freddy Blak to the CommissionSubject: Contracts between Eurostat and Eurogramme

297

2004/C 088E/5

E-3607/02 by Mary Banotti to the CommissionSubject: Interchangeability of postage stamps of the euro zone

298

2004/C 088E/6

P-3626/02 by Alexandros Alavanos to the CommissionSubject: Implementation by Greece of Directive 1999/70/EC

299

2004/C 088E/7

P-3650/02 by Paul Rübig to the CommissionSubject: More SME-friendly structuring of tendering conditions for EU third-state assistance programmes

300

2004/C 088E/8

E-3676/02 by Toine Manders to the CommissionSubject: Incapacity for work

301

2004/C 088E/9

E-3737/02 by Ilda Figueiredo to the CommissionSubject: ABEJ - Solidarités’

303

2004/C 088E/0

E-3780/02 by Kathleen Van Brempt to the CommissionSubject: Implementation of Regulation (EC) No 1259/1999: reports by the Member States concerning environmental measures and aid schemes in agriculture

303

2004/C 088E/1

E-3817/02 by Erik Meijer to the CommissionSubject: Effective measures to render it impossible once and for all for EU residents to benefit from child labour elsewhere

305

2004/C 088E/2

P-3824/02 by Jan Wiersma to the CommissionSubject: Roma citizens - Buhusi

306

2004/C 088E/3

P-3906/02 by Anna Karamanou to the CommissionSubject: Problem of malnutrition in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank

307

2004/C 088E/4

P-3907/02 by Ilda Figueiredo to the CommissionSubject: Economic and social consequences of EU enlargement

308

2004/C 088E/5

E-3916/02 by Juan Naranjo Escobar to the CommissionSubject: Gambling on the Net

310

2004/C 088E/6

E-3917/02 by Juan Naranjo Escobar to the CommissionSubject: Border regions

310

2004/C 088E/7

E-0046/03 by Pasqualina Napoletano and Giovanni Pittella to the CommissionSubject: Crisis in Venezuela

312

2004/C 088E/8

E-0070/03 by Erik Meijer to the CommissionSubject: Rise of fuel-inefficient and unsafe off-road vehicles in the United States and measures to prevent similar developments in the EU

313

2004/C 088E/9

E-0106/03 by Luciano Caveri to the CommissionSubject: Fire in the Mont Blanc tunnel

314

2004/C 088E/0

P-0110/03 by Peter Liese to the CommissionSubject: Vaccination against smallpox in the Member States

315

2004/C 088E/1

E-0131/03 by Joan Colom i Naval to the CommissionSubject: Implementation of budget heading B2-1411 (Support for regions bordering candidate countries)

316

2004/C 088E/2

E-0141/03 by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna to the CommissionSubject: EU-Guinea-Bissau international fisheries agreement and development cooperation

317

2004/C 088E/3

P-0215/03 by Marco Cappato to the CommissionSubject: Drug-related escalation of violence in Bolivia

318

2004/C 088E/4

E-0226/03 by Guido Podestà and Amalia Sartori to the CommissionSubject: Regulatory obstacles to intra-Community trade in gold products — breach of Article 28 of the EC Treaty

319

2004/C 088E/5

E-0230/03 by Helle Thorning-Schmidt to the CommissionSubject: Implications of enlargement for jobs of customs agents

320

2004/C 088E/6

E-0267/03 by Laura González Álvarez to the CommissionSubject: Abuse of a dominant position and misleading advertising by the airlines Spanair and Iberia (Spain)

321

2004/C 088E/7

E-0303/03 by Roger Helmer to the CommissionSubject: Malta’s accession to the EU

322

2004/C 088E/8

P-0370/03 by José Ribeiro e Castro to the CommissionSubject: Closure of the Clarks factory in Portugal — Community aid — Relocation

323

2004/C 088E/9

E-0430/03 by Rosa Miguélez Ramos to the CommissionSubject: Prestige: State aid

324

2004/C 088E/0

E-0432/03 by Dorette Corbey to the CommissionSubject: Air pollution: exceeding of threshold values for particulate matter

325

2004/C 088E/1

P-0547/03 by Struan Stevenson to the CommissionSubject: Beef and live cattle exports to the Lebanon and Egypt

326

2004/C 088E/2

E-0570/03 by Freddy Blak to the CommissionSubject: Punitive charges on imported vehicles

327

2004/C 088E/3

E-0610/03 by José Ribeiro e Castro to the CommissionSubject: EU/São Tomé and Príncipe 1999-2003: cooperation, development, human rights, assistance, etc

328

2004/C 088E/4

E-0611/03 by José Ribeiro e Castro to the CommissionSubject: EU/Guinea-Bissau 1999-2003: cooperation, development, human rights, assistance, etc

329

2004/C 088E/5

E-0612/03 by José Ribeiro e Castro to the CommissionSubject: EU/Cape Verde 1999-2003: cooperation, development, human rights, assistance, etc

329

2004/C 088E/6

E-0613/03 by José Ribeiro e Castro to the CommissionSubject: EU/Mozambique 1999-2003: cooperation, development, human rights, assistance, etc

329

2004/C 088E/7

E-0614/03 by José Ribeiro e Castro to the CommissionSubject: EU/Angola 1999-2003: cooperation, development, human rights, assistance, etc

329

Joint answer to Written Questions E-0610/03, E-0611/03, E-0612/03, E-0613/03 and E-0614/03

2004/C 088E/8

E-0697/03 by Brice Hortefeux to the CommissionSubject: Harmonising size labelling systems

331

2004/C 088E/9

E-0761/03 by Charles Tannock to the CommissionSubject: EU requirements relating to the erection of mobile telephone masts

332

2004/C 088E/0

E-0867/03 by Roberta Angelilli to the CommissionSubject: Economic crisis in Venezuela

333

2004/C 088E/1

E-0937/03 by Roberta Angelilli to the CommissionSubject: Support for EU citizens living in Venezuela

334

Joint answer to Written Questions E-0867/03 and E-0937/03

2004/C 088E/2

E-0896/03 by Klaus-Heiner Lehne to the CommissionSubject: The German tax authorities’ practices with regard to turnover tax

335

2004/C 088E/3

E-0900/03 by Richard Corbett to the CommissionSubject: Internal market restrictions

336

2004/C 088E/4

E-0921/03 by José Ribeiro e Castro to the CommissionSubject: East Timor — 1999 massacres; trial of those responsible; Indonesia; human rights

337

2004/C 088E/5

E-1180/03 by Marco Pannella, Emma Bonino, Marco Cappato, Gianfranco Dell’Alba and Benedetto Della Vedova to the CommissionSubject: Secret Vietnamese prison set up next to the Cambodian border for the detention of Montagnards repatriated after having requested asylum; cases of arrest, torture and disappearance

339

2004/C 088E/6

E-1181/03 by Marco Pannella, Emma Bonino, Marco Cappato, Gianfranco Dell’Alba and Benedetto Della Vedova to the CommissionSubject: Arrest by the Vietnamese authorities of Montagnards suspected of supporting the Montagnard Foundation, of being Christians and of recruiting members for the Transnational Radical Party

340

2004/C 088E/7

E-1182/03 by Marco Pannella, Emma Bonino, Marco Cappato, Gianfranco Dell’Alba and Benedetto Della Vedova to the CommissionSubject: Individual cases of arbitrary arrest and torture of Montagnards (Degar) by the Vietnamese authorities.

341

Joint answer to Written Questions E-1180/03, E-1181/03 and E-1182/03

2004/C 088E/8

E-1209/03 by Alexandros Alavanos to the CommissionSubject: Distribution of infant milk in African countries

342

2004/C 088E/9

E-1247/03 by Robert Evans to the CommissionSubject: Burmese refugees

343

2004/C 088E/0

P-1251/03 by Carlos Bautista Ojeda to the CommissionSubject: Crisis in the European tourist industry

343

2004/C 088E/1

P-1287/03 by Olivier Dupuis to the CommissionSubject: Macabre electoral farce in Chechnya

344

2004/C 088E/2

E-1290/03 by Camilo Nogueira Román to the CommissionSubject: Anti-dumping measures applicable to the import of ferroalloys; the problem of the firm Ferroatlántica, located in Cee and Dumbria on the Costa da Morte in Galicia

345

2004/C 088E/3

E-1294/03 by José Ribeiro e Castro to the CommissionSubject: Venezuela - democratic solution to the crisis

346

2004/C 088E/4

E-1296/03 by José Ribeiro e Castro to the CommissionSubject: Clashes in southern Nigeria

347

2004/C 088E/5

E-1310/03 by Bill Newton Dunn to the CommissionSubject: The situation of the Nigerian national, Mr Abubakir, a practising Christian

349

2004/C 088E/6

E-1316/03 by Hanja Maij-Weggen to the CommissionSubject: Autonomy of the Indonesian province of Papua

349

2004/C 088E/7

E-1317/03 by Nelly Maes to the CommissionSubject: Implementation of Community programmes in Slovakia

350

2004/C 088E/8

E-1321/03 by José Ribeiro e Castro to the CommissionSubject: Angola - return of refugees

352

2004/C 088E/9

P-1336/03 by Ilka Schröder to the CommissionSubject: Persecution of homosexuals in the Palestinian autonomous areas

353

2004/C 088E/0

E-1400/03 by Roberta Angelilli to the CommissionSubject: Seat of the European Food Safety Authority

354

2004/C 088E/1

E-1576/03 by Chris Davies to the CommissionSubject: EU-wide energy taxation

356

2004/C 088E/2

E-1580/03 by Chris Davies to the CommissionSubject: Data analyses of illegal drugs in the EU

356

2004/C 088E/3

P-1607/03 by Antonio Tajani to the CommissionSubject: Repeated violations of human rights in Cuba

357

2004/C 088E/4

E-1629/03 by Eija-Riitta Korhola to the CommissionSubject: Promoting fair-trade products in the EU

358

2004/C 088E/5

P-1631/03 by Carlos Coelho to the CommissionSubject: Discrimination on grounds of nationality

359

2004/C 088E/6

E-1640/03 by Erik Meijer to the CommissionSubject: Lack of money for maintaining infrastructure and for cofinancing projects in Member States which use tax cuts to gain a competitive advantage

360

2004/C 088E/7

E-1641/03 by Erik Meijer to the CommissionSubject: Failure to grant Slovene nationality to persons who in 1991 were residents of the then Yugoslav republic of Slovenia and had Yugoslav nationality

362

2004/C 088E/8

E-1646/03 by María Rodríguez Ramos to the CommissionSubject: Application of the safeguard clause in respect of imports into the EU of tinned mandarin-orange segments from China

363

2004/C 088E/9

E-1920/03 by Carlos Bautista Ojeda to the CommissionSubject: Imports of preserved mandarin segments from China

363

2004/C 088E/0

E-1921/03 by Carlos Bautista Ojeda to the CommissionSubject: Preserved mandarin segments from China

364

Joint answer to Written Questions E-1646/03, E-1920/03 and E-1921/03

2004/C 088E/1

E-1677/03 by José Ribeiro e Castro to the CommissionSubject: Cuba - Cotonou

365

2004/C 088E/2

P-1680/03 by Anna Karamanou to the CommissionSubject: Torture and inhuman treatment of women in Turkish jails

366

2004/C 088E/3

P-1708/03 by Emma Bonino to the CommissionSubject: Murder of Joyce Miamuna Katai, State Commissioner for women’s affairs and social development of the Nigerian State of Nasarawa

367

2004/C 088E/4

P-1746/03 by Proinsias De Rossa to the CommissionSubject: Carrickmines Castle archeological finds (Supplementary Answer)

368

2004/C 088E/5

E-1750/03 by José Ribeiro e Castro to the CommissionSubject: Cooperation with Angola: stability — demobilisation of UNITA

369

2004/C 088E/6

E-1751/03 by José Ribeiro e Castro to the CommissionSubject: Venezuela - unemployment and referendum

370

2004/C 088E/7

E-1767/03 by Charles Tannock to the CommissionSubject: Persecution of Christians in Indonesia

372

2004/C 088E/8

E-1776/03 by Claude Moraes to the CommissionSubject: Child asthma and allergic diseases

373

2004/C 088E/9

E-1800/03 by Christopher Huhne to the CommissionSubject: SARS and airline air recycling

373

2004/C 088E/0

P-1806/03 by Konstantinos Hatzidakis to the CommissionSubject: Settlement of payments to EU Member States under the second CSF

375

2004/C 088E/1

E-1821/03 by Christopher Huhne to the CommissionSubject: Sausage meat

375

2004/C 088E/2

P-1931/03 by Horst Schnellhardt to the CommissionSubject: Introduction of European food standards legislation in the accession countries

376

2004/C 088E/3

P-1933/03 by Dana Scallon to the CommissionSubject: Social development

377

2004/C 088E/4

E-1948/03 by Roger Helmer to the CommissionSubject: Lithuanian referendum

378

2004/C 088E/5

E-1960/03 by Elspeth Attwooll to the CommissionSubject: Road transport managers

379

2004/C 088E/6

E-2011/03 by Ioannis Marínos to the CommissionSubject: Application of the Community acquis in Cyprus

380

2004/C 088E/7

E-2029/03 by Erik Meijer to the CommissionSubject: Increase in charges for transit visas authorising people travelling between present and future Members States of the EU to enter Serbia

381

2004/C 088E/8

E-2077/03 by Paulo Casaca to the CommissionSubject: Community support for torture victims

382

2004/C 088E/9

E-2131/03 by Mihail Papayannakis to the CommissionSubject: Re-opening of mineral extraction plant at Pergamon (Bergama)

383

2004/C 088E/0

E-2139/03 by Maurizio Turco to the CommissionSubject: Violation of religious freedom and legal restrictions on the exercising of religious activity in Belarus.

383

2004/C 088E/1

E-2183/03 by Maurizio Turco to the CommissionSubject: Further violations of religious freedom and legal restrictions on religious practice in Belarus

384

Joint answer to Written Questions E-2139/03 and E-2183/03

2004/C 088E/2

E-2140/03 by Maurizio Turco to the CommissionSubject: Violation of freedom of religion in Uzbekistan

385

2004/C 088E/3

E-2146/03 by John Bowis to the CommissionSubject: Commission response to Council Conclusions on health matters

387

2004/C 088E/4

E-2161/03 by Glenys Kinnock to the CommissionSubject: Support for accession and ACP countries

388

2004/C 088E/5

E-2177/03 by Christopher Huhne to the CommissionSubject: Procurement

389

2004/C 088E/6

P-2199/03 by Marco Pannella to the CommissionSubject: Imprisonment in Cuba, in inhuman and degrading conditions, of 75 opposition figures sentenced by show trial in April 2003, and the particular case of Martha Beatriz Roque Cabello

75

390

2004/C 088E/7

E-2217/03 by Maurizio Turco to the CommissionSubject: Violation of religious freedom in Slovenia

391

2004/C 088E/8

E-2227/03 by Michael Cashman to the CommissionSubject: Human rights in Western Sahara

392

2004/C 088E/9

E-2231/03 by Bill Newton Dunn to the CommissionSubject: Human rights abuses in Burma

393

2004/C 088E/0

P-2252/03 by Glenys Kinnock to the CommissionSubject: Uncommitted and unspent EC funds in South Africa

394

2004/C 088E/1

E-2256/03 by Maurizio Turco to the CommissionSubject: Violations of religious freedom with regard to Pentecostal Church evangelists in Belarus

395

2004/C 088E/2

P-2262/03 by Mario Mastella to the CommissionSubject: Serious political, social and economic crisis in Venezuela

396

2004/C 088E/3

P-2286/03 by Ozan Ceyhun to the CommissionSubject: Customs regulations at the Serbia and Montenegro (former Yugoslavia) border

397

2004/C 088E/4

E-2296/03 by Alejo Vidal-Quadras Roca to the CommissionSubject: Autonomous Community levy on the premises occupied by large commercial enterprises

398

2004/C 088E/5

E-2307/03 by José Ribeiro e Castro to the CommissionSubject: Timor — 1999 massacres; trial of those responsible; Indonesia — human rights

399

2004/C 088E/6

P-2310/03 by Baroness Sarah Ludford to the CommissionSubject: EU nationals imprisoned in Japan

400

2004/C 088E/7

E-2317/03 by Armando Cossutta to the CommissionSubject: European citizens’ right to privacy

401

2004/C 088E/8

E-2357/03 by Maurizio Turco to the CommissionSubject: Violation of religious freedom against Muslims in Uzbekistan

402

2004/C 088E/9

E-2359/03 by Maurizio Turco to the CommissionSubject: Violation of religious freedom in Kosovo

403

2004/C 088E/0

E-2360/03 by Maurizio Turco to the CommissionSubject: Violation of religious freedom and legal restrictions on religious activity in Slovakia

404

2004/C 088E/1

E-2361/03 by Maurizio Turco to the CommissionSubject: Violation of religious freedom in Belarus by means of a new concordat conferring greater power on the Orthodox Church

405

2004/C 088E/2

P-2370/03 by Anna Karamanou to the CommissionSubject: Gang rape of women by British troops in Kenya

406

2004/C 088E/3

P-2371/03 by Michael Cashman to the CommissionSubject: EU-Egypt Association Agreement

407

2004/C 088E/4

P-2372/03 by Eija-Riitta Korhola to the CommissionSubject: Transfer of EU citizens being held prisoner to prisons in their home countries

408

2004/C 088E/5

E-2401/03 by Avril Doyle to the CommissionSubject: Exemption from VAT on postage for charities

409

2004/C 088E/6

E-2420/03 by Erik Meijer to the CommissionSubject: Repeated Israeli accusations against Palestinian media and school textbooks and the consequent continued campaign against payments from the EU

410

2004/C 088E/7

E-2471/03 by Catherine Stihler to the CommissionSubject: Italy and compliance with animal welfare regulation

411

2004/C 088E/8

E-2476/03 by Juan Naranjo Escobar to the CommissionSubject: Reduced VAT for hotels, restaurants and cafés in the European Union

412

2004/C 088E/9

E-2478/03 by Miet Smet to the CommissionSubject: Women’s rights in Afghanistan

413

2004/C 088E/0

E-2486/03 by Maurizio Turco to the CommissionSubject: Violation of religious freedom in Uzbekistan with respect to Adventists and members of the Asia Protestant Church

414

2004/C 088E/1

E-2487/03 by Maurizio Turco to the CommissionSubject: Violations of religious freedom in Turkmenistan and protection of Muslim and Russian Orthodox communities

414

2004/C 088E/2

E-2543/03 by Maurizio Turco to the CommissionSubject: Violation of religious freedom in Armenia

415

Joint answer to Written Questions E-2486/03, E-2487/03 and E-2543/03

2004/C 088E/3

E-2500/03 by Christopher Huhne to the CommissionSubject: Beef exports

416

2004/C 088E/4

E-2507/03 by Paolo Bartolozzi to the CommissionSubject: Charges in the tourist industry

417

2004/C 088E/5

E-2571/03 by Maurizio Turco to the CommissionSubject: Violations of freedom of religion in Azerbaijan

418

2004/C 088E/6

E-2576/03 by Philip Claeys to the CommissionSubject: Enlargement Weekly only in English

419

2004/C 088E/7

P-2590/03 by Claude Moraes to the CommissionSubject: Situation in Liberia

420

2004/C 088E/8

P-2617/03 by Emma Bonino to the CommissionSubject: Infringements of legality in Lebanon

420

2004/C 088E/9

E-2620/03 by Richard Howitt to the CommissionSubject: Human rights abuses in Colombia

422

2004/C 088E/0

E-2621/03 by Piia-Noora Kauppi to the CommissionSubject: Enhanced consumer safety through additional private certification marks

423

2004/C 088E/1

P-2646/03 by Elizabeth Lynne to the CommissionSubject: Customs classification of ostomy appliances

425

2004/C 088E/2

E-2661/03 by Ian Hudghton to the CommissionSubject: Missing persons in Cyprus

426

2004/C 088E/3

E-2667/03 by Jean Lambert to the CommissionSubject: Illegal timber trade (Indonesia) and the FLEGT

427

2004/C 088E/4

E-2674/03 by María Rodríguez Ramos to the CommissionSubject: Application of the safeguard clause in respect of EU imports of tinned satsuma segments from China

428

2004/C 088E/5

E-2676/03 by Ulrich Stockmann to the CommissionSubject: US market access for DHL Airways

429

2004/C 088E/6

E-2677/03 by Bernd Lange to the CommissionSubject: Circumventing more stringent exhaust emission values by unsuitable categorisation

431

2004/C 088E/7

E-2690/03 by Erik Meijer to the CommissionSubject: Freedom of cantons in Switzerland to turn themselves into a tax haven for international companies.

432

2004/C 088E/8

E-2700/03 by Glenys Kinnock to the CommissionSubject: Inquiry into the kidnapping of Peter Shaw

433

2004/C 088E/9

E-2701/03 by Geoffrey Van Orden to the CommissionSubject: Child protection funding in Bulgaria

434

2004/C 088E/0

P-2723/03 by Francisca Sauquillo Pérez del Arco to the CommissionSubject: European Initiative for Democracy and Human Rights and indigenous peoples

435

2004/C 088E/1

P-2726/03 by Nelly Maes to the CommissionSubject: Russian minority’s schools in Latvia

435

2004/C 088E/2

P-2727/03 by Antonio Tajani to the CommissionSubject: Telekom Serbia

437

2004/C 088E/3

E-2741/03 by Richard Corbett to the CommissionSubject: Croatia

438

2004/C 088E/4

E-2796/03 by Erik Meijer to the CommissionSubject: Uncertainties regarding the need for financial compensation by national authorities for regional projects no longer receiving EU regional funding after 2006

438

2004/C 088E/5

E-2843/03 by Astrid Thors to the CommissionSubject: Placement of children in institutions in Latvia

439

2004/C 088E/6

E-2856/03 by Jens-Peter Bonde to the CommissionSubject: Status of the Turkish language

440

2004/C 088E/7

E-2857/03 by Graham Watson to the CommissionSubject: Seychelles

441

2004/C 088E/8

E-2859/03 by Mario Borghezio to the CommissionSubject: Quantity of European funding for the Palestinian Islamic fundamentalist organisation Hamas

441

2004/C 088E/9

E-2904/03 by Miet Smet to the CommissionSubject: CARDS Programme

441

2004/C 088E/0

E-2956/03 by Bart Staes to the CommissionSubject: Increased financial support for the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA)

442

2004/C 088E/1

P-2972/03 by Bill Newton Dunn to the CommissionSubject: EU funding in Kenya

443

2004/C 088E/2

P-2990/03 by Professor Sir Neil MacCormick to the CommissionSubject: Benes Decrees (October 2002)

444

2004/C 088E/3

E-2997/03 by Bill Newton Dunn to the CommissionSubject: Double taxation in Finland and UK

445

2004/C 088E/4

E-3006/03 by Joachim Wuermeling to the CommissionSubject: Tax exemptions in the Czech Republic

446

2004/C 088E/5

P-3020/03 by Anna Karamanou to the CommissionSubject: Human rights in Romania — underage marriages in the gypsy community

446

2004/C 088E/6

P-3023/03 by Anders Wijkman to the CommissionSubject: Combating meningitis in Africa

447

2004/C 088E/7

P-3057/03 by Bartho Pronk to the CommissionSubject: Human rights situation in Guatemala, particularly the situation of Mr Rogoberto Dueñas Morales

448

2004/C 088E/8

E-3080/03 by David Bowe to the CommissionSubject: Water supply in Palestine

449

2004/C 088E/9

E-3081/03 by David Bowe to the CommissionSubject: Sewage systems in Palestine

450

2004/C 088E/0

E-3082/03 by David Bowe to the CommissionSubject: Alleged Israeli dumping of toxic waste in Palestine

450

Joint answer to Written Questions E-3080/03, e-3081/03 and E-3082/03

2004/C 088E/1

P-3110/03 by María Sornosa Martínez to the CommissionSubject: Withdrawal of Community funding for the Juan XXIII project in Alicante (Spain)

451

2004/C 088E/2

P-3132/03 by José Ribeiro e Castro to the CommissionSubject: Cuba - Sakharov Initiative

451

2004/C 088E/3

E-3147/03 by Ilda Figueiredo to the CommissionSubject: Recent escalation of Israeli aggression in the Middle East

452

2004/C 088E/4

P-3179/03 by Glyn Ford to the CommissionSubject: Cambodian deadlock

453

2004/C 088E/5

E-3181/03 by Antonio Tajani to the CommissionSubject: Sending EU representatives to observe the referendum on Chavez

454

2004/C 088E/6

E-3190/03 by Roberta Angelilli to the CommissionSubject: Promotion of the pilot responsible for the Cermis tragedy

455

2004/C 088E/7

P-3247/03 by Baroness Sarah Ludford to the CommissionSubject: Annual report on Turkey

456

2004/C 088E/8

E-3249/03 by Richard Howitt, Jean Lambert and Renate Sommer to the CommissionSubject: Annual report on Turkey

456

Joint answer to Written Questions P-3247/03 and E-3249/03

2004/C 088E/9

E-3253/03 by Cristiana Muscardini to the CommissionSubject: Somalia: internal situation, refugees and terrorism

457

2004/C 088E/0

E-3270/03 by Baroness Sarah Ludford to the CommissionSubject: Progress in Cameroon

458

2004/C 088E/1

E-3277/03 by Cristiana Muscardini to the CommissionSubject: New relations with Libya

459

2004/C 088E/2

E-3319/03 by Alexandros Alavanos to the CommissionSubject: Mines and migrants on the Greek-Turkish border

460

2004/C 088E/3

E-3347/03 by Esko Seppänen to the CommissionSubject: Enlargement and social security advantages

461

2004/C 088E/4

E-3369/03 by Cees Bremmer to the CommissionSubject: Detention of EU citizen in Thailand

462

2004/C 088E/5

E-3476/03 by Charles Tannock to the CommissionSubject: Disappearance of Ethiopian, a former coordinator for EU Aid

463

2004/C 088E/6

E-3496/03 by José Ribeiro e Castro to the CommissionSubject: Colombia - ELN hostages

463

2004/C 088E/7

E-3497/03 by José Ribeiro e Castro to the CommissionSubject: Georgia - parliamentary elections

464

2004/C 088E/8

E-3500/03 by Michl Ebner to the CommissionSubject: Accession of Croatia to the EU

465

2004/C 088E/9

E-3517/03 by Baroness Sarah Ludford to the CommissionSubject: Fair trade

466

2004/C 088E/0

E-3521/03 by Anne Van Lancker to the CommissionSubject: Human rights violations in the USA

466

2004/C 088E/1

E-3550/03 by José Ribeiro e Castro to the CommissionSubject: Zimbabwe - Censorship and repression

467

2004/C 088E/2

E-3560/03 by José Ribeiro e Castro to the CommissionSubject: Al-Qa’ida - international funding networks

468

2004/C 088E/3

E-3567/03 by Chris Davies to the CommissionSubject: Water for Life

470

2004/C 088E/4

E-3570/03 by Gerhard Schmid to the CommissionSubject: Setting-up of mobile customs control units in the Federal Republic of Germany after the accession of the Czech Republic to the European Union

472

2004/C 088E/5

E-3591/03 by José Ribeiro e Castro to the CommissionSubject: Côte d’Ivoire - the war breaks out again

473

2004/C 088E/6

E-3674/03 by Ilda Figueiredo to the CommissionSubject: Textile and clothing industry

474

2004/C 088E/7

E-3851/03 by Baroness Sarah Ludford to the CommissionSubject: Ratification of international conventions in the field of human rights

475

2004/C 088E/8

E-3859/03 by Raffaele Costa to the CommissionSubject: Funding of small Tacis Programme projects

476

2004/C 088E/9

E-3881/03 by Emmanouil Bakopoulos to the CommissionSubject: Encroachment on the Almyra wetlands in the prefecture of Xanthi

477

2004/C 088E/0

E-3967/03 by Gian Gobbo to the CommissionSubject: Compensation for expropriated property of Istrian refugees in Croatia

478

2004/C 088E/1

E-3977/03 by Paulo Casaca to the CommissionSubject: Mediation in Nepal

478

2004/C 088E/2

E-3982/03 by Miquel Mayol i Raynal to the CommissionSubject: Political rights of the Macedonian minority in Greece (Supplementary Answer)

479

2004/C 088E/3

E-4010/03 by Reino Paasilinna to the CommissionSubject: Safeguarding electricity supplies

480

2004/C 088E/4

E-4027/03 by Geoffrey Van Orden to the CommissionSubject: Capital gains tax deductions

481

2004/C 088E/5

E-0008/04 by Philip Claeys to the CommissionSubject: Accession of Cyprus, immigration

482

2004/C 088E/6

P-0027/04 by Marco Pannella to the CommissionSubject: Ongoing campaign of murder and torture by Vietnamese Government officials: arrest of Mr Nih, 41 years old, Christian and TRP supporter, on 13 December 2003 in Dak Doa

483

2004/C 088E/7

E-0089/04 by Astrid Thors to the CommissionSubject: Management of nuclear waste in Russia

484

2004/C 088E/8

E-0091/04 by Ilka Schröder to the CommissionSubject: Effects of including Hamas on the list of terrorist organisations

485

2004/C 088E/9

E-0097/04 by Jean Lambert to the CommissionSubject: Saint Lucia environmental aid

486

2004/C 088E/0

E-0113/04 by Raina Echerer and Eurig Wyn to the CommissionSubject: Maltese language for the next parliamentary term

487

2004/C 088E/1

E-0202/04 by Michl Ebner to the CommissionSubject: Lack of clarity in the rules excluding firms from applying for projects funded by the EU

488

2004/C 088E/2

E-0226/04 by Margrietus van den Berg to the CommissionSubject: Starch factories and developing countries

490

2004/C 088E/3

E-0254/04 by Elspeth Attwooll to the CommissionSubject: Global TB Drug Facility

491

2004/C 088E/4

E-0266/04 by John McCartin to the CommissionSubject: Imports of poultry meat into the EU

492

2004/C 088E/5

P-0302/04 by Christa Randzio-Plath to the CommissionSubject: Working conditions for female flower workers in Africa, Asia and Latin America

492

2004/C 088E/6

E-0306/04 by Gerhard Schmid to the CommissionSubject: Use of sky marshals

494

2004/C 088E/7

E-0318/04 by Glenys Kinnock to the CommissionSubject: People with mental disabilities in Russia

495

2004/C 088E/8

P-0341/04 by Philip Claeys to the CommissionSubject: Introduction of a Made in the EU label

496

2004/C 088E/9

E-0352/04 by Roberta Angelilli to the CommissionSubject: The Parmalat case and its repercussions on milk and cheese production in Lazio

497

2004/C 088E/0

E-0403/04 by Erik Meijer to the CommissionSubject: Distortion of competition to the detriment of the environment and of working conditions in the cheap production of the semi-finished product primary aluminium in Iceland

498

2004/C 088E/1

E-0406/04 by Jules Maaten and Jan Mulder to the CommissionSubject: Discrimination against a Netherlands onion farmer in Poland

500

2004/C 088E/2

E-0446/04 by Torben Lund to the CommissionSubject: Freedom of the press in Russia

501

2004/C 088E/3

E-0449/04 by Charles Tannock to the CommissionSubject: Monolithic rock-hewn churches in Lilibela, Ethiopia

502

2004/C 088E/4

E-0461/04 by José Ribeiro e Castro to the CommissionSubject: Zimbabwe - EP resolution

502

2004/C 088E/5

E-0492/04 by José Ribeiro e Castro to the CommissionSubject: Mozambique — possible trafficking in human organs — threats to EU citizens

503

2004/C 088E/6

E-0493/04 by Ilda Figueiredo to the CommissionSubject: Closure of the Panasqueira mines in Portugal

505

2004/C 088E/7

E-0500/04 by Salvador Garriga Polledo to the CommissionSubject: Protecting the dignity of Arab women

506

2004/C 088E/8

E-0516/04 by Anna Karamanou to the CommissionSubject: Illegal transplantation of children’s organs in Albania intended for patients in EU countries

506

2004/C 088E/9

E-0518/04 by Elena Paciotti to the CommissionSubject: Violation of the fundamental rights of an EU citizen by the USA

507

2004/C 088E/0

E-0536/04 by John Bowis to the CommissionSubject: Colombia

508

2004/C 088E/1

E-0539/04 by Ilda Figueiredo to the CommissionSubject: Implementation of the Structural Funds in Portugal

509

2004/C 088E/2

E-0571/04 by Herbert Bösch to the CommissionSubject: Addressing the needs of disabled people in development cooperation funded by the EU

510

2004/C 088E/3

E-0572/04 by Graham Watson to the CommissionSubject: Czech psychiatric hospitals

512

2004/C 088E/4

E-0577/04 by José Ribeiro e Castro to the CommissionSubject: Cuba - Sakharov Initiative

512

2004/C 088E/5

E-0584/04 by Nirj Deva to the CommissionSubject: EU aid money to Zimbabwe

513

2004/C 088E/6

E-0606/04 by Camilo Nogueira Román to the CommissionSubject: The Spanish Government’s respect for the principle of additionality in the funding of the Structural Funds and the Cohesion Fund

515

2004/C 088E/7

E-0609/04 by Ulrich Stockmann to the CommissionSubject: Customs and enlargement

515

2004/C 088E/8

E-0616/04 by Klaus Hänsch to the CommissionSubject: Allocation of EU resources (Supplementary Answer)

516

2004/C 088E/9

E-0620/04 by Concepció Ferrer to the CommissionSubject: Export of military ammunition to African countries as hunting ammunition

517

2004/C 088E/0

P-0626/04 by Juan Ferrández Lezaun to the CommissionSubject: The Spanish NHP alternatives

518

2004/C 088E/1

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

518

2004/C 088E/2

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

519

Supplementary joint answer to Written Questions E-0627/04 and E-0628/04

2004/C 088E/3

E-0715/04 by José García-Margallo y Marfil to the CommissionSubject: Polish VAT increase for citrus fruit

520

2004/C 088E/4

P-0822/04 by María Sornosa Martínez to the CommissionSubject: Distortion of competition by Poland in respect of other EU products

521

Joint answer to Written Questions E-0715/04 and P-0822/04

2004/C 088E/5

E-0725/04 by Daniela Raschhofer to the CommissionSubject: Accession of Latvia

522

2004/C 088E/6

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

523

2004/C 088E/7

P-0733/04 by Giuseppe Di Lello Finuoli to the CommissionSubject: European cofinancing of the Gazzi-Annunziata tramline in Messina under the Multifund Operational Programme 1994-1999

524

2004/C 088E/8

E-0740/04 by José García-Margallo y Marfil to the CommissionSubject: Agency to combat tax fraud

525

2004/C 088E/9

E-0742/04 by José García-Margallo y Marfil to the CommissionSubject: Regional impact of the Growth Initiative

526

2004/C 088E/0

E-0744/04 by José García-Margallo y Marfil to the CommissionSubject: Encouraging the participation of SMEs in innovative and R&D projects

527

2004/C 088E/1

E-0747/04 by José García-Margallo y Marfil to the CommissionSubject: Safeguard clause relating to satsuma imports

528

2004/C 088E/2

E-0760/04 by José García-Margallo y Marfil to the CommissionSubject: Implementation of the financial services action plan (FSAP) in the new Member States

529

2004/C 088E/3

E-0772/04 by Maurizio Turco to the CommissionSubject: Violation of religious freedom in Austria

529

2004/C 088E/4

E-0775/04 by Maurizio Turco to the CommissionSubject: Violation of religious freedom in Germany

531

2004/C 088E/5

E-0776/04 by Maurizio Turco to the CommissionSubject: Violation of religious freedom in Greece

532

2004/C 088E/6

E-0786/04 by Proinsias De Rossa to the CommissionSubject: Police cooperation and human rights

534

2004/C 088E/7

P-0788/04 by Giacomo Santini to the CommissionSubject: Importation of dumped copper sulphate

535

2004/C 088E/8

E-0806/04 by Antonio Di Pietro to the CommissionSubject: Tremonti Law - Mediaset

536

2004/C 088E/9

P-0810/04 by José Ribeiro e Castro to the CommissionSubject: Mozambique - Nampula - murder of a missionary

537

2004/C 088E/0

E-0813/04 by Johanna Boogerd-Quaak to the CommissionSubject: Agri-environmental payments

538

2004/C 088E/1

E-0815/04 by Charles Tannock to the CommissionSubject: The mass detention of Eritrean evangelical Christians

539

2004/C 088E/2

E-0821/04 by Ilda Figueiredo to the CommissionSubject: Signing of the Agadir Agreement

540

2004/C 088E/3

E-0833/04 by Catherine Stihler to the CommissionSubject: VAT rating of 0 % or 5 % on all audio-books

541

2004/C 088E/4

E-0852/04 by Michl Ebner to the CommissionSubject: Building projects in East Africa

542

2004/C 088E/5

E-0854/04 by Roger Helmer to the CommissionSubject: Common external tariffs

543

2004/C 088E/6

E-0874/04 by Salvador Garriga Polledo to the CommissionSubject: Boycott of polio vaccinations by Nigerian fundamentalists

546

2004/C 088E/7

E-0878/04 by Antonio Di Pietro to the CommissionSubject: The Acque Albule water company of Tivoli (Italy)

547

2004/C 088E/8

E-0889/04 by Nelly Maes to the CommissionSubject: Elections in Iran

548

2004/C 088E/9

E-0899/04 by Patricia McKenna to the CommissionSubject: Larger Member State representation on the ECB board

549

2004/C 088E/0

E-0918/04 by Proinsias De Rossa to the CommissionSubject: Random motor insurance checks in Ireland on vehicles from other Member States

549

2004/C 088E/1

E-0919/04 by Proinsias De Rossa to the CommissionSubject: Trafficking in human beings

550

2004/C 088E/2

E-0922/04 by Proinsias De Rossa to the CommissionSubject: VAT on postal services

551

2004/C 088E/3

E-0939/04 by Robert Evans to the CommissionSubject: Ethiopia

552

2004/C 088E/4

E-0946/04 by Ilda Figueiredo to the CommissionSubject: School milk in Portugal

553

2004/C 088E/5

E-0955/04 by Philip Claeys to the CommissionSubject: Statements by Commissioner Verheugen concerning Turkey’s possible accession to the Union

554

2004/C 088E/6

E-0986/04 by Richard Corbett to the CommissionSubject: Blood diamonds

554

2004/C 088E/7

E-0990/04 by Jan Wiersma to the CommissionSubject: The recent clashes between Syrian Kurds and the Syrian authorities (March 2004)

555

2004/C 088E/8

E-0997/04 by Dominique Souchet to the CommissionSubject: Placing on the market of plant protection products

556

2004/C 088E/9

E-1003/04 by Daniel Hannan to the CommissionSubject: Romanian motorway project

558

2004/C 088E/0

E-1004/04 by Daniel Hannan to the CommissionSubject: Threat to peace and democracy in Adjara

559

2004/C 088E/1

E-1012/04 by Mario Borghezio to the CommissionSubject: Who is trying to block the investigations into fraud in Euroland?

560

2004/C 088E/2

E-1021/04 by Paolo Bartolozzi to the CommissionSubject: Imported goods in transit held up by customs

560

2004/C 088E/3

E-1054/04 by Franz Turchi to the CommissionSubject: Increase in European School fees

562

2004/C 088E/4

E-1065/04 by Anna Karamanou to the CommissionSubject: Legal operation of paedophile networks in Europe — new Dutroux?

562

2004/C 088E/5

E-1069/04 by Nicole Thomas-Mauro to the CommissionSubject: Inconsistency of the Commission’s position on wine

564

2004/C 088E/6

E-1073/04 by Proinsias De Rossa to the CommissionSubject: Architectural quality in urban and rural environments

565

2004/C 088E/7

E-1074/04 by Proinsias De Rossa to the CommissionSubject: Human rights and the Cotonou Agreement

566

2004/C 088E/8

E-1080/04 by Proinsias De Rossa to the CommissionSubject: Human rights defenders

567

2004/C 088E/9

P-1092/04 by Jean Lambert to the CommissionSubject: Caste discrimination

567

2004/C 088E/0

E-1097/04 by Adriana Poli Bortone to the CommissionSubject: Regulation (EC) No 2331/2003

569

2004/C 088E/1

P-1104/04 by Francesco Speroni to the CommissionSubject: Fig bananas

570

2004/C 088E/2

P-1123/04 by Roy Perry to the CommissionSubject: Recourse to civil courts

571

2004/C 088E/3

P-1124/04 by Professor Sir Neil MacCormick to the CommissionSubject: Tax concessions for stud farms

572

2004/C 088E/4

P-1126/04 by Véronique De Keyser to the CommissionSubject: Use of structural funds

572

2004/C 088E/5

P-1141/04 by Göran Färm to the CommissionSubject: European patent rights in the USA

573

2004/C 088E/6

E-1145/04 by Ilda Figueiredo to the CommissionSubject: Establishment of a Community inspection body

573

2004/C 088E/7

P-1154/04 by Brice Hortefeux to the CommissionSubject: Fight against terrorism

574

2004/C 088E/8

P-1155/04 by Marco Formentini to the CommissionSubject: Request for the Commission to intervene in the dispute between the company Invesmart bv and the Czech Republic regarding the bankrupt Union Banka

575

2004/C 088E/9

P-1201/04 by Roberta Angelilli to the CommissionSubject: Municipality of Rome — failure to comply with Commission Decision 2000/628/EC in relation to State aid granted to ACCL

576

WRITTEN QUESTIONS WITH ANSWER (Part 3)

2004/C 088E/0

E-3077/01 by Luis Berenguer Fuster to the CommissionSubject: The case concerning State aid for the Terra Mítica theme park (Alicante)

578

2004/C 088E/1

P-2951/02 by Rosa Miguélez Ramos to the CommissionSubject: Allocation of structural funds (Supplementary Answer)

579

2004/C 088E/2

E-3207/02 by Kathleen Van Brempt to the CommissionSubject: Nicotine sweets (Supplementary Answer)

579

2004/C 088E/3

P-3445/02 by Wolfgang Ilgenfritz to the CommissionSubject: Vehicle leasing abroad — transfer of the place where the service is supplied to the home Member State — amendment of the VAT Directive

580

2004/C 088E/4

E-3512/02 by Herman Vermeer to the CommissionSubject: Problem of mutual recognition in the port of Antwerp involving a visa issued by a Schengen state (Supplementary Answer)

581

2004/C 088E/5

E-3753/02 by Kathleen Van Brempt to the CommissionSubject: Kerosene tax

582

2004/C 088E/6

E-3801/02 by Jules Maaten to the CommissionSubject: Tobacco excise on medicinal herbal cigarettes

583

2004/C 088E/7

P-3926/02 by Niels Busk to the CommissionSubject: Production levy in France (Supplementary Answer)

584

2004/C 088E/8

P-0020/03 by Claude Moraes to the CommissionSubject: Caste-based discrimination in India

585

2004/C 088E/9

E-0079/03 by Margot Keßler to the CommissionSubject: The situation of people with mental disabilities in applicant countries

586

2004/C 088E/0

E-0113/03 by Mogens Camre to the CommissionSubject: Migrant workers from the new Member States

587

2004/C 088E/1

E-0130/03 by Margrietus van den Berg to the CommissionSubject: Implementing paragraph 6 of the Doha Declaration on TRIPS and public health

589

2004/C 088E/2

E-0170/03 by Bob van den Bos to the CommissionSubject: Bangladesh

590

2004/C 088E/3

E-0242/03 by Nirj Deva to the CommissionSubject: Human rights in Bangladesh

590

Joint answer to Written Questions E-0170/03 and E-0242/03

2004/C 088E/4

P-0176/03 by Ilda Figueiredo to the CommissionSubject: Consequences of the liberalisation of agriculture worldwide

591

2004/C 088E/5

P-0207/03 by Daniel Hannan to the CommissionSubject: Maltese referendum

592

2004/C 088E/6

E-0208/03 by Patricia McKenna to the CommissionSubject: General Agreement on Trade in Services

593

2004/C 088E/7

E-0247/03 by Charles Tannock to the CommissionSubject: Potential abuse of the EU Association Agreement

594

2004/C 088E/8

P-0264/03 by Joachim Wuermeling to the CommissionSubject: Discrimination against EU investors in the Czech Republic

595

2004/C 088E/9

E-0277/03 by Brian Simpson to the CommissionSubject: Soda ash imports

596

2004/C 088E/0

P-0306/03 by Hanja Maij-Weggen to the CommissionSubject: Human rights situation in Zimbabwe

597

2004/C 088E/1

E-0401/03 by Roy Perry to the CommissionSubject: Transparency in the application of broadcasting legislation in the Czech Republic

598

2004/C 088E/2

E-0796/03 by Concepció Ferrer to the CommissionSubject: Bureaucracy and the EDF

599

2004/C 088E/3

E-0830/03 by Roberta Angelilli to the CommissionSubject: Use of funds from the Culture 2000 programme by the City of Frosinone

600

2004/C 088E/4

E-0892/03 by Roberta Angelilli to the CommissionSubject: Use of funds from the Culture 2000 programme by the municipality of Fiumicino

600

2004/C 088E/5

E-0978/03 by Roberta Angelilli to the CommissionSubject: Use of funds from the Culture 2000 programme by the municipality of Ancona

601

2004/C 088E/6

E-0979/03 by Roberta Angelilli to the CommissionSubject: Use of funds from the Culture 2000 programme by the municipality of Carrara

601

2004/C 088E/7

E-0980/03 by Roberta Angelilli to the CommissionSubject: Use of funds from the Culture 2000 programme by the municipality of Firenze

602

2004/C 088E/8

E-0981/03 by Roberta Angelilli to the CommissionSubject: Use of funds from the Culture 2000 programme by the municipality of Livorno

602

2004/C 088E/9

E-0982/03 by Roberta Angelilli to the CommissionSubject: Use of funds from the Culture 2000 programme by the municipality of Macerata

603

2004/C 088E/0

E-0983/03 by Roberta Angelilli to the CommissionSubject: Use of funds from the Culture 2000 programme by the municipality of Massa

603

2004/C 088E/1

E-0984/03 by Roberta Angelilli to the CommissionSubject: Use of funds from the Culture 2000 programme by the municipality of Perugia

604

2004/C 088E/2

E-0985/03 by Roberta Angelilli to the CommissionSubject: Use of funds from the Culture 2000 programme by the municipality of Pesaro

604

2004/C 088E/3

E-0986/03 by Roberta Angelilli to the CommissionSubject: Use of funds from the Culture 2000 programme by the municipality of Pisa

605

2004/C 088E/4

E-0987/03 by Roberta Angelilli to the CommissionSubject: Use of funds from the Culture 2000 programme by the municipality of Pistoia

605

2004/C 088E/5

E-0988/03 by Roberta Angelilli to the CommissionSubject: Use of funds from the Culture 2000 programme by the municipality of Prato

606

2004/C 088E/6

E-0989/03 by Roberta Angelilli to the CommissionSubject: Use of funds from the Culture 2000 programme by the municipality of Siena

606

2004/C 088E/7

E-0990/03 by Roberta Angelilli to the CommissionSubject: Use of funds from the Culture 2000 programme by the municipality of Terni

607

Supplementary joint answer to Written Questions E-0830/03, E-0892/03, E-0978/03, E-0979/03, E-0980/03, E-0981/03, E-0982/03, E-0983/03, E-0984/03, E-0985/03, E-0986/03, E-0987/03, E-0988/03, E-0989/03 and E-0990/03

2004/C 088E/8

E-0915/03 by Claude Moraes to the CommissionSubject: EU/UN World Food Programme figures

608

2004/C 088E/9

E-1117/03 by Bart Staes to the CommissionSubject: Labelling of foodstuffs after enlargement

609

2004/C 088E/0

E-1297/03 by José Ribeiro e Castro to the CommissionSubject: Massacres in Kashmir

610

2004/C 088E/1

E-1342/03 by Benedetto Della Vedova to the CommissionSubject: The right to religious freedom in India

611

2004/C 088E/2

E-1507/03 by Ilda Figueiredo to the CommissionSubject: Bankruptcy of Grundig AG and how to safeguard jobs in Portugal (Supplementary Answer)

612

2004/C 088E/3

P-1555/03 by Eija-Riitta Korhola to the CommissionSubject: Averting alcohol-related harm in Finland

613

2004/C 088E/4

E-1690/03 by Anders Wijkman to the CommissionSubject: Bushmeat

614

2004/C 088E/5

E-1706/03 by Gabriele Stauner to the CommissionSubject: Medstat and Medstat II programmes

615

2004/C 088E/6

E-1716/03 by Mogens Camre to the CommissionSubject: Poul Nielsen’s statements on the USA’s presence in Iraq

617

2004/C 088E/7

E-1768/03 by John Cushnahan to the CommissionSubject: Rehabilitation of torture victims

618

2004/C 088E/8

E-1891/03 by Margrietus van den Berg and Jan Wiersma to the CommissionSubject: Iran’s nuclear activities

619

2004/C 088E/9

E-1902/03 by Lord Inglewood to the CommissionSubject: VAT and the European art market

620

2004/C 088E/0

E-2041/03 by Maurizio Turco to the CommissionSubject: Violation of religious freedom in Russia through exclusive cooperation agreements with the Russian Orthodox Church

620

2004/C 088E/1

E-2224/03 by Paulo Casaca to the CommissionSubject: Additional Protocol for Nuclear Material Safeguards

621

2004/C 088E/2

E-2266/03 by Erik Meijer to the CommissionSubject: Financing of, and agreements with the EU concerning, construction in future EU Member States of camps to accommodate refugees seeking admission to the present Member States

622

2004/C 088E/3

E-2527/03 by Glenys Kinnock to the CommissionSubject: Rum

625

2004/C 088E/4

P-2622/03 by Philip Claeys to the CommissionSubject: Relations with Libya

626

2004/C 088E/5

E-2660/03 by Elisabeth Jeggle to the CommissionSubject: Checks on invalid MOT (road worthiness inspection) disks in EU Member States

627

2004/C 088E/6

P-2697/03 by Francesco Fiori to the CommissionSubject: Anomalies in the customs treatment of, and health requirements applied to, imported chicken and turkey

628

2004/C 088E/7

E-2910/03 by Joan Vallvé to the CommissionSubject: Difficulties at the German-Polish border

629

2004/C 088E/8

E-2957/03 by Mogens Camre to the CommissionSubject: Commission’s proposed amendment of Directive 94/35/EC (Supplementary Answer)

630

2004/C 088E/9

P-2992/03 by Rodi Kratsa-Tsagaropoulou to the CommissionSubject: Drugs production in Afghanistan

631

2004/C 088E/0

E-3021/03 by Anna Karamanou to the CommissionSubject: Child trafficking in Afghanistan

633

2004/C 088E/1

E-3031/03 by Ilda Figueiredo to the CommissionSubject: Community subsidies in the cultural sphere (Supplementary Answer)

634

2004/C 088E/2

P-3091/03 by Glenys Kinnock to the CommissionSubject: Peter Shaw/Georgia

636

2004/C 088E/3

E-3117/03 by Maurizio Turco to the CommissionSubject: Illegal imports of textile products from China

636

2004/C 088E/4

E-3220/03 by Christopher Heaton-Harris to the CommissionSubject: Financial Regulations and DG Enlargement

637

2004/C 088E/5

E-3221/03 by Christopher Heaton-Harris to the CommissionSubject: Financial Regulations and DG Development and Humanitarian Aid

638

2004/C 088E/6

E-3257/03 by Margrietus van den Berg to the CommissionSubject: VAT - recycling firms

639

2004/C 088E/7

E-3305/03 by Claude Moraes to the CommissionSubject: Human rights in Tunisia

641

2004/C 088E/8

E-3310/03 by Philip Claeys to the CommissionSubject: Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan oil pipeline; violations of the acquis communautaire by Turkey

642

2004/C 088E/9

P-3331/03 by Anne Van Lancker to the CommissionSubject: Defunding HIV/AIDS prevention programmes for refugees

642

2004/C 088E/0

E-3357/03 by Stavros Xarchakos to the CommissionSubject: Affront to the church of Ayia Sofia in Istanbul

643

2004/C 088E/1

E-3366/03 by Avril Doyle to the CommissionSubject: Human rights situation in Chechnya

644

2004/C 088E/2

E-3377/03 by Elisabeth Schroedter and Inger Schörling to the CommissionSubject: Oil extraction by Russia in the Baltic Sea, near the Curonian Spit (D6 oil deposit)

645

2004/C 088E/3

E-3380/03 by Christos Zacharakis and Konstantinos Hatzidakis to the CommissionSubject: Representations to the Egyptian authorities to implement the principles of democracy and the protection of human rights

647

2004/C 088E/4

P-3391/03 by Luigi Vinci to the CommissionSubject: Negotiations between Turkey and the Commission on the case against Leyla Zana

648

2004/C 088E/5

E-3396/03 by Roberta Angelilli to the CommissionSubject: Failure to pay compensation to Italian exiles in former Yugoslavia

648

2004/C 088E/6

P-3401/03 by Alexandros Alavanos to the CommissionSubject: The Loizidou case

649

2004/C 088E/7

E-3467/03 by John Bowis to the CommissionSubject: Chad-Cameroon pipeline

650

2004/C 088E/8

E-3676/03 by Ilda Figueiredo to the CommissionSubject: Petition by CNASTI (Portugal)

651

2004/C 088E/9

E-3857/03 by Raffaele Costa to the CommissionSubject: Development aid programme for India

652

2004/C 088E/0

E-3868/03 by Piia-Noora Kauppi, Riitta Myller, Samuli Pohjamo and Ari Vatanen to the CommissionSubject: Taxation temperature of fuel

653

2004/C 088E/1

E-3880/03 by Emmanouil Bakopoulos to the CommissionSubject: Pet passports

654

2004/C 088E/2

E-3920/03 by Graham Watson to the CommissionSubject: ECHO

655

2004/C 088E/3

P-3936/03 by Christopher Heaton-Harris to the CommissionSubject: Italtrend

656

2004/C 088E/4

E-3959/03 by José Ribeiro e Castro to the CommissionSubject: Africa - food shortage and security of food supply

656

2004/C 088E/5

E-3972/03 by Erik Meijer to the CommissionSubject: Campaign in Bulgaria against distribution and management of funds for civil society development by the EU delegation in Sofia and ways of assuaging the associated annoyance

659

2004/C 088E/6

E-3973/03 by Erik Meijer to the CommissionSubject: National Council for Ethnic and Demographic Issues (NCEDI) ignored when allocating EU funds for social participation in Bulgaria

659

2004/C 088E/7

E-4011/03 by Erik Meijer to the CommissionSubject: Implementation of PHARE project BG 0102.06 in Bulgaria: major disparities between the proposals drafted and the actual allocation of funding

660

2004/C 088E/8

E-4012/03 by Erik Meijer to the CommissionSubject: Implementation of PHARE project BG 0102.06 in Bulgaria: late announcement of decisions and controversial payment arrangements

660

2004/C 088E/9

E-4013/03 by Erik Meijer to the CommissionSubject: Implementation of PHARE project BG 0102.06 in Bulgaria: lack of information as to who is responsible for management, decision-making and assessment

661

2004/C 088E/0

E-4014/03 by Erik Meijer to the CommissionSubject: Implementation of PHARE project BG 0102.06 in Bulgaria: delays in implementation and uncertainty regarding the disbursement of the resulting outstanding appropriations

661

Joint answer to Written Questions E-3972/03, E-3973/02, E-4011/03, E-4012/03, E-4013/03 and E-4014/03

2004/C 088E/1

E-3974/03 by Paulo Casaca to the CommissionSubject: Reform of the support system for ACP banana producers

663

2004/C 088E/2

E-3992/03 by Giles Chichester and Geoffrey Van Orden to the CommissionSubject: Presentation of the peer review on the Kozloduy nuclear power plant

664

2004/C 088E/3

E-3993/03 by Giles Chichester and Geoffrey Van Orden to the CommissionSubject: Review of the closure dates for the Kozloduy nuclear power plant units

664

Joint answer to Written Questions E-3992/03 and E-3993/03

2004/C 088E/4

E-4019/03 by Margrietus van den Berg to the CommissionSubject: Burma Forum

666

2004/C 088E/5

E-4038/03 by Herbert Bösch to the CommissionSubject: Processing of radioactive waste in Ukraine

666

2004/C 088E/6

E-4051/03 by Hiltrud Breyer to the CommissionSubject: Export of nuclear facilities to the People’s Republic of China

667

2004/C 088E/7

E-4058/03 by Elspeth Attwooll to the CommissionSubject: Gun laws in Turkey

669

2004/C 088E/8

E-4077/03 by Chris Davies to the CommissionSubject: NGOs

669

2004/C 088E/9

E-4081/03 by Chris Davies to the CommissionSubject: Tuberculosis

670

2004/C 088E/0

E-4083/03 by Bob van den Bos and Johanna Boogerd-Quaak to the CommissionSubject: Burma

671

2004/C 088E/1

E-4084/03 by Miet Smet to the CommissionSubject: Suspension of cooperation agreements and postponement in signing cooperation agreements

672

2004/C 088E/2

P-4088/03 by Dana Scallon to the CommissionSubject: Reproductive health definition

675

2004/C 088E/3

P-0002/04 by Bernd Posselt to the CommissionSubject: Definition of sexual and reproductive health

675

2004/C 088E/4

E-0007/04 by Philip Claeys to the CommissionSubject: Accession of Cyprus, official languages

676

2004/C 088E/5

E-0032/04 by Erik Meijer to the CommissionSubject: Long-term stateless-person status of one category of permanent residents of the three future EU Member States that were internal states of the Soviet Union until 1991

676

2004/C 088E/6

E-0034/04 by Erik Meijer to the CommissionSubject: Duty-free cigarettes sold over the Internet at half price in Romania and sent by private individuals

678

2004/C 088E/7

E-0085/04 by Matti Wuori to the CommissionSubject: Missing NGO legal framework in Malta

679

2004/C 088E/8

E-0096/04 by Alexandros Alavanos to the CommissionSubject: Israeli arms for Turkey in exchange for water

679

2004/C 088E/9

E-0104/04 by José Ribeiro e Castro to the CommissionSubject: Namibia - Farms threatened with occupation

680

2004/C 088E/0

E-0116/04 by Dana Scallon to the CommissionSubject: Leader II projects - Blue Dragon case

681

2004/C 088E/1

E-0118/04 by Monica Frassoni and Daniel Cohn-Bendit to the CommissionSubject: Elimination of voters from Maltese electoral lists

682

2004/C 088E/2

E-0120/04 by Adriana Poli Bortone to the CommissionSubject: Death of 20 Albanian nationals

683

2004/C 088E/3

E-0137/04 by Jillian Evans to the CommissionSubject: The case of Mrs Siham Qandah, Jordan

684

2004/C 088E/4

E-0144/04 by José Ribeiro e Castro to the CommissionSubject: Cuba - Commission delegation

685

2004/C 088E/5

E-0146/04 by José Ribeiro e Castro to the CommissionSubject: Venezuela referendum

686

2004/C 088E/6

E-0148/04 by Cees Bremmer to the CommissionSubject: Human rights in Burma

687

2004/C 088E/7

E-0188/04 by Marco Cappato to the CommissionSubject: Abduction of two Ivorians

688

2004/C 088E/8

E-0213/04 by Sir Robert Atkins to the CommissionSubject: The Pharmaceutical Tariff Elimination Agreement (Zero for Zero)

689

2004/C 088E/9

E-0216/04 by Marco Pannella to the CommissionSubject: Violation of religious freedom in Vietnam

690

2004/C 088E/0

E-0218/04 by Eija-Riitta Korhola to the CommissionSubject: Practical measures under the EU’s policy on Chechnya

692

2004/C 088E/1

E-0221/04 by Maurizio Turco to the CommissionSubject: Investigations by the Milan public prosecutor into the auditors Grant Thornton and Deloitte in connection with the Parmalat scandal

693

2004/C 088E/2

E-0248/04 by Glenys Kinnock to the CommissionSubject: Roma children in Bulgaria

693

2004/C 088E/3

P-0312/04 by Elspeth Attwooll to the CommissionSubject: Development aid

694

2004/C 088E/4

E-0401/04 by Concepció Ferrer to the CommissionSubject: River Ebro water transfer

695

2004/C 088E/5

P-0409/04 by Carlos Coelho to the CommissionSubject: Rights inherent in European citizenship

696

2004/C 088E/6

E-0427/04 by Christopher Huhne to the CommissionSubject: Residence of nationals in another Member State

697

2004/C 088E/7

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

698

2004/C 088E/8

E-0526/04 by Matti Wuori to the CommissionSubject: Enlargement of Arinaga port (Gran Canaria, Spain)

699

2004/C 088E/9

E-0527/04 by Matti Wuori to the CommissionSubject: Enlargement of Arinaga port (Gran Canaria, Spain)

699

Joint answer to Written Questions E-0526/04 and E-0527/04

2004/C 088E/0

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

700

2004/C 088E/1

E-0661/04 by Alexander de Roo to the CommissionSubject: Public procurement for the Júcar-Vinalopó water transfer

702

2004/C 088E/2

E-0669/04 by Proinsias De Rossa to the CommissionSubject: Professional qualifications

703

2004/C 088E/3

E-0676/04 by Proinsias De Rossa to the CommissionSubject: Bushmeat - resource allocation

703

2004/C 088E/4

E-0677/04 by Proinsias De Rossa to the CommissionSubject: Bushmeat: timber concession wildlife management

704

2004/C 088E/5

E-0678/04 by Proinsias De Rossa to the CommissionSubject: Bushmeat - Biodiversity Action Plan

704

2004/C 088E/6

E-0681/04 by Proinsias De Rossa to the CommissionSubject: Bushmeat - poverty assessments

704

Joint answer to Written Questions E-0676/04, E-0677/04, E-0678/04 and E-0681/04

2004/C 088E/7

E-0682/04 by Proinsias De Rossa to the CommissionSubject: Bushmeat: Development Strategies

705

2004/C 088E/8

P-0687/04 by Marcelino Oreja Arburúa to the CommissionSubject: Infringement of the principle of the freedom of movement of goods

706

2004/C 088E/9

E-0708/04 by Erik Meijer to the CommissionSubject: Disappearance of last-remaining sources of income for Roma population in eastern Slovakia and resultant looting, violent clashes and migration

707

2004/C 088E/0

P-0721/04 by Daniela Raschhofer to the CommissionSubject: Benes Decree No 33/1945: the case of Hugo Salm

709

2004/C 088E/1

E-0756/04 by José García-Margallo y Marfil to the CommissionSubject: Repercussions of European financial market integration at national and regional level

710

2004/C 088E/2

E-0811/04 by Enrique Monsonís Domingo and Joan Vallvé to the CommissionSubject: Pests affecting citrus fruit

711

2004/C 088E/3

P-0841/04 by Cristiana Muscardini to the CommissionSubject: Female sexual mutilation

712

2004/C 088E/4

E-0853/04 by Terence Wynn to the CommissionSubject: New Regulation on sugar export and dispatch from outermost regions

714

2004/C 088E/5

E-0877/04 by Patricia McKenna to the CommissionSubject: Conflict resolution in Sudan

715

2004/C 088E/6

E-0901/04 by Graham Watson to the CommissionSubject: The treatment of animals in livestock markets

716

2004/C 088E/7

E-0921/04 by Proinsias De Rossa to the CommissionSubject: Israeli nuclear arms

717

2004/C 088E/8

P-0956/04 by Brian Crowley to the CommissionSubject: Decoupling, farm retirement and families

718

2004/C 088E/9

P-0985/04 by Antonio Di Pietro to the CommissionSubject: Disappearance of children in Mozambique

718

2004/C 088E/0

P-1000/04 by Michiel van Hulten to the CommissionSubject: Publication by Commissioner Bolkestein of a book entitled De grenzen van Europa

720

2004/C 088E/1

P-1007/04 by Manuel Medina Ortega to the CommissionSubject: Breakdown of the POSEI item in the 2004 Budget

721

2004/C 088E/2

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

721

2004/C 088E/3

E-1081/04 by Maria Sanders-ten Holte to the CommissionSubject: The smaller European Schools

722

2004/C 088E/4

P-1125/04 by Daniela Raschhofer to the CommissionSubject: EU programmes with Turkey — potential consequences of full membership

724

2004/C 088E/5

P-1190/04 by Joan Vallvé to the CommissionSubject: Forum of Cultures 2004

724

2004/C 088E/6

P-1200/04 by Charles Tannock to the CommissionSubject: The progress in Ukraine being recognised by the EU as having Market Economy Status (MES)

725

2004/C 088E/7

P-1203/04 by Gianfranco Dell’Alba to the CommissionSubject: Suspected irregularities in the management of European Development Fund (EDF) resources for Project 8.ACP.PNG.003 (Supplementary Answer)

726

Corrigenda

2004/C 088E/8

Corrigendum to the answer to Written Question P-2323/03 by Mrs Schreyer on behalf of the Commission

728

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN

---

I (Information)

EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT

WRITTEN QUESTIONS WITH ANSWER (Part 1)

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/1

---

(2004/C 88 E/0001)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2236/02

by Gabriele Stauner (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(23 July 2002)

Subject:   Award of Commission contracts to audit firms

I gather from Mrs Schreyer's answer to Written Questions E-0372/02, P-0443/02 and E-0450/02 (1) that the Commission awarded contracts in 1999-2001 for a total value of EUR 77 million to the private auditing firms of KPMG, Andersen Group, Deloitte & Touche, Ernst & Young and PriceWaterhouseCoopers.

| 1. | Can the Commission provide me with a full and detailed list of these contracts, stating for each one:






  (a) | the subject of the contract; |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

Can the Commission provide me with a full and detailed list of these contracts, stating for each one:

(a)

the subject of the contract;

| (b) | the agreed fee; |
| --- | --- |

(b)

the agreed fee;

| (c) | whether the contract was the subject of a proper tendering procedure in accordance with the Financial Regulation? |
| --- | --- |

(c)

whether the contract was the subject of a proper tendering procedure in accordance with the Financial Regulation?

| 2. | Can the Commission explain why contracts of this magnitude were given to private firms, even though the Commission has its own audit services and is also subject to detailed auditing by the European Court of Auditors? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Can the Commission explain why contracts of this magnitude were given to private firms, even though the Commission has its own audit services and is also subject to detailed auditing by the European Court of Auditors?

Supplementary answer given by Mrs Schreyer on behalf of the Commission

(26 April 2004)

| 1. | Management of contracts is the responsibility of the local contract managers within each Directorate-General (DG). The decentralised organisation of contract management has proved to be the most efficient approach as local managers have the information on requirements and conditions that govern the execution of individual contracts. Each service is responsible for ensuring that proper tendering procedures are adhered to.
  In view of the volume of information requested and the time needed to analyse the files, the data requested by the Honourable Member are not currently available.
  However, the Commission has decided to develop a central contracts and contractors database, Interactive Contracts Network Database (ICON-DB). The work is progressing well. Centralised and consolidated statistics, broken down by Commission department, will thus be available, in due course, more rapidly.
  The Honourable Member may be aware of the tight staffing situation in the Commission. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Management of contracts is the responsibility of the local contract managers within each Directorate-General (DG). The decentralised organisation of contract management has proved to be the most efficient approach as local managers have the information on requirements and conditions that govern the execution of individual contracts. Each service is responsible for ensuring that proper tendering procedures are adhered to.

In view of the volume of information requested and the time needed to analyse the files, the data requested by the Honourable Member are not currently available.

However, the Commission has decided to develop a central contracts and contractors database, Interactive Contracts Network Database (ICON-DB). The work is progressing well. Centralised and consolidated statistics, broken down by Commission department, will thus be available, in due course, more rapidly.

The Honourable Member may be aware of the tight staffing situation in the Commission.

| 2. | The use of selected management consultants is a way of enlisting the services of specialists who have in-depth expertise and have also probably performed comparable tasks in similar public or private organisations. Their combination of skills enables them to contribute a new and different perspective, which is both useful and necessary for dealing with specific dossiers.
  Like many international and national public institutions, the Commission occasionally avails itself of the services of private accountancy and consultancy firms to get their advice. However, the contracts to which the Honourable Member is referring cover a wide range of consultancy activities, with audit being only a part. Where such companies have been called in to audit particular projects or programmes, such as in research, this is not meant to replace the external audit work of the Court, but to provide the authorising officer with assurance regarding the regularity of the expenditure claimed by beneficiaries. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The use of selected management consultants is a way of enlisting the services of specialists who have in-depth expertise and have also probably performed comparable tasks in similar public or private organisations. Their combination of skills enables them to contribute a new and different perspective, which is both useful and necessary for dealing with specific dossiers.

Like many international and national public institutions, the Commission occasionally avails itself of the services of private accountancy and consultancy firms to get their advice. However, the contracts to which the Honourable Member is referring cover a wide range of consultancy activities, with audit being only a part. Where such companies have been called in to audit particular projects or programmes, such as in research, this is not meant to replace the external audit work of the Court, but to provide the authorising officer with assurance regarding the regularity of the expenditure claimed by beneficiaries.

---

(1)  OJ C 229 E, 26.9.2002, p. 82.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/2

---

(2004/C 88 E/0002)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0043/03

by Gian Gobbo (NI) to the Commission

(14 January 2003)

Subject:   Introduction of a minimum rate of excise duty on wine

The Commission has apparently drafted a proposal aimed at introducing a minimum rate of excise duty on wine of EUR 0,14 per litre (LIT 270) from 2003 and EUR 0,15 from 2007.

This would constitute a further fiscal and bureaucratic burden on one of the most advanced sectors of European agriculture and one of the most competitive at world level.

In many EU countries, including Italy, there is no excise duty on wine and thus its introduction, far from constituting harmonisation of the tax system, would actually represent the levying of a new tax.

Does the Commission not consider that the introduction of excise duty on wine might put producers at a disadvantage?

Does it not consider it worthwhile to safeguard and promote European wine production, which has its roots in our civilisation's most distant past and is an integral part of Europe's cultural and religious imagery?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(30 January 2003)

Council Directive 92/84/EEC, of 19 October 1992, deals with the approximation of rates of excise duty on alcohol and alcoholic beverages (1). Under its provisions it is necessary for the excise duty rates laid down in that Directive to be reviewed periodically by Council. This review shall be based upon a Commission report.

The Commission is preparing such a report at present, which will take into account all relevant issues, in particular the proper functioning of the internal market, competition between the different categories of alcoholic drinks, the real value of the rates of duty and the wider objectives of the EC Treaty, as provided by Article 8 of the said Directive. These considerations will also include the situation of producers and the other elements mentioned by the Honourable Member.

---

(1)  OJ L 316, 31.10.1992.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/3

---

(2004/C 88 E/0003)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0052/03

by Hanja Maij-Weggen (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(22 January 2003)

Subject:   Human rights situation in Vietnam

Is the Commission aware of the religious persecution now taking place in Vietnam, such as the surrounding of the historic Buddhist Quang Minh Temple in Long Dien A and the hounding of Montagnard Protestants in September and November 2002?

Is the Commission aware that a number of political dissidents were arrested in 2002, including Mr Le Chi Quang, who has been accused of keeping and exchanging articles propagating democratic ideas, Dr Pham Hong Son, on the grounds that he translated into Vietnamese a text dealing with democracy, Mr Nguyen Khac Toan, who has been accused of involvement in a strike, and Mr Nguyen Vu Binh, whose alleged crime was to set up a political party?

Is the Commission prepared to exert pressure on the Vietnamese Government with a view to securing improvements in the human rights situation and, in particular, religious freedom?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(18 February 2003)

The Commission together with the Diplomatic Missions of the Member States in Vietnam, follows closely the human rights situation in Vietnam, including the cases of the persons of concern mentioned by the Honourable Member.

The Commission's policy towards Vietnam is to encourage and support continued progress on human rights and democratisation, and to raise concerns where abuses occur or were a situation deteriorates. This dialogue happens, together with the Member States, through regular meetings of the ‘Politics and Human Rights Group’, Troika meetings with the Vietnamese Government as well as ad-hoc missions and through EU statements.

The EU Presidency, Commission and Member States have repeatedly urged the Government of Vietnam to strengthen its respect for political and religious freedoms as well economic and social freedoms and to create a legal framework for a supportive environment to allow the development of a strengthened civil society, from which Vietnam would greatly benefit. Commission and Member States have expressed these requests lately in their joint declaration at the Consultative Group meeting in Hanoi in December 2002.

The Vietnamese Constitution guarantees freedom of belief and religion. The Vietnamese Government officially recognises six religions — one Buddhist organisation, the Central Buddhist Church of Vietnam, the Catholic Church, two Protestant Church organisations, Islam, Hoa Hao Buddhism and Cao-Daism. The only report on the Quan Minh Tu temple, which has been referred to widely, does not seem to have been reconfirmed by other sources.

Reports of systematic harassment, notably of Christians in Vietnam (especially against the Montagnard Christians and Hmong Christians), are common and have increased since the uprising in the Central Highlands in February 2001. The access to the Central Highlands remains limited and a systematic first hand verification of reports is impossible. Nonetheless, in 2002, two local Union-Troika missions to the Central Highlands took place with Commission participation, the latest in November 2002.

Following the latest Union-Troika mission to the Central Highlands in November 2002 the Commission, in close coordination with the Member States, has made proposals to alleviate some of the different root causes of the conflict between the Government and the poor ethnic minorities in the Central Highlands. The Government of Vietnam has agreed that an identification mission of the Commission should visit the area in the coming months.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/4

---

(2004/C 88 E/0004)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0084/03

by Carlos Bautista Ojeda (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(23 January 2003)

Subject:   EU/Morocco policies

Bearing in mind that Andalusia is among the EU regions with the highest unemployment, is the Commission aware that, in one way or another, all the negotiations conducted with Morocco in recent years in whatever field — agriculture, fisheries or diplomatic matters, immigration and drug trafficking — directly affect Andalusia, either in economic or social terms or in terms of its image in the outside world?

Does the Commission not consider it necessary that the EU should consult or at least ascertain the opinion of the Andalusian authorities and government with regard to negotiations in these specific cases?

Is the Commission familiar with the political landscape in Andalusia? Is it aware of the level of on-going confrontation between the autonomous and state governments in Spain? Is the Commission aware that many of its decisions deepen the political breach between the two levels of administration and that this breach is already having direct adverse effects on Andalusia's development and economy?

Does the Commission not believe that many of its decisions are having a negative impact on the development of a region whose unemployment rate is among the highest in the EU?

I should be grateful not to receive a reply based on the European Union's lack of competence in these matters, on the grounds that each Member State is responsible for relations with its regions. Seven and a half million Andalusians — and Europeans — are tired of being used as a bargaining counter for the EU in its agricultural and fisheries negotiations with Morocco.

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(26 February 2003)

The Commission regrets the wrong perception provided to the Honourable Member and would like to share with him the following thoughts:

| — | The negotiations on fishery and agriculture with any third country are led by the Commission on the basis of a mandate provided by the Member States through the Council. The Member States are regularly informed of the developments of the negotiations and are expected to endorse the final results. In all the negotiations held in the past or being held at the moment, the interests of Andalucia have been and are adequately represented by the Kingdom of Spain. |
| --- | --- |

—

The negotiations on fishery and agriculture with any third country are led by the Commission on the basis of a mandate provided by the Member States through the Council. The Member States are regularly informed of the developments of the negotiations and are expected to endorse the final results. In all the negotiations held in the past or being held at the moment, the interests of Andalucia have been and are adequately represented by the Kingdom of Spain.

| — | In the framework of the competencies established by the Treaties, the Commission has, as one of its main priorities, the protection of the interests of all the citizens of the Union, the producers as well as the consumers. |
| --- | --- |

—

In the framework of the competencies established by the Treaties, the Commission has, as one of its main priorities, the protection of the interests of all the citizens of the Union, the producers as well as the consumers.

| — | Being the Union the main partner of Morocco as far as trade, investment and aid is concerned, the possibilities for investment and trade have increased in the recent years also thanks to the Association Agreement in force since March 2000. |
| --- | --- |

—

Being the Union the main partner of Morocco as far as trade, investment and aid is concerned, the possibilities for investment and trade have increased in the recent years also thanks to the Association Agreement in force since March 2000.

| — | The excellent relations of the Union with Morocco relate to a wider spectrum of fields which allow the Union to discuss, among others, about migration issues, and in particular the illegal migration, subject so important for the region of Andalucia. |
| --- | --- |

—

The excellent relations of the Union with Morocco relate to a wider spectrum of fields which allow the Union to discuss, among others, about migration issues, and in particular the illegal migration, subject so important for the region of Andalucia.

| — | Because its economic situation, Andalucia is one of the main beneficiaries of the structural funds of the Union and among those, Interreg funds, being an external border region of the Union. |
| --- | --- |

—

Because its economic situation, Andalucia is one of the main beneficiaries of the structural funds of the Union and among those, Interreg funds, being an external border region of the Union.

The Commission hopes the above arguments might contribute in reassuring the people of Andalucia that their interests are fully taken into account by the Union.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/5

---

(2004/C 88 E/0005)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0086/03

by Roger Helmer (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(28 January 2003)

Subject:   Killing of children in Honduras

Can the Commission tell me what action, if any, it can take to address the killing of children in Honduras, following disturbing reports that 64 Honduran children and young people under the age of 23 were murdered during the month of December 2002?

Can the Commission please detail what aid it has offered or can offer and what practical steps it is taking or will take to stop the random murders of children and young people throughout the country, as there is evidence that the Honduran Government has not been able to protect its nation's children despite their promises to do so?

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/5

---

(2004/C 88 E/0006)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0097/03

by Phillip Whitehead (PSE) to the Commission

(28 January 2003)

Subject:   The rights of street children in Honduras and Guatemala

Despite widespread international condemnation, street children in Honduras and Guatemala continue to live in fear of persecution. Since January 1998 at least 1 450 young people have been murdered in Honduras, 47 in October 2002 alone. Fifteen murder cases involving policemen have been given to the special investigative team which the Honduran Minister of Public Security set up in September. I understand that not one of the 15 cases has reached a conviction.

Can the Commission describe what support the EU is giving to the authorities in Honduras and Guatemala as well as other civil actors in terms of educational projects, residential programmes and job skills training for street children in order to help them to reintegrate into society? What attempts are being made to assist the authorities in bringing to justice those responsible for murders and harassment of street children? Has the Commission considered pressing the authorities on the importance of campaigns to promote tolerance within the wider community?

Joint answer

to Written Questions E-0086/03 and E-0097/03

given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(20 February 2003)

Widespread criminality continues to be of particular concern in spite of the efforts of the Honduran Government to deploy every possible means to tackle this problem. This reflects high levels of poverty and a lack of opportunities for the younger generations. Many of the murders of children and young people are reported in clashes between gangs. However, there are reports accusing security officers of being involved in some killings of children and young people, although, it has been accepted that these officers do not act on State orders nor does the killing of street children constitute State policy.

To address this issue, the Commission is supporting: the efforts of the relevant independent bodies in Honduras carrying out investigations on security officers allegedly involved in killings of children and young people; and the policies aimed at reducing poverty levels and vulnerability of young people through improved education, health and employment opportunities.

The Commission has followed closely the results of the report by United Nations special rapporteur Jahangir and largely shares its conclusions, although the Commission is not convinced that the establishment of a special ombudsman for children, as proposed in the United Nations report, should be given priority. On grounds of greater efficiency, a possible alternative would be granting increased competence for human resources and training to the Honduran Commissioner for Human Rights who under present conditions is competent on the issue. The creation of a special ombudsman could limit the powers of the Honduran Commissioner for the Human Rights which have been very hard to achieve in a young democracy like Honduras.

The Commission through a series of programmes is trying to reduce poverty, in particular for sensitive groups, by helping the government implement its Poverty Reduction Strategy Programme (PRSP). Apart from a large part of programmes aimed at improving social infrastructure (medical centres, schools, houses, water and sanitation) and environment, a special programme to boost reform in secondary education worth EUR 28 million is in preparation in close cooperation with the Inter-American Bank of Development.

Concerning Guatemala, the Commission is aware of the conditions of neglected children, as well as the increasing wave of violence and intimidation in the country. In line with the resolution on human rights in Guatemala that the Parliament adopted in April 2002, the Commission is endeavouring to use the various mechanisms at its disposal to influence this situation.

The Commission and Member States maintain a regular dialogue with the Guatemalan Government and representatives of civil society on the importance of promoting the well-being of all Guatemalan people on the basis of the full implementation of the Peace Accords signed in 1996. Within this framework, the Commission constantly urges the local public institutions to discourage and investigate any infringement of human rights or attacks against human rights activists.

The Commission has been supporting concrete cooperation actions in favour of children and their families in sectors such as health, education, fight against drugs and gender promotion. The Commission has also achieved positive results in several specific initiatives in support of young people and street children, which have been carried out by local non-governmental organisations.

In addition, in the framework of co-operation set by the Peace Accords, the Commission is encouraging the Guatemalan authorities, the National Police Force and the judiciary system to prevent any action against the rule of law. This programme will be complemented within the next few months by means of a specific initiative aimed at strengthening the judiciary system.

Finally, Guatemala is a focus country for Latin America in the framework of the ‘EU Initiative for Human Rights and Democracy’ (EIHRD) for the period 2002-2004.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/6

---

(2004/C 88 E/0007)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0238/03

by Marjo Matikainen-Kallström (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(4 February 2003)

Subject:   Clarification of the status of the Northern Dimension in the EU budget

In his reply to Question E-3670/01 (1), Commissioner Patten stated: ‘The Commission is in general against the creation of small thematic or specialised small budget lines, which hinder effective management of the Community budget.’

In view of this, I should appreciate it if the Commission could clarify a number of points. Does the Commission regard the Northern Dimension as ‘thematic’? Ought the MEDA programme therefore likewise to be regarded as thematic? Are not the Northern Dimension and MEDA EU common programmes?

What does the Commission mean by ‘effective management of the Community budget’? Is it not precisely in budget lines whose scope is broad that fraud occurs?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(3 March 2003)

The Northern Dimension is an important political initiative, which has the full support of the Commission. Since its launch, as decided by the European Council in Feira (June 2000), it has been clear that the Northern Dimension would be based on political dialogue and co-ordination of Community instruments. The Northern Dimension cannot, therefore, be compared to completely different frameworks for Community action such as the MEDA Programme.

The establishment of a Northern Dimension budget line would not be coherent with the fundamental characteristics of the initiative, which is and will continue to be financed from existing Community programmes. This basic principle was reaffirmed by both the Ministerial Meeting on the Northern Dimension that took place on 21 October 2002 and by the General Affairs Council of 22 October 2002. The ‘Guidelines for the new Northern Dimension Action Plan’ approved by the Foreign Ministers of Member States and of the seven Partner Countries (Russian Federation, Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia, Poland, Norway and Iceland) and subsequently endorsed by the Council do not propose any change in this funding mechanism.

Since 2000, Northern Dimension initiatives have received substantial financing by the TACIS programme for actions in Russia, from the PHARE, ISPA and Sapard programmes for the Candidate Countries and from Interreg in the Member States concerned. For example, the budget line (B7-521) for Cross-Border Cooperation is used predominantly in the Northern Dimension area; its subsidiary line for the Baltic Sea (B7-5211) is entirely aimed at the Northern Dimension area. In addition, the Commission has actively participated in the creation of innovative funding schemes such as the Northern Dimension Environmental Partnership, towards which the Commission is contributing EUR 50 million over three years.

The recent 2002 Annual Progress Report on the implementation of the Northern Dimension Action Plan (2) provides a good overview of the wide range of activities being carried forward within the Northern Dimension. The Commission is convinced that such substantial support, in so many different areas, could not be guaranteed by a single Northern Dimension budget line.

---

(1)  OJ C 301 E, 5.12.2002, p. 19.

(2)  SEC(2002)1296.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/7

---

(2004/C 88 E/0008)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0258/03

by Bob van den Bos (ELDR) to the Commission

(5 February 2003)

Subject:   Enlargement and development cooperation

Enlargement of the European Union has the potential to enhance the EU's influence in world affairs. Upon accession the candidate countries are expected to participate in EU development cooperation. But according to Trialog's Policy Paper (Development Cooperation in the context of EU enlargement, second edition) of November 2002, accession countries have ‘not received official directives regarding development cooperation. Consequently their role in EC development cooperation remains unspecified’. Moreover, most candidate countries have little experience in providing development assistance. Some of them do not even have a national development policy or system.

| 1. | What concrete action has the Commission undertaken in order to prepare candidate countries for participation in the EU's development policy? What action will it undertake in the future? |
| --- | --- |

1.

What concrete action has the Commission undertaken in order to prepare candidate countries for participation in the EU's development policy? What action will it undertake in the future?

| 2. | What are the criteria used by the Commission to measure progress by the candidate countries in relation to development issues? |
| --- | --- |

2.

What are the criteria used by the Commission to measure progress by the candidate countries in relation to development issues?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(7 March 2003)

In the preparations for membership, the Union body of law has been extensively explained to the candidate countries, including the Union development co-operation. Apart from the screening process, the acceding countries have participated in a number of meetings, bilateral as well as multilateral, where elements of the Union's development co-operation have been discussed. Notably, a seminar was organised by the Commission in July 2002, devoted to explaining the different aspects of the Union's development co-operation to the candidate countries and to exchange experiences and know-how between present and future Member States.

The Commission has, over the past few months, started to address the practical implications of enlargement for Union development policy and co-operation policy in a more systematic way. The Member of the Commission responsible for development travelled to Prague in December 2002 with the objective of increasing public awareness on development aspects of enlargement in acceding countries and he is scheduled to participate in a Ministerial Conference in Berlin in April 2003. The Director General for Development attended several Seminars held in acceding countries (Slovenia, Poland, Czech Republic) aimed at explaining Union development policy. He will visit Copenhagen in March 2003 to participate in a Seminar on Development and enlargement. The Commission is actively participating in workshops and seminars devoted specifically to development issues (Bonn, Vienna).

Union Development Director Generals have put the topic on the agenda of their informal meetings and a meeting was held in February 2003 dedicated entirely to the subject of enlargement.

In the period between the conclusion of the Accession Negotiations and the date of accession, the Commission will intensify its monitoring of the acceding countries to guarantee that the countries' legislation and practices are brought into line with Union standards. The acceding countries' efforts to prepare for taking part in the Union's development co-operation is evaluated in this context. In this respect, candidate countries need to ensure their administrative capacity to participate in the shaping of the development co-operation and the capacity to contribute financially to the European Development Fund.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/8

---

(2004/C 88 E/0009)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0278/03

by Gianfranco Dell'Alba (NI) to the Commission

(7 February 2003)

Subject:   Irregularities in the election process in Cambodia

Is the Commission aware that serious shortcomings and irregularities are marring the ongoing voter registration process in Cambodia and, if not redressed in time, will distort the will of the Cambodian people that the 27 July 2003 parliamentary election is supposed to reflect, and in particular that:

| — | discriminatory measures and practices at the commune level are preventing some 1,5 million citizens (out of 6,8 million eligible voters) from registering, with the effect of depriving them of their right to vote on polling day; |
| --- | --- |

—

discriminatory measures and practices at the commune level are preventing some 1,5 million citizens (out of 6,8 million eligible voters) from registering, with the effect of depriving them of their right to vote on polling day;

| — | these discriminatory measures and practices include: difficulties for Buddhist monks to register; excessive requirements for proof of residency and/or citizenship, which many citizens cannot fulfil; time limitation to three to five days for citizens to register in many villages; red tape, apathy or administrative harassment on the part of local authorities with the effect of slowing down or preventing registration; restrictions on voter information and voter education programmes designed to encourage citizens to register. |
| --- | --- |

—

these discriminatory measures and practices include: difficulties for Buddhist monks to register; excessive requirements for proof of residency and/or citizenship, which many citizens cannot fulfil; time limitation to three to five days for citizens to register in many villages; red tape, apathy or administrative harassment on the part of local authorities with the effect of slowing down or preventing registration; restrictions on voter information and voter education programmes designed to encourage citizens to register.

Moreover, the ruling former Communist Party has set up the whole election machinery without any consultation with the civil society and the opposition represented in Parliament.

Since the European Union plays a determining role in providing financial and technical assistance for the organisation of the above-mentioned election and such discriminatory measures and practices are not acceptable by international standards of democracy:

| 1. | what initiatives has the Commission adopted or is it about to adopt to ensure the regularity of the whole election process and a fair election result? |
| --- | --- |

1.

what initiatives has the Commission adopted or is it about to adopt to ensure the regularity of the whole election process and a fair election result?

| 2. | What measures will the Commission take to prevent a strategy designed to predetermine the results of the forthcoming election? |
| --- | --- |

2.

What measures will the Commission take to prevent a strategy designed to predetermine the results of the forthcoming election?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(4 March 2003)

The Commission is following carefully the election preparations in Cambodia, including voter registration, and has taken a number of initiatives to support this process.

First, the Commission is currently providing technical assistance in training and civic/voter education and in public relations and communication to the National Election Committee (NEC). The aim of this assistance is to increase the transparency of the electoral process and to improve information to voters. The experts have been able to provide effective support to the NEC, not least through training, advice on new regulations and press communiqués.

Second, in response to an invitation from the Royal Government of Cambodia to International Organisations to send their representatives as observers of the forthcoming Parliamentary elections of 27 July 2003, the Commission decided to deploy an Election Exploratory Mission (ExM), which included a number of election experts, to collect factual elements to assist with the decision on whether and how to support the election process, and in particular whether a Union Election observation Mission would be useful, advisable and feasible. The ExM took place from 27 January 2003 to 4 February 2003 and met with Union's Heads of Mission in Phnom Penh, representatives from State institutions, electoral authorities, the Constitutional Council, political parties, civil society, the media, bilateral embassies and international organisations. In light of the findings of the mission, the Commission would like to highlight some findings in response to the particular issues raised in the parliamentary question.

The ExM received allegations that discriminatory measures and practices at the commune level are preventing some 1-1,5 million citizens from registering. However, it should be stressed that the new election law sets strict requirements to avoid registration of non-eligible voters. Implementation of the regulations on the ground however is not uniform, leading to allegations of political bias. Nevertheless, the ExM received no clear evidence of a pattern of orchestrated and widespread political rejections at this stage, although shortcomings certainly existed in certain Communes.

To remedy this situation and to maximise enfranchisement, the National Election Committee announced on 11 February 2003 that voter registration would be extended by two to five days in the Communes where registrations figures were felt to be too low compared to the number of expected eligible voters. By 11 February 2003, 900 0000 additional voters had been included in the lists. Emphasis should be placed on ensuring the accuracy of the lists, so that all eligible voters are included in the lists. The total number of eligible voters, however, is not known precisely, as the figures of 6,5-6,8 million estimated eligible voters are based on demographic projections drawn from the 1998 census.

The legal provisions regulating the NEC composition are broadly contested, as the NEC is neither a multi-party nor a fully independent body. However, the Exploratory Mission found that, at central level, the NEC is taking far-reaching measures to enhance transparency and confidence in its work, through monthly roundtables and consultation on draft regulations and electoral preparations with political parties, nongovernmental organisations, media representatives and donors. It is up to the NEC to ensure that election procedures are carried out in an adequate and transparent manner by all involved in the administration of the election process. The Commission's Delegation in Cambodia, as well as Member States represented in Phnom Penh, actively participate in the NEC consultations with the aim of ensuring that the elections will be undertaken in an as fair and transparent manner as possible.

The deployment of an Union Election Observation Mission, following the exploratory mission, is now under consideration.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/10

---

(2004/C 88 E/0010)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0325/03

by Marco Pannella (NI) to the Commission

(5 February 2003)

Subject:   Increasing violations of fundamental human rights of Montagnard population in the Vietnamese highlands

On 18 December Amnesty International published a report entitled ‘Socialist Republic of Vietnam/Kingdom of Cambodia: No sanctuary: The plight of the Montagnard minority’. On 23 January 2003 Human Rights Watch published a briefing paper entitled ‘New Assault on Rights in Vietnam's Central Highlands — Crackdown on Indigenous Montagnards Intensifies’.

Over the past few weeks, the following people have been arrested, without explanation:

| — | on 21 December, Y-Cun Hdok, born in 1966, and H'Lem Nie, born in 1968, and on 23 December Y-Dhiam Buon Krong and Y-Nol Adrong, from the village of Buon Cue; |
| --- | --- |

—

on 21 December, Y-Cun Hdok, born in 1966, and H'Lem Nie, born in 1968, and on 23 December Y-Dhiam Buon Krong and Y-Nol Adrong, from the village of Buon Cue;

| — | on 24 December, Y-Blon Hdok, born in 1964, from Buon Kla, and Y-Trao Buon Ya, born in 1969, from the village of Buon Buor; |
| --- | --- |

—

on 24 December, Y-Blon Hdok, born in 1964, from Buon Kla, and Y-Trao Buon Ya, born in 1969, from the village of Buon Buor;

| — | on 11 January, Rac and Hom, from the village of Plei Klan; |
| --- | --- |

—

on 11 January, Rac and Hom, from the village of Plei Klan;

| — | on 12 January, Hing in Plei Ko and Hnit, from the village of Plei Mor; |
| --- | --- |

—

on 12 January, Hing in Plei Ko and Hnit, from the village of Plei Mor;

| — | on 24 January, Y-Groh Adrong, born in 1960, and on 26 January, Y-Dham Buon Ya, born in 1960, from the village of Buon Hdok. |
| --- | --- |

—

on 24 January, Y-Groh Adrong, born in 1960, and on 26 January, Y-Dham Buon Ya, born in 1960, from the village of Buon Hdok.

Vietnam has not complied with the requests made by the UN Committee on Human Rights on 27 July 2002.

The Commission:

| — | in its response to previous questions denouncing specific cases, it has always stated that it was not in a position to obtain reliable confirmation of the facts and has undertaken to investigate such matters through all available channels; |
| --- | --- |

—

in its response to previous questions denouncing specific cases, it has always stated that it was not in a position to obtain reliable confirmation of the facts and has undertaken to investigate such matters through all available channels;

| — | in its answer to Question E-2845/02 (1) it wrote that respect for human rights and democratic principles is the basis of the cooperation agreement signed by the EU and Vietnam in 1995. |
| --- | --- |

—

in its answer to Question E-2845/02 (1) it wrote that respect for human rights and democratic principles is the basis of the cooperation agreement signed by the EU and Vietnam in 1995.

Among the available channels to which the Commission refers, has it questioned — or does it intend to question — the Vietnamese government authorities, with whom it has regular contacts by virtue of the cooperation agreement, about the specific cases which have been denounced?

Does the fact that the cooperation agreement has not been denounced mean that the Commission considers Vietnam to be a country which respects human rights and democratic principles? What type of incident would lead it to denounce the cooperation agreement?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(26 February 2003)

The reference to the respect for human rights and democratic principles of Article 1 of the Community-Vietnam Co-operation Agreement constitutes the enabling framework for the Human Rights dialogue of the Commission with the Government of Vietnam. The Commission's policy towards Vietnam is to encourage and support continued progress on human rights and democratisation, and to raise concerns where abuses occur or were a deterioration in the situation becomes evident. The Commission works closely with the Member States in the framework of regular meetings of the Union's ‘Politics and Human Rights Group’ and takes part in Troika meetings with the Vietnamese Government as well as in ad-hoc missions and through joint Union statements. In this context, concrete cases of Persons of Concern are also addressed.

The Commission and Member States have repeatedly urged the Government of Vietnam to strengthen its respect for political and religious freedoms, as well as further strengthen economic and social freedoms. They again expressed this request recently in their joint declaration at the Consultative Group meeting in Hanoi in December 2002.

The Vietnamese Constitution guarantees freedom of belief and religion. Vietnam's Government officially recognises six religions — one Buddhist organisation, the Central Buddhist Church of Vietnam, the Catholic Church, two Protestant church organisations, Islam, Hoa Hao Buddhism and Cao-Daism. Article 70 of the Vietnamese Constitution, however, also states that ‘it is forbidden to violate freedom of belief, or religion, or to take advantage of it to act against the law or the policies of the State’. As the Government of Vietnam still sees religious movements as a potential element of opposition and disunity, this provision is frequently invoked to justify the many controls, limitations, prohibitions and sanctions that restrict freedom in this field.

Reports of systematic harassment of Christians in Vietnam (especially against the Montagnard Christians and Hmong Christians) are common and have increased since the uprising in the Central Highlands in February 2001. Several reports point to the repeated practice by the security forces of forcing highlanders to renounce their Christian faith and mention accidental deaths or beatings under police custody, although the authorities strongly deny this happening.

The access to the Central Highlands remains limited and a systematic first hand verification of reports remains impossible. Nonetheless, in 2002, two local Union-Troika missions to the Central Highlands took place with Commission participation, the latest in November 2002. Following the latest Troika mission to the Central Highlands the Commission, in close coordination with the Member States, has offered to the Government of Vietnam to support — in the framework of its co-operation programme — possible activities, involving ‘inter alia’ the ethnic minorities, to reduce poverty in the Central Highlands and thus to deal with some of the root causes of the problems in the area. At the end of January 2003 the Government of Vietnam agreed that an exploratory mission of the Commission should visit the area in the coming weeks.

The Commission and Member States will continue to closely monitor the human rights situation in Vietnam. A decision on appropriate action will be taken in due course.

---

(1)  OJ C 192 E, 14.8.2003, p. 81.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/11

---

(2004/C 88 E/0011)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0356/03

by Bill Newton Dunn (ELDR) and Baroness Sarah Ludford (ELDR) to the Commission

(12 February 2003)

Subject:   Human rights abuses in Honduras

The Commission will be aware of the human rights abuses, notably the frequent murder of street children, which continue in Honduras.

Has the Commission:

| 1. | Made representations to the Honduran Government? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Made representations to the Honduran Government?

| 2. | Other plans, to try to improve the dreadful situation? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Other plans, to try to improve the dreadful situation?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(28 February 2003)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Members to its joint reply to questions E-0086/03 by Mr Roger Helmer and question E-0097/03 by Mr Philip Whitehead on the same subject (1).

---

(1)  See page 5.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/12

---

(2004/C 88 E/0012)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0434/03

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(18 February 2003)

Subject:   Sterilisation of young Roma women in Slovakia on the basis of misleading information or without their consent

| 1. | Is the Commission aware of the testimony given by two Slovakian women, Magda Kandráèová and Sonja Pokutová, on the Netherlands television programme Network (TV1, 4 February 2003, www.net-werk.tv) that sterilisation or hysterectomies are performed on young mothers from the Roma community who have complications during childbirth and that this happens either without their knowledge or after they are suddenly told during the delivery that there is a medical need for intervention, which amounts to exacting their ill-informed consent? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is the Commission aware of the testimony given by two Slovakian women, Magda Kandráèová and Sonja Pokutová, on the Netherlands television programme Network (TV1, 4 February 2003, www.net-werk.tv) that sterilisation or hysterectomies are performed on young mothers from the Roma community who have complications during childbirth and that this happens either without their knowledge or after they are suddenly told during the delivery that there is a medical need for intervention, which amounts to exacting their ill-informed consent?

| 2. | Is there any truth in the statements by the director of the hospital in Spišska Nová Ves saying that it is the Roma women themselves who want to be separated from other Slovakian women in hospital and that Slovakian law authorises hysterectomies to be performed after a second caesarean section because this is good for the women concerned? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Is there any truth in the statements by the director of the hospital in Spišska Nová Ves saying that it is the Roma women themselves who want to be separated from other Slovakian women in hospital and that Slovakian law authorises hysterectomies to be performed after a second caesarean section because this is good for the women concerned?

| 3. | Is the Commission aware of reports, confirmed by the Poradna human rights organisation, that interviews with 230 Roma women showed that 140 of them had been misled in this way and that unwanted operations of this kind occur particularly in the case of young women who have had their first or second child and that it can therefore be assumed that the measure is primarily designed to keep the numbers of Roma, a group disliked by many other nationals, as low as possible? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Is the Commission aware of reports, confirmed by the Poradna human rights organisation, that interviews with 230 Roma women showed that 140 of them had been misled in this way and that unwanted operations of this kind occur particularly in the case of young women who have had their first or second child and that it can therefore be assumed that the measure is primarily designed to keep the numbers of Roma, a group disliked by many other nationals, as low as possible?

| 4. | Is this a case of practices developed during the 1938-1945 and 1948-1989 dictatorships living on in the medical profession despite there being no legal basis for them? |
| --- | --- |

4.

Is this a case of practices developed during the 1938-1945 and 1948-1989 dictatorships living on in the medical profession despite there being no legal basis for them?

| 5. | What is the Commission doing to ensure that the Slovakian judicial system prosecutes those who break the law and that the necessary changes to the law, if any, are adopted in Slovakia to put an end to forced sterilisations as soon as possible and to ensure that such practices are never carried out again after Slovakia joins the EU? |
| --- | --- |

5.

What is the Commission doing to ensure that the Slovakian judicial system prosecutes those who break the law and that the necessary changes to the law, if any, are adopted in Slovakia to put an end to forced sterilisations as soon as possible and to ensure that such practices are never carried out again after Slovakia joins the EU?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(13 March 2003)

The Commission is aware of the allegations, recently published in a report of the ‘Center for Reproductive Rights’, a non-governmental organisation based in New York, and which were later reflected in other media statements, that Roma women are being sterilised without their consent or with coerced consent by doctors in Eastern Slovakia. The report raised also other human rights violations such as discriminatory access to health-care resources and treatment.

Forced or coerced sterilisation of women is punishable under Slovak legislation.

The Member of the Commission responsible for Enlargement has immediately addressed this issue in a letter to Slovak Prime Minister Dzurinda, underlining that these allegations are a matter of serious concern and if proved to be true, would constitute a serious breach of human rights. He has asked the Slovak authorities to vigorously carry out the necessary investigations, remedy possible discriminatory measures and keep the Commission informed about the proceedings.

The Commission has been informed that Slovak Deputy Prime Minister Csaky instructed the competent authorities to launch the necessary investigations.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/13

---

(2004/C 88 E/0013)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0569/03

by Freddy Blak (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(28 February 2003)

Subject:   Refund of registration fee in respect of exports from Denmark

In 2002, the Danish Government introduced a system for refunding registration fees on exported motor vehicles.

§ 7b, paragraph 3 of the relevant law, No 977 of 2 December 2002 on registration fees for motor vehicles, states that 15 % of the amount of the fee prescribed in paragraph 2 shall be deducted.

However, § 1 of the same proclamation states that a fee is payable in respect of motor vehicles to be registered under the Road Traffic Act.

This means in practice that 85 % of the registration fee is refunded when a motor vehicle is exported but that, if it is re-imported, the full fee is payable, making a difference of 15 %.

Will the Commission say whether this system, which is akin to customs duties, is consistent with the provisions on freedom of movement for goods across borders in the EU (e.g. Articles 23 and 25 of the Treaty)?

Supplementary answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(6 August 2003)

In the framework of the Communication of the Commission to the Council and the Parliament ‘Taxation of passenger cars in the European Union — options for action at national and Community level’, issued on 9 September 2002 (1), the Commission urged Member States to introduce a refund system for the registration tax where a used car is delivered on sale to another Member State or exported to a third country. In the same document it was also suggested that the way of calculating the residual registration tax to be refunded should be the same as in the case of import of used cars from other Member States.

In July 2002, Denmark introduced in its legislation a refund system for the registration tax in respect of vehicles leaving Danish territory. Under this system, the registration tax to be reimbursed is calculated in exactly the same way as when a car is initially registered in Denmark. In this regard, the tax on new vehicles is charged on the basis of the retail price including customs duty, VAT and profit margin, but excluding the tax itself. Used vehicles are taxed in the same way, although the actual retail price is estimated in a valuation procedure where the vehicles are compared to similar vehicles on the Danish market.

Where a registered vehicle leaves Danish territory, 85 % of the registration tax calculated as described is refunded to the exporter. The reduction of 15 % is applied in order not to give refund on the commercial profit assumed to be included in the tax-inclusive price of the vehicle.

In his question, the Honourable Member points out that the registration tax refund of 85 % that is reimbursed when vehicles are exported from Denmark, is then re-imposed with no reductions should the same vehicles be re-imported (and re-registered) in Danish territory.

Once a vehicle is re-imported to Denmark, the registration tax is calculated on a taxable basis that is assessed mainly on the value of the car at the time it is re-imported. In this regard, it is worth noting that, in real terms, the amount of the tax to be paid at the time the vehicle is re-imported will not be the same as the amount paid when the vehicle was first registered in Denmark, due to the depreciation on its value.

Therefore, the difference between the tax initially reimbursed at the export and the tax actually paid on reimportation of the vehicle will not amount to 15 % as the percentage is calculated on a different amount.

This being stated, it must be pointed out that, as an internal tax, the registration does not fall within the scope of application of EC Treaty's provisions dealing with customs duties and charges having equivalent effect (Articles 23 to 25) but under the taxation provisions (Articles 90 to 93).

According to Article 91 of the EC Treaty, Denmark is not required to make any repayment of internal tax on the export of tax paid goods. Member States are simply prohibited from repaying at export more tax than was originally paid within the country.

However, since the entry into force of the Danish refund system is quite recent, the way it is applied in practice is still a matter of future analysis.

Moreover, according to the above-mentioned Communication, the Commission intends to propose ‘general rules with regard to the method of calculation of the registration tax on used cars imported from other Member States’. Of course, such a proposal would also take into account the rules to be applied to refund systems in the case of export.

---

(1)  COM(2002)431 final.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/14

---

(2004/C 88 E/0014)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0609/03

by José Ribeiro e Castro (UEN) to the Commission

(3 March 2003)

Subject:   EU/East Timor 1999-2003: cooperation, development, human rights, assistance, etc

For the years 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002 and 2003 and with regard to East Timor, can the Commission provide information on the following:

| — | What programmes have been or are being undertaken by the EU with East Timor? |
| --- | --- |

—

What programmes have been or are being undertaken by the EU with East Timor?

| — | What are the funds allocated? |
| --- | --- |

—

What are the funds allocated?

| — | What is the expected duration of the individual programmes? |
| --- | --- |

—

What is the expected duration of the individual programmes?

| — | What results have been obtained by the programmes, and what assessment has been made of their success or otherwise? |
| --- | --- |

—

What results have been obtained by the programmes, and what assessment has been made of their success or otherwise?

| — | What particular developments have characterised each of the programmes? |
| --- | --- |

—

What particular developments have characterised each of the programmes?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(12 May 2003)

For the period in question the Commission has committed, or intends to commit, funds for the following programmes and activities in East Timor:

| — | 1999-2002 (funds committed)
  Humanitarian Assistance: EUR 42,5 million for shelter, rehabilitation, repatriation and protection, water and sanitation, and health. Implemented through the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), World Food Programme (WFP), International Organisation for Migration (IOM), United Nations International Children's emergency Fund (Unicef), and international non-governmental organisations (NGOs).
  United Nations Transitional Administration for East Timor (Untaet) EUR 10 million for recurrent expenditure, equipping the civil service, and capacity building in the new administration.
  Trust Fund for East Timor (TFET): EUR 56 million for economic and social reconstruction through the World Bank and Asian Development bank fund set up specifically for this purpose.
  Food Aid: EUR 8,5 million financed through the World Food Programme.
  Support for the 1999 Referendum and the 2001 and 2002 elections: EUR 1,5 million of which EUR 1,0 million was for voter and civic education programmes, and EUR 0,5 was used to support the cost of Union electoral observation missions. Details of the main findings of the Observation Missions can be found on the Europa website at: http://europa.eu.int/comm/external_relations/human_rights/euelectionassobserv/index.htm
  Health Programme: EUR 16,5 million (2002). Health sector rehabilitation and development project, financed through the World Bank. Infrastructure, pharmaceutical products, and training for health staff. 36 month duration.
  Capacity building through the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP): EUR 2,5 million (2002). The co-financing of 17 public administration posts, mainly in the Ministries of Agriculture, Internal Administration and Health.
  NGO Projects: Following a call for proposals in 2001 two NGO projects have been financed under the European Initiative for Democracy and Human Rights (EIDHR) with a total Community contribution of EUR 1,44 million. One, with CARE Austria, covers children's rights and welfare, and the other, with Avocats Sans Frontières, is aimed at conflict prevention through support for the establishment of the rule of law through the legal system. |
| --- | --- |

—

1999-2002 (funds committed)

Humanitarian Assistance: EUR 42,5 million for shelter, rehabilitation, repatriation and protection, water and sanitation, and health. Implemented through the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), World Food Programme (WFP), International Organisation for Migration (IOM), United Nations International Children's emergency Fund (Unicef), and international non-governmental organisations (NGOs).

United Nations Transitional Administration for East Timor (Untaet) EUR 10 million for recurrent expenditure, equipping the civil service, and capacity building in the new administration.

Trust Fund for East Timor (TFET): EUR 56 million for economic and social reconstruction through the World Bank and Asian Development bank fund set up specifically for this purpose.

Food Aid: EUR 8,5 million financed through the World Food Programme.

Support for the 1999 Referendum and the 2001 and 2002 elections: EUR 1,5 million of which EUR 1,0 million was for voter and civic education programmes, and EUR 0,5 was used to support the cost of Union electoral observation missions. Details of the main findings of the Observation Missions can be found on the Europa website at: http://europa.eu.int/comm/external_relations/human_rights/euelectionassobserv/index.htm

Health Programme: EUR 16,5 million (2002). Health sector rehabilitation and development project, financed through the World Bank. Infrastructure, pharmaceutical products, and training for health staff. 36 month duration.

Capacity building through the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP): EUR 2,5 million (2002). The co-financing of 17 public administration posts, mainly in the Ministries of Agriculture, Internal Administration and Health.

NGO Projects: Following a call for proposals in 2001 two NGO projects have been financed under the European Initiative for Democracy and Human Rights (EIDHR) with a total Community contribution of EUR 1,44 million. One, with CARE Austria, covers children's rights and welfare, and the other, with Avocats Sans Frontières, is aimed at conflict prevention through support for the establishment of the rule of law through the legal system.

| — | 2003 (funds not yet committed):
  The Commission is presently examining possibilities for the commitment of the 2003 allocation of funds for East Timor, which were increased to EUR 25,5 million by the budgetary authority. It is probable that these funds will be committed for the rural development sector through multilateral agencies. |
| --- | --- |

—

2003 (funds not yet committed):

The Commission is presently examining possibilities for the commitment of the 2003 allocation of funds for East Timor, which were increased to EUR 25,5 million by the budgetary authority. It is probable that these funds will be committed for the rural development sector through multilateral agencies.

| — | General
  The humanitarian assistance and food aid activities have been completed, though activities under separate financing of EUR 6,0 million for East Timorese refugees in West Timor through the UNHCR will continue to be implemented until mid-2003.
  The rehabilitation and consolidation support being provided by the Community to Untaet and TFET are still under implementation, as is the 2002 support for capacity building through the UNDP, which is a one-year programme.
  The support being provided for longer-term health project is likely to continue until 2006.
  An evaluation of the Community's humanitarian assistance to East Timor was carried out in 2001 with very positive conclusions concerning the effectiveness, efficiency, co-ordination and impact of this aid.
  The remaining bulk of the Community assistance has been provided through the TFET. This has been done on the basis of reports prepared by the World Bank and the Asian Development Bank and presented to meetings of the Donors' Council of the Trust Fund for East Timor. The conclusions of these reports have generally been considered very positive by donors, and on the basis of the reports further tranches of funding for the Trust have been committed.
  The Commission considers that the impact of its assistance to East Timor since 1999 has been extremely positive. This assistance has been provided in a systematic and logical approach comprising four types of intervention: (a) initial emergency humanitarian assistance, (b) medium-term support for administrative capacity building and rehabilitation, (c) support for the democratic process, and (d) longer-term development assistance. These interventions have been linked to each other in that, for example, humanitarian assistance in the health sector has led on to longer-term policy development and development co-operation financing with Community funding in that sector. Likewise, capacity building under the UNDP project in the Ministry of Agriculture will provide the administrative framework for the implementation of Community and other donors' future longer-term interventions in that sector.
  In so far as it has assisted East Timor to reach its newly-found independence and to prepare itself for its longer-term development, the Community aid provided can be considered most successful.
  An overview of Community assistance to East Timor can be found on the Europa website at: (http://europa.eu.int/comm/external_relations/east_timor/index.htm).
  Two NGO projects for East Timor have been selected, as a result of the call for proposals 2001 of the European Initiative for Democracy and Human Rights, their details are sent direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat. |
| --- | --- |

—

General

The humanitarian assistance and food aid activities have been completed, though activities under separate financing of EUR 6,0 million for East Timorese refugees in West Timor through the UNHCR will continue to be implemented until mid-2003.

The rehabilitation and consolidation support being provided by the Community to Untaet and TFET are still under implementation, as is the 2002 support for capacity building through the UNDP, which is a one-year programme.

The support being provided for longer-term health project is likely to continue until 2006.

An evaluation of the Community's humanitarian assistance to East Timor was carried out in 2001 with very positive conclusions concerning the effectiveness, efficiency, co-ordination and impact of this aid.

The remaining bulk of the Community assistance has been provided through the TFET. This has been done on the basis of reports prepared by the World Bank and the Asian Development Bank and presented to meetings of the Donors' Council of the Trust Fund for East Timor. The conclusions of these reports have generally been considered very positive by donors, and on the basis of the reports further tranches of funding for the Trust have been committed.

The Commission considers that the impact of its assistance to East Timor since 1999 has been extremely positive. This assistance has been provided in a systematic and logical approach comprising four types of intervention: (a) initial emergency humanitarian assistance, (b) medium-term support for administrative capacity building and rehabilitation, (c) support for the democratic process, and (d) longer-term development assistance. These interventions have been linked to each other in that, for example, humanitarian assistance in the health sector has led on to longer-term policy development and development co-operation financing with Community funding in that sector. Likewise, capacity building under the UNDP project in the Ministry of Agriculture will provide the administrative framework for the implementation of Community and other donors' future longer-term interventions in that sector.

In so far as it has assisted East Timor to reach its newly-found independence and to prepare itself for its longer-term development, the Community aid provided can be considered most successful.

An overview of Community assistance to East Timor can be found on the Europa website at: (http://europa.eu.int/comm/external_relations/east_timor/index.htm).

Two NGO projects for East Timor have been selected, as a result of the call for proposals 2001 of the European Initiative for Democracy and Human Rights, their details are sent direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/16

---

(2004/C 88 E/0015)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0824/03

by Paul Rübig (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(18 March 2003)

Subject:   Restrictions on the transfer of securities in the Czech Republic

Even though investors in the south Bohemian energy supply company JÈP exercise all their shareholders' rights for a significant proportion of their stake, the shares are owned by the municipalities in southern Bohemia. The reason is that, under the JÈP statutes, the transfer of shares is restricted (transfers can be made only between municipalities and state funds). Investors may acquire rights only in respect of the acquisition of shares, dividends, etc. Shareholders' requests for an amendment to the statutes abolishing these restrictions on transfers have been consistently rejected by the Czech state (following the privatisation of RWE). Similar applications have been approved by the state for almost all the other Czech gas and electricity distribution companies (there were also ‘municipality shares’ in the case of the electricity companies).

Owing to the restrictions on selling, the holders of JÈP shares (the municipalities) are not in a position to dispose freely of their shares. Does this not represent discrimination against the shareholders and hence a contravention of EU rules?

Is the fact that some investors are placed at a disadvantage compatible with the investment protection provisions of the European energy charter, which has also been ratified in the Czech Republic, and with the spirit of energy market liberalisation, which provides ‘inter alia’ for the equal treatment of market participants?

In view of the dominant position of RWE in the Czech natural gas sector, this situation appears counterproductive. How does the Commission assess this situation on the Czech natural gas market, which is a significant market for Europe?

Answer given by Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(6 May 2003)

The situation described in the question of the Honourable Member should not be considered as a discrimination linked to the nationality of the shareholders of Jiho Ceska Plynarenska (JCP), the south Bohemian energy supply company. Two German companies, RWE and EON are apparently among the largest JPC shareholders. It appears that Czech municipalities are also major shareholders in the capital of this company and have a controlling stake (34 percent). It would appear that municipalities hold JCP shares which are not legally tradable, which is not the case for the other JCP shares held by other investors.

Community legislation requires shares of companies which are traded on an official stock exchange listing to be freely negotiable (Article 46(1) of 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 the information to be published on those securities (1)). However, paragraph 3 of the said Article authorises an approval clause under the condition that it does not distort the market.

JCP is listed on the Czech Stock Exchange. To the extent that the shares held by the Czech municipalities are of a different category and not admitted to the official list on the Czech Stock Exchange, this practice is not incompatible with Community law. Only in the case of shares which are listed and for which a restriction of selling clause could not be assimilated to an approval clause, as explained above, any potential contradiction with Community legislation would need to be verified.

The Commission is in contact with the Czech Authorities to ensure that the relevant ‘acquis’ is fully complied with.

It should be noted that the Czech Republic has obtained a Transition Period, within the framework of the Accession Negotiations, concerning liberalisation of the gas market until the end of 2004 and this is set down in the Accession Treaty.

The investment provisions of the European Energy Charter Treaty concern only the requirements with respect to investors from another Contracting Party. For established investments, there is a requirement that such investments of an investor from any other Contracting Party be treated no less favourably than the established investments of an investor from the Contracting Party in question (‘national treatment’). For the ‘Making of Investments’, however, which appears to be the case in question, there is only a ‘best endeavours’ requirement to give such ‘national treatment’.

The award to RWE of the privatisation tender in the gas sector was concluded after clearance by the Czech Competition Office, which is responsible under the Europe Agreement currently in force. As stated in the 2002 Regular Report (2), the Commission believes that the privatisation process has helped to prepare the Czech gas sector for the competitive internal energy market.

---

(1)  OJ L 184, 6.7.2001.

(2)  COM(2002) 700 final.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/17

---

(2004/C 88 E/0016)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0904/03

by Jan Mulder (ELDR) to the Commission

(24 March 2003)

Subject:   Use of agricultural diesel in border areas

Netherlands farmers working their land in Germany with red diesel in the fuel tanks of their farm vehicles, face fines imposed by the German customs authorities, who do not allow this diesel, on which there are tax concessions, to be used on German territory.

A German court has evidently referred the matter to the European Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling.

In answer to questions put by members of the Netherlands Second Chamber (883, parliamentary year 2002-2003), State Secretary Van Eijck wrote that, as it has proved impossible to find a bilateral solution, the matter is now being discussed by the Committee on Excise Duties and the European Commission has promised to bring forward a proposal to deal with the problems of implementation that may arise in this connection.

| 1. | When can such a proposal be anticipated? |
| --- | --- |

1.

When can such a proposal be anticipated?

| 2. | Does the Commission share the view that farmers should be able to use the special diesel in the fuel tanks of farm vehicles without problems when entering another Member State? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Does the Commission share the view that farmers should be able to use the special diesel in the fuel tanks of farm vehicles without problems when entering another Member State?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(6 May 2003)

| 1. | The problem referred to by the Honourable Member is indeed being discussed in the Committee on Excise Duties. On its meeting of 4 April 2003 all Member States except Germany could accept the following practical solution: Member States that apply the normal rate of excise duty for fuel used by, for example, agricultural vehicles, should accept that vehicles from another Member State can use on their territory fuel, supplied in that other Member State at a reduced rate or exempted. The approval by Member States only refers to the fuel, containing the common fiscal marker, which is already in the vehicle's standard tanks. If these vehicles have to refuel whilst operating in a Member State that applies the normal rate, they must do so with fuel taxed at the normal rate. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The problem referred to by the Honourable Member is indeed being discussed in the Committee on Excise Duties. On its meeting of 4 April 2003 all Member States except Germany could accept the following practical solution: Member States that apply the normal rate of excise duty for fuel used by, for example, agricultural vehicles, should accept that vehicles from another Member State can use on their territory fuel, supplied in that other Member State at a reduced rate or exempted. The approval by Member States only refers to the fuel, containing the common fiscal marker, which is already in the vehicle's standard tanks. If these vehicles have to refuel whilst operating in a Member State that applies the normal rate, they must do so with fuel taxed at the normal rate.

| 2. | The Honourable Member is correct; a German court has referred the matter to the European Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling (case 292/02). The view of the Commission is outlined in the above-mentioned solution. The Commission is awaiting the decision of the European Court of Justice. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The Honourable Member is correct; a German court has referred the matter to the European Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling (case 292/02). The view of the Commission is outlined in the above-mentioned solution. The Commission is awaiting the decision of the European Court of Justice.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/18

---

(2004/C 88 E/0017)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1139/03

by Joke Swiebel (PSE) to the Commission

(24 March 2003)

Subject:   Extortion against holidaymakers travelling through Bulgaria

In recent years, Netherlands residents have very regularly been the victims of extortion and other unfair practices by government officials while in transit through Bulgaria on the way to Turkey during the summer holidays. Sums of money are taken from them in various ways, including in the form of fines, as ‘tolls’ or for ‘visas’ at the border. A file containing accounts confirming such practices, compiled by the Netherlands Foundation entitled ‘Participation Organisation for Turks in the Netherlands’, will be forwarded to you.

Under the 2002 PHARE programme, Bulgaria has received money from the EU to enable it, among other things, to take anti-corruption measures and to (further) develop a policy on customs and border controls. A total of EUR 36 million is available for this sub-heading (1).

In a few months it will be the summer holidays again and many people will be wanting to travel to Turkey via Bulgaria and the Balkans. Can the Commission state how the execution of the PHARE programme in Bulgaria works, particularly in the terms of combatting corruption by police officers and in customs and border control policy? What measures has the Commission taken to bring the problem of extortion against holiday-makers in Bulgaria to the attention of the relevant Bulgarian authorities? What solution has been found to prevent yet more holidaymakers being the victim of such practices in future? Can the Commission confirm that legal redress exists for holiday-makers who have been cheated in this way? If not, what does the Commission plan to do about it?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(25 April 2003)

Considering that the criteria for membership agreed by the Copenhagen European Council in 1993 (21/22 June 1993) include the guaranteeing of the rule of law, the Commission attaches great importance to the development of effective and non-discriminatory law enforcement in Bulgaria, including effective complaint mechanisms for corruption-related matters. Although the Commission is not in a position to inquire into individual cases in the area of justice and home affairs, it monitors respect of Bulgaria's commitment to the rule of law and regularly reports to the Parliament and to the Member States.

The Commission clearly states in the 2002 Regular Report (2) on Bulgaria that police corruption is perceived to be a problem and that cases of bribery in the traffic and border police have been raised by Union citizens driving in and through the country.

Following the Commission's request for improvements at the last meeting of the Union/Bulgaria Association Committee, the issue will continue to be discussed in the framework of the Europe Agreement. Bulgaria's progress in this area will be continuously monitored until the date of accession.

Bulgaria has been repeatedly invited to take appropriate measures in order to prevent incidents of the specific character described in the complaints and to inform the Commission of the results of its actions. In response to this, the Bulgarian authorities have taken a number of specific measures (preventive and repressive) which they have communicated to the Commission in August 2002 in a document entitled: ‘Measures taken by the Bulgarian Law Enforcement authorities aimed at more effective counteraction against Road crime’. The Commission continues to closely monitor the situation, also in the framework of the accession assistance (PHARE) and via the accession negotiations.

As concerns the 2002 PHARE programme, all project proposals designed to contribute to the fight against corruption were regarded as a matter of priority. Four anti-corruption projects were approved, one of which exclusively covers corruption within the police forces. Additional PHARE projects are being implemented to support the reform of the public administration, including the customs administration, and the judiciary. All these projects are described in detail on: (http://www.evropa.bg). Further projects in all three reform areas have been proposed under the PHARE 2003 programme which is now under consideration by the Member States.

---

(1)  Source: SEC(2002) 1400, p. 13.

(2)  COM(2002) 700 final.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/19

---

(2004/C 88 E/0018)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1142/03

by Stavros Xarchakos (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(1 April 2003)

Subject:   Protection of archaeological museum exhibits in Iraq

According to the Greek press, the National Archaeological Museum of Iraq is regarded as one of the most important archaeological museums in the Middle East, the other being situated in Cairo. The National Archaeological Museum of Iraq was open for only two years following damage sustained during the ‘Desert Storm’ operation in 1991 and a few days ago it once more closed down following the threat of further attack. The museum contains exhibits from the prehistoric age and from Sumerian, Acadian, Babylonian, Assyrian, Chaldean and other civilisations.

When the destruction of cultural treasures in Afghanistan was being witnessed by the international community, I submitted a question to the Commission (P-0822/01) (1) asking what it thought of the idea of setting up a special EU fund for buying up cultural treasures threatened with destruction and whether funds were available to protect the world's cultural heritage. In reply I was informed that ‘the budget of the Community does not contain provision for the funding of measures destined to protect the world cultural heritage and that there are at present no plans by the Community to create a special fund to buy cultural treasures threatened with destruction’.

Given the probability of further destruction of treasures forming part of the world's cultural heritage, how does the Commission now view the idea of setting up such a fund? What measures will it take to protect the cultural treasures of the National Archaeological Museum of Iraq from destruction as a result of the war?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(6 May 2003)

The Commission expresses deep concern for the suffering provoked by the conflict to the Iraqi population. It is also concerned about physical damages to the infrastructures and buildings, including cultural treasures. After the pillage and the destruction of a large number of archaeological treasures in the Museums of Baghdad, Tikrit and Mossoul, the Commission hopes that all measures will be taken so that further destruction is avoided.

As already explained in the context of the conflict in Afghanistan, the EU has not foreseen the creation of a special fund for the preservation of cultural treasures from destruction in a third country. Possible intervention in this area could take place only in the framework of potential EU involvement in the reconstruction of Iraq, and in line with the priorities of intervention identified, following the assessment of needs and damages.

---

(1)  OJ C 261 E, 18.9.2001, p. 202.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/20

---

(2004/C 88 E/0019)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1148/03

by Graham Watson (ELDR) to the Commission

(1 April 2003)

Subject:   Seychelles

The executive power and ruling party's stranglehold on life in the Seychelles, threats to human rights and the restrictions on the press of the opposition, drug trafficking and money laundering are repeatedly denounced.

What steps have been taken by the Commission, under the auspices of the Cotonou Agreement and the EU's stated objectives on human rights and democracy, to improve democratisation and good governance in the Seychelles?

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/20

---

(2004/C 88 E/0020)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1150/03

by Graham Watson (ELDR) to the Commission

(1 April 2003)

Subject:   Seychelles

Recently, Colin Thelermont, after his escape from prison, was savagely tortured before being executed — a similar case in January 1999 ended with a summary execution.

As the Seychelles have ratified both the UN Convention on Torture and Other Cruel and Degrading Treatment or Punishment and the Convention against the Death Penalty (1 February 2002), what action does the European Union intend to take to make the Seychelles authorities face up to their responsibilities in this matter?

Joint answer

to Written Questions E-1148/03 and E-1150/03

given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(6 May 2003)

The Community's relations with African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) States, as defined in the Cotonou Agreement, are based on respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms.

Measures taken to improve democratisation and good governance in the Seychelles include the provision of substantial support for the development and consolidation of non-state entities through a capacity-building programme for Civil Society (15 % of 9th European Development Fund (EDF) allocated as funds directly accessible to non-state actors). This measure is designated to build capacity of non-state actors allowing them to develop into a valued and constructive partner in Seychelles's development.

In addition, the Commission has taken a number of initiatives in support of the democratic process over the past years (e.g. Delegation presence at elections; discussions with leaders of the opposition in Brussels as well as in Seychelles, etc.).

Concerning an eventual action the Union could take with regard to the specific allegations of torture, the Commission will contact the local Presidency in the Seychelles.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/21

---

(2004/C 88 E/0021)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1282/03

by Ria Oomen-Ruijten (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(4 April 2003)

Subject:   Red diesel in agricultural vehicles

Dutch farmers and contractors carrying out agricultural activities both in the Netherlands and in Germany encounter problems in Germany if the fuel tanks of their agricultural vehicles contain red diesel. The German tax authorities have already fined Dutch contractors on a number of occasions.

Although, in certain specific instances, Member States may themselves decide whether to allow the use of red diesel, Article 8(1) of Directive 92/81/EEC (1) seeks to prevent double taxation. Member States may therefore not levy excise duty on fuel obtained in another Member State.

According to a statement by the Netherlands' State Secretary for Finance, this issue has been discussed on the Commission's Excise Committee. The Commission has pledged to make a proposal to resolve the problems referred to.

Can the Commission say what progress has been made on producing the proposal to resolve the problems referred to and when it thinks it will be able to submit the proposal?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(15 May 2003)

The Honourable Member is referred to the Commission's answer to Written Question E-0904/03 (2) by Mr Jan Mulder.

---

(1)  OJ L 316, 31.10.1992, p. 12.

(2)  See page 17.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/22

---

(2004/C 88 E/0022)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1295/03

by José Ribeiro e Castro (UEN) to the Commission

(7 April 2003)

Subject:   Cuba — political prisoners

There are reports that on 20 March 2003, the Cuban police arrested the writer and journalist Raúl Rivero, making that the third successive day of arrests of opposition leaders. When he was arrested, in the presence of his aged mother, he was apparently not even told why.

The economist Marta Beatriz Roque, who is the chairman of the Civil Society Association, Hector Palácios, the spokesman of the ‘Todos Unidos’ group, the economist Óscar Espinosa Chepe and some 60 other political activists in various other towns have apparently also been arrested.

These arrests are apparently on the basis of Cuban Government accusations that those being held were involved in a ‘conspiracy’ with the US Government.

Can the Commission answer the following:

| — | what information does the Commission have about the situation? How does the Commission view these arrests; |
| --- | --- |

—

what information does the Commission have about the situation? How does the Commission view these arrests;

| — | what approaches has the recently-established Commission Delegation made to the Cuban authorities; |
| --- | --- |

—

what approaches has the recently-established Commission Delegation made to the Cuban authorities;

| — | to what extent and in what direction do these events affect Commission policy with regard to the Cuban regime? |
| --- | --- |

—

to what extent and in what direction do these events affect Commission policy with regard to the Cuban regime?

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/22

---

(2004/C 88 E/0023)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1311/03

by Bill Newton Dunn (ELDR) to the Commission

(7 April 2003)

Subject:   The imprisonment of Dr Oscar Ellis Biscet by the Cuban authorities

The Commission may be aware of the imprisonment of Dr Oscar Ellias Biscet, a Cuban human rights activist, by the Cuban authorities.

Has the Commission:

| 1. | Made representations to the Cuban Government about the imprisonment of Dr Oscar Ellias Biscet? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Made representations to the Cuban Government about the imprisonment of Dr Oscar Ellias Biscet?

| 2. | Other plans, to try to ensure that the Cuban authorities respect the human rights of their citizens? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Other plans, to try to ensure that the Cuban authorities respect the human rights of their citizens?

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/22

---

(2004/C 88 E/0024)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1347/03

by Charles Tannock (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(10 April 2003)

Subject:   Human rights abuses in Cuba

There are reports that a Cuban human rights activist Dr Oscar Elias Biscet was arrested in December of last year for attending an informal and peaceful human rights meeting one month after being released from prison. He is believed to be held in the Combinado del Este prison in Havana and has been assigned the case number 244 (2002), File No 2903007. It has been reported that he is also being denied medical treatment for a serious gum condition, which may mean that he loses all his teeth.

Does the Commission have any information on Dr Biscet's state of health and whereabouts and on the circumstances of his arrest? In particular, is the Commission in a position to verify that his political activities were of a non-violent nature and has the Commission raised the question of his treatment with the authorities in Havana?

Finally, does the Commission accept that continuing reports of failure to allow prisoners access to proper medical care, including, on occasion, life-saving treatment, constitute the most serious form of humanitarian human rights abuse in Cuba today and, if so, has the Commission indicated the importance attached by many within the European Union across the political spectrum of the need to respect the fundamental rights of prisoners? Has the Commission indicated that improvements in our relationship with Cuba, including Membership of Cotonou, are dependent upon greater respect for human rights and, in particular, on the treatment of prisoners?

Joint answer

to Written Questions E-1295/03, E-1311/03 and E-1347/03

given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(15 May 2003)

The respect of human rights in Cuba remains a cause of serious concern for the Union and the Commission is following this matter very closely.

The Commission has repeatedly drawn the attention of the Cuban authorities to the human rights situation in general and arbitrary detentions, intimidation of political opponents and imprisonment on political grounds in particular.

The Commission is closely following the matter of the recent detention and sentencing of 75 dissidents and independent journalists in Cuba, including Dr Oscar Elias Biscet González, Raul Rivero, Marta Beatriz Roque, Hector Palácios and Oscar Espinosa Chepe particularly through our Delegation in Havana.

These latest developments mark a further deterioration in the human rights situation, which cannot but seriously affect the Union's relations with Cuba.

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. Furthermore, various bilateral démarches vis-à-vis Cuban Ambassadors have been undertaken over the past few days in European capitals.

Another Union statement was published on 14 April 2003, condemning once again the large-scale arrest of dissidents, the unfair trials and the arbitrary and excessive sentences imposed. It also calls for the immediate release of all political prisoners. It will be followed by a new Union démarche in Havana.

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 bring the cases of Dr Biscet, Ms Roque and Messrs Rivero, Palácios and Chepe to the attention of the Cuban authorities, and will follow this matter closely, exerting continued political pressure on the Cuban authorities.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/23

---

(2004/C 88 E/0025)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1312/03

by Bill Newton Dunn (ELDR) to the Commission

(7 April 2003)

Subject:   The situation of Mrs Siham Qandah, a Jordanian Christian

The Commission may be aware of the situation of Mrs Siham Qandah, a Jordanian Christian whose husband died in 1994 whilst serving in the Jordanian Army. After his death the Jordanian authorities claimed that he had converted to Islam and have subsequently confiscated his children to ensure that they are raised as Muslims.

Has the Commission:

| 1. | Made representations to the Jordanian Government about the situation of Mrs Siham Qandah? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Made representations to the Jordanian Government about the situation of Mrs Siham Qandah?

| 2. | Other plans, to try to ensure that the Jordanian authorities respect the human rights of the Christian minority in their country? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Other plans, to try to ensure that the Jordanian authorities respect the human rights of the Christian minority in their country?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(15 May 2003)

Mrs Qandah's situation is related to the wider problem of compatibility of the application of the Shari'ah law and the international human rights conventions that Jordan has signed, but not yet fully transformed into internal law. It is our concern that the application of Shari'ah law in Jordan, a country where Islam is the state religion, could provoke great distress in families whose members are of mixed Christian and Muslim faith and lead to results which are incompatible with these conventions.

The Commission is closely monitoring the individual case of Mrs Siham Qandah. The Commission can assure the Honourable Member that the question of the defence of human rights and in particular of those of women and children is considered of prime importance by the Commission and has been raised with the Jordanian authorities on many occasions. It will continue to stress its importance in its future contacts.

Jordan is a signatory of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. During his recent visit to Jordan, the Member of the Commission in charge of external relations raised the need for Jordan to implement effectively its commitments to international human rights agreements, especially those reinforcing the rights of women and children. Since then the Jordanian Government has set up the Centre for the Protection of Human Rights to channel complaints on human rights abuses cases, an initiative that has been supported by the Community. The Commission lays great importance on the work of this centre which should become a flagship institution for the protection of human rights in Jordan.

In the framework of the Union-Jordan Association Agreement, which entered into force on 1 May 2002, the Union and Jordan are establishing a continuous political dialogue at the highest level. This includes issues relating to human rights as well as monitoring the application of international conventions adopted by either party.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/24

---

(2004/C 88 E/0026)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1334/03

by Luigi Cocilovo (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(9 April 2003)

Subject:   VAT on books

The Commission may know that bookshops selling Italian books abroad have to pay double VAT: Italian VAT (4 %), included in the cover price, and VAT in the country where the book is sold (for example 3 % in Luxembourg, or 6 % in Belgium).

Is this situation compatible with Community law, which regulation or directive regulates this specific field and can it be invoked in order to avoid VAT being paid twice?

Does the Commission not consider that all obstacles of whatever kind that discourage people from reading should be eliminated?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(15 May 2003)

In the case of intra-Community supply of goods, VAT must, in principle, be calculated and paid in the country of destination. However, if the distance sales regime applies and provided the EUR 35 000 or EUR 100 000 yearly threshold is not exceeded, VAT is calculated and paid in the country of origin. In any event, VAT must be calculated and paid only once.

On the basis of the question presented by the Honourable Member, it is not clear whether the VAT calculated on the price of Italian books before they are exported to other Member States is actually paid by the taxable persons to the Italian State.

Should the taxable persons pay the VAT to the Italian State, the goods in question would be subject to double taxation contrary to the Sixth VAT directive (1). The Italian State would then have to modify its legislation in order to provide that the goods leave the territory of the country exempted from Italian VAT.

Should the taxable persons not pay the Italian VAT to the State, although it is part of the export price of the goods, there would be no double taxation. In this case, the issue would have to be analysed from a non-fiscal perspective.

In this respect, should the Honourable Member dispose of complementary or new information that might prove that there is an infringement of Community law, the Commission would be most grateful to receive it.

---

(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.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/25

---

(2004/C 88 E/0027)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1339/03

by Maurizio Turco (NI) and Marco Cappato (NI) to the Commission

(9 April 2003)

Subject:   Persecution of homosexuals in the Palestinian Authority territories and Israeli expulsions of Palestinian homosexuals

According to the GLBT Israeli association ‘Aguda’ and the Haaretz newspaper, on 6 March 2003 two gay Palestinians were tried for being in Israel illegally and consequently expelled to the Palestinian Authority. On 16 March 2003, another gay Palestinian was put on trial for the same charge and after serving his sentence he will be expelled to the Gaza Strip. According to information provided by Aguda, homosexuals in the Palestinian Authority suffer persecution, arrest, injury and torture, at times ending in death, and many of them are likely to be executed. Until a month ago the authorities in Israel did not arrest and/or expel these people, but then this policy was changed and the youths were arrested and brought to trial, and the automatic process of expelling them to the Palestinian Authority began. International human rights organisations are acting to prevent these expulsions, and notably pleaded with the Israeli Interior Minister, Mr Avraham Poraz, to use the authority vested in him by Israeli Law to stop the expulsions by granting temporary residency visas, but Mr Poraz has replied negatively.

Can the Commission confirm this information? Is the Commission monitoring this issue? Will the Commission intervene with the Israeli authorities and particularly the Interior Minister to express EU concern at the fact that these expulsions could endanger the lives of gay Palestinians? Will the Commission intervene with the Palestinian Authority to ensure that fundamental human rights are respected and that persecution against homosexuals stops?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(6 May 2003)

The Commission is aware of some of the press reports referred to by the Honourable Member concerning alleged persecution of homosexuals in addition to informal accounts of human rights violations in the Palestinian Territories.

The Commission is concerned by allegations and reports of human rights violations and has, in conjunction with international donors, called on the Palestinian Authority to undertake democratic reforms, to ensure the rule of law, and to respect basic human rights.

The Union is actively participating in the Quartet and the International Task Force on Palestinian Reform, which was established in July 2002 to monitor and support the implementation of Palestinian civil reforms, and to guide the international donor community in its support for the Palestinian's reform agenda. The Task Force is composed of the United States, the Union, the Russian Federation, the United Nations, Norway, Japan, Canada, the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. It is monitoring progress across key areas such as civil society, public administration and rule of law and recommends further actions to be undertaken by the Palestinian Authority.

The Commission will continue to monitor progress on reform within the framework of Union's bilateral relations with the Palestinian Authority as well as in conjunction with other international donors.

The question of Human Rights in Israel is regularly raised by the Community in its official contacts with Israeli authorities and also when Union-Israel Association Council or Association Committee meets.

Specific cases are followed with attention by the Commission, notably via its Delegations on the ground.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/26

---

(2004/C 88 E/0028)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1345/03

by Mario Borghezio (NI) to the Commission

(3 April 2003)

Subject:   EU penalties for collusion by European banks with the Baghdad regime

Recent newspaper reports have carried details of the Baghdad regime's financial network, which consists of a great many European banks. These banks are mainly French or German, but also include the omnipresent Italian bank BNL.

In the ‘Full final and complete declaration’ submitted by Iraq to the UN experts, these banks are in fact referred to as the Iraqi Central Bank's ‘correspondent banks’, which bore the cost of the letters of credit issued by the Iraqi Central Bank for the purchase of suspicious materials. They include the German banks Dresdner Bank, Deutsche Bank, Commerz Bank, Vereins-und West Bank, UBAE, Berliner Handels-und Frankfurter Bank, DG Bank, Westdeutsche Landesbank and Bayerische Landesbank, and the French banks Banque de France, Société Générale, Crédit Lyonnais, BNP, Crédit Commercial de France and UBAF.

Does the Commission not consider it very serious that some of the most prominent institutions in the European banking system, along with other western establishments, should gladly have supported at a financial level the Baghdad regime's large-scale operations to purchase chemical weapons and weapons of mass destruction, even during the embargo?

What urgent steps will it take to penalise these banks for colluding with the criminal activities of the Baghdad regime?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(6 May 2003)

The Commission is not aware of the financial network linking the Iraqi regime to the major European banks referred to by the Honourable Member, including the alleged purchase of prohibited material by Iraq.

The UN has imposed restrictions on transfers to Iraq through the UN Security Council Resolution 661 (1990), but these restrictions have been implemented by means of national legislation and not by Community legislation.

Accordingly, the Commission does not have any power to proceed against Member States if they fail to apply these restrictions or to take appropriate measures against any organisation (e.g. banks, companies) which break national laws.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/27

---

(2004/C 88 E/0029)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1382/03

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(15 April 2003)

Subject:   Consequences of the Copenhagen criteria for suppressing oppositions, restricting free expression of opinion, banning organisations and increasing the prison population

| 1. | Does the Commission recall that the Presidency's conclusions for the June 1993 Copenhagen meeting of the European Council include (paragraph 7(iii)) the so-called ‘Copenhagen criteria’, which in particular lay down political criteria to the effect that new Member States of the European Union must have stable institutions that uphold democracy, the rule of law, human rights and the protection of minorities? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Does the Commission recall that the Presidency's conclusions for the June 1993 Copenhagen meeting of the European Council include (paragraph 7(iii)) the so-called ‘Copenhagen criteria’, which in particular lay down political criteria to the effect that new Member States of the European Union must have stable institutions that uphold democracy, the rule of law, human rights and the protection of minorities?

| 2. | Is it expected that Member States will also continue, after they have acceded, permanently to comply with those criteria? How does the Commission monitor for such compliance? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Is it expected that Member States will also continue, after they have acceded, permanently to comply with those criteria? How does the Commission monitor for such compliance?

| 3. | Is it compatible with the Copenhagen criteria for a form of stability to be maintained in one or more Member States, or in parts thereof, by prosecuting the expression of political opinions, making it impossible for lawful opposition newspapers to be published, banning political and other organisations, treating new organisations formed to pursue the same objectives as previously banned organisations as ipso facto illegal, confiscating funds legitimately raised by organisations, making demonstrations against such measures impossible, or by sharply increasing the number of persons imprisoned on such grounds? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Is it compatible with the Copenhagen criteria for a form of stability to be maintained in one or more Member States, or in parts thereof, by prosecuting the expression of political opinions, making it impossible for lawful opposition newspapers to be published, banning political and other organisations, treating new organisations formed to pursue the same objectives as previously banned organisations as ipso facto illegal, confiscating funds legitimately raised by organisations, making demonstrations against such measures impossible, or by sharply increasing the number of persons imprisoned on such grounds?

| 4. | Does the Commission consider it possible that an EU Member State might cease to comply with the Copenhagen criteria? What, in that event, would be the consequences for its continuing membership of the EU? |
| --- | --- |

4.

Does the Commission consider it possible that an EU Member State might cease to comply with the Copenhagen criteria? What, in that event, would be the consequences for its continuing membership of the EU?

| 5. | What action will the Commission take to prevent one or more EU Member States, old or new, from lapsing back into forms of government, censorship and criminal law that displayed features of the situation regrettably still obtaining at the present time in accession-applicant state Turkey, with its high numbers of persons wrongfully imprisoned, and a ban on movements, publications and the use, in public, of historically established regional languages? |
| --- | --- |

5.

What action will the Commission take to prevent one or more EU Member States, old or new, from lapsing back into forms of government, censorship and criminal law that displayed features of the situation regrettably still obtaining at the present time in accession-applicant state Turkey, with its high numbers of persons wrongfully imprisoned, and a ban on movements, publications and the use, in public, of historically established regional languages?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(11 June 2003)

| 1. | The Copenhagen criteria, as defined in the Presidency's conclusions of the June 1993 Copenhagen European Council, are the basis for the Commission's assessment of each Candidate Country's progress towards accession, first in the context of the 1997 Opinions, and subsequently in the framework of the Commission's Regular Reports on each country. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The Copenhagen criteria, as defined in the Presidency's conclusions of the June 1993 Copenhagen European Council, are the basis for the Commission's assessment of each Candidate Country's progress towards accession, first in the context of the 1997 Opinions, and subsequently in the framework of the Commission's Regular Reports on each country.

| 2. | Through the entry into force of the Treaty of Amsterdam in May 1999, the political criterion defined at Copenhagen has become enshrined as a constitutional principle in the Treaty on European Union. Article 6(1) of the consolidated Treaty on European Union stipulates that The Union is founded on the principles of liberty, democracy, respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, and the rule of law, principles which are common to the Member States.' It is part of the obligations of Member States to respect these principles.
  Respect of these principles can be assured by the political procedure to this effect laid down within Article 7. It could be set up at the initiative of the Commission, European Parliament or Member States and includes prevention mechanisms and sanctions facing the Member State responsible. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Through the entry into force of the Treaty of Amsterdam in May 1999, the political criterion defined at Copenhagen has become enshrined as a constitutional principle in the Treaty on European Union. Article 6(1) of the consolidated Treaty on European Union stipulates that The Union is founded on the principles of liberty, democracy, respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, and the rule of law, principles which are common to the Member States.' It is part of the obligations of Member States to respect these principles.

Respect of these principles can be assured by the political procedure to this effect laid down within Article 7. It could be set up at the initiative of the Commission, European Parliament or Member States and includes prevention mechanisms and sanctions facing the Member State responsible.

| 3. | The freedom of thought, of expression and information, and of assembly and association, as guaranteed by the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (referred to in Article 6(2) of the Treaty on European Union) and applied through the case law of the European Court of Human Rights, and as recognised by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, are fundamental rights. Respect for these fundamental rights constitutes an integral part of the Copenhagen political criteria. More generally, fundamental rights are also, according to the jurisprudence of the European court of Justice, part of the legal order of the EC. If a Member State does not respect them when executing rights and duties under the Treaty the Commission could open an infringement procedure against the Member State in accordance with Article 226 EC. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The freedom of thought, of expression and information, and of assembly and association, as guaranteed by the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (referred to in Article 6(2) of the Treaty on European Union) and applied through the case law of the European Court of Human Rights, and as recognised by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, are fundamental rights. Respect for these fundamental rights constitutes an integral part of the Copenhagen political criteria. More generally, fundamental rights are also, according to the jurisprudence of the European court of Justice, part of the legal order of the EC. If a Member State does not respect them when executing rights and duties under the Treaty the Commission could open an infringement procedure against the Member State in accordance with Article 226 EC.

| 4. | If a Member State were to stop respecting the principles stated in Article 6, paragraph 1, the Commission would assume its role as laid out in point 2.
  In accordance with Article 7 of the Treaty on the European Union, it is up to the Council to decide upon the measures to be laid down for the Member State incriminated. Suspension of voting rights of the governmental representative of that Member State in the midst of the Council could be one of these consequences. These measures cannot lead to this Member State's exclusion as such a perspective does not exist within the Union's institutional system. |
| --- | --- |

4.

If a Member State were to stop respecting the principles stated in Article 6, paragraph 1, the Commission would assume its role as laid out in point 2.

In accordance with Article 7 of the Treaty on the European Union, it is up to the Council to decide upon the measures to be laid down for the Member State incriminated. Suspension of voting rights of the governmental representative of that Member State in the midst of the Council could be one of these consequences. These measures cannot lead to this Member State's exclusion as such a perspective does not exist within the Union's institutional system.

| 5. | The reply to this last question ensues from the response given to the Honourable Member under questions 2 and 4. |
| --- | --- |

5.

The reply to this last question ensues from the response given to the Honourable Member under questions 2 and 4.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/28

---

(2004/C 88 E/0030)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1384/03

by Gian Gobbo (NI) to the Commission

(8 April 2003)

Subject:   Turkish occupation of Iraqi Kurdistan

Following the outbreak of war in Iraq, Turkey has announced its intention of sending troops to occupy a 20-kilometre zone inside Iraqi Kurdistan, which enjoys semi-autonomous status. The NATO authorities have agreed to this decision. This military occupation — ostensibly on humanitarian grounds — is opposed by the Kurdish population and its political representatives, who have clearly rejected it on several occasions and plan to use armed resistance.

What is the Commission's position on what is yet another show of force by Turkey?

Could the presence of Turkish troops in Kurdistan not be a prelude to an annexation of territory there?

Does the Commission not think that such behaviour on the part of Turkey is incompatible with its status of an applicant country for accession to the EU?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(21 May 2003)

The European Council has committed the Union to the territorial integrity of Iraq and respect for the rights of all Iraqis including those of its minorities. Furthermore, it called on all countries of the region to refrain from actions that could lead to further instability. In this respect, any unilateral Turkish intervention in Iraq would have to be considered in the context of Turkey's candidate status for EU accession.

The Commission is aware that Turkey has confirmed its commitment to the territorial integrity of Iraq and that the Turkish Parliament had authorised the possible deployment of troops in northern Iraq, in order to defend against attack on its territory, refugees influx and terrorist activities from PKK-KADEK. On 10 April the United States Secretary of State Colin Powell and Foreign Minister Abdullah Gul agreed that the United States would ensure the Iraqi Kurds did not take control of Kirkuk while Turkey could send a small group of monitors, to help prevent conflict. This arrangement was proposed as a means to contribute to the overall stability of the situation.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/29

---

(2004/C 88 E/0031)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1414/03

by Graham Watson (ELDR) to the Commission

(23 April 2003)

Subject:   Burma refugee acceptance into Thailand

What action is the European Commission taking to urge the Thai authorities to continue to accept refugees from Burma and not refuse them entry into Thailand or forcibly repatriate them?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(22 May 2003)

The Thai authorities have, for a number of years now, been providing shelter to about 130 000 displaced people from Burma/Myanmar, mainly of ethnic minority origin, in camps near the Thai-Burmese border.

The Community provides significant financial support for the maintenance of these refugee camps, through European non-governmental organisations (NGOs). Its assistance predominantly takes the form of provision of food and basic goods, as well as medical assistance and training. In recent years, the Community has allocated approximately EUR 7 to 7,5 million per year to these activities.

As the single most important donor in the international community, the Commission holds an open dialogue with the Thai authorities on all questions relating to the latter's acceptance and treatment of refugees.

In general terms, the Commission expects Thailand to honour its commitment to international humanitarian standards in dealing with refugees from Burma/Myanmar. This implies the admission of Burmese refugees into Thai territory, full co-operation with the United Nations High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR), and repatriation of refugees only on a voluntary basis and conditional on the improvement of the situation in Burma/Myanmar.

The Commission has in the past and again recently expressed to the Thai administration its concerns about reports concerning the refusal of registration of new Burmese refugees, as well as forced repatriation.

The Commission's Delegation in Thailand will continue to monitor the situation in co-ordination with the representatives of the Member States and will recommend possible further actions as appropriate.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/30

---

(2004/C 88 E/0032)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1417/03

by Bob van den Bos (ELDR), Margrietus van den Berg (PSE), Maria Martens (PPE-DE) and Joost Lagendijk (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(23 April 2003)

Subject:   Situation of religious minorities in Gujarat, India

For some years now India has been confronted with a growing Hindu fundamentalist movement, which manifests itself in growing violence against religious minorities.

In the spring of 2002 about 2 000 Muslims were massacred in the Indian state of Gujarat. Both Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have recently reported that the perpetrators were not punished and that no assistance has been offered to the victims by the Indian Government. Human Rights Watch also states that the mass murder was planned in advance and carried out with ‘large-scale government participation and support’, and that there is now talk of ghettoisation of the Muslim community. Some Hindu extremist organisations regularly suggest that another ‘Gujarat’ could happen.

There is also violence against Christians, and the ‘anti-conversion’ law adopted on 26 March 2003 is giving rise to grave concern regarding the freedom and safety of these and other religious minorities.

| 1. | Is the Commission prepared to suspend bilateral development aid to Gujarat until it is clear that the perpetrators of the mass murder have been punished, the victims rehabilitated and the marginalisation of Christians and Muslims stopped, and, in this connection, that the recommendations of the Indian National Human Rights Commission, Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have been implemented? If not, why not? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is the Commission prepared to suspend bilateral development aid to Gujarat until it is clear that the perpetrators of the mass murder have been punished, the victims rehabilitated and the marginalisation of Christians and Muslims stopped, and, in this connection, that the recommendations of the Indian National Human Rights Commission, Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have been implemented? If not, why not?

| 2. | How and when did the Commission act upon and/or will it, in dialogue with the Indian Government, act upon the serious concerns about the situation in Gujarat expressed by the European Union in April and May last year? |
| --- | --- |

2.

How and when did the Commission act upon and/or will it, in dialogue with the Indian Government, act upon the serious concerns about the situation in Gujarat expressed by the European Union in April and May last year?

| 3. | What recommendations can the Commission give to firms registered in the European Union and active in Gujarat with a view to their avoiding contributing to discrimination against religious and other minorities in the current situation? |
| --- | --- |

3.

What recommendations can the Commission give to firms registered in the European Union and active in Gujarat with a view to their avoiding contributing to discrimination against religious and other minorities in the current situation?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(15 May 2003)

The Commission is aware of the communal tensions in Gujarat and understands the Honourable Members' concern. The Commission fully agrees that the perpetrators of the crimes in Gujarat should be brought to justice, the victims rehabilitated, and the rights of religious minorities protected.

The Union respects and promotes the principles laid down in the Universal Declaration on Human Rights. The Co-operation Agreement between the Community and the Republic of India sets out ‘inter alia’ that respect for human rights and democratic principles is an essential element of this agreement.

It is, therefore, according to these principles that the Community-India development co-operation is implemented, and the Community development programme in Gujarat is no exception.

Most of the Community bilateral development aid to Gujarat is channelled through non-governmental organisations (NGOs). Of the EUR 93 million that the Commission pledged to Gujarat as a response to the 2001 earthquake, only EUR 40 million has been channelled through the Government of Gujarat. This sum is explicitly dedicated to rebuilding hospitals damaged by the earthquake, and the Commission monitors the implementation of this programme very closely.

The Union has acted to the serious situation in Gujarat in a number of ways, including the provision of a relief package for the victims through its humanitarian aid office (ECHO).

Furthermore, the Union has agreed to deal with all matters concerning democracy and human rights in India through its regular, on-going constructive dialogue with the Indian Government.

Regarding the third question, it is not within the competence of the Commission to give explicit recommendations to private companies on how they should operate in third countries. However, the Commission is committed to encouraging companies to act according to the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) guidelines on Corporate Social Responsibility. These guidelines make reference to the need to respect and protect the human rights of employees, and to avoid discrimination against minority groups.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/31

---

(2004/C 88 E/0033)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1467/03

by Charles Tannock (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(29 April 2003)

Subject:   Killing of Street Children in Guatemala and Honduras

There are allegations that ‘street-children’ in Guatemala and Honduras have been killed. These allegations are vigorously denied by the governments concerned. Does the Commission itself have any independent confirmation of the truth of these allegations and has it raised this matter with the governments concerned? Does the Commission know if homes and shelter are offered to all homeless children under the age of 16 and what alternatives are available to the children who roam the streets in these countries? Finally, has the Commission urged governments in the region to ensure that children who break the law are in all cases punished in accordance with the rule of law and that, where appropriate, support is given to reduce their chances of leading lives of crime?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(22 May 2003)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Members to its joint reply to Written Questions E-0356/03 by Mr Newton Dunn and Baroness Ludford (1), E-0086/03 by Mr Helmer (2) and Written Question E-0097/03 by Mr Whitehead (2) on the same subject.

As far as Guatemala is concerned, the Commission would like to add the following elements:

| — | the Commission is aware that the United Nations Verification Mission in Guatemala (Minugua), as well as local and international human rights organisations have reported a general deterioration in the situation of human rights during recent months, with several attacks against and murders of street children. In particular, the Inter-American Human Rights Commission has expressly pointed out the Guatemalan State's non observance of a set of recommendations made to guarantee the prevention of human rights violations by state agents, including aggression against street children. However, as in Honduras, there is no evidence of an institutional state policy aimed at infringing human rights; |
| --- | --- |

—

the Commission is aware that the United Nations Verification Mission in Guatemala (Minugua), as well as local and international human rights organisations have reported a general deterioration in the situation of human rights during recent months, with several attacks against and murders of street children. In particular, the Inter-American Human Rights Commission has expressly pointed out the Guatemalan State's non observance of a set of recommendations made to guarantee the prevention of human rights violations by state agents, including aggression against street children. However, as in Honduras, there is no evidence of an institutional state policy aimed at infringing human rights;

| — | the Commission will continue to urge the Guatemalan authorities to make additional effort to ensure respect for the rule of law. In line with the Resolution on human rights in Guatemala that the Parliament issued in April 2003, the Commission's main objective for the Consultative Group Meeting for Guatemala, scheduled in Guatemala City for the beginning of May 2003, is to encourage the local authorities and society to accelerate the implementation of the Peace Accords signed in 1996, to promote human rights as well as to reinforce the judicial system. |
| --- | --- |

—

the Commission will continue to urge the Guatemalan authorities to make additional effort to ensure respect for the rule of law. In line with the Resolution on human rights in Guatemala that the Parliament issued in April 2003, the Commission's main objective for the Consultative Group Meeting for Guatemala, scheduled in Guatemala City for the beginning of May 2003, is to encourage the local authorities and society to accelerate the implementation of the Peace Accords signed in 1996, to promote human rights as well as to reinforce the judicial system.

---

(1)  See page 11.

(2)  See page 5.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/32

---

(2004/C 88 E/0034)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1469/03

by Paulo Casaca (PSE) to the Commission

(30 April 2003)

Subject:   Wave of arrests in Cuba

It appears the reaction of Fidel Castro's dictatorship to the visit of a Commissioner, the inauguration of a Commission representation and public statements by the Commissioner in question in favour of Cuba's inclusion in the Cotonou Agreement has been to unleash a wave of repression against the island's dissidents.

In a debate at the EP on 8 April 2003, the author of this question was deeply disturbed to hear the Commission state that, rather than cancelling the opening of its delegation in Cuba, protesting against the imprisonment of dissidents, announcing the freezing of Cuba's inclusion in the Cotonou Agreement or, at least, recalling its representative in Cuba, it ‘intended to continue its policy of constructive dialogue’.

Is the Commission aware that, as with its previous attitude to Iran, it is, with its policy of supposed ‘constructive dialogue’, in fact encouraging dictatorial regimes worldwide to harden their line?

Is the Commission further aware that its attitude is in total contradiction of the democratic objectives and principles of the European institutions?

What action does the Commission intend to take to correct its attitude?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(5 June 2003)

In order to facilitate a ‘peaceful transition’, the Union follows since 1996, under the Common Position, a policy of ‘constructive engagement’ with Cuba. The Common Position distances itself from the use of coercive measures that could increase the economic hardship of the Cuban people. Instead, it gives priority to a constructive dialogue with the Cuban authorities and civil society in order to promote respect for human rights and real progress towards pluralist democracy. The Commission is of the firm conviction that a policy of constructive engagement has more chance of success than one of isolation and embargoes.

The recent large-scale arrest of dissidents, the unfair trials and the arbitrary and excessive sentences imposed on them, as well as the execution of three Cuban citizens accused of hijacking a Cuban ferry, have, nevertheless, had a prompt, firm and sustained reaction from the Union. The Commission has fully and actively supported the actions that have been taken in this context.

The Commission, together with the Member States, has strongly condemned such arrests in a declaration published on 26 March 2003, which was followed by an 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 Council statement issued on 14 April 2003.

The grave concern felt was also highlighted in the European 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.

Further measures have recently been agreed, such as a new evaluation of the situation of Human Rights in Cuba for consideration under the Common Position, limitation of bilateral high-level visits, non-attendance at Cuba's 1st May celebrations, and invitations of Cuban dissidents to National Day celebrations.

Furthermore, the Commission decided on 30 April to defer the examination of the Cuban application for membership of the Cotonou Agreement, signalling that these recent developments are not conducive with the furthering of co-operation between the Union and Cuba. As a reaction to such decision the Cuban authorities decided on 16 May to withdraw their application to the Cotonou Agreement.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/33

---

(2004/C 88 E/0035)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1471/03

by Herman Schmid (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(30 April 2003)

Subject:   Prisoners at Guantanamo Bay

The prisoners at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba are in a legal vacuum. They are being deprived of the human right to be defended in court. The US Administration has refused to designate them as prisoners of war, a status that would entitle them to immunity from prosecution for many acts committed during war. The US Administration contends that the prisoners are ‘unlawful combatants’, placing them in legal limbo.

Human rights organisations and some countries have criticised the US for not allowing prisoners access to a civilian court.

What action is the European Union taking to ensure that its captured citizens in Guantanamo Bay enjoy the right to be defended in court?

Does the European Union accept the prisoners' new status as ‘unlawful combatants’ in the light of the Geneva Convention?

Does the EU recognise any circumstances under which the use of unlawful methods, such as detaining people in prisons for an unlimited period of time, is justified as part of the war against terrorism?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(22 May 2003)

As regards specific action in favour of the legal rights of Union citizens detained in Guantanamo Bay, the Commission notes that responsibility for any such action must rest with the relevant Member State.

With respect to the status, treatment and length of detention of prisoners, the Union has consistently underlined (notably in the United Nations Commission on Human Rights (UNCHR) and the UN General Assembly Third Committee) that efforts to combat terrorism must be conducted in full respect for the rule of law, human rights, fundamental freedoms and humanitarian law. Moreover, in its statement on ‘Human Rights in the World’ at the 59th CHR 2003, the Union emphasised that anti-terrorist measures must be consistent with the unconditional prohibition of all forms of torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment ‘at all times and everywhere’. The unqualified nature of the Union's position demonstrates that the Union does not acknowledge any justification for derogating from respect for human rights whilst fighting terrorism in any circumstances.

At the 59th CHR, the Union also supported the adoption of the Mexican Resolution on protecting human rights when countering terrorism which includes provision for the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights to examine the question of respect for human rights when fighting terrorism and to provide recommendations and advice on States' obligations in this regard.

The twice-yearly EU-United States troika dialogue on human rights provides the opportunity for discussions on human rights' concerns and, as the Union's Annual Report on human rights for 2002 notes, this has afforded the Union the opportunity to raise the issue of the treatment of detainees in Guantanamo.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/34

---

(2004/C 88 E/0036)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1484/03

by Charles Tannock (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(2 May 2003)

Subject:   Graduation of General Sector Preferences Sector V imports with respect to employment alternatives to illegal drug production in Colombia

For some time now Colombia has benefited from trade preferences in the form of General Sector Preference Sector V goods — the so-called ‘drugs’ regime which was designed to help Columbia fight illegal drug production by offering greater opportunities for the production of other products including cut flowers. Although Eurostat figures show that Colombia's market share declined from 20,15 % in 1997 to 15,41 % in 2001, the Commission is believed to be in favour of ‘graduating’ Sector V imports which would remove these preferences.

Could the Commission explain its reasoning and indicate whether or not it accepts that there is a conflict between the promotion of its GSP ‘drugs’ regime on the one hand and the application of its Sector V ‘graduation’ policy on the other? Finally, what other forms of assistance can the Commission provide to Colombia which would directly assist the authorities in their attempt to encourage the cultivation of alternative crops in that country?

Answer given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(27 May 2003)

The General System of Preferences (GSP) aims at encouraging the economic development of beneficiary countries in enhancing their exports towards the Union. Its objective is to kick off new exports from beneficiary countries. This means that the preferential treatment has to cease at the time this objective is achieved. The GSP is an incentive which should be removed at the time it is not needed any more, thus targeting those countries and sectors which need it most.

Colombian cut flowers (Sector V in GSP) reached a very high level of competitiveness of their own in international markets. Being graduated will not prevent Colombia to export flowers, for which quality, level of price, etc. account more in their success than the re-establishment of the customs duty to be paid by the European importers. Hence, GSP should now help Colombia to diversify, and focus on other products for which Colombia has some margin of improvement at export.

The GSP ‘drug regime’ has been fully applied from 1992 to 2002 without any graduation. However, graduation is an important element for the objective and non-discriminatory application of the ‘drug-regime’ in accordance with the EC's obligation under the World Trade Organisation (WTO) Agreements. Incidentally, as far as the Colombian specific case is concerned, more than 85 % of its exports of cut flowers (major part of sector V) are shipped to the United States' market.

The preferential access to the Community market that Colombia has enjoyed through the so-called ‘drug-regime’ is almost the best possible trade treatment that can be granted to a developing country. Hence, the Colombian decline in the Community's market shares referred to in the question must be explained by broader economic competitiveness elements.

The Commission considers that there is no conflict, on the contrary, between the promotion of its GSP ‘drug-regime’ on one hand, and the application of the graduation mechanism on the other.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/35

---

(2004/C 88 E/0037)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1492/03

by Margrietus van den Berg (PSE) to the Commission

(2 May 2003)

Subject:   Coffee negotiations

Would the Commission clarify the progress which is being made in the ongoing negotiations between the European Union and the European Coffee Federation on the setting up of an independent system to monitor the quality of coffee entering the European Union?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(5 June 2003)

As the Honourable Member is aware, the Commission has supported the adoption of Resolution No 407 on minimum standards for exportable coffees by the International Coffee Council (ICO) at all levels of the negotiation.

For the proper implementation of the above Resolution, each member must make its best endeavour to support the objectives of the programme and co-operate in the field of data communication, particularly regarding those imports that do not correspond to the agreed standards. Therefore, with a view to ensuring comprehensive and transparent information, the Commission and the European Coffee Federation (ECF) agreed that the latter should inform the Commission on a quarterly basis about imports that do not conform to Resolution 407. On the basis of this, the Commission will forward the information to the ICO in London.

The Commission has reminded the ECF on several occasions of the need to provide data, drawn the attention of its Secretary General to the commitment it has assumed and the role that the private sector must play in this context.

The Commission notes with regret that no information has been provided since the end of the first quarterly period after the implementation of the Resolution.

The Commission is in constant contact with the ECF and still hopes that a satisfactory solution can be rapidly found on the side of the coffee industry. Should the present situation persist, the Commission wishes to reassure the Honourable Member that its services will act within the ICO in order to introduce a more binding system to achieve transparency and proper implementation of ICO Resolution 407.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/35

---

(2004/C 88 E/0038)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1497/03

by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission

(5 May 2003)

Subject:   Destruction of EU property in Palestine

What is the current situation regarding EU-financial infrastructure in Palestine that has been destroyed or damaged the continuing conflict in the region?

Answer by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(23 June 2003)

The Commission, upon the request of the Union's Presidency, compiled a preliminary list of EU-funded (Commission and Member States) projects which have either been destroyed or damaged by Israeli military forces. The list of destroyed projects is regularly updated by the Commission office in Jerusalem in coordination with the Member States' representative offices in Jerusalem and Ramallah. This task has been made difficult by the conditions on the ground. The list was last updated on 14 December 2002 bringing total damages to EUR 24 014 000. Of this total, about one-quarter was financed by the Community and the remainder by the Member States.

The exercise is limited to the replacement costs of physical infrastructure (construction and equipment), excluding indirect losses such as project delays or suspensions. Moreover the list does not make reference to a number of EU-funded projects which are unable to funtion properly due to Israeli military actions, for instance access to the European hospital in Gaza or delays (as a result of closures of access to raw materials) to infrastructure projects.

This matter has been raised with the Israeli authorities on several occasions, most notably by the Presidency of the Union in January 2002, and also at the Association Council with Israel on 21 October 2002.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/36

---

(2004/C 88 E/0039)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1559/03

by Claude Moraes (PSE) to the Commission

(7 May 2003)

Subject:   The situation in Somalia

Can the Commission please give its view on the current political situation in Somalia?

Can the Commission please give the latest details of both its aid and trade packages to Somalia?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(1 July 2003)

The national reconciliation process being held in Mbagathi, Kenya, under the auspices of the Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD) and with Union and international community support, is entering a crucial stage. The discussions may soon lead to the adoption of a draft charter as well as an action plan for a post-conference interim period including the definition of national governance structures. However, with the country having disintegrated into clan centred fiefdoms for the past twelve years, Somalia's political future is still uncertain.

Solutions in Somalia will depend on the conjunction of several elements:

| — | the capacity of Somali stakeholders, including the fragmented Hawye and Darod clans, gathered around heterogeneous political poles such as the Transitional National Government (TNG) and the Somali Restoration and Reconciliation Council (SRRC) to overcome their many differences; |
| --- | --- |

—

the capacity of Somali stakeholders, including the fragmented Hawye and Darod clans, gathered around heterogeneous political poles such as the Transitional National Government (TNG) and the Somali Restoration and Reconciliation Council (SRRC) to overcome their many differences;

| — | the commitment of stakeholders in the region to use their political influence inside Somalia in favour of peace and reconciliation; |
| --- | --- |

—

the commitment of stakeholders in the region to use their political influence inside Somalia in favour of peace and reconciliation;

| — | an adequate monitoring by the international community of the current cessation of hostilities agreement as well as of the United Nation Security Council resolutions establishing an arms embargo for Somalia. In addition, there is agreement that any solution reached by the Somalis will require prompt financial, technical and political support from the international community. |
| --- | --- |

—

an adequate monitoring by the international community of the current cessation of hostilities agreement as well as of the United Nation Security Council resolutions establishing an arms embargo for Somalia. In addition, there is agreement that any solution reached by the Somalis will require prompt financial, technical and political support from the international community.

The Union has, several times, reiterated its support to IGAD's peace initiative on Somalia and its commitment to contribute to Somalia's development. The EU's political line on Somalia is set out in the General Affairs Council conclusions on Somalia of July 2002.

The most notable absence in the Mbagathi conference is Somaliland, which unilaterally declared independence in 1991 and succeeded in establishing its own institutions and relative stability in its territory.

Community co-operation, despite the difficult situation, has been constantly present in Somalia. In December 2001, the European Union-African, Caribbean and Pacific (EU-ACP) joint Council decided on a special European Development Fund (EDF) financial allocation (EUR 199 million) to Somalia for the period 2002-2007. This financial envelope is complemented by yearly contributions from the Commission's budget, in particular humanitarian aid (EUR 6 million in 2003).

Based on the EU-ACP Council decision, a first programme (EUR 50 million) was approved by the Commission in June 2002 and is being implemented while a new rehabilitation programme (estimated EUR 75 to EUR 100 million) is being appraised and should be submitted to the Commission for approval by end 2003.

The current Community co-operation in Somalia is defined by the ‘Strategy for special aid to Somalia’ (April 2002). (1) Given the Somali context, flexibility, strict neutrality and contacts at local level have been key elements for Community intervention. Community programmes are based on the ‘peace dividend approach’ and imply multi-sectoral capacity delivery, covering the whole spectrum from humanitarian aid to relief through rehabilitation to development. Given the ‘peace dividend’ approach and the priority given to contacts at local level, most Community interventions are implemented by European non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and United Nations (UN) Agencies.

Given the prevailing circumstances, trade flows between Somalia and the Union are practically nonexistent.

---

(1)  http://europa.eu.int/comm/development/body/csp_rsp/csp_en.cfm

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/37

---

(2004/C 88 E/0040)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1630/03

by Nelly Maes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(8 May 2003)

Subject:   Forced sterilisation of Roma women

With reference to questions E-0575/03 (1) and E-0434/03 (2) by Nelly Maes and Erik Meijer on coerced sterilisation of Roma women in Slovakia, I am astonished at the answers given.

In the answer to Mr Meijer, the Commission says: The Member of the Commission responsible for Enlargement has immediately addressed this issue in a letter to Slovak Prime Minister Dzurinda, underlining that these allegations are a matter of serious concern and if proved to be true, would constitute a serious breach of human rights.

In its answer to Nelly, the Commission adds the following at phrase the end of the above sentence — ‘provided the public authorities have supported, tolerated or not taken proper legal actions in this respect’.

One has to conclude from the above answer that a serious breach of human rights cannot exist unless the government was aware of it and did not react appropriately.

Reports by the European Roma Rights Centre (ERRC) provide ample evidence that the government was aware of this problem, which existed even before the creation of the Slovak State, still exists today and has been the focus of continuous attention.

Does the Commission recognise that there are serious breaches of human rights in Slovakia and, if so, what consequences are attached to these violations?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(5 June 2003)

The Commission in its responses to earlier written questions on the treatment of the Roma, specifically questions E-0434/03 by Mr Meijer and E-0575/03 by the Honourable Member, expressed its concern about allegations that Roma women are being sterilised without or with coerced consent by doctors in Eastern Slovakia.

The Commission had specifically referred to the public authorities not, as the Honourable Member concludes, as an indication that ‘a serious breach of human rights cannot exist unless the government was aware of it’ but in order to indicate that under internal public law, a state indeed can be held accountable for violations of human rights, if the incriminated actions can be attributed to him. Hence the reference made in the reply to Written Question E-0575/03. Under international law, a state's responsibility goes as far as to provide for legal provisions to punish coerced or forced sterilization and to ensure objective criminal proceedings.

The Commission has urged the Slovak authorities to carry out the necessary criminal investigations and to remedy possible discriminatory measures. So far, the criminal investigations are still ongoing and have not yet confirmed the above stated allegations, which, if proved to be true, would be punishable under Slovak criminal law. The Commission does not have the right to interfere in ongoing investigations of a sovereign state and to prejudge its outcome. It will, however, continue to closely monitor this serious issue.

Finally, the Commission would like to inform the Honourable Member that following intense discussions with the non-governmental organisations (NGOs) involved in reporting about the issue, it is considering to include a specific Roma health project in its National PHARE Programme 2003 to improve the situation of the Roma minority in this important sector.

---

(1)  OJ C 33 E, 6.2.2004, p. 55.

(2)  See page 12.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/38

---

(2004/C 88 E/0041)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1665/03

by Luigi Vinci (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(19 May 2003)

Subject:   Kurdish language teaching in Turkey

About ten months ago the Turkish Parliament adopted new legislation which was supposed to allow private schools to be set up for the teaching of the Kurdish language.

However, the provisions also stipulated that:

| — | private schools which already teach foreign languages cannot teach Kurdish too, i.e. schools must be set up specifically to teach Kurdish; |
| --- | --- |

—

private schools which already teach foreign languages cannot teach Kurdish too, i.e. schools must be set up specifically to teach Kurdish;

| — | Kurdish may be taught only by teachers with a Kurdish language teaching qualification — which until a year ago did not officially exist, and therefore there could not be any schools to qualify teachers to teach the language! |
| --- | --- |

—

Kurdish may be taught only by teachers with a Kurdish language teaching qualification — which until a year ago did not officially exist, and therefore there could not be any schools to qualify teachers to teach the language!

| — | Foreign teachers cannot be used to teach Kurdish. |
| --- | --- |

—

Foreign teachers cannot be used to teach Kurdish.

This means that it has not been possible to open a Kurdish language school anywhere in Turkey.

Furthermore, the above-mentioned legislation states that access to Kurdish language courses is restricted to people who already have a full command of the Turkish language after completing their primary education. In practice this means only students over 15 years old, and even then not all of them, since there is a low level of literacy in south-east Turkey.

This is obviously a crude and cynical move designed to fool the Kurds in Turkey and the European Union, which has requested that Turkey behave in a civilised way.

Will the Commission analyse this information and does it not consider that it should be forceful in telling the Turkish Government that its attitude makes it impossible for Turkey to join the European Union.

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(19 June 2003)

The Commission is aware of the situation regarding the provisions for the teaching of languages and dialects (other than Turkish) traditionally used by Turkish citizens, as outlined in the Regulation issued by the Ministry of National Education on 20 September 2002.

The Commission has raised its concerns regarding the limited possibilities for the teaching of languages and dialects other than Turkish in its regular dialogue with the Turkish authorities. The Commission considers that the regulatory requirements might constitute an obstacle to the teaching of languages other than Turkish.

In the recently approved revised Accession Partnership with Turkey, Turkey is asked to ensure cultural diversity and to guarantee cultural rights for all citizens irrespective of their origin. This includes the need to ensure effective access to education, radio and television broadcasting in languages other than Turkish through the implementation of existing measures and the removal of remaining restrictions that impede this access.

As a Union candidate country, Turkey aims to fulfil the Copenhagen political criteria, which include respect for and the protection of minorities. In this respect, the Commission will continue to monitor the situation of non-Turkish language teaching in Turkey, which will include an assessment of the regulatory environment in which such courses are permitted.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/39 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/39

---

(2004/C 88 E/0042)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1678/03

by José Ribeiro e Castro (UEN) to the Commission

(19 May 2003)

Subject:   Angola — ‘child soldiers’

According to recent media reports, the Angolan Government will exempt any children who fought in the country's civil war from compulsory military service.

Human Rights Watch claimed a few days ago that the number of children concerned is likely to be around 11 000.

The World Bank has provided USD 30 million in support of projects for such ‘child soldiers’.

The Commission:

| — | does it have information on the probable or approximate number of children who served in the armies which fought in the Angolan civil war over the last few years; |
| --- | --- |

—

does it have information on the probable or approximate number of children who served in the armies which fought in the Angolan civil war over the last few years;

| — | how does it view the current situation of children as regards demobilisation, family reunification and population settlement, and measures taken by Angolan institutions with international support; |
| --- | --- |

—

how does it view the current situation of children as regards demobilisation, family reunification and population settlement, and measures taken by Angolan institutions with international support;

| — | has it already started to assess the specific case of the recovery, treatment and education of ‘child soldiers’ both in general and with regard to those who have been orphaned or handicapped; |
| --- | --- |

—

has it already started to assess the specific case of the recovery, treatment and education of ‘child soldiers’ both in general and with regard to those who have been orphaned or handicapped;

| — | what action has it taken or does it intend to take in this regard? |
| --- | --- |

—

what action has it taken or does it intend to take in this regard?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(11 July 2003)

Child soldiers have been used on both sides during the conflict in Angola. While specific figures are not available, the estimates range between 6 000 (government figures) and 11 000 (Human Rights Watch).

The Commission considers that support to former child soldiers is one of many important post-conflict challenges that needs to be addressed. The government, with the support of the international community, must be more active in this matter, although some efforts are being made. Thus, in early March 2003 the Angolan Government, the United Nations International Children's Emergency Fund (Unicef) and civil society partners re-affirmed their policy framework for assisting former child soldiers and separated children at a round table on the challenges of ‘Child Rights Protection in the Process of Re-Integration’, organised by the Ministry of Assistance and Social Reinsertion.

Furthermore, one of the objectives of the Angolan Demobilisation and Re-Integration Programme (ADRP) is indeed to provide tailored assistance to special target groups such as child ex combatants and disabled ex-combatants. Approximately USD 31 million are foreseen for the support of these special target groups. The Commission participates in the ADRP through its contribution of EUR 20 million to the Multi-Donor Trust Fund within the framework of the Multi-country Demobilisation and Re-Integration Program (MDRP). The Commission is currently examining a further direct contribution to the ADRP.

On the whole the situation with regard to demobilisation, family re-unification and population settlement is progressing, albeit with some difficulties. Considerable and sustained effort by the government, supported by the international community is, however, necessary, to bring this process to a successful conclusion, which still seems to be quite some time away.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/40 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/40

---

(2004/C 88 E/0043)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1693/03

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(21 May 2003)

Subject:   Underhand method of awarding contracts for reconstruction and management in Iraq to US firms by the US Army

| 1. | Is the Commission concerned about the serious implications of the way in which major contracts to prepare for the reconstruction of Iraq and for the restructuring of Iraq's economy are being awarded to American companies by the US Army through the US Army Corps of Engineers or USAid? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is the Commission concerned about the serious implications of the way in which major contracts to prepare for the reconstruction of Iraq and for the restructuring of Iraq's economy are being awarded to American companies by the US Army through the US Army Corps of Engineers or USAid?

| 2. | Has the Commission noticed that these contracts are being awarded in unusual way, i.e. without parliamentary scrutiny of the criteria and procedures, without any involvement of the US State Department and without any possibility of non-American firms submitting tenders, while companies that supported the US President's election campaign and whose management is of the same political persuasion appear to have been put at a strong advantage? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Has the Commission noticed that these contracts are being awarded in unusual way, i.e. without parliamentary scrutiny of the criteria and procedures, without any involvement of the US State Department and without any possibility of non-American firms submitting tenders, while companies that supported the US President's election campaign and whose management is of the same political persuasion appear to have been put at a strong advantage?

| 3. | Does the Commission know whether or not the contract for putting out fires in oil wells concluded with KBR, a subsidiary of the US company Halliburton, whose chief executive officer until 2000 was the current US Vice-President, also contains a clause saying that the company has the right to run the infrastructure and distribution of products, which means that it can manage the oil wells and trade the oil? Until when does this contract run and is it expected to be extended? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Does the Commission know whether or not the contract for putting out fires in oil wells concluded with KBR, a subsidiary of the US company Halliburton, whose chief executive officer until 2000 was the current US Vice-President, also contains a clause saying that the company has the right to run the infrastructure and distribution of products, which means that it can manage the oil wells and trade the oil? Until when does this contract run and is it expected to be extended?

| 4. | Is the United States demanding co-funding from Europe in exchange for the involvement of European firms? If, exceptionally, the US Army is involving firms from EU Member States, is a distinction being made between firms from countries that supported US intervention in Iraq and firms from countries that took the view that the UN Security Council alone could decide on any intervention? |
| --- | --- |

4.

Is the United States demanding co-funding from Europe in exchange for the involvement of European firms? If, exceptionally, the US Army is involving firms from EU Member States, is a distinction being made between firms from countries that supported US intervention in Iraq and firms from countries that took the view that the UN Security Council alone could decide on any intervention?

| 5. | What action has the Commission taken so far to secure an equivalent role for non-US firms in the reconstruction and modernisation of Iraq? |
| --- | --- |

5.

What action has the Commission taken so far to secure an equivalent role for non-US firms in the reconstruction and modernisation of Iraq?

Source: Vrij Nederland newspaper, 3 May 2003 and Metro newspaper, 8 May 2003.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/41 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/41

---

(2004/C 88 E/0044)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1694/03

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(21 May 2003)

Subject:   Ongoing and permanent take-over of the Iraqi economy and oil reserves by US firms

| 1. | Is the US approach of concluding contracts in Iraq creating in a situation in which US firms, such as Halliburton, SteveDoring Services, Bechtel, Parsons, Fluor, Louis Berger Group and Washington Group International, after being awarded a provisional contract of one year, may obtain an extension for an indefinite period giving them the right to manage Iraqi infrastructure permanently? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is the US approach of concluding contracts in Iraq creating in a situation in which US firms, such as Halliburton, SteveDoring Services, Bechtel, Parsons, Fluor, Louis Berger Group and Washington Group International, after being awarded a provisional contract of one year, may obtain an extension for an indefinite period giving them the right to manage Iraqi infrastructure permanently?

| 2. | Are efforts being made to introduce the US CDMA GSM mobile phone system in Iraq, which will mean that it will permanently differ from that used in Europe and remain dependent on US producers? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Are efforts being made to introduce the US CDMA GSM mobile phone system in Iraq, which will mean that it will permanently differ from that used in Europe and remain dependent on US producers?

| 3. | Does the Commission consider it realistic that the total cost of the reconstruction of Iraq, estimated at between USD 25 and 100 billion, and the existing Iraqi debt burden of USD 383 billion will be covered by the resumption of oil exports? Is the lower volume of oil revenue and the provisionally limited production and export capacity being used to justify the rapid sale of underground crude oil reserves to US oil companies, such as Chevron, as a result of which the revenue from oil exploitation will no longer be available in the future to fund the activities of the Iraqi government? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Does the Commission consider it realistic that the total cost of the reconstruction of Iraq, estimated at between USD 25 and 100 billion, and the existing Iraqi debt burden of USD 383 billion will be covered by the resumption of oil exports? Is the lower volume of oil revenue and the provisionally limited production and export capacity being used to justify the rapid sale of underground crude oil reserves to US oil companies, such as Chevron, as a result of which the revenue from oil exploitation will no longer be available in the future to fund the activities of the Iraqi government?

| 4. | Is this state of affairs rapidly bringing about a fait accompli with regard to the future management of oil reserves and the oil industry, which it will no longer possible to break up later? |
| --- | --- |

4.

Is this state of affairs rapidly bringing about a fait accompli with regard to the future management of oil reserves and the oil industry, which it will no longer possible to break up later?

| 5. | Does the Commission consider that this approach of closely linking the economy of Iraq with sectors of the US economy is consistent with the prevailing view of free competition and transparent international trade relations or is it incompatible with the latter? |
| --- | --- |

5.

Does the Commission consider that this approach of closely linking the economy of Iraq with sectors of the US economy is consistent with the prevailing view of free competition and transparent international trade relations or is it incompatible with the latter?

| 6. | Is the European Union opposing this approach, which conflicts with the Iraqi people's right to self-determination, may result in impoverishment and instability in Iraq and is giving the US permanent advantages vis-à-vis the rest of the world? |
| --- | --- |

6.

Is the European Union opposing this approach, which conflicts with the Iraqi people's right to self-determination, may result in impoverishment and instability in Iraq and is giving the US permanent advantages vis-à-vis the rest of the world?

Joint answer

to Written Questions E-1693/03 and E-1694/03

given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(7 July 2003)

The Commission has been following the contracting practices followed by United States authorities in Iraq and has examined them in the light of the United States international obligations. The Commission notes that the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) Resolution 1483 underlines that the Development Fund for Iraq shall be used in a transparent manner to meet the humanitarian and reconstruction needs of the Iraqi people. The Resolution also stresses the right of Iraqi people to control their own natural resources. The Commission expects that the Authority, which exercises the obligations and the competence of the occupying forces according to UNSC Resolution 1483, will administer the country in the interest and for the benefit of the Iraqi population. The Commission will continue to follow events in this area with a view to defend the application of the principles of transparency and of free trade in international commerce to which the Union is so strongly committed.

The Commission has indicated to the United States Government that the Union expects the United States to comply with the relevant international rules, such as the World Trade Organisation (WTO) Government Procurement Agreement (GPA) including the principles of transparency, non-discrimination, national treatment and procedural guarantees.

The Commission has examined on a case-by-case basis some of the major contracts awarded, including notably the first eight contracts awarded by United States Agency for International Development (USAID) through the ‘less than full and open competition’ procedure, and has not, thus far, determined that there has been a breach of the GPA. USAID Inspector General's investigation and correspondance with the United States Congress approving the use of the restricted procurement process, justified by reasons of time constraint and the urgent need for these contracts to be carried out have been noted.

Because of the large number of tenders it is extremely difficult for the Commission to monitor all procurement procedures launched by United States authorities for the reconstruction of Iraq with respect to their consistency with GPA rules. The large amount of daily tenders and insufficient information available to non-bidders prevent the Commission from conducting any comprehensive analysis of that sort. The initial information available through a tender notice is very limited, and more detailed information (the tender documentation) is only available upon request by a bidder. To a large extent, the Commission has to rely on the information provided, by Member States or by individual companies in order to carry out an exhaustive examination of individual cases. However, despite some vague references in the press about complaints filed by Community suppliers, no formal complaint has been submitted to the Commission. As soon as a complaint is received, it will give the necessary priority to respond timely and accurately. In any case, the Commission will continue to monitor closely this matter.

It should also be noted that the Commission has not received from the United States administration any request of co-funding in exchange for the involvement of European firms.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/42 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/42

---

(2004/C 88 E/0045)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1695/03

by Mario Mantovani (PPE-DE) and Antonio Tajani (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(21 May 2003)

Subject:   Humanitarian emergency in Iraq: the plight of children, disabled people and the elderly in hospitals

Following Commissioner Nielson's visit to Baghdad can the Commission supply exact figures about the dramatic situation of children, the disabled and the elderly in Iraqi hospitals, the main innocent victims of the overthrown regime?

In particular does it have detailed information as to whether patients whose cases constitute an emergency may be transferred to EU countries for immediate appropriate treatment? Which countries would be involved?

Over and above the emergency humanitarian aid swiftly made available by the European Union is the Commission aware, following the discussions being held between the various Member States, of any decisions concerning a possible emergency evacuation plan? If so, how would it be carried out? Otherwise, what are the possible solutions?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(3 July 2003)

The still chaotic situation in Iraq makes it very difficult to obtain precise figures on the situation of children, disabled and elderly people in Iraqi hospitals.

However, according to a recent Unicef report, the main threats to Iraqi children are posed by unexploded ordnance (UXO), as sadly demonstrated with one of the latest incidents in Basra where six children were reported killed while playing with ammunitions, and by the poor quality of water.

The quality of water supply is decreasing due to cross-contamination with sewage water from damaged pipe systems and the lack of cooking fuels to boil water. This combination of factors has serious implications on the health and nutrition status of children. In Basra, incidence rates of diarrhoea have doubled compared to the same time last year. In Baghdad, a Unicef survey showed that malnutrition rates have increased as 7,7 per cent of surveyed children under the age five are suffering from acute malnutrition, compared with last year's figure of four per cent.

The Commission, through the Humanitarian Aid Office has until now approved emergency humanitarian aid for a total amount of EUR 32,5 million in order to relieve the suffering of the Iraqi population, and particularly children.

The aid approved comprises emergency relief items such as food for hospitals, hygiene products, support for humanitarian flights but the main focus is on support for the restoration of health services, sanitation and water supply, severely affected by bomb damage and widespread looting (details in annex).

The latest approved emergency humanitarian package of EUR 10 million, focuses on disposal of unexploded ordnance (de-mining) and mine awareness with the specific objective of reducing the immediate threat that landmines and UXO represent for the general population and to humanitarian personnel and also to secure and strengthen the delivery and follow up of humanitarian assistance to vulnerable populations in Iraq.

Following the European Council in Athens on 17 April 2003 where the President of the Commission and the Union's Heads of State reached a consensus on the willingness of the Member States to airlift badly wounded children to Europe, the Humanitarian Aid Office (ECHO) has been in contact with the interested Member States in order to analyse the possibilities of implementing such a measure.

One of the components of the Emergency Humanitarian Decision of 22 April 2003 was ‘support to emergency medical and surgical care. This may imply, if adequate medical treatment is not yet available in Iraq, the transfer of wounded or sick people, especially children to neighbouring countries or Europe as the case may be’.

A meeting was convened by ECHO on 30 April 2003 with the Member States that in the Humanitarian Aid Committee of 24 April 2003 had expressed interest in discussing further the airlifting operation. In this meeting, ECHO explained that Council Regulation (EC) No 1257/96 of 20 June 1996 concerning humanitarian aid (1) hindered ECHO from financing operations outside the area affected by the crisis. ECHO also could not replace the Member States in obtaining the necessary authorisations, as it is each Member State concerned that is supposed to take the responsibility for the completion of the above mentioned requirements.

Therefore, ECHO'S role could be two-fold:

| — | close co-ordination of this entire operation by ECHO headquarters and its office in Baghdad which would be available to facilitate the operation on the ground. |
| --- | --- |

—

close co-ordination of this entire operation by ECHO headquarters and its office in Baghdad which would be available to facilitate the operation on the ground.

| — | Financial support to the part of the operation implemented in Iraq (preparatory treatment in the country, medicines and other medical supplies needed, transport of the patients to the plane, travel grants to children and their parents to prepare their trip to Europe ...). |
| --- | --- |

—

Financial support to the part of the operation implemented in Iraq (preparatory treatment in the country, medicines and other medical supplies needed, transport of the patients to the plane, travel grants to children and their parents to prepare their trip to Europe ...).

Since then, the Commission was later informed that 10 children had been transferred to Austria on 15 May 2003 and it is also aware that some German and French non-governmental organisations are exploring the possibility of organising the medical evacuation of wounded or severely ill children.

ECHO is presently discussing with the International Organisation for Migration (IOM) the modalities of ECHO support in country, i.e. before the children and their accompanying parent leave the country. This will probably involve medicines, hospital costs to prepare the children for departure, ambulance costs to the airport, travel grants for the child and the accompanying parent for suitable clothing and other preparations for the departure.

---

(1)  OJ L 163, 2.7.1996.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/44 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/44

---

(2004/C 88 E/0046)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1732/03

by Freddy Blak (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(23 May 2003)

Subject:   Discriminatory Danish excise duty on beer

Beer imported into Denmark is subject to duty based on the original gravity of the beer before fermentation or degrees Plato, which is an expression of the nutrient content of the beer. The more ‘body’ the beer has, the higher the percentage of alcohol, though the link between them is not straightforward, which creates problems since beer with identical alcohol content is subject to different rates of taxation in a number of cases. This system benefits Danish beer as it appears that only Danish breweries are able to produce beer with an alcohol content of 4,6 % (tax bracket 1) from the added quantity of sugar and yeast (original gravity of the beer/degree Plato). Furthermore, the Danish system of duty is divided into steps which are closely aligned with the Danish brewing tradition. This means that only Danish Pilsner qualifies for the lowest tax bracket, 1. All other (foreign) beer automatically falls into a higher tax bracket because different quantities of sugar/yeast are used in the brewing process abroad. As a result, beer of the same or even lower alcoholic strength is assigned to tax bracket 2 or above, which has a directly discriminatory effect. It would therefore be more appropriate to calculate duty with reference to the absolute percentage of alcohol and not the original gravity/degree Plato of the beer. Calculating on that basis would also be more fitting from a health point of view.

Does the Commission intend to raise this problem with the Danish Government?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(23 July 2003)

Article 3 of Directive 92/83/EEC (1) leaves Member States a choice to levy duty by reference to the degrees Plato or to the degrees of actual alcoholic strength of beer. Furthermore, it allows Member States which levy the excise duty on beer by reference to the number of hectolitre/degrees Plato to divide beer into categories consisting of no more than four degrees Plato per category, and to apply the same rate of duty per hectolitre (hl) on all beers falling within each category.

This provision enable Member States to simplify the levying of the excise duty on beer, calculated by reference to the number of hectolitre/degrees Plato. Denmark, as well as two other Member States, make use of this possibility to divide beer into categories of degrees Plato and all use 11 degree Plato as a dividing line between two categories. It should be noted that the rates applied by each of these Member States to the different categories result, on average, in equivalent taxation per degree Plato of beers falling in different categories. Moreover, the same rates of duty (expressed per hl for each category of degrees Plato) apply to beers produced in Denmark as to beers imported into Denmark

Furthermore, under the harmonised system of alcohol taxation — which was based on the various systems that were already applied in Member States prior to 1992 — the charge by reference to the alcohol content of an alcoholic drink is in fact the exception, applying only to spirits and, as an alternative, to beer. All other products, (wine, intermediate products, cider etc) are charged by reference to their volume alone.

Regarding the Honourable Member's statement that it would be more appropriate to calculate duty with reference to its alcoholic strength, the Commission would point out that, until now, neither the Member States, nor the brewing industry, have expressed themselves in favour of a change in the existing system of beer taxation within the Union.

Therefore, the Commission does not see a need to raise this matter with the Danish Government.

---

(1)  Council Directive 92/83/EEC of 19 October 1992 on the harmonisation of the structures of excise duties on alcohol and alcoholic beverages, OJ L 316, 31.10.1992.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/45 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/45

---

(2004/C 88 E/0047)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1833/03

by Anna Karamanou (PSE) to the Commission

(2 June 2003)

Subject:   Iraq — serious danger to civilians from unexploded landmines and looting activities.

According to Human Rights Watch, following the end of the recent war in Iraq, civilian casualty figures have shot up compared with the number of casualties during the war itself, principally because of the large quantities of unexploded ordnance — landmines, grenades and other explosive devices — left behind in residential areas following the sudden collapse of the Iraqi military command and control structure and the resulting flight of military personnel who abandoned their equipment. Many of the victims are children who suffer serious injury from playing with explosive devices. At the same time looting is continuing, while snipers, conjectured to be Baath Party members seeking to destabilise the country, are injuring and killing many innocent civilians. In addition countless public service documents are being destroyed in Iraq. According to Amnesty International, British troops were involved in the mass destruction of electricity supply company documents in Basra.

At the same time American armed monitoring forces in Iraq are ignoring appeals for mine clearance and more patrols. Appeals by international human rights organisations for at least some level of policing have also been disregarded.

What measures will the Commission take in an effort to ensure that the occupying and monitoring forces in Iraq comply with international agreements and effectively protect the Iraqi civil populace from the above dangers which are threatening not only their individual lives and welfare but also the very structure of the State?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(16 July 2003)

The Commission shares the concerns of the Honourable Member about the security situation in Iraq, and about the continuation of looting and attacks by criminal elements or remnant of the Baath Party. The present situation seriously risks compromising the effort to stabilize the country and prevent the deliver by the humanitarian operators of the necessary aid to the population.

The Commission hopes that the coalition forces which represents the authority in Iraq will undertake the necessary steps to guarantee security and to protect the civil population from any sort of threat. In this respect, the conclusions of the European Council in Thessaloniki stress the need to provide security to the civilian population as a precondition for the sustainable reconstruction of the country.

The Commission is also aware of the problem of the casualties provoked on a daily basis by the unexploded ordnance left on the ground following the conflict. In this regard the Commission has recently adopted a decision to provide a financial contribution of EUR 10 million, for supporting de-mining activities carried out by international non-governmental organisations and co-ordinated by UNMAS. This funding decision will help collect and disseminate information on likely locations of high concentration of unexploded landmines and bombs, develop local capacity through formal training sessions and raise awareness through Mine Risk Education.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/45 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/45

---

(2004/C 88 E/0048)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1840/03

by Michael Cashman (PSE) to the Commission

(26 May 2003)

Subject:   Post-Iraq-War aid

Given the recent record of human rights abuses in Egypt, can the Commission explain the rationale and decision-making process that led to the conclusion to send an accelerated package of eur 175 million in financial assistance to Egypt?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(18 June 2003)

The EUR 175 million which the Commission intends to provide in the form of budgetary support to Egypt is an acceleration in disbursements within existing programmes funded from the MEDA budget.

This decision is designed as an emergency response to mitigate the negative economic effects of the Iraq war on the Egyptian economy. The immediate economic impact of the Iraq war on Egypt has been considerable, especially in lost tourist revenue and diverted direct foreign investment.

On the issue of Egypt's record on human rights, the Commission has not hesitated to raise issues of concern with the Egyptian authorities when it has been judged appropriate to do so. The Association Agreement, currently under ratification, will offer an additional and useful forum to discuss such issues.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/46 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/46

---

(2004/C 88 E/0049)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1844/03

by Bill Miller (PSE) to the Commission

(3 June 2003)

Subject:   Treatment of gays, lesbians and transsexuals in Poland

It has been brought to my attention that the Polish Government is seeking derogation from certain EU ‘acquis’ in order that it can regulate on moral issues.

Is this an issue which has been raised, and what response has been given to them?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(10 July 2003)

The Polish Government has sought and indeed succeeded to have a declaration on ‘public morality’ inserted in the Accession Treaty. This, however, does not imply that Poland was granted an exemption from its duties and obligations under the EC Treaties. On the contrary, the present Member States have issued a general joint declaration underlining that the declarations added to the Accession Treaty cannot be interpreted or applied in a way contrary to the obligations of the Member States arising from the Treaty and the Act of Accession. The Commission has fully subscribed to this declaration.

For this reason, the ‘acquis communautaire’ in this area, including the employment, equal treatment and anti-discrimination acquis, will have to be applied in full by Poland upon accession at the latest. More specifically, as regards the transposition of Council Directive 2000/43/EC of 29 June 2000 implementing the principle of equal treatment between persons irrespective of racial or ethnic origin (1) and Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation (2), the Commission has always insisted with the Polish authorities (as it has with all future Member States) that all the grounds for discrimination must be explicitly protected against, and that legislation must thus explicitly refer to race or ethnic origin, religion and belief, disability, age and sexual orientation. In other words, it has been made clear to the Polish government that this declaration on ‘public morality’ cannot be interpreted as absolving the Polish government from any of its obligations under these Directives. During her recent visit to Poland the Commission's Director-General for Employment and Social Affairs also underlined that discrimination based on sexual orientation was not covered by the current draft legislation on access to employment, vocational guidance and training and that this had to be remedied in order to comply with the Directives.

---

(1)  OJ L 180, 19.7.2000.

(2)  OJ L 303, 2.12.2000.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/47 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/47

---

(2004/C 88 E/0050)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1848/03

by Luigi Vinci (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(3 June 2003)

Subject:   Investigation into the chairman of the Diyarbakir Human Rights Association

On 18 May 2003 the author of this question was informed that the Turkish State Security Tribunal had recently begun investigating the lawyer Selahattin Demirtaþ (the chairman of the Diyarbakir Human Rights Association) on the grounds that he is a supporter of the KADEK party (the former PKK).

The Republic of Diyarbakir Public Prosecutor considered that the charges should be dropped and he proposed that the case be closed for lack of evidence or proof. However, the State Security Tribunal took the view that the case should proceed.

On 27 April of this year the author of this question met the lawyer Selahattin Demirtaþ in Diyarbakir, two days after attending the second hearing of the new trial (which is still going on) involving Leyla Zana and three other Kurdish MPs who have been in prison since 1995. On that occasion, Selahattin Demirtaþ described to me to appalling situation in south-east Turkey, which is still subjected to all manner of brutality on the part of the Turkish security forces and where there is the threat of a further uprising on the part of the Kurdish people. The author of this question was asked to convey a request for the European Union to take firm action vis-à-vis Turkey, so that the threat of another war in south-east Turkey can be warded off through compliance with the Copenhagen criteria.

It therefore seems clear from this most recent episode (as from countless others which have occurred in recent weeks) that many Turkish magistrates are actively boycotting the current government's attempts to democratise the country.

In view of the above, will the Commission say what action it intends to take in order to enable the Turkish Government to put a stop to the magistrates' bullying of human rights associations? Does it not consider that, without a process of genuine democratisation, Turkey will fail in its attempts to join the European Union?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(14 July 2003)

The Commission is aware of the situation regarding the Chairperson of the Diyarbakir Human Rights Association, Mr Selahattin Demirtaþ, who was accused under Article 169 of the Turkish Penal Code of ‘aiding and abetting an illegal organisation’. The Commission has been informed that on 14 May 2003 the State Security Court Prosecutor decided to ‘discontinue the proceedings’ of the case, and that legal proceedings are therefore not currently being launched against Mr Demirtaþ.

The Commission is also aware of the more general problems concerning the implementation of reforms in the area of the freedom of expression, freedom of association and the judiciary. The recently adopted revised Accession Partnership with Turkey (1) set out the priority areas with respect to these concerns. These priorities include the need to remedy the situation of those persons prosecuted or sentenced for non-violent expression of opinion, and to pursue and implement reforms concerning the freedom of association and peaceful assembly.

With regard to the judiciary, Turkey is asked to strengthen the independence and efficiency of the judiciary and to promote the consistent interpretation of legal provisions related to human rights and fundamental freedoms in line with the European Convention on Human Rights; to take measures with a view to ensuring that the obligation for all judicial authorities to take into account the case law of the European Court of Human Rights is respected; to align the functioning of State Security Courts with European standards; and to prepare the establishment of intermediate courts of appeal. More generally, Turkey is asked to guarantee in law and in practice the full enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms by all individuals without discrimination.

In the particular case of the South East, Turkey is asked to intensify efforts to develop a comprehensive approach to reduce regional disparities, and in particular to improve the situation in the South East, with a view to enhancing economic, social and cultural opportunities for all citizens. In this context, the return of internally displaced persons to their original settlements should be supported and speeded up.

As a EU Candidate Country, Turkey aims to fulfil the Copenhagen political criteria which include the need to implement reforms in the areas of the judiciary, the freedom of expression and the freedom of association. The Commission will continue to monitor the situation with respect to these and other areas related to the democratisation process in Turkey. The Commission will give its assessment of the situation in Turkey regarding human rights in its forthcoming Regular Report.

---

(1)  OJ L 145, 12.6.2003.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/48 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/48

---

(2004/C 88 E/0051)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1858/03

by Proinsias De Rossa (PSE) to the Commission

(3 June 2003)

Subject:   EU funding for rehabilitation of torture survivors

The increased EU emphasis on the prevention of torture worldwide implemented from 2002, though very much to be welcomed, has resulted in an effective cut of 45 % in EU support for the rehabilitation of torture survivors. The Dublin-based Centre for the Care of Survivors of Torture (CCST) points out that 30 rehabilitation centres in Central and Eastern Europe, Africa and Latin America are now without EU support and face the threat of closure.

Will the Commission ensure that funds are reallocated from the 2003 budget to guarantee that these centres remain open and will it ensure that funding for the rehabilitation of torture victims is restored to, at the very minimum, 2002 levels (not, naturally at the expense of the new torture prevention efforts) in the 2004 EU budget?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(10 July 2003)

The Commission decided to adopt a more strategic approach to funding channelled through the European Initiative for Democracy and Human Rights (EIDHR) and the Commission's Communication on Human Rights and Democratisation of May 2001 (1) identified four thematic priorities for future EIDHR support, including the fight against torture. In line with the need to focus limited funds more effectively, the Communication also underlined that the Union should seek to focus as much as possible on the prevention of torture, as opposed to support for rehabilitation centres. The subsequent programming document for the European Initiative for Democracy and Human Rights (EIDHR) in 2002-2004 noted that funding would be re-oriented in the direction of prevention of torture in the longer term.

The reduction in funds for rehabilitation centres has been accompanied by measures designed to reduce existing dependency on Community funding in a progressive fashion, with the aim of enabling centres to look for funds from other sources. For example, the 2001 call reduced the maximum percentage support for rehabilitation projects to 60 % for centres inside the Union and 80 % for projects outside the Union. These percentages were further reduced in the 2002 call to 50 % and 75 % respectively. The degree of importance afforded to sustainability questions during the assessment process is also an important factor. Moreover, ‘institutional strengthening’, which includes the development of fund-raising capabilities, was explicitly eligible for funding in 2001 and 2002.

The 2002 Call for Proposals was designed to continue this process. The Call, for EUR 25 million, covered the funding of torture prevention projects and rehabilitation centres, with a plan to allocate 1/3 and 2/3 of the funds available to those two fields of activities respectively. All projects submitted were evaluated by two experts, one of whom was experienced in project management and the other in the psychiatric/psychological field. The projects were ranked according to score and were selected with a view to ensuring a balance in the geographical distribution of the proposed activities.

The quality of the projects submitted by the rehabilitation centres for activities based within the Union (budget line B5-813) did, in fact, produce a result which respected the planned balance. However, the projects submitted by centres based outside the Union scored rather badly (sometimes below the minimum thresholds), which did not allow for the selection of sufficient rehabilitation projects to respect the envisaged 2/3 to 1/3 balance. Around EUR 4,5 million was allocated to centres outside the Union (for the period 2002-2003), with around EUR 8 million being provided for torture prevention projects. Approximately EUR 4 million was allocated for rehabilitation centres inside the Union, with an additional EUR 2 million for projects including aspects in support of victims of torture.

As regards the likelihood of centres closing as a result of failure to secure Community support, this must be considered in light of the expressed policy to move away from rehabilitation and towards prevention and the measures outlined above which have accompanied that change in policy. Support to centres can only be given in accordance with competitive rules designed to ensure that the Union taxpayer gets value for money by only funding the best proposals, which meet minimum quality requirements.

It is not possible to reallocate funds from the 2003 budget to rehabilitation centres. This would result in other important human rights' priorities under the EIDHR facing cuts, would fail to respect EIDHR programming and could not be executed within the rules set down by the revised Financial Regulation (2). A further call for EUR 5,5 million for centres inside the Union is, however, planned for 2003. The Commission is in the process of elaborating the approach which will be taken towards this issue for the 2004 budget.

---

(1)  COM(2001) 252 final.

(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.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/49 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/49

---

(2004/C 88 E/0052)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1897/03

by Nelly Maes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(6 June 2003)

Subject:   Food aid for Zimbabwe

Paragraph 5 of Parliament's resolution of 13 February 2003 (1) on human rights in Zimbabwe states the following:

| | Condemns the utilisation of food aid as a political weapon against opposition supporters; asks the government of Zimbabwe to guarantee food distribution to the population regardless of political affiliation; calls on the international community, including the UN, to take a more interventionist approach to food distribution, to provide protection for safe and fair delivery of food to those who need it, and to work with Zimbabwe's neighbours who are confronted with refugee problems. |
| --- | --- |

Condemns the utilisation of food aid as a political weapon against opposition supporters; asks the government of Zimbabwe to guarantee food distribution to the population regardless of political affiliation; calls on the international community, including the UN, to take a more interventionist approach to food distribution, to provide protection for safe and fair delivery of food to those who need it, and to work with Zimbabwe's neighbours who are confronted with refugee problems.

However, reports are still reaching us concerning shipments of European food aid which are not being delivered. Further evidence of this emerged, for example, during an exchange of views held last week in Strasbourg with the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Bulawayo, Zimbabwe, Pius Ncube.

What practical steps is the Commission taking to deal with this problem?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(15 July 2003)

The Commission's EuropeAid Cooperation Office (AIDCO) is responsible for the management of food aid budget allocations in favour of Zimbabwe. In response to the United Nations (UN) emergency appeals for 2002/2003 a total of EUR 63,8 million was committed from the Commission's food security budget line. This enabled the conclusion of contracts with implementing partners (World Food Program (WFP) and EuronAid) to procure, deliver, and distribute over 130,000 tonnes of food to targeted beneficiaries. Distribution is and will continue to be organised through the WFP and the non-governmental organisation (NGO) sector and does not involve Government or any Government agencies. All of this food aid has been delivered in the country since beginning of 2002 and is expected to be fully distributed by the end of June 2003. At the peak of the distribution process during the period February 2003 to May 2003 in excess of five million beneficiaries benefited from food aid pipelines.

Working with its partners and the UN structure the Commission continues to monitor closely, without difficulties, the distribution process and the targeting of international aid. The international community in Zimbabwe has actively followed all reported instances of politicisation, and has investigated all reports of abuse of food aid. In the beneficiary targeting process the identification of the vulnerable is done in accordance with recognised criteria and in consultation with the local community structure. The Humanitarian Aid Office of the Commission (ECHO) has allocated EUR 5 million to WFP precisely to improve the combined capacity of WFP and partners to distribute food aid in a completely transparent, well monitored and well documented fashion. The Commission is satisfied that the selection, distribution and monitoring process continues to ensure that only those most in need receive aid. Furthermore, the Commission insists with all its partners in Zimbabwe that the guidelines for the distribution of humanitarian aid as adopted by most Member States are strictly adhered to.

The international community, through the office of the UN, has and continues to adopt an interventionist approach in dealing with the humanitarian crisis not just in Zimbabwe but also in the southern African region as a whole. It is generally recognised that this intervention has averted a humanitarian catastrophe during the period since July 2002. The UN's regional consolidated appeal process (CAP) for 2002/2003 has been well supported and made a significant impact. A further CAP covering the period to July 2004 should soon be launched. The 2003/2004 CAP is multi sectoral and will specifically target the most vulnerable sectors of society and especially those affected by the human immunodeficiency virus/acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (HIV/AIDS) pandemic.

Food procurement and distribution will again play an important role in the CAP especially for specifically target groups in Zimbabwe. All food aid to targeted beneficiaries in Zimbabwe will again be channelled through our WFP and EuronAid partners and will be distributed at the district level by international and local NGOs. Government or government agencies will play no part in the distribution of food pledged under the CAP.

---

(1)  P5-TA (2003)0066.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/50 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/50

---

(2004/C 88 E/0053)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1923/03

by Helena Torres Marques (PSE) to the Commission

(3 June 2003)

Subject:   EU funds for the Caribbean tourism sector (follow-up to the reply given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission to Written Question P-0743/03)

The reply given by the Commission on 26 March 2003 (to Written Question P-0743/03 (1)) was quite vague and, hence, thus disappointing.

Furthermore, two comments call for an immediate response:

| — | The objective of ‘achieving poverty reduction’ is not valid in relation to most islands of the Caribbean, since they are economically as prosperous as some European countries. |
| --- | --- |

—

The objective of ‘achieving poverty reduction’ is not valid in relation to most islands of the Caribbean, since they are economically as prosperous as some European countries.

| — | The statement that ‘the Caribbean is a specific tourism destination, which means that it is unlikely to be a direct competitor to most European markets’ demonstrates a total misunderstanding of the tourism business. Furthermore, the entire paragraph from which this sentence is extracted contradicts the acknowledgement by the Council in its Resolution of 21 May 2002 on the future of European tourism (2)‘that the leading position occupied by Europe as a tourist destination at world level is slowly weakening’. |
| --- | --- |

—

The statement that ‘the Caribbean is a specific tourism destination, which means that it is unlikely to be a direct competitor to most European markets’ demonstrates a total misunderstanding of the tourism business. Furthermore, the entire paragraph from which this sentence is extracted contradicts the acknowledgement by the Council in its Resolution of 21 May 2002 on the future of European tourism (2)‘that the leading position occupied by Europe as a tourist destination at world level is slowly weakening’.

Could the Commission reassess the two statements set out above, and could it explain clearly how it can, on the one hand, express concern about the decline in the competitiveness of the tourism sector in Europe and, on the other, help competing destinations?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(8 July 2003)

The Commission reaffirms its commitment to supporting tourism development as a way to achieve economic development and poverty reduction. Reference should be made, in this respect, to the Cotonou Agreement, where the role of tourism is clearly stated: (Article 24: ‘Co-operation programmes and projects will support the efforts of ACP countries to establish and improve the countries legal and institutional framework and resources for the development and implementation of sustainable tourism policies and programmes, as well as, inter alia, improve the competitive position of the sector, especially small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), investment support and promotion, product development including the development of indigenous cultures in ACP countries, and strengthening linkages between tourism and other sectors of economic activity’). These are the areas in which the Commission supports the efforts of the African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) countries.

With specific reference to the Caribbean region, the average gross domestic product (GDP) per capita is about EUR 4 500 and two countries fall in the category of Least Developed Countries (LDC). The poverty level is high in countries like Haiti, Guyana, Dominican Republic and Jamaica, representing more than 85 % of the regional population. The countries in the upper middle income category of developing countries, on the other hand, represent only 3,5 %. Furthermore, the Caribbean economies are highly dependent on tourism, which represents directly and indirectly about 900 000 jobs; their income from tourism is very volatile and their economies are very fragile.

The Commission considers that an effective support to tourism development in ACP countries, and in this specific case in the Caribbean region, can contribute to socio-economic development in these regions, and then to a more inclusive and cohesive world economy. Its present policy for tourism development in the Caribbean is aimed at that target.

The limited resources made available by the Commission for tourism development in the Caribbean, presently representing only 3 % of total tourism arrivals, and still a niche market, do not seem such as to undermine the perspectives of European destinations. These perspectives need to be strengthened by means of adequate efforts, undertaken both by private and public actors, to innovate, improve the quality and differentiation of the products offered, market the products in an effective way, and certainly not simply by protecting the sector and limiting our support to developing countries.

---

(1)  OJ C 33 E, 6.2.2004, p. 76.

(2)  OJ C 135, 6.6.2002, p. 1.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/51 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/51

---

(2004/C 88 E/0054)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1928/03

by Maria Carrilho (PSE) to the Commission

(13 June 2003)

Subject:   Aid to uprooted people in Asia and Latin America: revision of Regulation (EC) No 2130/2001 of 29 October 2001

Given the need to avoid any interruption in the aid to uprooted people in Asia and Latin America and the fact that in 2001, prior to the September terrorist attacks, when all donors had reduced their contributions, the Commission, to its credit, sent out a positive signal concerning its strategy by increasing the amounts earmarked for this specific aid, would the Commission answer the following questions:

As the current Regulation (EC) No 2130/2001 (1) of 29 October 2001 is due to expire on 31 December 2004, does the Commission intend to submit a proposal to extend the regulation? If so, when?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(4 July 2003)

In July 2002, the Commission adopted a proposal for a ‘Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning Community co-operation with Asian and Latin American countries’ (2). This proposal has been submitted to the Parliament and the Council and is currently under discussion.

With a view to reducing the number of legal bases, the proposed Regulation also covers Community assistance to uprooted people and will, when adopted, repeal Regulation (EC) No 2130/2001 of the Parliament and of the Council of 29 October 2001 on operations to aid uprooted people in Asian and Latin American developing countries.

Should the adoption of the ‘Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning Community co-operation with Asian and Latin American countries’ be delayed, there would be a risk that the new Regulation would not enter into force before 31 December 2004. In that event the Commission would submit a proposal to extend the period of application of Regulation (EC) No 2130/2001. This proposal for extending the current Regulation would be introduced sufficiently early so as to ensure continuity of assistance to uprooted people.

---

(1)  OJ L 287, 31.10.2001, p. 3.

(2)  OJ C 331 E, 31.12.2002.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/52 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/52

---

(2004/C 88 E/0055)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1949/03

by Christa Randzio-Plath (PSE) to the Commission

(13 June 2003)

Subject:   TEKEL alcohol monopoly

Imports of beer and spirits into Turkey currently face considerable difficulties since, despite the EC-Turkey Association Council of 22 December 1995 on implementation of the final phase of the customs union, Turkey has still not abolished the TEKEL alcohol monopoly. It is true that the alcohol laws were modified one year ago but, firstly, the implementing regulation for the import sector has to my knowledge not yet been adopted and, secondly, it would not anyway be sufficient since, according to existing plans, imports independent of TEKEL are to be allowed only upwards of a specific minimum volume.

| 1. | What is the current state of the EU's negotiations with Turkey on proper implementation of the customs agreement in respect of the import of alcoholic drinks and, in particular, what is the position of the Turkish Government regarding the Commission's call in the autumn of 2001 for it to ensure prompt implementation of the obligations arising out of the customs union agreement for the trade in alcoholic drinks? |
| --- | --- |

1.

What is the current state of the EU's negotiations with Turkey on proper implementation of the customs agreement in respect of the import of alcoholic drinks and, in particular, what is the position of the Turkish Government regarding the Commission's call in the autumn of 2001 for it to ensure prompt implementation of the obligations arising out of the customs union agreement for the trade in alcoholic drinks?

| 2. | Does the existing draft of the implementing regulation for the import sector constitute, in the view of the Commission, adequate implementation of the legislation on liberalisation of the market in alcohol and alcoholic drinks when measured against the objective of opening up the Turkish market to alcoholic drinks? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Does the existing draft of the implementing regulation for the import sector constitute, in the view of the Commission, adequate implementation of the legislation on liberalisation of the market in alcohol and alcoholic drinks when measured against the objective of opening up the Turkish market to alcoholic drinks?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(25 July 2003)

The Commission confirms the Honourable Member's assertion that the TEKEL monopoly has not been abolished by Turkey. However, under Decision 1/95 of the Community-Turkey Association Council (1), Turkey is only obliged to make changes to the monopoly so as to ensure that no discrimination exists regarding the conditions under which goods are procured and marketed between Member States and Turkey.

In 2001, Turkey amended the primary legislation (Law No 4250) by a new Alcohol Act (Law No 4619) which introduced thresholds for independent pricing and distribution. Subsequently, a significant development occurred with the setting up of the Tobacco and Alcoholic Beverages Markets Authority (TABA) by Law No 4733 in January 2002. By this law the regulatory powers of TEKEL were transferred to TABA, which is an independent authority. As a result TABA became responsible for secondary legislation to implement the 2001 Alcohol Act. According to information available to the Commission, a decree to this effect was published on 6 June 2003.

At the Community-Turkey Association Council in April 2003, the Commission and Turkey agreed to establish a joint action plan for the Customs Union in order to address a number of outstanding difficulties, including market access for alcoholic beverages. The action plan drawn up by the Commission services has been sent to Turkey in early July.

Although the Turkish Government has taken steps to comply with its Customs Union obligations with regard to alcoholic beverages, the Commission continues to have doubts over the compatibility of the primary legislation (Law No 4250 as amended by Law No 4619) with these commitments.

The situation will have to be reviewed once the Commission has had the opportunity to assess the impact of the newly adopted secondary legislation (i.e. the implementing decree) from the TABA on the import market.

---

(1)  Decision No 1/95 of the EC-Turkey Association Council of 22 December 1995 on implementing the final phase of the Customs Union, OJ L 35, 13.2.1996.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/53 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/53

---

(2004/C 88 E/0056)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1954/03

by Jannis Sakellariou (PSE) to the Commission

(13 June 2003)

Subject:   Human rights situation facing Yezidi in Georgia

Is the Commission aware of the difficult situation faced by the Yezidi in Georgia? What is the Commission's evaluation of this?

What political efforts are being undertaken to make a lasting improvement to their situation?

What technical and financial possibilities are available to the Commission to support this minority in Georgia?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(18 July 2003)

The Commission understands that the Yezidi, an ethnic minority of non-Muslim Kurds in Georgia, face difficulties that are common to many ethnic minorities in Georgia. The Yezidi constitute a small minority in Georgia and lack the strong political organisation that could supply them with a voice in Georgian decision making. While the Yezidi may not be specifically targeted for discrimination like other ethnic minorities in Georgia, they sometimes suffer from shortcomings in the fields of law enforcement and the rule of law.

The Commission is currently directing its political and technical assistance to Georgia towards the strengthening of governance and the promotion of human rights and civil society. The new Indicative Programme for Georgia proposes cooperation to support institutional, legal and administrative reform and in addressing the social consequences of transition and assistance to social reconstruction. In addition, the Commission continues to put pressure on the Georgian Government to implement its obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights to respect minority rights, and to ratify the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities (FCPNM). The Commission is currently co-funding a project along with the Council of Europe to promote the ratification and effective implementation of the FCPNM, involving governmental as well as non-governmental actors.

The European Initiative for Democracy and Human Rights (EIDHR) is a financing mechanism to support projects by non-governmental organisations worldwide. Georgia is one of 31 EIDHR ‘focus countries’ under this programme. One of the four thematic areas of the EIDHR is support to combat racism and xenophobia and discrimination against minorities and indigenous peoples. Ongoing activities in Georgia under the EIDHR include a recent project — implemented by World Vision Deutschland e. V. — to combat the ethnicisation of conflicts among Georgian citizens in the Georgian regions of Samskhe-Javakheti and Kvemo Kartli, where many Yezidi live. In addition, the Commission's Delegation in Georgia is about to launch a new Call for Proposals for microprojects, under the EIDHR for projects implemented by Georgian non-governmental organisations. One of the priority themes foreseen to be included in this is ‘Support for measures to combat racism and xenophobia and to protect religious and ethnic minorities’. The Call will most likely be published in early July 2003 and the deadline for applications will be September 2003.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/54 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/54

---

(2004/C 88 E/0057)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1984/03

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(16 June 2003)

Subject:   Turkish violations of Greek airspace

Turkish warplanes, often fully armed, are continually violating the rules of air traffic and Greek airspace, and there are frequent interceptions and mock dogfights over the Aegean. These incidents occur on a daily basis: they severely threaten peace in the region, constitute a threat against a Member State and certainly violate the principles of good-neighbourly relations to which Turkey is supposed to have committed itself. On 26 May 2003 General Hilmi Özkök, Chief of the Turkish General Staff, stated that Turkish warplanes would move freely in Greek airspace and that this would not constitute a violation, since it was international airspace.

Has the Commission intervened with the Turkish authorities to put an end to these provocative actions which pose a serious threat to a Member State of the European Union? What else does it intend to do to persuade Turkey to apply the principles of good-neighbourly relations vis-à-vis Greece and other neighbouring countries, a policy to which it has committed itself?

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/54 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/54

---

(2004/C 88 E/0058)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2050/03

by Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(20 June 2003)

Subject:   Harassment of a Greek passenger plane by Turkish warplanes

On Monday, 9 June, Turkish warplanes harassed an Olympic Airways passenger plane on flight 321 from Athens to Istanbul. This incident took place in international airspace, but within Greece's area of responsibility, the Athens Flight Information Region (FIR).

| 1. | How does the Commission view these actions, and how may they affect Turkey's prospects of EU membership? |
| --- | --- |

1.

How does the Commission view these actions, and how may they affect Turkey's prospects of EU membership?

| 2. | What kind of initiatives will the Commission take to prevent any recurrence of such incidents which jeopardise the safety of passengers? |
| --- | --- |

2.

What kind of initiatives will the Commission take to prevent any recurrence of such incidents which jeopardise the safety of passengers?

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/55 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/55

---

(2004/C 88 E/0059)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2083/03

by Rodi Kratsa-Tsagaropoulou (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(24 June 2003)

Subject:   Violations of Greek air space by Turkish aircraft and security of the inhabitants of the Aegean

During a recent visit to the border islands of Samos and Ikaria I experienced the deep anxiety felt by the inhabitants at the constant, provocative violations of Aegean air space by Turkish warplanes and the impact which they have on the lives and security of the local people as well as their livelihood in the tourist industry.

The alarm was compounded, in particular, following the recent incident in which two Turkish F16 fighters harassed an Olympic Airways flight bound for Istanbul from Athens.

What view does the Commission take of Turkey's conduct in this respect and what measures will it take forthwith to put an end to such violations by Turkey?

What measures will it take to address the insecurity felt by European citizens living in or travelling through the Aegean and to restore normality and peace to the wider region?

Joint answer

to Written Questions E-1984/03, E-2050/03 and E-2083/03

given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(7 August 2003)

As an EU Candidate Country, Turkey has undertaken to comply with the criteria for accession.

In terms of the specific issue raised by the Honourable Member, the Commission recalls the principle of peaceful settlement of border disputes and other related issues as established under paragraph 4 of the Helsinki European Council Conclusions in December 1999.

Under the revised Accession Partnership with Turkey, adopted on 19 May 2003 (1), there is a specific priority relating to this principle.

The Commission is monitoring closely the progress achieved by Turkey in this and other areas and will make a detailed assessment in its Regular Report to be published on 5 November 2003.

---

(1)  OJ L 145, 12.6.2003.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/55 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/55

---

(2004/C 88 E/0060)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1985/03

by Anna Karamanou (PSE) to the Commission

(16 June 2003)

Subject:   Scandal involving illegal sterilisations in Slovakia

Two non-governmental organisations have alleged that over the last 14 years at least 110 women from the Roma community in eastern Slovakia have been forcibly sterilised. Furthermore, the women were misinformed about reproductive health issues and suffered discrimination regarding access to the competent healthcare centres and their personal medical records.

Does the Commission intend to exert pressure on the Slovakian government to thoroughly investigate the above accusations and punish those responsible for this inhuman crime, so as to protect the health and reproductive rights of women in this country and the human rights of its minorities, thereby honouring its commitments as a new Member State of the European Union?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(31 July 2003)

The Commission is aware of the allegations, published in a report of the ‘Center for Reproductive Rights’ at the beginning of 2003, that Roma women have been sterilised without their consent or with coerced consent by doctors in Eastern Slovakia. The report also raised other human rights violations such as discriminatory access to health-care resources and treatment.

As already stated in its answers to questions E-0434/03 of Mr Meijer (1), E-0575/03 of Mrs Maes (2) and P-1630/03 of Mrs Maes (3), the Commission has immediately addressed this issue in a letter to Slovak Prime Minister Dzurinda, underlining that these allegations are a matter of serious concern and if proved to be true, would constitute a serious breach of human rights, provided the public authorities have supported or tolerated such occurrences or have not taken proper legal actions in this respect. Moreover, the Commission has asked the Slovak authorities to vigorously carry out the necessary criminal investigations, to remedy possible discriminatory measures and to keep the Commission informed about the proceedings.

In his reply, the Slovak Prime Minister informed the Commission that the competent authorities had launched the criminal investigations, with a special investigation team being set up. Furthermore, the Roma advisor to the Ministry of Interior, a Roma himself, had been assigned to consult this team and the Ministry of Health and the Slovak Gynaecological Society had been closely associated with the investigations. Furthermore, the Council of Europe has recently conducted a fact-finding mission to Eastern Slovakia to look into the sterilisation issue.

The Commission will continue to closely monitor the further proceedings and outcome of the investigations and will consider further measures, if appropriate and necessary.

---

(1)  See page 12.

(2)  OJ C 33 E, 6.2.2004, p. 55.

(3)  See page 37.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/56 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/56

---

(2004/C 88 E/0061)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2004/03

by Salvador Garriga Polledo (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(16 June 2003)

Subject:   World Medicines Bank for poor countries

An increasingly broad body of opinion is in favour of setting up a World Medicines Bank for developing countries whose poverty deprives them of even the most basic medicinal products that are taken for granted in any civilised society.

Those in favour of the setting up of such a bank consider that the current attitude of the rich countries — which, totally absorbed by their quest for growth and wealth, are blind to the urgent need to help a large section of the world's population that is suffering from a shortage of medicinal products and is obliged to live with pain on a daily basis as a result — reflects a dismaying lack of solidarity.

What view does the Commission take of the calls by a large section of the world population for the setting up of a World Medicines Bank, and would it be prepared to take the lead in this matter, at least vis-à-vis the current and new EU Member States?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(8 August 2003)

The Commission has been and is at the forefront of increasing access to affordable pharmaceutical products, especially in the fight against human immunodeficiency virus/acquired immune deficiency syndrome (HIV/AIDS), malaria and tuberculosis (TB). In 2001 the Commission adopted a Programme for Action (PfA) entitled Accelerated action on HIV/AIDS, malaria and TB in the context of poverty reduction. This action plan aims at increasing the impact of existing interventions, increasing the affordability of key pharmaceuticals, and encouraging research in and development of specific global public goods to tackle HIV/AIDS, malaria and TB at the national, regional and global level. This Programme has received more than EUR 1 billion.

Two years after its adoption the PfA remains a comprehensive, forward looking and coherent Union policy framework aimed at making a significant contribution towards improved country, regional and global action against the three communicable diseases. The Commission will continue to work on a long term approach within the framework of the Doha Declaration on trade related aspects of intellectual property rights (TRIPS) and Public Health. The Commission will continue to promote tiered pricing, technology transfer and local production, to facilitate sustained access to affordable medicines. This approach is complemented by investment in the development of better preventive, diagnostic and therapeutic products through increased funding through the 6th Research Framework Programme. Furthermore, the Union has strongly supported the creation of the Global Health Fund, which targets the financing of specific projects: the Union contributes up to 55 % of the EUR 4,5 billions which are allocated to this Fund.

Given these elements, the Commission does not see the added value of creating new institutions in this field.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/57 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/57

---

(2004/C 88 E/0062)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2019/03

by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(17 June 2003)

Subject:   Anti-dumping duty on bicycles imported from China

Early in 1993, the Commission announced its intention to impose an anti-dumping duty on imports of bicycles originating in the People's Republic of China. ‘The rate of the duty, applicable to the net free-at-Community-frontier price, before duty, shall be 34,4 %.’ (IP/93/182 of 11 March 1993). This measure remains in force until July 2005.

What favourable or unfavourable impact has this measure had on the European bicycle industry?

Does the Commission intend to extend this anti-dumping duty?

If so, can it provide further details?

If not, why not?

If it is decided not to extend the measure, what consequences is this likely to have for the European bicycle industry?

How will the Commission deal with these consequences?

Answer given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(15 July 2003)

The proceeding was initiated following a request of the European Bicycle Manufacturers Association (EBMA) and the Council imposed definitive measures by Council Regulation (EEC) No 2474/93 of 8 September 1993 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports into the Community of bicycles originating in the People's Republic of China and collecting definitively the provisional anti-dumping duty (1). The rate of duty was fixed at 30,6 %. This duty rate was confirmed following an expiry review which was concluded by Council Regulation (EC) No 1524/2000 of 10 July 2000 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of bicycles originating in the People's Republic of China (2). Subsequently, an interim review was opened at the request of four producers claiming market economy status. This review was terminated by Council Regulation (EC) No 2131/2001 of 29 October 2001 (3) without changing the level of the measures, because the applicants had withdrawn their review request. The measures will expire in July 2005 unless a full interim or expiry review confirming the continued need of the measures is opened before that date.

In accordance to Article 11 (2) of the Anti-dumping Basic Regulation (4), Community producers are entitled to lodge a request for an expiry review no later than three months before expiration of the duties. Pursuant to Article 5(5) of the Anti-dumping Basic Regulation, the Commission is not able to comment on requests or complaints seeking the initiation of an investigation prior to a decision being taken on whether or not to actually initiate an investigation ... Should such an expiry review be initiated, a notice of initiation would normally be published in the Official Journal of the European Union shortly before the scheduled expiry of the measure, i.e. in this case, 10 July 2005. The same would happen in case that measures were allowed to expire, i.e. a notice announcing the actual expiry of the measures would be published in the Official Journal around the date of the expiry of the measures. Up to date no notice has been published concerning the above-mentioned measures.

Future developments on this proceeding can be followed at the following address on the Internet: (http://europa.eu.int/comm/trade/policy/dumping/stats.htm).

With regard to the impact of the measures for the Community Industry, this information is not collected systematically outside an investigation. Since no investigation is ongoing, the Commission does not have any information at the moment. However, it should be noted that EBMA has argued in the last review that the expiry of measures would be likely to result in continuation or recurrence of dumping and injury to the Community Industry. For any further information concerning the impact of the measures, the Commission suggests the Honourable Member to contact the EBMA directly.

---

(1)  OJ L 228, 9.9.1993.

(2)  OJ L 175, 14.7.2000.

(3)  OJ L 287, 31.10.2001.

(4)  Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 of 22 December 1995 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community, OJ L 56, 6.3.1996.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/58 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/58

---

(2004/C 88 E/0063)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2022/03

by Lennart Sacrédeus (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(17 June 2003)

Subject:   Arrest of Nobel Peace Prize laureate Aung San Suu Kyi

Burma's leading advocate of human rights and democracy, the Nobel Peace Prize laureate Aung San Suu Kyi, was detained on 30 May 2003 near Monywa in Burma. The country's military junta says that Aung San Suu Kyi and 19 other members of her National League for Democracy Party (NLD) have been placed in ‘protective custody’ following clashes between her supporters and pro-government demonstrators in northern Burma.

More than 100 students, NLD supporters and Buddhist monks were arrested in the early hours of 31 May 2003; a number of members of parliament were also detained. Seven high-ranking NLD officials were placed under house arrest and more than 50 local branches of the NLD party were forced to shut down. The arrests are viewed as the biggest defeat for democracy in Burma for many years.

What real pressure has the Commission and the EU exerted to persuade the junta in Burma immediately to release the Nobel Peace Prize laureate Aung San Suu Kyi and the other detainees, including the members of parliament? How can the EU lend force to the demands that the military junta should break the spiral of violence and pave the way for a speedy transition to democracy?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(7 July 2003)

The Commission and Member States have repeatedly called for the immediate release of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and the arrested NLD officials and supporters, the reopening of NLD offices throughout the country as well as the reopening of all universities in Burma/Myanmar.

On 16 June 2003 the Union also decided to implement without delay the strengthened sanctions which are specifically targeted on the military leaders and their supporters. Originally there were envisaged to enter into force on or before 29 October 2003 as agreed in the Common Position on Burma/Myanmar (2003/297/CFSP) of 28 April 2003 (1).

In addition, the Union has intensified discussions on the situation in Burma/Myanmar with its dialogue partners in Asia in order to encourage them to use their influence on the Burmese Government to release Aung San Suu Kyi and support progress on the issues of good governance, and economic reform. On 17 June 2003, the Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN) has launched an unprecedented call to Burma/Myanmar for ‘a peaceful transition to democracy’.

It is encouraging to see the strong international reaction to the detention of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, and the Commission sincerely hopes that this consolidated pressure will influence the Burmese Government to release her and all her supporters and finally show some signs of willingness to work towards national reconciliation and a return to democracy.

---

(1)  OJ L 106, 29.4.2003.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/59 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/59

---

(2004/C 88 E/0064)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2024/03

by Maurizio Turco (NI) to the Commission

(17 June 2003)

Subject:   Violation of freedom of worship in Turkmenistan

There are serious, continual and systematic violations of freedom of worship in Turkmenistan.

The latest of countless attacks against the Protestant church in the country happened on 31 May. Five members of the church in the city of Abadam, Nuri Berdiev, Nabat Niyazova, Guzelya Syraeva, Lyudmila Galkina and Akgulya Niyazova were taken from their homes by the local police and interrogated at length at the police station. The police also confiscated books and threatened to seize their apartment if they continued to meet there for the purposes of worship.

This attack was only the latest in a long series of acts of repression and intimidation on the part of the Turkmenistan authorities against Catholics, Protestants and Jehovah's Witnesses, none of whom are authorised to be registered with the government authorities, and their activities are considered illegal.

Furthermore, the OCSE office in the Turkmen capital has refused to comment on the reports of raids and violations of religious freedom in Turkmenistan, and Dieter Matthei, an OCSE official in Ashgabad, states that he has no information on the attacks against Protestants and that for any information about freedom of religion in Turkmenistan one should apply to the OCSE head office in Vienna.

In view of the above, can the Commission say whether it is aware of the serious, persistent and systematic violation of religious freedom in Turkmenistan and the events mentioned?

What steps will it take or request in order to exert pressure on the Turkmenistan authorities to ensure that religious freedom is guaranteed in the country?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(16 July 2003)

The Commission is very concerned about the difficulties faced by religious groups which wish to establish themselves in Turkmenistan.

While the Constitution of Turkmenistan ensures religious freedom, the law implementing the Constitution requires all religious groups to register officially and do so with the support of 500 signatures of citizens over 18 years old. The law effectively restricts all religious activity other than Sunni Islam and the Russian Orthodox Church.

There is at present no formal bilateral framework for discussing these matters between EU institutions and Turkmen authorities since our Trade and Cooperation Agreement does not cover issues of human rights.

However, the Commission is working actively with the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) Office for Democratic Institutions on promoting human rights in Turkmenistan.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/60 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/60

---

(2004/C 88 E/0065)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2028/03

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(18 June 2003)

Subject:   Greek customs authorities' unnecessarily lengthy procedure of collecting up EU citizens' passports at the border with Macedonia, a procedure that is also open to fraud

| 1. | Is the Commission aware that in trains from Greece to Skopje in Macedonia and Belgrade in Serbia the passports of nationals of other EU Member States are collected up shortly after leaving Thessaloniki by a person who is not recognisable as a Greek government official, and passengers are merely told that their passports can be collected later from the police? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is the Commission aware that in trains from Greece to Skopje in Macedonia and Belgrade in Serbia the passports of nationals of other EU Member States are collected up shortly after leaving Thessaloniki by a person who is not recognisable as a Greek government official, and passengers are merely told that their passports can be collected later from the police?

| 2. | Is the Commission also aware that at the police station in the Greek border town of Idomeni, where the passports can be collected, nothing whatsoever is done with the passports and they are merely given back after a waiting period? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Is the Commission also aware that at the police station in the Greek border town of Idomeni, where the passports can be collected, nothing whatsoever is done with the passports and they are merely given back after a waiting period?

| 3. | Does the Commission agree with me that maintaining a procedure, which was also in force many years ago at this border, involves the risk of passports being collected by unauthorised persons, or of one or more passports from the large number collected by an authorised person being lost, or of unattended luggage left behind in the train being stolen? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Does the Commission agree with me that maintaining a procedure, which was also in force many years ago at this border, involves the risk of passports being collected by unauthorised persons, or of one or more passports from the large number collected by an authorised person being lost, or of unattended luggage left behind in the train being stolen?

| 4. | Are citizens of EU Member States in fact allowed to hand over their passports to a person who is not recognisable as an authorised official or are they entitled to refuse to do so? |
| --- | --- |

4.

Are citizens of EU Member States in fact allowed to hand over their passports to a person who is not recognisable as an authorised official or are they entitled to refuse to do so?

| 5. | What is the point of this procedure other than the fact that requiring passengers to disembark and wait generates customers for the duty-free shops in Idomeni station or that it delays traffic with a neighbouring country whose name is considered undesirable? |
| --- | --- |

5.

What is the point of this procedure other than the fact that requiring passengers to disembark and wait generates customers for the duty-free shops in Idomeni station or that it delays traffic with a neighbouring country whose name is considered undesirable?

| 6. | What action can the EU take to speed up and normalise passports checks at this border, in particular for EU citizens? What is the Commission doing to facilitate a solution? |
| --- | --- |

6.

What action can the EU take to speed up and normalise passports checks at this border, in particular for EU citizens? What is the Commission doing to facilitate a solution?

Supplementary answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(20 April 2004)

As part of its investigation into the circumstances referred to by the Honourable Member in his written question, the Commission contacted the Greek authorities on 30 September 2003 to notify them of the complaint and to ask them to provide the Commission with detailed information on the checks carried out on board trains leaving Greece and entering the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM) at the Idomeni border post. Having received no reply to its letter, the Commission sent a reminder to the Greek authorities on 7 January 2004.

In two letters received on 16 and 28 January 2004 respectively the Greek authorities disputed the Honourable Member's version of events and stated that checks at the Idomeni border post and on the train were carried out in accordance with the rules laid down in the Common Manual. The Greek authorities stressed that the checks were carried out on the train in the course of the journey, that all travel documents were checked and that documents were stamped in accordance with the rules (in respect of Community nationals amongst others, point 2.1.1 of the Common Manual states that documents should not be stamped).

In particular, according to the information provided, on both the trains serving this route each day, checks are carried out on board the train by uniformed police officers who check passengers individually and collect travel documents. In addition to these checks by uniformed police officers, another police officer from the same department but in plain clothes is responsible for general inspection and surveillance duties on the train. This officer wears his departmental badge on the outside left pocket of his shirt.

With regard to the complaint, the Greek authorities note that no instance has been reported of a specific request being made to a plain clothes officer carrying out checks to produce his identity.

As regards the conditions in which travel documents are collected, the Greek authorities refer to the less rigorous checks at external borders indicated in the Common Manual for persons travelling in sleeper or couchette compartments. For those persons, the Common Manual states (point 3.2.4) that the documents enabling them to cross the border shall normally be checked by the attendant, provided that he has collected those documents in compliance with the rules applicable to him and that he keeps them available for checks.

As regards the length of checks, the Greek authorities maintain that, as a rule, it does not exceed 30 seconds for Community nationals and one minute for third-country nationals; however, they do not deny the possibility of delays, particularly during the summer, as a result of the significant increase in rail traffic.

On the basis of the clarifications provided by the Greek authorities on the arrangements for checks on the train and in the absence of other specific details on travel arrangements, the Commission does not consider that the Greek authorities have failed to apply the Community rules on checks at external borders correctly in the case referred to by the Honourable Member.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/61 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/61

---

(2004/C 88 E/0066)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2055/03

by Bartho Pronk (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(20 June 2003)

Subject:   Trade union rights for police officers in Latvia

| 1. | Is it true that police officers in Latvia are not entitled to form a trade union? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is it true that police officers in Latvia are not entitled to form a trade union?

| 2. | Is not that situation in breach of ILO Conventions, the Council of Europe's Social Charter and the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Is not that situation in breach of ILO Conventions, the Council of Europe's Social Charter and the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights?

| 3. | Has the Commission discussed this situation with the Latvian Government? If not, why not? If so, what was the outcome of the discussion? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Has the Commission discussed this situation with the Latvian Government? If not, why not? If so, what was the outcome of the discussion?

| 4. | Why has the Commission not referred to this issue in the annual progress reports? |
| --- | --- |

4.

Why has the Commission not referred to this issue in the annual progress reports?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(12 August 2003)

The Latvian Police Law, which was adopted in 1991, does indeed prohibit police officers from forming trade unions.

The Convention for the Protection of Human and Fundamental Rights, and notably in its Article 11 (2), last sentence, provides, however, for lawful restrictions to the freedom of association with respect to the police. Moreover, certain articles of the International Labour Organisation (ILO) Convention also allow for such restrictions.

The Social Charter of the Council of Europe, which was ratified by Latvia in 2002, also allows the contracting parties to determine by national law or regulations the extent to which the right to organise shall apply to the police.

The European Union's Charter of Fundamental Rights which does not contain any such restriction is not yet a legally binding text. Even if it was so, it would not be applicable in areas which are not related to the exercice of Community competences.

Within the limits of its mandate, the Commission continues to follow this issue, as well as other social fundamental and human rights issues throughout the accession process.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/62 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/62

---

(2004/C 88 E/0067)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2058/03

by Nelly Maes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(20 June 2003)

Subject:   ACP bananas

Commission Regulation (EC) No 1609/1999 (1) established a framework for temporary technical and financial assistance for traditional ACP suppliers of bananas with a view to enabling them to adapt to new market conditions in the banana sector or to diversify where their products were insufficiently competitive.

Now, however, questions are being asked about the method used for the calculation of the assistance and about the transparency of that method, where double standards seem to apply.

In meetings with OCAB (the pineapple and banana growers central organisation), the Commission has already admitted that the use of statistics supplied by Eurostat results in the Regulation being the incorrectly implemented, but it has apparently taken no steps whatsoever to rectify the situation.

What does the Commission intend to do to ensure that Regulation (EC) No 1609/1999 is correctly implemented?

---

(1)  OJ L 190, 23.7.1999, p. 14.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/62 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/62

---

(2004/C 88 E/0068)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2091/03

by Paulo Casaca (PSE) to the Commission

(24 June 2003)

Subject:   Rules for calculating aid for tropical products from ACP countries

The central organisation of pineapple and banana producers and exporters in the Ivory Coast has forwarded me a copy of a letter sent to the Commission on 28 May 2003. As for all the ACP countries which export pineapples and bananas, this activity is crucial for the Ivory Coast, and it is also crucial that the EU institutions should have clear, objective and fair rules regarding imports from these countries. I therefore read the above letter, in my capacity as vice-chairman of the Committee on Budgetary Control, with great concern.

Can the Commission draw up a report providing a full explanation of the situation regarding aid and the imposition of customs duties on these tropical fruits in Europe, setting out possible shortcomings and ways of remedying them?

Can the Commission ensure that this report will be available for consideration by Parliament in the context of the discharge procedure for the 2002 budget?

Joint answer

to Written Questions E-2058/03 and E-2091/03

given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(31 July 2003)

Commission Regulation No (EC) 1609/1999 lays down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation No (EC) 856/1999 establishing the Special Framework of Assistance (SFA) to traditional African, Caribbean and Pacific States (ACP) supplies of bananas, including the methodology to be applied for calculating the yearly individual amounts. Further to OCAB's letter referred to in both questions, on 20 June 2003 the Commission met representatives from OCAB and discussed at length the issues therein raised. As already clarified in previous contacts, the Commission side once again explained the background of the SFA and its logic. In accordance with it, as stated by the provisions in force, so far the less competitive suppliers (e.g. the Caribbean producers) have received more support and the ones scoring better in competitiveness (like Ivory Coast) have been granted lower allocations. As of 2004, it is foreseen in both Council and Commission regulations that the logic be adjusted. A reduction coefficient will have to be applied to all beneficiaries, but the reduction will be lower for those ACPs having achieved competitiveness gains, and will be proportional to those gains. In that meeting, OCAB themselves stated that in their view the Commission has always applied the method prescribed by the Commission Regulation in a correct and fair manner. It was also clarified to OCAB that the Commission has never considered or suggested that the use of Eurostat data leads to a distorted application of the Commission Regulation. On the contrary, the Commission side drew its counterparts' attention to the need to have objective, comparable and timely available data to calculate the individual allocations every year. At the time when the SFA was established, it was found that only the cost, insurance, freight (CIF) Eurostat prices met all those criteria at once. So far no viable alternative could be suggested by OCAB or by any other concerned parties.

As to the request for a report on the situation of both the aid scheme and the customs duties, the Commission would like to recall that its biennial report to the Council and the Parliament (1) on the operation of the Council Regulation establishing the SFA is currently being examined by the Parliament. Also, not later than 31 December 2004, the Commission will submit a report on the Common Market Organisation for bananas to the Parliament and the Council, as required by Article 32 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 404/93 of 13 February 1993 on the common organisation of the market in bananas (2). This report will in particular examine the evolution of both trade flows in ACP bananas and of their shares in the Community market. The Commission has taken note of OCAB queries on certain specific statistical data and it is presently looking into this matter, aided by both Eurostat and the competent authorities of Member States who collect them.

On the basis of the above considerations, the Commission does not see any reason for amending the legislation in force. It should be stressed that the current provisions have successfully provided the traditional ACP suppliers, including Ivory Coast, with significant financial assistance throughout a delicate period of transition for this industry.

Although OCAB's remarks only concerned bananas, for the sake of completeness the Honourable Member's attention is drawn to the fact that specific financial assistance for pineapples is presently provided only to Martinique and the Azores in the framework of the legislation in force for the Community's outermost regions. The management of such assistance has not encountered so far any significant problem.

---

(1)  COM(2002) 763 final.

(2)  OJ L 47, 25.2.1993.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/64 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/64

---

(2004/C 88 E/0069)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2066/03

by Maurizio Turco (NI) to the Commission

(20 June 2003)

Subject:   Republic of Italy: application of the directive on VAT in connection with intra-Community supplies

With a view to transposing the directive on VAT in connection with intra-Community supplies, the Italian Government has introduced:

| (a) | a specific type of invoice (intra-EU invoice) designed to enable individuals to deduct VAT from goods purchased for professional purposes in another Member State; |
| --- | --- |

(a)

a specific type of invoice (intra-EU invoice) designed to enable individuals to deduct VAT from goods purchased for professional purposes in another Member State;

| (b) | a specific annual VAT return. |
| --- | --- |

(b)

a specific annual VAT return.

This procedure also applies to individuals who purchase goods or services not with a view to their resale in their own Member State, but solely for personal use in the exercise of their profession.

Moreover:

| — | many retail outlets abroad and a number of e-businesses — such as Amazon — are unaware of the existence of intra-EU invoices and thus refuse to issue them, thereby preventing the purchaser from deducting VAT; |
| --- | --- |

—

many retail outlets abroad and a number of e-businesses — such as Amazon — are unaware of the existence of intra-EU invoices and thus refuse to issue them, thereby preventing the purchaser from deducting VAT;

| — | the annual return required in Italy is so complicated that the cost of employing an accountant to draw up the return amounts to some EUR 100. |
| --- | --- |

—

the annual return required in Italy is so complicated that the cost of employing an accountant to draw up the return amounts to some EUR 100.

Accordingly, can the Commission state:

| — | whether it does not take the view that the relevant EU legislation (which provides for a specific type of invoice, although many shops are unaware of its existence and/or refuse to issue it), and the relevant Italian legislation (as regards the excessively costly annual return) infringe the principle of the single market? |
| --- | --- |

—

whether it does not take the view that the relevant EU legislation (which provides for a specific type of invoice, although many shops are unaware of its existence and/or refuse to issue it), and the relevant Italian legislation (as regards the excessively costly annual return) infringe the principle of the single market?

| — | Whether there might be scope for measures designed to simplify these procedures? |
| --- | --- |

—

Whether there might be scope for measures designed to simplify these procedures?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(16 July 2003)

According to Article 22 of the 6th 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 (1), every taxable person shall issue an invoice, or other document serving as an invoice, in respect of goods and services which he has supplied or rendered to another taxable person or to a non-taxable legal person.

In respect of intra-Community supplies of goods, this means that solely the Member State where the supplier is established is competent to determine the requirements of the invoice to be issued. Accordingly, the Member State of destination cannot impose any further requirement in order to enable individuals to deduct VAT on goods or services purchased in another Member State.

By means of his question, the Honourable Member alleges that the Italian Government would only accept a specific type of ‘intra EU’ invoice in order to allow taxpayers to deduct VAT on goods or services purchased in another Member State.

Should this be the case, the Commission will examine whether Italy is acting contrary to the principles established in the Sixth Directive, thus infringing Community law.

However, it should be pointed out that on 20 December 2001, the Council adopted Directive 2001/115/EC amending Directive 77/388/EEC with a view to simplifying, modernising and harmonising the conditions laid down for invoicing in respect of value added tax (2). This Directive will enter into force on 1 January 2004. It will abolish the present discrepancies between national requirements regarding the invoicing requirements.

The Honourable Member considers that the annual return required in Italy is very complicated.

According to Article 22 of the 6th VAT Directive, Member States can determine most of the rules regarding declarations, recapitulative statements and recapitulative declarations.

Provided that certain minimum requirements are respected, Member States are therefore free to determine the format and content of those declarations.

The Commission is, however, well aware that the complexity and diversity of VAT obligations in the different Member States may cause serious difficulties for traders, mainly for those who have to account for VAT in more than one Member State.

It has therefore carried out a comprehensive study on this issue, with a view to making appropriate proposals in 2004. This study is presently available on the Commission Website (under ‘Your Voice in Europe’): (3) for public consultation.

---

(1)  OJ L 145, 13.6.1977. Directive as last amended by Council Directive 2002/92/EC of 3 December 2002, OJ L 331, 7.12.2002.

(2)  OJ L 15, 17.1.2002.

(3)  http://europa.eu.int/yourvoice/index_en.htm

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/65 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/65

---

(2004/C 88 E/0070)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2078/03

by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(17 June 2003)

Subject:   Portuguese milk quota

In a recent meeting with milk producers in northern Portugal, the author of this question was made aware of the unfair treatment being inflicted on Portuguese farmers who exceeded the milk quota by the end of March.

These farmers have been penalised, whereas, by contrast, it has just been reported in Italy that an agreement has been reached to settle the problems of Italian farmers in the same situation.

Can the Commission provide information on the specific conditions of the Italian agreement and state what measures it plans or intends to take to remedy the unfair treatment of the Portuguese farmers?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(7 July 2003)

The question would seem to refer to a decision taken by the Council on its own initiative, under the special procedure provided for in the third subparagraph of Article 88(2) of the EC Treaty, and falls outside the competence of the Commission. The question should therefore be addressed to the Council.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/65 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/65

---

(2004/C 88 E/0071)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2086/03

by Glenys Kinnock (PSE) to the Commission

(24 June 2003)

Subject:   Situation of Christians in Egypt

Is the Commission aware of the persecutions faced by the Christian minority in Egypt? Converts from Islam to Christianity have, in particular, been reported to have been prevented from registering their change of faith on their passport, and thus from leaving the country.

Is the Commission taking any steps to ensure that there is freedom of worship for Egyptian Christians?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(9 July 2003)

The Commission is aware of problems faced by the substantial Egyptian Christian community. The Commission has met with members of the Coptic hierarchy on several occasions to discuss them, and have also closely followed incidents involving violence against Christians.

On the issue of converts to Christianity and freedom of movement, the Commission is following this question up through its delegation in Cairo. Its preliminary information is that information on religion is not mentioned on passports, although this may arise in the case of identity cards.

As part of the Barcelona process, the Egyptian Government is committed to the fundamental principles relating to human rights and democracy. This is reflected in the text of the Association Agreement in the process of ratification. Questions relating to human rights, including religious freedom, are dealt with as part of the political dialogue between the Union and Egypt, in which the Commission plays its full part. Human rights were discussed at the Union-Egypt ministerial meeting on 16/17 June 2003.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/66 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/66

---

(2004/C 88 E/0072)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2089/03

by José Gil-Robles Gil-Delgado (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(24 June 2003)

Subject:   Clarification concerning the budget line for non-governmental organisations involved in combating torture

The European Parliament has supported victims of torture all over the world since 1993. Two budget headings were created for this purpose — one for third countries (B7-70) and another for the European Union (B5-813). Thanks to aid from the European Union, programmes of assistance have been maintained and developed in most countries of the world, both for victims of torture in those countries themselves and for refugees and asylum-seekers.

The Commission has decided to step up its efforts in this area and we in the European Parliament back its decision, but we are aware that the initiative is having an immediate effect on the situation of existing victims, since no new funding has been allocated for them, resulting in the closure of many centres which were dependent on such funding.

What is the actual impact of this change in policy? Are assistance and prevention two separate strategies? What is the scope of the decision? Is European Union funding sufficient for prevention and assistance or should the present figure be increased? What is envisaged with regard to this funding?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(28 July 2003)

The Commission decided to adopt a more strategic approach to funding channelled through the European Initiative for Democracy and Human Rights (EIDHR) and the Commission's Communication on Human Rights and Democratisation of May 2001 (1) identified four thematic priorities for future EIDHR support, including the prevention of torturer and the rehabilitation of torture victims. In line with the need to focus limited funds more effectively, the Communication also underlined that the Union should seek to focus as much as possible on the prevention of torture. The subsequent programming document for the European Initiative for Democracy and Human Rights (EIDHR) in 2002-2004 noted that funding would be re-oriented in the direction of prevention of torture in the longer term.

The reduction in funds for rehabilitation centres has been accompanied by measures designed to reduce existing dependency on Community funding in a progressive fashion, with the aim of enabling centres to look for funds from other sources. For example, the 2001 call reduced the maximum percentage support for rehabilitation projects to 60 % for centres inside the Union and 80 % for projects outside the Union. These percentages were further reduced in the 2002 call to 50 % and 75 % respectively. The degree of importance afforded to sustainability questions during the assessment process is also an important factor. Moreover, ‘Institutional strengthening’, which includes the development of fund-raising capabilities, was explicitly eligible for funding in 2001 and 2002.

The 2002 Call for Proposals was designed to continue this process. The Call, for EUR 25 million, covered the funding of torture prevention projects and rehabilitation centres, with a plan to allocate 1/3 and 2/3 of the funds available to those two fields of activities respectively. All projects submitted were evaluated by two experts, which both had experience in torture issues. The projects were ranked according to score and were selected with a view to ensuring a balance in the geographical distribution of the proposed activities.

The quality of the projects submitted by the rehabilitation centres for activities based within the Union (budget line B5-813) did, in fact, produce a result which respected the planned balance. However, the projects submitted by centres based outside the Union scored rather badly (sometimes below the minimum required), which did not allow for the selection of sufficient rehabilitation projects to respect the envisaged 2/3 to 1/3 balance. Around EUR 4,5 million was allocated to centres outside the Union (for the period 2002-2003), with around EUR 8 million being provided for torture prevention projects. Approximately EUR 4 million was allocated for rehabilitation centres inside the Union, with an additional EUR 2 million for projects including aspects in support of victims of torture.

As regards the likelihood of centres closing as a result of failure to secure Community support, this must be considered in light of the expressed policy to move away from rehabilitation and towards prevention and the measures outlined above which have accompanied that change in policy. Support to centres can only be given in accordance with competitive rules designed to ensure that the Union taxpayer gets value for money by only funding the best proposals, which meet minimum quality requirements.

A further call for EUR 11,5 million will be launched in 2003 for rehabilitation centres inside the Union under budget line B5-813 (covering the 2003 and 2004 budget, with the reservation that the use of 2004 credits is also approved).

The Commission is currently reflecting on the programming of the EIDHR for 2004 and beyond and held a special non-governmental organisations seminar on 14 July 2003 in order to canvass views on thematic priorities, including torture.

---

(1)  COM(2001) 252 final.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/67 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/67

---

(2004/C 88 E/0073)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2104/03

by Bob van den Bos (ELDR) to the Commission

(18 June 2003)

Subject:   Burmese Rohingya refugees

In addition to the approximately 22 000 Rohingya refugees currently accommodated at the two official refugee camps in Bangladesh, a further 4 000 illegal refugees are residing at the new, unrecognised Teknaf Makeshift Camp, which will shortly be in danger of flooding as the monsoon season begins.

Is the Commission aware of the situation of the Rohingya refugees at Teknaf Makeshift Camp?

Has the Commission contacted the Government of Bangladesh to offer assistance (e.g. emergency aid) to the Rohingyas? If not, will it do so?

Has the Commission had any contact with the UNHCR about the situation of these refugees and ways of helping them?

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/68 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/68

---

(2004/C 88 E/0074)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2155/03

by Hanja Maij-Weggen (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(24 June 2003)

Subject:   Position of the Rohingya in Bangladesh

Is the Commission aware of the subordinate position of the Rohingya people in Arakan/Burma, where they are deprived of citizenship and subjected to flagrant human rights violations, and of the deportation of some 121 000 Rohingya to Bangladesh, where 21 000 of them have been forcibly housed by the Bangladeshi authorities in two officially recognised refugee camps and at least 100 000 more live as illegal immigrants?

Is the Commission aware of the existence of a new, unofficial makeshift camp in Teknaf, established by the Bangladeshi army after Operation Clean Heart, where 4 000 illegal immigrants are forced to live in inhuman conditions and no assistance is given by the Bangladeshi authorities, and which from July will be in danger of being washed away by the monsoon, giving rise to a humanitarian disaster?

Is the Commission prepared to bring pressure to bear on the Bangladeshi authorities to allow emergency help to be brought to the Teknaf makeshift camp, thus preventing a humanitarian disaster?

Joint answer

to Written Questions P-2104/03 and P-2155/03

given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(23 July 2003)

The Commission has closely followed the Rohingya refugee situation in Bangladesh ever since the beginning of the crisis. It has provided support to two official refugee camps in Cox's Bazar since their inception through the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) and is still currently doing so. In view of the continued unstable socio-political situation in Myanmar the Commission has requested the Government of Bangladesh and UNHCR to extend the provisions of care and maintenance to the 22 000 Rohingyas in the two official camps to 2004.

Early 2003 the Commission has been informed, by a Dutch non-governmental organisation, of the existence of an unofficial camp in Teknaf, which was created in the aftermath of the Operation Clean Heart. In view of the critical living conditions in this camp as well as in the official Rohingya refugee camps, the Commission's Delegation in Dhaka planned to assess the situation on the ground in early spring 2003. This has, however, not materialised due to travel restrictions imposed on diplomats during the Iraq war. Given the lifting of the travel restrictions, a visit to the camps is now being envisaged again.

The Commission had extensive discussions with the Government on the situation of the Rohingya refugees just recently, at the May 2003 specialised sub-group on Human Rights and Governance in Dhaka. In that context the Commission also raised its concerns regarding the conditions in the refugee camps. While the integration of refugees is an option clearly excluded by the Bangladesh Government, there was agreement on continued support of the two official refugee camps, in co-operation with UNHCR.

The Commission shares the concern of the Parliament with regard to the humanitarian situation in the unofficial camp of Teknaf. Unfortunately, the scope for support from donor organisations and notably the Commission is reduced, due to the legal situation of the camp population. As the camp inhabitants do not have a legal refugee status and are thus considered by the Government to live in the country illegally, assistance cannot be provided, unless at the request of the Government.

The EC Delegation, which is in regular and close contact with UNHCR on the Rohingya refugees, has consulted UNHCR just recently on the current conditions in the unofficial camp and the possibility to provide support. As the Government has not called on the UNHCR's support, no operations can be expected for now. It is unlikely that the Government will request assistance given that, in the Government's opinion, this would set a precedent and attract more Rohingyas to cross the border. The EC Delegation will follow the situation closely and pursue consultation with UNHCR and Humanitarian Aid Organisations while further addressing the issue with the Ministry of Disaster Management and Relief.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/69 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/69

---

(2004/C 88 E/0075)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2116/03

by Claude Moraes (PSE) to the Commission

(25 June 2003)

Subject:   The situation in Sudan

Is the Commission aware of reports that jihad has been declared on Christian communities in Sudan and that the Sudanese Government is arbitrarily detaining (and in some cases torturing) journalists, students and others who speak out against the Government?

What are the Commission's plans to deal with this unacceptable situation in Sudan?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(15 July 2003)

The Commission is not aware that jihad has been declared recently on the Christian communities in Sudan.

The Commission notes the progress achieved in the context of the ongoing Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD) Peace Talks. In particular, the signature of the Machakos Protocol (July 2002) in which the Government of Sudan and the Sudan People's Liberation Movement (SPLM) agreed upon the respect of all religions and the freedom of practice.

The Union continues to monitor the situation of human rights, rule of law and democratisation in Sudan. In the recent prosecutions of journalists and students, the Commission was aware of one case of a journalist being put into prison. A Union démarche to the Government of Sudan was made during the April 2003 meeting of the Union/Sudan Political Dialogue. Subsequently, the journalist was released and the newspaper re-opened.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/69 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/69

---

(2004/C 88 E/0076)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2130/03

by Markus Ferber (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(26 June 2003)

Subject:   Commission support for NGOs

| 1. | Do Attac Deutschland e.V., Share e.V. and/or Weed e.V. receive European Union funding? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Do Attac Deutschland e.V., Share e.V. and/or Weed e.V. receive European Union funding?

| 2. | If so, what amount and for what period? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If so, what amount and for what period?

| 3. | On the basis of which budget line or which programme is funding provided? |
| --- | --- |

3.

On the basis of which budget line or which programme is funding provided?

| 4. | If funds have already been paid out, are checks made on their proper use? |
| --- | --- |

4.

If funds have already been paid out, are checks made on their proper use?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(14 July 2003)

Two contracts have been awarded to WEED e.V. under budget line B7-6000 in the context of cofinancing for non-governmental organisation (NGO) projects to raise European public awareness of development issues:

| — | 1997/014-332: title Weltmarktregulation und Nord-Sud Beziehungen':






  — | Duration 36 months, closed in 2001; |
| --- | --- | --- |

—

1997/014-332: title Weltmarktregulation und Nord-Sud Beziehungen':

—

Duration 36 months, closed in 2001;

| — | Community contribution EUR 319 739, 62 % of total; |
| --- | --- |

—

Community contribution EUR 319 739, 62 % of total;

| — | Total cost EUR 514 206. |
| --- | --- |

—

Total cost EUR 514 206.

| — | 2001/010-327: title ‘Making the financial markets work for development’ (in consortium with Informationsstelle Lateinamerika e.V.)






  — | Duration 36 months, ending on 31 December 2003; |
| --- | --- | --- |

—

2001/010-327: title ‘Making the financial markets work for development’ (in consortium with Informationsstelle Lateinamerika e.V.)

—

Duration 36 months, ending on 31 December 2003;

| — | Community contribution EUR 594 998, 75 % of total; |
| --- | --- |

—

Community contribution EUR 594 998, 75 % of total;

| — | Total cost EUR 793 331. |
| --- | --- |

—

Total cost EUR 793 331.

No contracts have been awarded to SHARE e.V. or to ATTAC e.V. by any budget line managed by EuropeAid.

All contracts are subject to EuropeAid's control and monitoring procedures for grants, established in accordance with the provisions of successive Commission Regulations on the implementing rules of the framework Financial Regulation.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/70 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/70

---

(2004/C 88 E/0077)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2162/03

by Herbert Bösch (PSE) to the Commission

(30 June 2003)

Subject:   Budget line B7-7010: no call for proposals in 2003 and its consequences for addressing the human rights of disabled people

In the Millennium Development Goals, the European Union expressed its commitment to poverty reduction. This goal cannot be met without considering the needs of disabled people, and yet disabled people are still not sufficiently included in the development cooperation funded by the Union.

In the budget for 2003, budget line B7-7010 was amended so that actions undertaken in the field of disability, as a follow-up to the Commission guidance note on disability and development cooperation, could be funded under this budget line. However no Call for Proposals for budget line B7-7010 will be issued in 2003. Rather the Commission will select and allocate funds from previously submitted projects.

Is there a possibility that the Commission therefore will pay particular attention to disability in its selection of these previously submitted projects?

As no new projects can be submitted, how is the Commission intending to fund actions that need to be taken as a follow-up to the guidance note on disability and development?

Is the Commission planning to adapt the priority actions of the programming document of the European Initiative for Democracy and Human Rights so that it will be in line with the recent amendments on disability to the Β7-7010 budget line?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(16 September 2003)

The Commission Communication of May 2001 (1) underscored the need to focus limited funds available under the European Initiative for Democracy and Human Rights (EIDHR) more effectively. To that end, it was decided that future funding should cover four thematic priorities: support for democratisation, good governance and the rule of law; the fight against torture, impunity and promotion of international justice; the fight against the death penalty and combating racism, xenophobia and discrimination against minorities and indigenous peoples. Those priorities were reflected in the EIDHR programming document adopted for 2002-2004 and in the subsequent Calls for Proposals. Five Calls for Proposals were launched in 2002, all of them covering two Budget years- 2002 and 2003. At the time these were published there was no provision for the proposals to address disabilities issues, since such issues had not been referred to in the EIDHR Programming document. Community rules do not permit the modification of proposals once the texts have been published. The Commission is not in a position to select and allocate funds from previously selected projects.

The Commission is reflecting on the future direction of the EIDHR beyond the current programming period of 2002-2004 and organised a special seminar on 14 July 2003 to provide an opportunity to discuss that issue with representatives of non-governmental organisations, Members of Parliament and Member State officials. As the Communication remains the guiding document, discussions will focus on how to programme the thematic priorities more effectively.

The Commission's ‘Guidance Note on Disability and Development for EU Delegations and Services’, which provides guidance on how to address disability issues effectively within development cooperation, has been widely distributed throughout the services. It stresses the importance of mainstreaming disability issues in policy dialogue and in country programming. This is the case in the mid-term review guidelines for African, Caribbean and Pacific States (ACP) currently under preparation, which foresee exploring the extent to which country programmes are responsive to the needs of persons with disabilities

Finally, the Commission attaches a great deal of importance to the question of disability. This is illustrated by the legislation which the Commission has introduced and the active approach taken by the Commission to the Ad Hoc Committee on a Convention for the Protection and Promotion of the rights of persons with disabilities.

---

(1)  COM(2001) 252 final.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/71 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/71

---

(2004/C 88 E/0078)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2184/03

by Maurizio Turco (NI) to the Commission

(30 June 2003)

Subject:   Further violations of religious freedom in Turkmenistan

The Turkmen authorities have refused to allow any religious groups to register other than Russian Orthodox and Muslim communities. All unregistered religious activities are regarded as illegal and, in any event, subject to supervision by the sixth branch of the National Safety Committee (KNB, formerly KGB).

At the end of May, two Hare Krishna meetings were disrupted by the Turkmen authorities. In the course of a raid in a village near Mari, officials joined in the ceremony to film those taking part. In the capital, Ashgabad, a Ministry of Internal Affairs intervention group headed by Colonel Byashim Taganov burst into a house occupied by a Hare Krishna devotee, Gaurabhakta Devi Dasi, and, without producing a search warrant, removed icons and religious material. Gaurabhakta Devi Dasi was arrested, together with two other Hare Krishna devotees. Of the three, two were fined and threatened with removal from the capital, while the third was savagely beaten and threatened with criminal charges. Colonel Taganov denies any involvement in this incident.

On 31 May, after local authorities had forced their way into a private house, Guzelya Syraeva was fined for having held a meeting with other members of an unregistered Protestant group. Subsequently, Ms Syraeva was pressurised by the authorities to leave her job as a teacher at the Abadan day nursery. They also threatened to dismiss the director of the day nursery, Tazegyul Nurieva, unless she sacked Ms Syraeva. The two women have also been subject to pressure from the Department of Education.

On 13 June, the police forced their way into a private apartment where members of the Baptist denomination were praying. All those present were interrogated for several hours. The police chief, Alaverdy Khudoberdiev, defended the police action on the grounds that activities by unregistered organisations were illegal, whereas in fact the Turkmen law on religion does not prohibit activity by unregistered religious organisations. Dieter Matthei, a political official with the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) has confirmed the difficulties encountered when attempting to obtain reports on such incidents from the local authorities.

In view of the foregoing:

| — | Is the Commission aware of the serious and persistent violations of freedom of religion in Turkmenistan and of the incidents reported? |
| --- | --- |

—

Is the Commission aware of the serious and persistent violations of freedom of religion in Turkmenistan and of the incidents reported?

| — | What initiatives does the Commission intend to take, or to call for, with a view to bringing pressure to bear on the Turkmen authorities to ensure religious freedom is upheld in Turkmenistan? |
| --- | --- |

—

What initiatives does the Commission intend to take, or to call for, with a view to bringing pressure to bear on the Turkmen authorities to ensure religious freedom is upheld in Turkmenistan?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(29 July 2003)

The Commission is fully aware of the very difficult conditions facing religious minorities in Turkmenistan.

The Commission is very concerned about the lack of commitment of the Turkmen Authorities to improve the situation of minority religious groups. Turkmenistan does not respect its commitments on religious freedom that are enshrined in the Turkmen Constitution and accepted by the government in its international agreements in the Organisation on Security and Cooperation in Europe.

The Commission will continue to raise this question with the Turkmen Authorities at each bilateral meeting.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/72 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/72

---

(2004/C 88 E/0079)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2198/03

by Niall Andrews (UEN) to the Commission

(26 June 2003)

Subject:   Safeguarding human rights in Mexico

Is the Commission aware of the ongoing human rights abuses in Mexico highlighted by Amnesty International?

These include:

| — | the harassment, intimidation and murder of human rights defenders; |
| --- | --- |

—

the harassment, intimidation and murder of human rights defenders;

| — | the arrest and ‘disappearance’ of political opponents, campaigners for indigenous rights and members of indigenous communities; |
| --- | --- |

—

the arrest and ‘disappearance’ of political opponents, campaigners for indigenous rights and members of indigenous communities;

| — | the murder of more than 200 women in Ciudad Juárez since 1993 and the failure of the Mexican authorities to conduct effective and appropriate investigations. |
| --- | --- |

—

the murder of more than 200 women in Ciudad Juárez since 1993 and the failure of the Mexican authorities to conduct effective and appropriate investigations.

Is the Commission aware that, while Mexico has repeatedly committed itself to respecting human rights and to improving its human rights record, and having ratified the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearances of Persons, it refuses, nonetheless, to investigate cases of ‘disappearances’ which occurred before ratification of the Treaty?

Is the Commission also aware that cases involving the military continue to be heard by secret military tribunals only, thus undermining the credibility of the investigations?

Since the EU defines human rights and democracy as ‘essential elements’ in its relationship with countries outside the EU and for the strengthening of trade links between the EU and Mexico, will the Commission indicate what measures it intends to take to ensure that the Mexican Government fulfils its human rights commitments and obligations?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(10 July 2003)

The commitment of the Commission to the promotion of human rights forms a central part to all bi-lateral 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.

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 and 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. In this context, 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 will start in the second half of 2003.

While the Commission is aware of certain levels of impunity and the continuation of 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.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/73 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/73

---

(2004/C 88 E/0080)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2223/03

by Paulo Casaca (PSE) to the Commission

(2 July 2003)

Subject:   Secret European Union agreements with third parties on nuclear power

According to the ‘European Voice’ of 12 June 2003, last week the Council approved a secret agreement with China on nuclear power. The same newspaper also reports that the agreement will rule out the use of nuclear installations to construct weapons of mass destruction.

Can the Commission confirm whether it is aware of the existence of this agreement?

Can it make this agreement public or explain why it will not do so?

Can it explain how it is possible to ensure that an agreement of this kind will not have implications as regards the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction?

Can it establish that no similar agreement has been concluded with Iran?

Can it supply the minutes of the meetings which it held with leading figures from the Iranian regime as part of the ‘constructive dialogue’ on energy?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(7 August 2003)

There is no secret agreement on nuclear energy with either China or with Iran.

The Council adopted on 11 June 2003 negotiation directives for a future Euratom-China agreement. This agreement will be focused on research and its main objective should be to facilitate Chinese research institutions to have an access to the 6th Euratom Framework Programme (FP6) similar to the one they have to the overall 6th Framework Programme (EC FP6). The Chinese have always indicated that they are interested only in a research agreement and this view is shared by Members States who unanimously approved the directives.

There is no Euratom-Iran agreement and there is no draft for negotiation directives for such an agreement. Nevertheless, the Commission would like to recall that Iran is party to the Non-Proliferation Treaty and that there is a full scope Safeguards Agreement between Iran and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), which entered into force on 15 May 1974. For the time being, there is no Additional Protocol on strengthening safeguards between Iran and the IAEA.

The Commission is negotiating a Trade and Co-operation Agreement with Iran linked to parallel negotiations on an Agreement on political dialogue and fight against terrorism. These negotiations could lead to the first contractual agreement between the EU and the Islamic Republic, and could pave the way for closer economic and political ties. The EU pursues a comprehensive dialogue approach in its relations with Iran, covering bilateral, regional and global issues, including matters of human rights, terrorism and non-proliferation.

Since 1999, the Commission has been discussing non-nuclear energy issues in a high-level working group. Detailed information on the last meeting of the EU-Iran energy working group in October 2002 is available at the web-site of the Commission (1).

---

(1)  http://europa.eu.int/comm/energy_transport/en/enlarg_2_en.html

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/74 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/74

---

(2004/C 88 E/0081)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2229/03

by José Ribeiro e Castro (UEN) to the Commission

(2 July 2003)

Subject:   Oil revenue, Angola, transparency

According to a press release from the NGO Global Witness, issued on 20 June 2003, the Deputy Prime Minister of Angola, Aguinaldo Jaime, has given significant public commitments regarding the future transparency of revenue from oil exploration off the Angolan coast.

The relevant excerpt from the press release from Global Witness reads as follows: ‘In the past, we had off-budget transactions, so the budget lacked credibility,’Angolan Deputy Prime Minister Aguinaldo Jaime said in a speech at an oil industry conference in London.'For the first time in Angola's history, the budget will encompass all revenue and that will send to the donor community the signal that the Angolan Government is committed to a fully transparent way of managing the budget.’‘Jaime clarified that these figures will include all the country's oil revenues.’

Is the Commission aware of these statements by the Deputy Prime Minister, Aguinaldo Jaime?

Is it aware of other similar undertakings given by the Angolan Government?

Bearing in mind the positions already expressed in this regard by the Council and Commission, as well as by other international bodies, does the Commission have any firm information that commitments of this nature given by the Angolan Government are already being acted on or will be put into effect very shortly? In the Commission's view, what impact might positive developments in this key political and financial dossier have on the planned — and constantly postponed — Donors' Conference aimed at supporting the country's reconstruction?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(9 September 2003)

The Commission is aware of the statement made by Angolan Deputy Prime Minister Aguinaldo Jaime and welcomes the government's commitment towards more budgetary transparency. The cabinet reshuffle in December 2002, in which a new economic team moved into government, gave hope for more transparent economic and financial management. However, experiences in the past have not been positive and it remains to be seen whether real improvements will actually come about.

The international community, including the Commission, continues to urge the government to embrace transparent budgetary management, in particular of oil and diamond revenues and provides support for this. Thus, during his visit to Angola in January 2003 in meetings with government representatives and President dos Santos, the Member of the Commission in charge of Development and Cooperation explicitly emphasised the need for a transparent management of the revenues of the country's vast natural resources to the benefit of all Angolans. He furthermore underlined that such action would also contribute to a stable and predictable environment, which is a prerequisite to attract urgently needed foreign investment.

A programme to assist the government in managing public expenditure and improving the management of oil and tax revenues forms part of the World Bank's Transitional Support Strategy (TSS) for post-war Angola. The EC/Angola co-operation strategy 2002-2007, which was signed during the visit of the Member of the Commission in charge of Development and Cooperation in January, also contains a component targeting the improvement of financial management.

The Commission and the international community have repeatedly underlined that an improvement of Angola's relationship with the International Monetary Union (IMF), which includes progress in transparency and accountability, would be essential for the success of the donors' conference on the reconstruction of Angola, a second vital element being a credible poverty reduction strategy. If Angola is indeed able to honour the commitment made by the Deputy Prime Minister, this will have a positive bearing on the country's relationship with the IMF and thus facilitate the holding of the conference.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/75 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/75

---

(2004/C 88 E/0082)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2244/03

by Elspeth Attwooll (ELDR) to the Commission

(7 July 2003)

Subject:   Wild birds directive in Malta

Beyond the transition agreement for the trapping of finches, is the Commission satisfied that Malta will be able to comply with the Wild Birds Directive 79/409/EEC (1) from the date of its accession to the EU? If the Commission is not satisfied that Malta will be able to comply, what action does it intend to take?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(4 August 2003)

The Commission will continue to monitor legislative progress made by Malta and other Acceding Countries till 1 May 2004. This analysis will be reflected in the comprehensive monitoring report that will be published in November 2003.

When Malta becomes a member of the Union, the Commission will verify that Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds has been correctly transposed as it does for all Member States. Should Malta not comply with the Directive then the Commission will consider the action to be taken on the basis of the EC Treaty provisions.

---

(1)  OJ L 103, 25.4.1979, p. 1.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/76 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/76

---

(2004/C 88 E/0083)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2303/03

by José Ribeiro e Castro (UEN) to the Commission

(8 July 2003)

Subject:   Cuba — European Commission delegation — human rights

Since the EU has decided to:

| (a) | urge the Cuban authorities to free all political prisoners; |
| --- | --- |

(a)

urge the Cuban authorities to free all political prisoners;

| (b) | limit the number of high-level bilateral meetings with Cuban dignitaries; |
| --- | --- |

(b)

limit the number of high-level bilateral meetings with Cuban dignitaries;

| (c) | reduce the level of participation by the Member States in cultural events; |
| --- | --- |

(c)

reduce the level of participation by the Member States in cultural events;

| (d) | invite Cuban dissidents to participate in ceremonies marking their national days; |
| --- | --- |

(d)

invite Cuban dissidents to participate in ceremonies marking their national days;

| (e) | reassess its joint position vis-à-vis Cuba, |
| --- | --- |

(e)

reassess its joint position vis-à-vis Cuba,

can the Commission say:

| — | whether those responsible for running its delegation have already been fully accredited with the Cuban authorities; |
| --- | --- |

—

whether those responsible for running its delegation have already been fully accredited with the Cuban authorities;

| — | how the delegation in Cuba has implemented the EU decisions concerning that country; in particular whether the delegation has invited Cuban dissidents to take part in activities promoted in accordance with the recommendation made to the embassies of the Member States; |
| --- | --- |

—

how the delegation in Cuba has implemented the EU decisions concerning that country; in particular whether the delegation has invited Cuban dissidents to take part in activities promoted in accordance with the recommendation made to the embassies of the Member States;

| — | what steps the delegation has taken or intends to take vis-à-vis the Cuban government to inform it of the Member States' decisions and its concern about and opposition to the government's totalitarian methods; |
| --- | --- |

—

what steps the delegation has taken or intends to take vis-à-vis the Cuban government to inform it of the Member States' decisions and its concern about and opposition to the government's totalitarian methods;

| — | what issues it considers should be reassessed in the EU's joint position regarding Cuba? |
| --- | --- |

—

what issues it considers should be reassessed in the EU's joint position regarding Cuba?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(31 July 2003)

The Commission's Delegation in Cuba is run by a Chargé d'Affaires a.i., under the responsibility of the Head of Delegation in the Dominican Republic, who must also be accredited as Head of Delegation in Cuba. The Cuban Government gave its agreement on 14 April 2003 to his appointment. The date for the presentation of the credentials of the Head of Delegation has yet to be fixed.

The Commission's Delegation in Cuba is fully associated with the implementation of the measures adopted by the Union on Cuba. The Delegation did invite dissidents to the reception organised for Europe Day on 9 May 2003. It participated in the two ‘troika’ démarches in Havana during the last months to inform the Cuban Government of the Union's decisions and to call for the immediate release of imprisoned dissidents.

The re-evaluation of the Union's Common Position has just been concluded.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/76 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/76

---

(2004/C 88 E/0084)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2304/03

by Emma Bonino (NI) to the Commission

(14 July 2003)

Subject:   Opening of a European Commission delegation in Yemen

Although the President of the Commission gave an undertaking, during a visit to Brussels by the president of the Republic of Yemen about three years ago, that a proper Commission delegation would be opened in Sana'a in the near future, and although Yemen is a country of strategic importance for the Union from various points of view, the Union is still only represented there via the head of the delegation in Amman.

In view of the progressive consolidation of the rule of law and democratic principles in the country, demonstrated by the recent elections, which were held in a regular manner, and since these values may be strengthened and spread from Yemen throughout the region,

Does the Commission not consider that the time has come to act on the promises made and open a Commission delegation in Sanaa?

Does the Commission not consider that this would help to encourage the Yemeni authorities to continue along the road of consolidating democracy and the rule of law?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(16 September 2003)

The Commission acknowledges the remarkable progress made by Yemen in the consolidation of the rule of law and democratic principles and very much agrees that a reinforcement of the relations between the Commission and Yemen would further encourage this process of democratisation.

The Commission is considering transforming its existing office in Yemen into a sub-regional Delegation, under the responsibility of the Delegation in Amman. This proposal is at present under review within the context of the overall development of the External Service exercise. The Commission intends to submit a Communication in due course.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/77 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/77

---

(2004/C 88 E/0085)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2308/03

by José Ribeiro e Castro (UEN) to the Commission

(14 July 2003)

Subject:   Africa — oil — poverty

According to a study by ‘Catholic Relief Services’, an American NGO, the new investments being made in oil in Africa are unlikely to eradicate poverty in the oil-producing countries, despite the fact that African oil production is expected to double in ten years.

This is a shocking conclusion.

According to press reports the study was published on the Internet on the day that the British Prime Minister met directors of petroleum companies in London (17 June this year) and urged them to make their business dealings in Africa more transparent.

Can the Commission therefore say:

| — | whether it has a copy of this study or other reliable reports on the subject; |
| --- | --- |

—

whether it has a copy of this study or other reliable reports on the subject;

| — | what information it has regarding the activities of oil companies and the transparency of their business dealings with the African oil-producing countries; |
| --- | --- |

—

what information it has regarding the activities of oil companies and the transparency of their business dealings with the African oil-producing countries;

| — | what measures it has taken or envisages taking to promote greater transparency on the part of the oil companies based or operating in the Union who exploit petroleum resources in Africa, in order to monitor the management and distribution of the wealth generated by oil, and what measures it has taken or intends to take vis-à-vis the African countries in the context of existing cooperation relations; |
| --- | --- |

—

what measures it has taken or envisages taking to promote greater transparency on the part of the oil companies based or operating in the Union who exploit petroleum resources in Africa, in order to monitor the management and distribution of the wealth generated by oil, and what measures it has taken or intends to take vis-à-vis the African countries in the context of existing cooperation relations;

| — | whether it agrees that it should prevent or restrict in any way the activities within the Union of oil companies who are unwilling to clarify openly their commercial and industrial dealings with African countries? |
| --- | --- |

—

whether it agrees that it should prevent or restrict in any way the activities within the Union of oil companies who are unwilling to clarify openly their commercial and industrial dealings with African countries?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(10 September 2003)

The Commission is not aware of the specific study published by the Catholic Relief Services on the incapacity of the investments in the oil sector to eradicate poverty in the oil producing countries. However, the findings of the report, as they are published on the Catholic Relief Services' web-site confirm an existing trend. In fact, oil and mineral dependence are strongly associated with unusually bad conditions for the poor. Oil development tends to further concentrate wealth among political and military élites, which may be associated with undermining democracy and deteriorating human rights situations. Once states become dependent on oil or mineral exports, they have difficulty diversifying their economy and promoting sectors like agriculture and manufacturing, which provide greater direct benefits to the poor. Finally, oil and mineral dependence becomes an obstacle to pro-poor types of economic activity.

The Commission does not have a detailed overview of the activities of oil companies in Africa. However, several direct contacts with some proactive multinationals in the field of the oil and mining sectors have taken place in the framework of the Commission strategy on Corporate Social Responsibility.

The Commission President Mr Prodi wrote a letter in 2002 to express his support for a campaign launched in June 2002 to call on multinational companies to disclose payments they make to governments in poor countries. This so-called ‘Publish What You Pay’ campaign is headed by Mr Soros and endorsed by more than 30 lobby groups, including Amnesty International, Friends of the Earth and Save the Children. The recently established European Multi-Stakeholder Forum will take note of the campaign and of companies' best practices in its next Development Roundtable meeting on 29/30 September 2003. The Parliament is part of the Forum as an observer. The issue of promoting Corporate Social Responsibility was identified also by the report of the Catholic Relief Services as the most efficient way to tackle the problems provoked by the oil and mining sectors in Africa.

It is not possible to restrict or prevent the activities of oil companies unwilling to publicise their payments. Nevertheless, it is needed to promote more the concept of Corporate Social Responsibility and the role of Civil Society at national level that could be a sort of watchdog with respect to those companies. Moreover, the Commission expresses its full support for the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) Anti-Bribery Convention where the bribery of foreign public officials in the context of international business transactions is a punishable offence.

Finally it should be pointed out, that the Commission, in its regular political dialogues with several partner countries, discusses issues relating to oil and mineral revenues, advocating clear and transparent integration of these revenues in state budgets.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/78 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/78

---

(2004/C 88 E/0086)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2321/03

by Freddy Blak (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(14 July 2003)

Subject:   Number of Commission officials dealing with external relations

Could the Commission please provide a list of the number of Commission officials in DG-aidco, ECHO and DG-dev broken down per programme and per country both in headquarters and in beneficiary countries?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(13 October 2003)

The table (Annex 1) which is sent direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat, shows for each operational directorate of the EuropeAid Cooperation office the total number of officials dealing with each programme. Auxiliary staff has not been included in the total number reported. All figures relate to the situation at the end of June 2003 unless otherwise stated.

A second table with the requested information from the Humanitarian Aid Office (ECHO) (Annex 2), a third one concerning the Delegations (Annex 3) and a fourth one concerning the Directorate General Development (Annex 4) are sent direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat as well.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/79 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/79

---

(2004/C 88 E/0087)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2345/03

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) and Alexander de Roo (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(16 July 2003)

Subject:   Protection of unspoiled natural and cultural landscapes with a potential for ecotourism in the mountain region in the Polish province of Dolnoslaœkie, Lower Silesia

| 1. | Is the Commission aware that, in the mountain region of Karkonosze and Góri Izerskie in the southwestern Polish province of Lower Silesia (województwo Dolnoslaœkie), the beautiful natural landscape, the historic villages and the vestiges of inhabitation by earlier peoples have not so far been disturbed by war, industrialisation or agricultural modernisation, as a result of which the region was made the subject of an international travelling exhibition, ‘The Jelenia Góra (Hirschberg) valley of castles and gardens, our joint European heritage’, and possesses a potential unique within Europe for eco-, agro-, cultural and health tourism? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is the Commission aware that, in the mountain region of Karkonosze and Góri Izerskie in the southwestern Polish province of Lower Silesia (województwo Dolnoslaœkie), the beautiful natural landscape, the historic villages and the vestiges of inhabitation by earlier peoples have not so far been disturbed by war, industrialisation or agricultural modernisation, as a result of which the region was made the subject of an international travelling exhibition, ‘The Jelenia Góra (Hirschberg) valley of castles and gardens, our joint European heritage’, and possesses a potential unique within Europe for eco-, agro-, cultural and health tourism?

| 2. | Is the Commission aware that ten years ago in this region local Polish farmers took the initiative to set up the European Centre for Eco and Agro Tourism (ECEAT), which has grown into an international organisation with sections in 15 countries and 2 000 units of sustainable tourism accommodation? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Is the Commission aware that ten years ago in this region local Polish farmers took the initiative to set up the European Centre for Eco and Agro Tourism (ECEAT), which has grown into an international organisation with sections in 15 countries and 2 000 units of sustainable tourism accommodation?

| 3. | Is the Commission aware that around the town of Jelenia Góra and the national park (park narodow) Karkonoski, which has been protected since 1959, the landscapes of Doliny Bobru and Rudawski Park have had the status of protected landscapes (parki krajobrazowe) since 1989 and that most of the surrounding countryside has the status of a protected landscape zone (obszary krajobrazu chronionego oraz otuliny parków krajobrazowych), although the transport zone between Jelenia Góra and Zgorzelec on the German border is not included? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Is the Commission aware that around the town of Jelenia Góra and the national park (park narodow) Karkonoski, which has been protected since 1959, the landscapes of Doliny Bobru and Rudawski Park have had the status of protected landscapes (parki krajobrazowe) since 1989 and that most of the surrounding countryside has the status of a protected landscape zone (obszary krajobrazu chronionego oraz otuliny parków krajobrazowych), although the transport zone between Jelenia Góra and Zgorzelec on the German border is not included?

| 4. | Is the Commission aware that three international conferences organised by the Polish Centre for the Preservation of Historic Landscapes with the support of the International Committee for Historic Gardens and Cultural Landscapes (Icomos-IFLA) have recommended that the Polish Government place this region on the Unesco world heritage list? |
| --- | --- |

4.

Is the Commission aware that three international conferences organised by the Polish Centre for the Preservation of Historic Landscapes with the support of the International Committee for Historic Gardens and Cultural Landscapes (Icomos-IFLA) have recommended that the Polish Government place this region on the Unesco world heritage list?

| 5. | Has the Polish Government proposed the region for Natura 2000 status? |
| --- | --- |

5.

Has the Polish Government proposed the region for Natura 2000 status?

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/79 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/79

---

(2004/C 88 E/0088)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2346/03

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) and Alexander de Roo (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(16 July 2003)

Subject:   Devastation of previously unspoiled natural and cultural landscapes and destruction of ecotourism due to the increase in opencast mining and quarrying in the Polish province of Dolnoslaœkie, Lower Silesia

| 1. | Is the Commission aware that, shortly before Poland's accession to the EU, mining companies are hurrying to purchase land and acquire long-term concessions for large-scale opencast mining in the partially protected mountain areas of Góri Izerskie and Karkonosze (Giant Mountains) on the southern border of the Polish province of Lower Silesia (województwo Dolnoslaœkie)? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is the Commission aware that, shortly before Poland's accession to the EU, mining companies are hurrying to purchase land and acquire long-term concessions for large-scale opencast mining in the partially protected mountain areas of Góri Izerskie and Karkonosze (Giant Mountains) on the southern border of the Polish province of Lower Silesia (województwo Dolnoslaœkie)?

| 2. | Is the Commission aware that since 1999 the Swedish company NCC has been devastating the landscape in Klopotnica (municipality of Mirsk), destroying its attractiveness to people, by means of excavations, wide access roads, the noise of explosions and dust clouds, and that as a result tourists are staying away and the region is being impoverished? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Is the Commission aware that since 1999 the Swedish company NCC has been devastating the landscape in Klopotnica (municipality of Mirsk), destroying its attractiveness to people, by means of excavations, wide access roads, the noise of explosions and dust clouds, and that as a result tourists are staying away and the region is being impoverished?

| 3. | Has the Commission heard that plans are being drawn up for the expansion of an old, no longer operational mine near Karpniki (municipality of Myslakowice), an area with many country houses, palaces and historic gardens in the protected Rudawski Janowice Park, under which the size of the mine would increase between 20 and 30-fold, and that the Pol-Skal company is also developing plans for large-scale opencast quarrying of leuco-granite over an area of 80 ha between Mala Kamienica and Chromiec (municipality of Stara Kamienica), that if these were implemented, the landscapes in the area would be seriously damaged and that these plans are likely to encounter increasingly strong resistance from the local people? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Has the Commission heard that plans are being drawn up for the expansion of an old, no longer operational mine near Karpniki (municipality of Myslakowice), an area with many country houses, palaces and historic gardens in the protected Rudawski Janowice Park, under which the size of the mine would increase between 20 and 30-fold, and that the Pol-Skal company is also developing plans for large-scale opencast quarrying of leuco-granite over an area of 80 ha between Mala Kamienica and Chromiec (municipality of Stara Kamienica), that if these were implemented, the landscapes in the area would be seriously damaged and that these plans are likely to encounter increasingly strong resistance from the local people?

| 4. | Are the EU or the European Investment Bank in any way involved in the preparation, financing or implementation of these mining and quarrying projects? Are environmental impact assessments being drawn up? |
| --- | --- |

4.

Are the EU or the European Investment Bank in any way involved in the preparation, financing or implementation of these mining and quarrying projects? Are environmental impact assessments being drawn up?

| 5. | What can and will the Commission do to encourage the further development of measures to protect nature and landscapes and sustainable forms of tourism and agriculture in the mountains of Lower Silesia and possibly to provide support from EU funds for such measures, and what can and will be done to prevent opencast mining and quarrying from leaving behind an inhospitable lunar landscape which is fit for nothing in the area concerned? |
| --- | --- |

5.

What can and will the Commission do to encourage the further development of measures to protect nature and landscapes and sustainable forms of tourism and agriculture in the mountains of Lower Silesia and possibly to provide support from EU funds for such measures, and what can and will be done to prevent opencast mining and quarrying from leaving behind an inhospitable lunar landscape which is fit for nothing in the area concerned?

Joint answer

to Written Questions E-2345/03 and E-2346/03

given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(10 September 2003)

The Commission takes note of the facts mentioned by the Honourable Members concerning mining activities in Poland. The Commission also notes that an international travelling exhibition was held in the valley Jelenia Góra and that three international conferences have recommended that the region around Jelenia Gória, Doliny Bobru and Rudawaski Park be placed on the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (Unesco) world heritage list. As regards protected areas the Commission is aware of the national system of designated areas in Poland.

Regarding mining in Poland, the Commission is not aware of the specific projects mentioned by the Honourable Members. From experience gathered in the Union, the Commission has learned however that mining activities are de facto not incompatible with sound environmental protection. Numerous extractive operations are located within natural protected zones and sound planning of mining and quarrying industry can even contribute to develop new areas for recreational activities. It can however confirm that acceding countries such as Poland which have an important mining sector, still need to make efforts to improve the framework under which these activities operate. This is why the Commission will assist the authorities and industry by providing them with the necessary support through exchange of best practices.

As a general rule, the acceding countries have been regularly reminded of the Council conclusions of 24 September 1998 on Accession Strategies for the Environment, in which it was stated that all new investment should comply with the environmental acquis.

As regards the relevant Union legislation, extractive activities are subject to the environmental impact assessment requirements of Directive 85/337/EEC, as amended by Directive 97/11/EC (1). The management of waste from the extraction and processing of mineral resources has to comply with the general obligations of the Waste framework Directive 75/442/EEC, as amended by Directive 91/156/EEC (2). Where the deposit of such waste occurs onto or into land, it needs in particular to comply with the operating and technical requirements of Directive 1999/31/EC (3) on the landfill of waste.

Furthermore, with an aim to improve environmental standards in this area the Commission adopted recently a Proposal for a Directive on the management of waste from extractive industries (4). This proposal lays down the tasks that have to be carried out by the mining industry and define the role of the competent authority supervising the mining operations before and after closure. It also establishes the requirement for a financial guarantee for the rehabilitation of a mining site in case of insolvency. Based on the polluter pays principle, these provisions aim at preventing unscrupulous operators e.g. in case of bankruptcy, to walk away leaving behind an unnecessary burden to society.

According to the commitments made in the accession negotiations, the Polish government is to designate Special Protection Areas under the Birds Directive (5), and to submit the national list of Sites of Community Importance under the Habitats Directive (6) at the latest by the date of accession. The Polish government, based on scientific surveys, has drawn up a list of candidate sites, and these proposals are being discussed with the local governments and stakeholders. Up to now no official communication concerning the list has been made.

No financing has been provided under the PHARE program for mining and quarrying projects in Poland. Some financing has been provided in relation to the restructuring of the coal and steel industry for the creation of alternative employment opportunities.

The European Investment Bank has not financed any projects involving the preparation, financing or implementation of these mining and quarrying projects, nor has the Bank been involved in any discussions relating to these mining and quarrying projects.

As the Honourable Members are aware, in the European context, Eco-tourism is regarded as a tourism practice not at all restricted to protected areas, but mainly aiming at minimizing negative impacts of tourism on culture and environment. Therefore, Ecotourism in Europe should be seen as a form of tourism that is practiced with respect to the highest standards of environmental protection.

In this respect, the Commission has developed an Internet guide on the ‘Union support for Tourism Enterprises and Tourist Destinations’ that can be downloaded at: (http://europa.eu.int/comm/enterprise/services/tourism/tourism-publications/documents/internet_ guide_en.pdf). This Internet guide contains a comprehensive set of information on various Union programs, schemes, funds, initiatives and actions of interest to the tourism sector and establishes Internet links to the homepages of the relevant programs.

The objective of this new Internet guide is to make available to actors in the tourism sector and to other interested people, a comprehensive and structured overview of the opportunities the Community offers to help the development of sustainable tourism, and therefore Eco-tourism. The Internet Guide presents Community schemes classified into specific fields of interest — such as training and support for employment creation, business support and co-operation, co-operation between regions, cultural events supporting tourism, or research and technological development. Suitable examples of tourism-related actions that have been implemented under each program demonstrate the relevance of the program to tourism.

Since this Guide also presents program descriptions, target groups and requirements, budget allocations, and grant rates in a summary format, and lists the relevant program homepages, the beneficiaries of a given project might be able to better address their concerns according to the objectives of the different Community funding schemes.

Poland as an acceding country to the Union and after having signed the Treaty of Accession, has to align to and to implement the above mentioned directives and to comply with the requirements concerning nature protection and the designation of sites by accession, as far as no transitional arrangements have been granted. After accession, Poland will have the obligation to implement agri-environmental measures under its European Agriculture Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF)-Guarantee financed rural development program.

The Commission will continue to monitor the situation closely and give a detailed assessment in its Comprehensive Monitoring Report on the status of the implementation of the requirements in the environment field in Poland and where necessary, will raise issues of concern with the competent Polish authorities.

---

(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 91/156/EEC of 18 March 1991 amending Directive 75/442/EEC on waste, OJ L 78, 26.3.1991.

(3)  Council Directive 1999/31/EC of 26 April 1999 on the landfill of waste, OJ L 182, 16.7.1999.

(4)  COM(2003) 319 final.

(5)  Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds, OJ L 103, 25.4.1979.

(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.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/82 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/82

---

(2004/C 88 E/0089)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2354/03

by Mary Honeyball (PSE) to the Commission

(16 July 2003)

Subject:   Local government in ACP countries

Can the Commission supply details of the support that has been provided to local government in ACP countries for local government institutional development/capacity building in the last 12 months in response to the recognition given to local government as a state actor under Article 6 of the Cotonou Agreement?

Have the Commission services, notably AIDCO, instigated any financial or other internal procedures to ensure that local government, as a state actor, is able to effectively access resources from the national and regional indicative programmes, and are there specific examples of local government having accessed such resources to date?

Does the Commission have any plans to meet with representatives of the ACP Local Government Platform, including the Commonwealth Local Government Forum?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(11 September 2003)

The Commission emphasises that it did not await the entry into force of the Cotonou Agreement to demonstrate its awareness that the local authorities are a partner for the development of the ACP countries and therefore to increase their capacities and to support them in their efforts to take part in the political, social and economic life of the country.

The Commission, under the 8th EDF, currently finances projects supporting decentralisation to localised groups, or decentralised cooperation with the local authorities and elected representatives, in several African countries: Benin, Cameroon, Côte d'Ivoire, Guinea Conakry, Mali, Mauritania, Niger, Uganda, Senegal. Moreover, it also supports projects in this field in South Africa. These projects add up to an amount of EUR 151 million for the European Development Fund and EUR 102 million for South Africa. The latest project is the programme to support the creation of communes in Benin (Prodecom), for an amount of EUR 8,85 million.

In addition, several National Indicative Programmes for the 9th EDF provided for support for decentralisation and for local authorities: Benin, Cape Verde, Djibouti, Ethiopia, Ghana, Guinea Conakry, Mali, Niger, Uganda, Sierra Leone. The projects already identified add up to EUR 93 million. Similarly, the Indicative Programme (2003-2006) for South Africa also provides for a strengthening of the capacities of the local authorities under local development projects.

In accordance with the procedures applicable to the European Development Funds, the financing of cooperation projects from the resources of the National or Regional Indicative Programmes is done only on the basis of a request of the Regional or National Authorising Officer. In addition, the Head of Delegation of the Commission in the ACP partner countries remains the principal interlocutor in the implementation of the partnership, including for the promotion and the facilitation of the dialogue between the various types of actors (in particular the local authorities), and in financial management. The projects that the Commission finances in the field of support to decentralisation and to the local authorities ensure that these communities benefit directly from the resources allocated to these projects by setting up mechanisms allowing the strengthening of their institutional, technical and financial capacities. Thus, the projects currently in hand to support decentralisation and the local authorities generally envisage training and technical support for the local authorities and elected representatives, the setting up of investment funds for communal infrastructures and utilities, or the provision of credit lines to improve the communal services. Similar procedures are applied in the case of South Africa.

The Commission followed very closely the organisation and the setting up of the Platform of local governments of the ACP countries and took part in the seminar organised by this Platform on 14 March 2002 in order to review together the possibilities of cooperation with the local authorities in the ACP countries.

As to the Commonwealth Local Government Forum (CLGF) the services of the EuropeAid Cooperation Office have twice met a representative of the CLGF. At these meetings, the Commission has informed the representative of the CLGF of the efforts made by the Commission in the field of strengthening the capacities of the local authorities in the ACP countries. In addition, the budgetary financing methods applicable to the European Development Fund and to the ‘South Africa’ and ‘decentralised cooperation budget lines’ were explained. It should be noted, in line with the above, that the Commission does not regard the CLGF to be a necessary interlocutor in our efforts to support local governments in the ACP countries.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/83 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/83

---

(2004/C 88 E/0090)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2363/03

by Stavros Xarchakos (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(17 July 2003)

Subject:   Research by a Turkish vessel in Greek territorial waters in the Aegean

It is reported in today's Greek press (8 July 2003) that from 4 to 19 July the Turkish oceanographic research vessel, the Piri Reis, will conduct research in the Aegean, in particular in Greek territorial waters. These reports state that the Greek navy has picked up an announcement broadcast by Izmir coastal radio station concerning the ‘vessel's oceanographic research’. According to its programme of ‘research’ the Piri Reis (which, incidentally, belongs to Izmir University) will carry out research at a distance of up to 5 nautical miles from the rocky islet ‘Kaloyeri’ in the Cyclades and at 25 other spots in Greek territorial waters.

It should be pointed out that Turkey (an applicant country) has previously dispatched this vessel into the Aegean with instructions to carry out research in Greek (and therefore Community) waters, thereby causing tension in Greek-Turkish relations.

Is the Commission aware of the intention of the Turkish authorities? Has the University of Izmir, which owns the vessel in question, received funding through any Community initiative (either directly or indirectly with loans or other Community funds)? What actions can the Commission take forthwith to prevail upon Turkey not to go ahead with research in the territorial waters of an EU Member State?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(11 September 2003)

As regards the activities of the Turkish oceanographic research vessel in question, the Commission is not aware of the intention of the Turkish authorities. As to the University of Izmir, it has not benefited from Union funding.

In relation to the Greek-Turkish relations in general, the Commission refers to the principle of peaceful settlement of border disputes as set out in the Helsinki European Council Conclusions in December 1999.

Under the revised Accession Partnership with Turkey adopted on 19 May 2003, there is a priority for Turkey ‘in the context of the political dialogue to make every effort to resolve any outstanding border disputes and other related issues, as referred to in point 4 of the Helsinki conclusions’.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/84 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/84

---

(2004/C 88 E/0091)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2392/03

by Anna Karamanou (PSE) to the Commission

(21 July 2003)

Subject:   Stoning of Semsiye Allak in the village of Yalim, Turkey

According to numerous reports in the international press, 35-year old Semsiye Allak was stoned in the Kurdish village of Yalim in Turkey by her family when she became pregnant after being raped by a married man. The woman died seven months after the stoning, alone and abandoned in hospital, while the man was killed on the spot by her relatives who took the law into their own hands.

This appalling deed is a further example of the tragic consequences of gender discrimination which derive from religious fanaticism and intolerance. The systematic violation of women's human rights through the imposition of violent and degrading punishments which often result in death calls for an immediate practical response. In present-day Turkey, which is on the way to negotiating its accession to the EU, political measures should be taken to eliminate crimes of ‘honour’.

Will the Commission exert pressure on the Turkish Government to adopt stringent legislation against crimes of honour and taking the law into one's own hands, and to bring those responsible to justice? Will the Commission also intervene to protect women's human rights and bring an end to the degrading treatment of women and the perpetuation of violence and discrimination against them?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(4 September 2003)

The Commission is aware of international press reports concerning the events mentioned by the Honourable Member.

As a Candidate Country, Turkey has undertaken to comply with the Copenhagen political criteria. These criteria include the principle of gender equality as well as economic, social and cultural rights. This has been made further clear as a priority under the revised Accession Partnership for Turkey to guarantee ‘in law and in practice the full enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms by all individuals without discrimination and irrespective of language, race, colour, sex, political opinion, religion or belief in line with relevant international and European instruments’.

Already in its Regular Report published in 2002 (1), the Commission drew attention to the issue of honour killings and mentioned explicitly that in Turkey ‘honour killings qualify for reduced sentences, which may be further reduced if the accused is a minor’.

In the sixth package of political reforms adopted by the Turkish Parliament on 19 June 2003, some measures have been taken to address the question of ‘honour killings’. In particular, Article 453 of the penal code has been amended to increase the penalty for the killing of out-of-wedlock babies from four to eight years to six to ten years. Article 462, which foresaw a reduction of sentence in the case of honour killings, has been abrogated.

The Commission will continue to monitor the situation closely and in particular the implementation of these new provisions.

---

(1)  COM(2002) 700 final.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/85 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/85

---

(2004/C 88 E/0092)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2402/03

by Mario Borghezio (NI) to the Commission

(21 July 2003)

Subject:   Turkey: book-burning and State jobs for 15 000 imams

Western books considered ideologically incorrect according to Islam were recently burnt publicly on the orders of the judiciary in Turkey. It has also recently been reported that the Turkish government has decided to employ 15 000 imams at public expense to promote the Muslim faith further.

Does the Commission consider that these events constitute steps along the road to the ‘new’ Turkey's accession to the EU and adoption of its values?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(8 September 2003)

The Commission is not aware of the issue mentioned by the Honourable Member about judgements concerning the public burning of books.

As regards the appointment of additional imams, the Commission is aware of a proposal of the Bureau of Religious Affairs (Diyanet) intended to fill vacancies existing in Turkey for Moslem cleric personnel. According to our information this proposal has not been adopted by the Government.

As a Candidate Country, Turkey has undertaken to comply with the Copenhagen political criteria. These criteria imply freedom of religion for all religious groups. The Commission makes a detailed assessment of the situation in the area of freedom of religion in its Regular Report published annually, and will continue to monitor developments.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/85 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/85

---

(2004/C 88 E/0093)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2442/03

by Jürgen Zimmerling (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(22 July 2003)

Subject:   Help for Madagascar

As part of the process of adjusting to NATO standards, the national armies of the accession countries are having to renew old equipment and items such as tents and field kitchens.

The old equipment is still worth quite a lot and is in good condition, so could be used in the Third World, since it is very suitable for non-military use.

The President of Madagascar, Mr Marc Ravalomanana, recently asked whether the European Union could look into the question of financing transport of this material from its humanitarian aid funds (a copy of his letter and a list of the equipment needed has been sent to the Commission). This request is prompted by the latest natural disaster in Madagascar, where this equipment and material is urgently needed. What is the Commission's attitude on this matter?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(4 September 2003)

The Commission is aware that Madagascar suffers periodically from natural disasters, and in particular, that it was seriously affected by Tropical Cyclone Manou in May 2003. The Commission responded swiftly to assist cyclone victims, by means of current budget facilities, such as food security, transport and the system for the stabilization of export earnings (Stabex).

Concerning possible help for Madagascar, in relation to the question of financing the transport of equipment discarded by national armies of accession countries, the Commission has not yet received a letter from President Ravalomanana on this subject. However, as regards the possibility to use the humanitarian aid budget for financing such transport, it should be borne in mind that the terms of implementation of this budget line are clearly defined by Council Regulation (EC) No 1257/96 of 20 June 1996 (1). This is the legal basis on which the European Commission Humanitarian Aid Office (ECHO) operates.

In concrete terms, ECHO could only finance such transport in response to a specific disaster, and only via its recognised partners, thus excluding direct government funding.

As the Honourable Member is aware, funding for humanitarian actions is provided on the basis of requests presented by recognised humanitarian actors such as United Nations Agencies, the different components of the Red Cross movement and specialised humanitarian non-governmental organisations (NGOs). These actors — ECHO partners — assess the need of the victims in an impartial and neutral way and present proposals with a clear strategy to increase the impact and the sustainability of the planned operation. Humanitarian operations are not limited to the transport of goods and equipment to a crisis region, but imply co-ordination with local capacities and the implementation of a complex range of activities.

In this context, attention must be paid to the cost-effectiveness of the means used for implementing the activities envisaged to reach the interventions' objectives.

ECHO has not received, up to this moment, any request from its humanitarian partners involving the transfer of decommissioned military equipment to Madagascar.

In any case, the state of use of this equipment and its real suitability to humanitarian aid actions are to be carefully considered. This assessment lies on ECHO'S implementing partners; it must be carried out in relation to the identified needs and in the best interest of the beneficiaries of the aid.

In the event of receiving such a request, ECHO will examine it keeping in mind the principle of sound financial management enunciated in the Financial Regulation.

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1257/96 of 20 June 1996 concerning humanitarian aid, OJ L 163, 2.7.1996.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/87 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/87

---

(2004/C 88 E/0094)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2490/03

by Bob van den Bos (ELDR) and Bashir Khanbhai (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(25 July 2003)

Subject:   Food aid to Ethiopia

At this moment more than 12,5 million people require food aid in Ethiopia. In response to the humanitarian crisis the Commission has increased the food aid component to EUR 115 million. Unfortunately, the situation in Ethiopia is still deteriorating and more help is needed.

How is the EU contribution to the food aid component spent?

What type of food is given to Ethiopia and where is its origin?

How does the European Commission assess the requirement for and the effectiveness of the food aid given to the Ethiopian people?

Does the European Commission have any intention to further increase its food aid component?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(25 September 2003)

The Commission has made a very substantial response to the crisis in Ethiopia.

The contributions from the Member States, for an amount of EUR 101 million, and the Commission, for an amount of EUR 114,3 million, are mainly financing the purchase of cereals. Concerning the Commission part, delivery is either directly to the Government of Ethiopia (EUR 81 million), or through grants to the World Food Programme (EUR 10 million), non-governmental organisations (NGOs) (EUR 13 million) and the International Committee of the Red Cross (EUR 5 million). The remaining EUR 5,3 million is ECHO'S contribution. The Commission also finances other operations related to the drought crisis such as NGO projects in the areas of health, nutrition and water and sanitation (EUR 22,8 million). The type of food is mainly cereals, but blended food for supplementary feeding has also been provided. The Commission systematically favours local and regional purchases because even in crisis years there are surplus areas where food can be procured. Furthermore, this prevents prices in the country and in the region from dropping excessively and thereby discouraging farmers to produce the following year. In 2003, 62 250 tonnes have been purchased locally by the Commission, and 48 000 tonnes regionally (Sudan). The balance is made up through imports, especially from the European market.

The Commission responds to appeals of the Government and United Nations (UN) organisations based on assessments of crops and humanitarian needs. The Commission has technical assistance in the country to assist the Delegation in analysing the local situation and monitoring the implementation. Local assessments of the effectiveness of the operation so far indicate that delivery and distribution of food aid are satisfactory.

The Commission has committed and will deliver to Ethiopia approximately 400 000 tonnes of food in 2003. An additional quantity of approximately 40 000 tonnes will be decided shortly. At this stage it is not foreseen to further increase the Commission contribution to Ethiopia in food aid namely because the Government has stated that the global pledges are in excess of the last appeal.

Though the overall response of donors to the Ethiopian appeal has been very satisfactory, and distributions have been carried out according to plan, nutritional surveys show that global acute malnutrition remains high in many areas of the country.

It is evident that food aid is not the answer to Ethiopia's problems. Food security — a deliberate policy to more basically change the situation is needed. The Commission is giving priority to a change in this direction in its dialogue with the government.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/88 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/88

---

(2004/C 88 E/0095)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2504/03

by Esko Seppänen (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(29 July 2003)

Subject:   Double taxation of returning migrants

In April 2001 Frits Bolkestein drew attention to double taxation of pensions and, citing one specific instance in which discrimination arose, mentioned the different taxation practices applying to Finnish and Swedish pensions in particular. Has the Commission acted to remedy the shortcomings and what results has it achieved since 2001?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(16 September 2003)

In its Communication on pension taxation of April 2001 (1), the Commission identified the elimination of tax obstacles to the cross-border provision of occupational pensions as a priority. The Finnish and the Swedish rules on taxation of pensions have since been subject to preliminary rulings by the Court of Justice (2). In both cases the Court ruled in favour of the taxpayer, striking down on rules restricting the taxpayer's right of deduction for cross-border pension contributions in comparison to domestic contributions. The Commission will closely monitor which modifications Finland and Sweden will be making to their tax legislation following the rulings.

In this context, it should also be mentioned that the Commission has decided to refer Denmark to the Court of Justice and has opened infringement procedures against seven other Member States (3). Two of these seven have already informed the Commission that they will take steps to modify their legislation.

---

(1)  OJ C 165, 8.6.2001.

(2)  The Danner case C-136/00, judgement of 3.10.2002, and the Skandia/Ramstedt case C-422/01, judgement of 26.6.2003.

(3)  See IP/03/179 and IP/03/965.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/88 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/88

---

(2004/C 88 E/0096)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2512/03

by Koenraad Dillen (NI) to the Commission

(29 July 2003)

Subject:   Support for victims of the crisis in the Palestinian territories

On Tuesday, 8 July 2003 the Commission approved humanitarian aid of EUR 10 million for Palestinian victims of the Middle East crisis and Palestinian refugees in Lebanon. This sum brings the total support granted by the Commission to Palestinians since the beginning of the second Intifada to EUR 100 million. The money is to be spent on sanitary facilities, infrastructure, education, etc.

On the basis of what bilateral (multilateral?) consultation process is support of this kind granted? How is the support paid out in practical terms? Via which banks, Palestinian authorities, NGOs?

How does the Commission intend to scrutinise the proper disbursement of this funding?

What guarantees did the Commission obtain that this financial support will not be used for improper purposes — I am thinking of anti-Semitic and anti-Israeli propaganda or support for terrorist organisations?

Can the Commission provide details of the practical impact of the humanitarian aid granted thus far to the Palestinians?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(9 September 2003)

The funding decision referred to by the Honourable Member, for an amount of EUR 10 million, was adopted by the Commission on 1 July 2003 in the framework of budget line B7-210, humanitarian aid, managed by the European Commission Humanitarian Aid Office (ECHO).

The decision makes funds available in favour of the victims of the ongoing crisis in the Palestinian Territories, and Palestinian populations in Lebanon, targeting the following sectors: provision of food and non-food items; health and psychosocial support; improvement of water and sanitation facilities; support to household income, and protection activities.

Funding decisions adopted by the Commission under budget line Β7-210 are for humanitarian aid operations that are implemented by Union non governmental organisations (NGOs), United Nations Agencies and the Red Cross family.

In order to qualify as ECHO'S implementing partners, Union NGOs must be signatory to a Framework Partnership Agreement, which can only be concluded after a screening procedure that offers ample guarantees in terms of humanitarian vocation, technical competence, administrative capacity, as well as financial accountability and solvability. The humanitarian organisations' overall compliance with the eligibility criteria for Community funding laid down in Council Regulation (EC) No 1257/96 of 20 June 1996 on humanitarian aid (1) (Article 7) is checked before a partnership agreement is concluded. In addition, ECHO'S external audit service undertakes periodic audits of partner organisations through an annual audit programme.

Funding decisions adopted by the Commission under budget line Β7-210 are taken on the basis of the process described below.

The identification of priorities is the result of a continuous assessment of needs made by ECHO, at both headquarters level, including regular missions, and through its team of experts in the region. This assessment is based upon systematic monitoring of developments related to the humanitarian situation on the ground, including the implementation of ongoing ECHO funded operations, as well as the consultation of all relevant players through existing co-ordination mechanisms involving Member States, UN Agencies, NGOs and the Red Cross family. Humanitarian aid operations funded by ECHO are complementary to more structural and longer-term interventions funded by other Community instruments.

In order to better assess the humanitarian needs of the Palestinian affected by the current crisis in the Middle East, ECHO avails itself of expatriate and local staff at two offices established in Jerusalem and Amman.

By their nature, ECHO funded operations respond to purely humanitarian needs, have no link to political considerations, and their deliverables are easily identifiable.

No ECHO funds channelled through banks or similar mechanisms are provided to national authorities and/or internationally recognised administrative entities.

Against the background described above, with regard to the specific situation in the occupied Palestinian territories, the risk that funds made available under budget line Β7-210 are used for purposes other than those of providing humanitarian relief is, to say the least, extremely limited. In practice, not a single questionable case has emerged so far.

Since the beginning of the second Intifada in September 2000, hundreds of thousands among the most vulnerable Palestinians have benefited from dozens of ECHO funded operations. These operations have strengthened food security for particularly vulnerable groups such as children and lactating women, as well as the provision of safe drinking water. They have improved hygiene conditions, especially in refugee camps, including through the rehabilitation of extremely precarious shelters. They have provided protection and psychological support, as well as access to basic primary and emergency healthcare. Self-reliance activities and employment opportunities have been facilitated. Whenever possible, priority has been given to locally produced, transformed or packed products, such as olive oil, thereby stimulating the local economy.

These operations have been subject to an external evaluation carried out in 2001: the results of this evaluation were globally positive; its recommendations as regards improving effectiveness and sustainability of ECHO funded projects in the area have been taken on board in providing further humanitarian support in 2002 and 2003. The evaluation report can be made available to the Honourable Member upon request.

A new external evaluation is scheduled for the first half of 2004.

---

(1)  OJ L 163, 2.7.1996.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/90 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/90

---

(2004/C 88 E/0097)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2514/03

by Dorette Corbey (PSE) to the Commission

(21 July 2003)

Subject:   Medicinal products: specific exception to patent rights

In its amended proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and the Council amending Directive 2001/83/EC (1) on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use, the Commission states that it does not accept amendment 196, which introduces a specific exception to patent rights, allowing for the production of medicinal products intended for export to third countries, at the request of the authorities of the third country in question, when it is covered by a patent.

| 1. | Can the Commission clarify how the text of the amendment does not meet the strict conditions on exception on patent rights set by the TRIPs and what these conditions exactly are? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Can the Commission clarify how the text of the amendment does not meet the strict conditions on exception on patent rights set by the TRIPs and what these conditions exactly are?

| 2. | How should the text be adapted in order to respect the conditions and correspond to the spirit in which this amendment is proposed? |
| --- | --- |

2.

How should the text be adapted in order to respect the conditions and correspond to the spirit in which this amendment is proposed?

| 3. | Can the Commission clarify why such a provision does not have a place in this legislation and in which legislation this should be addressed in the Commission's view? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Can the Commission clarify why such a provision does not have a place in this legislation and in which legislation this should be addressed in the Commission's view?

Answer given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(14 August 2003)

Article 30 of the Trade-Related aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPs) Agreement provides that Members of the World Trade Organisation (WTO) ‘may provide limited exceptions to the exclusive rights conferred by a patent, provided that such exceptions do not unreasonably conflict with a normal exploitation of the patent and do not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the patent owner, taking account of the legitimate interests of third parties’.

This means that, when introducing exceptions to patent rights, WTO Members have to make sure that the following three conditions are fulfilled:

| 1. | the exception must be limited; |
| --- | --- |

1.

the exception must be limited;

| 2. | it must not unreasonably conflict with a normal exploitation of the patent; |
| --- | --- |

2.

it must not unreasonably conflict with a normal exploitation of the patent;

| 3. | it must not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the patent owner, taking account of the legitimate interests of third parties. |
| --- | --- |

3.

it must not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the patent owner, taking account of the legitimate interests of third parties.

Typically, this provision has been invoked to justify ‘research exemptions’ (allowing free use of a patented invention for the purpose of research), so-called ‘Bolar exemptions’ (allowing free production of limited amounts of patented drugs for the purpose of submitting them to authorities in view of obtaining marketing approval) or ‘farmers’ privileges' (allowing certain categories of farmers to freely use protected propagating material for further multiplication on their own farm — see Article 11 of Directive 98/44/EC of the Parliament and the Council of 6 July 1998 on the protection of biotechnological inventions (2)). This list is not limitative.

Article 30 has been interpreted by a panel under the dispute settlement provisions of the World Trade Organisation in the case ‘Canada — Patent Protection of Pharmaceutical Products’ (WT/DS114/R of 17 March 2000). The panel came to the conclusion that the Canadian ‘regulatory review exemption’ (Bolar provision) meets the three conditions of Article 30 of the TRIPs Agreement, but found that the so-called ‘stockpile exemption’ (allowing companies to produce and stockpile patented pharmaceuticals during the patent term in view of selling them immediately after expiration of the patent) does not meet these criteria. In particular, the panel found that the absence of any limitation upon the quantity of the production during the patent term resulted in a substantial curtailment of the exclusive rights of the patent holders. Therefore, the panel concluded that it could not be considered as a ‘limited exception’ within the meaning of Article 30 of the TRIPs Agreement. Although this panel report was not reviewed by the Appellate Body and has no binding precedential value, it provides useful guidance to the interpretation of Article 30 of the TRIPs Agreement.

The Commission takes the view that, as drafted, Amendment 196 of the Parliament's proposal amending the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use, provides no guarantee that the proposed exception would meet any of the three criteria. For example, the proposal does not provide any mechanism to ensure that the exception would indeed be applied only for manufacturing those products needed by countries without manufacturing capacity in the pharmaceutical sector. Likewise, it does not contain any condition to ensure that these products would indeed be exported only to the countries in need and to prevent diversion to other markets.

Moreover, the Commission takes the view that, since ongoing work in the World Trade Organisation to address the problems of countries without manufacturing capacity in the pharmaceutical sector (cf. paragraph 6 of the WTO Doha Declaration on the TRIPs Agreement and Public Health) is based on Article 31 of the TRIPs Agreement, it is inappropriate to implement, at Union level, a mechanism based on another provision of the TRIPs Agreement. Indeed, the Draft Decision of 30 December 2002 implementing paragraph 6 of the WTO Doha Declaration on the TRIPs Agreement and Public Health (the so called ‘Perez Motta text’) provides for a system based on the granting of compulsory licences for export (i.e. Article 31 of the TRIPs Agreement) rather than through the introduction of a general exception on the basis of Article 30 of the TRIPs Agreement. This Draft Decision was endorsed by all Members of the WTO, with the exception of the United States, and the Commission is working hard to ensure that it can be formally adopted by all WTO Members by the Ministerial Conference of Cancun (September 2003).

Finally, the Commission takes the view that any mechanism concerned with the relationship between the exercise of patent rights and the export of medicines to certain categories of third countries would in effect involve a partial harmonisation of patent law within the Union and would therefore not have its proper place in the present directive, which is concerned with placing on the market medicinal products within the Union.

---

(1)  OJ L 311, 28.11.2001, p. 67.

(2)  OJ L 213, 30.7.1998.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/91 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/91

---

(2004/C 88 E/0098)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2531/03

by Gabriele Stauner (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(29 July 2003)

Subject:   Carpetbaggers and thieves in Kosovo

In an article entitled ‘Profiteure und Räuber im Kosovo’ (Carpetbaggers and thieves in Kosovo) published in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung on 14 July 2003, Agron Bajrami criticises UN press policy in that country. Mr Bajrami is the deputy editor-in-chief of ‘Koha Ditoure’, the biggest newspaper in Kosovo. He argues that the UN administration is, to a quite inappropriate extent, supporting ‘Radio Television Kosovo’ so as to ‘buy’ positive press coverage. One of the accusations made by Mr Bajrami is that the salaries of managers of ‘Radio Television Kosovo’ are several times higher than ministers' salaries.

Can the Commission confirm these accusations?

Can it say to what extent support for Radio Television Kosovo is being paid for with Community budget resources?

‘Die Zeit’ of 10 July 2003 carries a report about scandalous conditions at power plants of the Kosovo Energy Company (KEK). Over EUR 400 million have apparently been spent on these run-down power plants since 1999. It is claimed that reconstruction companies, including a German one, have performed substandard work and used old and useless spare parts. They are supposed to have paid for whole shipments of oil from Macedonia, even when the tankers arrived half empty.

Can the Commission say to what extent the Kosovo Energy company (KEK) is funded by Community budget resources?

Can it say what steps it is taking to put an end to the abuses in question?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(2 October 2003)

There are three Kosovo-wide television stations, one public (RTK) and two private (KTV and TV21). ‘Koha Ditore’, whose owners own also KTV, have shown a keen interest in the debate relating to the status of RTK as a public and independent broadcaster.

The Organisation on Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE)-led pillar III of United Nations Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo (UNMIK), set up Radio Television Kosovo (RTK) as an independent public broadcaster for the development and promotion of democracy. RTK has received awards for its independent coverage, which seem to be confirmed by RTK's high audience rates — which are estimated at 60-70 % of viewers in Kosovo and almost 100 % in the Diaspora.

As far as the comparison of salaries is concerned, UNMIK has drawn the attention of the Commission to the following facts. Senior managers of RTK are not bound by legislation and salary ceilings applying to Kosovo civil servants. The status of RTK's senior managers is outlined in the Regulation establishing RTK (Regulation 2001/13 — 15 June 2001 on the Establishment of Radio Television Kosovo). The salaries paid to RTK's managers are supposed to reflect market conditions, professional requirements and responsibilities. They are also deemed appropriate to safeguard RTK's editorial independence, which is so important in Kosovo's post-conflict situation. In any case, salary costs are not covered by Community assistance.

A number of Member States and international donors, including the Commission through the European Agency for Reconstruction, have supported the setting up of the RTK, in order to set itself up as a public, independent and professional broadcaster. RTK is the only TV station broadcasting dedicated minority programmes.

In the 2002 CARDS annual programme for Kosovo, EUR 1,5 million were allocated to RTK for advisory support, production of programmes, training, audience research, direct operational non-salary costs, purchase of equipment and independent financial auditing.

The Commission can confirm that the situation that the international community found in Kosovo at the end of the 1999 conflict, which followed over a decade of negligence and under-investment, was extremely critical, as the public electricity utility KEK and its power plants were close to collapse.

The Kosovo A and Β power stations are very old (about 40 and 20 years old respectively) and in 1999 were essentially out of operation. The coal mines were seriously neglected and severely overexploited. Transmission and distribution networks were hampered by bottlenecks as upgrading of the grid had not kept pace with industrial and population developments. District heating systems were in a poor state of repair and operating at a low capacity.

Despite the heavy investment of the Commission and the international community involved in the electricity sector and KEK, the situation of the Kosovar electricity utility is today still critical, as the challenges to overcome are still substantial.

The Commission's support to KEK is implemented through the European Agency for Reconstruction and amounts to date to about EUR 350 million. From these funds, about EUR 80 million were used for electricity imports, EUR 35 million were spent for necessary technical assistance, EUR 20-30 million were used to repair the damage caused by NATO bombing during the conflict (particularly on the transmission system) and EUR 40 million had to be spent on Kosovo Β for the damages caused by the lighting strike accident and fire in July 2002.

Given the importance of the Community financial support in the electricity sector, the Commission is following up closely the implementation of the assistance, in close co-operation with the European Agency for Reconstruction and the Union-led Pillar of the UN Mission in Kosovo.

The Commission is unaware of any substandard work or material of the rehabilitation undertaken by the European Agency for Reconstruction. The European Agency for Reconstruction has confirmed that all works are closely supervised by independent technical experts in accordance with international standards and only new materials are employed. They have also indicated that they are not aware of any evidence which substantiates allegations about short diesel supply.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/93 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/93

---

(2004/C 88 E/0099)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2542/03

by Maurizio Turco (NI) to the Commission

(30 July 2003)

Subject:   Violation of religious freedom in Russia

Knowing that:

| — | on 15 May 2000 the authorities in Kostroma refused the ‘Family of God’ and another Pentecostal church authorisation to profess their faith because they allegedly practise hypnotism; |
| --- | --- |

—

on 15 May 2000 the authorities in Kostroma refused the ‘Family of God’ and another Pentecostal church authorisation to profess their faith because they allegedly practise hypnotism;

| — | in November 2000 the Kostroma regional justice department requested the closure of two churches, but did not manage to prove, as required under the 1997 Russian law on religion, that people had suffered moral or physical harm as a result of hypnosis; According to the law, the harm caused by hypnosis, rather than the hypnosis itself, must be proven before a religious organisation may be closed down; |
| --- | --- |

—

in November 2000 the Kostroma regional justice department requested the closure of two churches, but did not manage to prove, as required under the 1997 Russian law on religion, that people had suffered moral or physical harm as a result of hypnosis; According to the law, the harm caused by hypnosis, rather than the hypnosis itself, must be proven before a religious organisation may be closed down;

| — | last summer five American citizens working with the Evangelical Christian Church in Kostroma and an American citizen working in the town with the Christian humanitarian organisation ‘Children's Hope Chest’ were refused visas, the pastor Bill Norton, who used to visit the Kostroma ‘Family of God’ church, was refused entry three times, |
| --- | --- |

—

last summer five American citizens working with the Evangelical Christian Church in Kostroma and an American citizen working in the town with the Christian humanitarian organisation ‘Children's Hope Chest’ were refused visas, the pastor Bill Norton, who used to visit the Kostroma ‘Family of God’ church, was refused entry three times,

| — | and in June the justice department of Kostroma near Moscow ordered a check on the ‘Family of God’ church. |
| --- | --- |

—

and in June the justice department of Kostroma near Moscow ordered a check on the ‘Family of God’ church.

In view of the excellent cooperation relationship between the European Union and Russia,

can the Commission say whether it is aware of the facts outlined above?

and what measures, in the context of cooperation relations, might constitute a serious and effective means of inducing Russia to respect religious freedom, as envisaged in the Constitution and the Federal law on religion?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(15 September 2003)

The Commission is aware that the position in Russia of churches other than the Russian Orthodox Church is sometimes difficult.

The Commission frequently raises its concerns about the need for Russia to guarantee the full respect of human rights in the context of Union/Russia political dialogue and will continue to stress to the Russian authorities that the pattern of developments regarding freedom of religion is not compatible with the major international and European Human Rights conventions that Russia has ratified, which include reference to freedom of religion or belief.

It should be recalled that the Commission actively promotes human rights via the European Initiative for Democracy and Human Rights programme. Furthermore, provision of assistance to Russia through the TACIS programme is explicitly conditional on respect of democratic principles and human rights.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/94 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/94

---

(2004/C 88 E/0100)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2551/03

by Avril Doyle (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(4 August 2003)

Subject:   EU failure to disburse overseas aid

Following recent reports that the EU has accumulated EUR 20 billion in unspent aid funds over the past decade despite consistently high levels of investment need in developing countries, can the Commission advise on the reasons why available money was not spent on worthwhile projects by the European Development Fund?

Furthermore, can the Commission explain what measures are being put in place to remedy this situation and provide for a more effective and efficient distribution of funding to implementing partners?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(28 October 2003)

Unspent aid funds (EDF)

At the end of 2002, a total of EUR 32,4 billion had been made available through the ‘live’ (6th, 7th and 8th) European Development Funds (EDF), and of this figure, EUR 29,9 billion had been committed, meaning that formal decisions had been taken to go ahead on specific projects. So in fact EUR 2,5 billion had been allocated but not committed.

The Union is obliged under the Cotonou Agreement to be active in all African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) signatory States, including in countries where other donors may not wish to work. A large part of the funds provided under the Agreement is earmarked to each ACP State on a national basis. However, co-operation may subsequently have to be reduced or suspended with some countries for political (non-respect of the ‘essential elements’ of the Cotonou Agreement, human rights, democratic principles and the rule of law) or practical reasons (civil wars, security situation etc). This means that commitments for specific projects may be difficult or impossible to approve. EUR 1,7 billion of the EUR 2,5 billion mentioned above are currently earmarked for countries which are or have been in crisis. These funds remain allocated to the country. Their use depends on the resolution of the crisis which gave rise to the problems in using funds.

Once a decision is taken to finance a project, contracts have to be awarded, and the funds are paid out as work progresses or as conditions are met. Of the EUR 29,9 billion committed at the end of 2002, EUR 21,6 billion had been paid. Most of the remaining EUR 8,3 billion will be paid out as projects are completed. The problematic element of the EUR 8,3 billion of unspent commitments is the ‘sleeping’ commitments on which the Commission has seen no financial movements (i.e. contracts or payments) on the project in the last two years and money which remains unpaid even though specific projects were approved (committed) before 1997 (‘old’ commitments). For the EDF, the Commission estimates this problem to represent EUR 1,4 billion — a rather small proportion, of the total EDF moneys allocated to ACP countries (6th, 7th and 8th EDF) — but is of course pursuing an extremely active policy to reduce this figure.

All these figures have been reported to the Parliament and correspond broadly to those for the ALA and Meda programmes. It should be noted in this context that, by their very nature, all pluri-annual programmes contain an inbuilt ‘delay’ between initial commitment and final payment.

All donors have large amounts of ‘unpaid’ commitments as all donors have to get programmes and projects agreed before contracting and payments can start. For the Commission, this amount gets larger at the start of a new EDF cycle (i.e. in 2003 for the 9th EDF) when a large number of new projects are being agreed (committed). The Commission's unspent commitments are close to the average in Member States. In assessing the Commission's performance the particularly restrictive Union budgetary and legal contexts also have to be taken into account.

Action being taken

The External assistance reforms launched in 2000 have been far-reaching — notably in the setting up of the EuropeAid Office and the ambitious programme of devolving project responsibility to Commission delegations. The Peer Review undertaken by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) Development Assistance Committee concluded in June 2002:

| | The EC has made substantial progress since January 2001 with organisational and management reforms of its development and humanitarian aid system. Of particular note are improvements to accountability at all levels, the introduction of the Country Strategy Papers process, the speedy and efficient delivery of humanitarian aid, the clarification of the links between relief and development, improved evaluation systems, and progress in the decision-making process with Member States and with devolution of authority to field offices. |
| --- | --- |

The EC has made substantial progress since January 2001 with organisational and management reforms of its development and humanitarian aid system. Of particular note are improvements to accountability at all levels, the introduction of the Country Strategy Papers process, the speedy and efficient delivery of humanitarian aid, the clarification of the links between relief and development, improved evaluation systems, and progress in the decision-making process with Member States and with devolution of authority to field offices.

Devolution

The ‘devolution’ of project management responsibilities is today operational in 45 Delegations, covering essentially our country based programmes in Europe, Mediterranean, Asia and Latin America. Attention is now focussed on the remaining 30 Delegations of the third wave this year 2003, coming essentially from the ACP region.

In this context, it should be noted that, on average, Commission officials deal with a certain amount of resources measured in multiples of EUR 10 million of aid per year. Their colleagues in a Member State administration handle an average amount that is three to seven times lower.

Freeing up (decommitting) the ‘old and sleeping’ EDF commitments

In 2002 the total amount of pre-1997 old and sleeping EDF commitments was reduced by EUR 310 million and estimations for the year 2003 indicate a further reduction of EUR 470 million. The pre-1995 backlog of old and sleeping commitments has been cut by 76 %.

Untying of aid

The Commission has made an ambitious proposal on the important question of untying aid from national (commercial) interests. The Commission considers that the untying of aid would reduce the administrative burden on its partner countries, thereby facilitating quicker and more efficient aid delivery.

Budgetisation of the EDF

The EDF should be an integral part of the general budget of the Community and subject to Parliamentary scrutiny. This would provide a single legal framework for the management of development funds and offer substantial efficiency improvements allowing Commission staff to focus more attention on establishing the cooperation and dialogue with partner countries necessary for efficient implementation, and spending less time dealing with complex procedures. A Commission Communication to the Parliament and the Council setting out the full rationale for this approach was adopted on 8 October (1).

Organisational restructuring

The proximity of the end of the Commission's mandate, the conclusions of the Convention and the ongoing work of the IGC render the launch of a new phase of external assistance reform inopportune at this stage. However, it is the duty of the present Commission, in light of its experience and of the orientations emerging from the Convention, to carry out an analysis of the most efficient organisation of its external relations services in their entirety, for the benefit of the next Commission.

Flexibility

Community development assistance is being managed following a complex system of ‘comitology’, financial regulations and thematic budget lines, which consumes an enormous amount of scarce Commission staffing resources and considerably lengthens decision-making procedures. Every financial proposal will soon have to be translated into 21 languages. This leaves some scope for further efficiency reforms involving the Commission, Member States and the Parliament.

---

(1)  COM(2003) 590 final.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/96 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/96

---

(2004/C 88 E/0101)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2552/03

by Jules Maaten (ELDR) to the Commission

(4 August 2003)

Subject:   The case of Vinh Binh Trinh in Vietnam

Following the Commission's answer to my Written Question E-1223/01 (1) on the fate of the Dutch citizen of Vietnamese origin, Mr Vinh Binh Trinh, who, as a ‘boat-people’ refugee, stared a successful business in the Netherlands and subsequently established a business in his country of origin, but was convicted on false charges and had his businesses confiscated, I now put the following supplementary questions:

| 1. | Has the European Commission since become aware of reports to the effect that the provincial authorities in the Vung Tan province have been involved in corruption, that the person who laid false allegations against Mr Trinh has admitted to having done so, and that the Central Organisation of the Internal Affairs Ministry in Hanoi has reopened investigations into this case? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Has the European Commission since become aware of reports to the effect that the provincial authorities in the Vung Tan province have been involved in corruption, that the person who laid false allegations against Mr Trinh has admitted to having done so, and that the Central Organisation of the Internal Affairs Ministry in Hanoi has reopened investigations into this case?

| 2. | Is the European Commission prepared emphatically to urge the authorities in Vietnam to rehabilitate Mr Trinh? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Is the European Commission prepared emphatically to urge the authorities in Vietnam to rehabilitate Mr Trinh?

| 3. | Is the European Commission aware whether similar cases of corruption have been brought to light that have affected investors from the European Union, and whether the Vietnamese authorities are also prepared to intervene in those cases? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Is the European Commission aware whether similar cases of corruption have been brought to light that have affected investors from the European Union, and whether the Vietnamese authorities are also prepared to intervene in those cases?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(16 September 2003)

Following Written Question E-1223/01 by the Honourable Member, the Commission has been following the case of Mr Trinh through its Delegation in Hanoi. According to its most recent information, the policeman who arrested Mr Trinh was arrested for corruption himself. Moreover, the main witness against Mr Trinh has withdrawn his testimony in writing. However, the Commission has no confirmation yet that the Vietnamese authorities have reopened the case.

The Commission is not aware that the case of Mr Trinh or other cases have had a negative impact on European investment in Vietnam. However, corruption and lack of transparency continue to be some of Vietnam's most pressing issues in the reform process. The Government of Vietnam has taken decisive measures against corruption as part of the public administration and legal reform programmes, which are under implementation and to which the Member States and the Commission have offered their support. The promotion of good governance, best administrative practice and a properly functioning judiciary system are priorities for Community co-operation with Vietnam under the Country Strategy Paper 2002-2006.

The competence to intervene in this case lies primarily with the Dutch authorities. The Commission's policy towards Vietnam is to encourage and support continued progress on human rights, democratisation and good governance, and to raise concerns where abuses occur or where the situation deteriorates. The Commission works closely with the Member States in monitoring developments in the country. It participates in all Union démarches to the Government of Vietnam on human rights issues. The Commission will continue to follow Mr Trinh's case, together with the Diplomatic Missions of the Member States in Vietnam.

---

(1)  OJ C 350 E, 11.12.2001, p. 95.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/97 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/97

---

(2004/C 88 E/0102)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2558/03

by Robert Evans (PSE) to the Commission

(4 August 2003)

Subject:   Human rights in Peru

Is the Commission aware of the arrest and detention of Walter Cubas Baltazar in Peru? Concerned constituents have contacted me in response to reports of alleged torture of Mr Walter Cubas Baltazar during the course of his detention.

Can the Commission assure my constituents that it monitors reports of human rights abuses in Peru and uses the opportunities arising from its official relations with the country in order to highlight instances of concern?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(12 September 2003)

The Commission is aware of the arrest and detention of Walter Cubas Balthazar in Peru and the Commission Delegation in Lima is closely following events relating to the arrest.

In line with the Working Paper on the implementation of the Guidelines to Union policy towards third countries on torture of December 2002, EU Heads of Mission in Lima have recently reported on the situation with respect to torture in the country and are monitoring Peru's progress towards the complete eradication of torture.

Human Rights issues occupy a permanent place on the agenda of the Union-Peru political dialogue, carried out at the level of the Andean Community (CAN). The Union is supporting in particular the work of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (Comisión de la Verdad y Reconciliación Nacional) amongst whose tasks is the investigation of serious human rights violations during the period of 1980-2000.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/98 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/98

---

(2004/C 88 E/0103)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2563/03

by Maurizio Turco (NI) to the Commission

(4 August 2003)

Subject:   Compatibility between the violence perpetrated by the Sudanese dictatorial regime and the agreement initialled by the European Union and Sudan

Considering that:

| — | according to the press agency MISNA, during the clashes of the last few weeks between rebel forces and the Sudanese government, Antonov aircraft of the Sudanese airforce have hit 25 villages in the north-west of the western state of Darfur, using unspecified ‘toxic gases’ which are said to have killed 300 people and injured more than 200 others; |
| --- | --- |

—

according to the press agency MISNA, during the clashes of the last few weeks between rebel forces and the Sudanese government, Antonov aircraft of the Sudanese airforce have hit 25 villages in the north-west of the western state of Darfur, using unspecified ‘toxic gases’ which are said to have killed 300 people and injured more than 200 others;

| — | the government of the President General Hassan Al Bashir has not yet responded to the accusation that he wants to hit the population of Darfur, made by the Sudanese people's liberation army (SPLM/A); |
| --- | --- |

—

the government of the President General Hassan Al Bashir has not yet responded to the accusation that he wants to hit the population of Darfur, made by the Sudanese people's liberation army (SPLM/A);

| — | peace talks between the Sudanese government and SPLM/A have been suspended yet again and the start of discussions, scheduled for this week, has been postponed until 3 August; |
| --- | --- |

—

peace talks between the Sudanese government and SPLM/A have been suspended yet again and the start of discussions, scheduled for this week, has been postponed until 3 August;

| — | on 11 July the government delegation refused to accept as a basis for the future talks the framework agreement put forward by IGAD (Intergovernmental Authority on Development), the regional organisation of the countries of the Horn of Africa which is directing the negotiations, after the SPLM/A delegation had publicly expressed its satisfaction with the document; |
| --- | --- |

—

on 11 July the government delegation refused to accept as a basis for the future talks the framework agreement put forward by IGAD (Intergovernmental Authority on Development), the regional organisation of the countries of the Horn of Africa which is directing the negotiations, after the SPLM/A delegation had publicly expressed its satisfaction with the document;

| — | since it was signed in July last year no action has been taken on the preliminary protocol of understanding between the two sides and the Khartoum government seems to have no intention of giving up or sharing control over the oil-producing areas in the south, the revenue produced or the new armed forces, which the dictator Al-Bashir has been employing to murder people in Sudan for many years. |
| --- | --- |

—

since it was signed in July last year no action has been taken on the preliminary protocol of understanding between the two sides and the Khartoum government seems to have no intention of giving up or sharing control over the oil-producing areas in the south, the revenue produced or the new armed forces, which the dictator Al-Bashir has been employing to murder people in Sudan for many years.

Can the Commission say:

| — | whether, in the light of these events, it intends to denounce the agreement initialled on 10 December last year with the Sudanese government, since the latter is indiscriminately using its military arsenal and does not seem to have any intention of implementing the Machakos protocol of July last year; |
| --- | --- |

—

whether, in the light of these events, it intends to denounce the agreement initialled on 10 December last year with the Sudanese government, since the latter is indiscriminately using its military arsenal and does not seem to have any intention of implementing the Machakos protocol of July last year;

| — | whether it considers that Al Bashir's dictatorial regime, responsible for what amounts to genocide of the non-Muslim population, can ensure peace, prosperity and security in Sudan; |
| --- | --- |

—

whether it considers that Al Bashir's dictatorial regime, responsible for what amounts to genocide of the non-Muslim population, can ensure peace, prosperity and security in Sudan;

| — | whether it intends to take unified action on behalf of the European Union in all multilateral fora, starting with the United Nations, to step up international pressure on the Sudanese government to isolate its murderous dictator? |
| --- | --- |

—

whether it intends to take unified action on behalf of the European Union in all multilateral fora, starting with the United Nations, to step up international pressure on the Sudanese government to isolate its murderous dictator?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(25 September 2003)

The Commission, together with the Member States, carefully monitors both the situation regarding respect for human rights and the evolution of the hostilities in Sudan. Since March 1990, the Commission has suspended development co-operation with the country.

In line with the Council conclusions of 17 June 2002, the Commission has confirmed that the resumption of development co-operation would only take place when a peace agreement for the Sudanese civil conflict is signed.

No agreement was initialled on 10 December 2002 with the Government of Sudan. On that date an Union Troika was in Khartoum during which the normalisation of Union/Sudan relations was linked to the signature of a peace agreement. The Union considers that the continuation of the civil conflict and the violations of human rights constitute the main obstacles to social and economic development in Sudan.

The Commission considers that only a Government formed through a comprehensive and just peace process ‘can ensure peace, prosperity and security in Sudan’.

The Commission has always participated in Union initiatives on Sudan in international fora, in particular in the United Nations Commission on Human Rights. The Commission will continue to pursue this policy.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/99 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/99

---

(2004/C 88 E/0104)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2574/03

by Margrietus van den Berg (PSE) to the Commission

(6 August 2003)

Subject:   Violation of international directives by a Dutch company in the DRC

| 1. | Has the Commission been following the reports about the involvement of the Dutch Chemie Pharmacie Holland (CPH) Company in the Democratic Republic of Congo? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Has the Commission been following the reports about the involvement of the Dutch Chemie Pharmacie Holland (CPH) Company in the Democratic Republic of Congo?

| 2. | Is it true that CPH has paid hundreds of thousands of euros to the Rassemblement Congolais pour la Démocratie (RCD) in Goma? If so, when did the Commission become aware of the payments and what is its view thereof? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Is it true that CPH has paid hundreds of thousands of euros to the Rassemblement Congolais pour la Démocratie (RCD) in Goma? If so, when did the Commission become aware of the payments and what is its view thereof?

| 3. | If the accusations are well-founded, will the Commission take measures against CPH and, possibly, other companies, as called for, ‘inter alia’, by the UN Expert Panel? |
| --- | --- |

3.

If the accusations are well-founded, will the Commission take measures against CPH and, possibly, other companies, as called for, ‘inter alia’, by the UN Expert Panel?

| 4. | In connection with the UN, is the Commission prepared to call for a moratorium in the coltan trade until contacts can be established with a transitional government and strict agreements concluded? If not, why not? |
| --- | --- |

4.

In connection with the UN, is the Commission prepared to call for a moratorium in the coltan trade until contacts can be established with a transitional government and strict agreements concluded? If not, why not?

| 5. | By analogy with the Kimberley Procedure with regard to the diamond trade, is the Commission prepared to initiate an inquiry into certification procedures for coltan and other raw materials which would make it impossible for the conflict in the DRC to be financed from trade in raw materials? What is the Commission's view of the UN Expert Panel's recommendation that a permanent body be set up to monitor raw materials involved in the conflict? |
| --- | --- |

5.

By analogy with the Kimberley Procedure with regard to the diamond trade, is the Commission prepared to initiate an inquiry into certification procedures for coltan and other raw materials which would make it impossible for the conflict in the DRC to be financed from trade in raw materials? What is the Commission's view of the UN Expert Panel's recommendation that a permanent body be set up to monitor raw materials involved in the conflict?

| 6. | Given the involvement of Rwanda, a signatory to the Cotonou Agreement, in trade in coltan from the DRC, is the Commission prepared to make urgent representations to the Rwandan Government for it to set up a Commission, like the Porter Commission in Uganda, to inquire into the involvement of Rwanda and Rwandan citizens in the plunder of raw materials in the DRC? |
| --- | --- |

6.

Given the involvement of Rwanda, a signatory to the Cotonou Agreement, in trade in coltan from the DRC, is the Commission prepared to make urgent representations to the Rwandan Government for it to set up a Commission, like the Porter Commission in Uganda, to inquire into the involvement of Rwanda and Rwandan citizens in the plunder of raw materials in the DRC?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(29 September 2003)

| 1. to 3. | The Commission follows, to the extent possible, individual cases relating to the ‘Report of Illegal Exploitation of Natural Resources in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC)’. However, the follow-up is the responsibility of individual countries. Comments on cases being pursued by national authorities are not appropriate while investigations are taking place.
  The Commission notes that the report of the United Nations (UN) Panel stated that a number of companies operating in DRC had failed to adhere to the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises. 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 considers that allegations of conduct inconsistent with the OECD Guidelines should be addressed to the relevant National Contact Point, which will investigate accordingly. |
| --- | --- |

1. to 3.

The Commission follows, to the extent possible, individual cases relating to the ‘Report of Illegal Exploitation of Natural Resources in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC)’. However, the follow-up is the responsibility of individual countries. Comments on cases being pursued by national authorities are not appropriate while investigations are taking place.

The Commission notes that the report of the United Nations (UN) Panel stated that a number of companies operating in DRC had failed to adhere to the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises. 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 considers that allegations of conduct inconsistent with the OECD Guidelines should be addressed to the relevant National Contact Point, which will investigate accordingly.

| 4. and 5. | The Commission has discussed with the Panel (which is finalising its final report for October 2003) the coltan moratorium proposal and they consider it is not possible to implement and that comparison with the Kimberley process is not appropriate. The Panel is not going to propose such a moratorium.
  The Transitional Government in DRC has not yet established full and effective control over its vast territory. However, the United Nations Organisation Mission in the (MONUC) forces are now present in large parts of Eastern Congo and with the warring parties' agreement on the Army establishment, it is only a question of time before effective control is established.
  It is the Commission's view that a permanent body might have been appropriate at an earlier stage of the conflict. However, it is now for the Transitional Government to take appropriate measures to control the exploitation of raw materials in the country. |
| --- | --- |

4. and 5.

The Commission has discussed with the Panel (which is finalising its final report for October 2003) the coltan moratorium proposal and they consider it is not possible to implement and that comparison with the Kimberley process is not appropriate. The Panel is not going to propose such a moratorium.

The Transitional Government in DRC has not yet established full and effective control over its vast territory. However, the United Nations Organisation Mission in the (MONUC) forces are now present in large parts of Eastern Congo and with the warring parties' agreement on the Army establishment, it is only a question of time before effective control is established.

It is the Commission's view that a permanent body might have been appropriate at an earlier stage of the conflict. However, it is now for the Transitional Government to take appropriate measures to control the exploitation of raw materials in the country.

| 6. | The Commission would point out that while several persons and bodies in Uganda were named by the Panel, only one name — albeit an important army person — was named in the Panel's report on Rwanda. Thus the situation is not the same. It is the Commission's understanding that this issue may be taken up in the Panel's report to the Security Council foreseen for October 2003 |
| --- | --- |

6.

The Commission would point out that while several persons and bodies in Uganda were named by the Panel, only one name — albeit an important army person — was named in the Panel's report on Rwanda. Thus the situation is not the same. It is the Commission's understanding that this issue may be taken up in the Panel's report to the Security Council foreseen for October 2003

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/100 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/100

---

(2004/C 88 E/0105)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2579/03

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(6 August 2003)

Subject:   Confiscation of euro bank notes belonging to, and robbery of, families of Turkish origin from EU Member States during their annual journey home through Bulgaria

| 1. | Is the Commission aware that, for several decades now, a large number of families of Turkish origin from Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands, Denmark, Austria and other EU Member States have been returning each summer to their native land to spend their holidays and visit families, many of them travelling by train or car? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is the Commission aware that, for several decades now, a large number of families of Turkish origin from Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands, Denmark, Austria and other EU Member States have been returning each summer to their native land to spend their holidays and visit families, many of them travelling by train or car?

| 2. | Has the Commission been informed that the section of their journey which necessarily crosses Bulgaria has become increasingly difficult, with families of Turkish origin being hampered by being required to pay a EUR 100 levy to criminal gangs for ‘obligatory anti-SARS injections’, by thieves disguised as police officers, by armed robbers and by having to pay enormous fines for allegedly breaking the speed limit? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Has the Commission been informed that the section of their journey which necessarily crosses Bulgaria has become increasingly difficult, with families of Turkish origin being hampered by being required to pay a EUR 100 levy to criminal gangs for ‘obligatory anti-SARS injections’, by thieves disguised as police officers, by armed robbers and by having to pay enormous fines for allegedly breaking the speed limit?

| 3. | Is the Commission aware that people travelling through Bulgaria are surprised that the Bulgarian police and customs service forbid the carrying of large amounts of money in euros (in excess of the equivalent of BGL 5 000) through Bulgaria and, consequently, sometimes confiscate thousands of euros per family in cash? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Is the Commission aware that people travelling through Bulgaria are surprised that the Bulgarian police and customs service forbid the carrying of large amounts of money in euros (in excess of the equivalent of BGL 5 000) through Bulgaria and, consequently, sometimes confiscate thousands of euros per family in cash?

| 4. | What is the Commission doing to protect residents of EU Member States against these forms of robbery and extortion in a neighbouring country which hopes to be able to accede to the EU in 2007? |
| --- | --- |

4.

What is the Commission doing to protect residents of EU Member States against these forms of robbery and extortion in a neighbouring country which hopes to be able to accede to the EU in 2007?

| 5. | What guarantees can the Commission offer to ensure that such practices will not recur during transit traffic peak periods in 2004 and thereafter? |
| --- | --- |

5.

What guarantees can the Commission offer to ensure that such practices will not recur during transit traffic peak periods in 2004 and thereafter?

| 6. | Are these problems being addressed in the negotiations with Bulgaria on its future accession to the EU? |
| --- | --- |

6.

Are these problems being addressed in the negotiations with Bulgaria on its future accession to the EU?

SourceiThe 18 July 2003 edition of'Rotterdams Dagblad', a Dutch newspaper

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(15 September 2003)

Following a large number of complaints from Union citizens as well as previous parliamentary questions on this subject (H-0793/01 by Mr Ceyhun during question time at Parliament's November I, 2001 session (1), P-0437/02 by Mr Ceyhun (2), E-3790/02 by Mr Maaten (3) and P-1139/03 by Mrs Swiebel (4)), the Commission is well aware that many families of Turkish origin travel regularly via Bulgaria and can encounter problems related to motorway criminality and corrupt behaviour of police and customs officers. In the 2002 Regular Report (5), the Commission clearly states that police corruption is perceived to be a problem and that cases of bribery in the traffic and border police have been raised by Union citizens driving in and through Bulgaria. At the last meeting of the Union/Bulgaria Association Committee, the Commission emphasised that Bulgarian Authorities must address the problem. The Commission has officially transmitted a summary of individual complaints and a recent report by ‘Stichting Inspraakorgaan Turken in Nederland.’ The problem has also been raised in the framework of the accession negotiations.

The Bulgarian Government has reacted by adopting a national strategy against corruption. As regards police corruption and false police officers, the government has taken measures to combat motorway criminality and to prevent unlawful actions of police officers. As regards corruption in the customs administration, the government is applying sanctions, including dismissals, to implement the new code of ethics.

Considering that the criteria for membership agreed by the Copenhagen European Council in 1993 (21/22 June 1993) include the guaranteeing of the rule of law, the Commission attaches great importance to the development of effective and non-discriminatory law enforcement in Bulgaria. The Commission will continue to monitor Bulgaria's progress in this area until the date of accession and report to the Parliament and the Member States.

Please note that the fight against corruption is considered to be a priority for PHARE assistance in Bulgaria and that four anti-corruption projects were approved in 2002. One of these exclusively covers corruption within the police forces.

As regards the regime for import and export of currency, it should be noted that Bulgaria achieved a higher degree of compliance with the ‘acquis’ and best Union practices through the amendments to the Bulgarian Foreign Exchange Law in June 2003. The declaration regime for import and export of cash amounts over BGL 5 000 or their equivalent in foreign currency replaced previously existing more restrictive provisions such as the permission regime for export of cash amounts over BGL 20 000. Currently for export of cash over BGL 25 000, in addition to the declaration, evidence that the person does not have liabilities to the Bulgarian State is required. Such evidence is not required for foreign persons exporting currency that has previously been imported and declared.

---

(1)  Written reply, 13.11.2001.

(2)  OJ C 277 E, 14.11.2002.

(3)  OJ C 70 E, 20.3.2004, p. 24.

(4)  See page 18.

(5)  COM(2002) 700 final.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/102 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/102

---

(2004/C 88 E/0106)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2585/03

by Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(8 August 2003)

Subject:   Taxation of low-proof alcoholic beverages

In the light of the commercial success of the new alcoholic beverages commonly referred to as Ready-To-Drink, could the Commission say whether the following interpretation of Community law is accurate? If a government decides to increase excise duties on spirit-based RTDs only without altering taxes on traditional spirits, for public health reasons, is that decision in breach of Community law? These drinks are usually sweetened and in fact predominantly consumed by young people, which creates a considerable public health problem.

Would the Commission's answer be different if the receipts from this tax were not directly assigned to the general national budget but were earmarked for a specific purpose (i.e. for a body specifically responsible for public health)?

Does the case law of the Court of Justice in regard to the French social security contribution levied on alcoholic beverages (judgment of 24 February 2000 in case C-434/97) (1), which applied the scope offered by Article 3(3) of Directive 92/12, not provide a basis for Member States to tax traditional spirits and spirit-based RTDs differently (see point 19 of the judgment)?

Does the Commission not consider that this category of drinks, which primarily seeks to appeal to young people through being sweet, should be specifically defined, at least for taxation purposes? This question is all the more apposite given the evidence that manufacturers of RTDs do not hesitate to alter the alcohol content of these drinks in order to avail themselves of competitive tax benefits (as is the case with ‘malternatives’ in the USA, for example).

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(19 September 2003)

A tax in some respects similar to that described by the Honourable Member has already been introduced in one Member State. It has attracted a number of complaints to the effect that it is contrary to both Article 90 of the EC Treaty and to Article 3(2) of 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 (2).

The Commission's inquiry into those complaints includes, among other matters, investigation of the legal questions being raised by the Honourable Member. The Commission has yet to conclude that inquiry.

The Commission has no intention of specifically defining for tax purposes the drinks described by the Honourable Member.

As regards non-tax aspects, the Commission would like to inform the Honourable Member of the Council Recommendation 2001/458/EC of 5 June 2001 on the drinking of alcohol by young people, in particular children and adolescents (3), which addresses the issue from a public health perspective.

---

(1)  OJ C 052, 24.2.2000, p. 2.

(2)  OJ L 76, 23.3.1992.

(3)  OJ L 161, 16.6.2001.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/103 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/103

---

(2004/C 88 E/0107)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2588/03

by Marco Pannella (Nl) to the Commission

(8 August 2003)

Subject:   Execution of Faramaz Mohammadi, the 19-year-old leader of the student movement at Tabriz University (Iran)

On 22 July Xalq Qazeti, an Azerbaijan newspaper, published a report according to which:

| — | some days earlier the Tabriz Revolutionary Court had sentenced a leader of the student movement, Faramaz Mohammadi, to death; |
| --- | --- |

—

some days earlier the Tabriz Revolutionary Court had sentenced a leader of the student movement, Faramaz Mohammadi, to death;

| — | Faramaz Mohammadi, a nineteen-year-old Azerbaijani citizen, was a student at Tabriz University and a key figure in the student movement; |
| --- | --- |

—

Faramaz Mohammadi, a nineteen-year-old Azerbaijani citizen, was a student at Tabriz University and a key figure in the student movement;

| — | after the execution her body was taken to Ardabil; |
| --- | --- |

—

after the execution her body was taken to Ardabil;

| — | she was one of the organisers of the student movement at Tabriz University and had delivered radical speeches against Iran's Persian and mullah regime; |
| --- | --- |

—

she was one of the organisers of the student movement at Tabriz University and had delivered radical speeches against Iran's Persian and mullah regime;

| — | although the court had passed the death sentence a month before, she had been executed two days earlier. |
| --- | --- |

—

although the court had passed the death sentence a month before, she had been executed two days earlier.

Is the Commission aware of the events described and, if so, what action has it taken or does it intend to take? Does it not consider that all relations with Iran should be suspended and any resumption thereof be made subject to respect for fundamental human rights and a moratorium on capital punishment?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(23 September 2003)

As set out in the ‘Guidelines to EU policy towards third countries on the death penalty’, the EU has consistently opposed the imposition of the death penalty and has raised this issue on numerous occasions with the Government of Iran. The EU has also underlined its serious concerns about executions in Iran at the last United Nations (UN) Commission on Human Rights in April 2003. Moreover, the Human Rights' dialogue that the EU initiated with Iran in 2002 included a concerted effort to address a wide range of human rights' concerns, including the application of the death penalty. In its first evaluation of the dialogue of 18 March 2003, the General Affairs and External Relations Council underlined that it remained deeply concerned by the continued serious violation of human rights in Iran, including death penalty sentences carried out in internationally recognised safeguards.

The EU will continue using the Human Rights dialogue with Iran to reiterate its concerns as regards the application of the death penalty in addition to a number of individual cases.

The Commission believes that a policy of constructive engagement with Iran is more likely to contribute to improving the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms in Iran rather than the suspension of all relations with this country. It should be recalled that in 2002, when the Union decided to enter into the negotiation of a trade and cooperation agreement with Iran, which will be accompanied by a political agreement, it was made clear that the deepening of economic and commercial relations between the EU and Iran should be matched by similar progress in all other aspects of the relations with Iran, in particular, the EU was expecting significant positive developments in four areas of concern: human rights, non-proliferation, the fight against terrorism and the Middle East Peace Process. The actual situation of human rights in Iran is certainly one of the factors that will determine future progress in EU-Iranian relations.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/104 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/104

---

(2004/C 88 E/0108)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2593/03

by Graham Watson (ELDR) to the Commission

(14 August 2003)

Subject:   Persecution of Christians in Pakistan

Is the Commission aware of the persecution faced by Christians in Pakistan? What representations has it made, or will it make, on this issue to the Government of Pakistan?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(22 August 2003)

The Commission remains deeply concerned over a number of human rights issues in Pakistan and is actively participating in joint EU efforts to address these questions. The EU has regularly used available opportunities to discuss the situation of religious minorities with the Pakistan authorities. Human rights issues are also raised during the political dialogue between Pakistan and the EU including at the recent meeting in Islamabad on 7 June 2003.

The EU has repeatedly called for more protection of Christian and other minorities in Pakistan. The Commission is aware that a number of incidents involving the Christian community have occurred over the last two years, in particular an attack on the office of a non-governmental organisation (NGO) in Karachi, the killing of Christian worshippers at churches in Bhawalpur and Islamabad and atrocities committed against Christian institutions in Murree and Taxila. The Commission is also aware of numerous incidents of sectarian violence against other minorities including Ahmadis and Shias. The EU will continue to urge the Pakistan authorities to bring the perpetrators of these crimes to justice and to take adequate measures to prevent a recurrence of such incidents.

The EU has also repeatedly raised concerns about the blasphemy laws, which have been disproportionally applied towards religious minorities (although in absolute terms the clear majority of those accused under the laws belong to the Muslim faith). The Commission will continue to call on the Government of Pakistan to take all possible measures to prevent the abuse of the blasphemy laws while they remain in force, in order to ensure persons accused of blasphemy are protected, and to strengthen institutional and legal safeguards.

The EU welcomed President Musharraf’s speech of 12 January 2002 in which he condemned all forms of sectarianism and religious hatred and made the case for a moderate and tolerant Islam. Although there are no legal restrictions on religion practice by minorities, large parts of the population remain uneducated and ignorant of this state of affairs. The Community, in its development co-operation, therefore prioritises improved access to secular education within the framework of the country's education policy. In the medium term better education should lead to more tolerant attitudes towards minorities.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/104 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/104

---

(2004/C 88 E/0109)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2594/03

by Claude Moraes (PSE) to the Commission

(14 August 2003)

Subject:   Persecution of Christians

One of my constituents highlighted the ongoing persecution of Christians around the world, giving examples in Laos and in Cambodia where five Christian families who, having been ordered to leave their province, continue to face threats and intimidation in attempts to force them to abandon their faith.

What is the Commission doing in its relations with countries outside the EU to promote and practise religious tolerance?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(17 September 2003)

The Commission attaches great importance to the rights of freedom of religion, belief and expression in its dialogues with third countries. Freedom of thought, conscience, religion and belief is one of the fundamental human rights and as such is enshrined in a number of international instruments including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Article 18), the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (Article 18) and the European Convention on Human Rights (Article 9). In addition, the Charter of fundamental rights of the European Union, which guides the Commission's external action in this field, makes clear that everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion (Article 10) and that cultural, religious and linguistic diversity should be respected.

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 a fundamental human right 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 United Nations (UN) Commission on Human Rights or the Third Committee of the UN General Assembly.

As regards the situation in Laos, 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. Some reports 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 Commission and Laos. The Commission also participates fully in all Union démarches to convey our concerns to the Laotian authorities.

As regards Cambodia, there have been less incidences of reports of difficulties faced by religious groups or persons. In his latest report, religious freedom has not been listed by the Special Representative of the United Nations Secretary-General for Human Rights in Cambodia as one of the major issues of concern in the country.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/105 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/105

---

(2004/C 88 E/0110)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2604/03

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(20 August 2003)

Subject:   Protection of excavations at ancient Salamis, Cyprus

Professor V. Karageorghis of the Department of Antiquities in Cyprus, who carried out excavations at ancient Salamis in collaboration with the French archaeological expedition before the invasion of the island, claims that a Turkish professor, S. Ozgurel, is excavating at ancient Salamis without having obtained authorisation from the previous excavators. Since, firstly, it is international practice to obtain permission from the previous excavator and, secondly, Turkey has been a signatory since 1965 to the Hague Convention, Article 5 of which expressly prohibits any archaeological work on territory occupied by foreign forces without the consent of the lawful government of the country, will the Commission say what representations it will make to the Turkish Cypriot authorities to stop these illegal excavations?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(15 September 2003)

In general, responsibilities in the field of culture remain with the Member States. The competences of the Community are limited.

Concerning the excavations at ancient Salamis, the Commission has taken note of the remarks of the Honourable Member. There is no legal basis for the Commission to undertake action in this case.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/106 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/106

---

(2004/C 88 E/0111)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2613/03

by Maurizio Turco (NI), Marco Pannella (Nl), Marco Cappato (NI) and Gianfranco Dell'Alba (NI) to the Commission

(28 August 2003)

Subject:   Crimen Sollicitationis Instruction issued by the Supreme and Holy Congregation of the Holy Office of the Holy See to cover up sexual abuse by clergy

On 6 August 2003 the American CBS network revealed a document of the ‘Supreme and Holy Congregation of the Holy Office’ (now called the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith but originally the Sacred Congregation of the Roman and Universal Inquisition) which had been kept secret since 1962.

This document, entitled the Crimen Sollicitationis Instruction, is addressed to all Patriarchs, Archbishops, Bishops and other diocesan Ordinaries ‘even of the Oriental Rite’ on the manner of proceeding in cases of solicitation and is dated 16 March 1962.

Destined to be ‘diligently kept in the secret archives of the Curia’, it gives the clergy strict instructions regarding the conduct to adopt in cases of sex crimes committed by clergy against members of church congregations.

The document shows that the Holy See has prescribed, adopted and caused to be adopted, proposed and imposed upon the ecclesiastical authorities conduct aimed at preventing sex abuse by members of the clergy from coming to public knowledge and to the knowledge of the law, upon penalty of excommunication.

Further, it is clear from the Apostolic Letter ‘Motu Proprio Datae Quibus Normae De Gravioribus Delictis’ signed by John Paul II on 30 April 2001 and from the epistle ‘De Delictis Gravioribus’ of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith signed by Cardinal Ratzinger on 18 May 2001 that, at least on these recent occasions, the Crimen Sollicitationis Instruction has been reconfirmed and attention again drawn to it in the light of the continual spread throughout recent decades of this true scourge of the Catholic ecclesiastical world and of the scandals resulting from it.

As further proof, if that were necessary, there has been widespread condemnation of the refusal to cooperate with the judicial authorities and police inquiries and the obstruction of justice.

In view of the European Union's institutional and diplomatic relations with the Holy See, can the Commission say:

| — | what enquiries, preventive measures, sanctions and diplomatic steps it intends to take in relation to the fact that the instructions contained in these documents run counter to the policy of the Union and of its Member States on human rights and fundamental freedoms and the fight against sexual abuse, especially that against children and women? |
| --- | --- |

—

what enquiries, preventive measures, sanctions and diplomatic steps it intends to take in relation to the fact that the instructions contained in these documents run counter to the policy of the Union and of its Member States on human rights and fundamental freedoms and the fight against sexual abuse, especially that against children and women?

| — | whether it intends to ask the Holy See to remove these instructions which are clearly and explicitly intended to prevent society, and in particular the administration of justice, from gaining knowledge of a serious moral, social and political evil? |
| --- | --- |

—

whether it intends to ask the Holy See to remove these instructions which are clearly and explicitly intended to prevent society, and in particular the administration of justice, from gaining knowledge of a serious moral, social and political evil?

| — | whether it intends to conduct an enquiry into the relations between the Member States and the Vatican in order to ascertain whether the legal relations regulating them and giving the clergy privileges with respect to the law of the Member States are in breach of international and European law on fundamental rights and freedoms? |
| --- | --- |

—

whether it intends to conduct an enquiry into the relations between the Member States and the Vatican in order to ascertain whether the legal relations regulating them and giving the clergy privileges with respect to the law of the Member States are in breach of international and European law on fundamental rights and freedoms?

| — | Whether it considers that Article 51 of the draft European Constitution urgently needs to be revised in order to prevent national and European law from creating grey areas and impunity for the clergy? |
| --- | --- |

—

Whether it considers that Article 51 of the draft European Constitution urgently needs to be revised in order to prevent national and European law from creating grey areas and impunity for the clergy?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(22 October 2003)

The Union is committed to promoting human rights in the world. In this context, the Union has underlined the need to combat sexual abuse of children, including in its recent statement on rights of the child to the United Nations (UN) Commission on Human Rights (CHR). Moreover, the Union strongly supported the Plan of Action and Declaration of the UN Special Session on Children of May 2002, which included protection of children from abuse and exploitation as a key goal. The Holy See is a Permanent Observer at the CHR.

The Union's position on this issue is, therefore, clear and has been articulated in international fora. However, the Commission is not competent to take the course of action advocated by the Honourable Members, nor to intervene as regards Member States' diplomatic relations.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/107 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/107

---

(2004/C 88 E/0112)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2615/03

by Philip Claeys (Nl) to the Commission

(28 August 2003)

Subject:   New responsibilities for Commissioner Verheugen

Commissioner Günther Verheugen is being given a new area of responsibility. His duties will now include relations with the EU's new neighbouring states, namely Russia, Ukraine, Israel and Morocco. This was formerly the responsibility of the Commissioner for External Relations, Chris Patten.

Why has this area of responsibility been transferred from Commissioner Patten to Commissioner Verheugen?

Does the Commission also intend to combine relations with other neighbouring states under the heading of ‘enlargement’ rather than external relations?

Does the Commission not fear that placing relations with the above countries under the aegis of Commissioner Verheugen, who is generally known as having special responsibility for EU enlargement, could raise misplaced expectations among the countries concerned? Such a step may give the impression that they, too, might qualify for accession to the EU. In what terms were the countries concerned informed of Commissioner Verheugen's new responsibilities?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(23 September 2003)

Following the conclusion of accession negotiations with ten Acceding States at Copenhagen in December 2002, the Commission has set out an ambitious vision for upgrading political and economic relations with the Eastern and Southern neighbours of the enlarged Union (1). This was welcomed by the Council, as well as by the European Council in Thessaloniki in June 2003. On 9 July 2003, the Commission decided on internal arrangements for its work in this regard. Relations with all countries neighbouring the enlarged Union remain the responsibility of the Member of the Commission responsible for External Relations. The Member of the Commission responsible for Enlargement will lead the Commission's work on Wider Europe, and provide political guidance to a task force consisting of officials from the Directorates-General for External Relations and Enlargement. This will ensure the Union's contribution to the creation of an area of shared prosperity and stability around the enlarged Union, making use of the experience the Commission has gained in assisting Acceding States to prepare for accession wherever applicable. It reflects the Commission's view that, in return for concrete progress demonstrating shared values and effective implementation of political, economic and institutional reforms, all these neighbouring countries should be offered the prospect of a stake in the Union's internal market, as well as other advanced forms of co-operation in key fields of mutual interest.

The countries concerned have been informed through diplomatic channels.

---

(1)  COM(2003) 104 final.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/108 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/108

---

(2004/C 88 E/0113)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2664/03

by Terence Wynn (PSE) to the Commission

(10 September 2003)

Subject:   Manufactured products from third countries

The answer to the question E-1795/03 (1) misses the point. Let me give an example. If an industrial casting is manufactured in China for sale in the EU, the Chinese manufacturers do not have to comply with the same health, safety and environmental laws that EU manufacturers have to. Employees can work in conditions that would not be acceptable in the EU and emissions in the atmosphere would also not be acceptable. Yet these products are marketed in the EU and EU products cannot compete because of EU legislation demands.

Let me now repeat E-1795/03:

| | 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? |
| --- | --- |

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 Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(7 November 2003)

The original reply to Written Question E-1795/03 by the Honourable Member alluded to the efforts that were being made to promote Europe's regulatory approach in third countries.

It is important to differentiate between mandatory product requirements based on legitimate policy objectives, like the protection of the environment or health and safety, and applied by the Community on domestic and alike foreign products and concerns related to the methods in which imported goods are produced.

The Community can set legitimate product requirements, provided that complies with its international obligations. In other words, the Community is not at liberty to impose safety and environmental laws on countries outside its jurisdiction, just as those countries are not at liberty to impose their own requirements in the territory of the Community. This is not only a fundamental principle of sovereignty and fully in line with the 1992 Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, notably principles 2, 11 and 12, but also one of the basic principles of the World Trade Organisation (WTO) rules.

The Community is, however, seeking to promote the respect of higher standards in developing countries; for instance:

| — | developing countries that abide by higher social or environmental standards may be granted preferential access to the Community market through the Generalised System of Preference; |
| --- | --- |

—

developing countries that abide by higher social or environmental standards may be granted preferential access to the Community market through the Generalised System of Preference;

| — | developed countries dialogue with companies in order to encourage them to behave in a socially and environmentally more responsible manner in developing countries (for instance, the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) has set up Corporate Social Responsibility Guidelines); |
| --- | --- |

—

developed countries dialogue with companies in order to encourage them to behave in a socially and environmentally more responsible manner in developing countries (for instance, the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) has set up Corporate Social Responsibility Guidelines);

| — | the Commission's development assistance policy is supporting developing countries wishing to set up and implement new and stricter standards; |
| --- | --- |

—

the Commission's development assistance policy is supporting developing countries wishing to set up and implement new and stricter standards;

| — | the Union is also exploring with its WTO partners ways to improve the linkages between trade and environment. |
| --- | --- |

—

the Union is also exploring with its WTO partners ways to improve the linkages between trade and environment.

It is noteworthy in this context that research shows that environmental standards tend to rise with the level of development. Therefore the best thing that the Union can do to encourage the take up of higher standards in its partners is to encourage economic development and growth. Blocking imports from developing countries would have quite the opposite effect, locking them into poverty and further delaying their move up the regulatory ladder.

The Commission is aware of the argument that allowing such imports might cause the loss of European manufacturing jobs. This is al old argument which has been largely disproved by events.

The Commission considers that the following elements should be taken into account when assessing this argument:

| — | It is a hypothetical proposition, depending on hypothesis that the Community might renege on its WTO obligations and turn its back on the benefits of multilateral trade agreements. The hypothetical ‘loss’ has to be netted off against the rather less hypothetical gain of manufacturing jobs achieved over decades of trade liberalisation; |
| --- | --- |

—

It is a hypothetical proposition, depending on hypothesis that the Community might renege on its WTO obligations and turn its back on the benefits of multilateral trade agreements. The hypothetical ‘loss’ has to be netted off against the rather less hypothetical gain of manufacturing jobs achieved over decades of trade liberalisation;

| — | Trade liberalisation allows countries to specialise in those sectors in which they are most competitive enabling all players to gain from increased productivity; |
| --- | --- |

—

Trade liberalisation allows countries to specialise in those sectors in which they are most competitive enabling all players to gain from increased productivity;

| — | In the course of the natural upgrading of the Union economy it has moved away from the sort of labour intensive manufactures in which developing countries specialise and now has an economic structure based on services. The extent to which Union job holders compete with low cost imports is therefore very limited; |
| --- | --- |

—

In the course of the natural upgrading of the Union economy it has moved away from the sort of labour intensive manufactures in which developing countries specialise and now has an economic structure based on services. The extent to which Union job holders compete with low cost imports is therefore very limited;

| — | Environmental and social awareness among European consumers implies that Community manufacturers can draw advantage from the global market for products conforming to high standards. For example serving highly discriminating consumers has helped to make Union industry highly competitive in environmentally friendly goods and technologies that protect the environment. |
| --- | --- |

—

Environmental and social awareness among European consumers implies that Community manufacturers can draw advantage from the global market for products conforming to high standards. For example serving highly discriminating consumers has helped to make Union industry highly competitive in environmentally friendly goods and technologies that protect the environment.

---

(1)  OJ C 78 E, 27.3.2004, p. 725.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/109 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/109

---

(2004/C 88 E/0114)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2703/03

by Luigi Vinci (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(11 September 2003)

Subject:   The sociologist Mehmet Bercet and the head of the Goc-Der refugee organisation, Sefika Gurbuz, on trial in Turkey for inciting racial hatred

Following the forced migration of hundreds of thousands of Kurds from the south-east of Turkey to the outskirts of that country's major cities, and in particular Istanbul, the sociologist Mehmet Bercet, himself an ethnic Kurd, launched a study in association with the Istanbul-based refugee organisation Goc-Der to assess the difficult living conditions and oppression endured by those people, who have been compelled to flee their own villages and leave behind their land, jobs and houses. The results of this study were announced by Sefika Gurbuz, head of the Goc-Der refugee organisation, at a press conference held in Istanbul on 17 July 2002. Sefika Gurbuz was accused of ‘separatism’ under Article 312 of the Turkish Criminal Code for having announced the results, while Mehmet Bercet, as the main author of the study, was charged with inciting racial hatred. Both were brought before the State Security Court. A first hearing was held on 25 November 2002 and at the subsequent hearing of 12 March 2003 the prosecution called for three year's imprisonment for both the accused.

How does the Commission view this situation? Should it not make it quite clear to the Turkish Government that these accusations and the indictment of Sefika Gurbuz and Mehmet Bercet clash totally with the possibility of Turkey entering the European Union?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(1 October 2003)

The Commission is not aware of the case mentioned by the Honourable Member.

As regards freedom of expression, Turkey has adopted a series of reforms over the last two years introducing changes to several articles of the Turkish Penal Code. In particular, the grounds for limiting freedom of expression in Article 312 have been amended in view of complying with the European standards.

According to official data, it appears that the majority of cases launched against individuals on grounds of freedom of expression over the last year have been concluded with acquittals by courts.

However, court cases against individuals continue to occur, often reflecting a restrictive interpretation of the relevant provisions of the Penal Code.

The Commission has repeatedly stressed to the Turkish authorities the need for a practical implementation of the reforms for the benefit of all citizens, regardless of their origin.

The Commission will continue to monitor the situation in the context of the Copenhagen political criteria and will make a detailed assessment in its Regular Report to be published in November 2003.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/110 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/110

---

(2004/C 88 E/0115)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2725/03

by Jules Maaten (ELDR) to the Commission

(11 September 2003)

Subject:   Corruption at the Bulgarian border

On 12 December 2002, I requested clarification from the Commission over reports that Bulgarian border guards had been demanding money unnecessarily from tourists to allow them to cross the border (Written Question E-3790/02 (1)). Mr Verheugen replied that ‘appropriate measures’ would be taken ‘in order to prevent incidents of the specific character described’.

An inquiry carried out by ANWB, the largest Dutch organisation active in the field of tourism, leisure and travel, shows that the situation has not improved. Tourists now even have to be vaccinated against SARS at the border, although there is in fact no vaccine against SARS!

| 1. | Is the Commission aware of what is going on? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is the Commission aware of what is going on?

| 2. | Does the Commission feel that these vaccinations are a danger to public health? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Does the Commission feel that these vaccinations are a danger to public health?

| 3. | Has the Commission taken steps to put a stop to these practices? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Has the Commission taken steps to put a stop to these practices?

| 4. | Does the Commission feel that its monitoring of corruption by Bulgarian border authorities is effective? |
| --- | --- |

4.

Does the Commission feel that its monitoring of corruption by Bulgarian border authorities is effective?

| 5. | What practical steps does the Commission plan to take to stamp out these illegal practices? |
| --- | --- |

5.

What practical steps does the Commission plan to take to stamp out these illegal practices?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(23 October 2003)

The Commission has been informed of the complaints related to the collection of a fee of EUR 100 relating to Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) at Bulgarian border checkpoints. Bulgaria was invited to explain the situation and has provided the Commission with the following information.

No fees or penalties were officially introduced at Bulgarian border checkpoints in connection with SARS. Further to the complaints, an information campaign in German, English and Turkish has been launched at all border checkpoints and Bulgarian embassies in Turkey, Germany and Austria informing that there is no official collection of fees or penalties in connection with SARS. The Turkish embassies in Germany and Austria, as well as the main Turkish tour operators in these countries, have also been informed.

Moreover, the Bulgarian Ministry of Interior has ordered its services and local directorates to collect data and information on these alleged practices. The results of the investigation will determine whether to institute penal proceedings. The investigation is complicated by the fact that the Bulgarian authorities have received no official complaints with information specifying the time and the location or describing the perpetrator.

The Honourable Member will appreciate that the Commission has no formal powers to inquire into cases of this nature. However, it does monitor Bulgaria's commitment to the rule of law through a number of mechanisms and reporting sources. Once further information is forthcoming from the Bulgarian authorities this will be transmitted to the Honourable Member.

---

(1)  OJ C 70 E, 20.3.2004, p. 24.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/111 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/111

---

(2004/C 88 E/0116)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2742/03

by Richard Corbett (PSE) to the Commission

(11 September 2003)

Subject:   Slovakia

Is the Commission aware that Slovakia still refuses entry onto its territory of EU citizens who present only an identity card, even children accompanied by their parents presenting a passport?

Does the Commission agree that this reflects poorly on Slovakia's attitude, as a country scheduled to join the Union in a few months time, especially when other countries in the vicinity, whether or not they are about to join the EU (such as Hungary, Croatia, Bosnia and even Serbia-Montenegro) have no difficulty in accepting identity cards issued by EU Member States as a valid proof of identity?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(22 October 2003)

Union citizens may travel freely throughout the territory of the Union, simply by holding a valid passport or identity card. Until their accession to the Union, however, there is no obligation on Acceding Countries such as Slovakia or other non-Union states to allow entry onto their territory of Union citizens presenting only an identity card.

Equally, there is no reciprocal obligation on the part of current Member States to allow citizens of Acceding Countries entry onto their territory on simple presentation of an identity card.

The Honourable Member may be aware, for example, that the United Kingdom currently imposes a visa requirement on citizens from the Slovak Republic.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/112 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/112

---

(2004/C 88 E/0117)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2743/03

by Richard Corbett (PSE) to the Commission

(11 September 2003)

Subject:   Slovakia

Does the Commission agree that, where possible, frontier and customs officials should be able to speak the language of the neighbouring country whose border they are supervising? Is the Commission aware that Slovak border officials on the frontier with Austria refuse to speak German, or indeed any language other than Slovak or Russian?

In view of Slovakia's imminent accession to the EU, will the Commission encourage Slovakia, and indeed all Member States, to ensure that at least some frontier officials are able to converse in languages likely to be useful on the frontier concerned?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(8 October 2003)

The Commission agrees that, whenever possible, customs officials both in the Union and in the candidate countries should be able to communicate in the language of the neighbouring country whose border they are supervising. With reference to candidate countries, the Commission has been advising their Customs Administrations to provide language training to customs officials. However, the administrative and organisational aspects of the customs services do not fall within the Commission's competence and are fully within the national competence of the existing and future Member States.

As for the case mentioned by the Honourable Member, the Commission is not aware of any specific problem, neither as regards customs officials nor border guards. Indeed co-operation between Slovak and Austrian authorities at the border is considered as satisfactory. Concerning customs, it is also worth stressing that, as from the day of accession in 2004, all customs controls between the existing and future Member States will be abolished and customs offices at the future ‘internal’ border will have to be dismantled by that date. Consequently, there will be no more presence of customs officials between Slovakia and Austria, and Slovakia will only manage part of the future Union external border with Ukraine.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/112 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/112

---

(2004/C 88 E/0118)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2744/03

by Richard Corbett (PSE) to the Commission

(11 September 2003)

Subject:   Slovakia

Can the Commission confirm that the Bratislava authorities refuse to allow the town of Kosice to be linked by motorway to the nearby Hungarian motorway network (and thereby connect easily to the Austrian and other networks) until a motorway via the north of Slovakia has been completed linking Kosice to Bratislava?

If so, is this because the Bratislava authorities wish to hinder close connections between southern Slovakia, with its Hungarian-speaking minority, and Hungary? Does the Commission consider such an attitude to be compatible with the spirit of a Europe without internal frontiers which is implicit in EU membership?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(16 October 2003)

Concerning the decision of the Slovak Government on the construction of a motorway connecting Kosice to Bratislava, the Commission has taken note of the remarks of the Honourable Member. The Commission can only confirm that the above motorway as well as the road between Kosice and the Hungarian border have been identified as forming part of the trans-European transport (TEN-T) network and that the consequent priority that will be given to these routes has been agreed between Slovakia and the Union. Within this framework it is up to the national authorities to establish their own priorities and to propose projects for funding to the Commission.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/113 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/113

---

(2004/C 88 E/0119)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2759/03

by Fernando Fernández Martin (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(16 September 2003)

Subject:   Method of calculating financial assistance to traditional ACP banana suppliers

As part of the technical and financial assistance measures for traditional ACP banana suppliers, the Commission determines the annual funding for each country by a method of calculation allowing for the ‘competitivity gap’ between ACP recipient countries and third country banana suppliers and for the importance of banana production for the economy of the supplier concerned (Commission Regulation (EC) No 1609/1999 (1)).

The Commission measures competitiveness according to the difference between the average cif (cost, insurance, and freight) price of third country bananas and the average price of bananas from each ACP country at the Union's frontiers. These figures, which are compiled by Eurostat, are obtained from the customs declarations of importers in the individual Member States. Unfortunately, however, they do not appear to correspond to any single definition, resulting in serious errors.

Even when the bananas come from the same place of origin, the cif price may vary widely in a given Member State, whereas in other Member States the cif price of all bananas is the same. Because there is no harmonisation, the Commission does not employ the proper tools to gauge the competitiveness of ACP banana suppliers, and the aid called for by the Council and Parliament is thus largely wasted.

Can the Commission explain what relationship is considered to exist between the market value of bananas and their competitiveness? Could not the competitiveness of bananas be gauged more accurately if production costs were taken into account? Can the Commission give an assurance that, instead of drawing inferences from the market price, it will measure the competitiveness of ACP bananas on the basis of a real cif (cost, insurance, and freight) price and do its utmost to put right the injustices that have been found to occur?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(21 October 2003)

As the Honourable Member correctly points out, the individual amounts allocated annually to each traditional African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) banana supplier are calculated in accordance with the criteria set out in Commission Regulation No 1609/99 (2). In particular, the Cost, Insurance and Freight (CIF) price as shown in Eurostat statistics is used as a benchmark to measure the competitiveness gap between ACP and Third Countries suppliers. Such figures — where they exist — are collected through the customs authorities of each Member State, in accordance with the values given in the declaration for release for free circulation. Since bananas are not subject to ad-valorem duties, the values are declared for statistical and VAT purposes and are based upon the customs value, in accordance with the provisions set out in Article 9 of Commission Regulation No 1917/2000 (3). The possible variations in the statistical values registered in different Member States are in all likelihood due to variations in the relevant data available to administrations in the absence of CIF prices for the goods — indeed, when releasing the goods for free circulation, their actual price is not always available. Although efforts leading to a complete harmonisation should be pursued, the different practices are compatible with the provisions in force.

The Commission rejects the view that aid is ‘largely wasted’, given that the Commission applies the criteria in a uniform and fair manner.

As to the possible measurements of the competitiveness of bananas, it can well be argued that better measures than the CIF price could be found. The Honourable Member mentions production costs as the most suitable tool. However, when the Commission regulation was designed, no other data was found which would meet at once the requirements of availability, accountability, and comparability and this is still the case today.

---

(1)  OJ L 190, 23.7.1999, p. 14.

(2)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 1609/1999 of 22 July 1999 laying down the detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 856/1999 establishing a special framework of assistance to traditional ACP suppliers of bananas, OJ L 190, 23.7.1999.

(3)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 1917/2000 of 7 September 2000 laying down certain provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 1172/95 as regards statistics on external trade, OJ L 229, 9.9.2000.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/114 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/114

---

(2004/C 88 E/0120)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2775/03

by Jules Maaten (ELDR) to the Commission

(16 September 2003)

Subject:   Unlawful detention of an EU citizen in Thailand

| 1. | Is the Commission aware that the Netherlands national Machiel Kuijt is still being held in detention despite having been acquitted by a Thai court of involvement in drugs smuggling? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is the Commission aware that the Netherlands national Machiel Kuijt is still being held in detention despite having been acquitted by a Thai court of involvement in drugs smuggling?

| 2. | Does the Commission agree that it is contrary to the principle of equality that an Italian fellow-suspect of Mr Kuijt's who has likewise been acquitted has, on the contrary, been allowed to leave Thailand pending an appeal? Does the Commission furthermore agree that it is undesirable for a friendly power to treat two EU citizens unequally? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Does the Commission agree that it is contrary to the principle of equality that an Italian fellow-suspect of Mr Kuijt's who has likewise been acquitted has, on the contrary, been allowed to leave Thailand pending an appeal? Does the Commission furthermore agree that it is undesirable for a friendly power to treat two EU citizens unequally?

| 3. | Does the Commission agree that, in refusing to release Mr Kuijt on bail, the Thai authorities are failing to comply with their obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to which Thailand has been a party since 1997? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Does the Commission agree that, in refusing to release Mr Kuijt on bail, the Thai authorities are failing to comply with their obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to which Thailand has been a party since 1997?

| 4. | Will the Commission raise the above issues with Thailand's representative to the EU? |
| --- | --- |

4.

Will the Commission raise the above issues with Thailand's representative to the EU?

| 5. | Will the Commission consider sanctions to convince the Thai authorities that further detention of Mr Kuijt pending an appeal is a violation of international treaties? If so, what sanctions? |
| --- | --- |

5.

Will the Commission consider sanctions to convince the Thai authorities that further detention of Mr Kuijt pending an appeal is a violation of international treaties? If so, what sanctions?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(16 October 2003)

The Commission, through its Delegation in Bangkok, has been following the case of Mr Machiel Kuijt in Thailand.

In the Commission's view, the competence to intervene in Mr Kuijt's case lies primarily with the Dutch authorities.

The Commission does not get involved in cases of a consular nature, nor take position, unless in the context of an Union démarche previously agreed with the Member States.

The Commission would therefore suggest that the Honourable Member might wish to raise the matter with the Dutch Government in the first place.

The Commission will continue to follow the case in co-operation with the diplomatic missions of the Member States in Thailand.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/115 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/115

---

(2004/C 88 E/0121)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2784/03

by Cristiana Muscardini (UEN), Antonio Mussa (UEN) and Adriana Poli Bortone (UEN) to the Commission

(17 September 2003)

Subject:   Elections in Albania

The people of Albania are to elect new members of the National Assembly 10 October 2003. The OSCE, in an attempt to make the election process more transparent and devise an effective reform, has explicitly requested that the national electoral committee should reflect the political situation in the country and be composed of members of the current majority and opposition, in equal proportions (3 + 3).

Can the Commission say:

| 1. | whether it is aware that the electoral committee now consists of five members of the present socialist majority and only two members of the democratic opposition; |
| --- | --- |

1.

whether it is aware that the electoral committee now consists of five members of the present socialist majority and only two members of the democratic opposition;

| 2. | whether it does not consider that the present composition of the electoral committee is unjust and may arouse serious suspicions of partiality; |
| --- | --- |

2.

whether it does not consider that the present composition of the electoral committee is unjust and may arouse serious suspicions of partiality;

| 3. | whether it does not consider it appropriate at this point to set up a body to monitor all the operations involved in the election to be held on 10 October? |
| --- | --- |

3.

whether it does not consider it appropriate at this point to set up a body to monitor all the operations involved in the election to be held on 10 October?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(27 October 2003)

Local elections in Albania took place on 12 October 2003.

The Commission has been following closely the preparation and conduct of these elections. According to the preliminary conclusions of the International Election Observation Mission (IEOM), these elections marked further progress towards compliance with OSCE, Council of Europe and other international standards for democratic elections. However, shortcomings in a number of areas were identified and remain to be addressed, particularly in relation to voters' lists which continues to be a problem area as well as to a number of organisational issues.

The Commission has been aware of the claims by the opposition regarding the composition and political balance of the Central Electoral Commission. However, the IEOM indicates in its preliminary conclusions that, despite strong controversy over alleged lack of political balance, the Central Electoral Commission has administered the elections in a generally professional, transparent and even-handed manner.

The IEOM, the Commission and other actors on the ground will continue to monitor the follow up of the elections, with particular attention to the completion of the counting, to the tabulation process, to the publication of results and to the handling of complaints and appeals. The Commission will also encourage Albania to address the shortcomings identified during these elections well ahead of the next Parliamentary elections.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/116 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/116

---

(2004/C 88 E/0122)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2804/03

by Elisabeth Jeggle (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(19 September 2003)

Subject:   Urbs Asia Contract No Ala/95-21-b7-3010/39

The town of Schelklingen is the Commission's partner in the above development aid programme with the town of Cagayan de Oro (the Philippines). The auditor which the municipal authorities had originally intended to employ to check the final accounts of the project is no longer available and, since this was the Schelkingen supervisory authority, its services would have been free of charge.

The Schelklingen municipal authorities are therefore obliged to find and commission a new project auditor. Initial estimates put the cost of this at approximately EUR 15 000 per inspection, so that the three inspections required by contract would amount to EUR 45 000. Since no provision was made for this expenditure and it cannot be paid for out of the municipal budget, savings will have to be made in the projects' budget.

In view of the above, will the Commission say:

| 1. | Can it suggest an economical, unbureaucratic way for the municipal authorities of the town of Schelkingen to carry out the three final project audits, without restricting the projects financially? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Can it suggest an economical, unbureaucratic way for the municipal authorities of the town of Schelkingen to carry out the three final project audits, without restricting the projects financially?

| 2. | Can it retrospectively authorise the cost of final project audit? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Can it retrospectively authorise the cost of final project audit?

| 3. | Will it help solve the problem by permitting the necessary costs of the final project audits to be paid for out of the project budget? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Will it help solve the problem by permitting the necessary costs of the final project audits to be paid for out of the project budget?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(23 October 2003)

| 1. | According to Commission procedures applicable to this grant contract, projects accounts must be audited on an annual basis. The audit firm must be an independent body, not a city internal department. The City of Schelklingen is invited to inform the Commission of the proposed change (including name, address and status of substitute) before recruiting the new audit firm. |
| --- | --- |

1.

According to Commission procedures applicable to this grant contract, projects accounts must be audited on an annual basis. The audit firm must be an independent body, not a city internal department. The City of Schelklingen is invited to inform the Commission of the proposed change (including name, address and status of substitute) before recruiting the new audit firm.

| 2. | To increase the audit budget provided for in the contract budget, a request for a budget modification must be sent to the Commission (and approved by them) prior to enforcing the changes. The modification can consist for instance of reallocating the contingency costs to the audit costs. Terms of the contract in the General Conditions indicate the conditions under which a budget may be reallocated. |
| --- | --- |

2.

To increase the audit budget provided for in the contract budget, a request for a budget modification must be sent to the Commission (and approved by them) prior to enforcing the changes. The modification can consist for instance of reallocating the contingency costs to the audit costs. Terms of the contract in the General Conditions indicate the conditions under which a budget may be reallocated.

| 3. | Yes. However, as stated above, a budget modification may be necessary. The Beneficiary must submit a detailed budget amendment request to the Commission. The amendment request should consist of the indication of the modified budget items for audit costs. Other budget items to be decreased to enable the reallocation of funds must be specified with the corresponding modified figures. The modifications must not result in jeopardising the final outcome of the project as defined in the grant contract.
  The Beneficiary is invited to contact the relevant Commission services for further assistance in this matter. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Yes. However, as stated above, a budget modification may be necessary. The Beneficiary must submit a detailed budget amendment request to the Commission. The amendment request should consist of the indication of the modified budget items for audit costs. Other budget items to be decreased to enable the reallocation of funds must be specified with the corresponding modified figures. The modifications must not result in jeopardising the final outcome of the project as defined in the grant contract.

The Beneficiary is invited to contact the relevant Commission services for further assistance in this matter.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/117 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/117

---

(2004/C 88 E/0123)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2815/03

by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission

(19 September 2003)

Subject:   Arrest and detention of Rev. Rinaldy Damanik in Central Sulawesi, Indonesia

I have received several concerned letters regarding the case of the Reverend Rinaldy Damanik, a leader of the Protestant Christian Community in Central Sulawesi, Indonesia. Has the Commission any further information on his current situation and are there any plans to investigate his case?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(15 October 2003)

The Commission is following the case of Rev Rinaldy Damanik who has been accused of illegal possession of weapons. According to the Protestant Church Council in Jakarta (PGI), the case against the Christian Minister has been fabricated. As the three year sentence for illegal possession of weapons has been appealed, and the case is still pending, any possibility of making representations has been greatly reduced.

The Commission Delegation in Jakarta is closely monitoring the case and has contacted the minister's lawyer, Mr Johnson Panjaitan to receive updated news about his request to be released or to be put under house arrest pending the appeal. The authorities have not yet responded to the request, despite the fact that the legal basis for his detention has expired.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/117 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/117

---

(2004/C 88 E/0124)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2854/03

by Rodi Kratsa-Tsagaropoulou (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(18 September 2003)

Subject:   The MEDA Programme and women

At the part-session in February 2003 I tabled a question about the implementation of the First Regional Programme for the participation of women in economic and social life and development. Commissioner Christopher Patten assured me that it would be launched in 2004, since the identification and preparatory phase would end in April or May 2003.

In view of the above, will the Commission explain the reasons for this delay? Exactly what stage has been reached in drawing up the programme, since no invitations for the submission of proposals have yet been published? Will invitations for the submission of proposals be published forthwith so that the programme can be launched in 2004, as scheduled?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(5 November 2003)

The identification/formulation phase which determines the priority areas of co-operation to be addressed in the course of the implementation of this important regional programme aiming at enhancing women's participation in the economic development of the MEDA region started in December 2002 and was completed in August 2003.

The next step consists of presenting the programme to the MED Committee. Once the decision is adopted (we anticipate it for the first quarter 2004), the call for proposals will be duly issued.

The information will be available on the EuropeAid Web site: (http://europa.eu.int/comm/europeaid/tender/index_en.htm).

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/118 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/118

---

(2004/C 88 E/0125)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2884/03

by Charles Tannock (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(29 September 2003)

Subject:   Persecution of Christians in Egypt

Is the Commission aware of the recent arrest at Cairo airport of two Egyptian Christians, Malak Cuirguis Fahmay and his wife Sarah Mikhail Lahzy (formerly known as Naglaa Hussein Ibrahim), a convert to Christianity, on the grounds that she had forged her identity card in order to reflect her new identity as a Christian as a result of the official policy of preventing converts from Islam to Christianity from changing their name and religion in their papers? Does the Commission regard such a policy as a fundamental breach of human rights and, if so, has the Commission raised this with the Egyptian government as well as the arrests at the airport and the treatment of the accused?

Is the Commission also aware of concern on the part of the Egyptian Coptic community about systematic intimidation directed against members of their community and of the failure of the government to and police to offer proper protection, of which the murder of twenty-one Christians in El-Kosheh in January, 2000 was the most tragic expression, and, if so, has the Commission raised with the Egyptian government the issue of the safety of the Coptic community in Egypt?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(21 October 2003)

In previous answers to Written Question E-2086/03 by Mrs Kinnock (1) and E-2557/03 by Mr Evans (2), the Commission has reiterated its awareness of the problems faced by the Egyptian Christian community and in particular of the case of Malak Cuirguis Fahmay and his wife Sarah Mikhail Lhazy. They were accused of having illegally altered her identity documents to reflect her change of faith. The Commission understands that the Criminal Court of Northern Cairo will examine their case by the end of October 2003.

The Commission, together with the Member State Embassies in Cairo, have made representation to the Egyptian Government on several occasions with respect to human rights issues involving the Egypt Coptic community. The Honourable Member can be assured that the Commission will continue to follow their case and to raise these issues with the Egyptian Authorities when and as appropriate.

---

(1)  See page 65.

(2)  OJ C 51 E, 26.2.2004, p. 257.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/118 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/118

---

(2004/C 88 E/0126)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2889/03

by Samuli Pohjamo (ELDR) and Mikko Pesälä (ELDR) to the Commission

(29 September 2003)

Subject:   Need for a minimum import price for, and import duty on, Norwegian salmon and rainbow trout

In recent years, Norway's production of salmon and rainbow trout has grown in an uncontrolled manner, leading to substantial overproduction, viability problems and a wave of bankruptcies among Norwegian fish farmers. It is cheaper to dump farmed salmon in the EU at prices equivalent to half of production costs than to pay the waste disposal charges which would be levied for the destruction of the excess product in Norway. There have also been repeated instances of Norwegian salmon escaping from pens, endangering valuable natural salmon stocks in the River Teno, for example, which remains in a natural state.

The EU is currently defenceless against the flood of imports, as the minimum import price which used to apply to salmon has been abolished and a minimum price for rainbow trout is only at the planning stage.

It costs EUR 3,25 per kg to produce salmon in Norway. Recent import statistics show that the product is being sold at a significantly lower price in Finland; at the end of July 2003, salmon was being imported from Norway at a price of EUR 1,98 per kg and rainbow trout at EUR 2,70 per kg.

By the end of July 2003, 6,4 million kg of Norwegian salmon and 4,4 million kg of rainbow trout had been imported into Finland. In the case of salmon, this represented an increase of 42 % over the previous year, and in the case of rainbow trout, 144 %. In Finland, 15 million kg of rainbow trout is produced per annum. A total of 1 million kg of salmon from the Baltic and the River Teno is fished in Finland per annum.

The fact that the import price of salmon is substantially lower than its production cost is rapidly destroying rainbow trout production in Finland. At the same time, imported salmon distorts price levels for wild fish caught by Finnish fishermen and makes it harder to work as a professional fisherman.

Will the Commission take measures to reinstate the minimum import price for Norwegian salmon, introduce a minimum import price for rainbow trout which is at least equal to production costs and impose import duty on such fish in European Union territory?

Answer given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(4 November 2003)

As the question of the Honourable Members concerns two different anti-dumping/anti-subsidy proceedings, the Commission will reply separately for each proceeding.

Farmed Atlantic salmon:

| — | As concerns farmed Atlantic salmon originating in Norway, although the anti-dumping and anti-subsidy measures for this product were terminated in May 2003, the Commission has continued to monitor the Community market closely and is aware that the situation deteriorated following termination. However, according to the most recent official statistics available, there are indications that the Norwegian export prices of farmed Atlantic salmon to the Community have started to rise. It nevertheless remains to be seen whether this upward trend will continue. |
| --- | --- |

—

As concerns farmed Atlantic salmon originating in Norway, although the anti-dumping and anti-subsidy measures for this product were terminated in May 2003, the Commission has continued to monitor the Community market closely and is aware that the situation deteriorated following termination. However, according to the most recent official statistics available, there are indications that the Norwegian export prices of farmed Atlantic salmon to the Community have started to rise. It nevertheless remains to be seen whether this upward trend will continue.

| — | With regard to the issue of reinstating the minimum import prices for Norwegian salmon as suggested by the Honourable Members, it should be noted that termination of the anti-dumping and anti-subsidy measures means that there is no procedural framework in place for considering such action in the very short term. However, an ‘understanding’ between World Trade Organisation (WTO) members means that any new anti-dumping case can only be initiated one year after termination of previous measures. Such a complaint would also have to be duly substantiated and show, ‘inter alia’, that the circumstances on which the decision to terminate the measures was based have changed and that there is prima facie evidence of injurious dumping. |
| --- | --- |

—

With regard to the issue of reinstating the minimum import prices for Norwegian salmon as suggested by the Honourable Members, it should be noted that termination of the anti-dumping and anti-subsidy measures means that there is no procedural framework in place for considering such action in the very short term. However, an ‘understanding’ between World Trade Organisation (WTO) members means that any new anti-dumping case can only be initiated one year after termination of previous measures. Such a complaint would also have to be duly substantiated and show, ‘inter alia’, that the circumstances on which the decision to terminate the measures was based have changed and that there is prima facie evidence of injurious dumping.

| — | In addition, it should also be recalled that the Commission can take surveillance or safeguard action within the framework of Council Regulation (EC) No 3285/94 of 22 December 1994 on the common rules for imports (1), if imports of the product in question are (i) suddenly and significantly increasing and (ii) are causing or threatening to cause serious injury to the Community producers concerned. The Commission is aware of discussions taking place on this matter within certain Member States. |
| --- | --- |

—

In addition, it should also be recalled that the Commission can take surveillance or safeguard action within the framework of Council Regulation (EC) No 3285/94 of 22 December 1994 on the common rules for imports (1), if imports of the product in question are (i) suddenly and significantly increasing and (ii) are causing or threatening to cause serious injury to the Community producers concerned. The Commission is aware of discussions taking place on this matter within certain Member States.

| — | With regard to the separate issue of farmed Atlantic salmon escaping from pens into the wild, this question falls outside the normal commercial aspects of anti-dumping proceedings. However, the concerns expressed regarding the River Teno are known to the Commission. The Commission facilitated a bilateral meeting between Finland and Norway on this issue two years ago. In addition, the North Atlantic Salmon Conservation Organisation (NASCO), to which both the Union and Norway are parties, has adopted a number of resolutions dealing with this general area since 1994. This includes, ‘inter alia’, Guidelines on containment of farmed salmon, adopted in June 2001. Norway reported to NASCO in March 2003 on its approach to the implementation of these resolutions stating that guidelines on containment are under development and would be subject to consultations during 2003. The first phase of new rules establishing protected zones for Atlantic salmon was also reported. The River Teno is one of 37 rivers where the salmon and its habitat is to be given priority over any activity that may be harmful to them in the scheme adopted by the Norwegian Parliament on 25 February 2003. |
| --- | --- |

—

With regard to the separate issue of farmed Atlantic salmon escaping from pens into the wild, this question falls outside the normal commercial aspects of anti-dumping proceedings. However, the concerns expressed regarding the River Teno are known to the Commission. The Commission facilitated a bilateral meeting between Finland and Norway on this issue two years ago. In addition, the North Atlantic Salmon Conservation Organisation (NASCO), to which both the Union and Norway are parties, has adopted a number of resolutions dealing with this general area since 1994. This includes, ‘inter alia’, Guidelines on containment of farmed salmon, adopted in June 2001. Norway reported to NASCO in March 2003 on its approach to the implementation of these resolutions stating that guidelines on containment are under development and would be subject to consultations during 2003. The first phase of new rules establishing protected zones for Atlantic salmon was also reported. The River Teno is one of 37 rivers where the salmon and its habitat is to be given priority over any activity that may be harmful to them in the scheme adopted by the Norwegian Parliament on 25 February 2003.

Large Rainbow Trout:

| — | As concerns large rainbow trout originating in Norway, the preliminary findings of the anti-dumping investigation carried out by the Commission show that Norwegian exports to the Community have been made at dumped, injurious price levels and that the Community Interest calls for action. |
| --- | --- |

—

As concerns large rainbow trout originating in Norway, the preliminary findings of the anti-dumping investigation carried out by the Commission show that Norwegian exports to the Community have been made at dumped, injurious price levels and that the Community Interest calls for action.

| — | Accordingly, the Commission has already taken measures in this regard by imposing a provisional anti-dumping duty of 21,4 % imposed by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1628/2003 of 17 September 2003 imposing a provisional anti-dumping duty on imports of large rainbow trout originating in Norway and the Faeroe Islands (2), which entered into force on 19 September 2003. |
| --- | --- |

—

Accordingly, the Commission has already taken measures in this regard by imposing a provisional anti-dumping duty of 21,4 % imposed by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1628/2003 of 17 September 2003 imposing a provisional anti-dumping duty on imports of large rainbow trout originating in Norway and the Faeroe Islands (2), which entered into force on 19 September 2003.

| — | This case will be further investigated and the Honourable Members can be assured that should injurious dumping be confirmed, and there are no compelling reasons against action, the Commission will propose definitive measures to the Council. In such circumstances, following recent jurisprudence of the European Court (3), definitive anti-dumping measures will have to be imposed. |
| --- | --- |

—

This case will be further investigated and the Honourable Members can be assured that should injurious dumping be confirmed, and there are no compelling reasons against action, the Commission will propose definitive measures to the Council. In such circumstances, following recent jurisprudence of the European Court (3), definitive anti-dumping measures will have to be imposed.

---

(1)  OJ L 349, 31.12.1994, as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 2474/2000 of 9 November 2000 establishing, pursuant to Article 1(7) of Regulation (EEC) No 3030/93, the list of textiles and clothing products to be integrated into GATT 1994 on 1 January 2002 and amending Annex X to Regulation (EEC) No 3030/93 and Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 3285/94, OJ L 286, 11.11.2000.

(2)  OJ L 232, 18.9.2003.

(3)  Case C-76/01 P, Judgment of the Court dated 30 September 2003.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/120 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/120

---

(2004/C 88 E/0127)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2919/03

by Marco Cappato (NI) and Maurizio Turco (NI) to the Commission

(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 Commission say whether it considers that the fundamental rights established under the EU treaties may have been infringed in this case?

Will the Commission provide details of the response from the Romanian authorities and say what possible steps might be taken?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(14 November 2003)

The Commission is not in a position to make an assessment of individual cases pending before the national courts. Such cases fall within the exclusive competence of the judiciary and the Commission neither can, nor should, intervene in its operation. The Commission notes that in a state that has ratified the European Convention on Human Rights a person who feels that their human rights have been infringed, for example with respect to Article 6 on the right to a fair trial, is entitled to take their case to the European Court of Human Rights after exhausting domestic legal remedies.

The Commission has recently sought information concerning the specific case raised by the Honourable Members with the Romanian Ministry of Justice. The information provided indicates that Maurizio Trotta was arrested and placed in pre-trial detention on 2 August 2002. He was formally charged by the Prosecutor's Office attached to the Tribunal of Dolj on 26 August 2002 and was sent for trial on the charges of introducing drugs into the country, drug trafficking and illegal possession of drugs. He was then acquitted of the first two charges by the Tribunal on 9 July 2003 but convicted of illegal possession of drugs and sentenced to two years imprisonment. Following an appeal by the Public Prosecutor Mr Trotta's sentence was increased to five years by the Court of Appeal in Craiova on 25 September 2003 for the charges of introducing drugs in the country, drug trafficking and illegal possession of drugs.

According to the relevant Romanian legislation in the field of drug crimes, namely Law 143 on the Combat of Illicit Traffic and Use of Drugs passed on 26 July 2000 and modified by Laws 169/2002 and 39/2003, cannabis plants (Cannabis sativa), herbal cannabis/marijuana, cannabis resin/hashish, and cannabis oil are classified under schedule three as ‘risk’ drugs. Article 3(1) states that the penalty for conviction of an offence of introducing a ‘risk’ drug into Romania will be 10-20 years imprisonment, Article 2(1) states that trafficking a ‘risk’ drug is punishable with a term of 3-15 years, and Article 4 provides sentences of 2-5 years for illegal possession of all drugs.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/121 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/121

---

(2004/C 88 E/0128)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2922/03

by Claude Moraes (PSE) to the Commission

(2 October 2003)

Subject:   Commercial sanctions against Burma

Following the arrest of Aung San Suu Kyi and some of her supporters earlier this year, the Burmese people have witnessed a vicious crackdown on its democratic movement. This has come at the hands of the Burmese military junta who continue to openly beat and kill democracy activists and supporters despite the EU's intervention in demanding the release of Aung San Suu Kyi. Military leaders are also reported to be frequently entering the EU disregarding visa sanctions imposed by the EU.

Given the Junta's continuing indifference to EU sanctions, does the Commission agree that the current EU sanctions policy towards Burma does not effectively send the message to the military leaders that such persecution will not be tolerated in a civilised world and that the imposition of commercial sanctions, as the US has done for the past five years, deserves further consideration? If not, why not?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(27 October 2003)

The Commission has on several occasions voiced its grave concern for the human rights situation in Burma and the continuing harassment of democratic forces in the country.

In response to the deteriorating political situation in Burma, the Union decided to reinforce its Common Position on Burma in April 2003 (1). Furthermore, it decided to bring forward the implementation of the additional sanctions targeted at the military leaders and their closest supporters after the attacks on Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and her supporters at the end of May 2003.

The Commission is currently undertaking a study assessing the impact of the present Union sanctions on the Burmese regime and looking at possibilities for additional measures should the situation not improve. When examining the scope for strengthened sanctions by the Union, the Commission will look carefully at the possible effects of specific sanctions, such as economic sanctions as imposed by the United States, on the Burmese population. Any decision on further sanctions will be taken by the Council, based on the support of all Member States and the Commission.

---

(1)  OJ L 106, 29.4.2003.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/122 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/122

---

(2004/C 88 E/0129)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2934/03

by José Ribeiro e Castro (UEN) to the Commission

(6 October 2003)

Subject:   Cuba — Spanish Cultural Centre

According to the media, the Spanish Cultural Centre in Havana has been taken over by the State, 90 days after the country's authorities denounced a bilateral agreement concerning this institution.

This has been seen as a reprisal on the part of the Cuban authorities, in response to the measures against Cuba adopted by the European Union on 5 June 2003.

The Commission:

| — | what information does it have as to the facts; |
| --- | --- |

—

what information does it have as to the facts;

| — | what steps has it delegation taken vis-à-vis the Cuban authorities, to prevent the nationalisation of the Spanish Cultural Centre; |
| --- | --- |

—

what steps has it delegation taken vis-à-vis the Cuban authorities, to prevent the nationalisation of the Spanish Cultural Centre;

| — | how does it view the positions recently adopted by the Cuban authorities; |
| --- | --- |

—

how does it view the positions recently adopted by the Cuban authorities;

| — | what measures does it intend to take to reverse the situation of the Spanish Cultural Centre, and to prevent similar events in future? |
| --- | --- |

—

what measures does it intend to take to reverse the situation of the Spanish Cultural Centre, and to prevent similar events in future?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(17 November 2003)

Spain informed the other Member States and the Commission of the decision of the Cuban authorities to denounce the bilateral agreement concerning the Spanish Cultural Centre in Havana. This decision was announced by a public statement of the Cuban Minister of Foreign Affairs on 11 June 2003, following the Union declaration on Cuba of 5 June 2003.

It is for Spain to consider steps it wishes to take, including the possibility of initiating legal action over this unilateral breach of the agreement.

The conclusions adopted on Cuba by the European Council in Thessaloniki, on 19 and 20 June 2003, recalled the measures announced by the Union on 5 June 2003 and considered the behaviour of the Cuban authorities towards the Union and its Member States unacceptable. This behaviour was also deplored and totally rejected in the Council conclusions on the re-evaluation of the Common Position on Cuba in July 2003.

In the face of this kind of event, the Member States and the Commission have agreed to maintain strong cohesion in the implementation of all the measures decided and made public on 5 June 2003.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/123 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/123

---

(2004/C 88 E/0130)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2953/03

by Maurizio Turco (NI) and Marco Cappato (NI) to the Commission

(8 October 2003)

Subject:   Sentence of death by stoning in Nigeria

Mr Jibrin Babaji, a Nigerian citizen aged 20, has been found guilty of sexual relations with three underage boys and has been sentenced to death by stoning. The sentence was handed down on Tuesday, 23 September 2003 by an Islamic court in Bauchi state, under the Sharia penal code.

Does the Commission have further information on the matter? What measures does it intend to take, in line with the European positions in favour of a moratorium on the death penalty worldwide, to ensure that this death sentence is not executed?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(21 November 2003)

The Commission has followed closely appeals against death sentences passed by Sharia courts. It is encouraging to note that in some well-publicised recent cases those sentenced have been acquitted on appeal (Amina Lawal in Katsina and Safiya Husseini in Sokoto). The Commission is aware of the case of Jibril Babaji and expects to receive more details from Heads of Mission in Abuja.

The Commission unreservedly opposes the use of the death sentence. Where the death penalty still exists, the Union calls for its use to be progressively restricted, and where relevant, for moratoria to be introduced. The Troika made a démarche on the application of the death penalty in Nigeria on 12 February 2002.

Moreover, the Commission encourages governments to comply with international standards on human rights and to respect civil liberties without discrimination. The Commission seeks to end the practice in certain countries of public and particularly cruel executions.

As stated in several Council conclusions on Nigeria political dialogue is considered a constructive mechanism for raising human rights issues and questions concerning the death penalty. The Commission will also be guided by the Cotonou Agreement, for which an essential element is respect for human rights.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/123 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/123

---

(2004/C 88 E/0131)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2955/03

by Maurizio Turco (NI) and Marco Cappato (NI) to the Commission

(8 October 2003)

Subject:   Yet another case of persecution of homosexuals in Egypt

The European Parliament has on numerous occasions forcibly condemned the persecution campaign being waged against homosexuals in Egypt, and has called on the Commission and Council to take concrete and progressive measures vis-à-vis the Egyptian institutions. On 28 August 2003, 62 men presumed to be homosexual were arrested on the Qsr el Nil bridge in Egypt in the course of a raid by Cairo police, who surrounded the bridge, verbally abused the men and arrested them. The victims were imprisoned for three days, charged with ‘depraved practices’, obliged to sign statements of guilt, and released after being forced to give their addresses. The hearings will be held in November and December 2003.

Is the Commission aware of these arrests? Does it intend to take concrete and progressive measures, in line with Parliament's repeated demands, with regard to Egypt on the subject of the severe persecution campaign which homosexuals have now been suffering from there for years?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(5 November 2003)

The Commission has carefully monitored alleged incidences of persecution of homosexuals in Egypt. It has raised its concerns with the Egyptian authorities both on the Queen Boat case itself, and on the related issue of police harassment on several occasions as requested in the Parliament's Resolution of 10 April 2003.

There have been recently some welcome developments, notably the release of twenty-nine of the defendants and the transfer of the proceedings from the security courts to the normal court system. But the Honourable Members can rest assured that our Delegation in Cairo, together with the Member State embassies, will continue to follow this case as well as the cases of the 62 men arrested on 28 August. Likewise, the Commission will continue to raise these issues with the Egyptian Authorities whenever appropriate.

The institutions of the Union-Egypt Association Agreement (still pending ratification from various Member States) will provide a useful additional forum to discuss a range of human rights issues.

In addition, as the Honourable Member knows, on 22 May 2003, the Commission issued a Communication on ‘Re-invigorating Union actions on Human Rights and démocratisation with the Mediterranean partners’, with the aim of working constructively to prompt concrete progress on human rights issues. This communication is now being considered by the Council and Parliament.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/124 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/124

---

(2004/C 88 E/0132)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2988/03

by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) and Jan Dhaene (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(9 October 2003)

Subject:   Forest Law Enforcement, Governance and Trade Action Plan

On 21 May 2003, the Commission published the FLEGT Action Plan. Various NGOs involved with this issue, as well as a number of Member States which have taken the lead in the worldwide campaign to stop illegal logging, regard that document as an important step forward and as a point of departure for further legislative activity.

However, after the document (1) had been published, nothing more was heard, and we have the impression that the Commission took no further measures for the implementation of the Action Plan.

What objectives does the Commission want to attain, and within what timescale, in order to implement the FLEGT Action Plan? Within that timescale, what are the key activities between now and June 2004?

Which DG will be responsible for the implementation of the Action Plan, and what resources are available for that purpose?

Is the Commission planning further legislation in connection with the problems addressed by FLEGT?

Illegal logging is a fairly significant problem in the accession countries as well. Is the Commission planning to take specific measures with a view to solving the problem in those countries, both before and after accession?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(5 December 2003)

The Commission has worked to ensure swift follow-up to the EU Action Plan for Forest Law Enforcement, Governance and Trade (FLEGT). Council Conclusions were adopted at the Agriculture Council on 13 October 2003. The Commission still awaits a response from the Parliament.

Wide stakeholder consultations have been initiated, including detailed contacts with Member States, nongovernment organisations and European wood industries. Contacts have also been initiated with potential partner countries in major timber-producing regions of the world, with encouraging results. Discussions with Indonesia are in a particularly advanced stage.

To facilitate engagement with Africa, the Commission also recently provided a EUR 500 000 grant to support the Africa Ministerial Conference for Forest Law Enforcement and Governance (AFLEG), at which more than 30 African nations set out their firm commitment to combat illegal logging.

To answer the additional specific points raised in the question:

| 1. | Implementation will be led by the Development and Environment Directorates General, in close association with other Directorates General, notably External Relations, Trade, the Europe Aid Cooperation Office, Taxation and Customs Union, Enterprise and Internal Market.
  Initially, supporting resources will be made available from the tropical forest budget line. Funds are also available from certain Country and Regional Strategies. The Commission will propose to introduce forest sector governance into Country Strategy Papers in the course of the mid-term review in countries where this issue is a priority. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Implementation will be led by the Development and Environment Directorates General, in close association with other Directorates General, notably External Relations, Trade, the Europe Aid Cooperation Office, Taxation and Customs Union, Enterprise and Internal Market.

Initially, supporting resources will be made available from the tropical forest budget line. Funds are also available from certain Country and Regional Strategies. The Commission will propose to introduce forest sector governance into Country Strategy Papers in the course of the mid-term review in countries where this issue is a priority.

| 2. | The Commission intends to submit a proposal for a Regulation in 2004 to implement the Action Plan. This Regulation would provide the basis for the voluntary partnership scheme to control illegal timber exports. Dialogue and consultations have been initiated with wood-producing countries, and these will continue with a view to forming the partnership agreements required to support implementation.
  No further legislation is currently planned in connection with the problems addressed by the FLEGT Action Plan. However, a study of potential additional legislative options will be launched in the near future and this area will be looked at again in the light of the results of this work. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The Commission intends to submit a proposal for a Regulation in 2004 to implement the Action Plan. This Regulation would provide the basis for the voluntary partnership scheme to control illegal timber exports. Dialogue and consultations have been initiated with wood-producing countries, and these will continue with a view to forming the partnership agreements required to support implementation.

No further legislation is currently planned in connection with the problems addressed by the FLEGT Action Plan. However, a study of potential additional legislative options will be launched in the near future and this area will be looked at again in the light of the results of this work.

| 3. | The accession countries lie outside the scope of the Action Plan. The Commission does not intend to take specific measures on illegal logging before the accession countries join the Union, but rather to develop a strategy based on their future participation within the EU Single Market. The Commission will participate in the work of the Ministerial Conferences for the Protection of Forests in Europe (MCPFE) on this subject, including an assessment of the extent of the problem in Europe, to be carried out in 2004. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The accession countries lie outside the scope of the Action Plan. The Commission does not intend to take specific measures on illegal logging before the accession countries join the Union, but rather to develop a strategy based on their future participation within the EU Single Market. The Commission will participate in the work of the Ministerial Conferences for the Protection of Forests in Europe (MCPFE) on this subject, including an assessment of the extent of the problem in Europe, to be carried out in 2004.

---

(1)  COM(2003) 251.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/125 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/125

---

(2004/C 88 E/0133)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2995/03

by Rodi Kratsa-Tsagaropoulou (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(14 October 2003)

Subject:   Damage to valuable relics contained in the temple of St Sophia

Recently the new director of the St Sophia museum, Serazitin Sachin, informed the Turkish Directorate-General for Museums and the Cultural Heritage that 550 invaluable icons and relics (gospels and sacerdotal vestments) had been severely damaged by damp whilst in storage in the temple of St Sophia having been brought in from many orthodox churches in Turkey when they fall into disuse.

Since 1985 St Sophia has been classified as a World Heritage Site and the latest Turkish National Programme for the implementation of the ‘acquis’ indicates that cultural works belonging to the world as a whole are protected under law of 17 June 1987 so as to preserve them in perfect condition for future generations. In view of this, will the Commission adopt a firm position on this matter?

Do the Turkish pre-accession and MEDA programmes include funding earmarked for cultural purposes, in particular the preservation of cultural treasures such as those stored in St Sophia?

Does the Commission not consider that such a serious situation constitutes a backward step regarding compliance with the Community ‘acquis’. What action does it intend to take in response?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(12 November 2003)

As already mentioned in the Commission's recent reply to Written Question E-2962/03 by Mr Alavanos (1), the Community's financial assistance programme for Turkey does not allow provision of 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.

In addition, the Commission monitors very closely the progress achieved by Turkey in adopting the relevant ‘acquis’ in the area of culture.

---

(1)  OJ C 78 E, 27.3.2004, p. 771.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/126 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/126

---

(2004/C 88 E/0134)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3013/03

by Marco Cappato (NI) to the Commission

(14 October 2003)

Subject:   The case of the Tunisian journalist Néziha Rejiba

On 25 September 2003 the Tunisian customs authorities issued the Tunisian journalist Néziha Rejiba with a summons because she had given a young Tunisian man EUR 170 in cash, an offence punishable by up to five years' imprisonment and a fine. However, the journalist has not broken the law, which sets a time-limit of one week for changing foreign currency into Tunisian dinars.

Néziha Rejiba, who has published articles on the Internet denouncing violations of human rights committed by the Tunisian authorities, writes for the on-line magazine Kalima (www.kalima.com), which has been censored in Tunisia since it was first published in October 2000. For the last three years she has been subjected to physical aggression and been continually harassed by the Tunisian police, her home is under surveillance and her telephone is monitored or (as at present) cut off.

Has the Commission taken official steps to ask the Ambassador of the Republic of Tunisia to clarify the situation? What response has it received?

What steps will the Commission take to induce the Tunisian government to ensure that freedom of expression and the right to a fair trial are respected by the Tunisian authorities in this case?

In view of the fact that the World Summit on the Information Society is due to be held in Tunis in November 2005, what steps will the Commission take to help to ensure an end to the constant and systematic violation of the freedom of expression of the Tunisian population?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(17 December 2003)

The Commission is aware of the reports concerning Ms Rejiba referred to by the Honourable Member.

The Commission continues to follow the human rights situation in Tunisia closely. The Commission has always condemned violations of the principles of liberty democracy respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms and the rule of law, principles upon which the Union is founded and which are common to the Member States as stated in Article 6 of the Treaty on the European Union.

In particular, the Commission considers freedom of expression as an area of fundamental importance to the development of democracy and a participatory society in all areas. In the framework of the MEDA budget line, the Commission in collaboration with a European centre for journalism is seeking to promote freedom of expression in Tunisia through a Media support programme aimed at journalist training. In order to support Tunisian efforts to strengthen the rule of law, the Commission also intends to launch a programme aimed at modernising the Tunisian judiciary, similar to those already launched for Algeria and Palestinian Territories.

As far as the World Summit on the Information Society is concerned, the Commission refers to its answers to the Honourable Member's Written Questions E-2554/03 (1) and E-2931/03 (2).

---

(1)  OJ C 65 E, 13.3.2004, p. 175.

(2)  OJ C 70 E, 20.3.2004, p. 165.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/127 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/127

---

(2004/C 88 E/0135)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3025/03

by Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(17 October 2003)

Subject:   Human rights violations against Greeks on the island of Imbros through the Turkish national land register

At a single stroke, the application of the law on the Turkish national land register on the island of Imbros deprives Greeks on the island and their heirs of their property and assigns it to the Turkish state.

More specifically, the application of the Turkish land register removes from the owners land which has not been cultivated or houses which have not been lived in for more than 20 years, and arbitrarily assigns them to the Turkish state. It removes all ownership and inheritance rights from anyone who has lost Turkish citizenship — because they did not serve in the Turkish army before the age of 21 — and prevents owners from claiming property which had been confiscated without compensation and illegally remains in the possession of Turkish settlers, even though the work which was supposed to have justified the expropriation has never been carried out.

It is clear that these practices are aimed at Greek owners and their heirs, who lose any legal right to ownership, in total contravention of Community law.

Bearing in mind that Turkey has the status of a candidate country for accession to the European Union and its application is to be reviewed in 2004, how will the Commission tackle this issue?

Will it intervene with the Turkish authorities with a view to restoring order and equal rights?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(14 November 2003)

The Commission is aware of concerns about the situation of the Greek minority on the Aegean island of Imvros to which the Honourable Member refers. The Commission has recently received information referring to violation of property rights on the island.

The Commission will examine this issue in the framework of its monitoring of Turkey's respect of the Copenhagen political criteria, which include the respect of human rights and the protection of minorities. It will provide an overall assessment of the difficulties encountered by minorities in Turkey in its forthcoming Regular Report, to be published on 5 November 2003.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/128 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/128

---

(2004/C 88 E/0136)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3032/03

by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(17 October 2003)

Subject:   Denigration by Turkey of its ethnic minorities

Violations of human rights in Turkey are continuing. This is in spite of the fact that Turkey has adapted some of its national legislation to take account of EU standards. One example of the continued denigration of minorities is that the Turkish Education Ministry issued a decree on 14 April 2003 to all schools in the country requiring essay competitions and lectures to be organised denying the genocide in and after 1914 against ethnic Armenians and Assyrians/Syrians, and accusing these ethnic groups of having been traitors to the Ottoman Empire. Assyrian/Syrian and Armenian children are suffering discrimination on a daily basis, specially by being forced to participate in these lectures which are an insult to their own ethnic and religious identity.

The Turkish human rights organisation IHD has reacted sharply to the decree and has recently launched a campaign together with human rights lawyers seeking to prevail upon the Turkish government to cancel the decree and cease these violations. The Education Ministry's decree of 14 April 2003 contrasts starkly with the demands made on Turkey at the European Convention and elsewhere.

What measures does the Commission propose to take with a view to prevailing on the Turkish government to abolish this decree and cease the insults to its ethnic and religious minorities?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(24 November 2003)

The Commission is aware of the Turkish Education Ministry circular of 14 April 2003 relating to the requirement of schools to organise essay competitions and lectures denying ‘the Armenian, Greek Pontus and Assyrian allegations’.

The Commission raised this matter with the Turkish authorities in the course of its regular dialogue. The issue has been addressed in the Commission's Regular Report, issued on 5 November 2003 (1).

More generally, the Commission is aware of the difficulties encountered by minorities throughout Turkey and will continue to closely monitor their treatment.

---

(1)  COM(2003) 676 final.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/129 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/129

---

(2004/C 88 E/0137)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3045/03

by Proinsias De Rossa (PSE) to the Commission

(17 October 2003)

Subject:   Child labour

I welcome the commitment given by Commissioner Neilson, in his reply to my Oral Question H-0405/03 (1), to consider possible support for the ILO's International Programme on the Elimination of Child Labour, and the proposed inclusion of child labour in the tentative list of joint objectives/priorities between the Commission and the ILO in the framework of the proposed EC/ILO Strategic Partnership.

Could the Commission outline what progress has been made to date and indicate how it proposes to make sufficient funds available to allow for concrete follow-up activities in this area?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(21 November 2003)

The Commission is finalising for the end of 2003 a Strategic Partnership with the International Labour Organisation (ILO) in the field of development co-operation. A strategic approach to the elimination of child labour through the promotion of primary education has been identified as the first priority to be developed in the framework of the Partnership.

This strategy intends to address the issue of education in the context of the fight against child labour. This is particularly relevant with respect to the efforts made by the Commission within the Education for All agenda. The primary objective of Community policy on education and training, achieving education for all in line with the millennium development goals, cannot be accomplished without addressing the problems of school aged children who are working.

In this context it could be useful to identify the root causes of this phenomenon, that is to say the gap between children's rights in law and the reality in which they live on a daily basis. This could be addressed by timely targeted actions to help destitute families and support them through community networks at local level.

The strategy on child labour and education will address, in this pilot phase, specifically the African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) regional dimension, and the Commission envisages drawing on the European Development Fund allocation for Intra-ACP co-operation.

The operational partner will be the ILO International Programme for the Elimination of Child Labour (IPEC). This strategic action would be additional to the existing ILO/IPEC programme. The funding will focus on actions, which are not part of the regular base activities of ILO/IPEC. First, while IPEC interventions in broad terms are most advanced on Asia and Latin America, the Commission's funding will allow to reinforce targeted actions towards the ACP countries. Accumulated experience and best practices from Asia and Latin America will be used to promote targeted action in ACP countries to allow more children subject to forced labour to access and complete their primary schooling. Secondly, this funding will support targeted initiatives in education.

---

(1)  Oral answer, 1.7.2003.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/130 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/130

---

(2004/C 88 E/0138)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3133/03

by José Ribeiro e Castro (UEN) to the Commission

(23 October 2003)

Subject:   Angola — Falcone

The Angolan Government has appointed Pierre Falcone — an alleged arms trafficker currently having problems with the French judiciary — Minister-Counsellor at the Angolan permanent delegation to Unesco, a move which has been criticised by the Angolan opposition parties and the international press, and about which Unesco itself has reservations.

It is a source of further concern if it means a deterioration in international understanding about Angola's need for foreign aid following the end of a long civil war and the definitive establishment of peace. In particular it may jeopardise the terms of cooperation with the European Union or delay once again the political conditions for the preparation and organisation of the long-awaited Donors' Conference, which was postponed because conditions were not right, thus thwarting the expectations of the Angolan population and preventing speedier reconstruction of the country.

Can the Commission therefore say:

| — | what it thinks about this appointment and whether it has already made any comments or has any to make; |
| --- | --- |

—

what it thinks about this appointment and whether it has already made any comments or has any to make;

| — | whether it considers that the appointment affects the credibility of the Angolan authorities in the outside world; whether it has in any way affected the Community programmes under way with Angola or whether it has caused or may cause new difficulties in the preparations for the Donors' Conference; |
| --- | --- |

—

whether it considers that the appointment affects the credibility of the Angolan authorities in the outside world; whether it has in any way affected the Community programmes under way with Angola or whether it has caused or may cause new difficulties in the preparations for the Donors' Conference;

| — | whether it has taken or plans to take any steps to make the Angolan government aware of its position and its concerns, if any, about the matters referred to above? |
| --- | --- |

—

whether it has taken or plans to take any steps to make the Angolan government aware of its position and its concerns, if any, about the matters referred to above?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(21 November 2003)

The appointment of Mr Pierre Falcone as Minister-Counsellor at the Angolan permanent delegation to the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (Unesco) is primarily a matter for consideration at the appropriate diplomatic level. Such an isolated case has to be viewed in the broader context of Angola's long path from a country in civil war towards a transparent, participatory and accountable democracy, but could indeed be detrimental to Angola's credibility in the outside world.

European Community interventions are part of a long term co-operation strategy with Angola and in principle not subject to changes due to isolated current affairs. As regards the preparation of the Donors' Conference, the Commission considers that this incident, objectionable as it is, is unlikely to have adverse effects, as long as there is progress in dialogue with the International Monetary Fund (IMF), with a view to the conclusion of an agreement and the presentation of a credible poverty reduction strategy. These two elements are considered of paramount importance by the international community for a successful outcome of the Donors' Conference.

It is neither the role nor the intention of the Commission to discuss such a particular issue in contacts with the Angolan government. However, in the context of a political dialogue with Angola under Article 8 of the Cotonou Agreement, it is to be expected that transparency and good governance issues and thus the wider context of the case referred to by the Honourable Member, will be discussed. The conclusions of the Council adopted on 13 October 2003 also emphasise that the Union is prepared to assist the Angolan Government in its fight against corruption.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/131 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/131

---

(2004/C 88 E/0139)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3143/03

by Stavros Xarchakos (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(23 October 2003)

Subject:   Automobile prices in Greece and ban on diesel motors in Athens and Thessaloniki

Recently (a few months prior to the Greek elections) the Greek Government has announced tax cuts affecting the market in new automobiles.

It is expected that the resulting price reductions will mainly affect automobiles with large engines (exceeding 2 000 cubic centimetres) which will nevertheless remain more expensive than equivalent models in other countries in the European Union.

Regarding vehicles in the 1800-2000 cubic centimetre bracket (including vehicles with features offering high standards of active and passive safety) the reduction will be much less, which means that such automobiles will still be extremely expensive for Greek consumers whose salaries are, moreover, the lowest within the European Union with annual per capita income amounting to only 69 % of the Community average (Eurostat 2000)

During deliberations in the European Parliament's Committee on the Environment, repeated reference was made to the low pollutant levels of emissions from modern diesel motors, and the fact that in terms of horsepower they are comparable (thanks to the widespread use of hypercompressors) with petrol motors. It is also recognised that emissions from damaged catalytic converters (used in unleaded petrol motors) are exceptionally dangerous to human health. At the same time, diesel-driven automobiles are banned from Athens and Thessaloniki. All this is resulting in high levels of atmospheric pollution (particularly in Athens which numbers over two million vehicles), while Greek consumers are being penalised still further since, on the one hand, unleaded petrol is more expensive than diesel and, on the other hand, petrol motors consume more fuel than diesel motors.

What representations will the Commission make to the Greek authorities with a view to securing tax (and hence retail price) reductions for automobiles in the 1 800-2 000 cc category which (for price reasons) are of the greatest interest to Greek consumers? Is it rational and consistent in environmental terms to ban diesel motors from the two largest Greek cities? What steps has the Commission taken to date regarding these two problems and what has been the response of the Greek authorities?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(17 December 2003)

The Commission would like to inform the Honourable Member that, with the exception of common rules applying to annual taxes and charges for heavy goods vehicles, there is little Community legislation, or harmonisation of national fiscal provisions, applied by the Member States in the area of passenger cars taxation. Therefore, it is for individual Member States to lay down national provisions for the taxation of these cars, which have to be in line with the general principles of the EC Treaty and in particular not to give rise to border-crossing formalities in trade between Member States and to respect the non-discrimination principle.

The Commission is aware of considerable registration tax differences in Member States still applying registration tax. In a Communication on: ‘Taxation of passenger cars in the European Union’ (1), presented in September 2002, the Commission suggested that Member States abolish or substantially reduce registration tax over a transitional period of five to ten years. The Communication also included policy measures establishing a more direct relation between taxation levels and carbon dioxide (C02) emissions from new passenger cars. The Parliament adopted a favourable opinion on this Communication during its Plenary Session of 5/6 November 2003.

The Commission draws attention to the fact that any initiative the Commission might take, in the light of the outcome of this discussion within the Council and the Parliament, targeting the approximation of taxation of passenger cars, has to receive the unanimous agreement of Member States at the Council.

Concerning the ban on diesel cars in the two largest Greek cities, the Commission would like to recall that in assessing the environmental impact of diesel cars, a distinction should be made between ambient air pollution and climate change issues. If compared with petrol cars, modern diesel cars allow a reduction in CO2 emissions, which is a key issue in addressing climate change. On the other hand, however, the emissions of diesel cars are significantly higher as regards the pollutants that adversely affect ambient air quality, such as particulate matter and nitrogen oxides. The concentration of such pollutants in ambient air is regulated by 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 (2), which lays down limit values and margins of tolerance. According to the reports submitted to the Commission under the air quality framework Directive, limit values and margins of tolerance are still exceeded in the Attica Region, and this makes it necessary to adopt or maintain measures addressing specific sources of pollution, provided that such measures are compatible with the EC Treaty.

For further details on ambient air pollution in Greece, the Honourable Member may wish to refer to the reply given by the Commission to Written Question E-3217/03 by Mr Antonios Trakatellis (3).

---

(1)  COM(2002) 431 final.

(2)  OJ L 163, 29.6.1999.

(3)  OJ C 78 E, 27.3.2004, p. 791.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/132 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/132

---

(2004/C 88 E/0140)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3159/03

by Dirk Sterckx (ELDR) to the Commission

(24 October 2003)

Subject:   Unequal treatment of professional removal firms importing loads into the EU from non-Member States as a result of differing interpretations of Regulation (EEC) 918/83

When loads are imported by removal firms from outside the European Union into another Member State via the United Kingdom, the Netherlands or Sweden, the goods are exempted by these countries' respective local customs authorities from import duties and VAT for the whole EU territory.

On the other hand, a number of Member States, such as Belgium, issue former residents of third countries with a T-form (pan-European transport document) when they arrive in the EU, whereby their effects are only exempted from import duties and VAT up to the border of the country of final destination, where they have to be declared. This means that the decision about exemption from import duties and VAT is taken by the customs authorities of the country of final destination.

It goes without saying that removal firms based in Member States that apply the procedure with the T-form are put at a disadvantage as compared with their competitors in the United Kingdom, the Netherlands and Sweden: because of their more flexible rules, more and more of their clients are changing to removal firms based in the United Kingdom, the Netherlands and Sweden.

| 1. | Does Article 128 of Regulation (EEC) 918/83 (1) allow the Member State of arrival (as opposed to the country of final destination) to issue an immediate exemption from import duties and VAT for the whole territory of the European Union? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Does Article 128 of Regulation (EEC) 918/83 (1) allow the Member State of arrival (as opposed to the country of final destination) to issue an immediate exemption from import duties and VAT for the whole territory of the European Union?

| 2. | If so, is Belgium obliged to revise its procedure using the T-form in favour of a procedure of immediate exemption from import duties and VAT in order to comply with Regulation (EEC) 918/83? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If so, is Belgium obliged to revise its procedure using the T-form in favour of a procedure of immediate exemption from import duties and VAT in order to comply with Regulation (EEC) 918/83?

| 3. | If not, is the procedure of immediate exemption from import duties and VAT as applied, for example, by the United Kingdom, not in breach of Regulation (EEC) 918/83? |
| --- | --- |

3.

If not, is the procedure of immediate exemption from import duties and VAT as applied, for example, by the United Kingdom, not in breach of Regulation (EEC) 918/83?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(11 December 2003)

| 1. | When customs offices in the Member States release removal goods coming from a third country into free circulation in the Community free of Common Customs Tariff duties (CCT duties) and Value Added Tax (VAT), they apply legislation based on two different legal sources. Whereas the relief of CCT duties is based on Articles 2 to 10 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 918/83 (2), the relief of VAT is based on national tax legislation implementing Article 14 of Council Directive 77/388/EEC (3) and Articles 2 to 10 of Council Directive 83/181/EEC (4).
  In its reply to Written Question E-0243/02 by Mrs Peijs (5), the Commission set out principles concerning the customs clearance of these removal goods and implied that Article 128 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 918/83 does not apply to these imports.
  Article 128 only applies to goods which have to be put to a particular use by the recipient, i.e. the declarant, in order to benefit from a specific duty relief. The restrictions set out in Article 7(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 918/83 in respect of removal goods, however, only require that the declarant remains the unrestricted owner of the removal goods for a period of 12 months. Within that period, the declarant can use these goods for whatever private purpose he likes. He can, for example, use them for furnishing his new residence or store them at the premises of his removal company. Given these circumstances, the Commission considers that the restriction of Article 7(1) does not create an obligation to put the removal goods to a particular end use as required by Article 128. The Commission interprets this restriction as a prohibition to commercialise these goods, similar to the restrictions set out in Article 29 (consignments sent by one private individual to another) or Article 45 (goods contained in travellers' personal luggage) of Regulation (EEC) No 918/83.
  As the legal provisions of Articles 2 to 10 of Council Directive 83/181/EEC are almost identical to the text of the same Articles of Regulation (EEC) No 918/83, Member States' VAT legislation should be similar to the Community customs rules for removal goods. It remains to the discretion of the national customs and tax authorities in which way they want to ensure compliance of the declarant with the restrictions imposed by Article 7(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 918/83 and the similar provision in national VAT legislation. The method to control compliance should, however, not create additional costs at the expense of the declarant and should not deviate too much from the methods applied in the examples mentioned in the previous paragraph. |
| --- | --- |

1.

When customs offices in the Member States release removal goods coming from a third country into free circulation in the Community free of Common Customs Tariff duties (CCT duties) and Value Added Tax (VAT), they apply legislation based on two different legal sources. Whereas the relief of CCT duties is based on Articles 2 to 10 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 918/83 (2), the relief of VAT is based on national tax legislation implementing Article 14 of Council Directive 77/388/EEC (3) and Articles 2 to 10 of Council Directive 83/181/EEC (4).

In its reply to Written Question E-0243/02 by Mrs Peijs (5), the Commission set out principles concerning the customs clearance of these removal goods and implied that Article 128 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 918/83 does not apply to these imports.

Article 128 only applies to goods which have to be put to a particular use by the recipient, i.e. the declarant, in order to benefit from a specific duty relief. The restrictions set out in Article 7(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 918/83 in respect of removal goods, however, only require that the declarant remains the unrestricted owner of the removal goods for a period of 12 months. Within that period, the declarant can use these goods for whatever private purpose he likes. He can, for example, use them for furnishing his new residence or store them at the premises of his removal company. Given these circumstances, the Commission considers that the restriction of Article 7(1) does not create an obligation to put the removal goods to a particular end use as required by Article 128. The Commission interprets this restriction as a prohibition to commercialise these goods, similar to the restrictions set out in Article 29 (consignments sent by one private individual to another) or Article 45 (goods contained in travellers' personal luggage) of Regulation (EEC) No 918/83.

As the legal provisions of Articles 2 to 10 of Council Directive 83/181/EEC are almost identical to the text of the same Articles of Regulation (EEC) No 918/83, Member States' VAT legislation should be similar to the Community customs rules for removal goods. It remains to the discretion of the national customs and tax authorities in which way they want to ensure compliance of the declarant with the restrictions imposed by Article 7(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 918/83 and the similar provision in national VAT legislation. The method to control compliance should, however, not create additional costs at the expense of the declarant and should not deviate too much from the methods applied in the examples mentioned in the previous paragraph.

| 2. and 3. | As already stated in the answer to the Written Question E-0243/02, the request for release into free circulation under relief of customs duties and VAT has to be submitted by, or on behalf of, the person transferring his/her residence from a third country to the Community to any customs office the declarant chooses to use for this purpose. Nevertheless, as explained previously, Member States have a certain discretion in respect of the documentary evidence to be provided. This discretion stems from the differences in the national legislation of Member States in respect of the administrative procedures and requirements for a person taking residence in a country. The customs authorities in the Member States, however, should not use this discretion to discriminate in their customs treatment between persons taking residence in the country of the customs authority and persons taking residence in another Member State of the Community. Since the place of presentation of the request has normally to be determined by the person transferring his/her residence based on different elements, including the procedures and requirements in force in the different Member States, both procedures release into free circulation at the point of entry into the Community or in any other Member State are possible. In the latter case a T-form is necessary to ensure the transport to the place where the release into free circulation will take place.
  Should the Honourable Member or any other person dispose of documentary evidence which indicates that particular legal provisions for removal goods of Council Regulation (EEC) No 918/83 or Council Directive 83/181/EEC have been infringed by these authorities he/she may either lodge a formal complaint on the issue to the Commission or use the normal legal procedures foreseen in the Member States' legislation for such cases in order to defend this person's interests. |
| --- | --- |

2. and 3.

As already stated in the answer to the Written Question E-0243/02, the request for release into free circulation under relief of customs duties and VAT has to be submitted by, or on behalf of, the person transferring his/her residence from a third country to the Community to any customs office the declarant chooses to use for this purpose. Nevertheless, as explained previously, Member States have a certain discretion in respect of the documentary evidence to be provided. This discretion stems from the differences in the national legislation of Member States in respect of the administrative procedures and requirements for a person taking residence in a country. The customs authorities in the Member States, however, should not use this discretion to discriminate in their customs treatment between persons taking residence in the country of the customs authority and persons taking residence in another Member State of the Community. Since the place of presentation of the request has normally to be determined by the person transferring his/her residence based on different elements, including the procedures and requirements in force in the different Member States, both procedures release into free circulation at the point of entry into the Community or in any other Member State are possible. In the latter case a T-form is necessary to ensure the transport to the place where the release into free circulation will take place.

Should the Honourable Member or any other person dispose of documentary evidence which indicates that particular legal provisions for removal goods of Council Regulation (EEC) No 918/83 or Council Directive 83/181/EEC have been infringed by these authorities he/she may either lodge a formal complaint on the issue to the Commission or use the normal legal procedures foreseen in the Member States' legislation for such cases in order to defend this person's interests.

---

(1)  OJ L 105, 23.4.1983, p. 1.

(2)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 918/83 of 28 March 1983 setting up a Community system of reliefs from customs duty.

(3)  Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonization 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.

(4)  Council Directive 83/181/EEC of 28 March 1983 determining the scope of Article 14(l)(d) of Directive 77/388/EEC as regards exemption from value added tax on the final importation of certain goods, OJ L 105, 23.4.1983.

(5)  OJ C 301 E, 5.12.2002.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/134 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/134

---

(2004/C 88 E/0141)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3163/03

by Bill Miller (PSE) to the Commission

(24 October 2003)

Subject:   Regional policy in Hungary

What regional policies have been implemented in Hungary? How have pre-accession programmes/subsidies been used/distributed in Hungary (i.e. number/type — private, state, corporate — of applicants/recipients for each programme; distribution through counties; major projects' success/cost/location; ISPA/PHARE/Sapard fund usage; integration of EU projects into Hungarian Government's own rural development programmes; long-term EU goals for Hungarian regional policy after accession)?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(19 November 2003)

In Hungary, the importance attributed to regional development is reflected in the 1996 Act on Regional Development and Physical Planning. As a result of the Act, Regional Development Councils have been set up and currently operate. Regional development strategies have been identified respectively in the preliminary National Development Plan (2000-2002) and subsequently in the National Development Plan (2003-2006).

The European Commission has supported Hungary's efforts to prepare for its future participation in the Union's Regional Policy and thus for the future management and utilisation of the Structural and Cohesion Funds, through pre-accession funds (PHARE, ISPA and Sapard).

Under PHARE, comprehensive Institution building support (EUR 12,5 million over different budget years) has been provided since 1998 in order to establish and strengthen institutional structures, to provide in future for a sound and efficient management of Union Structural and Cohesion Funds and in order to support the programming process. Support is also being provided to assist Hungary in the creation of an adequate projects pipeline (EUR 15 million). PHARE funded activities will continue into 2004 to assist Hungary in the first phase of Structural Funds operations.

PHARE funds have also provided support with investment actions. In this respect, a special ‘sub-programme’ has been designed for the period 2002-2003 chiefly aimed at providing assistance more in line with the Objective 1 approach to the Structural Funds. This programme, based on the preliminary National Development Plan (pNDP), and co-financed by PHARE and the Hungarian Government (EUR 84 million and EUR 66,23 million respectively), focuses on three measures aimed at supporting labour market re-integration of the long term unemployed (and in particular the Roma), the introduction of information technology in primary schools and the promotion of local development.

Overall, PHARE has greatly contributed to the preparation of Hungary for accession, both in general and specifically in relation to the implementation of Structural Funds. Institutions have been strengthened, staff trained, pilot actions launched and, through the 2002-2003 Economic and Social Cohesion sub-programme, the whole country was involved for the first time in a joint programming and implementation exercise.

For more information on the 1998-2003 PHARE Programmes, details on specific allocation for sub-programmes are available on the following web-site: (http://europa.eu.int/comm/enlargement/finan-cial_assistance.htm).

As regards ISPA (Instrument for structural policies for pre-accession), Hungary also received from ISPA EUR 88,3 million in 2000, EUR 90,8 million in 2001, EUR 94,2 million in 2002 and will receive EUR 94,5 million in 2003. The support was roughly divided equally for environment and transport projects. During the first three years of its operation, 100 % of the ISPA allocation has been committed. The Hungarian Government has also elaborated Strategy Papers for Transport and Environment.

Details on specific ISPA projects are available on the following web-site (http://europa.eu.int/comm/regional_policy/funds/ispa/ispa_fr.htm).

Concerning the Hungarian Sapard programme (Special Accession Programme for Agricultural and Rural Development), it was adopted by the Commission in October 2000. It foresees the improvement of the competitiveness of the agricultural sector and processing industry focusing on environmental protection and seeks to enhance the adaptation capabilities of rural areas. The average annual public expenditure will amount to EUR 50,5 million during the period 2000-2003, of which EUR 38,7 million will be the Community contribution. At the end of September 2003, 541 Sapard projects will have been approved for a total commitment of about EUR 40 million.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/135 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/135

---

(2004/C 88 E/0142)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3185/03

by Geoffrey Van Orden (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(27 October 2003)

Subject:   Duty free allowances in the Canary Islands

Why can the Canary Islands impose tighter limits on EU citizens importing and exporting duty free items than other parts of the EU?

If this activity is based on a derogation to normal EU rules, when is the derogation scheduled to end?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(17 December 2003)

Certain territories, including the Canary Islands, are excluded from the fiscal territory of the Community (1), mainly for historical or geographical reasons. Being outside the fiscal territory, the Canary Islands may impose restrictions on the import and export of goods by travellers coming from the Union which are at variance with those otherwise applied within the Community.

The special status granted to the Canary Islands is not limited in time. It may however be brought to an end, either at the initiative of the Commission (2), presenting the necessary proposals, or, as far as excise duty is concerned, by notice submitted by Spain (3).

---

(1)  See Article 3(3) of the 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 and Article 2 of 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, OJ L 76, 23.3.1992.

(2)  See Article 3(5) of the Sixth VAT Directive.

(3)  See Article 2(2) of Directive 92/12/EEC.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/136 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/136

---

(2004/C 88 E/0143)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3223/03

by Anna Karamanou (PSE) to the Commission

(31 October 2003)

Subject:   Children sentenced to death in the Philippines

A recent report by Amnesty International reveals the presence in Philippine prisons of children who have been sentenced to death and are awaiting execution. However, under the Convention on the Rights of the Child, to which the Philippines is a signatory and Philippine national law, juvenile offenders who have committed offences whilst below the age of 18, cannot be sentenced to death or executed. Clearly, the Government of the Philippines is therefore in breach of both national and international law.

What pressure will the Commission bring to bear on the Philippine Government, so as to ensure that it complies fully, in principle and in practice, with the limits imposed by national and international law regarding penalties for child offenders?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(3 December 2003)

The Commission shares the concern expressed by the Honourable Member about the alleged sentencing of children to death in the Philippines.

The Commission confirms that the Philippines is a signatory of the International Convention on the Rights of the Child, and that, in application of this Convention, Article 47 of the Penal Code of the Philippines states that the death penalty shall not be imposed if the offender was below the age of 18 at the time that the crime was committed.

Research indicates that the age of the accused is not automatically included in the file of a case when it goes to court. Judges do not enquire systematically about it and only if the defence brings up the issue will the age be taken into account in the court's ruling. This is particularly a problem for those who cannot afford private legal representation. The problem is further complicated by the fact that some of those convicted do not have birth certificates and it is difficult therefore to prove that they are minors.

There are currently 17 people sentenced to death in the Philippines that were allegedly minors at the time that the crimes for which they are convicted were committed. The Philippines Jesuit Prison Service Foundation brought this issue to the attention of the Supreme Court of the Philippines. The Supreme Court has now ordered a regional court to ascertain the real age of these people.

The Commission, through is Delegation in Manila and together with the Member States' Representations in the Philippines, has been monitoring closely developments regarding the death penalty and has expressed its concern to the government through Troika ‘démarches’ on several occasions.

Moreover, the issue of the death penalty is a constant element in the Commission's cooperation policy with the Philippines. Under the European Initiative for Democracy and Human Rights (EIDHR), the Commission provides support to local non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and institutions that are actively working for the abolition of the death penalty.

The funds committed for this purpose since November 2000 amount to a total EUR 805 798 and cover actions such as the provision of free legal assistance to indigent death row convicts, training of lawyers and judges, post-conviction DNA testing (aimed at finding evidence that can help the revision of wrongful convictions), research, and lobbying activities.

As evidenced by the issue of minors sentenced to death, the judicial system in the Philippines has a number of deficiencies. The Commission has identified this as one of its priority areas for assistance to the country, and will fund a good governance programme that aims to improve access to justice for the poor.

A bill abolishing the Death Penalty in the Philippines has been tabled at both the House of Representatives and the Senate and, after having been finalised at committee level in May 2003, is ready to be discussed at both chambers of Congress. However, and although the groups lobbying for the abolition of the death penalty seem to have gathered enough support to pass the bill in both chambers, the likelihood of this happening decreases as the elections in May 2004 approach, since the death penalty remains a controversial issue in the Philippines.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/137 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/137

---

(2004/C 88 E/0144)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3244/03

by Margrietus van den Berg (PSE) to the Commission

(3 November 2003)

Subject:   Policy Coherence for Development Network

On a Netherlands initiative, a Policy Coherence for Development Network was recently set up for the purpose of promoting information-exchanges between EU Member States on maintaining policy consistency.

| 1. | Can the Commission state how the network operates? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Can the Commission state how the network operates?

| 2. | What have been the initial results of information-exchanges? |
| --- | --- |

2.

What have been the initial results of information-exchanges?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(11 December 2003)

At the meeting of Union Directors General for Development Cooperation on 2/3 October 2003, the Dutch Director General tabled a proposal to set up a senior level informal network on coherence, which would foster capacity building, co-ordination and set concrete targets for work on coherence. The participants would alert each other on policy initiatives with implications for development co-operation and spot incoherence where it exists.

The prime objective of the network would be to improve co-ordination between the Member States. On key issues of policy coherence, Member States would communicate and co-ordinate more intensively: exchange information about pending decisions, share analyses of development aspects, draft positions and where possible co-ordinate strategies. It was argued that such an exchange would help to ensure that the development perspective is effectively taken into account in decision making at Union level.

The proposal was warmly welcomed.

The Commission will participate as one of the members of this network.

At this stage the network is still in its inception phase. Member States are designating co-ordinators for information exchange and collaboration between Member States and with the Commission concerning coherence issues. A list of priority issues is being prepared.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/137 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/137

---

(2004/C 88 E/0145)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3252/03

by Baroness Sarah Ludford (ELDR) to the Commission

(3 November 2003)

Subject:   International Criminal tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY)

The External Relations Council of 13 October, expressing deep concern that certain Western Balkan countries were still failing to cooperate sufficiently with the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY), reiterated the need to intensify efforts to bring Radovan Karadzic, General Mladic and General Gotovina to the ICTY.

In its Common Position 2003/280/CFSP (1) of 16 April 2003 the Council imposed an EU travel ban on some persons obstructing the mandate of the ICTY, and this has had a positive impact, especially in Bosnia and Herzegovina (BiH).

What steps is the Commission taking to broaden the list of persons named in that Common Position to include those helping ICTY indictees elsewhere in the region to evade justice?

Specifically, will those sheltering Karadzic, Mladic and Gotovina, whose respective support networks in Croatia and Serbia and Montenegro are reported by ICTY to be significant, now be subject to the travel ban?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(26 November 2003)

With Common Position 2003/280/CFSP of 16 April 2003 the Council adopted measures preventing the entry into or transit through Member State territories of individuals engaged in activities which help others to evade justice for crimes for which the ICTY has indicted them.

When adopting this Common Position, the Council agreed that amendments to the list of persons identified in the annex could be adopted as required. Thus, on 27 June 2003 under Council Decision 2003/484/CFSP (2), the Council, following recommendations from the office of the High Representative for Bosnia and Herzegovina and after consultations with the ICTY, added new names.

The Commission and Member States remain in contact with the ICTY and the High Representative for Bosnia and Herzegovina and keep the list under review. If or when new evidence emerges concerning other individuals, appropriate steps can be taken.

---

(1)  OJ L 101, 23.4.2003, p. 22.

(2)  OJ L 162, 1.7.2003 amended by OJ L 178, 17.7.2003.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/138 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/138

---

(2004/C 88 E/0146)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3263/03

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(4 November 2003)

Subject:   Powers of the region of Wallonia to approve arms exports, and the use of such weapons to repress the people of Nepal

| 1. | Is the Commission aware that the financing of 5 500 machine guns purchased by the state of Nepal from the Belgian arms manufacturer FN Herstal has been at the expense of measures to combat poverty, education, health care and the holding of elections, and that all of these weapons are ready for deployment just over a year after the placing of the order? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is the Commission aware that the financing of 5 500 machine guns purchased by the state of Nepal from the Belgian arms manufacturer FN Herstal has been at the expense of measures to combat poverty, education, health care and the holding of elections, and that all of these weapons are ready for deployment just over a year after the placing of the order?

| 2. | Is the Commission also aware that, since the delivery of these weapons, the Government of the Kingdom of Nepal and the army have ended the dialogue with the opposition begun in the first half of 2003, and that the weapons are being used on a massive scale in western Nepal for the killing of unarmed citizens suspected of possibly joining the protest against the conditions of inequality under which people traditionally live in this country? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Is the Commission also aware that, since the delivery of these weapons, the Government of the Kingdom of Nepal and the army have ended the dialogue with the opposition begun in the first half of 2003, and that the weapons are being used on a massive scale in western Nepal for the killing of unarmed citizens suspected of possibly joining the protest against the conditions of inequality under which people traditionally live in this country?

| 3. | Does the Commission regard the delivery of such weapons to an area of conflict like Nepal for such purposes to be compatible with the EU code of conduct on the export of arms? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Does the Commission regard the delivery of such weapons to an area of conflict like Nepal for such purposes to be compatible with the EU code of conduct on the export of arms?

| 4. | Is it only the EU Member States that are bound by this code of conduct, or also the individual states of which they are comprised, such as the region of Wallonia, which has been delegated powers to export arms by the federal Belgian government and which bases its decisions primarily on the employment opportunities provided by arms production? |
| --- | --- |

4.

Is it only the EU Member States that are bound by this code of conduct, or also the individual states of which they are comprised, such as the region of Wallonia, which has been delegated powers to export arms by the federal Belgian government and which bases its decisions primarily on the employment opportunities provided by arms production?

| 5. | How is a repetition of this deplorable situation to be prevented, so that further weapons cannot find their way into use in internal extermination campaigns or summary executions in Nepal or other similar regions? |
| --- | --- |

5.

How is a repetition of this deplorable situation to be prevented, so that further weapons cannot find their way into use in internal extermination campaigns or summary executions in Nepal or other similar regions?

Source: Belgian newspaper ‘De Morgen’, 17.10.2003.

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(4 December 2003)

The Commission is fully aware of the ongoing conflict in Nepal and deeply regrets the interruption of the peace talks on 27 August 2003 and the increased violence and loss of life since.

The trade in arms is currently dealt within the framework of the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) and the Commission is fully associated. In June 1998, the Union adopted the Code of Conduct on arms exports under the CFSP on the basis of criteria that Member States are pledged to respect.

The Commission, while sharing the Honourable Member's concern, has neither the authority nor the means to monitor armament's exports. Full responsibility for the licensing of arms exports is an internal matter of the Member States to organise the way they see fit in order to fulfil the obligations they have undertaken under the code of Conduct.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/139 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/139

---

(2004/C 88 E/0147)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3292/03

by Claude Moraes (PSE) to the Commission

(7 November 2003)

Subject:   Shariah Law

It has been brought to my attention by the Centre for Legal Aid Assistance and Settlement (CLAAS), which is an interdenominational organisation from my constituency, that many Christians living in Pakistan endure constant threat and intimidation in their daily lives. Following the adoption of Shariah Law earlier this year by the provincial assembly of the North West Frontier Province of Pakistan, Christians and other religious minorities in the region cannot worship freely and are being converted to Islam by force; they are being harassed and persecuted for their beliefs and denied their human rights under this strict Islamic law. There is growing fear that the Muttahidda Majilis-e-Amal alliance of Islamic parties (the MMA) will persuade the Federal Government to endorse Shariah Law and enforce it throughout the country.

Would the Commission please comment on this situation and give its view on the opinion that non-Muslims should be exempt from the Shariah Law?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(4 December 2003)

The Commission is concerned about the situation of Christians and other religious minorities in Pakistan and has brought this to the attention of the Pakistani authorities on several occasions through Union diplomatic contacts in Islamabad. The Delegation of the Commission and Member States Embassies will continue to raise these issues with the Government of Pakistan.

The Shariah Law came into force in the North West Frontier Province (NWFP) on 19 June 2003. However, the various Commissions which have been established to review the existing legislation in order to adapt it to Islamic injunctions have not yet carried out any work. Moreover, the NWFP Governor has raised a number of concerns on the draft Hasba Bill which is designed to implement the Shariah by appointing an Ombudsman with police competence. These concerns have been forwarded to the Islamic Ideology Council (IIC) which has to give a non binding opinion. In these circumstances, it is far from clear that the NWFP Assembly will adopt the Hasba Bill. Incidentally, the Shariah Law adopted in the NWFP is almost a replica of the Shariah Bill adopted nationally in 1991 which has never been implemented.

The Commission through its Delegation in Pakistan is in regular contact with various local and international non-governmental organisations (NGOs) involved in work for religious minorities and has been attentive to possible cases of violence or discrimination against religious minorities since the adoption of the Shariah in the NWFP. So far no indication of an increase in such cases has been reported. However, the minorities claim that they now feel additional psychological pressure and uncertainty about their future.

There does not seem to be a definite answer as to whether non-Muslims should be exempted from the Shariah Law. While Pakistan's Constitution Article 227(1) provides that all existing laws shall be brought into conformity with the injunctions of Islam as laid down in the Holy Quran and Sunnah, it also contains a number of provisions which protect the minorities. Article 20 of the Constitution grants the freedom to profess religion and to manage religious institutions. Article 36 requires the State to protect the rights of the minorities and Article 227(3) prohibits all laws to affect the personal laws of non-Muslims or their status as citizens.

On this basis, it would appear to some Islamic experts that the Shariah Law should respect the above mentioned rights for minorities recognized in the Constitution and that some of the obligations for Muslins would not be applicable to religious minorities. However, the draft Hasba Bill does not make such a distinction between the minorities and the Muslim majority — the provisions of the Hasba Bill would be imposed on minorities as well as Muslims.

While the issue of the application of the Shariah Law may be subject to debate, the Commission will continue to reiterate to the Pakistani authorities the need to protect Christians and other minorities as well as to avoid sectarian violence. Furthermore, the Commission through some of its cooperation activities will continue also to address the improvement of human rights issues including those related to the nondiscrimination of minorities.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/140 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/140

---

(2004/C 88 E/0148)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3303/03

by Luigi Vinci (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(3 November 2003)

Subject:   Turkey and latest report of the Human Rights Association of Turkey (IHD)

In its latest report, the Human Rights Association of Turkey (IHD) states, following a detailed description of cases, that the number of human rights violations committed by the various state bodies in Turkey over the last six months is equal to the total number of violations for the previous year.

What is the Commission's opinion on this general statement by the IHD, i.e. does it consider the statement to be accurate? Is the Commission aware of all the cases mentioned by the IHD in this report and, more generally, the cases mentioned in the various reports published by the IHD and other Turkish human rights organisations?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(26 November 2003)

The Commission is aware of the report produced by the Turkish Human Rights Association. The Commission receives on a regular basis reports prepared by this Association along with a number of other non-governmental organisations working in the area of human rights. These reports are useful sources of information in assessing the human rights situation in Turkey.

In its Regular Report published on 5 November 2003 (1), the Commission gives a detailed assessment of the reform process underway in Turkey and the impact of the measures taken on the human rights situation.

---

(1)  COM(2003) 676 final.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/141 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/141

---

(2004/C 88 E/0149)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3375/03

by Antonios Trakatellis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(10 November 2003)

Subject:   Nuclear safety: plant decommissioning and incorporation of costs

Ahead of the accession of ten new Member States, it is a matter of priority to improve nuclear safety in the European Union, the accession states and the applicant countries. After carrying out an assessment, the Commission requested the closure of certain units which cannot be brought up to internationally acceptable safety standards at a reasonable cost (Kozloduy 1-4, Ignalina 1 and 2, and Bohunice 1 and 2) together with an improvement in safety of the other reactors in the applicant countries to a level comparable to that for equivalent reactors currently operating in the Union. However, Bulgarian officials have recently raised the issue of re-opening negotiations on the closure of Kozloduy 3 and 4, which has justifiably given cause for concern.

How will the Commission ensure that States comply with the commitments they have given in memoranda signed between them (e.g. Bulgaria) and the Commission, and in the context of their partnerships with the EU, to close down and decommission dangerous plants which cannot be brought up to internationally acceptable safety standards at reasonable cost?

What measures, appropriations and loans for the decommissioning of dangerous plants which cannot be brought up to internationally acceptable safety standards at reasonable cost have been authorised or put into effect and what measures have been taken to prevent the funding of projects and programmes in States which are in breach of or non-compliance with their international commitments?

What steps will the Commission take to incorporate the external costs of nuclear energy arising from expenditure on decommissioning or modernisation with safety improvements in order to prevent distortion of competition on the market in electricity in the Union?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(8 December 2003)

Bulgaria committed itself to the closure of units 1 and 2 of Kozloduy Nuclear Power Plant by the end of 2002, in the framework of the provisional closure of the Energy Chapter of the Accession Negotiations on 18 November 2002. Bulgaria furthermore committed itself to the closure of units 3 and 4 in 2006. In the context of the so-called ‘Peer Review’ mechanism under the auspices of the European Council, the Union has commissioned an expert mission to Bulgaria, as agreed in the Accession Negotiations. This mission took place on 17 to 19 November 2003, and the results will be assessed by the Council.

The commitments to close the Ignalina Nuclear Power Plant in Lithuania and to close the V1 Bohunice Nuclear Power Plant in Slovakia have been included in Protocols to the Accession Treaty. The Commission will propose a similar inclusion of the closure commitments for the Kozloduy Nuclear Power Plant in the Accession Treaty for Bulgaria at the appropriate time.

The Commission expects that the countries fully adhere to their closure commitments as part of future Union primary law, and will continue to carefully monitor this adherence.

In order to support the decommissioning efforts and to address the consequences of the closure and decommissioning the Community has provided, through financing decisions up to 2003:

| — | Slovakia: EUR 90 million; |
| --- | --- |

—

Slovakia: EUR 90 million;

| — | Lithuania: EUR 210 million; |
| --- | --- |

—

Lithuania: EUR 210 million;

| — | Bulgaria: EUR 158,75 million. |
| --- | --- |

—

Bulgaria: EUR 158,75 million.

Regarding the post-accession period, Lithuania will receive, from 2004 to 2006, additional financial assistance for decommissioning, to an amount of EUR 285 million. The Union, furthermore, took a commitment to continue to provide adequate additional Community assistance to Lithuania's decommissioning effort also after 2006.

Regarding Slovakia, financial assistance for 2004 to 2006 amounts to EUR 90 million. The Union acknowledges that the decommissioning process will have to continue beyond 2006 and that this effort represents for Slovakia a significant financial burden. Decisions on the continuation of Community assistance in this field after 2006 will take this situation into account.

Regarding Bulgaria, the EUR 158,75 million already programmed could be increased to EUR 200 million subject to the authorisation of the Budgetary Authority. Moreover, at the occasion of the provisional closure of the Energy Chapter, in which Bulgaria committed to the closure of units 3 and 4 in 2006, the Union expressed its readiness to give consideration to further assistance. A Euratom loan of EUR 212,5 million, for the modernisation of units 5 and 6, is part of the assistance package.

The bulk of the assistance provided is channelled through special decommissioning funds administered by the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) and to which other donors contribute.

The rules of the three International Decommissioning Support Funds contain explicit provisions as regards the conditionality of these programmes to the respect of the closure commitments taken.

In the Union, the operators of nuclear plants set aside provisions for covering the future costs of decommissioning and management of related radioactive wastes. These provisions are typically raised by taking a percent from the price of the energy sold. Decommissioning costs are therefore included in the generation costs of the electricity produced. The modifications to the plants that result from safety requirements are in general treated as an investment, and as such are subject to the financial rules of each country.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/142 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/142

---

(2004/C 88 E/0150)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3382/03

by Cristiana Muscardini (UEN) to the Commission

(17 November 2003)

Subject:   Kidnapping of a Médecins Sans Frontières volunteer

Arian Erkel, the head of the Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) mission in the Caucuses was kidnapped by three armed men in Makhachkala, the capital of Dagestan, on 12 August 2003. MSF has had no news of him since then, nor has it received any demands or any call for a ransom. Dr Erkel is the fourth MSF volunteer to be kidnapped in the Northern Caucuses since 1996. 56 humanitarian workers have been kidnapped in this region since 1995. Around 200 000 people (approximately 20 % of the population) have died since the initial conflict began in 1994, while another 300 000 have been forced to flee either to camps set up on Chechen territory or to those in Ingushetia. This umpteenth kidnapping of a humanitarian worker testifies to the insecurity in which they have to operate and the risks run by all those who want to provide aid to civilian populations but work in areas where violence is a fact of daily life and no respect is shown for humanitarian actions. In view of this disastrous and distressing situation:

| 1. | What can the Commission do to come to the aid of Dr Erkel. |
| --- | --- |

1.

What can the Commission do to come to the aid of Dr Erkel.

| 2. | What action will the Commission take to enable independent humanitarian organisations to work in safety, to guarantee them access to civilian populations, both in Chechnya and in the neighbouring regions flooded with refugees, and to ensure that negotiations are reopened? |
| --- | --- |

2.

What action will the Commission take to enable independent humanitarian organisations to work in safety, to guarantee them access to civilian populations, both in Chechnya and in the neighbouring regions flooded with refugees, and to ensure that negotiations are reopened?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(17 December 2003)

The Commission is deeply concerned for the welfare of Mr Erkel, who was working on a European Humanitarian Aid Office (ECHO)-funded project at the time he was kidnapped in Dagestan. The Commission has on numerous occasions — including at the EU/Russia Summit in Rome on 6 November 2003 — asked for the help of Russia in gaining the early release of Mr Erkel.

The Commission — via ECHO — is the largest donor of humanitarian aid in the north Caucasus. It is aware of the extremely poor security conditions which exist for humanitarian workers, notably in Chechnya itself. In this regard, the Commission has repeatedly called on the Russian authorities to facilitate the provision of humanitarian aid — by facilitating access of humanitarian workers to Chechnya, by providing non-governmental organisations (NGOs) with access to United Nations very high frequency (UN VHF) communications, by ensuring security for aid workers and by allowing ECHO to open an office in Nazran, Ingushetia. It regrets that Russia has not yet taken concrete measures to do so. On the contrary, the system of access permits to Chechnya has become even more opaque than before and high insecurity continues to prevail.

The Commission will continue to use political dialogue meetings to call on the Russian authorities to improve the security and access situation in the north Caucasus.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/143 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/143

---

(2004/C 88 E/0151)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3399/03

by Olle Schmidt (ELDR) to the Commission

(17 November 2003)

Subject:   Azerbaijan

Presidential elections were recently held in Azerbaijan, which were followed by riots and political unrest. The new president, Ilham Aliyev, son of the former president, has already cracked down hard on any form of opposition. Azerbaijan is a country beset by a great many problems; large numbers of refugees, a ravaged environment and conflicts with its neighbours. At the same time, there are great riches to be exploited in the form of oil, which attracts interest in the region from many quarters, including the USA and the European Union. However, this economic interest must not lead us to turn a blind eye to the mismanagement of the country. Azerbaijan is in great need of reform and reconstruction, which is entirely possible with the anticipated revenue from oil. However, current events indicate that the country is more likely to become the fiefdom of the Aliyev clan, where progress towards democracy and improving living conditions do not come top of the agenda.

Will the Commission therefore say what steps are being taken to ensure that advances are made towards democracy in Azerbaijan at the same time as economic cooperation progresses? Has the EU attached any conditions to investment etc., such as linkage to progress on democracy, human rights, the situation of refugees and using the country's oil revenue for the good of the people as a whole?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(17 December 2003)

The Commission has been assisting Azerbaijan make the transition to a democratic society based on a free market economy since 1992 with its technical assistance and other aid programmes. Currently these assistance programmes have poverty reduction and government reform as their principal objectives. The Government of Azerbaijan has recently started to implement its State Programme for Poverty Reduction and Economic Development (SPRED). The Programme has been welcomed by the International Financing Institutions and the wider donor community. The Spred provides the framework for all donor assistance in Azerbaijan. Only by addressing the fundamental and underlying problems will the progress to democracy and a free market economy be achieved.

The Commission along with the Member States carries out a very active dialogue on a wide range of matters including progress on democracy, human rights and the use of oil revenues for the good of the people as a whole. The Commission is one of the largest donors assisting Azerbaijan's refugees and Internally Displaced People through its programme for the rehabilitation of war damaged areas.

The Government of Azerbaijan has started to use its Oil Fund for the benefit of refugees who have been settled in different regions of Azerbaijan.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/144 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/144

---

(2004/C 88 E/0152)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3402/03

by Anna Karamanou (PSE) to the Commission

(11 November 2003)

Subject:   ‘Cross amputation’ of sixteen-year-old in Sudan

A recent Amnesty International bulletin reports that a court in Sudan has imposed a sentence of ‘cross amputation’ (i.e. amputation of the right hand and the left foot) on a sixteen-year-old suspected of armed assault. If this judgment is upheld, it will be carried out forthwith.

The punishment of amputation is in essence torture and a brutal violation of human rights, while Sudan has ratified numerous conventions protecting human rights and condemning torture. Such sentences are not uncommon in a country in which the judicial system and the penal code have also incorporated provisions of Islamic law (Sharia).

What steps will the Commission take to exert pressure on the Sudanese Government to suspend the judgment concerned and abolish torture so that Sudan complies with the conventions on the protection of human rights to which that country is a signatory?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(10 December 2003)

The application of corporal punishment has been subject to repeated interventions with the Government of Sudan, in the framework of the EU-Sudan political dialogue, which includes human rights as one of the main components. The reaction of the Government in Khartoum has usually been elusive, pointing out that Sharia is and will be the legal basis in Sudan. This has also been confirmed, at least for the northern and central part of the country, in the Machakos Protocol of July 2002, an important milestone in the peace process, which the Union generally supports.

The Commission will ask its Delegation in Khartoum to inquire about the circumstances and details of the case referred to by Amnesty International, and bring the case to the attention of the Union Troika with a view to raising it during the forthcoming high-level mission to Khartoum in December 2003.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/144 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/144

---

(2004/C 88 E/0153)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3435/03

by Stavros Xarchakos (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(20 November 2003)

Subject:   Act of provocation by Bulgaria towards a Member State

Articles in the Greek press report that a postage stamp is in circulation in Bulgaria which shows part of Mount Athos (specifically the Zografos Monastery) as a part of Bulgarian territory. Despite protests from the Greek authorities, the Bulgarians refuse to withdraw the stamp on the grounds that it was issued in June 2001, under the Kostov government, and that to halt its circulation could provoke reactions from the opposition.

Is such provocative conduct by Bulgaria consistent with that befitting a country applying for accession to the EU? Will the Commission take action, and in what way, to prevent the circulation of the stamp concerned and make the Bulgarians realise that progress towards EU accession is not compatible with such conduct?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(12 January 2004)

According to information available to the Commission, the postage stamps referred to by the Honourable Member show the Zografos Monastery, a monastery in Greece with a Bulgarian speaking order.

However, the Union has no competence in matters relating to postage stamps. The Commission is, therefore, not in a position to take measures to prevent the circulation of the stamp concerned.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/145 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/145

---

(2004/C 88 E/0154)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3443/03

by José Ribeiro e Castro (UEN) to the Commission

(20 November 2003)

Subject:   Palestinian authority — diversion of funds

The media report that the ‘Sixty minutes’ programme broadcast by the US television channel CBS has stated that Yasser Arafat has accumulated, in personal accounts, 800 million dollars from the coffers of the Palestinian National Authority, of which he is president.

The same source indicates that CBS is claiming that the Palestinian National Authority annually deposits 100 million dollars in the personal accounts of Arafat's wife who currently lives in Paris, and that the sums diverted by Arafat come from aid funding regularly sent by the international community for programmes to help the Palestinian population.

What information does the Commission have about this alleged diversion of funds? Does it know, or has it succeeded in clarifying whether these alleged facts involve the possible diversion of Community funds?

Has it approached the Palestinian National Authority, or will it do so, with a view to clarifying its version of the facts, and making it aware of the need for financial and budgetary rigour?

What implications could these accusations and their possible confirmation have on the current and future granting of financial aid to the Palestine National Authority? Specifically, what financial transparency criteria does the Commission believe it needs to reinforce and demand as a pre-condition for maintaining the scheduled aid?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(15 January 2004)

The Commission is aware of the claims in the recent CBS Programme referred to by the Honourable Member. These claims concern commercial activities, investments and off-budget revenue which were detailed in an International Monetary Fund (IMF) report of 15 September 2003. These activities took place over the period 1995-2000, and amount, according to the IMF, to approximately USD 898 million. They do not involve Union funds.

The Commission is also aware of claims of payments by Mr Arafat to the personal account of his wife. The Palestinian Authority's (PA) Ministry of Finance has informed the Commission that such payments of the order of tens of thousands (not millions) of dollars have been made from the budget of the President.

With regard to the Palestinian commercial activities, investments and off-budget revenue referred to in the IMF report, the Commission formally obliged the PA to consolidate these funds into the Palestinian Investment Fund under the full control of the Ministry of Finance. This has been achieved by the PA Finance Minister Salam Fayaad. These funds are now being audited by the international firm, Standard and Poor's, and the results to date of this audit have been published on the Internet. It is a direct result of the conditions attached to the Commission financial support that this practice of off-budget accounts has ended.

In compliance with conditions attached to Commission's financial support, the PA is required to provide extensive budget and expenditure reporting. This is now published on a monthly basis, broken down by wages, operating expenses and transfers and is available to the Palestinian Legislative Council for parliamentary scrutiny.

As concerns the current and future support to the Palestinian Authority, the Commission will continue to attach reform conditions which require the PA to continuously improve the system of financial control, sound financial management, and overall accountability.

The Commission is, furthermore, supplementing this conditioned support with customised institution building programmes to strengthen the administrative capacity of the PA. An example of this is an extensive training programme for Ministry of Finance staff on modern methods of internal audit.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/146 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/146

---

(2004/C 88 E/0155)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3449/03

by Peter Skinner (PSE) to the Commission

(20 November 2003)

Subject:   Smokes Direct, Spain

A company named Smokes Direct is operating in Malaga, Spain, offering consumers cigarettes without having to pay any further duty or VAT. A complaint has been made by one of my constituents after purchasing such cigarettes which were then seized by HMCE upon entry into the UK due to non-payment of duty. Smokes Direct advertise stating that they can act as agents on behalf of the consumer to purchase and courier the cigarettes to a third party, who is not involved in payment in any way, therefore requiring no further duty to be paid. The cigarettes would then be classed as a gift between the third party and the consumer so Smokes Direct, as an agent, are acting on behalf of the buyer in assisting in the delivery of a ‘gift’.

After referring my constituent to Council Directive 92/12/EEC (1) it remains unclear as to whether Smokes Direct, a profit-making organisation, can advertise themselves as being able to act as agents and not vendors and the technicalities of what classes as a ‘gift’ in such circumstances. Can the Commission therefore investigate the actions of this company and confirm whether or not this practice is legal?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(18 December 2003)

The Commission informs the Honourable Member that the position regarding the intra-Community movement of cigarettes and other excise products subject to Union harmonised rules is contained in 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.

Transactions of the type described as being operated by Smokes Direct are known as distance selling and are covered by Article 10 of the Directive. Briefly, it provides that where a private individual purchases excise goods that are dispatched or transported directly or indirectly by the vendor or on his behalf, excise duty is due in the Member State of destination, i.e. the Member State to which the goods are dispatched. Furthermore, the excise duty is chargeable to the vendor at the time of delivery, who may claim reimbursement of the duty previously paid in the Member State of dispatch. The position regarding ‘agents’ in transactions of this kind is subject to Community case law C-296/95 (2), and does not affect the above position.

As, within the Internal Market, the scope for the Member State of destination to ensure respect of these provisions is limited, responsibility for ensuring that vendors comply with the requirements set down in Article 10 rests to a large extent with the Member State in which the vendor is established, as provided for in paragraph 3 of that Article.

The sale of tobacco products, particularly through the internet, to individuals in other Member States by companies falsely claiming that excise duty is not due in the Member State of destination is a growing problem within the Union and is being actively investigated by the Commission's European Anti-Fraud Office and by the appropriate authorities in the Member States, with a view to developing measures to combat this type of fraud.

So far as gifts are concerned, it is the Commission's view that they are not subject to payment of the excise duty in the Member State of destination, providing the gift is sent by a private individual in one Member State to a private individual in another Member State, that it is intended for the personal use of the individual, that it is of an occasional nature and that it is not subject to payment of any kind. The transactions operated by Smokes Direct do not meet these requirements and cannot, therefore, be treated as gifts.

Finally, the Commission would point out that it will soon present a review of Articles 7 to 10 of Directive 92/12/EEC which will, amongst others, clarify the issues raised by the Honourable Member.

---

(1)  OJ L 76, 23.3.1992, p. 1.

(2)  Judgement of the Court of 2 April 1998 — European Court reports 1998 Page I-01605.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/147 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/147

---

(2004/C 88 E/0156)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3462/03

by Helmuth Markov (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(21 November 2003)

Subject:   Plans for weight restrictions at the Guben-Gubinek border crossing and EU funds

The district of Spree-Neisse (in Brandenburg Land, Federal Republic of Germany) intends to restrict the total weight of vehicles crossing the border at Guben-Gubinek to 20 tons. This restriction on goods transport is to apply in one direction only — Germany to Poland — and will create a range of problems for the local economy. The Guben-Gubinek border crossing at Schlagsdorf was also set up with EU funding. On the exporting side, therefore, part of the funding invested by the EU will be practically worthless. In addition, such a unilateral restriction is contrary to the spirit of the EU funding, the intention being to promote goods transport between the accession countries and the EU.

The Commission:

| — | what view does it take of the restriction on goods transport at the Guben-Gubinek border crossing in the light of the EU funding used to set up that crossing; |
| --- | --- |

—

what view does it take of the restriction on goods transport at the Guben-Gubinek border crossing in the light of the EU funding used to set up that crossing;

| — | can it take measures against this restriction and, if so, will it; |
| --- | --- |

—

can it take measures against this restriction and, if so, will it;

| — | what form might/will those measures take? |
| --- | --- |

—

what form might/will those measures take?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(9 January 2004)

The PHARE Programme cofinanced the border post of Gubinek, which is for goods traffic only and is located beside the border post of Gubin reserved for passenger traffic. The cofinanced work was completed in 1998.

It is true that on the German side in the direction of Poland goods traffic has been restricted on Thursdays and Fridays to heavy goods vehicles under 20 tonnes. This decision was taken because, on the German side, there is as yet no alternative route around the town so that, at the moment, all heavy goods traffic has to pass through the town. The inhabitants of the German town complained to the competent German authorities and asked for traffic restrictions to be introduced. The restrictions were the subject of an agreement between the German and Polish authorities.

Work on the alternative route on the German side has already begun and should be completed next year. The restrictions are therefore only temporary. On the Polish side, there is already an alternative route so no such problems are expected. For these reasons, the Commission does not consider that the funds invested were ill spent.

As to the actual restrictions, current Community legislation does not cover prohibitions on traffic. Taking into account the fact that the temporary restriction is a one-off occurrence and is based on sound road safety and environmental protection criteria, the Commission does not believe any action is called for.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/148 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/148

---

(2004/C 88 E/0157)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3478/03

by Baroness Sarah Ludford (ELDR) to the Commission

(24 November 2003)

Subject:   Colombian flower imports and GSP

Why is it proposed to ‘graduate’ Colombian Sector V (including cut flower) imports from GSP so they will be denied tariff preference?

Given that the share of Colombian flowers on the EU market declined from 20,15 % in 1997 to 15,41 % in 2001 and that Colombia's competitors Israel and Kenya will not be graduated, how can this be justified?

Since the reasons for the GSP ‘drugs’ regime unfortunately still persist, will not an EU withdrawal of tariff preference for flowers force more Colombians back into economic reliance on the drugs trade?

Answer given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(20 January 2004)

At the end of 2002, the Commission intended to graduate certain sectors for beneficiary countries according to Article 12 of the Council Regulation No 2501/2001 on a scheme for generalised tariff preferences (GSP). This provision requires the Commission to decide on an adjustment on the GSP products coverage on a yearly basis. The objective is to enhance the efficiency and fairness of the scheme, by focussing its benefits on those countries and sectors which need them most. Nevertheless, this decision is not of a political nature, and is solely based on economic criteria. Prior to its decision, the Commission has to be backed by the Member States (qualified majority) according to the Union procedures (Comitology).

The GSP is incentive oriented. In particular, it urges the beneficiaries to diversify economically as a means to development. If a beneficiary country relies too much on one sector in its exports, this can be detrimental for its development, and allows for the graduation. Accordingly, in the case of Colombia, this is not the Union's market share that has been the criterion for the graduation, but the too important share of a sector in Colombia's exports.

Nevertheless, to take into account the specific difficulties that might arise, the re-introduction of customs duties will exceptionally be progressive, in two steps (1 November 2003, 1 May 2004), in order not to disturb trade.

Furthermore, the Council adopted, in December 2003, an amendment to the GSP Regulation whereby beneficiary countries accounting for less than one percent of the GSP imports would no longer be in a position to be graduated. Colombia will be eligible under this new provision as from 2005, and accordingly would not be further graduated for any sectors, and the GSP preference should be reestablished for the sector V as from the 1 January 2005.

Concerning import of flowers from Kenya, it is recalled that this country has free access for cut flowers under the Cotonou Agreement and does not use the GSP scheme.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/149 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/149

---

(2004/C 88 E/0158)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3484/03

by Bartho Pronk (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(24 November 2003)

Subject:   Follow-up to Written Question E-2055/03 on the Latvian Police Law prohibiting police officers from forming trade unions

In response to my Written Question E-2055/03 (1) on trade union rights for police officers in Latvia, the Commission states that certain articles of the International Labour Organisation (ILO) Convention allow for such restrictions.

| 1. | Is this not an incomplete response given that it does not indicate in which ILO Conventions the exceptions appear and on which articles they are based? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is this not an incomplete response given that it does not indicate in which ILO Conventions the exceptions appear and on which articles they are based?

| 2. | Can the Commission confirm that, according to the established interpretation of the Committee of Experts, Convention 87 does not contain an exception that would, for example, exclude Latvian police officers from the freedom to form trade unions? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Can the Commission confirm that, according to the established interpretation of the Committee of Experts, Convention 87 does not contain an exception that would, for example, exclude Latvian police officers from the freedom to form trade unions?

| 3. | If not, what is the basis for the Commission's interpretation that Convention 87 does contain an exception? |
| --- | --- |

3.

If not, what is the basis for the Commission's interpretation that Convention 87 does contain an exception?

| 4. | Can the Commission now urge the Latvian authorities more strongly to lift this ban on forming trade unions so that Latvia respects fundamental trade union rights in full? |
| --- | --- |

4.

Can the Commission now urge the Latvian authorities more strongly to lift this ban on forming trade unions so that Latvia respects fundamental trade union rights in full?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(12 January 2004)

In addition to the answer given to Written Question E-2055/03 by the Honourable Member, the Commission would like to add the following information:

| — | Article 9(1) of the International Labour Organisation (ILO) Convention 87 and Article 5(1) of the ILO Convention 98 provide for the following exception: ‘The extent to which the guarantees provided for in this Convention shall apply to the armed forces and the police shall be determined by national laws or regulations.’ Article 5 of the European Social Charter contains an identical provision; |
| --- | --- |

—

Article 9(1) of the International Labour Organisation (ILO) Convention 87 and Article 5(1) of the ILO Convention 98 provide for the following exception: ‘The extent to which the guarantees provided for in this Convention shall apply to the armed forces and the police shall be determined by national laws or regulations.’ Article 5 of the European Social Charter contains an identical provision;

| — | the Commission is aware of different legal interpretations of the above mentioned exceptions and notes that several current Member States, notably Italy and Greece, appear also to have imposed a total ban on police trade unions; |
| --- | --- |

—

the Commission is aware of different legal interpretations of the above mentioned exceptions and notes that several current Member States, notably Italy and Greece, appear also to have imposed a total ban on police trade unions;

| — | within the limits of its mandate, which is rather restricted in that case, the Commission continues to follow this issue, and has already promoted a dialogue on the trade unions rights for police officers in Latvia. |
| --- | --- |

—

within the limits of its mandate, which is rather restricted in that case, the Commission continues to follow this issue, and has already promoted a dialogue on the trade unions rights for police officers in Latvia.

---

(1)  See page 61.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/150 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/150

---

(2004/C 88 E/0159)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3485/03

by Torben Lund (PSE) to the Commission

(17 November 2003)

Subject:   EEA, Norway and taxation of EU workers

Although Norway is not a Member State of the EU, it takes part in the internal market where the principles of free movement of workers and equal treatment of all citizens apply. Nevertheless, the Norwegian Government decided that, as of 1 January 2003, EU citizens, among others, working in Norway would be taxed on journeys between their place of residence and their destination (in this particular case a helicopter terminal/oil platform). Norwegian nationals working in Norway are not taxed in this way.

Foreigners in Norway are allowed a deduction of 15 % on the basic rate of tax because they do not use cultural and public social services to the same extent as Norwegians. Interest on loans, however, does not qualify as tax-deductible.

Will the Commission say in this context to what extent Norway is allowed to adopt different taxation rules for EU citizens and Norwegians working in Norway? Are the rules on the taxation of journeys consistent with Norway's agreements with the EU or does that country discriminate against workers from the EU? Finally, what action does the Commission intend to take in the event that Norway has introduced discriminatory rules?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(19 December 2003)

The Commission has not heard before of the problem raised by the Honourable Member. However, not disposing of the applicable legal texts, the Commission can only refer to the fact that a distinction between residents and non-residents is a basic and common feature in taxation, which the Court of Justice, in its judgement of 14 February 1995 (case C-279/93 — Schumacker), has accepted to be in principle not contrary to Community law. However, if non-residents are in a comparable situation as residents, they may not be taxed more heavily than the latter.

Since it is the particular charge of the European Free Trade Association (EFTA) Surveillance Authority (ESA) to monitor and control the application of the European Economic Area (EEA) Agreement by the EEA/EFTA States, the Commission will forward the problem raised to the ESA and ask the ESA to give it the necessary follow-up.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/150 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/150

---

(2004/C 88 E/0160)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3565/03

by Herbert Bösch (PSE) to the Commission

(2 December 2003)

Subject:   Enlargement preparations in EU border regions

In the run-up to enlargement the European Union is making appropriations available under the programme of ‘Preparatory Actions on the Impact of Enlargement in the Border Regions of the EU’.

The arrangements for 2004 include publication of a call for proposals for ‘qualification initiatives for vulnerable groups of the labour force in EU regions bordering the candidate countries’ (1). One purpose of the project is to assist employees at risk from enlargement by using qualification and training measures to raise their occupational and geographical mobility. The programme provides for social partners, educational institutions, vocational training centres and universities located in an EU Member State to apply for a grant.

Why is it that, although the social partners as a whole are considered as eligible for assistance under this programme, individual employee organisations are not?

Will a call for proposals for qualification initiatives for vulnerable groups in border regions be published again in 2005? If so, will the range of organisations eligible for assistance then be extended to include employee representatives? If not, why not?

What other projects are included in the arrangements for implementing the programme of ‘Preparatory Actions on the Impact of Enlargement in the Border Regions of the EU’, in which employee representatives' organisations can take part?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(5 February 2004)

The organisations eligible for the call for proposals to which the Honourable Member refers were ‘social partners, educational institutions, vocational training centres and universities’. ‘Social partners’ encompasses organisations representing employers and/or trade unions. Accordingly, individual employee organisations are eligible for assistance. Applications are currently under evaluation. At least two trade union organisations have submitted applications.

The Union budget does not provide for further measures in this field in the 2004 budget, hence no calls for proposals can be expected in 2005.

As part of the programme of ‘Preparatory Actions on the Impact of Enlargement in Border Regions of the Union’, trade union organisations were eligible as partners in the following calls for proposals:

| — | ELARG/1/140503/SME/B53003: ‘Regional Partnership Events for Micro-enterprises in Union Regions Bordering the Candidate Countries with a focus on Support Services’ (2). |
| --- | --- |

—

ELARG/1/140503/SME/B53003: ‘Regional Partnership Events for Micro-enterprises in Union Regions Bordering the Candidate Countries with a focus on Support Services’ (2).

| — | ELARG/3/140503/ADM/B53003: ‘Cross Border Initiatives for Local and Regional Authorities in Union Regions Bordering the Candidate Countries’ (2). |
| --- | --- |

—

ELARG/3/140503/ADM/B53003: ‘Cross Border Initiatives for Local and Regional Authorities in Union Regions Bordering the Candidate Countries’ (2).

Proposals received in response to the above calls are currently being evaluated by the relevant committees. Applicants will be notified of the outcome once the evaluation process has been completed within the next few weeks.

---

(1)  OJ C 206, 2.9.2003, p. 25.

(2)  OJ C 206, 2.9.2003.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/151 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/151

---

(2004/C 88 E/0161)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3589/03

by José Ribeiro e Castro (UEN) to the Commission

(5 December 2003)

Subject:   Syria — US sanctions

A crushing majority (398 to 4) recently voted in the US Senate to authorise the imposition of sanctions on Syria, following the adoption of a similar act by the House of Representatives in October 2003.

This new law grants the US President powers to impose various economic and diplomatic sanctions on Syria and is intended to punish Damascus for its alleged links with terrorist groups and for the arms programme it is supposedly developing.

The USA has accused Syria of developing weapons of mass destruction, of sheltering and supporting radical terrorists belonging to Hezbollah, Hamas and Islamic Jihad, and of allowing its territory to be used by extremists threatening the coalition forces stationed in Iraq.

The Commission:

| — | has the Commission any information concerning the USA's accusations of Syrian support for terrorism and the production of non-conventional weapons? Can the Commission confirm that Syrian territory is frequently used by terrorist organisations; |
| --- | --- |

—

has the Commission any information concerning the USA's accusations of Syrian support for terrorism and the production of non-conventional weapons? Can the Commission confirm that Syrian territory is frequently used by terrorist organisations;

| — | what steps has the Commission taken (or will it take) in order to monitor Syrian activities within the European Union; |
| --- | --- |

—

what steps has the Commission taken (or will it take) in order to monitor Syrian activities within the European Union;

| — | how does the Commission class the Syrian regime? How does it view, and how would it sum up, current European policy in relation to Syria? |
| --- | --- |

—

how does the Commission class the Syrian regime? How does it view, and how would it sum up, current European policy in relation to Syria?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(16 January 2004)

Apart from openly available sources, the Commission does not have any information on Syrian production of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) or the use of Syrian territory for acts of terrorism.

It seems some organisations listed by the Union as terrorist organisations (in particular Hamas and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad) use Syria, as well as other countries, for their activities. Syria has recently taken some measures to stop the public activities of these organisations. The Commission considers these measures insufficient and has urged Syria to cease its support to these organisations, which condone or actively perpetuate acts of terror, which, apart from being unacceptable as such, undermine the Palestinian Authority and, therefore, constitute an obstacle to re-launching the Middle East Peace Process.

The European policy towards Syria is one of constructive engagement. The Commission is concerned about the situation of democracy and respect for human rights in Syria, but it does not believe that isolating Syria will contribute positively neither to the regional situation nor to improving the political and human rights situation in the country.

Instead, the EU tries to engage Syria on the road to economic as well as political reforms in the framework of the Barcelona Process and, more specifically, through an Association Agreement.

This Agreement will provide a solid platform for the Union to support Syrian efforts to carry out political and economic reform. The clauses regarding respect for human rights, non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and fight against terrorism, will strengthen its ability to engage with Syria on these issues.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/152 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/152

---

(2004/C 88 E/0162)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3609/03

by Giovanni Pittella (PSE), Marco Cappato (NI), Giovanni Fava (PSE), Glyn Ford (PSE), Sérgio Marques (PPE-DE) and Emilio Menéndez del Valle (PSE) to the Commission

(5 December 2003)

Subject:   Sending EU observers to Venezuela

The social, political and economic events in Venezuela over the last three years have had an adverse effect on the country's inhabitants and democratic institutions and been causing the international community increasing concern and seriously jeopardising democratic life, the rule of law and respect for fundamental human and civil rights.

Consistent with its action in other parts of the world, the European Union has the task of promoting dialogue aimed at finding a peaceful negotiated solution to the current crisis in Venezuela.

In view of the fact that a referendum may be held in the next few months in accordance with the provisions of the Venezuelan Constitution, if a sufficient number of people support it, an unequivocal position needs to be adopted quickly.

Can the Commission, in agreement with the Venezuelan government and the opposition, arrange for expert electoral observers to be sent as soon as the required signatures are collected — probably by the end of November — in order to ensure that the referendum is held in a correct and proper manner, at all stages both before and during the poll?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(15 January 2004)

The Union, in several Declarations, has emphasised the need for a peaceful, democratic, constitutional and electoral solution to the political crisis in Venezuela. Moreover, the Commission has offered financial and technical assistance for the implementation of the Agreement reached between the government and the opposition on 29 May 2003. In order to do so, the Commission has signed a project to assist the Organisation of American States (OAS) in its efforts to implement the Agreement, which comprises support for an electoral solution, investigation of the events of April 2002 and disarming the civilian population. The amount budgeted is EUR 600 000. The Commission is working with the OAS with a view to ensuring the project's timely implementation.

Furthermore, the Commission is following closely developments concerning possible referenda and is prepared to consider providing support, including support in the form of electoral observation. A recall referendum against any elected high-level State officials can only take place if the number of signatures required by the Venezuelan constitution has been collected. In two consecutive acts of signature collection, both the government and the opposition have collected signatures to recall Deputies and President Chávez, respectively. The government claims to have gathered sufficient signatures to recall a number of Deputies and the opposition argues that it has also collected the required number to activate the mechanism for a referendum to recall President Chavez. The signatures collected should be presented to the National Electoral Council for further verification.

In accordance with the standard methodology for election observation, any decision to deploy a Union Electoral Observation Mission will depend on the recommendations made by a preliminary Union Exploratory Mission as to whether observation is advisable, useful and feasible. And, as with every Union Election Observation Mission, the authorities in the host country would need to issue an invitation to the Union to observe, prior to deployment.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/153 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/153

---

(2004/C 88 E/0163)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3623/03

by Ioannis Marínos (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(5 December 2003)

Subject:   Discriminatory policy against the Greek inhabitants of Imbros and Tenedos in Turkey

Indigenous Greeks have lived on the islands of Imbros and Tenedos for 3 000 years. These islands were ceded to Turkey in 1923 under the Treaty of Lausanne with the provision that they ‘shall enjoy a special administrative organisation composed of local elements and furnishing every guarantee for the native non-Muslim population in so far as concerns local administration and the protection of persons and property. The maintenance of order will be assured therein by a police force recruited from amongst the local population by the local administration above provided for and placed under its orders.’

According to the official Turkish census, in 1 927 there were 7 000 Greeks on Imbros and a negligible number of Turks, while on Tenedos there were 2 500 Greeks and 1 247 Turks. At the present time, there are 250 Greeks left on Imbros, while 9 000 Turkish settlers have been installed. On Tenedos, only 30 Greeks remain and the Turkish administration changed the official names of the two islands, which were thousands of years old, to ‘Gökçe Ada’ and ‘Bozca Ada’ respectively. The policy of persecution was instigated after 1955, continued in 1964 and reached its peak in 1974 when the Turkish army invaded Cyprus.

The provisions of Article 14 of the Treaty of Lausanne were never implemented by the Turkish State and Greek ceased to be taught once the six Greek elementary schools, the high school and the four nursery schools, which had 1 300 pupils and were built with funding from the Greek communities of the two islands, were expropriated by the Turkish State. The same fate was suffered by the 300 Christian churches and four monasteries which previously existed, a strategy encountered only in countries with a hard-line apartheid regime. The eradication of the Greeks of Imbros and Tenedos was completed when they were dispossessed of their property. Significantly, those who were forced to leave the two islands were stripped of their Turkish citizenship and therefore lost their property which they cannot even pass on to their descendants. It is indicative that the results of the inventory of property carried out by the Turkish Land Registry in the village of Agridia on Imbros (until recently the sole remaining all-Greek village in terms of inhabitants and property), which were announced after 23 June 2003, show that 77,18 % of the total area which belonged to the inhabitants of the village devolved to the Turkish State, while private individuals appear to possess only 22,82 %.

Are the above facts consistent with the conduct of a country which is a candidate for accession and claims that it is ‘coming into line’ with the standards applying in the Union? Will the Union be asked to restore, immediately and effectively, the right to property for all the non-Muslim population of Turkey before a date is set for the opening of preaccession negotiations?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(5 February 2004)

The Commission is aware of the situation regarding alleged human rights violations against the native Greek minority on the Aegean islands of Imvros and Tenedos to which the Honourable Member refers.

The Commission provides its assessment on the issue of the rights of minorities in Turkey in its Regular Report 2003 (1). The Commission also refers the Honourable Member to its reply to Written Question number E-3025/03 by Mr Hatzidakis (2).

---

(1)  COM(2003) 676 final.

(2)  See page 127.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/154 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/154

---

(2004/C 88 E/0164)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3635/03

by José Ribeiro e Castro (UEN) to the Commission

(5 December 2003)

Subject:   Cabo Verde — special status vis-à-vis the EU

On 24 November the Prime Minister of Cabo Verde completed a working visit to Portugal, following official stays in other EU countries (Luxembourg, the Netherlands and France), the purpose of which was to raise awareness amongst those countries' authorities with a view to securing a special status for his country vis-à-vis the European Union.

According to press reports the Portuguese Prime Minister expressed the view (at the end of his meeting with José Maria Neves) that Cabo Verde ‘has a special role to play in providing a link between Africa and Europe’ and that ‘by virtue of its political development (Cabo Verde is an exemplary democracy), its cultural development, its strong human links with certain European countries (Portugal in particular) and its very location, Cabo Verde is a country which we could in some ways describe as Euro-African’.

As a basis for establishing the above-mentioned special status, the Cabo Verde Prime Minister referred to his country's ‘Atlantic vocation’, its presence in Europe ‘in the form of emigrant communities’ and its proximity to Europe ‘by virtue of the Macaronesia Islands’ (a geographical area encompassing the Portuguese archipelagos of Madeira and the Azores and the Spanish archipelago of the Canary Islands.

The Commission:

| — | is it aware of the Cabo Verde initiative which is described above; |
| --- | --- |

—

is it aware of the Cabo Verde initiative which is described above;

| — | what has it to say on the subject; |
| --- | --- |

—

what has it to say on the subject;

| — | what action would it advise Cabo Verde to take in order to ensure that its proposal is accepted? |
| --- | --- |

—

what action would it advise Cabo Verde to take in order to ensure that its proposal is accepted?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(19 January 2004)

The Commission has never been notified in a formal way by the authorities of Cape Verde of this matter. However, the Commission is aware that the Cap-Verdian authorities, in the course of recent visits to the capitals of some Member States, have raised these issues. The Commission is also aware that the Portuguese authorities have shown openness to the question of creating a working group ‘to examine the different aspects of this question’.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/155 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/155

---

(2004/C 88 E/0165)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3695/03

by Margrietus van den Berg (PSE) to the Commission

(3 December 2003)

Subject:   MTR of CSPs in Asia and Latin America

The Country and Regional Strategy Papers aim to give a coherent framework for Community cooperation activities towards Asia and Latin American countries. The Mid-Term Review (MTR) of the Country Strategy Papers (CSPs) assesses the validity of the priorities set up in the strategy documents. The guidelines for the programming exercise specify consultation with stakeholders as part of the process. It is self-evident that the programming exercise loses credibility and legitimacy when there has not been any consultation of stakeholders. However, it appears, as some NGOs argue, that most, if not all, CSPs in Asia and Latin American countries have been written from behind the desks of officials in Brussels. This seriously undermines the value and validity of the CSPs.

At present a new issue is arising in relation to the process of reviewing the CSPs in the MTR. It is clear that the validity of the MTR is in it following clear objectives, guidelines and indicators for measuring performance, and a well-defined process. Whereas these guidelines have been developed for ACP countries, for unknown reasons these guidelines are not seen as applying for other developing countries. More importantly MTRs in other developing countries are being carried out without any guidelines, information or transparent process. The Commission has also indicated that it will not seek or value consultation with stakeholders, including civil society, in this process. This is an extraordinary position.

| 1. | Is the Commission intending to apply the guidelines developed for the MTR in ACP countries to MTRs in other development countries? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is the Commission intending to apply the guidelines developed for the MTR in ACP countries to MTRs in other development countries?

| 2. | If not, what guidelines have been developed for the MTRs in other developing countries, and what is the reason that these are different from ACP countries — given that the objectives of the MTRs are the same for all developing countries? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If not, what guidelines have been developed for the MTRs in other developing countries, and what is the reason that these are different from ACP countries — given that the objectives of the MTRs are the same for all developing countries?

| 3. | What is the information policy of the Commission on the MTR process? |
| --- | --- |

3.

What is the information policy of the Commission on the MTR process?

| 4. | What is the planning of the Commission on CSPs and MTRs in Asia and Latin American countries for 2003-2005? |
| --- | --- |

4.

What is the planning of the Commission on CSPs and MTRs in Asia and Latin American countries for 2003-2005?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(14 January 2004)

It is important to stress that Commission Delegations in Asia and Latin America (ALA) were instructed to consult government and civil society when drafting the Country Strategy Papers (CSPs). Although there may be differences between the relative participation of Headquarters and Delegations, it is not the case that for any region CSPs would have been written ‘from behind the desks of officials in Brussels’.

As regards the guidelines for the Mid Term Review (MTR) exercise, the Commission is required to involve civil society/non-state actors in the programming and implementation processes and so consult with stakeholders. Such consultations are a key requirement for the review.

In order to maintain coherence and consistently high quality in the CSP process, it is accepted that certain basic principles should apply to the MTR of Country Strategy Papers (CSPs) in all regions.

On 7 October 2003, the Directors General of Directorate General Development and External Relations approved a document prepared by the inter-service Quality Support Group ‘Framework for Assessing, revised Strategy and Programming Documents’ which builds on the orientations laid down in the Council Conclusions as regards the Mid Term Review (MTR) of CSPs (1), and sets down the basic principles that apply to an MTR.

Both the Asia and Latin America regions have been engaged in a Mid Term Review of country strategies and programmes. In the light of this review, a number of revised strategies and programmes are being prepared. It is very important to note that, given the programming horizon, the mid-term reviews for Asia and Latin America have had to begin much earlier than those for the African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) countries. Moreover, the review has to be carried out in full accordance with the ALA Regulation which governs Community cooperation with these regions.

The MTR assessment will focus on four key requirements:

| — | Main political, economic and social developments in the country — ensuring that the strategy is up-to-date. |
| --- | --- |

—

Main political, economic and social developments in the country — ensuring that the strategy is up-to-date.

| — | New Community/Union policy objectives and commitments — ensuring that these are taken into account and put into operation. |
| --- | --- |

—

New Community/Union policy objectives and commitments — ensuring that these are taken into account and put into operation.

| — | Results, performance and lessons learned to the extent that these can already be assessed. |
| --- | --- |

—

Results, performance and lessons learned to the extent that these can already be assessed.

| — | Quality improvements where these are needed — ensuring a constant improvement of the quality of strategy documents, in particular correcting some weaknesses in the first generation of CSPs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Quality improvements where these are needed — ensuring a constant improvement of the quality of strategy documents, in particular correcting some weaknesses in the first generation of CSPs.

The revised documents will be submitted to the inter-service Quality Support Group (iQSG) and the relevant management committees according to the existing procedures and guidelines. For the ALA region these submissions will take place in the next few months.

---

(1)  18 March 2003: Common Framework for Country Strategy Papers — Council Conclusions, item adopted without debate, Doc. 6377/03.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/156 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/156

---

(2004/C 88 E/0166)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3819/03

by Stavros Xarchakos (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(12 December 2003)

Subject:   Circulation in Greece of private vehicles fitted with Community numberplates

Freedom of movement of persons in the European Union is guaranteed, and any Community national may elect to reside in any EU country, register his name on the relevant lists and — if he so wishes — purchase a private vehicle fitted with numberplates from the Member State in which he has opted to reside. In this way many Greeks have legally acquired private vehicles with Community numberplates which they drive in Greece. However the Greek authorities severely penalise this practice, since they do not allow such vehicles to circulate for more than six months and, where this period is found to have elapsed, they impound the vehicle and impose very heavy fines, despite the fact that the owners of these vehicles are legally resident in (and even nationals of) another EU Member State.

Are these actions by the Greek authorities in line with Community legislation? In which other EU Member States are vehicles circulating with numberplates from another EU Member State impounded and their owners given draconian fines? Does it intend to take any action and, if so, what action to put an end to this state of affairs caused by the distorted Greek tax system which excessively taxes vehicles over 1 800 cc. which are exceedingly expensive in Greece (the country with the lowest per capita income in the EU — a mere 67 % of the Community average, according to the latest Eurostat statistics), thereby forcing many Greeks to purchase vehicles with numberplates from another Member State?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(13 February 2004)

The free movement of Union (EU) citizens is a fundamental right acknowledged by Article 18 of the EC Treaty. According to this article, each EU citizen has the right to choose the place where (s)he prefers to reside inside the EU and to freely circulate under the conditions foreseen by the EC Treaty. Normally, the EU citizen registers his car, legally bought, in the Member State where he is resident and it can likewise happen that the Member State of his residence does not coincide with his country of nationality (for instance, in the case of a Greek national, who is legally resident in Germany in which (s)he buys and registers a car).

As regards the specific Community tax legislation concerning the written question, it should be noted that on 28 March 1983 Council Directive 83/182/EEC on tax exemptions within the Community for certain means of transport temporarily imported into one Member State from another (1) was approved. That Directive is, according to its recitals, designed to eliminate obstacles to the free movement of persons, and to the establishment of a European internal market, that result from the different tax regimes in the Member States applicable to the temporary importation of certain means of transport.

According to the Directive, when a means of transport is temporarily imported, exemption from vehicle registration tax and from normal road taxes is granted for a period, continuous or otherwise, of not more than six months in any twelve months, provided the following conditions are met:

| — | the means of transport has been acquired in accordance with the general conditions of taxation in force on the domestic market of a Member State; |
| --- | --- |

—

the means of transport has been acquired in accordance with the general conditions of taxation in force on the domestic market of a Member State;

| — | the individual importing that means of transport has his normal residence in a Member State other than the Member State of temporary importation and employs the means of transport in question for his private use; |
| --- | --- |

—

the individual importing that means of transport has his normal residence in a Member State other than the Member State of temporary importation and employs the means of transport in question for his private use;

| — | the means of transport is not disposed of or hired out in the Member State of temporary importation or lent to a resident of that State. |
| --- | --- |

—

the means of transport is not disposed of or hired out in the Member State of temporary importation or lent to a resident of that State.

The Commission is aware that the application of this Directive in Greece has been very problematic. Three judgments of the Court (2) address this matter.

In this respect, according to the Commission's information, the main problems are the following:

| — | The determination of the place of ‘normal residence’ in the case of Greek nationals. |
| --- | --- |

—

The determination of the place of ‘normal residence’ in the case of Greek nationals.

| — | The extremely severe penalties which are imposed in case of infringement of the rules set out in Directive 83/182/EEC. In this respect, the Court, in its judgment in Case C-262/99, noting that the penalty ‘must not be so disproportionate to the gravity of the infringement that it becomes an obstacle to the freedoms enshrined in the Treaty’, ruled that a penalty in this field ‘is compatible with the principle of proportionality only in so far as it is made necessary by overriding requirements of enforcement and prevention, when the gravity of the infringement is taken into account’ and that ‘where the determination of the arrangements applicable has given rise to difficulties, account must be taken of the good faith of the offender when determining the penalty actually imposed on him’. Moreover, the seizure of the car in cases of presumed breach of Directive 83/182/EEC (which could drive to an accusation of smuggling that in Greece may lead, at least according to some information at the disposal of the Commission, to cases in which the car is sold by the authorities and therefore is never given back to its previous owner, even in cases in which the competent Court eventually decides that the EU citizen is innocent) could raise further problems following the adoption of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights (3). |
| --- | --- |

—

The extremely severe penalties which are imposed in case of infringement of the rules set out in Directive 83/182/EEC. In this respect, the Court, in its judgment in Case C-262/99, noting that the penalty ‘must not be so disproportionate to the gravity of the infringement that it becomes an obstacle to the freedoms enshrined in the Treaty’, ruled that a penalty in this field ‘is compatible with the principle of proportionality only in so far as it is made necessary by overriding requirements of enforcement and prevention, when the gravity of the infringement is taken into account’ and that ‘where the determination of the arrangements applicable has given rise to difficulties, account must be taken of the good faith of the offender when determining the penalty actually imposed on him’. Moreover, the seizure of the car in cases of presumed breach of Directive 83/182/EEC (which could drive to an accusation of smuggling that in Greece may lead, at least according to some information at the disposal of the Commission, to cases in which the car is sold by the authorities and therefore is never given back to its previous owner, even in cases in which the competent Court eventually decides that the EU citizen is innocent) could raise further problems following the adoption of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights (3).

After receiving a number of complaints from Greek nationals, the Commission initiated an infringement procedure and decided to bring Greece to the Court. Moreover, it must be said that the Commission presented a Proposal for a Council Directive (4) in 1998, with the overall objective of bringing the tax treatment of vehicles more in line with the concept and principles of the single market.

The Commission presented a Communication on taxation of passenger cars in the Union (5) in September 2002, in which it explores, ‘inter alia’, ways of removing the present tax obstacles to the free movement of passenger cars within the internal market. On the basis of the principles outlined in the Communication, the Commission will present a fresh Proposal for Community legislation in 2004.

---

(1)  OJ L 105, 23.4.1983.

(2)  Judgment of 2 August 1993 in Case C-9/92, Commission versus Hellenic Republic; judgment of 29 May 1997 in Case C-389/95, Siegfried Klattner versus Hellenic Republic; judgment of 12 July 2001 in Case C-262/99, Paraskevas Louloudakis versus Hellenic Republic.

(3)  In particular, Article 17 of the Charter includes the right of property as a fundamental right of the EU citizen.

(4)  OJ C 108, 7.4.1998.

(5)  Communication to the Council and the Parliament on ‘taxation of passenger cars in the Union — options for action at national and Community levels’, of 6 September 2002, COM(2002)431 final.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/158 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/158

---

(2004/C 88 E/0167)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3824/03

by Cristiana Muscardini (UEN) to the Commission

(12 December 2003)

Subject:   Labels of origin for imports

Counterfeiting and commercial piracy are causing immense harm to EU manufacturers. Dumping continues to be used by some States as a means of gaining access to EU markets for their products. In Italy, footwear manufacturers are among those hardest-hit by fraudulent imports. With a view to ensuring fair trade, more controls should be introduced, together with rules enabling products to be clearly identified. Furthermore, the Union should decide to introduce a label for EU products, such as ‘EU’, followed by the name of the Member State of origin.

Can the Commission state:

| — | why it does not insist upon a compulsory label of origin for products from non-EU countries? |
| --- | --- |

—

why it does not insist upon a compulsory label of origin for products from non-EU countries?

| — | why it does not consider equal customs duties to be a necessary part of reciprocity in world trade? |
| --- | --- |

—

why it does not consider equal customs duties to be a necessary part of reciprocity in world trade?

| — | why it does not make a label of origin compulsory for EU products as well, in order to ensure that consumers are properly informed? |
| --- | --- |

—

why it does not make a label of origin compulsory for EU products as well, in order to ensure that consumers are properly informed?

| — | how it intends to curb the flood of fraudulent imports and to remedy this situation, which is penalising large sections of various Member States' manufacturing industries? |
| --- | --- |

—

how it intends to curb the flood of fraudulent imports and to remedy this situation, which is penalising large sections of various Member States' manufacturing industries?

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/159 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/159

---

(2004/C 88 E/0168)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3902/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(17 December 2003)

Subject:   ‘Made in Europe’ label for goods made in the Member States

At the Euro-Mediterranean conference held in Palermo on 7 July 2003, the Italian Deputy Minister for Production Activities, Adolfo Urso, put forward a proposal that was received with great interest by the ministers of the fifteen Member States, namely that a ‘Made in Europe’ label be placed on EU goods in order to combat counterfeiting and unfair competition.

Owing to major changes in international trade and strong pressure from Asian competitors, appropriate protection and safeguards should be provided for European products on world markets.

Asian countries are not required to certify the origin of their goods under the compulsory reciprocity arrangement with the EU Member States, in which it is forbidden, under the competition rules, to place a national label on most products. Asian goods are therefore placed on European markets without consumers being able to make an informed choice on the basis of a product's place of origin.

However, some countries, such as Japan and the United States protect their products by means of labels such as ‘Made in the USA’ and ‘Made in Japan’ which, while indicating the origin of a given product, also imply given quality and manufacturing standards.

The Italian proposal seeks to provide protection for EU goods, with the general ‘Made in Europe’ label also bearing the name of the Member State of origin.

Given that the conclusions of the Euro-Mediterranean conference set out the steps to be taken towards this, not least with a view to the next round of WTO meetings, which will focus exclusively on this subject, would the Commission:

| 1. | state what action has been taken since the aforementioned Euro-Mediterranean conference? |
| --- | --- |

1.

state what action has been taken since the aforementioned Euro-Mediterranean conference?

| 2. | state what measures have been planned or are being or have been taken at European level in connection with the European label? |
| --- | --- |

2.

state what measures have been planned or are being or have been taken at European level in connection with the European label?

| 3. | state how it and the other institutions reacted to the Italian proposal? |
| --- | --- |

3.

state how it and the other institutions reacted to the Italian proposal?

| 4. | provide full and comprehensive information on this issue as a whole? |
| --- | --- |

4.

provide full and comprehensive information on this issue as a whole?

Joint answer

to Written Questions E-3824/03 and E-3902/03

given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(6 February 2004)

The Commission is highly concerned about the current level of counterfeiting and commercial piracy and the harmful effects on EU manufacturers. The protection of right-holders against counterfeit goods constitutes a Community priority and a number of important recent steps have been adopted, including the Council Regulation No (EC) 1383/2003 of 22 July 2003 concerning customs action against goods suspected of infringing certain intellectual property rights and the measures to be taken against goods found to have infringed such rights (1) and a proposal for a Directive on measures and procedures to ensure the enforcement of intellectual property rights (2). In addition, a number of practical steps have been taken to improve customs controls in this area, most notably under the Customs 2007 — Programme (3), which contributed towards Customs seizing almost 85 million counterfeit or pirated articles at the EU's external border in 2002 and 50 million in the first half of 2003.

Unfair imports can also be related to dumping practices by foreign manufacturers. Dumping gives the third country exporters an unfair competitive advantage which causes significant injury to Community producers. The Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 of 22 December 1995 on protection against dumped imports from countries which are not members of the Community (4) regulates the antidumping mechanisms that can be adopted by the Community customs administrations in order to ensure fair trade practices in the international trade relationships. Currently, more than 200 antidumping measures are in force in the Community.

As far as World Trade Organisation (WTO) developments and reciprocity are concerned, it is worth mentioning that in the Doha Development Agenda Market Access Negotiating Group the EU is calling for a narrow, common range of duties applied by all members, especially on textiles and footwear.

In relation to origin marking, some of the Community trade partners (United States, Japan) operate systems comprising compulsory origin marking for imported goods and voluntary origin marks for domestic production. At present, a Community Regulation on origin marking does not exist. Notwithstanding, there seems to be a growing interest in the possibility of adopting a Community Regulation on origin marking, notably in the textile sector, as indicated in the recent Communication from the Commission on the future of the textile and clothing sector in the enlarged European Union (5) arguing the benefits of developing a Community origin marking Regulation for the same sector.

The Commission is currently reflecting on the potential benefits and risks of the implementation of such a scheme considering the interest of all the stakeholders. To this end, the services of the Commission have published a working document ‘made in the EU origin marking’ (6). This paper gives an overview on the pros and cons of a made in EU origin marking and indicates the options to be considered, namely: the option of origin marking both for imports and domestic market products on a purely voluntary basis; the approach of a mixed system with compulsory origin marking for imports and a voluntary scheme for domestic products; and the third option of a compulsory origin marking both for imports and for domestic products. The Commission will consult consumers and industry in early 2004 and invited Member States to do likewise.

---

(1)  OJ L 196, 2.8.2003.

(2)  COM(2003) 46 final.

(3)  Decision No 253/2003/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2003, OJ L 36, 12.2.2003 and OJ L 95, 11.4.2003.

(4)  OJ L 56, 6.3.1996.

(5)  COM(2003) 649 final.

(6)  available online on the website of the Commission: at DG Trade at: http://trade-info.cec.eu.int/doclib/html/115557.htm

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/160 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/160

---

(2004/C 88 E/0169)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3958/03

by José Ribeiro e Castro (UEN) to the Commission

(5 January 2004)

Subject:   Russia — parliamentary elections

According to media reports the international observers who were present at the recent parliamentary elections in Russia — in particular the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) and the Council of Europe, which despatched 600 observers — expressed concern at the outcome and the methods used during the election campaign. Although they do not doubt that the elections were free, they question whether they were fair.

According to the preliminary results the United Russia (UR) party (which is pro-Kremlin and an ally of the President, Vladimir Putin) was the major victor in the elections.

The UR won approximately 37 % of the votes for the seats in the Duma (the lower parliamentary chamber). Vladimir Zhirinovski's LDP secured approximately 12 % of the votes and has followed in third place by the ultra-nationalist Motherland party (formed some months ago with the Kremlin's support), which was fighting its first election and which secured 9 % of the vote.

David Atkinson (leader of the Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly observer team) explained to journalists that, throughout the entire campaign, public funds (i.e. taxpayers' contributions) and public television were placed at the disposal of certain political groups, which led the observers to deem the election ‘free, but manifestly unfair’.

Acknowledging that there had been ‘an unfair for the other parties and candidates’ and emphasising that the vote ‘failed to meet international standards’, the chairman of the OSCE, Bruce George, stated that ‘in this election the enormous advantage of incumbency and access to state equipment, resources and buildings led to the election result being overwhelmingly distorted’. This constituted ‘regression in the dsmocratisation process in Russia’.

In view of the above, would the Commission answer the following questions?

| — | What information does the Commission hold regarding the fairness and the freedom of the electoral procedure in Russia? |
| --- | --- |

—

What information does the Commission hold regarding the fairness and the freedom of the electoral procedure in Russia?

| — | In view of the concerns expressed by observers and opposition parties, what action has the Commission taken (or is it intending to take) vis-à-vis the Russian authorities? |
| --- | --- |

—

In view of the concerns expressed by observers and opposition parties, what action has the Commission taken (or is it intending to take) vis-à-vis the Russian authorities?

| — | What effect does the Commission believe the above criticisms may have on Moscow's efforts to gain international credibility? |
| --- | --- |

—

What effect does the Commission believe the above criticisms may have on Moscow's efforts to gain international credibility?

| — | To what extent may relations between the EU and Russia be affected? |
| --- | --- |

—

To what extent may relations between the EU and Russia be affected?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(9 February 2004)

The Commission has taken note of the preliminary findings of the International Election Observation Mission, which state that the Duma elections on 7 December 2003 failed to meet many Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) and Council of Europe commitments for democratic elections. The preliminary findings indicate that important safeguards were not enforced by the Russian authorities.

The Commission is concerned at these findings. Respect for democratic principles and for human rights, including media freedom, forms the basis for EU/Russia relations. The Commission has therefore used the occasion of its political dialogue with the Russian authorities to call for these failings to be tackled and for Presidential elections in March 2004 to respect Russia's commitments to hold elections in line with international standards.

The Commission stresses the need for Russia to continue both political and economic reforms. It hopes that the new Duma will demonstrate its readiness to engage in such reforms in a constructive manner, which will in turn positively influence EU/Russia relations.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/161 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/161

---

(2004/C 88 E/0170)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3965/03

by Mario Borghezio (NI) to the Commission

(5 January 2004)

Subject:   Measures against China for abusive use of the EC symbol

China is now marking its products in a number of sectors with the words ‘China Export’, abbreviated to ‘CE’. This use of the initials ‘CE’ on numerous Chinese products is a clear case of abusive imitation of initials which symbolise the European Community on the world market. Such imitations are causing immense damage to the EU's producers and its labour market. Can the Commission state what measures it intends, as a matter of urgency, to put in place vis-à-vis the authorities of the People's Republic of China?

Answer given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(9 February 2004)

The Commission is aware of the abusive use of the CE marking, including that perpetrated through the ‘China Export’ scheme, as well as of the wider context of problems concerning the enforcement of intellectual property rights with regards to Chinese products. The Commission performed a survey on the enforcement of intellectual property rights, and China is cited as the country that poses the greatest intellectual property enforcement challenge in the world. This survey can be found at: (http://europa.eu.int/comm/trade/issues/sectoral/intellproperty/surveyen.htm).

The use of the initials ‘CE’ (Conformité Européenne) corresponds to the CE Marking scheme, which applies to products regulated by certain European health, safety and environmental protection legislation (1). The CE Marking is mandatory for products it applies to; in other words the manufacturer must affix the CE marking in order to be allowed to sell his/her product on the European market. The CE Marking indicates that the product is in conformity with the applicable Community requirements imposed on the manufacturer and that the appropriate conformity assessment procedures have been completed.

The CE marking is not a trade mark and cannot be the subject of a complaint to the World Trade Organisation (WTO). National market regulators, and in general health and safety authorities can respond to the abusive use of such marking with seizures and other such measures. In fact, based on consumer protection legislation, customs authorities in Member States can seize goods bearing a misleading CE mark when imported, even before they are released.

Given the increased interest by industry and consumers in marking, the Commission is, at the moment, also consulting stakeholders on the possibility of introducing an origin marking scheme.

---

(1)  The CE Marking is required only for the following types of products:

| — | Toys |
| --- | --- |

—

Toys

| — | Machinery |
| --- | --- |

—

Machinery

| — | Electrical equipment (Low voltage directive) |
| --- | --- |

—

Electrical equipment (Low voltage directive)

| — | Electronic equipment (Electromagnetic compatibility directive) |
| --- | --- |

—

Electronic equipment (Electromagnetic compatibility directive)

| — | Personal protective equipment |
| --- | --- |

—

Personal protective equipment

| — | Pressure equipment-Medical devices |
| --- | --- |

—

Pressure equipment-Medical devices

| — | In vitro diagnostic medical devices |
| --- | --- |

—

In vitro diagnostic medical devices

| — | Active implantable medical devices |
| --- | --- |

—

Active implantable medical devices

| — | Radio and Telecommunications terminal equipment |
| --- | --- |

—

Radio and Telecommunications terminal equipment

| — | Simple pressure vessels -Gas appliances |
| --- | --- |

—

Simple pressure vessels -Gas appliances

| — | Lifts |
| --- | --- |

—

Lifts

| — | Recreational craft |
| --- | --- |

—

Recreational craft

| — | Equipment and protective systems for use in explosive atmospheres |
| --- | --- |

—

Equipment and protective systems for use in explosive atmospheres

| — | Non-automatic weighing instruments |
| --- | --- |

—

Non-automatic weighing instruments

| — | Cableways |
| --- | --- |

—

Cableways

| — | Construction products |
| --- | --- |

—

Construction products

| — | Explosives for civil use |
| --- | --- |

—

Explosives for civil use

| — | New hot water boilers. |
| --- | --- |

—

New hot water boilers.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/162 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/162

---

(2004/C 88 E/0171)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3975/03

by Paulo Casaca (PSE) to the Commission

(5 January 2004)

Subject:   Respect for equal treatment for staff at the Commission delegation in Brazil

I have received a complaint from local staff at the Commission delegation in Brazil concerning the way in which their salaries have fallen by more than 40 % since September 1999.

Can the Commission confirm this drop in salaries? Can the Commission explain its actions? Can the Commission guarantee that its treatment of local staff at the Commission delegation in Brazil complies with the principles of the European Charter of Fundamental Rights?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(13 February 2004)

The salaries of local staff in Delegations of the Commission are revised annually in accordance with the Framework Rules (FR) laying down the conditions of employment of local staff of the Commission serving in third countries. The objective of the annual salary revisions is to maintain a level of salaries, which is competitive with those of reference employers on the local labour market.

Due to the dramatic economic conditions in Brazil in the nineties, it was decided to establish a salary grid in ECU, with monthly payment of the salaries in local currency. In 1999, it became obvious that the reference grid in ECU had artificially put the local staff salaries far above the salaries of the reference employers. Therefore, it was justified to return to salaries fixed in local currency. Those local agents, who were already employed in the Delegation, signed an addendum to their contract accepting the conversion of their salaries from ECU to the local currency at an agreed exchange rate.

Subsequently, the salaries of those local agents, who were employed already in 1999, were ‘frozen’ until their salaries would be in line with the local market. The alignment is materialised by a salary grid fixed and revised annually according to the agreement with the trade unions staff representatives on the basis of the FR. Thus, the Commission cannot confirm that the salaries of the local agents who signed the addendum have been dropped since their nominal value remains fixed since 1999. At present, those salaries are still considerably higher than those of the local reference employers.

The Commission is treating all local staff employed at its Delegations world-wide in compliance with the principles of the European Charter of Fundamental Rights.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/163 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/163

---

(2004/C 88 E/0172)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3989/03

by Theresa Villiers (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(7 January 2004)

Subject:   EU rules on sales and servicing

| 1. | Can the Commission confirm that one of the aims of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1400/2002 (1) on the application of Article 81(3) of the Treaty to categories of vertical agreements and concerted practices in the motor vehicle sector is to enable car owners to use independent garages without infringing the terms of the manufacturer's warranty? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Can the Commission confirm that one of the aims of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1400/2002 (1) on the application of Article 81(3) of the Treaty to categories of vertical agreements and concerted practices in the motor vehicle sector is to enable car owners to use independent garages without infringing the terms of the manufacturer's warranty?

| 2. | Does the Commission have any evidence to suggest that car distributors are reducing the warranty period on new cars? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Does the Commission have any evidence to suggest that car distributors are reducing the warranty period on new cars?

| 3. | After the initial warranty period has come to an end, can the Commission confirm that subsequent warranty periods are at the discretion of the distributor? |
| --- | --- |

3.

After the initial warranty period has come to an end, can the Commission confirm that subsequent warranty periods are at the discretion of the distributor?

| 4. | Under the new Regulation, would it be possible for subsequent warranty periods to include a clause which requires servicing to be carried out only by those agents endorsed by the distributor, with the warranty becoming invalid if this is not done? |
| --- | --- |

4.

Under the new Regulation, would it be possible for subsequent warranty periods to include a clause which requires servicing to be carried out only by those agents endorsed by the distributor, with the warranty becoming invalid if this is not done?

| 5. | Has the Commission any evidence to suggest that a similar practice has occurred in relation to second hand cars? Does the Commission believe that current practice, whereby the buyer of a second hand car has to purchase further warranty which usually includes an obligation to use only certain servicing agents, is in keeping with the spirit of the above Regulation? |
| --- | --- |

5.

Has the Commission any evidence to suggest that a similar practice has occurred in relation to second hand cars? Does the Commission believe that current practice, whereby the buyer of a second hand car has to purchase further warranty which usually includes an obligation to use only certain servicing agents, is in keeping with the spirit of the above Regulation?

| 6. | Does the Commission have any plans to investigate whether these practices are occurring? |
| --- | --- |

6.

Does the Commission have any plans to investigate whether these practices are occurring?

| 7. | What action would the Commission take against distributors and/or Member States if these practices were found to exist? |
| --- | --- |

7.

What action would the Commission take against distributors and/or Member States if these practices were found to exist?

| 8. | How does the Commission propose to evaluate the impact of the Regulation? |
| --- | --- |

8.

How does the Commission propose to evaluate the impact of the Regulation?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(11 February 2004)

| 1. | The Commission believes that independent repairers provide the consumer with a valuable alternative to authorised garages. One of the aims of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1400/2002 of 31 July 2002 on the application of Article 81(3) of the Treaty to categories of vertical agreements and concerted practices in the motor vehicle sector is to ensure that independent repairers continue to be able to provide such an alternative, and that they are not foreclosed from the market.
  In accordance with the new rules, during the period of a ‘basic’ manufacturer's warranty or an extended warranty bought from the manufacturer, it is usual and acceptable for the manufacturer to stipulate that work covered by that warranty may only be carried out at repair shops that it has endorsed or authorised.
  However, such ‘warranty work’ normally relates to defects in the new vehicle, and does not include routine servicing or breakdowns not covered by the warranty. If manufacturers were to systematically exclude independent repairers from carrying out such ‘non-warranty work’ on vehicles during the manufacturer's warranty period, this might result in foreclosure effects (2). |
| --- | --- |

1.

The Commission believes that independent repairers provide the consumer with a valuable alternative to authorised garages. One of the aims of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1400/2002 of 31 July 2002 on the application of Article 81(3) of the Treaty to categories of vertical agreements and concerted practices in the motor vehicle sector is to ensure that independent repairers continue to be able to provide such an alternative, and that they are not foreclosed from the market.

In accordance with the new rules, during the period of a ‘basic’ manufacturer's warranty or an extended warranty bought from the manufacturer, it is usual and acceptable for the manufacturer to stipulate that work covered by that warranty may only be carried out at repair shops that it has endorsed or authorised.

However, such ‘warranty work’ normally relates to defects in the new vehicle, and does not include routine servicing or breakdowns not covered by the warranty. If manufacturers were to systematically exclude independent repairers from carrying out such ‘non-warranty work’ on vehicles during the manufacturer's warranty period, this might result in foreclosure effects (2).

| 2. to 4. | It may be useful to distinguish between the different types of warranty and servicing packages that a car owner may encounter.
  Manufacturers' warranties, as referred to in paragraph 1 above, form part of the distribution agreement between dealers and manufacturers, and are therefore likely to be covered by Article 81 of the EC Treaty, and to fall within the scope of Regulation (EC) No 1400/2002. The Commission does not have any evidence to suggest that car manufacturers are generally reducing the length of the warranty periods that they offer on new cars. Indeed, the Commission has observed a trend towards longer manufacturers' warranties over the past few years.
  Dealer warranties, on the other hand, are financed and issued by the dealer, and result from a contract between the dealer and the consumer, and thus do not form part of the vertical distribution agreement between the manufacturer and the dealer. Such warranties are in general not covered by Article 81 or Regulation (EC) No 1400/2002. However, as the Office of Fair Trading report mentioned below makes plain, warranties described as ‘dealer-based’ are often financed in the main by the manufacturer rather than the dealer. These warranties should therefore be considered to be manufacturers' warranties for the purposes of Community competition law.
  The consumer can choose to extend the protection beyond the end of the manufacturer's warranty by buying an extended warranty from the manufacturer or from a third party, and may also choose to buy a servicing package. If the consumer buys an extended warranty from the manufacturer, the reasoning in paragraph 1 applies. |
| --- | --- |

2. to 4.

It may be useful to distinguish between the different types of warranty and servicing packages that a car owner may encounter.

Manufacturers' warranties, as referred to in paragraph 1 above, form part of the distribution agreement between dealers and manufacturers, and are therefore likely to be covered by Article 81 of the EC Treaty, and to fall within the scope of Regulation (EC) No 1400/2002. The Commission does not have any evidence to suggest that car manufacturers are generally reducing the length of the warranty periods that they offer on new cars. Indeed, the Commission has observed a trend towards longer manufacturers' warranties over the past few years.

Dealer warranties, on the other hand, are financed and issued by the dealer, and result from a contract between the dealer and the consumer, and thus do not form part of the vertical distribution agreement between the manufacturer and the dealer. Such warranties are in general not covered by Article 81 or Regulation (EC) No 1400/2002. However, as the Office of Fair Trading report mentioned below makes plain, warranties described as ‘dealer-based’ are often financed in the main by the manufacturer rather than the dealer. These warranties should therefore be considered to be manufacturers' warranties for the purposes of Community competition law.

The consumer can choose to extend the protection beyond the end of the manufacturer's warranty by buying an extended warranty from the manufacturer or from a third party, and may also choose to buy a servicing package. If the consumer buys an extended warranty from the manufacturer, the reasoning in paragraph 1 applies.

| 5. | The Honourable Member should note that the sale of used cars does not fall within the scope of Regulation (EC) No 1400/2002 (3), and that such products are dealt with under the Commission's general block exemption for vertical restraints, Regulation (EC) No 2790/1999 (4) instead. |
| --- | --- |

5.

The Honourable Member should note that the sale of used cars does not fall within the scope of Regulation (EC) No 1400/2002 (3), and that such products are dealt with under the Commission's general block exemption for vertical restraints, Regulation (EC) No 2790/1999 (4) instead.

| 6. and 7. | It goes without saying that the Commission takes this matter extremely seriously and will duly investigate all complaints that appear to show that manufacturers' warranty schemes do not comply with the letter and spirit of Regulation (EC) No 1400/2002. However, at the present stage the Commission takes the view that it would be inappropriate to speculate as to what specific action it would take in a hypothetical instance, since this would depend on the exact facts of the case.
  The Commission would also like to take this opportunity to acknowledge the recent important work in this area carried out by the United Kingdom (UK) Office of Fair Trading (OFT) (5). |
| --- | --- |

6. and 7.

It goes without saying that the Commission takes this matter extremely seriously and will duly investigate all complaints that appear to show that manufacturers' warranty schemes do not comply with the letter and spirit of Regulation (EC) No 1400/2002. However, at the present stage the Commission takes the view that it would be inappropriate to speculate as to what specific action it would take in a hypothetical instance, since this would depend on the exact facts of the case.

The Commission would also like to take this opportunity to acknowledge the recent important work in this area carried out by the United Kingdom (UK) Office of Fair Trading (OFT) (5).

| 8. | The Commission would draw the Honourable Member's attention to the efforts made during the transitional period to clarify the way that the Regulation applies to warranty schemes, and in particular to the guidance given to all interested parties through an explanatory brochure (6) and a set of Frequently Asked Questions (7).
  Now that the transitional period is over, and the Regulation is bedding-in, the Commission will shift its efforts towards more focused monitoring and enforcement. The Commission will also carry out an assessment of the operation of the block exemption in accordance with Article 11 of Regulation (EC) No 1400/2002. |
| --- | --- |

8.

The Commission would draw the Honourable Member's attention to the efforts made during the transitional period to clarify the way that the Regulation applies to warranty schemes, and in particular to the guidance given to all interested parties through an explanatory brochure (6) and a set of Frequently Asked Questions (7).

Now that the transitional period is over, and the Regulation is bedding-in, the Commission will shift its efforts towards more focused monitoring and enforcement. The Commission will also carry out an assessment of the operation of the block exemption in accordance with Article 11 of Regulation (EC) No 1400/2002.

---

(1)  OJ L 203, 1.8.2002, p. 30.

(2)  See the reply to question 38 in the Commission's Explanatory Brochure for more explanation on this point.

(3)  See Article 2(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1400/2002.

(4)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 2790/1999 of 22 December 1999 on the application of Article 81(3) of the Treaty to categories of vertical agreements and concerted practices, OJ L 336, 29.12.1999.

(5)  OFT report entitled ‘New car warranties — Report of the market study’ (December 2003).

(6)  See in particular Section 5.1.2.

(7)  See the replies to questions 1 and 2. Both the Brochure and the FAQs are available on the Commission's website at: http://europa.eu.int/comm/competition/car_sector/distribution/

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/165 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/165

---

(2004/C 88 E/0173)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-4004/03

by Claude Moraes (PSE) to the Commission

(7 January 2004)

Subject:   Disabled children in Russia

A number of my constituents have expressed much concern over the treatment of disabled children in Russia.

Is the Commission aware of the lack of provisions for both physically and mentally disabled children in Russia?

Could the Commission please indicate what measures, if any, it has taken so as to encourage Russia to address this issue and improve this situation?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(9 February 2004)

The Commission has been working for several years via TACIS to improve the treatment of disabled children in Russia. Examples of projects include ‘Partnership in health, education and social assistance’, implemented as part of the 1999 TACIS Action Programme for Russia in cooperation with the Ministry of Education, which has promoted the early detection of disabilities and the better treatment of Russian children in several regions of Russia.

Further projects — to be implemented with Russian institutions including the Russian Ministry of Labour and Social Development — are currently being prepared.

These projects aim, ‘inter alia’, to:

| — | improve existing legislation; |
| --- | --- |

—

improve existing legislation;

| — | develop mechanisms of cooperation between different departments/agencies and organisations dealing with disabled children; |
| --- | --- |

—

develop mechanisms of cooperation between different departments/agencies and organisations dealing with disabled children;

| — | develop programmes for the social inclusion of children with disabilities and provide support to their families; |
| --- | --- |

—

develop programmes for the social inclusion of children with disabilities and provide support to their families;

| — | better train social workers, medical staff and teachers; |
| --- | --- |

—

better train social workers, medical staff and teachers;

| — | raise awareness of the rights of disabled children and their families, the problems which they experience and their contribution as valued members of society. |
| --- | --- |

—

raise awareness of the rights of disabled children and their families, the problems which they experience and their contribution as valued members of society.

The Commission has also provided support to a number of non-governmental organizations (NGOs), charities, parents' associations and religious organizations via its Civil Society Programme, with the aim of promoting better understanding and treatment of disabled children. The Commission has every intention of continuing its work in this important area.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/166 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/166

---

(2004/C 88 E/0174)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0012/04

by José Ribeiro e Castro (UEN) to the Commission

(16 January 2004)

Subject:   EU-India Summit — closer relations

The Fourth EU-India Summit, held in New Delhi on 29 November 2003, examined the development of bilateral relations and discussed ways and means of strengthening them.

According to the Commission's strategy paper on India of 10 September 2002 one of the priorities is ‘promoting cultural understanding’ (page 23), which will require cultural interaction on both sides and be a reason for reactivating the EU-India Cross Cultural Programme.

In view of the subcontinent's ethnic, social and cultural diversity, special attention should be devoted to the variety of cultural links between its peoples and various EU Member States, which in themselves enhance the mutual understanding which the Union wants to encourage, since they can help to create a closer social, technical and economic relationship and cooperation.

We should bear in mind the special links between Portugal and the territories of Goa, Damão, Diu, Dadrá and Nagar-Aveli, the outcome of more than 450 years of history, which in the interests of the desired closer links between the European Union and India ought to be strengthened.

Can the Commission therefore say:

| — | what steps it has taken or intends to take to encourage the study of Portuguese, the third European world language, in that part of the world; |
| --- | --- |

—

what steps it has taken or intends to take to encourage the study of Portuguese, the third European world language, in that part of the world;

| — | what measures it intends to propose to the Indian authorities with a view to strengthening and improving a relationship which is long-established but restricted by distance; |
| --- | --- |

—

what measures it intends to propose to the Indian authorities with a view to strengthening and improving a relationship which is long-established but restricted by distance;

| — | in what ways it will try to make the Indian authorities aware of the issue and persuade them to promote the strengthening of the region's cultural and historical ties with the Union; |
| --- | --- |

—

in what ways it will try to make the Indian authorities aware of the issue and persuade them to promote the strengthening of the region's cultural and historical ties with the Union;

| — | whether it will agree to grant new support for cultural projects devised by the governments of the Member States, universities, NGOs, churches, etc., dealing specifically with enhancing, publicising, restoring, rebuilding and preserving the shared cultural and historical heritage, and seek Indian government support for such projects? |
| --- | --- |

—

whether it will agree to grant new support for cultural projects devised by the governments of the Member States, universities, NGOs, churches, etc., dealing specifically with enhancing, publicising, restoring, rebuilding and preserving the shared cultural and historical heritage, and seek Indian government support for such projects?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(10 February 2004)

The fourth EU-India Summit held in Delhi on 29 November 2003 was an important event in enhancing the relationship between both sides. The relationship has received a significant boost since the first Summit held in Lisbon in June 2000 under the Portuguese Presidency.

Dialogue and cooperation have continued to deepen in the entire range of political, economic, development and civil society matters.

In this context, the cultural dimension has received increased attention, and the Commission, already active, is looking at ways and means to further strengthen this important element of EU-India relations.

The Economic Cross-Cultural Programme to which the Honourable Member refers was re-launched through a call for proposals in July 2003 in the fields of media and communication, university and studies and entrepreneurial networking. This resulted in the selection of 26 projects which are in the process of being signed.

An EU-India Scholarship programme is currently being designed. It will aim to attract Indian post-graduate level students to European — including possibly Portuguese — universities, as a means of deepening EU-India ties and understanding.

The EU-India Small Projects facility also offers scope for the funding of cultural activities. One of the nine projects being financed from the last call for proposals aims to increase cultural interchange through the translation of European and Indian literature.

The Commission was actively involved in the organisation of a dense cultural week around the Delhi Summit: A large number of European cultural activities organised by the Member States attracted a lot of attention among the Indian public.

The Commission fully agrees with the Honourable Member that cultural exchanges are a crucial element of EU-India relations. Hence, in its current effort to elaborate a strategic partnership with India, due account will be taken of the importance of cultural links, both around Summit meetings and in furthering the day-to-day relationship.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/167 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/167

---

(2004/C 88 E/0175)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0049/04

by Camilo Nogueira Román (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(20 January 2004)

Subject:   EU aid to Iran to tackle the tragic consequences of the Bam earthquake

What is the nature of the EU's relations with the Iranian government following the major disaster at Bam? How much aid has the EU sent to Bam? What will the EU contribute to enable the cities and villages affected to resume normal life as far as possible? Does the Commission have the resources required to aid communities affected by such disasters, commensurate with the Union's economic capacity?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(5 March 2004)

The EU has for many years explored ways of developing wider political and economic relations with Iran. To that effect, the EU launched negotiations in December 2002 on a Trade and Cooperation Agreement as well as on an Agreement on Political Dialogue and the Fight against Terrorism. Almost simultaneously, a dialogue on Human Rights was established with Iran. Working groups on trade and investment, and energy, exist since 1999. The EU continues to base its approach towards Iran on the global concept of Comprehensive Dialogue, introduced in 1998.

Following the tragic earthquake on 26 December 2003, the Commission through its Humanitarian Aid Office (ECHO) promptly reacted by allocating, on 27 December 2003, EUR 2,3 million for the most urgent humanitarian needs. The funds have been channelled through the Red Cross movement and international non-governmental organisations (NGOs). Already on 26 December 2003, the EU Civil protection and Monitoring and Information Centre, hosted by the Commission, dispatched and coordinated the Search and Rescue teams' response of Member States, the European Economic Area (EEA), Candidate and Acceding Countries.

On 18 February 2004 the Commission adopted a follow up decision of EUR 6,2 million for continued humanitarian aid. As before, funds will be disbursed through the Red Cross and international NGOs, as well as through the United Nations agencies. The sectors targeted will be health, water and sanitation and psycho-social care with a focus on the most vulnerable, in particular children.

The Commissioner in charge of development and cooperation visited Iran 18/19 February 2004. He had talks with the government, the Iranian Red Crescent and United Nations organisations in Teheran and visited Bam where he met the organisations working in the field.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/168 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/168

---

(2004/C 88 E/0176)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0072/04

by José Ribeiro e Castro (UEN) to the Commission

(20 January 2004)

Subject:   Suspected traffic in human organs — Mozambique

At the end of 2003, there were rumours that in a region in Northern Mozambique, a criminal network was operating in trafficking in human organs, removed from people (children above all, but also adults) kidnapped and murdered for this purpose. It was claimed that mutilated corpses were appearing on a weekly basis around a monastery in the Nampula area. There were apparently also countless cases of people who had vanished without trace. The trade in organs was possibly being carried on via South Africa, with reference being made to the possible involvement of a South African citizen. The population was panic-stricken, and there were fears that the network might be connived at by high-ranking politicians or businessmen.

The seriousness of such crimes can scarcely by overestimated, and public knowledge of their possible truth first came from religious sources; fear for the lives of clergy and religious in the area — there have been death threats against missionaries disturbed by these crimes and outraged by the possible traffic in organs — meant that they treated the reports with extreme caution, while seeking to gather further evidence. However, the rumours had already hit the news, when a Brazilian woman missionary levelled accusations during a television broadcast in Brazil at the end of 2003. News coverage in Portugal followed, in the ‘Público’ newspaper of 24 December 2003 and 2 January 2004. The latter further stated that the Mozambique state prosecutor was aware of the accusations and was investigating the facts.

The European Parliament recently addressed this problem in a general sense, when assessing, on a Greek initiative, the proposal for a framework directive on the prevention and control of trafficking in human organs and tissues — see the proceedings in plenary of 23 October 2003 and the report by Robert J.E. Evans (A5-0326/2003).

The Commission:

| — | does the Commission have any information concerning these crimes in Mozambique; |
| --- | --- |

—

does the Commission have any information concerning these crimes in Mozambique;

| — | how might it be able to help the Mozambique authorities in the investigation of these claims, and in the international fight against trafficking in human organs and any other crimes which may be being perpetrated; |
| --- | --- |

—

how might it be able to help the Mozambique authorities in the investigation of these claims, and in the international fight against trafficking in human organs and any other crimes which may be being perpetrated;

| — | what guarantees are there that no EU Member State is the destination of criminally obtained and illegally traded human organs? |
| --- | --- |

—

what guarantees are there that no EU Member State is the destination of criminally obtained and illegally traded human organs?

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/169 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/169

---

(2004/C 88 E/0177)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0143/04

by José Ribeiro e Castro (UEN) to the Commission

(26 January 2004)

Subject:   Trafficking in human organs — Mozambique

Since my recent question to the Commission and Council, there have been fresh developments, notably the fact that the Prosecutor-General of the Republic Mozambique, Dr Joaquim Madeira, has acknowledged in the media that there really is trafficking in human organs going on. The Prosecutor-General confirmed some days ago on Portuguese language radio, RDP-Africa, that the accusation lodged with the State Prosecutor's Office had been submitted by the President of the Human Rights League, in the wake of Brazilian Missionary, Elilda dos Santos reporting eight possible cases of organs removed from children in Nampula. The Prosecutor-General's investigation team is now examining the cases brought forward in the provinces of Manica, Maputo and Nampula has already taken various statements on the issue. Alarmingly, mention has been made, at the same time, to the presence of this monstrous trade in other African countries.

Yesterday, 14 January, the main news broadcast of RTP 1 (the Portuguese public service television channel), devoted a lengthy report to the situation in Mozambique, confirming the accusations and demonstrating the blatant contradictions between the local police (who deny them) and the Prospector-General (who confirms both the facts and the cases now in hand).

In a further interview on Mozambique television, the Prosecutor-General has apparently called on the people of Mozambique to close ranks in fighting this crime. Three people have already been arrested in the central province of Manica, accused of trafficking in organs, and a foreign couple, suspected of attempting to kidnap minors for the purpose of removing organs, are on bail in Nampula. The Brazilian missionary responsible for making the initial accusations, who lives in a monastery in Nampula which looks after poor children and orphans, believes that there is evidence to suggest that in recent months further minors have been killed for the sake of their internal organs.

For this reason, and reiterating my previous question (E-0072/04) will the Commission tell me:

| — | whether contact has been established with the Mozambique authorities in this connection? Is any support, assistance or police cooperation action already underway? |
| --- | --- |

—

whether contact has been established with the Mozambique authorities in this connection? Is any support, assistance or police cooperation action already underway?

| — | whether it has any information as to the existence of trafficking in human organs from other African countries? |
| --- | --- |

—

whether it has any information as to the existence of trafficking in human organs from other African countries?

| — | whether, in order to fight this ghastly trade, it is prepared to provide not only emergency aid in Mozambique and any other countries which request it, but also information and training, both for the authorities and relevant bodies representing civil society which find themselves confronted with abominable crimes of this nature? |
| --- | --- |

—

whether, in order to fight this ghastly trade, it is prepared to provide not only emergency aid in Mozambique and any other countries which request it, but also information and training, both for the authorities and relevant bodies representing civil society which find themselves confronted with abominable crimes of this nature?

Joint answer

to Written Questions E-0072/04 and E-0143/04

given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(19 March 2004)

The Commission shares the concerns of the Honourable Member about these abominable crimes relating to the trafficking of human organs, in particular of children in Mozambique.

The Commission, fully aware of the seriousness of the situation through its Delegation in Maputo, has already contacted the Republic's General Prosecutor in respect of these crimes. The latter has, as mentioned in the Honourable Member's question, confirmed that a case was reported in Nampula and a full investigation is underway not only in this region but also in other regions of the country. At present the General Prosecutor has not expressed the need for any additional assistance from the Commission or any other donor.

The EU Head of Missions and the EC Delegation have been discussing these cases and they will raise this issue within the framework of the EU-Mozambique political dialogue.

Mozambique has been benefiting from assistance to the judiciary system (Strategic Planning, Strategic Planning, access to justice, human rights, prison reforms, legal training, Maputo Civil Court, Police of Mozambique) by the EU (Denmark, Ireland, Portugal, Spain, Italy and the Netherlands), Norway, the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) and the United Nations Agency for International Development (USAID).

Support to this sector is foreseen in the EC-Mozambique Country Strategy Paper, and a programme of EUR 10 million is in the process of being approved by the Commission. The strategy of this programme is to complement the activities financed by other donors and, based on the fact that problems affecting penal justice have to be tackled in a systemic way, include all the actors involved, as elements of the ‘penal justice chain’: the Police of Criminal Investigation, the Attorney-General's Office, the Courts, the correctional sector, the legal defence, as well as civil society which has a major role to play in areas such as crime prevention (through Community based activities) and advocacy against human rights violation. The second critical area, decentralisation, aims to correct geographical imbalances in the system and facilitate access to justice, particularly at district and local level. The strategy is based on a rights and service delivery approach. The programme itself focuses on policy objectives for which different and independent institutions have to concur. The activities foreseen in the programme include institutional support, exploration into prison alternatives, media and awareness campaigns, research and surveys, training, creation of specific support funds for human rights, rehabilitation and supply of equipment.

With regard to the situation within the EU, a considerable number of measures to improve cooperation between Member States' police services and customs administrations and to strengthen external borders have been adopted. Regarding in particular, trafficking in human organs, in February 2003, Greece presented an initiative for the adoption by the Council of a Framework Decision concerning the prevention and control of trafficking in human organs and tissues. The aim of the proposal is to define which types of conduct should be punishable in all Member States and the minimum penalties which should apply to such offences. The Commission welcomed the proposal in principle. The Commission has sought to support the initiative of Greece by inviting applications for the funding of further projects in this area under its 2004 AGIS programme for police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters.

Furthermore, Europol's mandate has been extended to include illicit trade in human organs and tissues since 1 January 2002. Europol is currently collecting information from Member States concerning the situation within the EU.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/170 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/170

---

(2004/C 88 E/0178)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0154/04

by Margrietus van den Berg (PSE) to the Commission

(29 January 2004)

Subject:   ‘Kleptocrat tax’

The business world claims to be going through hard times. Restructuring is common, people are losing their jobs, and losses are being recorded. None of this is their fault, say company directors, because the economy is simply in a bad way and salaries are lower. Painful measures have to be taken. We are all feeling the pinch, so we should all tighten our belts and bear the burden together. If everyone pulls together, we shall win through. But anyone taking a good look at the salaries of CEOs in the Netherlands will come to the conclusion that they are still drawing huge salaries through share-option schemes, redundancy packages, bonuses and loans. This ‘belt-tightening’ obviously does not apply to them.

Given that the proposals made by the Balkanende Government and the Tabaksblat Commission cannot properly curtail these high sums, the Dutch Trade Union Confederation FNV came up with other measures. The confederation wants the Netherlands Government to ‘skim off top incomes through income tax. This means that, above a certain amount, for example EUR 500 000, a rate of tax higher than the current rate of 52 % would apply. The extra revenue that this would generate could be used to provide financial assistance to those duped by the restructuring carried out by the gentlemen concerned.

| 1. | Is the Commission of the opinion that European CEOs earn exorbitantly high salaries, given the poor performance of their businesses and the forced redundancies that this entails? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is the Commission of the opinion that European CEOs earn exorbitantly high salaries, given the poor performance of their businesses and the forced redundancies that this entails?

| 2. | Does the Commission view a “kleptocrat tax” as an effective means of stemming the current tide, and is it prepared to call for some coordination with a view to such an approach being taken in several EU Member States? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Does the Commission view a “kleptocrat tax” as an effective means of stemming the current tide, and is it prepared to call for some coordination with a view to such an approach being taken in several EU Member States?

| 3. | Does the Commission also envisage a role for itself in this process? What measures could the Commission take? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Does the Commission also envisage a role for itself in this process? What measures could the Commission take?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(12 March 2004)

| 1. | The Commission considers that the structure and amount of directors’ remuneration is a matter that must primarily be left to the decision of each company and its shareholders. It considers, however, that shareholders should be able to appreciate fully the relation between the performance of the company and the level of remuneration of directors and that they should be able to make decisions on the remuneration items linked to the share price. An appropriate regime of disclosure and appropriate governance controls is necessary in this respect. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The Commission considers that the structure and amount of directors’ remuneration is a matter that must primarily be left to the decision of each company and its shareholders. It considers, however, that shareholders should be able to appreciate fully the relation between the performance of the company and the level of remuneration of directors and that they should be able to make decisions on the remuneration items linked to the share price. An appropriate regime of disclosure and appropriate governance controls is necessary in this respect.

| 2. | As the Commission stated in its Communication of May 2001 on a comprehensive strategy for the EU's future tax policy (1), there are many tax fields for which harmonisation is neither necessary nor desirable in view of the widely differing characteristics of Member States' tax systems and different national preferences in areas such as public expenditure. Taxes on personal income are one area which, in the Commission's view, should be left to Member States even when the European Union achieves a higher level of integration than at present. Co-ordination of personal taxes at EU level is only appropriate to prevent cross-border discrimination or obstacles to the exercise of the four freedoms, as well as in some cases to avoid double taxation or unintentional non-taxation in cross-border situations and to tackle cross-border evasion. |
| --- | --- |

2.

As the Commission stated in its Communication of May 2001 on a comprehensive strategy for the EU's future tax policy (1), there are many tax fields for which harmonisation is neither necessary nor desirable in view of the widely differing characteristics of Member States' tax systems and different national preferences in areas such as public expenditure. Taxes on personal income are one area which, in the Commission's view, should be left to Member States even when the European Union achieves a higher level of integration than at present. Co-ordination of personal taxes at EU level is only appropriate to prevent cross-border discrimination or obstacles to the exercise of the four freedoms, as well as in some cases to avoid double taxation or unintentional non-taxation in cross-border situations and to tackle cross-border evasion.

| 3. | The Commission announced, in its Communication on modernising Company Law and Enhancing Corporate Governance in the EU of 21 May 2003 (2), its intention to adopt a Recommendation to foster an appropriate regime for the remuneration of directors. Such a regime should be composed of four key items: disclosure of the remuneration policy in the annual accounts, disclosure of details of remuneration of individual directors in the annual accounts, prior approval by the shareholder meeting of share and share option schemes in which directors participate and proper recognition in the annual accounts of the costs of such schemes for the company. The Commission intends to adopt the Recommendation in 2004. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The Commission announced, in its Communication on modernising Company Law and Enhancing Corporate Governance in the EU of 21 May 2003 (2), its intention to adopt a Recommendation to foster an appropriate regime for the remuneration of directors. Such a regime should be composed of four key items: disclosure of the remuneration policy in the annual accounts, disclosure of details of remuneration of individual directors in the annual accounts, prior approval by the shareholder meeting of share and share option schemes in which directors participate and proper recognition in the annual accounts of the costs of such schemes for the company. The Commission intends to adopt the Recommendation in 2004.

---

(1)  OJ C 284, 10.10.2001.

(2)  COM(2003) 284 final.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/171 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/171

---

(2004/C 88 E/0179)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0187/04

by Brice Hortefeux (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(29 January 2004)

Subject:   Auditing of company accounts

In the light of the most recent scandal to date, which lifted the lid on a EUR 7 billion deficit covered up by Parmalat, the issue of auditing company accounts has returned to the table with particular force.

With tax havens, disguised financial losses, falsified documents and balance sheets, this case has all the ingredients that have characterised previous financial scandals. Even if it is still too early to draw any conclusions from this extremely complex affair, it is useful and necessary to begin examining the consequences it will have for European financial services policy.

Does the Commission intend, therefore, to look at strengthening the legal auditing of accounts by drawing up stricter measures for audit firms, making them responsible for all aspects of consolidated accounts?

Will the legal loophole created when two audit firms are each responsible for part of the accounts be tightened? If so, how will this take place?

Is a ban on auditors' being able to take part in any kind of management decision being considered?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(11 March 2004)

The Commission agrees that it is still too early to draw any final conclusions from the Parmalat corporate failure which is indeed very complex. However, the Commission had already proposed in its Communications of 21 May 2003 on Modernising Company Law and Enhancing Corporate Governance in the EU and on Reinforcing statutory audit in the EU, a number of measures which specifically deal with some of the problems identified in the Parmalat case. In response to this corporate failure, the Commission intends to accelerate some of the proposals contained in these action plans.

As far as statutory audit is concerned, the Commission intends to include a specific provision in its proposal for a modernised Directive which confirms the principle that the statutory auditor can in no way be involved in management decisions. A specific rule will also be introduced that the group auditor bears full responsibility for the audit report in relation with the consolidated accounts.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/172 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/172

---

(2004/C 88 E/0180)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0214/04

by Giles Chichester (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(30 January 2004)

Subject:   Details of EU funding to the Palestinian Authority

Several constituents of mine have written to me to express their concerns about the much publicised doubts over the use of European Union funds by the Palestinian Authority (PA). To date, detailed information and accounting of the funds the EU provides the PA, to either substantiate or negate the allegations, have been lacking.

In view of the continued allegations concerning the misuse of EU funds to the PA and the confidentiality of the European Parliament Working Group looking into this matter, can the Commission explain (a) the level of EU funding to the PA over the past three years; (b) the details of the purpose of the budget (as stated in the PA application) and (c) what sums are anticipated for 2003-2004?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(10 March 2004)

The total level of European Community assistance (excluding bilateral Member States assistance) to the West Bank and Gaza, including humanitarian aid, food aid and support to non governmental organisations (NGOs), over the last three years has been as follows (commitment basis). For the year 2000: EUR 225,86 million, for the year 2001: EUR 149,39 million and for the year 2002: EUR 326,31 million. This includes humanitarian assistance in favour of Palestinian refugees in Jordan, Lebanon and Syria.

EC financial assistance over the last few years has tried to strike a balance between short-term emergency assistance and more strategic forward-looking development support in preparation for a future democratic Palestinian state.

The total level of European Community assistance (excluding bilateral Member States assistance) to the West Bank and Gaza, including humanitarian aid, food aid and support to NGOs in 2003 was EUR 255,78 million. This includes humanitarian assistance in favour of Palestinian refugees in Jordan, Lebanon and Syria. Programming for 2004 has not yet been completed, but the level of support will be comparable to the level of support extended in recent years.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/173 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/173

---

(2004/C 88 E/0181)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0270/04

by Brice Hortefeux (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(5 February 2004)

Subject:   Follow-up to regulation on cross-border payments

Regulation (EC) No 2560/2001 (1) on cross-border payments in euro, which was adopted by the European Parliament and entered into force on 31 December 2001, has helped to reduce the cost of cross-border payments within the internal market. It has also encouraged the banking sector to modernise its payment infrastructure EU-wide. This has been an important step towards establishing a single area for non-cash payments in the internal market, which did not exist despite the introduction of the euro.

However, a recent survey in France (quoted at the hearing held by the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs on 20 January 2004) has shown that the 25 banks questioned apply 180 different rates. It is therefore extremely difficult for consumers to find their way around this administrative jungle. Indeed more than 24 % of those interviewed said they were given incorrect information. In addition, some bank charges have been illegally increased or even introduced to offset the entry into force of the regulation.

Given the above, what measures does the Commission intend to take to ensure that the planned advantages of this legislation are not erased by the counter-measures taken by banking establishments?

Has the Commission considered what legislative provisions could be introduced to ensure that banks at long last supply clear information that can be easily understood by consumers?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(11 March 2004)

In accordance with Regulation (EC) No 2560/2001, which has been applicable to card payments and withdrawals from ATMs since 1 July 2002 and to credit transfers since 1 July 2003, the charges made for a cross-border payment in euros should be the same as for a domestic payment.

On the basis of the information currently in its possession, the Commission considers that, with the exception of Spain, where the Commission has asked the Spanish authorities to take the measures necessary for its proper application, the regulation is generally being properly applied. It is not aware of the survey in France referred to by the Honourable Member and would be interested in receiving any information he could provide in this connection.

In the event of failure to comply with the Regulation, the competent national authorities must impose effective, proportionate and dissuasive penalties.

Under the Regulation, the Commission will also present to the Council and Parliament by the end of June 2004 at the latest a report on its application that will focus, among other things, on the evolving situation regarding the dramatic rates being charged. It will then be in a position to provide the Honourable Member with a fuller answer. Nonetheless, it should be noted that the price increases of many banking services have nothing to do with the Regulation, which deals only with charges for electronic transfers and transactions. The Commission is of the opinion that banks are free to determine the price of their services and that it is up to the customer to seek the best deal.

This is also why the Commission places great emphasis on transparency of information for payment service users. In order to guarantee this transparency, it proposed in its communication to the Council and Parliament of December 2003 (2) regarding a new legal framework for payments in the internal market transparency rules for payment service providers which would be harmonized at European level.

---

(1)  OJ L 344, 28.12.2001, p. 13.

(2)  COM(2003) 718 final.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/174 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/174

---

(2004/C 88 E/0182)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0272/04

by Mario Borghezio (NI) to the Commission

(5 February 2004)

Subject:   Timisoara international port

The dark shadow of speculation is beginning to be cast on the construction of Timisoara international port in Romania, a project aimed at making Romania the ‘gateway to the East’.

The choice of location, originally 150 ha of public land to the north of the city, which has already been approved by the EU, has been unexpectedly changed to a site covering only 30 ha, which could potentially be increased to only 70 ha, in an area south of the city, towards Serbia, a direction that would rule out the benefits brought by heavy vehicles. The original choice, which included the constraint that, in the event of the port not being built there, the land would automatically revert to agricultural use, clearly excludes any possibility of property speculation; the same cannot, however, be said of the current choice.

Does not the Commission intend, in view of the possibility that European funds might be granted to help carry out this project, to gain a better insight into the disturbing aspects of the choice of the new location of the Timisoara international port?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(11 March 2004)

The Commission is aware of the project to build a multi-modal platform in Timisoara, but has not been asked to give its approval to any proposed location. Furthermore, since EU pre-accession funding has not been requested, the Commission does not intend to take a position on the issue of the location of this terminal.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/174 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/174

---

(2004/C 88 E/0183)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0288/04

by Marco Cappato (NI) to the Commission

(6 February 2004)

Subject:   Drug eradication programme in Colombia

During his recent visit to Colombia, Commissioner Chris Patten expressed European criticism of the drug eradication programme, which is supported by the United States. Commissioner Patten also said that the EU had refused to fund fumigations on the Andes, citing their impact on the life and well-being of Colombians, as well as the environment.

Mr Patten also confirmed the European pledges for alternative development programmes of some EUR 50 million, tying the disbursement of the money to Colombia's compliance with United Nations High Commission on Human Rights recommendations.

Does the Commission intend to raise the issue of the impact of fumigation in its bilateral talks with the US Administration, emphasising their overall impact and massive failures?

Would the Commission take into consideration for funding some of the proposals that a number of Colombian organisations are currently drafting on the alternative development of the coca bush, which could lead to the use of the leaf, which some indigenous communities consider sacred, for the production of a variety of produce other than cocaine?

Bearing in mind that the upcoming session of the UN Commission on Narcotics of 16/25 March can provide an opportunity to suggest changes to the UN Conventions on Drugs, what are the scientific reasons why the European Commission is of the opinion that coca bush should be kept in Schedule I and not reclassified in Schedule IV?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(11 March 2004)

The Commission has already communicated to the United States Government its position on aerial spraying (fumigation) in general and such spraying as a method of destroying illegal plantations in Colombia in particular.

The Commission has been given a political undertaking by the Colombian Government that the areas in which alternative development projects are started will not be sprayed and is monitoring the situation carefully on the ground.

This position is in line with the one the Commission takes within the European Union, i.e. in future aerial spraying should be restricted to a minimum, if not entirely prohibited. In its communication on the environment and the sustainable use of pesticides (1), the Commission proposed a general ban on aerial spraying. It provided for specific derogation to be given by the Member States' authorities if such spraying presented clear advantages and environmental benefits compared with other spraying methods. The Commission put forward this proposal because of the possible effects of pesticide spraying on human health and the environment and the possible socio-economic effects of unintentional spraying of areas other than those targeted, inhabited areas and water resources (2).

The alternative development projects the Commission supports in Colombia provide for the voluntary manual uprooting of coca plants.

The next session of the UN Commission on Narcotic Drugs will be held in Vienna from 15 to 22 March 2004. Amending the UN Conventions on drugs, or reclassifying coca leaf in those Conventions, is not on the agenda. The European Commission does not have the powers to alter the classification.

---

(1)  COM(2002) 349 final.

(2)  http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/ppps/home.htm

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/175 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/175

---

(2004/C 88 E/0184)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0320/04

by Gary Titley (PSE) to the Commission

(6 February 2004)

Subject:   Illegal logging and timber trade

The Commission will be aware that until recently timber barons were concentrating on the islands of Indonesia, accelerating the destruction of the forests there. It now seems that the forests of West Papua are being targeted and are at risk of suffering the same fate.

On 21 May 2003 the Commission published the EU Action Plan for Forest Law Enforcement, Governance and Trade (FLEGT). The Commission has stated that it intends to submit a proposal for a regulation in 2004 to implement the Action Plan and to provide the basis for a voluntary partnership scheme to control illegal timber imports.

The opinion of the European Parliament's Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy, delivered on 19 January 2004, notes that although a voluntary licensing scheme would prevent unlicensed timber from participating countries being released for free circulation within the EU, not all producing countries are likely to agree to enter bilateral agreements. It recommends that urgent binding legislation be drafted to prohibit the import and marketing of all illegally sourced timber and forest products, irrespective of the countries of origin, so as to enable the authorities in EU Member States to prosecute companies and individuals.

Can the Commission confirm whether it will introduce binding legislation, and what its next steps will be?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(16 March 2004)

The Commission is aware that the voluntary licensing scheme proposed in the FLEGT Action Plan Communication (1) would not cover all timber producing countries; hence there is a risk that illegally harvested timber could enter the EU from countries without such schemes. Nevertheless, if those countries with the most serious illegal logging problems enter into bilateral agreements with the EU, this should have a considerable impact.

In the FLEGT Action Plan, the Commission stated that it would investigate possible additional legislative measures aimed at halting the importation and marketing of illegally harvested timber, beyond the proposed voluntary licensing scheme. The Commission will put forward to the Parliament and Council options for such potential legislation during the course of 2004. A decision on whether to introduce further legislation will depend on the feasibility and nature of the options.

It should be noted that, while intuitively attractive, a general ban on the importation of illegally harvested timber raises some difficult legal and practical issues, such as who would determine legality and how to track timber from the forest through processing to the point of importation. Furthermore, some potential measures may fall under Member State rather than Community competence, eg. where criminal law is concerned. Nevertheless, the Commission recognises the gravity of the problem, as referred to in the Honourable Members' question, and is committed to ensuring the Community assumes its responsibilities in this matter.

---

(1)  COM(2003) 251 final.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/176 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/176

---

(2004/C 88 E/0185)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0362/04

by Graham Watson (ELDR) to the Commission

(12 February 2004)

Subject:   Latvian passport names

Could the Commission please tell me why it is necessary under Latvian legislation to demand that individuals passport names comply with the dictates of the Latvian language? For example, if a woman marries, her name cannot be changed on her passport to Smith, it must be written Smite as this is the nearest Latvian version.

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(22 March 2004)

The Commission has always addressed the issue of ‘latvianisation’ of names in passports in its annual Regular Reports under the heading of the so-called Copenhagen political criteria, i.e. the respect for democracy the rule of law, human rights and the protection of minorities. It is certainly an individual right derived from dignity and liberty of a person that his/her name be respected by the State authorities. Moreover, in the case of spouses, they are able to invoke the obligation of the State to respect family life, as for instance, enshrined in Article 7 of the European Charter of Fundamental rights.

In its 2002 Regular Report (1), the Commission noted the changes made by Latvia, following a ruling of its own Constitutional Court. These changes led to a more visible placement of the original name in the passport. However, the Commission also noted the limitation of these changes, in particular that the latvianised form is kept most prominently on the data page. It therefore concluded that the legislation might still be open to challenge from a human rights point of view. But it is for the Courts and not for the Commission to decide about the legality of the Latvian legislation, unless a formal complaint is submitted to the Commission after accession for non-compliance with certain provisions of EU law.

---

(1)  COM(2002) 700 final.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/177 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/177

---

(2004/C 88 E/0186)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0378/04

by Hartmut Nassauer (PPE-DE) and Bernd Lange (PSE) to the Commission

(12 February 2004)

Subject:   Planned draft second directive on limit values providing for the establishment of an indicative occupational exposure limit value, ‘inter alia’ for nitrogen monoxide (NO)

Given that the Commission is planning to drastically reduce the occupational exposure limit value for nitrogen monoxide on the recommendation of SCOEL,

can it answer the following questions:

| 1. | What is the scientific basis for the proposal that the indicative limit value for nitrogen monoxide in the workplace should be 0,2 ppm? |
| --- | --- |

1.

What is the scientific basis for the proposal that the indicative limit value for nitrogen monoxide in the workplace should be 0,2 ppm?

| 2. | Are conditions in the Member States, above all those in the various branches of industry, including in particular the different types of mining, taken into consideration when setting a limit value, even if it is only an indicative limit value? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Are conditions in the Member States, above all those in the various branches of industry, including in particular the different types of mining, taken into consideration when setting a limit value, even if it is only an indicative limit value?

| 3. | To what extent are valid epidemiological investigations used when setting an occupational exposure limit value? |
| --- | --- |

3.

To what extent are valid epidemiological investigations used when setting an occupational exposure limit value?

| 4. | What method can be used to measure nitrogen monoxide in the order of 0,2 ppm? Can this measurement method also be used underground? Which measurement method was established by the Commission as the available measurement technique, in line with Article 3(2) of the fourteenth individual directive, when it set the limit value for nitrogen monoxide? Has this method been validated? |
| --- | --- |

4.

What method can be used to measure nitrogen monoxide in the order of 0,2 ppm? Can this measurement method also be used underground? Which measurement method was established by the Commission as the available measurement technique, in line with Article 3(2) of the fourteenth individual directive, when it set the limit value for nitrogen monoxide? Has this method been validated?

| 5. | What is the justification for reducing the occupational exposure limit value for nitrogen monoxide by a factor of 125 in comparison with the present limit values in most Member States? |
| --- | --- |

5.

What is the justification for reducing the occupational exposure limit value for nitrogen monoxide by a factor of 125 in comparison with the present limit values in most Member States?

| 6. | Why has nitrogen monoxide been included in the second directive on limit values, although no occupational diseases have been found which are caused by the substance? |
| --- | --- |

6.

Why has nitrogen monoxide been included in the second directive on limit values, although no occupational diseases have been found which are caused by the substance?

| 7. | What is the composition of SCOEL? Who appoints its members, and on what criteria? |
| --- | --- |

7.

What is the composition of SCOEL? Who appoints its members, and on what criteria?

| 8. | Did those affected by the directive have an opportunity to put forward their arguments? On what grounds did the Commission reject the arguments of industry and the conclusions of the advisory committee, the SHCMOEI and the sectoral social dialogue committee on mining? |
| --- | --- |

8.

Did those affected by the directive have an opportunity to put forward their arguments? On what grounds did the Commission reject the arguments of industry and the conclusions of the advisory committee, the SHCMOEI and the sectoral social dialogue committee on mining?

Answer given by Mr Dimas on behalf of the Commission

(20 April 2004)

| 1. | Article 3(1) of Council Directive 98/24/EC (1) imposes on the Commission the obligation to ‘ ... evaluate the relationship between the health effects of hazardous chemical agents and the level of occupational exposure by means of an independent scientific assessment of the latest available scientific data’.
  This independent evaluation is performed by the Scientific Committee on Occupational Exposure Limits (SCOEL) set up for this purpose (2). The SCOEL is composed of 21 highly qualified independent experts, reflecting the full range of scientific expertise to fulfil its mandate, in particular chemistry, toxicology, epidemiology, occupational medicine and industrial hygiene, and general competence in setting occupational exposure limit values. The SCOEL performs its evaluations according to an established, approved and published methodology (EUR 19253-EN) which takes into account the availability of techniques for measurement.
  The scientific basis for the Commission proposal is the SCOEL/SUM/89 final document. This document has been published by the Commission in the series of SCOEL recommendations (3). All scientific studies and investigations that have been considered by SCOEL are listed in the references of the SCOEL document. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 3(1) of Council Directive 98/24/EC (1) imposes on the Commission the obligation to ‘ ... evaluate the relationship between the health effects of hazardous chemical agents and the level of occupational exposure by means of an independent scientific assessment of the latest available scientific data’.

This independent evaluation is performed by the Scientific Committee on Occupational Exposure Limits (SCOEL) set up for this purpose (2). The SCOEL is composed of 21 highly qualified independent experts, reflecting the full range of scientific expertise to fulfil its mandate, in particular chemistry, toxicology, epidemiology, occupational medicine and industrial hygiene, and general competence in setting occupational exposure limit values. The SCOEL performs its evaluations according to an established, approved and published methodology (EUR 19253-EN) which takes into account the availability of techniques for measurement.

The scientific basis for the Commission proposal is the SCOEL/SUM/89 final document. This document has been published by the Commission in the series of SCOEL recommendations (3). All scientific studies and investigations that have been considered by SCOEL are listed in the references of the SCOEL document.

| 2. | According to Article 3, paragraphs 1 to 3 of Council Directive 98/24/EC, Community indicative occupational exposure limit value (IOELV) are health based, non-binding values, derived from the latest available scientific data and the availability of adequate measurement techniques, which provide for any given substance the threshold level of exposure below which no detrimental health effects are expected. They are objectives to be achieved and as such are necessary for the determination and assessment of risks by the employer, in accordance with Article 4 of Council Directive 98/24/EC.
  The technical/scientific nature of IOELV's is recognised by the legislator, since the Directive provides for adoption in accordance with the adaptation to technical progress procedures. In contrast, Community binding limit values are of a political nature: they are defined not only on the basis of health effects, but also on feasibility factors, socio-economic impact and the quantum of risk that society is ready to accept. They are established by the political authority in accordance with Article 137 of the EC Treaty.
  In the case of NO the Commission is also aware of specific measurements carried out in Member States. For example, the Chemical Agents Occupational Hygiene Unit of the Technology Division of the United Kingdom Health and Safety Executive has performed a review on the use of and exposure to nitrogen monoxide and nitrogen dioxide in United Kingdom workplaces. The overall mean occupational exposure levels measured in the mining sector were found to be in the range of 0,3 parts per million (ppm) to 0,81 ppm. The Commission has not yet assessed, to what extent these results can be taken into account when reaching a decision on a new IOELV for NO. |
| --- | --- |

2.

According to Article 3, paragraphs 1 to 3 of Council Directive 98/24/EC, Community indicative occupational exposure limit value (IOELV) are health based, non-binding values, derived from the latest available scientific data and the availability of adequate measurement techniques, which provide for any given substance the threshold level of exposure below which no detrimental health effects are expected. They are objectives to be achieved and as such are necessary for the determination and assessment of risks by the employer, in accordance with Article 4 of Council Directive 98/24/EC.

The technical/scientific nature of IOELV's is recognised by the legislator, since the Directive provides for adoption in accordance with the adaptation to technical progress procedures. In contrast, Community binding limit values are of a political nature: they are defined not only on the basis of health effects, but also on feasibility factors, socio-economic impact and the quantum of risk that society is ready to accept. They are established by the political authority in accordance with Article 137 of the EC Treaty.

In the case of NO the Commission is also aware of specific measurements carried out in Member States. For example, the Chemical Agents Occupational Hygiene Unit of the Technology Division of the United Kingdom Health and Safety Executive has performed a review on the use of and exposure to nitrogen monoxide and nitrogen dioxide in United Kingdom workplaces. The overall mean occupational exposure levels measured in the mining sector were found to be in the range of 0,3 parts per million (ppm) to 0,81 ppm. The Commission has not yet assessed, to what extent these results can be taken into account when reaching a decision on a new IOELV for NO.

| 3. | All valid epidemological studies available are fully considered by SCOEL, together with all other relevant scientific data, when recommending an IOELV. In this context, and in the particular case of NO, SCOEL has considered the preliminary results of an occupational medicine study covering more than 400 miners from the potash industry, published in 1998 by the German Institute of Occupational Safety and Medicine (BAuA) and the research institute of the employers' occupational liability insurance for the mining industry (IGF) (1998 publication series BAuA A/FB 791) which reported no detectable effects on the lung's functional parameters. When this study is finalised and available, SCOEL will take it into consideration and revise, if appropriate, their recommendation. Furthermore, the Commission considers launching a 90 day rat test as offered to be financed by the concerned industry. It should improve the information currently available on scientific data during the next three years. This test will be consistent with the requirements of Directive 67/548/EEC (4). |
| --- | --- |

3.

All valid epidemological studies available are fully considered by SCOEL, together with all other relevant scientific data, when recommending an IOELV. In this context, and in the particular case of NO, SCOEL has considered the preliminary results of an occupational medicine study covering more than 400 miners from the potash industry, published in 1998 by the German Institute of Occupational Safety and Medicine (BAuA) and the research institute of the employers' occupational liability insurance for the mining industry (IGF) (1998 publication series BAuA A/FB 791) which reported no detectable effects on the lung's functional parameters. When this study is finalised and available, SCOEL will take it into consideration and revise, if appropriate, their recommendation. Furthermore, the Commission considers launching a 90 day rat test as offered to be financed by the concerned industry. It should improve the information currently available on scientific data during the next three years. This test will be consistent with the requirements of Directive 67/548/EEC (4).

| 4. | Commercial instruments for measuring NO concentrations, either outdoors or in the workplace, are available with detection limits of approximately 5 parts per billion (ppb) and response times of the order of minutes. Additionally, passive samplers for NO, often used to obtain data at a large number of sites, are available with a lower limit dosage of 0,07 ppm-h. The joint World Health Organisation-International Labour Organisation (WHO-ILO) publication ‘Environmental Health Criteria 188. — Nitrogen Oxides (Second Edition)’, produced within the framework of the International Programme on Chemical Safety (IPCS), provides a complete overview of the commercially available methodology for the analysis and sampling of NO. The draft CEN standard pr-EN 14211 ‘Ambient air quality — Measurement method for the determination of the concentration of nitrogen dioxide and nitrogen monoxide by chemiluminiscence’ and ISO 7996: 1985 Ambient air determinations of nitrogen oxides, provide harmonised measuring methodology. The Commission will further assess the practicality for workplace measurements and the conformity with the requirements of EN 482. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Commercial instruments for measuring NO concentrations, either outdoors or in the workplace, are available with detection limits of approximately 5 parts per billion (ppb) and response times of the order of minutes. Additionally, passive samplers for NO, often used to obtain data at a large number of sites, are available with a lower limit dosage of 0,07 ppm-h. The joint World Health Organisation-International Labour Organisation (WHO-ILO) publication ‘Environmental Health Criteria 188. — Nitrogen Oxides (Second Edition)’, produced within the framework of the International Programme on Chemical Safety (IPCS), provides a complete overview of the commercially available methodology for the analysis and sampling of NO. The draft CEN standard pr-EN 14211 ‘Ambient air quality — Measurement method for the determination of the concentration of nitrogen dioxide and nitrogen monoxide by chemiluminiscence’ and ISO 7996: 1985 Ambient air determinations of nitrogen oxides, provide harmonised measuring methodology. The Commission will further assess the practicality for workplace measurements and the conformity with the requirements of EN 482.

| 5. | The existing IOELV, of 25 ppm, for nitrogen monoxide was established in 1991 (5). Since then, new scientific data, including one animal study carried out in 1995, have become available and were interpreted as indicating lung damage at exposures as low as 0,5 ppm, though these results have been evaluated by SCOEL as somewhat inconsistent and the genotoxic potential of NO in vivo as remaining uncertain. |
| --- | --- |

5.

The existing IOELV, of 25 ppm, for nitrogen monoxide was established in 1991 (5). Since then, new scientific data, including one animal study carried out in 1995, have become available and were interpreted as indicating lung damage at exposures as low as 0,5 ppm, though these results have been evaluated by SCOEL as somewhat inconsistent and the genotoxic potential of NO in vivo as remaining uncertain.

| 6. | Directive 98/24/EC imposes the obligation on the Commission to establish indicative exposure limit values, when it has in its possession all the elements allowing it. |
| --- | --- |

6.

Directive 98/24/EC imposes the obligation on the Commission to establish indicative exposure limit values, when it has in its possession all the elements allowing it.

| 7. | The SCOEL composition, together with the rules of appointment and its tasks are included in the Commission Decision of 12 July 1995 mentioned above. |
| --- | --- |

7.

The SCOEL composition, together with the rules of appointment and its tasks are included in the Commission Decision of 12 July 1995 mentioned above.

| 8. | According to the procedure followed by SCOEL, the draft Recommendation for NO has been sent out to the contact points including industrial associations for a six month period for comments. All the comments received have been carefully considered and the text of the draft recommendation has been changed accordingly.
  Furthermore, the Commission submitted the revised recommendation to the tripartite Advisory Committee and the Safety and Health Commission for the Mining and other Extractive Industries (SHCMOEI) for an opinion. The Commission is still evaluating their comments. |
| --- | --- |

8.

According to the procedure followed by SCOEL, the draft Recommendation for NO has been sent out to the contact points including industrial associations for a six month period for comments. All the comments received have been carefully considered and the text of the draft recommendation has been changed accordingly.

Furthermore, the Commission submitted the revised recommendation to the tripartite Advisory Committee and the Safety and Health Commission for the Mining and other Extractive Industries (SHCMOEI) for an opinion. The Commission is still evaluating their comments.

---

(1)  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 (fourteenth individual Directive within the meaning of Article 16(1) of Directive 89/391/EEC), OJ L 131, 5.5.1998.

(2)  95/320/EC: Commission Decision 95/320/EC of 12 July 1995 setting up a Scientific Committee for Occupational Exposure Limits to Chemical Agents, OJ L 188, 9.8.1995.

(3)  http://europa.eu.int/comm/employment_social/health_safety/publicat/sum_89_nitrogen_monoxide.pdf

http://europa.eu.int/comm/employment_social/health_safety/publicat/sum_89_nitrogen_monoxide.pdf

(4)  Council Directive 67/548/EEC of 27 June 1967 on the approximation of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the classification, packaging and labelling of dangerous substances, OJ P 196, 6.8.1967.

(5)  Commission Directive 91/322/EEC of 29 May 1991 on establishing indicative limit values by implementing Council Directive 80/1107/EEC on the protection of workers from the risks related to exposure to chemical, physical and biological agents at work, OJ L 177, 5.7.1991.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/179 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/179

---

(2004/C 88 E/0187)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0382/04

by Stavros Xarchakos (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(12 February 2004)

Subject:   Free movement between Greece and the rest of the EU

Articles 14 and 18 of the EC Treaty safeguard free movement within the single market. As is clear from the remarks of the Advocate General Mr G. Cosmas in case C-378/97, the provisions of these two articles of the Treaty are not identical at the semantic level, but mutually complementary.

In view of this, it is difficult to understand why Greece continues to view as smuggling the circulation in Greece of a car driven by an EU citizen who is a permanent resident of another EU Member State, where he has lawfully bought a car for private use with number-plates of the Member State in which he has chosen to live. In international law the car is a piece of moveable property whose legal status is subject to the laws of the place where it has been registered by being entered in the records, as is also the case with other categories of means of transport. In spite of this, very often vehicles with Community number-plates are held in Greece, their owners are imprisoned and fines are also imposed on them. The owners of cars with Community number-plates argue that the immediate seizure of a vehicle in Greece is inconsistent with the wording of Article 129(5) of the new Greek Customs Code, which stipulates that Community vehicles may — before the registration tax owed has been ascertained — be sent back to the other Member States of the European Union or imported into non-EU countries. In this case, a motorist may not take his private car to another Member State outside Greece, since the Greek public authority will already have taken steps to confiscate it.

In the Commission's opinion, is Greece is contravening Articles 14 and 18 of the Treaty, with the result that private cars with Community number-plates are being seized and Community citizens who use them inside Greece are being imprisoned? Could these citizens perhaps claim damages, on the basis of Community legislation, since they have very clearly suffered injury as a result of this practice by the Greek authorities? Can an EU citizen have different residences in different EU Member States and be able to travel freely from one to the other, without continually having to make calculations concerning how many days he has been in one EU Member State and how many in the other? What is the view of the Commission on the creation of a Community licence-plate which would be mutually recognised by all the Member States, as is already the case, for example, with the Community driving licence, which (under Directive 91/439/EEC (1)) is valid in all the Member States?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(26 April 2004)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to his previous Written Question No E-3819/03 (2) concerning the importation into Greece of motor vehicles by EU citizens, in particular Greek nationals, residing in another Member State.

In its judgments, the European Court of Justice has recognised the principle that a State is liable where there is a breach of Community law and must provide reparation irrespective of the state agency whose act or omission has led to the infringement (see, for example, the judgments of 19 November 1991 in Joined Cases C-6/90 and C-9/90 Francovich and of 5 March 1996 in Joined Cases C-46/93 and C-48/93 Brasserie du Pêcheur).

Citizens of the European Union who respect the conditions laid down by Community law may move freely in Member States and are free to choose a residence there. Community law does not prevent them having several residences in different Member States.

Although, in principle, it is possible to introduce a single European number plate, a number of conditions would have to be met first, e.g. harmonisation of the different rules on tax and vehicle inspections and the establishment of the necessary links between the registration authorities and the police with a view to combating crime and enforcing road-traffic rules. These conditions have not been met and the Commission does not intend to introduce a proposal to that effect. However, at the end of 2003 it presented a proposal for a regulation (3) intended to provide access to certain data in the Schengen Information System for the authorities responsible for registering vehicles. This proposal continues the policy that was developed by Council Directive 1999/37/EC of 29 April on the registration documents for vehicles (4).

Moreover, having regard to the judgment of the European Court of Justice in Case C-262/99 and to the Greek authorities' maintenance of their practices, on 25 March 2004 the Commission initiated proceedings against Greece before the Court for continuing to impose disproportionate sanctions, e.g. in cases where persons presumed to be permanently resident in Greece are alleged to be smuggling, so that it is infringing Article 90 of the EC Treaty and Council Directive 83/182/EEC of 28 March 1983 on tax exemptions within the Community for certain means of transport temporarily imported into one Member State from another (5), which rule out the imposition of additional registration charges on temporarily imported vehicles.

---

(1)  OJ L 237, 24.8.1991, p. 1.

(2)  See page 156.

(3)  COM(2003) 510 final.

(4)  OJ L 138, 1.6.1999.

(5)  OJ L 105, 23.4.1983.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/181 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/181

---

(2004/C 88 E/0188)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0384/04

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(12 February 2004)

Subject:   Ansaldo-Breda: infringement of laws protecting workers from exposure to asbestos

Ansaldo-Breda is an Italian rolling stock manufacturer. From 1987 to 1991, work was carried out at its plant in Pistoia to replace the Eternit covering on the roof, to bring the workplace into line with European health and safety legislation.

These works were carried out without interrupting the normal production process, issuing the workforce with protective equipment or informing them of the real risk of exposure to asbestos dust. Employees report that, at the time these works took place, they were obliged to clean the workbenches every day with compressed air jets, thus recirculating the asbestos dust that had fallen from the roof covering.

This has resulted in recent years in a mortality rate for mesothelioma, a rare form of cancer caused by exposure to asbestos, that is much higher than the national average. Consequently, the Pistoia employees concerned have obtained recognition that they are suffering from an industrial disease and are entitled, under Italian law 257/92, to receive various pensions, allowances and other benefits, although only in respect of the period up to 1990.

In actual fact, however, some renovation work was carried out after 1991 and is still in progress, although there is no provision for the employees who are still going about their business at the plant to receive comparable compensation for the period from 1991 to the present.

The Italian judiciary is inquiring into this question, and it appears from their investigation that the local health authority has checked levels of exposure to asbestos and considers them to be acceptable at present; this finding would seem to be at odds, however, with the fact that twenty employees have died from mesothelioma in recent years.

In view of the European Union's commitment to protecting the health and safety of workers, as shown in Parliament's resolution of 23 October 2002 on a new Community strategy on health and safety at work (2002-2006) (1) and the Council's decision of 22 July 2003 setting up a European committee to monitor workers' health (2):

| 1. | Does the Commission consider that Article 137 of the EC Treaty, and more specifically Directive 83/477/EEC (3), transposed in Legislative Decree 277/91, have been infringed? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Does the Commission consider that Article 137 of the EC Treaty, and more specifically Directive 83/477/EEC (3), transposed in Legislative Decree 277/91, have been infringed?

| 2. | Does the Commission consider that Directive 2003/18/EC (4) has been infringed? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Does the Commission consider that Directive 2003/18/EC (4) has been infringed?

| 3. | Is the Commission aware of the works the firm has carried out to remove the asbestos, and can it state how long those works took, whether the work is still in progress, whether the work was carried out in safe conditions and whether the employees have received adequate information about them? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Is the Commission aware of the works the firm has carried out to remove the asbestos, and can it state how long those works took, whether the work is still in progress, whether the work was carried out in safe conditions and whether the employees have received adequate information about them?

| 4. | Is the local health authority properly monitoring compliance with European legislation on safety at workplaces where asbestos is present? |
| --- | --- |

4.

Is the local health authority properly monitoring compliance with European legislation on safety at workplaces where asbestos is present?

| 5. | What action can be taken to obtain recognition of employees' right to compensation in respect of the period following the period in respect of which such recognition has already been obtained? |
| --- | --- |

5.

What action can be taken to obtain recognition of employees' right to compensation in respect of the period following the period in respect of which such recognition has already been obtained?

Answer given by Mr Dimas on behalf of the Commission

(19 April 2004)

The exposure of workers to asbestos is currently governed by Council Directive 83/477/EEC of 19 September 1983 on the protection of workers from the risks related to exposure to asbestos at work. The aim of the Directive is the protection of workers against risks to their health, including the prevention of such risks, arising or likely to arise from exposure to asbestos at work. It lays down limit values and other specific requirements. The Directive does not prejudice the right of Member States to apply or introduce laws, regulations or administrative provisions ensuring greater protection for workers.

It is the responsibility of each Member State to transpose and implement the Directive. The Italian national authorities are primarily responsible for ensuring that directives are correctly applied and for making provision in national law for administrative and judicial redress. However, if there is substantive evidence to show that national legislation transposing Community directives is not being applied, the Commission, as guardian of the EC Treaty, could invoke the provisions of the Treaty, in particular Article 226.

Italy has informed the Commission of the measures it has taken to transpose Directive 83/477/EEC.

The information provided by the Honourable Member relates to the implementation of Italian legislation to transpose the Directive. The national authorities are solely responsible for monitoring its application, and it is up to the Member States to see to it that these authorities fulfil their duties by carrying out effective checks to ensure that national legislation is being applied correctly. The Commission does not have the appropriate information to assess the actions of the Italian authority in question in this case.

Directive 2003/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 March 2003 amending Council Directive 83/477/EEC constitutes an important step forward in the protection of workers exposed to asbestos, as it contains stricter requirements with a view to improved prevention.

However, as the deadline for transposal of this Directive in the Member States is in April 2006, it cannot yet be established that there has been an infringement. As indicated in point 1, the case mentioned by the Honourable Member relates to the application of Italian legislation.

The Commission has not received any official information from the national authorities concerning the case mentioned in the written question. The Commission therefore plans to ask the Italian authorities for specific information concerning the situation described by the Honourable Member.

The national authorities are solely responsible for matters relating to recognition of and compensation for occupational diseases. At Community level there is the Commission Recommendation of 19 September 2003 concerning the European schedule of occupational diseases (5), which is addressed to Member States and includes certain illnesses caused by asbestos. However, this Recommendation is not binding, and Member States continue to have sole jurisdiction in this area.

---

(1)  OJ C 300 E, 11.12.2003, p. 290.

(2)  OJ C 218, 13.9.2003, p. 1.

(3)  OJ L 263, 24.9.1983, p. 25.

(4)  OJ L 97, 15.4.2003, p. 48.

(5)  OJ L 238, 25.9.2003.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/183 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/183

---

(2004/C 88 E/0189)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0411/04

by Charles Tannock (PPE-DE) and John Bowis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(17 February 2004)

Subject:   Persecution of the Ahmadiyya Muslim community in Bangladesh

Mindful of the amendment of the 2003 Human Rights Report concerning the Pakistani governments inaction over the persecution of Ahmadi Muslims in that country, the Parliament called on the Pakistani government to prevent any further persecution of this minority in the future.

In light of this 2003 Human Rights Report amendment, is the Commission aware that the government of Bangladesh has similarly been appeasing extreme religious groups, who have initiated a campaign of persecution against the Ahmadi Muslim community?

If so, what action will the Commission take to prevent a repetition of what happened in Pakistan in 1974 (i.e. bowing to the demands of fanatical groups resulting in over three decades of sustained persecution and murder of the Ahmadi Muslims and destruction of mosques) from occurring in Bangladesh today?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(12 March 2004)

Both the Commission and the Member States are very concerned by the deteriorating human rights situation of minorities in Bangladesh, including the Ahmadia Muslims. Following the attacks on the Ahmadia Muslim community at the end of 2003, a local EU Troika called on the Government on 23 December 2003 to express the EU's concerns regarding the violation of minority rights.

As the promotion of democratic principles and the respect for human rights constitute essential elements of the Commission's relations with the country, it intends to raise the issue at the next Commission-Bangladesh Joint Commission Subgroup meeting, tentatively scheduled in May 2004. Such meetings provide a formal platform for a structured dialogue on Human Rights and Governance issues. Furthermore, the Commission expects the international donor community to voice its concerns at the next annual Bangladesh Development Forum, also to be held in May 2004.

The Commission also plans to increase its support to specific human rights and governance activities in 2005 and 2006, in the framework of the review of the National Indicative Programme for Bangladesh. At the same time, it continues to monitor very closely the human rights situation through its Delegation in Dhaka.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/183 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/183

---

(2004/C 88 E/0190)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0413/04

by Charles Tannock (PPE-DE) and Theresa Villiers (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(17 February 2004)

Subject:   Migrating birds and Habitat Directives with regard to the republic of Malta

In May of this year Malta will be joining the European Union. It is alleged that Malta is making little effort to enforce the EU Bird and Habitat directives. The bi-annual slaughter of exhausted migrating birds of prey continues unabated.

Will the Commission join Parliament in condemning Malta for its stance on this important issue and take effective action to ensure that the Maltese authorities fulfil their obligations in the area of nature protection and animal welfare?

This issue is especially important, as next year is the 25th anniversary of the Bird and Habitat Directives which many individuals, organisations, agencies and governments have fought to introduce and implement.

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(12 March 2004)

Malta will be required to implement and enforce the Wild Birds Directive as from its accession on 1 May 2004, with the exception of the transition period granted for the trapping of seven species of finches until 31 December 2008 to allow Malta to establish a full captive breeding system. If Community legislation is not implemented and enforced from the first day of membership, the Commission will take the necessary action to achieve Malta's compliance with existing Community legislation and procedures.

In the meantime, the Commission has already specifically drawn the attention of the Maltese authorities to the problem of weak enforcement of the existing legislation on the protection of birds. While the Maltese Ornis Committee (Committee in charge of bird protection) has taken steps such as the establishment of a warden system, to better enforce the legislation, the Commission has pointed out that priority should be given to produce a comprehensive strategy for the enforcement of legislation. The Commission continues to monitor and report on the progress made by Malta in working towards compliance with obligations stemming from the Birds Directive, and has published a strategy for monitoring the process leading up to the first day of membership.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/184 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/184

---

(2004/C 88 E/0191)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0419/04

by Anna Karamanou (PSE) to the Commission

(17 February 2004)

Subject:   Bride burning in Pakistan

Fresh reports have emerged about the continuation of the hideous practice of bride burning in Pakistan, India and Bangladesh. This is a form of violence within the family in which women are burned by their own husbands or parents-in-law for reasons ranging from financial disagreements to the drunkenness of the husband. The perpetrators of this crime pour kerosene over the women and set them alight; alternatively, they simply throw acid at them. The official explanation is that the woman suffered an accident while cooking. In any case, the victim usually dies as a result, either directly or subsequently due to inadequate treatment. Because women are intimidated, charges are only brought rarely.

What action does the Commission intend to take to persuade the governments of Pakistan, India and Bangladesh to overcome their indifference and lack of political will so that they combat misogyny and ensure that those guilty of bride burning are punished in an exemplary fashion?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(23 March 2004)

The Commission is aware of this practice in the three countries mentioned by the Honourable Member.

Burning attacks, and more specifically acid attacks, are one of the multiple forms of violence against women in Pakistan. According to the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan, 55 cases were registered in 2000, 63 in 2001 and 88 in 2002. The fact that these cases are increasingly reported by the media has forced the authorities to acknowledge the existence of the problem. However, this may also have had the unintended effect of spreading the idea of such practices.

The matter is complex as honour killings are rooted in arcane traditions prevalent in some of the most remote areas of Pakistan. There is also often confusion between Islamic injunctions and tribal traditions. In Pakistan manslaughter offences fall into the private sphere which means that no action can be taken by the State if the victim and/or his/her family does not file a case. This situation has favoured the practice of pressuring or paying the victim or even the police not to file a case, leaving many offenders free and distorting the normal process of justice.

Tackling the problem efficiently would require a revision of the Penal Code, appropriate training of the police and a massive awareness campaign. Some positive steps have been noticed in the past six months with a new open debate within the Government and the Parliament on domestic violence, honour killings and the specific problem of acid attacks. The Provincial Assemblies have adopted resolutions on those matters and President Musharraf himself took a stand on a specific case. But a lot more needs to be done to arrive at a system where the victims are protected from undue pressure.

The EU has repeatedly addressed the problem of violence against women in various diplomatic démarches to the Pakistani Ministry of Law, Justice and Human Rights. Moreover, it is envisaged to specifically mention the increasing number of acid attacks during a new EU diplomatic démarche which will take place during the coming weeks.

In addition, the Delegation of the Commission in Pakistan launched, at the end of 2003, a first call for proposals under the European Initiative for Democracy and Human Rights programme to fund micro-projects addressing violence against women. As a result of this initiative, it is expected that 12 projects run by local non-governmental organisations (NGOs) will be financed across the country to address various forms of domestic violence. Possible activities include awareness campaigns, provision of legal and medical assistance to victims, as well as the involvement and education of local authorities.

As in Pakistan, bride burning and acid throwing in Bangladesh is often related to dowry problems or marriage refusal. The present Bangladesh National Party (BNP) led Government has shown special determination in combating this particularly vicious form of criminality, which according to the Acid Survivors' Foundation, doubled in 2002 to over 350 declared attacks. The Parliament endorsed a law in March 2003 to combat the menace of acid attacks and now sanctions the most horrendous occurrences with capital punishment.

The Commission has addressed the issue through the European Initiative for Democracy and Human Rights by supporting victims of violence and promoting the empowerment of vulnerable women and children. At the same time the Commission plans to increment its support to specific human rights activities in 2005 and 2006, in the framework of the review of the National Indicative Programme for Bangladesh. This may include support to a United Nations International Children's Emergency Fund (Unicef) programme benefiting vulnerable youths and notably also potential victims of acid throwing. The topic has also been raised in the framework of the Commission's formal dialogue with the Government on Human Rights and Governance issues.

In India, bride burning occurs if the bride or her family are unable to meet the ever-increasing dowry demands made by the husband and his family. Bride burning should be seen in the larger context of women's subordinate position in Indian society.

Through its development programmes in the social sectors of health and education, the Commission aims to contribute to the empowerment of women in India. The Commission has ongoing commitments of nearly half a billion EUR for sector programmes in Reproductive Health, where women are the major beneficiaries, and Elementary Education, with special emphasis on districts with low female literacy.

The Commission has also funded numerous civil society and NGO programmes in India that directly deal with gender issues. One example is the establishment of a Training Institute for Women's Empowerment that was created in New Delhi with Community funds. This Institute has provided, among other things, gender training for Indian police officers, which should help raise awareness on a wide range of issues, including bride burning.

In all three countries the Commission, through its development cooperation, lays priority on improving access to and enhancing the quality of basic education, which in the medium-term should lead to changes in attitude.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/186 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/186

---

(2004/C 88 E/0192)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0429/04

by John Bowis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(17 February 2004)

Subject:   The case of Rev. Rinaldy Damanik, Indonesia

Is the Commission aware that the Rev. Rinaldy Damanik was sentenced to three years' imprisonment for possessing illegal weapons, in what is alleged to be a politically motivated trial? The Palu High Court has since upheld the verdict of the State Court and Rev. Damanik's lawyers are now preparing an appeal to the Supreme Court in Jakarta.

As the head of the Crisis Centre in Central Sulawesi, he was responsible for keeping the international community informed about human rights violations against Christian and Muslim communities and providing practical assistance to the many internally displaced persons, including the evacuation of Christians under attack from militants.

Will the Commission enquire into his welfare and the process that led to his arrest and trial?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(12 March 2004)

The Commission is closely following the case of Reverend Damanik, whose sentence to three years imprisonment for illegal possession of weapons has been confirmed by the Supreme Court at the end of 2003. Since Reverend Damanik has already spent one-and-a-half years in prison, there is a possibility of an earlier release.

The Commission Delegation in Jakarta was in contact with the association that was assisting Reverend Damanik, PBHI. This group will not be able to do so any more (after the sentence of the highest court) but another human rights non-governmental organisation, linked to the Indonesian Church, has taken over the assistance to Reverend Damanik. The Delegation has contacted them and was informed that they are assessing the feasibility of starting a new case, by bringing up new evidence/witnesses.

The Commission can assure the Honourable Member that, through its Delegation in Jakarta, it is closely monitoring the case. Moreover, support to organisations defending minority rights in Indonesia is part of the Community's co-operation programme with the country, in particular through projects supported under the European Initiative for Democracy and Human Rights.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/186 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/186

---

(2004/C 88 E/0193)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0465/04

by José Ribeiro e Castro (UEN) to the Commission

(23 February 2004)

Subject:   Establishing the ‘Made in EU’ label

Various recent media reports indicate that the Commission is preparing a proposal for a ‘Made in EU’ label, and the consequent abolition of national labels.

Their reports claim that the idea came from Italy, in response to the enormous harm suffered by the European textile industry as a result of imitations made in developing countries, but that it has now swelled to embrace the general problem of the labelling of all products manufactured within the Union.

Can the Commission answer the following:

| — | is there any truth in these reports? |
| --- | --- |

—

is there any truth in these reports?

| — | is the Commission going to put forward some proposal in this field, embodying this or other ideas? |
| --- | --- |

—

is the Commission going to put forward some proposal in this field, embodying this or other ideas?

| — | if the reports are correct, what does the Commission think are the advantages and disadvantages of establishing a ‘Made in EU’ label, to the detriment of nationally-based labels? What kind of studies did the Commission use to arrive at these findings on advantages and disadvantages? |
| --- | --- |

—

if the reports are correct, what does the Commission think are the advantages and disadvantages of establishing a ‘Made in EU’ label, to the detriment of nationally-based labels? What kind of studies did the Commission use to arrive at these findings on advantages and disadvantages?

| — | what are the forecast additional costs that such a measure would involve? Does the Commission not think that eliminating any reference to national origin in labelling could in fact prejudice the competitiveness of many European products, whose market edge is provided precisely by the fact that they come from a specific Member State? |
| --- | --- |

—

what are the forecast additional costs that such a measure would involve? Does the Commission not think that eliminating any reference to national origin in labelling could in fact prejudice the competitiveness of many European products, whose market edge is provided precisely by the fact that they come from a specific Member State?

Answer given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(11 March 2004)

In the light of renewed interest shown by some industry sectors and Member States in the development of an EC regulation on origin marking, the Commission opted to prepare a working document submitted to the 133 Committee 19 December 2003 setting out the implications of such a scheme, in order to launch the debate (1).

The document indicates the options to be considered, in case it would be appropriate to change the status quo on this matter and implement an EC regime:

| — | the option of origin marking both for imports and domestic market products on a purely voluntary basis; |
| --- | --- |

—

the option of origin marking both for imports and domestic market products on a purely voluntary basis;

| — | the approach of a mixed system with a compulsory origin marking for imports and a voluntary scheme for domestic products; |
| --- | --- |

—

the approach of a mixed system with a compulsory origin marking for imports and a voluntary scheme for domestic products;

| — | and the third option of a compulsory origin marking both for imports and for domestic products. |
| --- | --- |

—

and the third option of a compulsory origin marking both for imports and for domestic products.

The paper also gives an overview on the pros and cons of an EC regulation on origin marking, namely, the improvement of consumer information, the reduction of consumer fraud and deceptive practices, the strengthening of the concept of European origin as a mark of quality, or the reinforcement of the visibility of the EC as a single market — which should be weighed against the potential additional costs for producers and administrations, practical difficulties in implementing such a scheme, the necessity and effectiveness of a new set of rules, etc.

The document does not specifically address the question of national origin marks (i.e. Made in Portugal) and it is worth underlining that no proposal has been made to question the continued use of them. It does not cover geographical indications (i.e. Made in the Algarve) more related to Intellectual Property Rights.

The Commission is not at this stage presenting any concrete proposals. It is for all interested parties at the national and EU level to determine their interests in the issue of developing an EC regulation on origin marking, including the value added of implementing a ‘made in the EU’ origin claim and, if they favour change, the nature and scope of any possible regulation.

The Commission has already contacted different representatives of the industry and consumers and is receiving their comments and suggestions. Member States have been invited to consult domestically on the subject.

---

(1)  See http://trade-info.cec.eu.int/doclib/html/115557.htm

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/188 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/188

---

(2004/C 88 E/0194)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0501/04

by Jorge Hernández Mollar (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(23 February 2004)

Subject:   Measures to tackle the Ulysses syndrome

The psychological upheavals which immigrants are more and more prone to, due to the very difficult obstacle course they have to run in their search for a better life, constitute an emergent health problem in societies where there are large numbers of immigrants.

The Ulysses syndrome, or the syndrome of immigrants suffering from chronic or multiple stress, is unleashed by a series of blows involving the individual's loss of such existentially important points of reference as family and friends, native culture and land, social position and physical safety.

Is the Commission aware of the existence of this phenomenon, its seriousness and its importance, and does it therefore intend to put forward legislative measures to tackle it?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(28 April 2004)

The Commission is aware that immigrants may suffer from health problems, from chronic or multiple stress due to loss of reference points such as family and friends, native culture and land, social position.

The Commission drew attention to this issue in its Communication on immigration, integration and employment (1) and urged Member States to develop comprehensive integration policies at national level, which take into account the integration of immigrants into all aspects of life including ensuring appropriate health care and access to social services. The Commission also highlighted the need for mainstreaming specific migration and integration concerns into all policy fields at the European level, including Community health policies. In this respect the Commission has financed a project under the former Health Monitoring Programme on ‘Monitoring and reporting of socio-economic differences in health indicators in the EU’, one of whose outcomes was a specific report on ‘Health inequalities in Europe and the situation of disadvantaged groups’. This report commented on the specific situation of migrants.

As regards the question of putting forward EU legislation to tackle this phenomenon, it should be recalled that ensuring proper health care and tackling specific health problems of immigrants, remain the responsibility of the Member States. The Commission does not, therefore, intend to propose specific legislation in this field.

---

(1)  COM(2003) 336 final.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/188 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/188

---

(2004/C 88 E/0195)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0510/04

by Sérgio Marques (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(24 February 2004)

Subject:   Stage reached in the implementation of aid to Venezuela

Following the tragic floods which occurred in Venezuela in December 1999, the Commission allocated substantial sums of money to support reconstruction in the affected areas (including the state of Vargas) and to support risk prevention (i.e. devising and implementing programmes designed to enable natural risks to be managed in a huge area adjacent to the one affected by the 1999 floods in the states of Falcón, Miranda and Yaracuy).

Unfortunately, in spite of the money allocated by the Commission, implementation of the projects concerned has been repeatedly postponed.

According to information provided by the Commission itself in September 2003, the start of the joint implementation by Corpovargas (a body responsible for rehabilitating and developing the state of Vargas) of the two projects to be implemented in the state of Vargas (‘Support for reconstruction and the prevention of disasters in the stage of Vargas’ and ‘Social reconstruction in the state of Vargas’) is dependent upon the arrival in Venezuela of two European technical-assistants experts. The financing agreements have already been signed by the Venezuelan Government.

As regards the project which is concerned with preventing flooding in the states of Falcón, Yaracuy and Miranda, the Commission stated in September 2003 that the technical annexes to the financing agreement (which was due to be signed by the Commission and the Venezuelan Government by 31 December 2003) had still to be concluded.

In view of the above, would the Commission answer the following questions?

| 1. | What stage has been reached in the implementation of the projects relating to the state of Vargas? |
| --- | --- |

1.

What stage has been reached in the implementation of the projects relating to the state of Vargas?

| 2. | Has the Venezuelan Government taken a decision regarding the body which is to oversee the project concerned with preventing floods in the states of Falcón, Yaracuy and Miranda? When is the financing agreement relating to that project to be signed by the Commission and the Venezuelan Government and subsequently implemented? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Has the Venezuelan Government taken a decision regarding the body which is to oversee the project concerned with preventing floods in the states of Falcón, Yaracuy and Miranda? When is the financing agreement relating to that project to be signed by the Commission and the Venezuelan Government and subsequently implemented?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(13 April 2004)

The project entitled ‘Support for reconstruction and the prevention of disasters in the State of Vargas’ officially started on 1 September 2003 when two European experts joined the project management unit (Corpovargas). These experts had been engaged for a period of six months to help get the project under way and advise the management body in drawing up provisional and annual operational plans for 2004. They also made an active contribution to drawing up the dossier for the first international call for tender (EuropeAid/117572/D/W/VE) for a works contract amounting to some EUR 10 million.

The provisional operational plan, totalling EUR 382 450, was approved on 14 November 2003 although implementation of the first payments had already begun. The long-term international technical assistance team took up its duties in February this year.

The Commission would point out that, despite its repeated calls, its national counterpart has not made any contribution to the project's implementation, and consequently no local technical assistants have yet been engaged and the project's timetable may have to be altered.

The financing agreement for the prevention of flooding in the States of Falcon, Yaracuy and Mirador came into force on 29 December 2003 after being signed by the Venezuelan Minister for Foreign Affairs. This agreement defines the responsibilities and duties of the Office of the Deputy Minister for Planning and Development, which is the official authority and management body for the project. A delegation agreement between the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Ministry of Planning and Development is being signed.

The invitation to tender for the international assistance contract has been concluded, the evaluation committee has given its conclusions and the contract is now being awarded.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/190 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/190

---

(2004/C 88 E/0196)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0517/04

by Antonios Trakatellis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(24 February 2004)

Subject:   Release of toxic waste by a fire at an industrial plant in Thessaloniki and non-compliance by Greece with ECJ judgment on hazardous waste

The explosion in a provisional storage area of 210 tonnes of toxic waste produced by the former ‘DIANA’ industrial plant in Thessaloniki caused a fire which led to the release of large amounts of toxic substances into the atmosphere and the environment, endangering public health. Environmental organisations have condemned the provisional storage of some 1 000 tonnes of dangerous pesticides in disused and run-down facilities belonging to the company in question. Repeated questions tabled by the author of the present question concerning the uncontrolled disposal of hazardous waste (P-2724/03 (1) and E-3216/03 (2)) have revealed that the whereabouts of the 230 000 tonnes of hazardous waste which are provisionally stored out of 390 000 tonnes produced annually in Greece are unknown. This is in breach of Community legislation (Directive 91/689/EEC (3) on hazardous waste, as amended by Directive 94/31/EC (4)). In view of the above, will the Commission say:

| 1. | Which immediate measures can be taken to protect public health and the environment and to identify the final disposal or utilisation sites of the 230 000 tonnes of hazardous waste produced annually which are kept in provisional storage and constitute a time bomb for public health and the environment? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Which immediate measures can be taken to protect public health and the environment and to identify the final disposal or utilisation sites of the 230 000 tonnes of hazardous waste produced annually which are kept in provisional storage and constitute a time bomb for public health and the environment?

| 2. | What measures has it taken or does it intend to take to ensure compliance with the Community provisions concerning the safe storage, monitoring and identification of toxic substances and waste in Greece? |
| --- | --- |

2.

What measures has it taken or does it intend to take to ensure compliance with the Community provisions concerning the safe storage, monitoring and identification of toxic substances and waste in Greece?

| 3. | How can environmental dumping and environmental pollution be discouraged through the effective implementation of Community legislation to the production activities carried out in Greece? |
| --- | --- |

3.

How can environmental dumping and environmental pollution be discouraged through the effective implementation of Community legislation to the production activities carried out in Greece?

| 4. | What stage has been reached in the procedure concerning the imposition of a fine on Greece for non-compliance with the ECJ judgment of 13 June 2002 (C-33/01), and what does it propose that the ECJ should do? |
| --- | --- |

4.

What stage has been reached in the procedure concerning the imposition of a fine on Greece for non-compliance with the ECJ judgment of 13 June 2002 (C-33/01), and what does it propose that the ECJ should do?

Answer given by Mr Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(6 April 2004)

Further to the replies to the Honourable Member's Written Questions E-2645/02 (5), P-2724/03, E-3216/03 and E-2025/03 by Mr Papayannakis (6), 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, the competent national authorities issue permits for temporary storage and apply constant state control to ensure that public health and the environment are protected. |
| --- | --- |

1.

According to the information provided by the Greek authorities, the competent national authorities issue permits for temporary storage and apply constant state control to ensure that public health and the environment are protected.

| 2. and 4. | The Commission holds no information on the precise location of the sites where the 230 000 tonnes of hazardous waste are temporarily stored. This is why an infringement procedure has been initiated. Following the Court judgment of 13 June 2002 (7), the Commission has received incomplete information about the measures taken by Greece to comply with the judgment. Consequently, the Commission took the view that Greece had 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. The reply of the Greek authorities to the letter of formal notice is under assessment. If it is established that Greece has not complied with the above-mentioned Court judgment, the Commission will not hesitate to issue a reasoned opinion under Article 228(2) of the EC Treaty.
  Regarding action taken by the Commission to ensure that Greece complies with Community legislation on waste, it must be recalled that the Court (8) recently declared that Greece had failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 4(1) and 11 of Council Directive 96/59/EC of 16 September 1996 on the disposal of polychlorinated biphenyls and polychlorinated terphenyls (PCB/PCT) (9). In addition, Greece has been referred to the Court of Justice (case C-163/03) over its failure to put in place an adequate plan for the management of hazardous waste in the region of Thriassio Pedio (Prefecture of Attiki). The referral also relates to its failure to avoid the pollution of groundwater by hazardous waste.
  The Commission will continue investigating any information, which gives sufficient reason to assume that Greece does not properly apply Community legislation on waste. |
| --- | --- |

2. and 4.

The Commission holds no information on the precise location of the sites where the 230 000 tonnes of hazardous waste are temporarily stored. This is why an infringement procedure has been initiated. Following the Court judgment of 13 June 2002 (7), the Commission has received incomplete information about the measures taken by Greece to comply with the judgment. Consequently, the Commission took the view that Greece had 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. The reply of the Greek authorities to the letter of formal notice is under assessment. If it is established that Greece has not complied with the above-mentioned Court judgment, the Commission will not hesitate to issue a reasoned opinion under Article 228(2) of the EC Treaty.

Regarding action taken by the Commission to ensure that Greece complies with Community legislation on waste, it must be recalled that the Court (8) recently declared that Greece had failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 4(1) and 11 of Council Directive 96/59/EC of 16 September 1996 on the disposal of polychlorinated biphenyls and polychlorinated terphenyls (PCB/PCT) (9). In addition, Greece has been referred to the Court of Justice (case C-163/03) over its failure to put in place an adequate plan for the management of hazardous waste in the region of Thriassio Pedio (Prefecture of Attiki). The referral also relates to its failure to avoid the pollution of groundwater by hazardous waste.

The Commission will continue investigating any information, which gives sufficient reason to assume that Greece does not properly apply Community legislation on waste.

| 3. | An effective implementation of Community legislation on waste is, of itself, a guarantee of a high level of environmental protection. Even if the Commission is responsible for monitoring the application of Community law, the implementation of Community legislation falls primarily within the competencies of the Member States. The Commission supports this process carrying out regular meetings with national authorities and other stakeholders as well as answering their technical and legal requests. In addition, Member States can make use of the many financial instruments and resources available to comply with their obligations under Community legislation on waste. |
| --- | --- |

3.

An effective implementation of Community legislation on waste is, of itself, a guarantee of a high level of environmental protection. Even if the Commission is responsible for monitoring the application of Community law, the implementation of Community legislation falls primarily within the competencies of the Member States. The Commission supports this process carrying out regular meetings with national authorities and other stakeholders as well as answering their technical and legal requests. In addition, Member States can make use of the many financial instruments and resources available to comply with their obligations under Community legislation on waste.

---

(1)  OJ C 70 E, 20.3.2004, p. 132.

(2)  OJ C 78 E, 27.3.2004, p. 490.

(3)  OJ L 377, 31.12.1991, p. 20.

(4)  OJ L 168, 2.7.1994, p. 28.

(5)  OJ C 110 E, 8.5.2003.

(6)  OJ C 51 E, 26.2.2004.

(7)  Judgment of 13 June 2002, Commission/Greece, case C-33/01, ECJ Reports p. 5447.

(8)  Judgement of 5 June 2003, Commission/Greece, case C-83/02, ECJ Reports p. 5639.

(9)  OJ L 243, 24.9.1996.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/191 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/191

---

(2004/C 88 E/0197)

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 < 25 ha, 25-50 ha, 50-75 ha, 75-100 ha, 100-500 ha, 500-1 000 ha and 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 < 25 ha, 25-50 ha, 50-75 ha, 75-100 ha, 100-500 ha, 500-1 000 ha and 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 promote [‘prevent’? — translator's note] 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 promote [‘prevent’? — translator's note] 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?

Supplementary answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(28 April 2004)

| 1. | The Commission is aware of the study prepared by the Agricultural Economics Research Institute LEI. The study refers to the Commission's proposal for Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) reform published in January 2003. Meanwhile, the LEI has published a new study assessing the impact of CAP reform and the World Trade Organisation (WTO) Doha Round (report No 6.04.03, February 2004). The results of this latter study from LEI are similar to the majority of independent scientific studies analysing the impact of the CAP reform. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The Commission is aware of the study prepared by the Agricultural Economics Research Institute LEI. The study refers to the Commission's proposal for Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) reform published in January 2003. Meanwhile, the LEI has published a new study assessing the impact of CAP reform and the World Trade Organisation (WTO) Doha Round (report No 6.04.03, February 2004). The results of this latter study from LEI are similar to the majority of independent scientific studies analysing the impact of the CAP reform.

| 2. | The Commission has estimated, as have a number of independent studies, that the income effect of the 2003 CAP Reform is largely neutral. While for EU-15 the quantitative analysis projects a slight decline of income of 0,5 %, for EU-25 income development under the CAP reform is projected to remain virtually neutral (+0,1 %).
  The Commission has not published detailed analyses about the income effects for different farm size categories because income effects will strongly depend on the national implementation of the Single Farm Payment scheme. In Member States, which intend to implement regionalised area payments, redistributions of income from dairy and beef farmers, currently receiving high levels of direct payments per hectare, to arable crop farmers, may take place. Implementing the Single Farm Payment on an individual basis does not entail redistributions of income and income effects would remain neutral, along the lines estimated by the Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The Commission has estimated, as have a number of independent studies, that the income effect of the 2003 CAP Reform is largely neutral. While for EU-15 the quantitative analysis projects a slight decline of income of 0,5 %, for EU-25 income development under the CAP reform is projected to remain virtually neutral (+0,1 %).

The Commission has not published detailed analyses about the income effects for different farm size categories because income effects will strongly depend on the national implementation of the Single Farm Payment scheme. In Member States, which intend to implement regionalised area payments, redistributions of income from dairy and beef farmers, currently receiving high levels of direct payments per hectare, to arable crop farmers, may take place. Implementing the Single Farm Payment on an individual basis does not entail redistributions of income and income effects would remain neutral, along the lines estimated by the Commission.

| 3. | The Single Farm Payment is based on a historical reference and, as such, does not alter the distribution of support to farmers. Modulation, however, will have a positive redistribution effect for smaller farms due to the franchise, as outlined in the reply to the Honourable Member's Written Question E-0544/04 (1). Cross-compliance should not be seen as an additional condition for the direct payments but as a penalty system for any farmer not respecting the compulsory standards found in Annex III of Council Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 (2). In order to ease compliance with these compulsory standards, a new measure, providing support for all farmers under rural development, was set up. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The Single Farm Payment is based on a historical reference and, as such, does not alter the distribution of support to farmers. Modulation, however, will have a positive redistribution effect for smaller farms due to the franchise, as outlined in the reply to the Honourable Member's Written Question E-0544/04 (1). Cross-compliance should not be seen as an additional condition for the direct payments but as a penalty system for any farmer not respecting the compulsory standards found in Annex III of Council Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 (2). In order to ease compliance with these compulsory standards, a new measure, providing support for all farmers under rural development, was set up.

| 4. | Upon Enlargement, the agricultural area in the EU will increase by about 30 %, while production will only increase globally by 10 % and total agricultural income by 6 %, as compared to the EU-15. This suggests a lower intensity of production in the new Member States. However, in order to assist farmers in the new Member States in complying with compulsory EU standards, specific measures were foreseen to include investments in the ‘Meeting Standards’ measure. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Upon Enlargement, the agricultural area in the EU will increase by about 30 %, while production will only increase globally by 10 % and total agricultural income by 6 %, as compared to the EU-15. This suggests a lower intensity of production in the new Member States. However, in order to assist farmers in the new Member States in complying with compulsory EU standards, specific measures were foreseen to include investments in the ‘Meeting Standards’ measure.

| 5. | The possible impacts of the 2003 CAP Reform on incomes, small farms and farmers in the new Member States were deeply debated during the lead-up to the adoption of the Reform package and the counter measures described above were introduced into the final agreement. Therefore, at this stage, the Commission has no intention to revise those recently agreed measures. Nevertheless, the Commission is aware that the forthcoming debate about the new generation of rural development programmes does offer a further opportunity to reflect upon and, if necessary, reorganise the support offered to these measures. |
| --- | --- |

5.

The possible impacts of the 2003 CAP Reform on incomes, small farms and farmers in the new Member States were deeply debated during the lead-up to the adoption of the Reform package and the counter measures described above were introduced into the final agreement. Therefore, at this stage, the Commission has no intention to revise those recently agreed measures. Nevertheless, the Commission is aware that the forthcoming debate about the new generation of rural development programmes does offer a further opportunity to reflect upon and, if necessary, reorganise the support offered to these measures.

---

(1)  OJ C 84 E, 3.4.2004, p. 620.

(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, OJ L 270, 21.10.2003.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/193 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/193

---

(2004/C 88 E/0198)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0559/04

by Mario Borghezio (NI) to the Commission

(26 February 2004)

Subject:   EU subsidises First Lady Suha Arafat's high life in Paris

OLAF is currently conducting an investigation into EU subsidies to Palestine (approximately EUR 350 million a year).

A French judge has recently ordered an inquiry into money laundering by Mrs Suha Arafat, the wife of the President of the Palestinian Authority involving a substantial sum (EUR 9 million) transferred from a Swiss bank to Mr Arafat's wife's accounts with the Arab Bank and BNP in Paris.

A significant proportion of the sums involved (EUR 2 million) ended up in the accounts of a well-known interior designer for the Paris jet set (Alberto Pinto).

Similarly substantial IMF funds for Palestine have been diverted to a special account controlled by Arafat.

Does the Commission intend to verify whether or not all or part of the large amounts of aid granted to the Palestinian Authority have been used to fund the life of luxury led by First Lady Suha Arafat in her opulent Parisian residence, far from the dangers and suffering endured in the tortured land of Palestine?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(1 April 2004)

The Commission wishes to inform the Honourable Member that it has been in close contact with the Palestinian Authority (PA) in order to ascertain whether Community funds allocated to the PA have been used by Mr Arafat's wife for personal reasons.

At present, the PA is facing a serious financing deficit and has been unable to pay its regular bills to the private sector or to contribute sufficiently to social services, which has resulted in an accumulation of arrears.

Commission support since 2003 has been targeted on helping to clear these arrears in order to directly assist the private and social sector in the most effective way by supplying emergency relief and help to preserve jobs and social services. These payments are subject to the implementation of ongoing reforms within the PA, notably linked to further improvements in financial management and financial control.

The Commission has set up a technical assistance team which verifies and approves all invoices. The checks performed by the technical assistance team are backed up by further certification of the invoices by an auditor seconded from a European national audit office to ensure that all invoices are for private sector enterprises and social services. It is only after the invoices have been checked that funds are released. Invoices for payments to Mrs Arafat, and other non-eligible third parties, would be excluded under this system of control.

The Commission has no knowledge of diversion of International Monetary Fund (IMF) funds, to which the Honourable Member refers, into a special account controlled by Mr Arafat.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/194 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/194

---

(2004/C 88 E/0199)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0574/04

by Monica Frassoni (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(26 February 2004)

Subject:   Garigliano nuclear power station

The Garigliano nuclear power station, built in 1964 in the municipality of Sessa Aurunca (Caserta) on a bend in the Garigliano river, was closed in 1978 and de-activated in 1982 and was the first power station to be decommissioned by the Italian government under an earlier government decision.

In a petition dated 28 May 2003 and registered by the Commission Secretariat under No 2003/4763 — SG (2003) A/7079 local residents and environmental groups in the municipalities in the north of Campania and the south of Lazio detailed of breaches of EU legislation that had occurred in the passive security measures so far taken at the power station.

Can the Commission clarify the following points:

| 1. | Bearing in mind that at the mouth of the river Garigliango and in the surrounding pine forests there are three special protection (SPA) or special conservation areas (SCA) of Community interest falling within the Natura 2000 network, are all the passive safety operations, including the transfer of fuel rods to Saluggia, subject to the environmental impact assessment procedure under Directive 85/337/EEC (1), as amended by Directive 97/11/EC (2) (transposed in Italy by DPCM (Prime ministerial decree) 337 of 10 July 1988 and 27 December 1998 and subsequently amended) as well as the impact evaluation required by the Habitats Directive (92/43/EC (3) — Ministerial order of 3 September 2002 published in the Italian Official Journal No 224 of 24 September 2002)? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Bearing in mind that at the mouth of the river Garigliango and in the surrounding pine forests there are three special protection (SPA) or special conservation areas (SCA) of Community interest falling within the Natura 2000 network, are all the passive safety operations, including the transfer of fuel rods to Saluggia, subject to the environmental impact assessment procedure under Directive 85/337/EEC (1), as amended by Directive 97/11/EC (2) (transposed in Italy by DPCM (Prime ministerial decree) 337 of 10 July 1988 and 27 December 1998 and subsequently amended) as well as the impact evaluation required by the Habitats Directive (92/43/EC (3) — Ministerial order of 3 September 2002 published in the Italian Official Journal No 224 of 24 September 2002)?

| 2. | Was it compatible with the relevant legislation to invoke a state of emergency up until 31 December 2003 in relation to the safest possible disposal of radioactive waste deployed in the Lazio, Campania, Emilia Romagna, Basilicata and Piemonte regions and to appoint a special Commissioner, namely the chairman of the nuclear plant management company SOGIN (Società di gestione degli Impianti Nucleari) SpA, and delegate to him the safe disposal of nuclear materials, in particular spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste, as well as the planning of decommissioning procedures for the Garigliano, Trino Vercellese, Caorso and Latina nuclear power stations in derogation from Article 6 of Italian law No 349 of 8 July 1986, and the regional EIA regulations? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Was it compatible with the relevant legislation to invoke a state of emergency up until 31 December 2003 in relation to the safest possible disposal of radioactive waste deployed in the Lazio, Campania, Emilia Romagna, Basilicata and Piemonte regions and to appoint a special Commissioner, namely the chairman of the nuclear plant management company SOGIN (Società di gestione degli Impianti Nucleari) SpA, and delegate to him the safe disposal of nuclear materials, in particular spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste, as well as the planning of decommissioning procedures for the Garigliano, Trino Vercellese, Caorso and Latina nuclear power stations in derogation from Article 6 of Italian law No 349 of 8 July 1986, and the regional EIA regulations?

| 3. | Can the decommissioning of the stack, the walls of which are contaminated with radioactive dust, be carried out without an EIA procedure? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Can the decommissioning of the stack, the walls of which are contaminated with radioactive dust, be carried out without an EIA procedure?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(22 April 2004)

Environmental impact assessment (EIA) is mandatory under Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985, as modified by Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment, for the dismantling or decommissioning of nuclear power stations or reactors. In relation to the first and third questions posed by the Honourable Member, there is nothing in the Directive to suggest that any part of the decommissioning operations could be excluded from the EIA.

The Commission has already registered a complaint on the Garigliano nuclear power station mentioned by the Honourable Member for possible bad application of Directive 85/337/EEC, on EIA, as modified by Directive 97/11/EC, and of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora. 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 procedures under Article 226 of the EC Treaty, in order to ensure the observance of relevant Community law. The Commission will, in addition, explore whether the planned operations comply with the provisions under Title II, Chapter 3 of the Euratom Treaty.

---

(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, p. 7.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/195 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/195

---

(2004/C 88 E/0200)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0583/04

by Nirj Deva (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(26 February 2004)

Subject:   EU aid money to Zimbabwe

In view of findings made in the Court of Auditors Annual Report for the financial year 2002, more precisely the part entitled ‘Report on the activities of the 6th, 7th and 8th European Development Funds’, Chapter V — A special case: The decision taken by the General Affairs Council and the monetary situation in Zimbabwe', (1), I would like to ask what the Commission is going to do about the waste of EDF resources (reduction of the value of the EDF resources by 89 % as noted by the Court of Auditors in Paragraph 68(a)) and the misuse of these resourcesby those members of the Mugaberegime who are listed in the ‘Council Regulation (EC) No 310/2002 (2) concerning certain restrictive measures in respect of Zimbabwe’ (Article 2 and Annex 1) but are nevertheless able to obtain foreign currency at the fixed exchange rate of Zimbabwean ZWD 55/USD 1 at a time when their fellow countrymen have been obliged to pay Zimbabwean ZWD 1 500/USD 1?

Will the Commission, in light of this scandalous misuse of EU money, stop these kinds of facilities for foreign exchange with countries who insist on keeping fixed exchange rates, or will the Commission allow this to happen in the future?

Could the Commission please elaborate why ‘after the Commission delegation had drawn attention to this development, it was instructed to continue to apply the fixed exchange rate when it replenished the accounts used to finance projects and programmes financed by the Community'(see Court of Auditors Annual Report 2002, Chapter V, Paragraph 63) despite the fact that “the Commission incurred a very heavy loss during 2002 at any point when it paid funds into project accounts held in Zimbabwean dollars” (see Court of Auditors Annual Report 2002, Chapter V, Paragraph 64)?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(6 April 2004)

The Commission does not accept the Court of Auditors’ analysis of the situation for the following reasons:

| — | the use of the parallel exchange rate for official transactions by the banks of Zimbabwe was illegal (see the Commission's reply to paragraph 62 of the Court's report); in fact, the Reserve Bank has on several occasions threatened to prosecute banks trading on the black market. This is why the Delegation was instructed to use the official rate for the replenishment of project accounts, pending the outcome of discussions with the Government and the banks; |
| --- | --- |

—

the use of the parallel exchange rate for official transactions by the banks of Zimbabwe was illegal (see the Commission's reply to paragraph 62 of the Court's report); in fact, the Reserve Bank has on several occasions threatened to prosecute banks trading on the black market. This is why the Delegation was instructed to use the official rate for the replenishment of project accounts, pending the outcome of discussions with the Government and the banks;

| — | the Commission was bound, in 2002, in relation to aid from the European Development Funds, by the procedures set out in the Lomé Conventions, which gave clear powers to the National Authorising Officer (NAO) in relation to the management of the funds, and the rules agreed for their implementation. As the official exchange rate is a matter of national sovereignty, the only possibility of applying a different rate is to negotiate with the NAO and the country's banks. This is what the Commission did when the official rate became unrealistic; |
| --- | --- |

—

the Commission was bound, in 2002, in relation to aid from the European Development Funds, by the procedures set out in the Lomé Conventions, which gave clear powers to the National Authorising Officer (NAO) in relation to the management of the funds, and the rules agreed for their implementation. As the official exchange rate is a matter of national sovereignty, the only possibility of applying a different rate is to negotiate with the NAO and the country's banks. This is what the Commission did when the official rate became unrealistic;

| — | in particular, the Commission considers that the figure of 89 % ‘reduced value’, which the Court applies to payments totalling EUR 4,5 million (less than 5 % of total Community aid to Zimbabwe in 2002), reflects neither the real situation nor the circumstances the Commission faced, if the payments were to remain legal and regular; |
| --- | --- |

—

in particular, the Commission considers that the figure of 89 % ‘reduced value’, which the Court applies to payments totalling EUR 4,5 million (less than 5 % of total Community aid to Zimbabwe in 2002), reflects neither the real situation nor the circumstances the Commission faced, if the payments were to remain legal and regular;

| — | In addition to the negotiation of a ‘blend’ rate to offset the effects of the difference between the official exchange rate and the ‘parallel’ market rate, the Commission and the Delegation took the following important measures:






  — | reducing payments in local currency to a minimum; |
| --- | --- | --- |

—

In addition to the negotiation of a ‘blend’ rate to offset the effects of the difference between the official exchange rate and the ‘parallel’ market rate, the Commission and the Delegation took the following important measures:

—

reducing payments in local currency to a minimum;

| — | making euro payments outside the country wherever possible (for instance, by focussing the health programme almost exclusively on drugs procurement); |
| --- | --- |

—

making euro payments outside the country wherever possible (for instance, by focussing the health programme almost exclusively on drugs procurement);

| — | ensuring that the imprest accounts of local project work programmes have euro components. |
| --- | --- |

—

ensuring that the imprest accounts of local project work programmes have euro components.

Total Community aid to Zimbabwe in 2002 came to EUR 94 million, of which only EUR 8 million was spent inside the country. Food aid, agricultural inputs, and medical supplies, for instance, were bought from neighbouring countries.

---

(1)  OJ C 286 of 28.11.2003, pp. 355 et seq.

(2)  OJ L 50, 21.2.2002, p. 4.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/196 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/196

---

(2004/C 88 E/0201)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0585/04

by Bill Miller (PSE) to the Commission

(26 February 2004)

Subject:   WTO talks Cancun and Geneva

After the failure of the WTO talks in Cancun and the resumption of talks in Geneva, I would be obliged if you could provide an update of what progress has been made.

Is the European Union still insisting on new issues being introduced?

Answer given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(17 March 2004)

Following the failure of the Cancun Conference, the Commission reviewed its position as set out in its Communication to the Council, to the Parliament and to the Economic and Social Committee of 26 November 2003 on ‘Reviving the DDA — the EU perspective’ (1), the orientations of which were endorsed by the Council on 9 December 2003 (2). It can be seen from this that the EU has adopted a different and more flexible approach to some of the ‘new issues’ referred to by the Honourable Member.

The Parliament discussed the Prospects for the Doha Development Round at its sitting of 13 January 2004. The Commission very much welcomes the broad support that was given to its approach of giving priority to multilateral negotiations, being ready to be more flexible on certain topics including the so-called Singapore issues and itensifying the dialogue with trading partners with the aim of using the coming months to progress the negotiations in the way that should have happened in 2003.

Since the World Trade Organisation (WTO) General Council meeting on 15 December, where there was a clear expression by all WTO Members of their political will to continue the DDA negotiations, the Commissioner responsible for Trade has travelled to Brazil for a meeting with the G-20, to India, Bangladesh, Indonesia, and Kenya, met the G90 in Geneva, attended the ACP-EU Joint Parliamentary Assembly in Addis Ababa and visited to Washington as well as holding other meetings in Brussels. Further such discussions will be held in the run up to the May WTO General Council meeting.

---

(1)  COM(2003) 734 final.

(2)  15535/03 of 5.12.2003.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/197 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/197

---

(2004/C 88 E/0202)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0624/04

by Marjo Matikainen-Kallström (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(1 March 2004)

Subject:   Dumping of imported Norwegian and Faeroese rainbow trout

The question whether the provisional anti-dumping duty laid down by the Commission last September should continue to apply on a definitive basis (for five years) to imports of large rainbow trout from Norway and the Faeroes is at this moment under consideration. The Commission has proposed a 19,9 % anti-dumping duty on rainbow trout imported from Norway.

As far as EU fish-farmers are concerned, enforcement of the duty is vital for the continuation of their livelihood. In 2003 Norway supplied almost 7 million kilos of rainbow trout to the Union Member States at the extremely low price of EUR 2,46 per kilo. Production costs in Norway and, for example, Finland are approximately EUR 3,50 per kilo.

The Norwegian dumping stems from overproduction. Last year Norway granted 50 new production licences and offered 60 more for sale at the end of the year. Fish-farming losses in Norway totalled EUR 190 million in 2002 and were even higher last year. About 20 % of production is accounted for by rainbow trout.

In its role of overseeing the internal market, what steps will the Commission take, and within what timeframe, to eradicate harmful dumping from the market?

Answer given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(2 April 2004)

After the imposition, in September 2003, of provisional anti-dumping duties on imports of large rainbow trout from Norway and the Faeroe Islands, the Commission has examined all submissions from the interested parties concerning the provisional findings. In January, a price undertaking had been accepted from exporters from the Faeroe Islands.

The provisional findings have been, after in depth examination, confirmed by the Member States. Indeed, by Council Regulation (EC) No 437/2004 (1) a definitive duty of 19,9 % on imports of large rainbow trout originating in Norway and of duties ranging from 42,6 to 54,4 % on imports of the same product from the Faeroe Islands, with the exception of the imports originating from the exporters having offered the price undertaking accepted by the Commission, have been imposed. The imposition of these measures aims at removing the injurious dumping found during the investigation conducted by the Commission. It is therefore expected to restore a level playing field in the Community market protecting thus the Community industry from unfair competition. The definitive anti-dumping measures will apply for a period of five years, which is normally necessary to counteract the dumping which is causing injury.

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 437/2004 of 8 March 2004 imposing definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of large rainbow trout originating in Norway and the Faeroe Islands, OJ L 72, 11.3.2004.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/197 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/197

---

(2004/C 88 E/0203)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0640/04

by Camilo Nogueira Román (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(3 March 2004)

Subject:   Surprising presence of names of Union bodies such as OLAF in confused news from Israeli institutions with regard to the use of EU funds by the Palestinian President

In what appears to be the result of deliberate spreading of poisonous rumours by the Israeli administration and civic institutions there, there have recently been reports in the Spanish press which mixed up comments on the depositing of money in a Paris bank account held by the Palestinian President's wife, and the research apparently being carried out in Jerusalem by an OLAF delegation on a so-called Arafat dossier', organised by the current Israeli Health Minister, involving documents obtained by the Israeli army during the building of the illegal and shameful wall designed to reduce the extent of Palestinian territory and isolate the inhabitants of the West Bank from Palestine. What is the significance of the alleged activity of OLAF in this very confused situation? Have the Commission's services already responded to these reports, which appear to be designed to spread political poison precisely at the moment when there is talk of the Government of Israel appearing before the Hague court with regard to the building of the wall, and likewise talk of Prime Minister Sharon's own problems with the Israeli courts?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(26 April 2004)

The Honourable Member should refer to the Commission's answer to Written Question E-0559/04 from Mario Borghezio (1).

The Commission would also like to inform the Honourable Member that the European Anti-Fraud Office, OLAF, is investigating suspicions of possible misuse of Community funds allocated in the form of budgetary support for the functioning of the Palestinian Authority and has also opened an investigation into the financing of humanitarian and development projects mounted by Palestinian organisations and associations.

---

(1)  See page 193.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/198 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/198

---

(2004/C 88 E/0204)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0649/04

by Esko Seppänen (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(8 March 2004)

Subject:   Roma people in Slovakia

Has the Commission noted the measures adopted by the Slovakian Government to cut the social security entitlements of local Roma people and the consequent unrest, ‘inter alia’ in Trhoviste, and does the Commission consider the human rights policy of the Slovakian Government to be in accordance with the policy required of an EU Member State?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(21 April 2004)

The Commission has noted the introduction of a new social benefit system in Slovakia that has led to a significant reduction of the social benefit payments since the beginning of March 2004. It has also been concerned about the Roma unrest and looting in Eastern Slovakia.

In general, the Commission obviously rejects the use of any kind of violence as a way of making social or any other claims. The Commission has been in contact with the Slovak authorities on this issue and has expressed its hope that the Slovak Government will urgently use all the means at its disposal to reach a reasonable and measured outcome to this sensitive issue. Particular attention should be given to ease the hardship of the poorest sectors of the population which are likely to suffer most from the reduction of the benefits. Job opportunities should be enhanced in the poorest parts of the country and in Eastern Slovakia in particular. In this context, the Commission welcomes a 14-point paper presented recently by the Slovak Government on ways to improve the situation of the most disadvantaged citizens, particularly Roma. The Slovak authorities have also reassured the Commission that they will closely monitor police behaviour in the east of the country.

The Commission is determined to support the Slovak authorities as far as it can to solve this issue as soon as possible.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/199 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/199

---

(2004/C 88 E/0205)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0660/04

by Roger Helmer (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(9 March 2004)

Subject:   NGO funding

Can the Commission please tell me:

| — | the total budget the EU allocates to fund NGOs, civil society groups and political or information movements on a one-off or revenue funding; |
| --- | --- |

—

the total budget the EU allocates to fund NGOs, civil society groups and political or information movements on a one-off or revenue funding;

| — | which specific NGOs receive grants, funding or expenses from the EU, how much and how often? |
| --- | --- |

—

which specific NGOs receive grants, funding or expenses from the EU, how much and how often?

| — | on what criteria NGOs are considered eligible for grants, funding and/or expenses from the EU? |
| --- | --- |

—

on what criteria NGOs are considered eligible for grants, funding and/or expenses from the EU?

Answer given by Mrs Schreyer on behalf of the Commission

(28 April 2004)

The Financial Regulation (FR) and its Implementing Rules do not provide for special rules for nongovernmental organisations (NGOs), therefore they are not treated distinctly from other natural or legal persons. Thus, they have to comply with the general exclusion and selection criteria applicable to all beneficiaries. However, Part Two, Title IV of the FR contains special rules for external actions. Furthermore, specific eligibility criteria may be established in the action programmes and calls for proposals linked to the various actions.

NGOs are collaborating with the Commission in the implementation of a great number of actions both within and outside the EU. As they are normally not treated distinctly from other organisations, bodies or firms, the Commissions records do not determine the level of NGO funding. In many cases, NGOs are implementing partners and not the end beneficiaries of community actions. Hence the Commission cannot provide answers to the first two questions of the Honourable Member.

However, a lot of information on cooperation with NGOs can be found on the Europa internet site. Examples include actions within the EU on education and culture (http://europa.eu.int/comm/dgs/educationculture/civilsociety/fr.htm) or in the area of international development (http://europa.eu.int/comm/europeaid/projects/ongcd/indexfr.htm).

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/199 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/199

---

(2004/C 88 E/0206)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0665/04

by Gerhard Schmid (PSE) to the Commission

(9 March 2004)

Subject:   Safety standards for image editing of scanned banknotes

The latest versions of Adobe Photoshop CS and Paint Shop Pro do not allow images of banknotes to be imported or edited. The mechanism involved, which has been developed by the Central Bank Counterfeit Deterrence Group (CBCDG), a consortium of central banks from around the world, is a major step forward in preventing the counterfeiting of banknotes.

| 1. | Is the Commission aware of this mechanism? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is the Commission aware of this mechanism?

| 2. | Is the Commission planning to introduce this mechanism as a mandatory safety standard? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Is the Commission planning to introduce this mechanism as a mandatory safety standard?

Answer given by Mrs Schreyer on behalf of the Commission

(28 April 2004)

The Commission is aware of the efforts of the Central Bank Counterfeit Deterrence Group (CBCDG) to develop counterfeit deterrence technology aimed at preventing the digital reproduction of banknote images.

The Commission considers it important that the counterfeit deterrence technology be applied.

The Commission has been in contact with the European Central Bank (ECB) on the issue of initiating legislation making mandatory the use of the counterfeit deterrence technology in products capable of handling digital images.

In agreement with the Commission, the ECB is currently preparing a preliminary assessment directly with the industry.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/200 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/200

---

(2004/C 88 E/0207)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0666/04

by Mihail Papayannakis (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(9 March 2004)

Subject:   Breach of environmental legislation

By Decision 1070 of 13 May 2002, the Directorate for Forests of the region of Thessaly approved the establishment of a quarry for the extraction and processing of inert materials at Xera in the district of Potamia, municipality of Agia, on an area of pastureland covering 30 615 hectares.

Given that:

| — | the area in question has been designated a protected area within the meaning of the Natura 2000 network, |
| --- | --- |

—

the area in question has been designated a protected area within the meaning of the Natura 2000 network,

| — | the Ministry of Development delivered an opinion (APD10/B/F6.12 Gen/6422 of 9 May 2000) to the Directorate for Industry in Larissa stating that Article 4 of Law 2115/93 prohibits the establishment of quarries within a two-kilometre radius of designated archaeological sites or protected areas and that, therefore, it is not possible to set up a quarry within an area forming part of the Natura 2000 network, |
| --- | --- |

—

the Ministry of Development delivered an opinion (APD10/B/F6.12 Gen/6422 of 9 May 2000) to the Directorate for Industry in Larissa stating that Article 4 of Law 2115/93 prohibits the establishment of quarries within a two-kilometre radius of designated archaeological sites or protected areas and that, therefore, it is not possible to set up a quarry within an area forming part of the Natura 2000 network,

| — | the extractive industries produce an exceptional volume of waste which affects the environment in terms of the quality of surface and ground water, natural stability, dust and erosion, and the quality of terrestrial and aquatic habitats, |
| --- | --- |

—

the extractive industries produce an exceptional volume of waste which affects the environment in terms of the quality of surface and ground water, natural stability, dust and erosion, and the quality of terrestrial and aquatic habitats,

| — | the siting of the quarry at a short distance from communities will affect sheep-rearing and apple-growing in the region, thereby creating problems in relation to farmers' incomes, |
| --- | --- |

—

the siting of the quarry at a short distance from communities will affect sheep-rearing and apple-growing in the region, thereby creating problems in relation to farmers' incomes,

| — | traffic problems will be created on the main route linking the town of Larissa, Agia and the coastal area of the Prefecture of Larissa since this road network, which is already congested, particularly during the summer months, will carry the entire volume of HGV traffic transporting the inert material, |
| --- | --- |

—

traffic problems will be created on the main route linking the town of Larissa, Agia and the coastal area of the Prefecture of Larissa since this road network, which is already congested, particularly during the summer months, will carry the entire volume of HGV traffic transporting the inert material,

what measures will the Commission take to stop the development of an activity which is contrary to both Community and Greek environmental legislation?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(22 April 2004)

The Commission does not have the competence to give an opinion on possible breaches of the provisions of Greek law or the need to go ahead with any given project. However, the Greek authorities must fulfil the obligations arising from 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 3 March 1997 (2), and Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (3).

Under Directive 85/337/EEC, projects likely to have significant effects on the environment must be made subject to an environmental impact assessment before development consent is granted. These projects are defined in Article 4, with reference to Annexes I and II to the Directive. Quarries where the surface of the site exceeds 25 hectares (Annex I, point 19) must be made subject to a development consent procedure and an environmental impact assessment. The Greek legislation which transposes the Directive also requires this procedure to be followed for smaller quarries (Annex II, point 2(a)).

The information available indicates that the disputed quarry is located at the edge of a Site of Community Importance named ‘Karla — Mavrovouni — Kefalovryso Velestinou — Neochori’ (code GR1420004) and proposed by the Greek authorities in accordance with Directive 92/43/EEC for inclusion in the Natura 2000 ecological network. The provisions of Directive 92/43/EEC, in particular Article 6(3), are therefore applicable.

With regard to the environmental impact assessment, the competent national authorities, i.e. the Ministry of the Environment and not the Region of Thessaly, must adopt a ‘decision approving the environmental terms’ of the project. This decision, taken on the basis of an environmental impact study and after consulting the public, is meant to define the dimensions of the project, assess the significant adverse effects it is likely to have on the environment and establish measures for preventing and reducing them. As the project seems likely to have significant effects on the proposed Site of Community Importance, the ‘decision approving the environmental terms’ must also involve an appropriate assessment of the project's effects on the site with regard to the site's conservation objectives.

On the basis of the reported facts, the Commission does not discern any breach of the abovementioned Directives. If the Honourable Member has any other information which could show that project in question is incompatible with Community environmental legislation, the Commission would ask him to transmit it.

---

(1)  OJ L 175, 5.7.1985.

(2)  OJ L 73, 14.3.1997.

(3)  OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/201 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/201

---

(2004/C 88 E/0208)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0667/04

by Proinsias De Rossa (PSE) to the Commission

(9 March 2004)

Subject:   Reopening of western rail corridor between Sligo and Cork in Ireland

Following the publication of the report ‘West on Track’ which estimates that the western rail corridor between Sligo and Cork in Ireland could be reopened for under EUR 250 million and that there would be significant potential for freight traffic on the route, as well as the apparent decision by the Irish Minister for Transport to reject the opinion of his Government's Strategic Rail Review, which concluded that the line would not be viable, could the Commission indicate if the possibility of re-opening this line has been raised with it by the Irish Government? What would be the Commission's response to such a proposal? Does the Commission believe that such a proposal or part of it would be eligible for EU support under the Marco Polo or other EU programmes?

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/202 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/202

---

(2004/C 88 E/0209)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0674/04

by Proinsias De Rossa (PSE) to the Commission

(9 March 2004)

Subject:   Iarnrod Eireann's rail freight operations

As the Commission is aware, Iarnrod Eireann is the only national rail freight operator in the EU not to receive national support for its rail freight operations.

In view of the fact that the expansion of rail freight is a core objective of the Commission's September 2001 White Paper on Transport and also of the Marco Polo programme, and the fact that the Irish Government is currently conducting a strategic rail review, what would be the Commission's position if the Irish Government were to consider granting Iarnrod Eireann state assistance for its rail freight operations?

Which EU provisions would regulate the granting of such assistance?

Joint answer

to Written Questions E-0667/04 and E-0674/04

given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(30 April 2004)

The railway sector is a key element in the Community's common transport policy, which seeks to develop a sustainable transport system by shifting the balance between different modes of transport. This policy was outlined in the White Paper ‘European transport policy for 2010: time to decide’ (1) of 12 September 2001.

In this connection, the Commission set up the Marco Polo programme to help the launch of innovative transport services. The main goal of Marco Polo is to reduce road congestion and improve the environmental performance of the whole transport system by shifting freight from road transport to short sea, rail and inland waterway transport.

As far as infrastructure is concerned, the line Sligo — Cork does not belong to the Trans-European Networks (TEN) Transport so that it may not benefit from the TEN budget or the Cohesion Fund. Although it could benefit from the European Regional Development Fund, the actions identified for Community support in the present programming period (2000-2006) do not include the reopening of disused lines.

In addition to Community funds such as Marco Polo, each Member State has the right to use public resources in order to support national policy goals, e.g. the aim to revitalise freight traffic through rail services. However, any form of State aid has to respect competition rules such as laid down in the EC Treaty. As a general principle, State aid that distorts competition in the Common Market is prohibited by the EC Treaty. The EC Treaty, however, allows exceptions to the ban on State aid where the proposed aid schemes may have a beneficial impact in overall Union terms: Article 87(3)(c) of the EC Treaty allows State aid to facilitate development of certain economic activities or areas. According to Article 73 of the EC Treaty, State aid shall be compatible with the Treaty if the needs of coordination of transport are met. It should also be noted that the Commission has adopted a number of ‘guidelines’ or ‘frameworks’ to clarify its State aid policy in various areas, e.g. the protection of the environment or the rescue and restructuring of firms in difficulty, which have to be taken into account during the Commission's assessment of any State aid measure.

Therefore, each State aid case is examined on its merits having regard to the applicable law and practice. Finally, it should be mentioned that each railway company may receive subsidies from Member States if they represent reimbursement for the discharge of certain obligations inherent in the concept of public services.

As far as the railway market is concerned, mention should be made of the possibility for Ireland to open its domestic market to competition for rail freight services. Such an approach could attract some new entrant interested to offer such services, while the national operator is not necessarily interested to operate them, given its other priorities.

---

(1)  COM(2001) 370 final.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/203 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/203

---

(2004/C 88 E/0210)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0670/04

by Proinsias De Rossa (PSE) to the Commission

(9 March 2004)

Subject:   Commission investigation into discharges of oil at Poolbeg Peninsula, Dublin

What reply, if any, has the Commission received from Ireland in response to the letter of formal notice sent to Ireland in April 2003, as announced in IP/03/544, regarding the Irish Government's failure to cooperate with the Commission's investigation into complaints about discharges of oil into water next to a special protection area at Poolbeg Peninsula in August 2002 and Ireland's compliance with the Dangerous Substances Directive (76/464/EEC (1)) and the Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC (2))?

What action has the Commission taken or is it considering in this matter?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(21 April 2004)

The Commission letter of formal notice referred to by the Honourable Member addressed non-cooperation by Ireland consisting in a failure to respond to a request for information about compliance with environmental legislation at the Poolbeg Peninsula in Dublin. Ireland did not respond to the letter of formal notice, and consequently the Commission notified a Reasoned Opinion in December 2003. Ireland subsequently provided a detailed response to the Commission's original information request. This response is considered as having brought to an end the infringement for non-cooperation based on Article 10 of the EC Treaty, and no further action is currently contemplated on this ground. The Commission is still considering the substantive issues raised by the original complaint (3).

---

(1)  OJ L 129, 18.5.1976, p. 23.

(2)  OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7.

(3)  P2001/4789.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/203 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/203

---

(2004/C 88 E/0211)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0675/04

by Proinsias De Rossa (PSE) to the Commission

(9 March 2004)

Subject:   Transfrontier Shipments of Waste Regulation

What reply, if any, has the Commission received from Ireland in response to the letter of formal notice sent to Ireland in April 2003, as announced in IP/03/544, regarding the Irish Government's failure to cooperate with the Commission's request for information on how Ireland has complied with the Transfrontier Waste Shipment Council Regulation (EEC) No 259/93 (1), following a complaint about irregularities in the required paperwork for waste exports from Ireland?

What action has the Commission taken or is it considering in this matter?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(21 April 2004)

An Irish response to the Commission letter of formal notice referred to by the Honourable Member was received in June 2003. This response was considered as having brought to an end the infringement for non-cooperation based on Article 10 of the EC Treaty, and no further action is currently contemplated on this ground. The Commission is still considering the substantive issues raised by the complaint.

---

(1)  OJ L 30, 6.2.1993, p. 1.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/204 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/204

---

(2004/C 88 E/0212)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0684/04

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(9 March 2004)

Subject:   Parmalat and incentives arising from poor tax legislation in the Netherlands for foreign businesses with dishonest intentions

| 1. | Is the Commission aware that Forum Administrations, a subsidiary of the major Dutch law firm Nauta Dutilh, controls at least one foundation and five private limited companies in the Netherlands of which a majority of the shares are in Italian hands and which are linked to the discredited Italian dairy company Parmalat? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is the Commission aware that Forum Administrations, a subsidiary of the major Dutch law firm Nauta Dutilh, controls at least one foundation and five private limited companies in the Netherlands of which a majority of the shares are in Italian hands and which are linked to the discredited Italian dairy company Parmalat?

| 2. | Is the Commission aware that, via this Dutch route, nearly EUR 6 000 million's worth of Parmalat bonds have been issued, that the most recent issue of EUR 350 million was made as recently as September 2003 and that these bonds have since become worthless? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Is the Commission aware that, via this Dutch route, nearly EUR 6 000 million's worth of Parmalat bonds have been issued, that the most recent issue of EUR 350 million was made as recently as September 2003 and that these bonds have since become worthless?

| 3. | Is the Commission further aware that, according to the Netherlands Central Bank, EUR 800 000 million in property is registered with 181 Dutch trust offices? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Is the Commission further aware that, according to the Netherlands Central Bank, EUR 800 000 million in property is registered with 181 Dutch trust offices?

| 4. | Can the Commission confirm that, at the present time, a remarkable number of companies not based and not mainly active in the Netherlands are seeking ways of channelling their finances and debts through that country because of the tax advantages that they expect to enjoy there? |
| --- | --- |

4.

Can the Commission confirm that, at the present time, a remarkable number of companies not based and not mainly active in the Netherlands are seeking ways of channelling their finances and debts through that country because of the tax advantages that they expect to enjoy there?

| 5. | In what way is current tax legislation in the Netherlands, which was amended in the 1990s, exceptional in comparison with other EU Member States? What makes the Netherlands' tax legislation so attractive to foreign businesses? |
| --- | --- |

5.

In what way is current tax legislation in the Netherlands, which was amended in the 1990s, exceptional in comparison with other EU Member States? What makes the Netherlands' tax legislation so attractive to foreign businesses?

| 6. | Does current Netherlands tax legislation offer businesses the opportunity in particular to circumvent other countries' rules, and, in so doing, does it provide opportunities for those that wish to gain an advantage to the detriment of other companies, authorities, employees, shareholders, bondholders, suppliers and consumers? |
| --- | --- |

6.

Does current Netherlands tax legislation offer businesses the opportunity in particular to circumvent other countries' rules, and, in so doing, does it provide opportunities for those that wish to gain an advantage to the detriment of other companies, authorities, employees, shareholders, bondholders, suppliers and consumers?

| 7. | Does the residence of a legal person in the Netherlands also make it easier to benefit from the tax advantages of the six Caribbean islands that belong to the Kingdom of the Netherlands but not to the EU, where Parmalat also has subsidiaries? |
| --- | --- |

7.

Does the residence of a legal person in the Netherlands also make it easier to benefit from the tax advantages of the six Caribbean islands that belong to the Kingdom of the Netherlands but not to the EU, where Parmalat also has subsidiaries?

| 8. | What, in the Commission's view, should be changed in the Netherlands' tax legislation? Source: the Netherlands newspaper De Volkskrant, edition dated 22 January 2004. |
| --- | --- |

8.

What, in the Commission's view, should be changed in the Netherlands' tax legislation? Source: the Netherlands newspaper De Volkskrant, edition dated 22 January 2004.

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(26 April 2004)

| 1. 2. and 3. | The Commission is aware of the issues raised in the article in the newspaper ‘De Volkskrant’ of 22 January 2004 and of the problems with Parmalat. The Commission is also aware that there is a link between some of the issues that lie at the heart of the Parmalat case and disclosure requirements, and therefore intends to propose approriate amendments to the 4th and 7th company law directives in the autumn. |
| --- | --- |

1. 2. and 3.

The Commission is aware of the issues raised in the article in the newspaper ‘De Volkskrant’ of 22 January 2004 and of the problems with Parmalat. The Commission is also aware that there is a link between some of the issues that lie at the heart of the Parmalat case and disclosure requirements, and therefore intends to propose approriate amendments to the 4th and 7th company law directives in the autumn.

| 4. | The Commission has no official information at its disposal on the number of companies registered in the Netherlands which are being used to channel finances so as to lower the overall tax burden of the group. |
| --- | --- |

4.

The Commission has no official information at its disposal on the number of companies registered in the Netherlands which are being used to channel finances so as to lower the overall tax burden of the group.

| 5. | The tax legislation in the Netherlands provides for an exemption of taxes for profit distribution and capital gains related to subsidiaries resident in other countries in order to prevent double taxation. This principle for reducing double taxation is an internationally accepted principle and some other Member States have similar systems. However, the Dutch ‘holding regime’ was scrutinised under the Code of Conduct for business taxation that has been agreed by Member States in order to prevent harmful tax competition. The final conclusion was that the Netherlands should strengthen its anti-abuse measures in relation to this regime. The Netherlands has now done so. |
| --- | --- |

5.

The tax legislation in the Netherlands provides for an exemption of taxes for profit distribution and capital gains related to subsidiaries resident in other countries in order to prevent double taxation. This principle for reducing double taxation is an internationally accepted principle and some other Member States have similar systems. However, the Dutch ‘holding regime’ was scrutinised under the Code of Conduct for business taxation that has been agreed by Member States in order to prevent harmful tax competition. The final conclusion was that the Netherlands should strengthen its anti-abuse measures in relation to this regime. The Netherlands has now done so.

| 6. | The Commission is not aware of Dutch tax legislation that provides for any particular way of circumventing other countries' rules. As mentioned earlier, the Netherlands has taken steps to prevent the potential abuse of the Dutch system through the introduction of more stringent anti-abuse rules in the framework of the Code of Conduct for business taxation. |
| --- | --- |

6.

The Commission is not aware of Dutch tax legislation that provides for any particular way of circumventing other countries' rules. As mentioned earlier, the Netherlands has taken steps to prevent the potential abuse of the Dutch system through the introduction of more stringent anti-abuse rules in the framework of the Code of Conduct for business taxation.

| 7. | As part of the Code of Conduct exercise, the tax rules of the Netherlands Antilles and Aruba were also subjected to scrutiny. The result is that both the Netherlands Antilles and Aruba are now required to remove their harmful tax measures i.e. the tax advantages that the Council considered to be harmful. The advantage for a Netherlands resident of doing business in the Netherlands Antilles and Aruba would therefore only arise now from the fact that there is an agreement between the three parts of the Kingdom of the Netherlands to prevent double taxation which is quite similar to the bilateral tax conventions preventing double taxation that Member States and Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) member countries negotiate with each other and with other countries. |
| --- | --- |

7.

As part of the Code of Conduct exercise, the tax rules of the Netherlands Antilles and Aruba were also subjected to scrutiny. The result is that both the Netherlands Antilles and Aruba are now required to remove their harmful tax measures i.e. the tax advantages that the Council considered to be harmful. The advantage for a Netherlands resident of doing business in the Netherlands Antilles and Aruba would therefore only arise now from the fact that there is an agreement between the three parts of the Kingdom of the Netherlands to prevent double taxation which is quite similar to the bilateral tax conventions preventing double taxation that Member States and Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) member countries negotiate with each other and with other countries.

| 8. | Member States are free to design their tax systems as long as the rules comply with the EU acquis, notably the state aid rules, the fundamental freedoms in the EC Treaty and the principles of the Code of Conduct for business taxation. |
| --- | --- |

8.

Member States are free to design their tax systems as long as the rules comply with the EU acquis, notably the state aid rules, the fundamental freedoms in the EC Treaty and the principles of the Code of Conduct for business taxation.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/205 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/205

---

(2004/C 88 E/0213)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0686/04

by Paulo Casaca (PSE) to the Commission

(9 March 2004)

Subject:   European hydrogen platform

The creation of the European Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Technology Platform is to be welcomed, but surprisingly not one of the 35 members of the platform's Advisory Council is Portuguese.

The Commission may recall that the University of the Azores' marine environment and technologies laboratory is a pioneering centre for the development of technologies linked to the exploitation of hydrogen.

Does the Commission perhaps consider that research carried out in one of the outermost regions is less valuable than that carried out by the large countries represented on the Advisory Council?

Does it not consider that all the relevant partners should be included in an initiative of this kind, irrespective of their size?

Will the Commission consider expanding the Advisory Council to include, for example, the University of the Azores' marine environment and technologies laboratory?

Answer given by Mr Busquin on behalf of the Commission

(21 April 2004)

The Technology Platform for Hydrogen and Fuel Cells, recently launched in January 2004, is an initiative that intends to include all actors and activities in Europe, working in advancing the technologies which may lead to a future Hydrogen Economy. The Advisory Council (AC) is one of the key bodies of the Platform since it will steer and guide its various components and actors.

The first Advisory Council has been elected for an initial period of 18 months and is composed by high level personalities representing different players of the economy and society in Europe, including the research community and main industrial sectors actively involved in the development of the relevant technologies.

Although none of the present members of the AC is Portuguese, other Portuguese stakeholders will certainly be in the various bodies and structures of the Platform, such as the Member States Mirror Group, Steering Panels and Initiative Groups and more importantly the Platform operations, where all relevant ongoing activities expressing an interest in being involved are welcome. The Commission takes note of the possible interest of the ‘Laboratorio de Ambiente Marínho e Tecnologias, da Universidade dos Açores’.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/206 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/206

---

(2004/C 88 E/0214)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0724/04

by María Herranz García (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(11 March 2004)

Subject:   Rules on labelling wines

After years of negotiating with the USA and other third countries on protecting Community wine appellations and radical EU opposition to any usurping of these appellations by third countries, the Commission has finally decided that, despite all the efforts made in the past, it is giving in to external pressure. It has legitimised this usurpatory behaviour by adopting an amendment to the rules on wine labelling in the Management Committee, despite the fact that the main producer countries voted against.

From now on, any third country that can prove that for at least ten years it has been usurping traditional terms such as gran reserva and crianza cannot only continue to do so, but can now market its products, using these terms, in the EU.

Why has the Commission made this 180° turn, which could well weaken our position in the WTO negotiations to safeguard our geographical appellations? What pay-off does the Commission expect from this decision?

While it is true that some countries have lodged complaints with the WTO against the Community rules on wine labelling adopted in 2002, why did the Commission not at the very least wait to find out what the WTO has to say on the issue?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(19 April 2004)

We adopted new rules on the description, designation and protection of certain wine sector products in order to avert the possibility of a World Trade Organisation (WTO) panel. This would have been a serious threat to European wine labelling policy.

Following notification of Regulation (EC) No 753/2002 (1) to the World Trade Organisation, several third countries sent their observations and expressed reservations to the WTO. Two consultations were held in Geneva. Exclusive protection of certain traditional terms (List B) was regarded by the third countries as a new intellectual property right of the Union covered by the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (additional to that for geographical indications). A WTO panel might well have jeopardised EU policy on protection of geographical indications and was to be avoided.

In the light of the third country observations we decided to make a number of changes to the Regulation. Primarily the changes give third countries the possibility of using certain traditional terms subject to compliance with the same rules as those for Member States. Account also had to be taken of the fact that several third countries do not have a centralised regulatory system for the wine sector. The European legislative system requirements were therefore amended and the concept of ‘regulation’ replaced by that of ‘applicable rules’. These rules include those issued by representative trade organisations and these organisations were themselves defined.

It is important to remember that unlike Annex III to Regulation (EC) No 753/2002 Council Regulation (EC) No 1493/1999 (2) makes no reference to two types of traditional term but only to the possibility open to the Commission of adopting rules on traditional terms that accord with the provisions in force in the Member States.

The new requirements for third countries' use of Community traditional terms are the equivalent of the requirements already in force for the traditional terms of List A in Annex III to Regulation (EC) No 753/2002.

They include (see Article 1(10) of Regulation (EC) No 316/2004 (3) amending Article 37(1)(e) of Regulation (EC) No 753/2002) the following:

| — | the third country must present a substantiated request to the Commission and provide the justificatory data for recognition of the traditional term; |
| --- | --- |

—

the third country must present a substantiated request to the Commission and provide the justificatory data for recognition of the traditional term;

| — | the language of the traditional term must be the official language of the third country and the term in that language must have been used for at least 10 years; |
| --- | --- |

—

the language of the traditional term must be the official language of the third country and the term in that language must have been used for at least 10 years;

| — | if the language of the traditional term is not the official language, its use must be provided for in the country's legislation; in such cases the traditional term in that language must have been used continuously for at least 25 years; |
| --- | --- |

—

if the language of the traditional term is not the official language, its use must be provided for in the country's legislation; in such cases the traditional term in that language must have been used continuously for at least 25 years;

| — | other requirements such as that the term be specific and distinctive and that there is no risk of consumers being misled. |
| --- | --- |

—

other requirements such as that the term be specific and distinctive and that there is no risk of consumers being misled.

In the case of the Spanish traditional terms Gran Reserva and Crianza referred to in the written question, the requirements for their use in the Community by third countries remain unchanged, since they were already included in List A in Annex III to Regulation (EC) No 753/2002.

---

(1)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 753/2002 of 29 April 2002 laying down certain rules for applying Council Regulation (EC) No 1493/1999 as regards the description, designation, presentation and protection of certain wine sector products, OJ L 118, 4.5.2002.

(2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1493/1999 of 17 May 1999 on the common organisation of the market in wine, OJ L 179, 14.7.1999.

(3)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 316/2004 of 20 February 2004 amending Regulation (EC) No 753/2002 laying down certain rules for applying Council Regulation (EC) No 1493/1999 as regards the description, designation, presentation and protection of certain wine sector products, OJ L 55, 24.2.2004.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/207 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/207

---

(2004/C 88 E/0215)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0749/04

by Paul Rübig (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(11 March 2004)

Subject:   Introduction of the sector approach in EU development cooperation

The Commmission's development cooperation activities have undergone significant changes since the introduction of the sector approach, which increasingly provides for direct budget support to beneficiary countries. As a result, the amount of funding available for technical assistance (TA) in the form of projects for European consultancy firms is steadily decreasing, as in future a wide range of tasks will need to be carried out by the beneficiary state and its authorities.

Can the Commission provide statistics showing the absolute (in euro) and relative development of technical assistance (including procurement procedures) as a percentage of the Commission's estimated development budget (e.g. projects/budget support/total budget) from 1996 to the present day and, as a projection, until the end of the current financial period in 2006?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(30 April 2004)

The Commission is a member of the Development Assistance Committee (DAC) of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), and as such has an obligation to provide full and regular reporting on its overall development aid, in accordance with standard DAC reporting formats.

One of the elements that it reports is the amount allocated to ‘Technical Co-operation’(TCO). Technical co-operation according to the DAC ‘comprises provision of resources where the main aim is to augment the stock of human intellectual capital, i.e. the level of knowledge, skills; technical know-how ...’ and amounts ‘primarily aimed at assisting the implementation of a project ...’

The attached table shows the amounts reported to the DAC as Technical co-operation in the period 1996-2002 as a proportion of the total amount of Official Development Assistance (ODA) during that period in Commitments and Disbursements. This ratio has varied between 5,4 and 3,2 % for commitments and in a ratio between 5,2 and 3,1 % for disbursements.

Technical Co-Operation of the EU reported to the DAC compared to the total Bilateral Official Aid

| (in million euro) |
| --- |
| Year | Disbursement | Commitments |
| Bilateral ODA | TCO | % | Bilateral ODA | TCO | % |
| 1996 | 4 297,28 | 178,13 | 4,1 | 6 098,27 | 226,83 | 3,7 |
| 1997 | 4 549,91 | 235,48 | 5,2 | 5 251,81 | 286,04 | 5,4 |
| 1998 | 4 580,58 | 192,54 | 4,2 | 6 929,46 | 322,10 | 4,6 |
| 1999 | 4 593,19 | 181,93 | 4,0 | 7 009,32 | 248,99 | 3,6 |
| 2000 | 4 789,75 | 228,93 | 4,8 | 7 841,43 | 247,03 | 3,2 |
| 2001 | 6 160,42 | 199,74 | 3,2 | 6 286,88 | 199,49 | 3,2 |
| 2002 | 6 645,80 | 203,81 | 3,1 | 6 854,94 | 246,94 | 3,6 |

(in million euro)

Year

Disbursement

Commitments

Bilateral ODA

TCO

%

Bilateral ODA

TCO

%

1996

4 297,28

178,13

4,1

6 098,27

226,83

3,7

1997

4 549,91

235,48

5,2

5 251,81

286,04

5,4

1998

4 580,58

192,54

4,2

6 929,46

322,10

4,6

1999

4 593,19

181,93

4,0

7 009,32

248,99

3,6

2000

4 789,75

228,93

4,8

7 841,43

247,03

3,2

2001

6 160,42

199,74

3,2

6 286,88

199,49

3,2

2002

6 645,80

203,81

3,1

6 854,94

246,94

3,6

Considering that decisions on technical cooperation are taken in the framework of each specific project/programme, it is not possible to provide forecasts of commitments and payments.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/208 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/208

---

(2004/C 88 E/0216)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0762/04

by José García-Margallo y Marfil (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(11 March 2004)

Subject:   Commission proposals for follow-up to the financial services action plan

During 2004 the Commission intends to launch a broad consultation exercise on the possible follow-up to its financial services action plan from the end of the 1990s. Is it not astonishing that, when it comes to European economic strategy, the Commission is not first drafting a White Paper, for example, setting out the developments it envisages in terms of policy strategy for Europe before embarking on this consultation exercise?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(26 April 2004)

The wide-ranging consultation exercise that the Commission has launched in respect of financial integration will take stock of progress made as the legislative phase of the Financial Services Action Plan draws to a close. It is intended to assess the contribution made to the policy objectives defined at the outset of the process — namely, the effective operation of European financial markets, investor protection and financial stability. The Commission believes that these fundamental policy objectives are likely to remain the key concepts for evaluating EU policy in this sphere over the long-term.

The work of the Commission in respect of its policy on financial integration forms part of the overarching Lisbon strategy for global competitiveness. It is informed by the ongoing discussions on structural reform in the context of the Broad Economic Policy Guidelines — including the views expressed by the Parliament on the latter. It takes full account of additional long-term policy reflections such as the report of the independent high level group on ‘an agenda for a growing Europe’ (Sapir report). Therefore, the Commission believes that its efforts in this field form an integral part of a broader and well-orchestrated economic strategy.

The consultation process on financial integration will provide ‘bottom-up’ feedback on an important area of structural reform policy. This will allow the EU institutions to fine-tune further work in this area and maximise the contribution to overarching economic policy objectives. Any policy orientations to be drawn from this stock-taking process will also be the subject of open debate and consultation.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/209 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/209

---

(2004/C 88 E/0217)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0763/04

by José García-Margallo y Marfil (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(11 March 2004)

Subject:   Role of the public authorities in the follow-up period to the financial services action plan

In the Commission's planned follow-up to its financial services action plan, the public authorities and national governments in particular will play a key role in implementing the provisions of the various directives, in particular the level 2 directives.

Are the structures currently in place, and in particular the national supervisory and regulatory committees, adequate to achieve the objective set by the Lamfalussy process of flexible and uniform implementation of the technical provisions of the directives?

Do these structures not need be strengthened and, if so, how?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(28 April 2004)

With the recent agreement by EU institutions to extend the new financial services committee structure to banking, insurance and occupational pensions and UCITS, the structures in place will ensure flexible and uniform implementation of the technical provisions of Directives.

The Lamfalussy Report defined the role of the Committee of European Securities Regulators (CESR) under Level 3: one of CESR's main tasks is to assist in the convergent interpretation and implementation by national authorities of both Level 1 and Level 2 legislation.

In this context, CESR's tasks are:

| — | to produce consistent guidelines for the administrative regulations to be adopted at national level; |
| --- | --- |

—

to produce consistent guidelines for the administrative regulations to be adopted at national level;

| — | to compare and review regulatory practices to ensure effective enforcement throughout the European Union and define best practice; |
| --- | --- |

—

to compare and review regulatory practices to ensure effective enforcement throughout the European Union and define best practice;

| — | to periodically conduct peer reviews of administrative regulation and regulatory practices in Member States. |
| --- | --- |

—

to periodically conduct peer reviews of administrative regulation and regulatory practices in Member States.

Along these lines, the CESR — in coordination with parallel Commission action — is about to organise ad-hoc meetings to discuss potential problems with regard to the Market Abuse Directive (1).

CESR, when preparing guidelines or its Level 2 advice to the Commission for the elaboration of Level 2 legislation, tries to reach solutions acceptable to all Members. The Commission considers that this process can contribute to ensure convergence among national authorities, transposing and applying EU legislation.

In banking and insurance, the new Committee of European Banking Supervisors (CEBS) and Committee of European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Supervisors (CEIOPS) have recently begun their work. They will play a critical role in the uniform application of new legislation such as new Capital Adequacy (CAD III) and Solvency II Directives.

The CEBS has adopted an ambitious work programme to ensure convergence of supervisory practices in key aspects of the future capital adequacy framework, e. g. on the validation of internal measurement approaches for credit risk and operational risk, and on the supervisory review process leading to the fine-tuning of individual capital requirements.

The Commission will work with all supervisory committees to ensure the implementation of best practices.

In any event, it has to be borne in mind that the Commission, as part of its institutional role as a ‘guardian of the EC Treaty’ is responsible for controlling the transposition and monitoring of good quality implementation by the Member States. The Commission can provide interpretative tools and contacts to facilitate implementation, ensure good quality transposition and avoid infringement procedures before the European Court of Justice — this is also part of Level 4 in the context of the Lamfalussy process.

A number of initiatives have been launched in the context of the European Securities Committee (for instance the establishment of contact points for the implementation of each ‘Lamfalussy Directive’) as well as a series of meetings scheduled to provide interpretative tools to facilitate the implementation of the Market Abuse and Prospectus Directives (2). CESR actions can complement the Commission's determination to improve implementation and enforcement.

---

(1)  Directive 2003/6/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2003 on insider dealing and market manipulation (market abuse), OJ L 96, 12.4.2003.

(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, OJ L 345, 31.12.2003.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/210 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/210

---

(2004/C 88 E/0218)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0764/04

by José García-Margallo y Marfil (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(11 March 2004)

Subject:   Use of pre-accession funds

In relation to the effective use of pre-accession funds, can the Commission say how many audits have been carried out in the new Member States?

What were the main findings?

What were the shortcomings most frequently found in the use of funds by the countries concerned?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(30 April 2004)

In response to the first question of the Honourable Member, it is important to underline that the audits carried out related to pre-accession funds were essentially management control audits and that these concerned transactions fall under the decentralised responsibility of the Candidate Countries (management of pre-accession funds was generally conferred to the national authorities of the Candidate Countries at an early stage, in order to prepare them for their future responsibilities in respect of sound financial management of Community funds.)

Two types of audits were carried out, namely closure audits on the regularity and legality of transactions or alternatively so-called systems audits.

All contracts funded under pre-accession assistance and managed by the national authorities in the Candidate Countries are subject to ex ante controls by the Commission, until the date of accession, after which any new contracts signed shall normally be managed fully by the new Member States themselves, without Commission ex ante controls, under a system known as EDIS (1).

To a considerable degree closure audits therefore act as a further layer of control over the ex ante controls already applied by the Commission. As closure audits are by definition carried out at the closure of a programme, until now these have for the most part been carried out for PHARE pre-accession aid, since the Instrument for Structural Policies for Pre-Accession (ISPA) and Special Accession Programme for Agriculture and Rural Development (Sapard) programmes only started relatively recently and have not yet been closed. Programmes are not ready for closure audit until year n+4, n being the year of programming. Prior to 2000, closure audits had been undertaken on 139 PHARE programmes. Since 2001, closure audits have been undertaken on a further 149 PHARE programmes, mainly covering programmes within the period 1992-1999. Such audits will continue.

Systems audits examine the whole management and control system of pre-accession aid established by the national authorities in the Candidate Country. Already full systems audits of the EDIS applications have been effected for PHARE in most of the 10 new Member States (linked to the EDIS verification process). These will be followed in 2005 for Bulgaria and Romania. A systems audit was also carried out on the Turkish national authorities prior to the decision taken to confer the management of pre-accession aid to Turkey on a decentralised basis.

Regarding pre-accession assistance under ISPA, in total 32 systems audit missions (2) have been effected to date. For three countries EDIS verification missions were also carried out. After 1 May 2004, further audits carried out in the new Member States will fall within the framework of the Cohesion Fund Regulation.

As the Honourable Member may be aware, the pre-accession instrument known as Sapard has always operated on a fully decentralised basis, whereby no pre-accession funds were released until the EDIS accreditation of the agencies of the national authorities, following extensive system audits. Conferral of management audits served as a basis for the Conferral of Management Decision adopted by the Commission. A total of 21 conferral of management audits were carried out. Following the conferral of management, monitoring missions were organized in four countries. In addition, for Sapard, financial audits were conducted in four countries in 2002 and in eight countries in 2003. These audits cover the integrity, accuracy and veracity of the accounts submitted by the Sapard Agency and also of the Sapard euro account. Moreover, conformity audits were carried out in eight countries between September 2003 and March 2004.

As to the main findings/shortcomings, these are similar in nature to those identified in the systems in place in existing Member States, and are of a minor significance for example in the archiving of tender documentation of contracts being audited, bearing in mind that such audits take place some years after contracting. Nevertheless, at an earlier stage these contracts had been ex ante endorsed by the Commission. The systems audits revealed weaknesses — corrected in the EDIS accreditation process — such as lack of adequate staffing or training; nascent local internal audit implementation; lack of preparation for the more ‘non-standard’ types of contracting e.g. twinning, nuclear safety, etc.

As for Sapard, any weaknesses identified in the conferral of management audits were minor and were addressed to the competent authorities in a letter of observations respectively and the Commission followed up the implementation of the recommendations related to those weaknesses. The financial audits made recommendations on the management of the Sapard euro account. In some cases the conformity audits identified minor weaknesses which were addressed to the Candidate Countries in the form of observations and recommendations.

---

(1)  EDIS (Extended Decentralised Implementation System) is an accreditation process whereby the systems of the national agencies managing pre-accession funds are accredited by the Commission in a step similar to that used for Structural and Cohesion Funds, allowing for a waiving of the Commission's ex ante control over tendering and contracting (and project selection in the case of grants). Prior to accession all countries have undertaken a process of improvement of their systems and have put forward applications to be accredited under EDIS (except in some cases for ISPA where the legal base is changed on accession).

(2)  All Acceding Countries except Cyprus and Malta, plus Bulgaria and Romania.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/212 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/212

---

(2004/C 88 E/0219)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0765/04

by José García-Margallo y Marfil (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(11 March 2004)

Subject:   Rating agencies and access to privileged information

On the basis of what European legislation are rating agencies able to gain access to privileged information from businesses?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(26 April 2004)

According to Article 3(a) and Article 6(3) first sub-paragraph of Directive 2003/6/EC of the Parliament and the Council of 28 January 2003, on insider dealing and market manipulation (market abuse (1)), an issuer (or a person acting on his behalf or for his account) may disclose inside information to a third party in the normal exercise of his employment, profession or duties. The issuer must make public disclosure of this information simultaneously or promptly except if the person receiving the information owes a duty of confidentiality, regardless of whether such duty is based on a law, on regulations, on articles of association or on a contract. On this basis, credit rating agencies might get access to inside information from issuers if they owe such a duty of confidentiality.

However, as credit rating agencies are not explicitly mentioned in the above-mentioned provisions, their right (or not) of access to inside information from issuers is left, in practice, to Member States. There is no harmonised European legislation on this matter yet, contrary to the United States where officially recognised credit rating agencies may officially have access to such information.

This is the reason why the Member of the Commission who was responsible for Employment and Social Affairs stated, on 9 February 2004 in the plenary debate on the own initiative report of the European Parliament (Rapporteur: Mr Katiforis) on credit rating agencies, that among at least four issues to be resolved regarding credit rating agencies, ‘the legal treatment of the question of access by rating agencies to inside information from issuers is currently unclear in Europe. There is no harmonised European legislation, nor even any regulation at national level. If rating agencies are to have access to inside information from issuers, we should ensure that the same information is available to all rating agencies. I think Mr Katiforis’ report reflects this. (...) We have to take action fast on these (...) issues. The European Commission committed itself to that at the Oviedo European Council in April 2002. We have to respect our commitment before new scandals occur. The European Commission will thus be able to take a position on the subject by the summer or autumn of 2004 at the latest. Among other contributions, Mr Katiforis' report will be an important element to guide us'.

The case of other types of confidential information, which do not answer the specific criteria of the definition of ‘inside information’ of Article 1 point 1 of Directive 2003/6/EC, is neither dealt with by this Directive nor by any other piece of European legislation. Similarly, cases of businesses apart from issuers or persons acting on their behalf or for their account are not regulated at European level.

---

(1)  OJ L 96, 12.4.2003.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/213 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/213

---

(2004/C 88 E/0220)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0773/04

by Maurizio Turco (NI) to the Commission

(11 March 2004)

Subject:   Violation of religious freedom in Belgium

In view of the following:

| — | Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms; |
| --- | --- |

—

Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;

| — | Articles 10 and 22 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU; |
| --- | --- |

—

Articles 10 and 22 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU;

| — | Article 6 of the EU Treaty; |
| --- | --- |

—

Article 6 of the EU Treaty;

| — | the International Religious Freedom Report for 2003 issued by the US Department of State; |
| --- | --- |

—

the International Religious Freedom Report for 2003 issued by the US Department of State;

and the fact that:

| — | in Belgium foreign teachers belonging to the Assemblies of God (AOG) group used to obtain special visas for missionaries, which meant that they did not need work permits; |
| --- | --- |

—

in Belgium foreign teachers belonging to the Assemblies of God (AOG) group used to obtain special visas for missionaries, which meant that they did not need work permits;

| — | now that special visas for missionaries no longer exist, they need a work permit, but it is not clear what specific category of work permit is needed, so the missionaries do no know which one to apply for and this constitutes an administrative obstacle for them; |
| --- | --- |

—

now that special visas for missionaries no longer exist, they need a work permit, but it is not clear what specific category of work permit is needed, so the missionaries do no know which one to apply for and this constitutes an administrative obstacle for them;

| — | the Church of the Latter-day Saints is still trying to solve the problem of how to obtain visas for its missionaries. |
| --- | --- |

—

the Church of the Latter-day Saints is still trying to solve the problem of how to obtain visas for its missionaries.

Can the Commission say whether it is aware of these facts?

Can the Commission also say whether it considers the actions described as an infringement of the fundamental rights guaranteed in Articles 10 and 22 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU and that they therefore affect the essence of the rights, which are explicitly protected by Article 52 of the Charter?

Whether it also considers that these actions are contrary to Article 6 of the EU Treaty and therefore the principles common to all the Member States regarding respect for human and fundamental rights?

How it intends to dissuade the Kingdom of Belgium from carrying out such actions against religious freedom?

If it does not explicitly condemn these actions, on what legal principles it bases its attitude?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(28 April 2004)

The matters raised by the Honourable Member have not been referred to the Commission.

As regards the granting of specific work permits for religious workers from third countries, the Commission would point out that at present there are no Community rules on entry and residence for work purposes for nationals of third countries, and that all decisions in this field are a matter for the Member States.

In addition, the Commission has no remit to intervene in the event of violations of fundamental rights, including religious freedom, unless such violations take place within the framework of Community law and its implementation.

Lastly, if an individual believes that his fundamental rights have been violated, he can take proceedings in the European Court of Human Rights after exhausting all domestic legal remedies.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/214 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/214

---

(2004/C 88 E/0221)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0774/04

by Maurizio Turco (NI) to the Commission

(11 March 2004)

Subject:   Violation of religious freedom in Cyprus

In view of the following:

| — | Article 6 of the EU Treaty; |
| --- | --- |

—

Article 6 of the EU Treaty;

| — | Articles 10 and 22 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU concerning religious freedom and cultural and religious diversity; |
| --- | --- |

—

Articles 10 and 22 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU concerning religious freedom and cultural and religious diversity;

| — | the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms of 1950 (in particular Article 9); |
| --- | --- |

—

the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms of 1950 (in particular Article 9);

| — | the International Religious Freedom Report for 2003 issued by the US Department of State; |
| --- | --- |

—

the International Religious Freedom Report for 2003 issued by the US Department of State;

| — | the Commission's report of 19 February 2003 on the application for accession to the EU submitted by the Czech Republic, Estonia, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Malta, Poland, Slovenia and Slovakia; |
| --- | --- |

—

the Commission's report of 19 February 2003 on the application for accession to the EU submitted by the Czech Republic, Estonia, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Malta, Poland, Slovenia and Slovakia;

| — | the Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council ‘The Commission's Legislative and Work Programme for 2004’ of 29 October 2003 (1); |
| --- | --- |

—

the Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council ‘The Commission's Legislative and Work Programme for 2004’ of 29 October 2003 (1);

| — | the Copenhagen political criteria regarding the right to religious freedom; |
| --- | --- |

—

the Copenhagen political criteria regarding the right to religious freedom;

and the fact that:

| — | in Cyprus members of Jehovah's Witnesses have reported encountering difficulties in being recognised as conscientious objectors and being exempted from military service in the Greek Cypriot National Guard; |
| --- | --- |

—

in Cyprus members of Jehovah's Witnesses have reported encountering difficulties in being recognised as conscientious objectors and being exempted from military service in the Greek Cypriot National Guard;

| — | in the north of the island, on the basis of the 1960 Constitution the Vakf (Muslim institution regulating the religious acitivty of Turkish Cypriots) pays the cost of the activities and salaries of Muslim religious leaders, is exempted from tax on its religious activities and receives official subsidies, whilst no other religious organisation is exempted from paying tax or is subsidised; |
| --- | --- |

—

in the north of the island, on the basis of the 1960 Constitution the Vakf (Muslim institution regulating the religious acitivty of Turkish Cypriots) pays the cost of the activities and salaries of Muslim religious leaders, is exempted from tax on its religious activities and receives official subsidies, whilst no other religious organisation is exempted from paying tax or is subsidised;

| — | Turkish Cypriot citizens have reported the slowness of procedures at border-crossing points, which have limited the number of people who can cross the border to visit religious sites during the holidays; |
| --- | --- |

—

Turkish Cypriot citizens have reported the slowness of procedures at border-crossing points, which have limited the number of people who can cross the border to visit religious sites during the holidays;

Cyprus is one of the countries due to join the EU on 1 May 2004:

| — | can the Commission say whether it is fully aware of all these facts and, if so, what view it takes of them; |
| --- | --- |

—

can the Commission say whether it is fully aware of all these facts and, if so, what view it takes of them;

| — | since religious freedom and freedom of association are among the priority issues for the Union and since the Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council ‘The Commission's Legislative and Work Programme for 2004’ of 29 October 2003 states that the legal obligations of the European Union and the new Member States vis-à-vis the ‘acquis communautaire’ must be fulfilled from the first day of accession, can the Commission say whether it intends to inform the authorities of these countries of its intentions to this effect? In other words, how will the Commission ensure that these countries comply with the ‘acquis’ from the first day of their membership of the EU if at the same time there is an infringement of the very rights respect for which is strictly necessary for their accession; |
| --- | --- |

—

since religious freedom and freedom of association are among the priority issues for the Union and since the Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council ‘The Commission's Legislative and Work Programme for 2004’ of 29 October 2003 states that the legal obligations of the European Union and the new Member States vis-à-vis the ‘acquis communautaire’ must be fulfilled from the first day of accession, can the Commission say whether it intends to inform the authorities of these countries of its intentions to this effect? In other words, how will the Commission ensure that these countries comply with the ‘acquis’ from the first day of their membership of the EU if at the same time there is an infringement of the very rights respect for which is strictly necessary for their accession;

| — | since the political criteria laid down in the Commission's report of 19 February 2003 require the applicant States to ensure the stability of institutions guaranteeing democracy, the rule of law, human rights and respect for and protection of minorities, does the Commission not consider the facts mentioned above as an obstacle in the context of these countries' accession to the EU and hence contrary to the acquis, and that the countries where these events have occurred are totally failing to comply with the criteria; |
| --- | --- |

—

since the political criteria laid down in the Commission's report of 19 February 2003 require the applicant States to ensure the stability of institutions guaranteeing democracy, the rule of law, human rights and respect for and protection of minorities, does the Commission not consider the facts mentioned above as an obstacle in the context of these countries' accession to the EU and hence contrary to the acquis, and that the countries where these events have occurred are totally failing to comply with the criteria;

| — | will the Commission consider using all the means at its disposal to put an end to this infringement of religious freedom and freedom of worship? |
| --- | --- |

—

will the Commission consider using all the means at its disposal to put an end to this infringement of religious freedom and freedom of worship?

---

(1)  COM(2003) 645 final.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/215 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/215

---

(2004/C 88 E/0222)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0777/04

by Maurizio Turco (NI) to the Commission

(11 March 2004)

Subject:   Violation of religious freedom in Hungary

In view of the following:

| — | Article 6 of the EU Treaty; |
| --- | --- |

—

Article 6 of the EU Treaty;

| — | Articles 10 and 22 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU concerning religious freedom and cultural and religious diversity; |
| --- | --- |

—

Articles 10 and 22 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU concerning religious freedom and cultural and religious diversity;

| — | the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms of 1950 (in particular Article 9); |
| --- | --- |

—

the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms of 1950 (in particular Article 9);

| — | the International Religious Freedom Report for 2003 issued by the US Department of State; |
| --- | --- |

—

the International Religious Freedom Report for 2003 issued by the US Department of State;

| — | the Commission's report of 19 February 2003 on the application for accession to the EU submitted by the Czech Republic, Estonia, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Malta, Poland, Slovenia and Slovakia; |
| --- | --- |

—

the Commission's report of 19 February 2003 on the application for accession to the EU submitted by the Czech Republic, Estonia, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Malta, Poland, Slovenia and Slovakia;

| — | the Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council ‘The Commission's Legislative and Work Programme for 2004’ of 29 October 2003 (1); |
| --- | --- |

—

the Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council ‘The Commission's Legislative and Work Programme for 2004’ of 29 October 2003 (1);

| — | the Copenhagen political criteria regarding the right to religious freedom; |
| --- | --- |

—

the Copenhagen political criteria regarding the right to religious freedom;

and the fact that:

| — | the Hungarian Government has shown its determination to treat majority or long-established religions more favourably than minority religious communities; |
| --- | --- |

—

the Hungarian Government has shown its determination to treat majority or long-established religions more favourably than minority religious communities;

| — | several laws and government decrees guarantee ‘traditional’ religions rights and privileges that are not granted to other religious groups, such as in the decree on the military chaplain's service; |
| --- | --- |

—

several laws and government decrees guarantee ‘traditional’ religions rights and privileges that are not granted to other religious groups, such as in the decree on the military chaplain's service;

| — | there are reports that the Government has unlawfully delayed and in some cases denied authorisation for minority and recently established religions to run schools, whilst it has not subjected applications for authorisation from ‘traditional’ religions to the same scrutiny; |
| --- | --- |

—

there are reports that the Government has unlawfully delayed and in some cases denied authorisation for minority and recently established religions to run schools, whilst it has not subjected applications for authorisation from ‘traditional’ religions to the same scrutiny;

Hungary is one of the countries due to join the EU on 1 May 2004:

| — | can the Commission say whether it is fully aware of all these facts and, if so, what view it takes of them; |
| --- | --- |

—

can the Commission say whether it is fully aware of all these facts and, if so, what view it takes of them;

| — | since religious freedom and freedom of association are among the priority issues for the Union and since the Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council ‘The Commission's Legislative and Work Programme for 2004’ of 29 October 2003 states that the legal obligations of the European Union and the new Member States vis-à-vis the ‘acquis communautaire’ must be fulfilled from the first day of accession, can the Commission say whether it intends to inform the authorities of these countries of its intentions to this effect? In other words, how will the Commission ensure that these countries comply with the ‘acquis’ from the first day of their membership of the EU if at the same time there is an infringement of the very rights, respect for which is strictly necessary for their accession; |
| --- | --- |

—

since religious freedom and freedom of association are among the priority issues for the Union and since the Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council ‘The Commission's Legislative and Work Programme for 2004’ of 29 October 2003 states that the legal obligations of the European Union and the new Member States vis-à-vis the ‘acquis communautaire’ must be fulfilled from the first day of accession, can the Commission say whether it intends to inform the authorities of these countries of its intentions to this effect? In other words, how will the Commission ensure that these countries comply with the ‘acquis’ from the first day of their membership of the EU if at the same time there is an infringement of the very rights, respect for which is strictly necessary for their accession;

| — | since the political criteria laid down in the Commission's report of 19 February 2003 require the applicant States to ensure the stability of institutions guaranteeing democracy, the rule of law, human rights and respect for and protection of minorities, does the Commission not consider the facts mentioned above as an obstacle in the context of these countries' accession to the EU and hence contrary to the acquis, and that the countries where these events have occurred are totally failing to comply with the criteria; |
| --- | --- |

—

since the political criteria laid down in the Commission's report of 19 February 2003 require the applicant States to ensure the stability of institutions guaranteeing democracy, the rule of law, human rights and respect for and protection of minorities, does the Commission not consider the facts mentioned above as an obstacle in the context of these countries' accession to the EU and hence contrary to the acquis, and that the countries where these events have occurred are totally failing to comply with the criteria;

| — | will the Commission consider using all the means at its disposal to put an end to this infringement of religious freedom and freedom of worship? |
| --- | --- |

—

will the Commission consider using all the means at its disposal to put an end to this infringement of religious freedom and freedom of worship?

---

(1)  COM(2003) 645 final.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/216 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/216

---

(2004/C 88 E/0223)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0778/04

by Maurizio Turco (NI) to the Commission

(11 March 2004)

Subject:   Violation of religious freedom in Lithuania

In view of the following:

| — | Article 6 of the EU Treaty; |
| --- | --- |

—

Article 6 of the EU Treaty;

| — | Articles 10 and 22 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU concerning religious freedom and cultural and religious diversity; |
| --- | --- |

—

Articles 10 and 22 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU concerning religious freedom and cultural and religious diversity;

| — | the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms of 1950 (in particular Articles 9 and 14); |
| --- | --- |

—

the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms of 1950 (in particular Articles 9 and 14);

| — | the Commission's report of 19 February 2003 on the application for accession to the EU submitted by the Czech Republic, Estonia, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Malta, Poland, Slovenia and Slovakia; |
| --- | --- |

—

the Commission's report of 19 February 2003 on the application for accession to the EU submitted by the Czech Republic, Estonia, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Malta, Poland, Slovenia and Slovakia;

| — | the Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council ‘The Commission's Legislative and Work Programme for 2004’ of 29 October 2003 (1); |
| --- | --- |

—

the Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council ‘The Commission's Legislative and Work Programme for 2004’ of 29 October 2003 (1);

| — | the International Religious Freedom Report for 2003 issued by the US Department of State; |
| --- | --- |

—

the International Religious Freedom Report for 2003 issued by the US Department of State;

| — | the Copenhagen political criteria regarding the right to religious freedom; |
| --- | --- |

—

the Copenhagen political criteria regarding the right to religious freedom;

and the fact that:

| — | in Lithuania, according to the Constitution, State and local teaching and educational establishments are secular; |
| --- | --- |

—

in Lithuania, according to the Constitution, State and local teaching and educational establishments are secular;

| — | despite this, in February 2003 the Deputy Minister for Education admitted that as a result of an agreement with the Holy See Catholic priests have the final word regarding the employment of teachers giving religious instruction in State schools; |
| --- | --- |

—

despite this, in February 2003 the Deputy Minister for Education admitted that as a result of an agreement with the Holy See Catholic priests have the final word regarding the employment of teachers giving religious instruction in State schools;

Lithuania is one of the countries due to join the EU on 1 May 2004:

| — | can the Commission say whether it is fully aware of all these facts and, if so, what view it takes of them; |
| --- | --- |

—

can the Commission say whether it is fully aware of all these facts and, if so, what view it takes of them;

| — | since religious freedom and freedom of association are among the priority issues for the Union and since the Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council ‘The Commission's Legislative and Work Programme for 2004’ of 29 October 2003 states that the legal obligations of the European Union and the new Member States vis-à-vis the ‘acquis communautaire’ must be fulfilled from the first day of accession, can the Commission say whether it intends to inform the authorities of these countries of its intentions to this effect? In other words, how will the Commission ensure that these countries comply with the ‘acquis’ from the first day of their membership of the EU if at the same time there is an infringement of the very rights respect for which is strictly necessary for their accession; |
| --- | --- |

—

since religious freedom and freedom of association are among the priority issues for the Union and since the Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council ‘The Commission's Legislative and Work Programme for 2004’ of 29 October 2003 states that the legal obligations of the European Union and the new Member States vis-à-vis the ‘acquis communautaire’ must be fulfilled from the first day of accession, can the Commission say whether it intends to inform the authorities of these countries of its intentions to this effect? In other words, how will the Commission ensure that these countries comply with the ‘acquis’ from the first day of their membership of the EU if at the same time there is an infringement of the very rights respect for which is strictly necessary for their accession;

| — | since the political criteria laid down in the Commission's report of 19 February 2003 require the applicant States to ensure the stability of institutions guaranteeing democracy, the rule of law, human rights and respect for and protection of minorities, does the Commission not consider the facts mentioned above as an obstacle in the context of these countries' accession to the EU and hence contrary to the acquis, and that the countries where these events have occurred are totally failing to comply with the criteria; |
| --- | --- |

—

since the political criteria laid down in the Commission's report of 19 February 2003 require the applicant States to ensure the stability of institutions guaranteeing democracy, the rule of law, human rights and respect for and protection of minorities, does the Commission not consider the facts mentioned above as an obstacle in the context of these countries' accession to the EU and hence contrary to the acquis, and that the countries where these events have occurred are totally failing to comply with the criteria;

| — | will the Commission consider using all the means at its disposal to put an end to this infringement of religious freedom and freedom of worship? |
| --- | --- |

—

will the Commission consider using all the means at its disposal to put an end to this infringement of religious freedom and freedom of worship?

---

(1)  COM(2003) 645 final.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/217 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/217

---

(2004/C 88 E/0224)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0779/04

by Maurizio Turco (NI) to the Commission

(11 March 2004)

Subject:   Violation of religious freedom in Poland

In view of the following:

| — | Article 6 of the EU Treaty; |
| --- | --- |

—

Article 6 of the EU Treaty;

| — | Articles 10 and 22 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU concerning religious freedom and cultural and religious diversity; |
| --- | --- |

—

Articles 10 and 22 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU concerning religious freedom and cultural and religious diversity;

| — | the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms of 1950 (in particular Article 9); |
| --- | --- |

—

the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms of 1950 (in particular Article 9);

| — | the International Religious Freedom Report for 2003 issued by the US Department of State; |
| --- | --- |

—

the International Religious Freedom Report for 2003 issued by the US Department of State;

| — | the Commission's report of 19 February 2003 on the application for accession to the EU submitted by the Czech Republic, Estonia, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Malta, Poland, Slovenia and Slovakia; |
| --- | --- |

—

the Commission's report of 19 February 2003 on the application for accession to the EU submitted by the Czech Republic, Estonia, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Malta, Poland, Slovenia and Slovakia;

| — | the Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council ‘The Commission's Legislative and Work Programme for 2004’ of 29 October 2003 (1); |
| --- | --- |

—

the Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council ‘The Commission's Legislative and Work Programme for 2004’ of 29 October 2003 (1);

| — | the Copenhagen political criteria regarding the right to religious freedom; |
| --- | --- |

—

the Copenhagen political criteria regarding the right to religious freedom;

and the fact that:

| — | in Poland Orthodox clerics have reported instances of discrimination against their community; |
| --- | --- |

—

in Poland Orthodox clerics have reported instances of discrimination against their community;

| — | there are reports of less than proportional funding for cultural events associated with the Orthodox community; |
| --- | --- |

—

there are reports of less than proportional funding for cultural events associated with the Orthodox community;

| — | there have been cases of layoffs in which Orthodox employees were the first to lose their jobs, and according to the local press true citizenship depends on being Catholic: |
| --- | --- |

—

there have been cases of layoffs in which Orthodox employees were the first to lose their jobs, and according to the local press true citizenship depends on being Catholic:

Poland is one of the countries due to join the EU on 1 May 2004:

| — | can the Commission say whether it is fully aware of all these facts and, if so, what view it takes of them; |
| --- | --- |

—

can the Commission say whether it is fully aware of all these facts and, if so, what view it takes of them;

| — | since religious freedom and freedom of association are among the priority issues for the Union and since the Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council ‘The Commission's Legislative and Work Programme for 2004’ of 29 October 2003 states that the legal obligations of the European Union and the new Member States vis-à-vis the ‘acquis communautaire’ must be fulfilled from the first day of accession, can the Commission say whether it intends to inform the authorities of these countries of its intentions to this effect? In other words, how will the Commission ensure that these countries comply with the ‘acquis’ from the first day of their membership of the EU if at the same time there is an infringement of the very rights respect for which is strictly necessary for their accession; |
| --- | --- |

—

since religious freedom and freedom of association are among the priority issues for the Union and since the Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council ‘The Commission's Legislative and Work Programme for 2004’ of 29 October 2003 states that the legal obligations of the European Union and the new Member States vis-à-vis the ‘acquis communautaire’ must be fulfilled from the first day of accession, can the Commission say whether it intends to inform the authorities of these countries of its intentions to this effect? In other words, how will the Commission ensure that these countries comply with the ‘acquis’ from the first day of their membership of the EU if at the same time there is an infringement of the very rights respect for which is strictly necessary for their accession;

| — | since the political criteria laid down in the Commission's report of 19 February 2003 require the applicant States to ensure the stability of institutions guaranteeing democracy, the rule of law, human rights and respect for and protection of minorities, does the Commission not consider the facts mentioned above as an obstacle in the context of these countries' accession to the EU and hence contrary to the acquis, and that the countries where these events have occurred are totally failing to comply with the criteria; |
| --- | --- |

—

since the political criteria laid down in the Commission's report of 19 February 2003 require the applicant States to ensure the stability of institutions guaranteeing democracy, the rule of law, human rights and respect for and protection of minorities, does the Commission not consider the facts mentioned above as an obstacle in the context of these countries' accession to the EU and hence contrary to the acquis, and that the countries where these events have occurred are totally failing to comply with the criteria;

| — | will the Commission consider using all the means at its disposal to put an end to this infringement of religious freedom and freedom of worship? |
| --- | --- |

—

will the Commission consider using all the means at its disposal to put an end to this infringement of religious freedom and freedom of worship?

Joint answer

to Written Questions E-0774/04, E-0777/04, E-0778/04 and E-0779/04

given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(30 April 2004)

The Commission attaches considerable importance to the issues raised by the Honourable Member in these four questions regarding violation of religious freedom in new Member States.

Respect of religious freedom is covered by the political criteria for membership of the European Union, as established by the Copenhagen European Council in 1993. Since its 1997 Opinions on the applications for membership, the Commission has monitored and evaluated annually in its Regular Reports the progress made by Acceding States towards meeting the Copenhagen criteria, including religious freedom. These reports confirmed that the countries continued to fulfil the Copenhagen political criteria although further efforts were still needed in certain areas.

Against this background, accession negotiations with ten Acceding States were concluded in December 2002. Following approval by the Parliament, the Accession Treaty was signed in April 2003 and since then ratified by all countries.

In particular it should be noted that, under the Accession Treaty, all acceding States must implement by 1 May 2004 Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation (2), which prohibits discrimination in employment and training on the grounds of, ‘inter alia’, religion or belief.

The Commission would remind the Honourable Member that there exists neither a Community competence nor specific Community law requirements on how to treat religious communities. This is in line with Declaration No 11 of the Treaty of Amsterdam. As a consequence, EU governments maintain a discretionary power on issues such as recognition, registration requirements or public funding of religious communities, as long as fundamental rights as general principles of Community law (Article 6 (2) TEU), applying to any action by a Member State in the ambit of Community law, are respected. The Commission controls respect of these principles and will, in case of suspected infringements, use all the means at its disposal to put an end to them.

As regards the points raised by the Honourable Member in respect of specific new Member States, the Commission has the following observations:

| — | On Poland, the Commission takes note of the remarks related to the treatment of the Polish Orthodox church. Cases of individual or collective discrimination may be submitted to the Commission after accession and will be examined against the background of the above-mentioned legal rules and principles. |
| --- | --- |

—

On Poland, the Commission takes note of the remarks related to the treatment of the Polish Orthodox church. Cases of individual or collective discrimination may be submitted to the Commission after accession and will be examined against the background of the above-mentioned legal rules and principles.

| — | Concerning Lithuania, the Commission is aware of the agreement between Lithuania and the Holy See on co-operation in the field of education and culture. This agreement, signed on 5 May 2000, is a legally binding international agreement.
  According to this agreement, students who have chosen a course in Catholic religion are taught by teachers of that religion. The qualification of a teacher of the Catholic religion is awarded according to the procedure established by the legal acts of the Republic of Lithuania with due regard to the norms laid down by the Conference of Lithuanian Bishops. Teachers of the Catholic religion must have a qualifying certificate (missio canonica) for teaching Catholic religion, issued by the local bishop. This requirement is applied only for teachers of the Catholic religion and has therefore no significance with teaching religion in general to students of other denominations.
  In light of these elements, the Commission considers that freedom of religion and worship is fully respected in Lithuania and it does not intend to undertake any measures in that field. |
| --- | --- |

—

Concerning Lithuania, the Commission is aware of the agreement between Lithuania and the Holy See on co-operation in the field of education and culture. This agreement, signed on 5 May 2000, is a legally binding international agreement.

According to this agreement, students who have chosen a course in Catholic religion are taught by teachers of that religion. The qualification of a teacher of the Catholic religion is awarded according to the procedure established by the legal acts of the Republic of Lithuania with due regard to the norms laid down by the Conference of Lithuanian Bishops. Teachers of the Catholic religion must have a qualifying certificate (missio canonica) for teaching Catholic religion, issued by the local bishop. This requirement is applied only for teachers of the Catholic religion and has therefore no significance with teaching religion in general to students of other denominations.

In light of these elements, the Commission considers that freedom of religion and worship is fully respected in Lithuania and it does not intend to undertake any measures in that field.

| — | With regard to Hungary, the Constitution establishes the Hungarian State as religiously neutral; church and state are separated. Hungarian citizens are entitled to practice their faith freely. Any church can be officially registered provided that it collects the signatures of at least 100 believers. There is no requirement nor control on substance by the Registry Court, beyond the declaration by the Church that its aims do not contradict the Hungarian Constitution.
  The Hungarian State grants financial benefits to churches based on their size and their provision of public services. The four biggest churches in 2001, are the Catholic, Lutheran and Calvinist churches and the Jewish Community. The legislation that lists these four churches as ‘historic churches’ is the 1994 Government Decree on Military Chaplain Service (61/1994). The decree assures the right of all soldiers to receive the religious service of their choice from any registered church. The Constitutional Court ruled that this decree does not violate religious freedom (ruling 970/B/1994).
  According to the Public Education Law (79/1993), all registered Hungarian churches have the right to open schools. The Hungarian authorities have no right to deny permission provided that the school fulfils all the general criteria (education, health, safety, ...) described by law. |
| --- | --- |

—

With regard to Hungary, the Constitution establishes the Hungarian State as religiously neutral; church and state are separated. Hungarian citizens are entitled to practice their faith freely. Any church can be officially registered provided that it collects the signatures of at least 100 believers. There is no requirement nor control on substance by the Registry Court, beyond the declaration by the Church that its aims do not contradict the Hungarian Constitution.

The Hungarian State grants financial benefits to churches based on their size and their provision of public services. The four biggest churches in 2001, are the Catholic, Lutheran and Calvinist churches and the Jewish Community. The legislation that lists these four churches as ‘historic churches’ is the 1994 Government Decree on Military Chaplain Service (61/1994). The decree assures the right of all soldiers to receive the religious service of their choice from any registered church. The Constitutional Court ruled that this decree does not violate religious freedom (ruling 970/B/1994).

According to the Public Education Law (79/1993), all registered Hungarian churches have the right to open schools. The Hungarian authorities have no right to deny permission provided that the school fulfils all the general criteria (education, health, safety, ...) described by law.

| — | Concerning Cyprus, the Commission is not aware that members of Jehovah's Witnesses are encountering difficulties in being recognised as conscientious objectors. No complaint in this respect has been brought to the Commission's attention.
  Regarding the situation in the Northern part of the island and at the crossing points, it should be noted that the Government of the Republic of Cyprus does not exercise effective control in these areas. According to Article 1, Paragraph 1 of Protocol No 10 of the Act of Accession 2003 the ‘acquis’ will be suspended in these areas pending a settlement. The Commission cannot confirm that there is a reference in the 1960 Constitution allowing for Evkaf special provisions. As regards slowness of procedures at the checkpoints, it should be noted that there are only four checkpoints for crossing. Consequently some delays occurred in waiting times prior to crossing when there were high volumes wanting to cross in the immediate aftermath of the opening of the demarcation line to crossing by private persons, in particular on public holidays and weekends. The Commission does not see any connection with the freedom of religion or an ill-will of the respective authorities. In the meantime there are scarcely any major delays in crossing. |
| --- | --- |

—

Concerning Cyprus, the Commission is not aware that members of Jehovah's Witnesses are encountering difficulties in being recognised as conscientious objectors. No complaint in this respect has been brought to the Commission's attention.

Regarding the situation in the Northern part of the island and at the crossing points, it should be noted that the Government of the Republic of Cyprus does not exercise effective control in these areas. According to Article 1, Paragraph 1 of Protocol No 10 of the Act of Accession 2003 the ‘acquis’ will be suspended in these areas pending a settlement. The Commission cannot confirm that there is a reference in the 1960 Constitution allowing for Evkaf special provisions. As regards slowness of procedures at the checkpoints, it should be noted that there are only four checkpoints for crossing. Consequently some delays occurred in waiting times prior to crossing when there were high volumes wanting to cross in the immediate aftermath of the opening of the demarcation line to crossing by private persons, in particular on public holidays and weekends. The Commission does not see any connection with the freedom of religion or an ill-will of the respective authorities. In the meantime there are scarcely any major delays in crossing.

---

(1)  COM(2003) 645 final.

(2)  OJ L 103, 2.12.2000.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/220 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/220

---

(2004/C 88 E/0225)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0784/04

by Proinsias De Rossa (PSE) to the Commission

(11 March 2004)

Subject:   Family reunification

Is the Commission monitoring the implications of the Irish Government's recent decision to discontinue the practice of routinely granting family reunification to parents of Irish/EU child citizens who are seeking to be joined in Ireland by other family members?

Has the Commission been in contact with the Irish Government over the necessity to establish a coherent system for applications for family reunification from parents of Irish/EU citizens and non-refugee third country nationals legally resident in Ireland? Does the Commission agree that preventing third-country nationals, legally resident in the EU, from reuniting with their families, constitutes a lack of respect for international human rights standards?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(22 April 2004)

The Honourable Member's question refers to family reunification in Ireland of third-country nationals and Irish EU citizens.

Family reunification of third-country nationals is the subject of the Directive on the right to family reunification of 22 September 2003, which lays down common rules on the admission of family members. The Directive must be transposed by the end of 2005 in all Member States, with the exception of Denmark, Ireland and the United Kingdom, which, pursuant to the respective protocols applying to them, do not take part in the common immigration policy.

Secondary Community legislation on residence provides that family members of Union citizens who are nationals of third countries may rejoin the Union citizen where the latter is either a worker or has sufficient resources not to become a burden on the social security system of the host Member State during his stay, together with full sickness insurance cover. This applies only to ascendants dependent on the Union citizen. It can be assumed that, as a rule, the parents of minors are not usually dependent on the latter.

In Case C-413/99 Baumbast and R[2002]ECR I-7091 (judgment given on 17 September 2002), the Court of Justice nevertheless upheld the principle set out in Case C-60/00 Carpenter[2002]ECR I-6279 (judgment given on 11 July 2002), whereby the provisions of Community law on the free movement of persons must be interpreted in the light of the requirement to respect family life, laid down in Article 8 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms as one of the fundamental rights recognised by Community law.

In accordance with this principle, the Court concluded that, where children enjoy the right of residence in a Member State in order to undergo there general educational courses under Article 12 of Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 (1), this provision, so as not to be without effect, must be taken to mean that the parent who has custody of the children, irrespective of his/her nationality, is entitled to reside with them in order to facilitate the exercise of the said right, notwithstanding the fact that the parents have divorced in the meantime or that the parent who has the status of a Union citizen is no longer a migrant worker in the host Member State.

From this judgment it follows that the parent, irrespective of his/her nationality, who has custody of the children, even if not engaging in an economic activity in the host Member State, is entitled to stay there without being obliged to prove that he/she has adequate resources and sickness insurance because his/her right of residence is based on Article 12 of Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68, which does not lay down such conditions.

Another case relating to the right of residence of parents deriving from the situation of their children is being examined by the Court of Justice (Case C-200/02 Chen). It concerns the right of residence of the Chinese mother of an Irish child. The Chinese mother gave birth in Ireland to a child who acquired Irish nationality. She travelled to the United Kingdom, where she invoked Community law to claim right of residence there. The Court of Justice must rule whether the minor is entitled to reside in the United Kingdom under Community law and whether the mother can obtain right of residence in the United Kingdom through her child although she is not a dependent of the child.

Admission of foreign family members of nationals who have not exercised their right to freedom of movement is governed by the national law of each Member State and, for the moment, not by Community rules.

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of 15 October 1968 on freedom of movement for workers within the Community, OJ L 257, 19.10.1968.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/221 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/221

---

(2004/C 88 E/0226)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0789/04

by Cristiana Muscardini (UEN), Sergio Berlato (UEN), Roberta Angelilli (UEN), Roberto Bigliardo (UEN), Antonio Mussa (UEN), Sebastiano Musumeci (UEN), Mauro Nobilia (UEN), Adriana Poli Bortone (UEN) and Franz Turchi (UEN) to the Commission

(11 March 2004)

Subject:   International wine piracy — amendment of Regulation (EC) No 753/2002

On 10 February 2004, the Management Committee for Wines reconfirmed, by a narrow majority, the vote of 24 January 2004 approving an opinion on amendments to Regulation (EC) No 753/2002 (1) and, more specifically, to the chapter on the description, designation, presentation and protection of certain products. This opinion was recently approved by the Commission (2). The new rules will apply from 15 March 2004.

Commission Regulation (EC) No 316/2004 (3) amending Regulation (EC) No 753/2002, among other things, relaxes the rules on the international use of 17 traditional Italian wine terms, which can be used, from 15 March 2004, for wines produced in non-Community countries, provided that it is shown under set criteria that the term had been used in the past.

It will no longer be necessary, however, for the same term to be recognised or protected in a national legislative framework, as required by the previous rules. The result of the decision is a free-for-all, or at least making it easier to market wine not produced in Italy internationally using traditional Italian terms.

In view of the above, does the Commission agree that:

| — | the proposed new rules conflict with European legislation on labelling and consumer protection; |
| --- | --- |

—

the proposed new rules conflict with European legislation on labelling and consumer protection;

| — | the term used on a wine label should indicate the characterisation, ageing, quality and colour of the wine obtained by specific production methods in a geographical area inextricably linked with the history and the culture of the wine described by the label; |
| --- | --- |

—

the term used on a wine label should indicate the characterisation, ageing, quality and colour of the wine obtained by specific production methods in a geographical area inextricably linked with the history and the culture of the wine described by the label;

| — | the amendments to Regulation (EC) No 753/2002 contained in Regulation (EC) No 316/2004 contradict the objective of combating food piracy, which is a fundamental part of the WTO agreement to guarantee fair trade and to protect traditional production from international counterfeiting, to the benefit of local development in all countries; |
| --- | --- |

—

the amendments to Regulation (EC) No 753/2002 contained in Regulation (EC) No 316/2004 contradict the objective of combating food piracy, which is a fundamental part of the WTO agreement to guarantee fair trade and to protect traditional production from international counterfeiting, to the benefit of local development in all countries;

| — | in terms of the protection of typical food products threatened with imitation, strict legislation constitutes a choice for market transparency, increasing consumer protection, and also has a significant impact on Europe in terms of jobs and the economy; |
| --- | --- |

—

in terms of the protection of typical food products threatened with imitation, strict legislation constitutes a choice for market transparency, increasing consumer protection, and also has a significant impact on Europe in terms of jobs and the economy;

| — | the proposed new rules make it considerably easier to commit international wine piracy? |
| --- | --- |

—

the proposed new rules make it considerably easier to commit international wine piracy?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(28 April 2004)

Following notification of Regulation (EC) No 753/2002 (4) to the World Trade Organisation, several third countries sent their observations and expressed reservations to the WTO. Exclusive protection of certain traditional terms (List B) was regarded by the third countries as a new intellectual property right of the Union covered by the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (additional to that for geographical indications).

The Commission adopted Regulation (EC) No 316/2004 (5) amending Regulation (EC) No 753/2002 laying down new wine labelling rules to counter the allegations made by some third countries following the consultations in Geneva (WTO).

The amendments to Regulation (EC) No 753/2002 adopted by the Commission do not contradict the Community's wine labelling rules. Unlike Regulation (EC) No 753/2002, Regulation (EC) No 1493/1999 (6) makes no reference to two types of traditional term (List A and List B).

Nor are the amendments intended to liberalise the use of the traditional terms in List B in Annex III to Regulation (EC) No 753/2002 at international level — they only lay down conditions that are equivalent to the requirements already in force for the traditional terms in List A in that Annex.

They include (see Article 1(10) of Regulation (EC) No 316/2004 amending Article 37(1)(e) of Regulation (EC) No 753/2002) the following:

| 1. | the third country must present a substantiated request to the Commission and provide the justificatory data for recognition of the traditional term; |
| --- | --- |

1.

the third country must present a substantiated request to the Commission and provide the justificatory data for recognition of the traditional term;

| 2. | the language of the traditional term must be the official language of the third country and the term in that language must have been used for at least 10 years; |
| --- | --- |

2.

the language of the traditional term must be the official language of the third country and the term in that language must have been used for at least 10 years;

| 3. | if the language of the traditional term is not the official language, its use must be provided for in the country's legislation; in such cases the traditional term in that language must have been used continuously for at least 25 years; |
| --- | --- |

3.

if the language of the traditional term is not the official language, its use must be provided for in the country's legislation; in such cases the traditional term in that language must have been used continuously for at least 25 years;

| 4. | other requirements such as that the term be specific and distinctive and that there be no risk of consumers being misled. |
| --- | --- |

4.

other requirements such as that the term be specific and distinctive and that there be no risk of consumers being misled.

As regards references to the category, colour or method of production of products, these are optional indications, both for Member States and third countries, which may appear on the label provided that the conditions of use conform to the rules applicable to wine producers, including those emanating from representative trade organisations.

In the light of the above, the Commission takes the view that the amendments to Regulation (EC) No 753/2002 are in line with the rules on consumer protection and do not encourage international piracy or imitation.

---

(1)  OJ L 118, 4.5.2002, p. 1.

(2)  OJ L 55, 24.2.2004.

(3)  OJ L 55, 24.2.2004, p. 16.

(4)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 753/2002 of 29 April 2002 laying down certain rules for applying Council Regulation (EC) No 1493/1999 as regards the description, designation, presentation and protection of certain wine sector products, OJ L 118, 4.5.2002.

(5)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 316/2004 of 20 February 2004, OJ L 55, 24.2.2004.

(6)  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.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/223 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/223

---

(2004/C 88 E/0227)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0790/04

by Roberto Bigliardo (UEN) to the Commission

(11 March 2004)

Subject:   Presence of dangerous dioxin in the town of Acerra (Na), Italy

In March 2003, a set of analyses of milk from ewes grazing in roaming pasture in Acerra, a populous town in the Province of Naples, Italy, which went unpublished until October 2003, made some disturbing findings, recording a presence of dioxin of 12 pg, compared with the 3 pg limit set by the law.

In the face of such alarming data that demonstrates the existence of serious environmental damage, the Campania Region, which is responsible for monitoring and the relevant provisions, has remained deaf to all requests by the Acerra town authorities to carry out the necessary land reclamation.

The relevant local health authority for the area has taken no action.

The situation is currently extremely dangerous for the population (around 50 000 inhabitants) of the town. The latest analyses carried out by the Mario Negri Institute in Milan have revealed unimaginable levels of dioxin in milk from the same ewes: 50 pgTe/g.

This is an astonishing and highly serious statistic, unprecedented in the area, showing dioxin traceability in the area at the level of serious pollutants, which was duly reported to the Public Prosecutor's Office in Nola on 31 October 2003 by local political representatives of Alleanza Nazionale.

Given that I have already written to the Chairman of the Committee on Petitions requesting a proper study of the objective environmental situation in and around Acerra, can the Commission call on the Campania Region to safeguard the environment and, with it, the life of tens of thousands of people living there?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(30 April 2004)

The Commission was informed of this contamination case on 26 March 2003 and the information was distributed to the competent authorities of the other Member States through the Rapid Alert System for Feed and Food on 28 March 2003. The contamination was detected by analysing sheep milk samples taken in application of the monitoring plan provided for in Council Directive 96/23/EC of 29 April 1996 on measures to monitor certain substances and residues thereof in live animals and animal products (1). The levels found exceeded significantly the maximum levels for dioxins established by Commission Regulation (EC) No 466/2001 of 8 March 2001 setting maximium levels for certain contaminants in foodstuffs (2), as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 2375/2001 of 29 November 2001 (3).

In accordance with Commission Recommendation 2002/201/EC of 4 March 2002 on the reduction of the presence of dioxins, furans and dioxin-like PCBs in feedingstuffs and foodstuffs (4) investigations were initiated to identify the source of contamination and to take measures to reduce or eliminate the source of contamination. The investigations revealed that one of the causes of the contamination could be the uncontrolled burning of materials that have been dumped in the countryside.

Following the information provided by the Italian authorities, the contamination was limited to parts of the province Caserta and to adjacent municipalities in the northern part of Naples. The affected areas were demarcated. No commercial animal feed was found with dioxin levels above the maximum levels established in Directive 2002/32/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 7 May 2002 on undesirable substances in animal feed (5) as amended by Commission Directive 2003/57/EC of 17 June 2003 (6).

The Italian authorities have provided guarantees:

| — | to eliminate/remove the mentioned source and to undertake further investigations to identify possible other sources and to rehabilitate the areas contaminated, |
| --- | --- |

—

to eliminate/remove the mentioned source and to undertake further investigations to identify possible other sources and to rehabilitate the areas contaminated,

| — | to eliminate the possible sources of contamination, |
| --- | --- |

—

to eliminate the possible sources of contamination,

| — | to continuously monitor the environment, farms, the feedingstuffs used and the products in the affected areas, |
| --- | --- |

—

to continuously monitor the environment, farms, the feedingstuffs used and the products in the affected areas,

| — | to withdraw contaminated products from the market and to destroy them under controlled conditions. |
| --- | --- |

—

to withdraw contaminated products from the market and to destroy them under controlled conditions.

Given these guarantees and should all the above-mentioned measures be strictly applied, the Commission is of the opinion that the measures are sufficient to protect public health and the environment.

---

(1)  OJ L 125, 23.5.1996.

(2)  OJ L 77, 16.3.2001.

(3)  OJ L 321, 6.12.2001.

(4)  OJ L 67, 9.3.2002.

(5)  OJ L 140, 30.5.2002.

(6)  OJ L 151, 19.6.2003.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/224 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/224

---

(2004/C 88 E/0228)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0794/04

by Paul Rübig (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(11 March 2004)

Subject:   Regulation (EC) No 141/2000 on orphan medicinal products

In connection with Regulation (EC) No 141/2000 (1) on orphan medicinal products, we request clarification on the following questions:

| 1. | Can a medicinal product continue to be designated as an orphan drug if, after it has been designated as such but before it has received centralised authorisation, other medicinal products containing partly the same and partly different active ingredients are granted national authorisation in several Member States to treat the same condition? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Can a medicinal product continue to be designated as an orphan drug if, after it has been designated as such but before it has received centralised authorisation, other medicinal products containing partly the same and partly different active ingredients are granted national authorisation in several Member States to treat the same condition?

| 2. | Can a medicinal product continue to enjoy orphan drug status if the Committee for Proprietary Medicinal Products (CPMP) has granted approval for its use as a second-line treatment only and the first-choice drug is not authorised in all Member States? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Can a medicinal product continue to enjoy orphan drug status if the Committee for Proprietary Medicinal Products (CPMP) has granted approval for its use as a second-line treatment only and the first-choice drug is not authorised in all Member States?

| 3. | Does the registration by one sponsor of an active ingredient for use as a second-line treatment prevent another sponsor from obtaining the designation of the same active ingredient as an orphan drug for use as a first-line treatment? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Does the registration by one sponsor of an active ingredient for use as a second-line treatment prevent another sponsor from obtaining the designation of the same active ingredient as an orphan drug for use as a first-line treatment?

| 4. | Can a sponsor apply for an active ingredient to be designated as an orphan drug if national authorisation has already been granted to an identical medicinal product manufactured by another pharmaceutical company? |
| --- | --- |

4.

Can a sponsor apply for an active ingredient to be designated as an orphan drug if national authorisation has already been granted to an identical medicinal product manufactured by another pharmaceutical company?

| 5. | Can an active ingredient be designated as an orphan drug for the treatment of a certain condition even if doctors are already using it without authorisation to treat that condition and thereby generate large profits for the sponsor? Can a medicinal product be designated as an orphan drug even if large profits are being generated by the use of this medicinal product in treating a different condition, profits which also contribute to funding the development of drugs to treat rare conditions? Is the requirement laid down in Article 3(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 141/2000 met in these cases? |
| --- | --- |

5.

Can an active ingredient be designated as an orphan drug for the treatment of a certain condition even if doctors are already using it without authorisation to treat that condition and thereby generate large profits for the sponsor? Can a medicinal product be designated as an orphan drug even if large profits are being generated by the use of this medicinal product in treating a different condition, profits which also contribute to funding the development of drugs to treat rare conditions? Is the requirement laid down in Article 3(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 141/2000 met in these cases?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(20 April 2004)

The issues raised have been addressed in the Commission Communication of July 2003 (2). Following the first three years of application of the Regulation and in response to a number of requests for interpretation and clarification, the Commission wished to set out its position on certain matters relating to the implementation of the designation and market exclusivity provisions. These interpretations were intended to provide guidance to the European Medicines Evaluation Agency, the Member States, the pharmaceutical industry and other interested parties. Also, several clarifications were provided in order to avoid a departure from the spirit of the Regulation. The Communication, therefore, considers points in relation to Articles 3 (criteria for designation), 5 (procedure for designation and removal from the register), and 7 (Community marketing authorisation) of Regulation (EC) No 141/2000 of the Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 1999 on orphan medicinal products.

| 1. | A medicinal product can continue to be designated as an orphan drug if, ‘after it has been designated as such but before it has received centralised authorisation, other medicinal products containing partly the same and partly different active ingredients are granted national authorisation in several Member States to treat the same condition’. However, Article 5(12) states that: ‘A designated orphan medicinal product shall be removed from the Community Register of Orphan Medicinal Products: (a) at the request of the sponsor; (b) if it is established before the market authorisation is granted that the criteria laid down in Article 3 are no longer met in respect of the medicinal product concerned; (c) at the end of the period of market exclusivity as laid down in Article 8.’ With reference to Article 5(12)(b), section B.2.3 of the Commission Communication of July 2003 mentioned above, states: ‘The Commission interprets this as meaning that the criteria for orphan designation shall be reviewed before a marketing authorisation is granted’. |
| --- | --- |

1.

A medicinal product can continue to be designated as an orphan drug if, ‘after it has been designated as such but before it has received centralised authorisation, other medicinal products containing partly the same and partly different active ingredients are granted national authorisation in several Member States to treat the same condition’. However, Article 5(12) states that: ‘A designated orphan medicinal product shall be removed from the Community Register of Orphan Medicinal Products: (a) at the request of the sponsor; (b) if it is established before the market authorisation is granted that the criteria laid down in Article 3 are no longer met in respect of the medicinal product concerned; (c) at the end of the period of market exclusivity as laid down in Article 8.’ With reference to Article 5(12)(b), section B.2.3 of the Commission Communication of July 2003 mentioned above, states: ‘The Commission interprets this as meaning that the criteria for orphan designation shall be reviewed before a marketing authorisation is granted’.

| 2. | The second question implies that orphan designation was based on significant benefit. Assessment of significant benefit is for the Committee on Orphan Medicinal Products (COMP). Section A.4 paragraph 5 of the same Commission Communication states: ‘With respect to potential availability of the product to the Community population, a medicinal product that is authorised and available in all Member States may constitute a significant benefit compared with a similar product that is authorised in a limited number of Member States only’. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The second question implies that orphan designation was based on significant benefit. Assessment of significant benefit is for the Committee on Orphan Medicinal Products (COMP). Section A.4 paragraph 5 of the same Commission Communication states: ‘With respect to potential availability of the product to the Community population, a medicinal product that is authorised and available in all Member States may constitute a significant benefit compared with a similar product that is authorised in a limited number of Member States only’.

| 3. | The same active substance can be designated more than once for the same or overlapping therapeutic indications. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The same active substance can be designated more than once for the same or overlapping therapeutic indications.

| 4. | A sponsor may apply for orphan designation in the situation described in this question. However, the COMP would need to assess whether the medicinal product will be of significant benefit to those affected by that condition. Section A.4 paragraph 5 of the Commission Communication is also relevant here. |
| --- | --- |

4.

A sponsor may apply for orphan designation in the situation described in this question. However, the COMP would need to assess whether the medicinal product will be of significant benefit to those affected by that condition. Section A.4 paragraph 5 of the Commission Communication is also relevant here.

| 5. | The objective of Regulation (EC) No 141/2000 is stated in its Article 1: ‘The purpose of this Regulation is to lay down a Community procedure for the designation of medicinal products as orphan medicinal products and to provide incentives for the research, development and placing on the market of designated orphan medicinal products’. Furthermore, the first recital of the Regulation states: ‘some conditions occur so infrequently that the costs of developing and bringing to the market a medicinal product to diagnose, prevent or treat the condition would not be recovered by the expected sales of the medicinal product; the pharmaceutical industry would be unwilling to develop the medicinal product under normal market conditions; these medicinal products are called orphan.’ The criteria of Article 3(1)(a), to be judged by the COMP, could be met even if a sponsor had made profits in the situations described in this question i.e. profits had been made from unauthorised use of the medicinal product in the condition for which designation is sought or from use of the medicinal product for another condition. Article 1 of the Regulation is clear: incentives are provided for research, development, authorisation and placing on the market of medicinal products. |
| --- | --- |

5.

The objective of Regulation (EC) No 141/2000 is stated in its Article 1: ‘The purpose of this Regulation is to lay down a Community procedure for the designation of medicinal products as orphan medicinal products and to provide incentives for the research, development and placing on the market of designated orphan medicinal products’. Furthermore, the first recital of the Regulation states: ‘some conditions occur so infrequently that the costs of developing and bringing to the market a medicinal product to diagnose, prevent or treat the condition would not be recovered by the expected sales of the medicinal product; the pharmaceutical industry would be unwilling to develop the medicinal product under normal market conditions; these medicinal products are called orphan.’ The criteria of Article 3(1)(a), to be judged by the COMP, could be met even if a sponsor had made profits in the situations described in this question i.e. profits had been made from unauthorised use of the medicinal product in the condition for which designation is sought or from use of the medicinal product for another condition. Article 1 of the Regulation is clear: incentives are provided for research, development, authorisation and placing on the market of medicinal products.

---

(1)  OJ L 18, 22.1.2000, p. 1.

(2)  OJ C 178, 29.7.2003.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/226 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/226

---

(2004/C 88 E/0229)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0795/04

by Patricia McKenna (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(11 March 2004)

Subject:   Derrybrien wind farm bogslide

Further to the Commission's answer to my question P-3350/03 (1), the reports that were commissioned by ESB subsidiary, Hibernian Wind Power Ltd, and Galway County Council, just published, confirm the responsibility of the wind farm project for the major landslide, and also for several earlier small ones. They identify many areas of the site that are similarly at risk, thereby showing in particular that a landslide directly above the village cannot be excluded due to low stability levels. However, the two reports pay scant attention to the impact of dynamic forces on the peat, and most of the safety analysis appears to be based on static loadings only. Thus the effects of heavy truck and crane movements on floating roads, as well as those of explosives used on site, are effectively ignored. Furthermore, safety as examined is more concerned about on site risks, not off site. These reports are cross-referenced, and show a remarkable consistency, and it is known that the two sets of consultants met on this question, raising further doubts about their real independence.

To help secure the future of wind energy in Ireland, will the Commission now insist that the planning process be undertaken from the beginning, based on a proper and complete EIS relating to the actual project proposed, and also require that any continuation be conditional on a fresh planning approval? Will the Commission assist the locals in commissioning a truly independent study of the project and its impact, as they have proposed, with the primary aim of avoiding further environmental damage and injury or even loss of life, which would surely arise from a landslide above Derrybrien village?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(27 April 2004)

The Commission confirms that, in the framework of several complaints, it has received copies of the two reports referred to by the Honourable Member. It also confirms that it has received further extensive documentation relating to the various development consent procedures that have been followed in connection with the wind-farm project at Derrybrien. Pending the conclusion of its examination of these documents, it would be premature for the Commission to comment in detail on the appropriate next steps to take.

---

(1)  OJ C 78 E, 27.3.2004, p. 528.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/226 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/226

---

(2004/C 88 E/0230)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0798/04

by Mihail Papayannakis (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(11 March 2004)

Subject:   Amfilokhia and the Ramsar Convention

According to complaints from local organisations, 120 eucalyptus trees over one hundred years old have been cut down at the entrance to the town of Amfilokhia in Arta, following a decision taken by the town's Forest Inspectorate. Since the area is protected by the Ramsar Convention, can the Commission say to what extent such action is consistent with the obligations incumbent on the Member State concerned under that Convention?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(22 April 2004)

The Commission would like to inform the Honourable Member that the Ramsar Convention does not contain explicit provisions on the prohibition of cutting down old aged trees in areas listed under the Convention. The Convention, fully known as ‘The Convention on Wetlands of International Importance especially as Waterfowl Habitat’, reflects its original emphasis on the conservation and wise use of wetlands primarily to provide habitat for waterbirds. Over the years, however, the Convention has broadened its scope to cover all aspects of wetland conservation and wise use, recognizing wetlands as ecosystems that are extremely important for biodiversity conservation in general and for the well-being of human communities. Under the Convention there is a general obligation for the Contracting Parties to include wetland conservation considerations in their national land-use planning. They have undertaken to formulate and implement this planning so as to promote, as far as possible, ‘the wise use of wetlands in their territory’ (Article 3.1 of the Convention). The Wise Use Guidelines' emphasize the benefits and values of wetlands for sediment and erosion control; flood control; maintenance of water quality and abatement of pollution; maintenance of surface and underground water supply; support for fisheries, grazing and agriculture; outdoor recreation and education for human society; and climatic stability.

The Commission understands that the permits for the felling of the eucalyptus trees in the city of Amfilokhia have been issued by the regional office of the Forestry Service, which is the competent authority for providing permits for this action. The Commission assumes that the responsible authority has examined the designation status and the existing management plans for the site before issuing the permit and has followed the national legal procedures that apply.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/227 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/227

---

(2004/C 88 E/0231)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0800/04

by María Bergaz Conesa (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(11 March 2004)

Subject:   Dr Moliner de Serra Hospital (Valencia, Spain) and waste-water treatment

For the past year the Dr Moliner Serra Hospital in Valencia (Spain) has been discharging untreated faecal and other highly polluting waters into a ravine located in the Calderona Natural Park. The waters in question contaminate a number of wells which provide a significant amount of the local people's drinking water.

The length of time over which the waters have been discharged, the conditions under which the discharges are made, the harmful nature of the waters and the potential hazard which they represent both to the environment and to public health are all indications that the relevant authorities (the Valencia Regional Government) have little interest in solving the problem.

Will the Commission seek information concerning the composition of the waste water which the hospital is discharging without properly treating it?

Will the Commission check whether or not Directive 98/15/EC (1) on the treatment of waste water and Directive 80/68/EEC (2) on the protection of groundwater against pollution caused by certain hazardous substances are being infringed?

Will the Commission find out whether or not the quality of the water from the wells mentioned above is suitable for human consumption, pursuant to Directive 98/83/EC (3) on the quality of water intended for human consumption?

In view of the gravity of the case in question, what action is the Commission intending to take in order to ensure that the relevant Community laws (and, in particular, the above-mentioned Directives) are properly and strictly enforced?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(21 April 2004)

Depending on the detailed circumstances, discharges from the hospital mentioned by the Honourable Member may require an authorisation or permit from the Spanish Authorities in line with Community environmental legislation.

As regards drinking water supplied in this area, it must be in conformity with Council Directive 98/83/EC of 3 November 1998 on the quality of water intended for human consumption, provided that none of the exemptions set out in Article 3 of this Directive are applicable. This Directive sets specific standards for drinking water, including zero presence of Ε-coli bacteria.

As regards Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991 concerning urban waste-water treatment (4), Member States are obliged to ensure that all agglomerations with more than 2 000 population equivalents (p.e — the organic pollution measuring unit representing the average pollution produced per person per day) are provided with urban waste water collection and treatment systems. Smaller agglomerations shall be subject to appropriate treatment if the waste water is collected. According to the information available, the size of the agglomeration of Serra in terms of population equivalents is below 2 000 p.e. and therefore this agglomeration is not covered by the obligation of Directive 91/271/EEC.

Urban waste-water may contain substances (such as phosphorous and heavy metals) which can be found in List II of Council Directive 80/68/EEC of 17 December 1979 on the protection of groundwater against pollution caused by certain dangerous substances.

Directive 80/68/EEC requires the prior investigation and authorisation of pollutant discharges or waste disposal likely to lead to discharges to groundwater (Article 5). There are related obligations concerning the content of investigations and authorizations, monitoring and the keeping of inventories (Articles 7-16).

Consequently, the Commission will request information from the Spanish authorities to further assess the case and consider the necessary steps to be taken.

---

(1)  OJ L 67, 7.3.1998, p. 29.

(2)  OJ L 20, 26.1.1980, p. 43.

(3)  OJ L 330, 5.12.1998, p. 32.

(4)  OJ L 135, 30.5.1991, as amended by Commission Directive 98/15/EC of 27 February 1998.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/228 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/228

---

(2004/C 88 E/0232)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0801/04

by Monica Frassoni (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(11 March 2004)

Subject:   Exceptional hunting and wild bird conservation — Sardinia

On 13 February 2004 the Autonomous Region of Sardinia adopted Law No 2, which allows ‘exceptional hunting’ as referred to in Article 9 of Directive 79/409/EEC (1), a system established in Italy in 2002 under Law No 221. The subsequent Order No 3/V, issued on 18 February 2004 by the Member of the Regional Executive responsible for environmental protection, authorised exceptional hunting of the Spanish sparrow (Passer hispaniolensis), the tree sparrow (Passer montanus), the starling (Sturnis vulgaris), the song thrush (Turdus philomelos), and the redwing (Turdus iliacus) on 21, 22, 26, and 29 February 2004, thus affording an opportunity for Sardinian hunters, of whom there are about 50 000, to bag possibly as many as 6 000 000 birds.

The exceptional hunting has been started at the request of the Member of the Regional Executive responsible for agriculture and agricultural and stockbreeding reform (note of 13 February 2004 (number in register 296/Gab.)) on account of supposed damage to crops, namely the non-existent ‘invasions’ by thrushes, sparrows, and starlings.

The Sardinian regional Law No 2/2004 appears to contravene Directives 79/409/EEC, 85/411/EEC (2), and 91/244/EEC (3) because it allows exceptional hunting of all ‘warm-blooded fauna species’ without distinction and is not based on any expert scientific opinion from recognised specialist institutes.

Executive Order No 3/V of 18 February 2004 appears to constitute an even more serious infringement of Community legislation because it authorised exceptional hunting in spite of the fact that no alternative solution had been tried and the alleged crop damage had not been proved. Furthermore, the bird species concerned had already been hunted during the normal hunting season that had just ended (and the Autonomous Region of Sardinia seems to be aiming in reality only to prolong the hunting season); the bagging permitted was on a scale anything but modest and marginal, and coincided with the height of the migration period before the mating and breeding season; and the entire situation manifestly flouted the case law of the Court of Justice (see judgments handed down on 16 October 2003, Case C-182/02; 7 December 2000, Case C-38/99; 19 January 1994, Case C-435/92; and 17 January 1991, Case C-157/89).

Environmentalist organisations (Lega per l'Abolizione della Caccia, Friends of the Earth, Gruppo d'Intervento Giuridico, Movimento U.N.A, and L.A.V.) have reported the matter to the national and Community authorities (notes of 13 and 20 February 2004).

Is the Commission aware of the above facts?

Has it ascertained that the wild bird conservation legislation is being observed?

Will it take the appropriate steps?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(23 April 2004)

The Commission has already registered a complaint on the hunting legislation of Regione Sardinia mentioned by the Honourable Member, for possible bad application of Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds as amended by Commission Directive 91/244/EEC of 6 March 1991.

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 procedures under Article 226 of the EC Treaty, in order to ensure the observance of relevant Community law.

---

(1)  OJ L 103, 25.4.1979, p. 1.

(2)  OJ L 233, 30.8.1985, p. 33.

(3)  OJ L 115, 8.5.1991, p. 41.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/229 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/229

---

(2004/C 88 E/0233)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0808/04

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(15 March 2004)

Subject:   Guarantees, with a view to enjoying equal rights, for persons who have suffered discrimination or neglect in the appraisal of qualifications obtained in other Member States

| 1. | Given the circumstances described in my questions concerning the invalidity of a civil aviation pilot's licence if use is made of it in another Member State or after revision of the rules governing Air Transport Pilot Licences, what is the EU doing to ensure that qualifications obtained in one Member State are recognised with a view to being able to engage in the same occupation in another? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Given the circumstances described in my questions concerning the invalidity of a civil aviation pilot's licence if use is made of it in another Member State or after revision of the rules governing Air Transport Pilot Licences, what is the EU doing to ensure that qualifications obtained in one Member State are recognised with a view to being able to engage in the same occupation in another?

| 2. | Given the circumstances referred to in question 1, what is the EU doing to ensure that, where rules are subsequently amended, there is no discrimination between EU citizens whatever, e.g. because replacement documents are issued later or different documents are issued, on the basis of Member State of nationality, Member State of residence, Member State of education or Member State of employment? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Given the circumstances referred to in question 1, what is the EU doing to ensure that, where rules are subsequently amended, there is no discrimination between EU citizens whatever, e.g. because replacement documents are issued later or different documents are issued, on the basis of Member State of nationality, Member State of residence, Member State of education or Member State of employment?

| 3. | What possible avenues are open at present to individuals with qualifications regarded as insufficiently equivalent, and subsequently made subject to revised requirements, to continue to be licensed, or regain their licence, to engage in their previous occupation? |
| --- | --- |

3.

What possible avenues are open at present to individuals with qualifications regarded as insufficiently equivalent, and subsequently made subject to revised requirements, to continue to be licensed, or regain their licence, to engage in their previous occupation?

| 4. | What is being done to prevent individuals concerned from only being able to secure their right to equality by bringing legal actions, which, typically, are protracted and costly with an uncertain outcome? |
| --- | --- |

4.

What is being done to prevent individuals concerned from only being able to secure their right to equality by bringing legal actions, which, typically, are protracted and costly with an uncertain outcome?

| 5. | If the avenues referred to in question 3 do not yet exist to a sufficient extent, what changes ought to take place in the opinion of the Commission? Is it taking the necessary initiatives to that end? |
| --- | --- |

5.

If the avenues referred to in question 3 do not yet exist to a sufficient extent, what changes ought to take place in the opinion of the Commission? Is it taking the necessary initiatives to that end?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(30 April 2004)

Directive 91/670/EEC (1) leaves the form of acceptance of foreign licences to the discretion of the Member States. In addition, given the diversity of national rules and regulations in this connection, pilots may apply for their licences to be accepted in each of the countries where they wish to operate.

Directive 91/670/EEC is specifically intended to encourage compliance with the obligations arising from the EC Treaty and ensure the mobility of cockpit personnel within the Community.

The Commission is responsible for monitoring compliance with the provisions of the EC Treaty and secondary legislation. Where appropriate, it will examine any specific cases that the Honourable Member might wish to refer to it.

In the event of an infringement of Community law, individuals have at their disposal the legal remedies in existence in the Member State presumed to be at fault, and may submit a complaint to the Commission.

In the next few months the Commission will be submitting a proposal for a regulation aimed at extending the scope of European Parliament and Council Regulation 1592/2002 of 15 July 2002 on common rules in the field of civil aviation and establishing a European Aviation Safety Agency (2) to include flight crew licensing. As a result, cockpit personnel licences would be issued on common bases and would be automatically recognised within the Community. Adoption of this Regulation would resolve the difficulties reported by the Honourable Member.

---

(1)  Council Directive 91/670/EEC of 16 December 1991 on mutual acceptance of personnel licences for the exercise of functions in civil aviation, OJ L 373, 31.12.1991.

(2)  OJ L 240, 7.9.2002.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/230 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/230

---

(2004/C 88 E/0234)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0817/04

by Stefano Zappalà (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(15 March 2004)

Subject:   Finnish customs duties

Mr Claudio Oliviero, a veterinary surgeon and Italian national who has been resident in Finland since 1 January 2004, decided to import his Italian-registered car into Finland for reasons connected with his work.

Under Finnish law, he has to pay customs duty of EUR 7 000 in order to drive his car in Finland.

To be exempted from paying that duty, Mr Oliviero would need to have:

| 1. | resided for over one year in his Member State of origin; and |
| --- | --- |

1.

resided for over one year in his Member State of origin; and

| 2. | owned the car for at least six months before moving to Finland. |
| --- | --- |

2.

owned the car for at least six months before moving to Finland.

Mr Oliviero fulfils the first requirement but not the second, as he purchased the vehicle only two and a half months before moving to Finland.

If the facts are as stated, does the Commission consider that Community legislation on the free movement of persons and goods in particular, and the principles underlying the internal market in general, have been infringed?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(14 April 2004)

It is not clear from the question what taxes have actually been levied on Mr Oliviero's car. Contrary to the complainant's assertions, they cannot be ‘customs duties’ since Finland does not charge customs duty on vehicles from another Member State. However, in Finland a vehicle tax (‘autovero’) and a tax called ‘VAT on vehicle tax’ have to be paid to register and put on the road a vehicle from another Member State.

As Community law stands at present, certain taxes may be required in the country of destination even if comparable taxes have already been paid in the country of origin. Member States' discretion in this matter is, however, limited by the restrictions laid down by Community law.

In this specific case the complainant had purchased his vehicle in Italy two and a half months before moving to Finland and had to pay EUR 7 000 in taxes to drive it in Finland.

This case must be examined firstly in the light of Council Directive 83/183/EEC of 28 March 1983 on tax exemptions applicable to permanent imports from Member States of personal property of individuals (1). The complainant does not fall within the scope of this Directive since he had not been using it for at least six months before he moved.

The taxes in question must therefore be seen as internal taxes. Their imposition is only contrary to Community law if they conflict with Article 90 of the EC Treaty and this is only the case if the taxes levied on products from other Member States are in excess of those imposed, directly or indirectly, on similar domestic products.

The Commission does not have sufficient information to be able to determine whether Article 90 of the EC Treaty has been infringed in this particular case. However, it is currently considering whether the Finnish system of charging import tax on vehicles is contrary to Community law. A letter of formal notice was sent to the Finnish Government in 2003 in which the Commission drew the attention of the Finnish authorities to the compatibility of Finnish law with Article 90 of the EC Treaty. Finnish legislation has since been amended. The Commission is now evaluating whether this new legislation is compatible with Community law.

A more detailed report on the taxation of vehicles transferred from one Member State to another will be found on our website at: (http://europa.eu.int/comm/taxation_customs/taxation/vehicles_taxation/index.htm).

---

(1)  OJ L 105, 23.4.1983.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/232 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/232

---

(2004/C 88 E/0235)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0820/04

by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(15 March 2004)

Subject:   Agriculture — negotiations in the context of the WTO

In recent statements made in the United States (in Arlington, Virginia and Washington DC) Commissioner Franz Fischler said The Doha mandate is also about export credits and surplus disposal in the guise of food aid', used mainly by the US. It is about export monopolies, whether Canadian, Australian or from New Zealand. The fact that in a recent dispute both the US and Canada could claim victory is an obvious demonstration of the absence of clear WTO rules in this area. It is also about other, less discussed forms of export distortion, as the impact of the differential export tax in Argentina on its soybean trade indicates.'

In view of this, can the Commission say what information it has regarding the situations referred to by Commissioner Fischler?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(29 April 2004)

In the context of the Doha Development Agenda negotiations, the Commission is pursuing ‘full parallelism’ regarding all instruments of export competition. This means that all forms of export subsidies need to be disciplined in this Round. This was not the case in the Uruguay Round where EU export subsidies have been subject to a reduction commitment. Other export competition instruments such as surplus disposal under the guise of food-aid and certain practices of State Trading Enterprises (STEs), however, remained undisciplined. Trade-distorting practices such as differential export taxes have to be considered as well. Also export credits, although they are often export subsidies subject to some disciplines under the World Trade Organisation (WTO) Agreement on Agriculture, are not subject to reduction commitments as other export subsidies are.

To give a few examples of these practices, the United States have recently accumulated stocks of skimmed milk powder in the order of 500 000 tonnes, at the same time we have seen an increase of disposals of these stocks in the form of international food aid up to a level of around 70 000 tonnes annually very likely displacing commercial operations. The total volume of world trade in this product is approximately 1 million tonne, the proportion of United States food aid in that world trade is significant. The EU, Canada, Australia and New Zealand have expressed very serious concerns about this development. This issue has recently been raised by the Commission at the Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) Consultative SubCommittee on Surplus Disposal (CSSD).

Also the United States has a budget around USD 4,5 billion for export credit guarantees for 2005 after having used USD 3,2 billion for this type of export support in 2003. These export credit guarantees facilitate exports where otherwise these exports would most likely not have occurred. The Commission followed the work on disciplines for agricultural export credits which has been done at the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD).

Also the Commission is concerned about monopolistic practices of some STEs. To give an example Fonterra of New Zealand controls according to its own data 1,6 million tonnes of exports of dairy on a total of 1,8 million tonnes of production. Concerning export taxes the Commission has the example of Argentine oil crushers that enjoy the supply of raw material without taxes, whereas foreign crushers if provided with Argentine soyabeans have to pay a price for raw material increased by the tax. The tax therefore is considered to be trade distorting.

In view of the above it is obvious that any new Community commitments on export refunds will have to be matched by other WTO members' commitments regarding their export competition instruments.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/233 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/233

---

(2004/C 88 E/0236)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0835/04

by Antonio Di Pietro (ELDR) to the Commission

(15 March 2004)

Subject:   Amendment of rules on wine labelling

The Commission recently amended Regulation 753/02 (1), which governs the labelling of wines, allowing third countries to use ‘traditional designations’ of European Union Member States, provided that they comply with certain conditions.

The new regulation has brought together in a single list two categories of traditional designations which could be used on labels to describe quality wines. Category A included 50 Italian terms, such as Classico, Cacc'e mitte, Fine, Passito and so on, which enjoyed limited protection and could also be used under certain conditions by foreign producers. Category Β included 17 Italian designations and indications, such as Amarone, Brunello, Gutturnio, Recioto and Sforzato, which were strictly reserved for Italian wines.

The outcome of this amendment is that in future these terms will no longer be the exclusive preserve of producers from a particular area, but may be used by non-European countries, provided the wine concerned complied with the rules in force in that country. For example, Australian or Chilean wines could be allowed to put fabricated names on their labels using terms associated with the most well-known Italian wines, leading to possible confusion among consumers.

Furthermore, while Italian and Community wines must comply with the very strict rules governing European quality wines psr in order to use these terms, the amended regulation recognises the possibility for a non-European wine to use terms on its labels that could be authorised and controlled by producers' groups themselves, with the clear risk that there would be no one to verify their veracity or justification.

Does the Commission not think that, during the transitional period up to 15 March, it should as a matter of urgency consider how best to avoid potential fraud that will damage Union consumers and guarantee a transparent and high-quality wine market?

Does the Commission not think that, rather than guarding against possible objections by non-European countries during WTO negotiations, it would be better to protect Europe's wine sector, bearing in mind that the above regulation was adopted in the Wine Management Committee despite the fact that wine-producing countries such as Italy, France, Greece and Luxembourg voted against it?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(19 April 2004)

On the reasons for our adoption of new labelling rules, following notification of Regulation (EC) No 753/2002 (2) to the World Trade Organisation (WTO) a number of wine-producing third countries voiced severe criticisms. Two consultations were held at Geneva to provide the clarifications requested by them.

These countries considered our policy on certain traditional terms (List B) to be an example of the Union's attempts to extend the scope of the intellectual property rights covered by the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights by providing for exclusive protection for traditional terms, as is already the case with geographical indications. The Union's policy on protection of geographical indications might well have been endangered and the risk increased of a WTO panel against the EU's entire wine labelling policy.

In the light of these countries' observations we therefore decided to minimise any threat that could weaken the present legislation by amending the Regulation so that traditional terms would be protected in a non-discriminatory way for both wines produced in the Community and imported wines.

The requirements now in force for third country use of traditional terms are equivalent to those in force beforehand for use of the traditional terms of List A in Annex III to Regulation (EC) No 753/2002.

Among these requirements (see Article 1(10) of Regulation (EC) No 316/2004 (3) amending Article 37(1)(e) of Regulation (EC) No 753/2002) are:

| (a) | the third country must present a substantiated request to the Commission and provide the justificatory data for recognition of the traditional term; |
| --- | --- |

(a)

the third country must present a substantiated request to the Commission and provide the justificatory data for recognition of the traditional term;

| (b) | the language of the traditional term must be the official language of the third country and the term in that language must have been used for at least ten years; |
| --- | --- |

(b)

the language of the traditional term must be the official language of the third country and the term in that language must have been used for at least ten years;

| (c) | if the language of the traditional term is not the official language its use must be provided for in the country's legislation; in such cases the traditional term in that language must have been used continuously for at least 25 years; |
| --- | --- |

(c)

if the language of the traditional term is not the official language its use must be provided for in the country's legislation; in such cases the traditional term in that language must have been used continuously for at least 25 years;

| (d) | that the term be specific and distinctive and that there is no risk of consumers being misled. |
| --- | --- |

(d)

that the term be specific and distinctive and that there is no risk of consumers being misled.

In the case of the Italian traditional terms a number of requirements must therefore be met if they are to be used in the Community by third countries. Thus for a traditional term such as Brunello or Amarone to be used, in the first place Italian must be the official language of the third country and the term must have been used for at least ten years, or Italian must be a second language recognised in the third country's legislation and the term must have been used for at least 25 years. Secondly, the term must be specific and distinctive and not such as to mislead the consumer where the wine is sold in the Community. There must also be some tradition behind use of the term in the third country.

It should also be borne in mind that the Member States participate in the decision via the Management Committee for Wine, because any request by a third country must be submitted to the Committee for an opinion.

---

(1)  OJ L 118, 4.5.2002, p. 1.

(2)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 753/2002 of 29 April 2002 laying down certain rules for applying Council Regulation (EC) No 1493/1999 as regards the description, designation, presentation and protection of certain wine sector products, OJ L 118, 4.5.2002.

(3)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 316/2004 of 20 February 2004 amending Regulation (EC) No 753/2002 laying down certain rules for applying Council Regulation (EC) No 1493/1999 as regards the description, designation, presentation and protection of certain wine sector products, OJ L 55, 24.2.2004.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/234 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/234

---

(2004/C 88 E/0237)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0845/04

by Giorgio Celli (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(19 March 2004)

Subject:   Construction of a ‘health and wellness centre’ in the wetland of Es Salobrar — Es Trenc, Mallorca, Balearics

On 22 December 2003 the government of the Balearics approved, by virtue of the law on tax and administrative measures accompanying the budget, an additional provision allowing the town council of Campos (Mallorca) to build a ‘health and wellness centre’ in the wetland of Es Salobrar — Es Trenc. The land concerned covers an area of 70 000 square meters. The term ‘health and wellness centre’ actually refers to the extension of the building land belonging to a former lido in order to build a luxury hotel. The developer is the German company ‘Dieter Steymachec’.

This will have a serious impact on the environment and the landscape. The wetland is of great environmental value and is one of the most exceptional natural landscapes on the island of Mallorca containing seventeen different types of habitat on an unspoilt stretch of coastline. It is an important passage area for migratory birds, in particular shore birds, as well as a breeding area for birds such as black-winged stilts, avocets, Kentish plovers, Marmora's warblers and stone curlews. The wetland was declared a special bird protection area (No 198709) and site of Community interest (No 200007) in accordance with Directive 92/43/EEC (1) on habitats and Directive 79/409/EEC (2) on wild birds.

Is the Commission already aware of this project?

Since it is not a project of priority public interest, how can its construction be allowed in an area proposed as part of the Natura 2000 network?

What steps will the Commission take to protect the wetland in question and to ensure that the building project is carried out elsewhere, if necessary?

Can the Commission say whether the project in question is being co-financed by the Community?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(30 April 2004)

The Commission was not aware of the project referred to by the Honourable Member: construction of a ‘health and wellness centre’ in the wetland of Es Salobrar — Es Trenc, in the south of the island of Mallorca, which might involve the construction of a luxury hotel in the area.

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 (3).

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 (4).

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.

It should also be pointed out that investments in the health sector are not eligible for co-financing under the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) in Objective 2 regions. However, aid for hotel and tourism enterprises may be assisted under that Fund.

---

(1)  OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7.

(2)  OJ L 103, 25.4.1979, p. 1.

(3)  OJ L 103, 25.4.1979.

(4)  OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/235 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/235

---

(2004/C 88 E/0238)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0847/04

by Monica Frassoni (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(19 March 2004)

Subject:   Mineral water extraction plant at Padernello di Paese (Treviso)

Knowing that:

| — | the technical committee on the extractive industries of the Veneto Region granted the request from the company San Benedetto Spa to launch an operation to prospect for a source of mineral water to be called ‘Padernello’ in the municipality of Paese (Treviso); |
| --- | --- |

—

the technical committee on the extractive industries of the Veneto Region granted the request from the company San Benedetto Spa to launch an operation to prospect for a source of mineral water to be called ‘Padernello’ in the municipality of Paese (Treviso);

| — | the licence issued by the Veneto Region was confined to prospecting rather than covering the extraction of water for bottling and had a duration of one year, renewable for another year, subject to the submission of a technical study of environmental compatibility to be carried out by the same firm; |
| --- | --- |

—

the licence issued by the Veneto Region was confined to prospecting rather than covering the extraction of water for bottling and had a duration of one year, renewable for another year, subject to the submission of a technical study of environmental compatibility to be carried out by the same firm;

| — | on 15 October 2003 the Regional Government, via the Directorate for Geology and Water Resources, extended the permit by Decree No 263. |
| --- | --- |

—

on 15 October 2003 the Regional Government, via the Directorate for Geology and Water Resources, extended the permit by Decree No 263.

Knowing that:

| — | the problems linked to this extractive industry — which has not even been launched fully — has already impoverished the acquifers, vital for the very existence of the Sile national park, and is causing problems for the nearby urban area, in that an average of 200 extra lorries per day are using the Postumia provincial road, which already has enough traffic congestion; |
| --- | --- |

—

the problems linked to this extractive industry — which has not even been launched fully — has already impoverished the acquifers, vital for the very existence of the Sile national park, and is causing problems for the nearby urban area, in that an average of 200 extra lorries per day are using the Postumia provincial road, which already has enough traffic congestion;

| — | the San Benedetto company has occupied the neighbourhood of the acquifers with 175 square metres of covered area, 2 625 000 cubic metres of new buildings above ground and another 450 000 cubic metres underground and has applied to the municipality for more building land; |
| --- | --- |

—

the San Benedetto company has occupied the neighbourhood of the acquifers with 175 square metres of covered area, 2 625 000 cubic metres of new buildings above ground and another 450 000 cubic metres underground and has applied to the municipality for more building land;

| — | although the licence and the extension granted by the Region are confined to prospecting for groundwater, the San Benedetto company has on several occasions announced that as of March 2004 it will start commercial bottling of the water, claiming, in the technical report accompanying the application for more building land sent to the mayor of Paese, that once the plant is fully operational about 2 500 litres of water will be extracted per year — twice the quantity mentioned in the application for the prospecting licence; |
| --- | --- |

—

although the licence and the extension granted by the Region are confined to prospecting for groundwater, the San Benedetto company has on several occasions announced that as of March 2004 it will start commercial bottling of the water, claiming, in the technical report accompanying the application for more building land sent to the mayor of Paese, that once the plant is fully operational about 2 500 litres of water will be extracted per year — twice the quantity mentioned in the application for the prospecting licence;

| — | the investment in terms of capital and resources is far from commensurate with a one-year licence for prospecting possibly renewable for another year; |
| --- | --- |

—

the investment in terms of capital and resources is far from commensurate with a one-year licence for prospecting possibly renewable for another year;

| — | the water extraction operation will affect an area adjacent to the Sile national park, pSIC IT3240011, which, like the entire surrounding area, would be irreparably damaged by the planned work. |
| --- | --- |

—

the water extraction operation will affect an area adjacent to the Sile national park, pSIC IT3240011, which, like the entire surrounding area, would be irreparably damaged by the planned work.

In view of all this can the Commission say:

| — | whether the licences issued by the Veneto Region, the extraction work already under way and that planned by the San Benedetto company are compatible with Community environmental legislation, including provisions governing the protection of acquifers and environmental impact assessment; |
| --- | --- |

—

whether the licences issued by the Veneto Region, the extraction work already under way and that planned by the San Benedetto company are compatible with Community environmental legislation, including provisions governing the protection of acquifers and environmental impact assessment;

| — | what urgent measures it will adopt to protect pSIC IT3240011? |
| --- | --- |

—

what urgent measures it will adopt to protect pSIC IT3240011?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(22 April 2004)

Groundwater abstraction of less than 10 million cubic meters comes under Annex II of Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 (1) (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 EIA 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. From the information provided it is not clear if development consent has been granted to the company San Benedetto for extracting 2 500 millions litres of water per year. What is clear is that the Region has granted a licence for prospecting groundwater extraction. When application will be made for actually abstracting groundwater then the Italian authorities will 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.

Articles 6(3) and 6(4) of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (3), define the procedure to be followed before authorising plans or projects which are likely to have a significant impact on a Natura 2000 site. In particular, such plans or projects have to be the object of an assessment of their effects on the sites from the point of view of their conservation. The Italian authorities are responsible for evaluating whether the project is likely to have a significant impact on the proposed site of Community interest ‘Sile: sorgenti, paludi di Morgano e S. Cristina’ and, if that is the case, follow the procedure defined in the Directive before approval of the project.

The Honourable Member does not provide concrete information that shows an effective degradation of the Natura 2000 site and, therefore, the Commission is not in a position to identify a possible violation of Community legislation. If the Honourable Member can provide detailed information enabling the Commission to assess this issue in relation to the above-mentioned Directive, the Commission will then be able to investigate this matter.

---

(1)  OJ L 175, 5.7.1985.

(2)  OJ L 73, 14.3.1997.

(3)  OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/237 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/237

---

(2004/C 88 E/0239)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0850/04

by Salvador Jové Peres (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(11 March 2004)

Subject:   Correction for irregular grant of supplementary processed tomato quotas

Commission Decision 2004/136/EC (1) of 4 February 2004 lays down a financial correction of EUR 8,7 million for Spain on account of the irregular grant of supplementary processed tomato quotas and of shortcomings in checks on the quality of the end products.

What was involved in the shortcomings in checks on the quality of the end products? In what marketing years did such shortcomings occur?

As regards the irregular grant of supplementary processed tomato quotas, what irregularities have given rise to the correction? In what marketing years did they occur? What volume of supplementary quotas was granted improperly in each marketing year? To how many firms were supplementary quotas granted improperly in each of the marketing years to which the correction relates? How many firms were eligible for the supplementary quotas in each of the marketing years to which the correction relates?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(2 April 2004)

In answer to the questions raised, the Honourable Member and Parliament's Secretariat have been sent a summary report extract explaining the grounds for the financial correction contained in Decision 2004/136/EC (2) with respect to the processed tomato sector in Spain.

Please also note the following points:

| — | the marketing years covered by the correction are: 1997/98 (very small amount concerning only the correction for quality control of finished products), 1998/99, 1999/2000, 2000/01; |
| --- | --- |

—

the marketing years covered by the correction are: 1997/98 (very small amount concerning only the correction for quality control of finished products), 1998/99, 1999/2000, 2000/01;

| — | the volumes of the additional quotas granted are: 35 027 tonnes (1998/99), 14 341 tonnes (1999/2000), 21 224 tonnes (2000/2001). |
| --- | --- |

—

the volumes of the additional quotas granted are: 35 027 tonnes (1998/99), 14 341 tonnes (1999/2000), 21 224 tonnes (2000/2001).

In theory, all firms which purchased, at the minimum price, a quantity of raw materials exceeding the quota allocated at the beginning of the marketing year benefited from the additional quotas;

In theory, all firms which had said that they were willing to conclude contracts for additional quantities would have been eligible for the additional quotas.

---

(1)  OJ L 40, 12.2.2004, p. 31.

(2)  Decision 2004/136/EC: Commission Decision of 4 February 2004 excluding from Community financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF).

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/238 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/238

---

(2004/C 88 E/0240)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0864/04

by Nelly Maes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(22 March 2004)

Subject:   Linguistic diversity

With reference to my question E-2825/03 (1) of 23 September 2003 and the answer of 23 October 2003 given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission, I should like to put the following supplementary question.

The Copenhagen criteria cite the protection of minority languages as one aspect of a good minority policy. Will this no longer apply after accession? How do the European Union and the European Commission intend to monitor this in practice?

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(30 April 2004)

From 1 May 2004 the Acceding Countries will become full Member States of the European Union. The framework that applies will therefore no longer be the Copenhagen Accession Criteria, but rather, the Union's standard working arrangements.

In this context, and as set out in Article 6 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU), the Union is founded on the principles of liberty, democracy, respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, which are common to the Member States. If there is a serious or persistent breach of the principles, the Commission or one third of the Member States may refer the matter to the Council, meeting in the composition of the Heads of State or Government.

Those rights have been solemnly reaffirmed by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. Article 21(1) refers to the prohibition of discrimination based, among other things, on ethnic origin, language, religion or membership of a national minority, and Article 22 requires that the Union respect cultural, religious and linguistic diversity.

---

(1)  OJ C 65 E, 13.3.2004, p. 225.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/238 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/238

---

(2004/C 88 E/0241)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0868/04

by José Ribeiro e Castro (UEN) to the Commission

(22 March 2004)

Subject:   Large families

In its most recent report with a view to the Spring European Council, ‘Delivering Lisbon — Reforms for the Enlarged Union’ (1), the Commission pointed out (in point 2.4.1 on reinforcing social cohesion) that the phenomenon of poverty ‘is very closely linked to unemployment as it affects 38 % of the unemployed. Large families, elderly women living alone, and single-parent (71 % of whom are women) families’.

The European Council has set itself the aim of giving decisive impetus to reducing poverty by 2010 and the Commission has, to this end, campaigned on various occasions for the adoption of National Social Inclusion Strategies (2). In this context, it points out that ‘those living in large households with three or more dependent children are particularly exposed to income poverty risk, with Ireland, Italy, Spain and Portugal displaying the highest risk (between 34 % and 49 %, against a EU average of 27 %)’.

Can the Commission answer the following:

| — | given that large families especially are particularly vulnerable and exposed to the risk of poverty, what measures has the Commission suggested that Member States take to remedy this problem and promote full implementation of the Lisbon Strategy for all? Does the Commission agree that this particularly vulnerable status is partly due to the fact that many social policies and some aspects of tax policies are devised for individuals or two-person households, thereby creating objective discrimination against families, who are penalised systematically and in proportion to their size; |
| --- | --- |

—

given that large families especially are particularly vulnerable and exposed to the risk of poverty, what measures has the Commission suggested that Member States take to remedy this problem and promote full implementation of the Lisbon Strategy for all? Does the Commission agree that this particularly vulnerable status is partly due to the fact that many social policies and some aspects of tax policies are devised for individuals or two-person households, thereby creating objective discrimination against families, who are penalised systematically and in proportion to their size;

| — | does the Commission intend to instruct its services to carry out a study and submit proposals for the definition of more effective solutions and, in particular, to aim at transversal promotion of the sharing of best practice? Does the Commission consider it appropriate to adopt Community-wide measures through the open coordination method? |
| --- | --- |

—

does the Commission intend to instruct its services to carry out a study and submit proposals for the definition of more effective solutions and, in particular, to aim at transversal promotion of the sharing of best practice? Does the Commission consider it appropriate to adopt Community-wide measures through the open coordination method?

Answer given by Mr Dimas on behalf of the Commission

(30 April 2004)

The Commission agrees with the Honourable Member that large families are particularly vulnerable and exposed to the risk of poverty. In addition, these are households that, together with single parent households, are the most likely to transmit poverty and social exclusion to their children. In this respect tax-benefit systems play an important role and the effects on large families vary considerably across Member States, depending on the importance given to large families regarding the provision of cash benefits, allowances and tax credits. In the framework of the common objectives adopted in Nice, which call on Member States to implement actions to preserve family solidarity in all its forms and to move towards the elimination of social exclusion among children, the Commission and the Council have recently recommended in their Joint Report on social inclusion that Member States develop as a key policy priority over the next two year period a particular focus on the elimination of poverty and social exclusion among children.

A range of policies may be required for that purpose. These include: ensuring access to quality employment; improving the net income of low wage earners with families, whether through tax, social protection systems or minimum wage legislation; increasing income support for families with children; improving the affordability, quality and availability of childcare facilities; and providing access for all to decent and sanitary housing, as well as the basic services necessary to live (for example, electricity, water and heating).

However, the Commission does not consider it appropriate to adopt Community-wide measures through the open method of co-ordination as it has no legal competence to do so. Responsibility for the relevant key policy areas is the competence of Member States.

The Commission has been, and will continue to be, active in promoting the transnational exchange of learning and best practice in this area between Member States through a variety of actions:

| — | it encourages the sharing of best practice in relation to child poverty through the Transnational Exchange Programme being supported under the Community Action Programme on social inclusion and through its support for a European Network of organisations active on the issue of child poverty; |
| --- | --- |

—

it encourages the sharing of best practice in relation to child poverty through the Transnational Exchange Programme being supported under the Community Action Programme on social inclusion and through its support for a European Network of organisations active on the issue of child poverty;

| — | it launched a comparative study on policies to tackle child poverty which is being undertaken by the University of Dortmund. The final report will be available soon; |
| --- | --- |

—

it launched a comparative study on policies to tackle child poverty which is being undertaken by the University of Dortmund. The final report will be available soon;

| — | it finances the European Observatory on the Social Situation, Demography and the Family, which monitors demographic, socio-economic and policy trends across the Union, with a particular emphasis on family-related issues and their policy implications; |
| --- | --- |

—

it finances the European Observatory on the Social Situation, Demography and the Family, which monitors demographic, socio-economic and policy trends across the Union, with a particular emphasis on family-related issues and their policy implications;

| — | it develops a study programme and carries out analysis on social trends and demography, including family and poverty-related aspects, in the context of the annual report: ‘The social situation in the European Union’. |
| --- | --- |

—

it develops a study programme and carries out analysis on social trends and demography, including family and poverty-related aspects, in the context of the annual report: ‘The social situation in the European Union’.

---

(1)  COM(2004) 29 final/2.

(2)  COM(2003) 773.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/240 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/240

---

(2004/C 88 E/0242)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0876/04

by Struan Stevenson (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(22 March 2004)

Subject:   Illegal fishing in waters around the Azores

The Portuguese authorities publicly revealed that 63 foreign vessels were fishing in waters around the Azores in January and February, 20 of them within the 100-mile limit.

The Portuguese media have claimed that the Commission's position in this matter is that it considers these fishing activities to be legal, since they are in accordance with the opinion of the Commission's ‘Legal Service’.

However, Article 15 of Regulation (EC) No 1954/2003 states very clearly that the old regime protecting the Azorean waters will be repealed only after 1 August 2004 or after the approval of new fishing-effort legislation.

Does the Commission assume full responsibility for the present situation of uncontrolled and unrestricted fishing in water around the Azores?

If this is not the case, what is the Commission intending to do?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(26 April 2004)

The Commission can confirm to the Honourable Member that it has defined its position on the application of Regulation (EC) No 1954/2003 (1). That position was communicated to Member States, in the form of a speaking note, at the meeting of the Council internal/external fisheries policy group on 19 February 2004.

It follows from that document that the fishing activity of Community vessels which are not Portuguese is legitimate, in the area contained between 100 and 200 nautical miles around the Azores, with regard to the relevant provisions of the Regulation referred to above.

The Commission does not know about unmonitored or illegal activity in the waters referred to. At any event, if Community law is not being complied with it is up to the national administrative or judicial authorities to take appropriate measures with a view to correct application of the Community rules. In addition, the Commission may institute proceedings under Article 226 of the EC Treaty against a Member State which is not complying with Community law.

In any case, the Commission clearly wishes fishing activity in that area to be undertaken in a manner which is satisfactory and acceptable to all parties concerned.

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1954/2003 of 4 November 2003 on the management of the fishing effort relating to certain Community fishing areas and resources and modifying Regulation (EC) No 2847/93 and repealing Regulations (EC) No 685/95 and (EC) No 2027/95, OJ L 289, 7.11.2003.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/241 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/241

---

(2004/C 88 E/0243)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0881/04

by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(22 March 2004)

Subject:   Incinerator installation in the Central Region (Portugal)

Quercus, the Portuguese National Nature Conservation Association, submitted a detailed report to the Commission in October 2003 on the major problems identified in packaging management and recycling in Portugal.

Quercus is now disputing the installation of an incinerator designed to burn over 90 % of the solid urban waste produced in Portugal's Central Region, by the ERSUC (Central Region Solid Urban Waste Company), since Quercus deems this supposed solution to be more productive of pollution, less efficient and more expensive than others.

The Commission:

| 1. | What is its stance on Quercus' report on the problems identified in packaging, management and recycling in Portugal? |
| --- | --- |

1.

What is its stance on Quercus' report on the problems identified in packaging, management and recycling in Portugal?

| 2. | Is it familiar with the ERSUC study on installing an incinerator in the Central Region? What is the Commission's stance on this proposal? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Is it familiar with the ERSUC study on installing an incinerator in the Central Region? What is the Commission's stance on this proposal?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(30 April 2004)

| 1. | The Commission is in the process of verifying the data sent in the report mentioned by the Honourable Member. However, the Commission did not yet receive official data on packaging recycling from Portugal for the year 2002. Pursuant to Commission Decision 97/138/EC (1) these data must be submitted by 30 June 2004.
  The data for recycled packaging waste submitted by Quercus for 2002 significantly differ from the official figures for the years 1998 to 2001. According to the official 2001 data submitted by Portugal, a total of 484,225 tons of packaging waste was recycled, whereas the data by Quercus only indicate a total of 193,502 tons of packaging waste recycling. Correspondingly, the officially reported recycling rate for 2001 is 38 % whereas the recycling rate for 2002 reported by Quercus is 15 %. The report submitted by Quercus does not give an explanation for this difference which is, however, unlikely to be only due to different reference years.
  Whereas the above data refer to recycling, according to Directive 94/62/EC (2) (as amended by Directive 2004/12/EC (3)) the only target applicable to Portugal by 2001 is a target of 25 % for recovery or incineration at waste incineration plants with energy recovery. The data submitted by Portugal for 2001 indicate that a total of 667 916 tonnes of packaging would fall into this category. The resulting rate for recovery or incineration at waste incineration plants with energy recovery is 52 %. For this reason, the Commission currently does not have sufficient elements to believe that Portugal has failed to achieve its 2001 target. However, the Commission will verify the official 2002 data and any other relevant information which might be submitted in future.
  The Quercus report also refers to other issues (transparency, Green Dot fees, supermarkets, re-use, industrial packaging, medical packaging, more favourable treatment of certain companies and packaging types, and the situation in the Azores). However, these matters fall under the responsibility of national authorities and the Commission currently cannot identify any elements that would infringe the Packaging and Packaging Waste Directive or other pieces of Community legislation. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The Commission is in the process of verifying the data sent in the report mentioned by the Honourable Member. However, the Commission did not yet receive official data on packaging recycling from Portugal for the year 2002. Pursuant to Commission Decision 97/138/EC (1) these data must be submitted by 30 June 2004.

The data for recycled packaging waste submitted by Quercus for 2002 significantly differ from the official figures for the years 1998 to 2001. According to the official 2001 data submitted by Portugal, a total of 484,225 tons of packaging waste was recycled, whereas the data by Quercus only indicate a total of 193,502 tons of packaging waste recycling. Correspondingly, the officially reported recycling rate for 2001 is 38 % whereas the recycling rate for 2002 reported by Quercus is 15 %. The report submitted by Quercus does not give an explanation for this difference which is, however, unlikely to be only due to different reference years.

Whereas the above data refer to recycling, according to Directive 94/62/EC (2) (as amended by Directive 2004/12/EC (3)) the only target applicable to Portugal by 2001 is a target of 25 % for recovery or incineration at waste incineration plants with energy recovery. The data submitted by Portugal for 2001 indicate that a total of 667 916 tonnes of packaging would fall into this category. The resulting rate for recovery or incineration at waste incineration plants with energy recovery is 52 %. For this reason, the Commission currently does not have sufficient elements to believe that Portugal has failed to achieve its 2001 target. However, the Commission will verify the official 2002 data and any other relevant information which might be submitted in future.

The Quercus report also refers to other issues (transparency, Green Dot fees, supermarkets, re-use, industrial packaging, medical packaging, more favourable treatment of certain companies and packaging types, and the situation in the Azores). However, these matters fall under the responsibility of national authorities and the Commission currently cannot identify any elements that would infringe the Packaging and Packaging Waste Directive or other pieces of Community legislation.

| 2. | The Commission service responsible is not in possession of the ERSUC study on installing an incinerator in the Central Region of Portugal. However, various pieces of relevant information available on the internet have been studied. As long as the conditions of Community waste management legislation are fulfilled, Member States are free to take their own choices of waste management methods. This applies in particular to the way the reduction targets for biodegradable waste to landfills are achieved. Portugal has announced the construction of a new incinerator in the Litoral Centro in their national strategy for the reduction of biodegradable waste going to landfills. Furthermore, it should be noted that the granting of permits falls under the responsibility of national authorities, and does not need to be notified to the Commission. In the absence of information indicating the contrary, the Commission does not see a reason to assume that Portugal fails to apply relevant Community waste legislation. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The Commission service responsible is not in possession of the ERSUC study on installing an incinerator in the Central Region of Portugal. However, various pieces of relevant information available on the internet have been studied. As long as the conditions of Community waste management legislation are fulfilled, Member States are free to take their own choices of waste management methods. This applies in particular to the way the reduction targets for biodegradable waste to landfills are achieved. Portugal has announced the construction of a new incinerator in the Litoral Centro in their national strategy for the reduction of biodegradable waste going to landfills. Furthermore, it should be noted that the granting of permits falls under the responsibility of national authorities, and does not need to be notified to the Commission. In the absence of information indicating the contrary, the Commission does not see a reason to assume that Portugal fails to apply relevant Community waste legislation.

---

(1)  Commission Decision 97/138/EC of 3 February 1997 establishing the formats relating to the database system pursuant to Parliament and Council Directive 94/62/EC on packaging and packaging waste, OJ L 52, 22.2.1997.

(2)  Directive 94/62/EC of the Parliament and Council Directive of 20 December 1994 on packaging and packaging waste, OJ L 365, 31.12.1994.

(3)  Directive 2004/12/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004, OJ L 47, 18.2.2004.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/242 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/242

---

(2004/C 88 E/0244)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0902/04

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(19 March 2004)

Subject:   Talks for a settlement in Cyprus

At its meeting of 23 February 2004, the Council ‘welcomed the preparedness of the European Commission to fulfil its supportive role, acknowledged by successive European Councils, by providing the assistance requested by the United Nations Secretary-General.’

In the light of the role which the UN Secretary-General has called upon the Commission to play, will the Commission say whether it can confirm that the talks held to date have taken account of the need to implement the ‘acquis communautaire’ throughout the island, and the need for an operational State capable of meeting the requirements of participation in the European Union?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(20 April 2004)

The Commission can confirm that the comprehensive settlement of the Cyprus problem put forward to the Secretary General of the United Nations takes account of the need to implement the ‘acquis’ throughout the island. One of the United Nations (UN) subcommittees is dealing exclusively with the harmonisation of future federal and constituent state laws with Community legislation. The meetings of this subcommittee are chaired by UN experts with EU background. These experts also take account of the capability of the reunited Cyprus to fulfil its obligations under EU law and to fully participate in the EU.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/242 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/242

---

(2004/C 88 E/0245)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0904/04

by Richard Corbett (PSE) to the Commission

(24 March 2004)

Subject:   Mercedes-Benz car warranties

Is the Commission aware that Mercedes-Benz offer a manufacturing warranty of three years to all cars purchased in the United Kingdom, but only offer a two-year manufacturing warranty to cars purchased in the rest of Continental Europe?

As this situation may be seen to discourage UK citizens from purchasing Mercedes-Benz cars in other EU Member States, does the Commission view this as a barrier to free trade throughout the EU?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(22 April 2004)

In relation to the first question put by the Honourable Member, the Commission is aware that some makes, including Mercedes, offer a three-year warranty in the United Kingdom and only two years in other Member States.

The Commission considers that the duration of the Mercedes cars warranty depends entirely on the European marketing policy of Daimler Chrysler. Provided this warranty fulfils the requirements of the Commission Regulation (EC) No 1400/2002 (1) concerning the car sector (e.g., the possibility left to the consumer to have his/her warranty honoured by any member of the car manufacturers' repair network within the European Union), the Commission does not view a longer duration as a restrictive competition practice which would prevent free trade across Europe.

A longer warranty is indeed a good commercial incentive like commercial discounts can be, but it certainly does not deprive the consumer of the ability to buy a car outside the United Kingdom if he/she thinks that he/she can make a better deal when buying abroad.

---

(1)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 1400/2002 of 31 July 2002 on the application of Article 81(3) of the Treaty to categories of vertical agreements and concerted practices in the motor vehicle sector, OJ L 203, 1.8.2002.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/243 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/243

---

(2004/C 88 E/0246)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0905/04

by Richard Corbett (PSE) to the Commission

(24 March 2004)

Subject:   Bicycle helmets

Is the Commission aware of the position of the European Cycling Federation opposing legislation that makes the wearing of helmets compulsory for all cyclists? Particularly, is the Commission aware of the studies they quote showing that the compulsory use of helmets does not decrease the accident rate involving cyclists?

Is the Commission prepared to investigate the matter and, if appropriate, reconsider the need for such legislation?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(30 April 2004)

The Commission is aware of the position of the European Cyclists' Federation on the wearing of protective helmets by cyclists, and of the studies referred to by the Honourable Member.

The Commission has not so far supported or opposed Community legislation on the wearing of helmets by cyclists. In the third European road safety action programme (1), adopted in 2003, which provides the reference framework for Commission initiatives up to 2010, it announced that it intends to compile figures on the use of helmets by cyclists in the EU and the effectiveness of cycle helmet use in reducing the risks of head injury, in particular amongst 10-14 year olds, the high-risk group. The negative or positive impact on bicycle use and the measures to be taken, where appropriate, at EU level, will also be studied. As this study is not one of the priority actions, it will not start before 2005.

---

(1)  Halving the number of road accident victims in the European Union by 2010: a shared responsibility — Communication from the Commission, COM(2003) 311 final.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/244 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/244

---

(2004/C 88 E/0247)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0908/04

by Paolo Bartolozzi (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(24 March 2004)

Subject:   Services of general interest

A motion for a resolution was tabled in the European Parliament on 14 January 2004 on the Commission's Green Paper on services of general interest (1).

In this document the Commission includes health among non-economic services of general interest, and defines the difference between economic and non-economic services as fundamental, since the two categories are not subject to the same Treaty provisions.

It is clear that ‘the future of non-economic services of general interest’, including health or social services, ‘raises issues on a European scale, such as the content of the European model of society’.

It should be borne in mind that:

| — | the health sector is characterised by ethical and social values, because its aim is to safeguard health as an inalienable subjective right, but this does not mean that the services designed to provide these safeguards are of a non-economic nature as far as their organisation and management are concerned; |
| --- | --- |

—

the health sector is characterised by ethical and social values, because its aim is to safeguard health as an inalienable subjective right, but this does not mean that the services designed to provide these safeguards are of a non-economic nature as far as their organisation and management are concerned;

| — | ‘economic and non-economic services can co-exist within the same sector’ not least because ‘the distinction between economic and non-economic activities has been dynamic and evolving’; |
| --- | --- |

—

‘economic and non-economic services can co-exist within the same sector’ not least because ‘the distinction between economic and non-economic activities has been dynamic and evolving’;

| — | the common objective of the reforms carried out in many Member States has been to safeguard the principles of welfare as a ‘choice on the part of society’, involving the introduction of mechanisms creating competition between a number of public and private service providers among which the public is completely free to choose. |
| --- | --- |

—

the common objective of the reforms carried out in many Member States has been to safeguard the principles of welfare as a ‘choice on the part of society’, involving the introduction of mechanisms creating competition between a number of public and private service providers among which the public is completely free to choose.

For these reasons the inclusion of health among non-economic services of general interest, which are ‘not subject to specific Community rules, nor are they covered by the internal market (...) rules of the Treaty’, seems reductive.

Can the Commission say:

| — | why health is not included among economic services of general interest, since such services are subject to common obligations which must be ensured for the public, such as universality, continuity, quality, accessibility and security; |
| --- | --- |

—

why health is not included among economic services of general interest, since such services are subject to common obligations which must be ensured for the public, such as universality, continuity, quality, accessibility and security;

| — | if health is thus excluded from the process of implementing the internal market, will this not mean abandoning the objective, set by many Member States, of achieving the advantages of market efficiency without neglecting social justice, guaranteed by State guidance, control and responsibility? |
| --- | --- |

—

if health is thus excluded from the process of implementing the internal market, will this not mean abandoning the objective, set by many Member States, of achieving the advantages of market efficiency without neglecting social justice, guaranteed by State guidance, control and responsibility?

| — | On what basis is health excluded from the general approach outlined in the Commission's Communication ‘An internal market strategy for services’? Would not the recognition of health as an economic service of general interest — hence subject to the favourable influence of competition on the basis of quality — promote the successful pursuit of the Community objective of a ‘high level of health protection’? |
| --- | --- |

—

On what basis is health excluded from the general approach outlined in the Commission's Communication ‘An internal market strategy for services’? Would not the recognition of health as an economic service of general interest — hence subject to the favourable influence of competition on the basis of quality — promote the successful pursuit of the Community objective of a ‘high level of health protection’?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(30 April 2004)

Health systems meeting public objectives are in principle services of general interest, whether economic or not. However, it is up to Member States to define the public service obligations concerned, as part of their overall responsibility for the organisation of health services and medical care. The differences in organisation of the national health sectors result in different legal positions with regard to Community law and provisions concerning services of general interest. In this respect it may be relevant to distinguish between the provision of health services and the systems put in place for their financing. Health services provided for remuneration are an economic activity within the meaning of the EC Treaty, regardless of how they are financed (see C-158/96 Kohll and C-157/99 Smits-Peerbooms). On the other hand, solidarity-based, non-profit-making social security funds are not undertakings within the meaning of the competition rules of the EC Treaty (see C-159/91 and C-160/91 Poucet-Pistre and, more recently on 16 March 2004, C-264/01, C-306/01, C-354/01 and C-355/01 AOK Bundesverband). However, exactly how different national health systems fit into these categories will depend on their precise organisation and status.

Nevertheless, all health systems throughout the Union share common values of accessibility, quality and financial sustainability, despite their diversity. Moreover, the potential advantages of mobility and cooperation across Europe are open to patients, providers and those responsible for health systems. The provisions on the coordination of social security systems (currently being simplified) and the forthcoming European health insurance card provide an effective means for patients to access healthcare throughout the Union and be reimbursed. The Commission has also proposed a directive on services in the internal market (2) which will help to facilitate cross-border provision of services, and which includes specific clarification with regard to the reimbursement of healthcare costs.

Health ministers, together with other health stakeholders, have come together in a high level process of reflection on patient mobility and healthcare developments in the European Union. The report established by this reflection group contains nineteen recommendations regarding European cooperation to promote better use of resources; information for patients, professionals and providers; access to and quality of care; an appropriate response to enlargement through investment in health; and the reconciliation of national objectives with European obligations. The Commission has responded to these recommendations by proposing the extension of the open method of coordination to healthcare and long-term care. Taken together, all these different initiatives form an integrated strategy to enable patients to exercise their rights under European law to healthcare in other Member States and to facilitate European cooperation between health systems whilst respecting the responsibilities of the Member States for the organisation and delivery of health services and medical care.

---

(1)  COM(2003)270.

(2)  COM(2004) 2 final.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/245 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/245

---

(2004/C 88 E/0248)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0913/04

by Philip Bradbourn (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(19 March 2004)

Subject:   Driver attestation checks

Could the Commission inform me what percentage of HGV drivers entering the EU from non-member States are regularly checked in accordance with driver attestation regulations upon reaching the EU's common frontiers, especially Germany and Austria?

What minimum percentages of such checks are the European Commission and Member States proposing in order to ensure that following enlargement the new frontiers will be fully policed in respect of driver attestation?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(23 April 2004)

Regulation (EEC) No 881/92 (1) as amended by Regulation (EC) No 484/2002 (2) foresees that a driver attestation shall be issued by the Member State at the request of the holder of the Community authorisation for each driver who is a national of a non-member country whom he lawfully employs or who is lawfully put at his disposal. This entails that only those drivers that are nationals of a non-member country driving a Community registered vehicle performing international carriage of goods (under the cover of a Community authorisation) must be in the possession of a driver attestation when checked, among others also at the border when entering the Community.

In principle at present all drivers covered by the scope of Regulation (EC) No 881/92 are checked at the external border when first entering the Community. This situation will not change after enlargement.

Moreover, the regulation mentioned provides that the competent authorities of the Member State of establishment shall regularly verify, by carrying out checks each year, covering at least 20 % of the valid attestations issued in that Member State, whether the conditions under which a driver attestation has been issued are still satisfied.

Finally, the objective of the Regulation (EC) No 484/2002 is not the protection of the internal market from competitive enterprises of non-member countries but the proper functioning of the Community's internal market for road transport.

---

(1)  OJ L 95, 9.4.1992.

(2)  Regulation (EC) No 484/2002 of the Parliament and of the Council of 1 March 2002 amending Council Regulations (EEC) No 881/92 and (EEC) No 3118/93 for the purposes of establishing a driver attestation, OJ L 76, 19.3.2002.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/246 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/246

---

(2004/C 88 E/0249)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0914/04

by Caroline Lucas (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(24 March 2004)

Subject:   Illegal bird-trapping in Cyprus

Each year an estimated 12 million birds are illegally trapped while on migration through Cyprus. The use of such trapping methods as mist nets and lime sticks, which contravenes the Birds Directive, is still widespread.

Given that Cyprus has to fully implement and enforce the Birds Directive (79/409/EEC (1)) and the Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC (2)) as of 1 May 2004, what action is the Commission taking to curb the practice of illegal bird-trapping and to ensure full implementation and enforcement by the date of accession?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(30 April 2004)

The Commission clearly pointed out during the negotiations for accession and the subsequent pre-accession period that certain bird-trapping methods, like those involving the use of mist nets and lime sticks, are incompatible with the provisions of the Birds Directive, Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds, as modified by Commission Directive 91/244/EEC of 6 March 1991 (3). The practice is illegal in Cyprus and the Cypriot authorities have assured the Commission that they would step up efforts for effective enforcement of the law in question.

Cyprus is required to ensure full implementation of the Birds and Habitats, (Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 31 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora) Directives from the date of accession to the European Union. From 1 May 2004 onwards the Commission will take appropriate measures to ensure full implementation of these Directives as it would for any other Member State.

In this pre-accession period, Cyprus has now transposed these two Directives and is therefore obliged to implement them under Cyprus national law.

---

(1)  OJ L 103, 25.4.1979, p. 1.

(2)  OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7.

(3)  OJ L 115, 8.5.1991.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/247 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/247

---

(2004/C 88 E/0250)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0916/04

by Proinsias De Rossa (PSE) to the Commission

(26 March 2004)

Subject:   Ireland and maritime safety legislation

What reply if any has the Commission received from Ireland in response to the initiation of legal proceedings announced in July 2003 (press release IP/03/1116) regarding Ireland's failure to comply with Directive 2001/105/EC (1) on ship inspections and Directive 2001/106/EC (2) on port state control. What action has the Commission taken, or is proposing to take, with regard to this matter?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(23 April 2004)

In a letter dated 25 July 2003, Ireland sent the Commission the national measures (European Communities (Ship Inspection and Survey Organisations) Regulations 2003 – S.I. No 301) aimed at incorporating European Parliament and Council Directive 2001/105/EC of 19 December 2001 on ship inspections (3) into Irish law.

In a letter dated 1 July 2003, Ireland sent the Commission the national measures (European Communities Merchant Shipping (Port State Control) (Amendment) Regulations 2003 – S.I. No 243 of 2003) incorporating European Parliament and Council Directive 2001/106/EC of 19 December 2001 on Port State Control (3) into Irish law.

Consequently, on 15 October 2003, the Commission decided to terminate the infringement procedures initiated against Ireland for failure to communicate the national measures incorporating the abovemen-tioned directives into Irish law.

---

(1)  OJ L 19, 22.1.2002, p. 9.

(2)  OJ L 19, 22.1.2002, p. 17.

(3)  OJ L 19, 22.1.2002.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/247 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/247

---

(2004/C 88 E/0251)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0917/04

by Proinsias De Rossa (PSE) to the Commission

(26 March 2004)

Subject:   Ireland's compliance with the Waste Framework Directive in relation to the treatment of urban waste water

My Written Question E-0077/04 (1) sought to establish whether Ireland had replied to the reasoned opinion sent to it by the Commission in July 2003 (announced in press release IP/03/1108) regarding the treatment of urban waste water in Ireland and Ireland's possible non-compliance with the 1975 Framework Waste Directive and to establish the Commission's attitude in this matter.

However, in its answer to that question, given on 2 March 2004, the Commission seemed to refer to a reasoned opinion, sent on 7 October 2002, relating to an entirely different legal challenge – under Council Directive 91/271/EEC (2) concerning urban waste water treatment.

Could the Commission now indicate what response, if any, it has received from the Irish Government in relation to the reasoned opinion that it sent to Ireland in July 2003 (and announced in IP/03/1108) regarding Ireland's failure to bring its legislation into line with the requirements of the Framework Waste Directive (Council Directive 75/442/EEC (3) on waste, as amended by Directive 91/156/EEC (4)) in relation to urban waste water treatment plants and, specifically, Ireland's failure to ensure that urban waste water treatment plants are submitted to the system of permits required by this Directive, which, among other things, allows the odours from these plants to be regulated and controlled.

What is the Commission's attitude to the Irish Government's response, and what action is it now taking, or proposing to take, with regard to this matter?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(30 April 2004)

The Reasoned Opinion to which the Honourable Member refers relates to Ireland's compliance with Council Directive 75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975 on waste, as amended by Council Directive 91/156/EEC of 18 March 1991. More specifically, it concerned Ireland's compliance with the terms of the Directive in connection with odour emissions from waste-water treatment plants. According to Article 2(1) of the Directive (5), waste waters are excluded from the scope of the Directive ‘where they are already covered by other legislation.’ The Commission had contended that, in the absence of other legislation, odour emissions from Irish waste-water treatment plants needed to be regulated in accordance with Directive 91/156/EEC. On 7 August 2003, Ireland sought an extension of the time within which to respond. Before any response was received, on 11 September 2003, the European Court of Justice delivered a judgment 2003 in Case C-114/01, AvestaPolarit Chrome Oy which interprets the meaning of the phrase ‘where they are already covered by other legislation’ employed in Article 2(1) of the Directive. In order to take account of the implications of this judgement for waste waters as well as a number of other waste categories mentioned in Article 2(1), the Commission notified an additional Letter of Formal Notice to Ireland on 19 December 2003 in the framework of the same infringement procedure (6). Ireland subsequently sought a two month extension of the period for responding to this, which was granted.

---

(1)  OJ C 84 E, 3.4.2004, p. 759.

(2)  OJ L 135, 30.5.1991, p. 40.

(3)  OJ L 194, 25.7.1975, p. 39.

(4)  OJ L 78, 26.3.1991, p. 32.

(5)  Article 2(1) of the Directive states: ‘The following shall be excluded from the scope of this Directive:

| (a) | gaseous effluents emitted into the atmosphere; |
| --- | --- |

(a)

gaseous effluents emitted into the atmosphere;

| (b) | where they are already covered by other legislation:






  (i) | radioactive waste; |
| --- | --- | --- |

(b)

where they are already covered by other legislation:

(i)

radioactive waste;

| (ii) | waste resulting from prospecting, extraction, treatment and storage of mineral resources and the working of quarries; |
| --- | --- |

(ii)

waste resulting from prospecting, extraction, treatment and storage of mineral resources and the working of quarries;

| (iii) | animal carcases and the following agricultural waste: faecal matter and other natural, non-dangerous substances used in farming; |
| --- | --- |

(iii)

animal carcases and the following agricultural waste: faecal matter and other natural, non-dangerous substances used in farming;

| (iv) | waste waters, with the exception of waste in liquid form; |
| --- | --- |

(iv)

waste waters, with the exception of waste in liquid form;

| (v) | decommissioned explosives.’. |
| --- | --- |

(v)

decommissioned explosives.’.

(6)  2000/4158.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/248 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/248

---

(2004/C 88 E/0252)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0920/04

by Proinsias De Rossa (PSE) to the Commission

(26 March 2004)

Subject:   Treatment of waste oils in Ireland

What reply, if any, did the Commission receive from Ireland in response to the reasoned opinion that it sent to Ireland in July 2001 (as announced in press release IP/01/1144) regarding Ireland's failure to give priority to the regeneration of waste oils over their disposal in accordance with the Waste Oils Directive 75/439/EEC (1)? What subsequent action did the Commission take, or is still considering taking, with regard to this matter?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(30 April 2004)

The Reasoned Opinion to which the Honourable Member refers related to Ireland's implementation of a provision of Council Directive 75/439/EEC of 16 July 1975 that requires Member States to give priority to the regeneration of waste oils over their disposal. The Commission took similar action against several other Member States. On 14 November 2001, the Irish authorities responded, explaining that the amount of waste oil arising in Ireland made waste oil regeneration uneconomic. On 25 April 2002, they provided copies of two studies which they contended supported this conclusion. An examination of the studies disclosed wider problems of compliance with the Directive, in particular a high level of unrecorded disposal of waste oils in Ireland. In order to address the wider issues, the Commission notified an additional Letter of Formal Notice on 11 July 2003, to which Ireland responded on 27 November 2003. The Commission will make a further decision on the matter later in 2004.

---

(1)  OJ L 194, 25.7.1975, p. 23.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/249 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/249

---

(2004/C 88 E/0253)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0929/04

by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission

(26 March 2004)

Subject:   Promotion of dairy products

I have received a letter from a constituent who has asked if there is provision for the promotion of the dairy industry in the UK. My constituent sells milk-based products and saw the EU-sponsored adverts for milk on television and wondered if there were other funded schemes available.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(29 April 2004)

The promotion exercise referred to by the Honourable Member is part of a national milk promotion campaign, organised by the Dairy Council with joint co-financing (United Kingdom 50 %) from the European Union.

The Commission jointly funds programmes to promote certain European Union agricultural products, milk and dairy products being amongst the sectors eligible for support. Promotion campaigns such as this one are generic in nature and never in favour of any particular brand names or enterprises. They highlight the advantages of European produce in terms of quality, food safety, nutrition, labelling, animal welfare and respect for the environment.

The procedure is that the Authority in the Member State responsible for this exercise (in the case of the United Kingdom this is the Rural Payments Agency) invites professional or inter-professional organisations representative of their particular sector to submit draft promotion or information programmes. In cooperation with an implementing agency selected by a competitive tendering process, the professional body drafts a programme according to strict eligibility criteria. There are also set conditions by which the programme must give due acknowledgement of Community assistance.

The Directorate-General for Agriculture has a website offering more detailed information and the address is as follows: (http://europa.eu.int/comm/agriculture/prom/index_en.htm). This provides a full explanation, including the legal regulatory basis for the programmes (Regulations (EC) No 2826/2000 (1) and (EC) No 94/2002 (2)).

In addition to the programme organised by the Dairy Council, there is a Community co-financed milk promotion campaign currently active in United Kingdom schools organised by Dairy Industry Association Ltd.

---

(1)  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, 23.12.2000.

(2)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 94/2002 of 18 January 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.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/250 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/250

---

(2004/C 88 E/0254)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0933/04

by John Purvis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(26 March 2004)

Subject:   Energy from the Commonwealth of Independent States

What plans does the Commission have to improve electricity grid connections between the Commonwealth of Independent States and the European Union?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(30 April 2004)

The Commission supports the ongoing study work by the Union for the Co-ordination of the Transmission of Electricity (UCTE) – the body responsible for the co-ordination of the operation of the continental European grid – and its counterparts in Russia and the Newly Independent States on the possibilities of interconnecting the integrated system of the Commonwealth of Independent States and the EU electricity system. Interconnections with Russia and the other CIS (1) countries neighbouring the EU, such as Ukraine, are covered by Annex III (projects of common interest) of European Parliament and Council Decision 1229/2003/EC of 26 June 2003 laying down a series of guidelines for trans-European energy networks and repealing Decision No 1254/96/EC (2), and are therefore eligible for possible financial aid.

However, a clear pre-condition to the integration of the EU electricity market and those of neighbouring countries is the existence of a level playing field, in terms of market and environmental standards, including nuclear safety.

---

(1)  Community of Independent States.

(2)  OJ L 176, 15.7.2003.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/250 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/250

---

(2004/C 88 E/0255)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0935/04

by Hans Kronberger (NI) to the Commission

(22 March 2004)

Subject:   European environment and health strategy – SCALE

Early last summer, the Commission launched the European environment and health strategy (SCALE).

In its press release (IP/03/823) of 11 June 2003, the Commission describes the five key elements of the strategy. The second of these is ‘children’, as they are particularly susceptible to environmental agents. In this connection the Commission claims that 157 million children in Europe are suffering from special environment-related problems.

According to ‘A Community of fifteen: key figures’, 2000 edition, in 1998 less than 20 % of the population of the EU consisted of children aged from 0 to 14. Assuming the population of the EU to be around 370 million, the population would include 74 million children under 15 at the absolute maximum. Even if one allows for the increase in the EU's population due to enlargement, it would hardly be possible to arrive at a figure of 157 million children in Europe.

The Commission:

| 1. | What criteria did it use to arrive at the figure of 157 million children in Europe? |
| --- | --- |

1.

What criteria did it use to arrive at the figure of 157 million children in Europe?

| 2. | Could the figure quoted by the Commission be due to a misprint? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Could the figure quoted by the Commission be due to a misprint?

| 3. | If so, how many children are really suffering from environment-related problems in Europe? |
| --- | --- |

3.

If so, how many children are really suffering from environment-related problems in Europe?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(30 April 2004)

| 1. | The Commission has quoted the figure of 157 million children in Europe based on the United Nations (UN) Population Data Base as no data was available from Directorate-General Eurostat at this stage. The figure refers to the population of children aged 0-15 in Europe in 2000. The figure, however, refers to the total number of children inhabiting Europe and not to the number of children suffering from environmentally-related diseases. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The Commission has quoted the figure of 157 million children in Europe based on the United Nations (UN) Population Data Base as no data was available from Directorate-General Eurostat at this stage. The figure refers to the population of children aged 0-15 in Europe in 2000. The figure, however, refers to the total number of children inhabiting Europe and not to the number of children suffering from environmentally-related diseases.

| 2. | The figure quoted by the Commission is not due to a misprint. The relevant reference website is: (www.un.org/popin/data.html). |
| --- | --- |

2.

The figure quoted by the Commission is not due to a misprint. The relevant reference website is: (www.un.org/popin/data.html).

| 3. | At this stage, the Commission does not have reliable figures on how many children are suffering from diseases related to the environment across Europe. It has been estimated that up to one fifth of the total burden of disease in industrialised countries can be attributed to environmental factors (1). In this respect, children are an important target group as they are particularly vulnerable to environmental hazards. One important development in this context is the significant increase in childhood asthma observed in developed western societies to levels where around 10 % of children are suffering from asthmatic symptoms. The environment and health monitoring work to be developed as a key priority of the EU Environment and health strategy will make it possible to develop specific estimates on the numbers of children affected by diseases related to the environment. |
| --- | --- |

3.

At this stage, the Commission does not have reliable figures on how many children are suffering from diseases related to the environment across Europe. It has been estimated that up to one fifth of the total burden of disease in industrialised countries can be attributed to environmental factors (1). In this respect, children are an important target group as they are particularly vulnerable to environmental hazards. One important development in this context is the significant increase in childhood asthma observed in developed western societies to levels where around 10 % of children are suffering from asthmatic symptoms. The environment and health monitoring work to be developed as a key priority of the EU Environment and health strategy will make it possible to develop specific estimates on the numbers of children affected by diseases related to the environment.

---

(1)  How much global ill health is attributable to environmental factors?, K. R. Smith et al, Epidemiology 1999.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/251 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/251

---

(2004/C 88 E/0256)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0938/04

by Margrietus van den Berg (PSE) to the Commission

(26 March 2004)

Subject:   Religious minorities in Gujarat

Following the Commission's answer of 15 May 2003 to question E-1417/03 (1) tabled by myself and other MEPs on 9 April 2003, there has been scarcely any improvement in the situation in Gujarat with regard to bringing to justice the perpetrators of the February 2002 massacre and rehabilitation of the victims and/or their relatives. In November 2003 Amnesty International again reported the illegal detention of Moslems in Gujarat. Before this there was a Human Rights Watch report on threats to human rights activists in Gujarat. AWAAZ South Asia Watch recently concluded in its report ‘In Bad Faith? British Charity and Hindu Extremism’ that umbrella organisations of the Hindu extremist RSS had raised millions of pounds from the British public under false pretences and was channelling it to organisations involved in large-scale violence and incitement to hatred against minorities. Finally, there have been various reports of discrimination against Muslims in employment.

| 1. | Is the Commission aware of these reports by Amnesty International, Human Right Watch and AWAAZ? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is the Commission aware of these reports by Amnesty International, Human Right Watch and AWAAZ?

| 2. | Has the Commission taken any action in response to the reports? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Has the Commission taken any action in response to the reports?

| 3. | If so, what was the outcome? If not, why not? |
| --- | --- |

3.

If so, what was the outcome? If not, why not?

| 4. | Does the current situation in Gujarat have implications for the ability of European firms effectively to apply the principle of non-discrimination in their personnel policy? |
| --- | --- |

4.

Does the current situation in Gujarat have implications for the ability of European firms effectively to apply the principle of non-discrimination in their personnel policy?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(30 April 2004)

The Commission is aware of the reports mentioned by the Honourable Member and continues to follow closely the developments in Gujarat. The Commission fully agrees that the perpetrators of the crimes should be brought to justice, the victims rehabilitated, and the rights of religious minorities protected.

The Commission has responded to the Gujarat violence by providing a relief package for the victims through its Humanitarian Aid Office (ECHO).

Furthermore, the EU has agreed to deal with all matters concerning democracy and human rights in India through its regular, on-going constructive dialogue with the Indian Government.

India and the EU have recently engaged in the Athens process' – regular human rights consultations with the Indian authorities – to exchange views on issues of concern. EU Heads of Mission in New Delhi (including the Commission's Head of Delegation) are closely monitoring human rights issues, with a particular emphasis on Gujarat and questions of religious freedom.

It is not within the purview of the Commission to give explicit recommendations to private companies on how they should operate in third countries. However, the Commission is committed to encouraging companies to act according to United Nations (UN) and EU guidelines on Corporate Social Responsibility. These guidelines notably make clear reference to the need to protect and promote the human rights of employees, and to avoid discrimination against minority groups.

---

(1)  See page 30.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/252 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/252

---

(2004/C 88 E/0257)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0940/04

by Robert Evans (PSE) to the Commission

(26 March 2004)

Subject:   Churches in Indonesia

I have received several letters from constituents regarding Reverend Rinaldy Damanik, a leader of the Protestant Christian Community in Central Sulawesi, Indonesia. Has the Commission any further information on his situation to add to the response that it gave to Written Question E-2815/03 (1) in October 2003?

Is the Commission also aware of the recent closure of several churches in Indonesia and the lack of resolution of the enforced conversion of thousands of Christians to Islam during the sectarian conflict in the Molucca Islands? Is the Commission making representations to encourage the Indonesian Government to put an end to these and other examples of the persecution of Christians in Indonesia?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(23 April 2004)

The Commission is still following the case of Reverend Damanik whose sentence to three years imprisonment for illegal possession of weapons was confirmed by the Supreme Court at the end of 2003. Since Reverend Damanik has already spent more than one-and-a-half years in prison, there is a possibility of an earlier release.

The Commission Delegation in Jakarta has contacted the human rights non-governmental organisation (NGO), linked to the Indonesian Church, which has taken over the assistance to Reverend Damanik after the sentence of the highest court, and was informed that they are assessing the feasibility of starting a new case, with new evidence/witnesses.

As regards the areas with a high level of religious tensions, the Commission is encouraged by information, received from local religious groups, that inter-faith groups are set up aiming at co-operation and reciprocal protection and defence. The Commission has recently received one of these inter-faith groups active in the Maluku Province.

The Commission is closely monitoring the situation of religious freedom in Indonesia. Moreover, support to organisations defending minority rights in Indonesia is part of the Community's co-operation programme with the country, in particular through projects supported under the European Initiative for Democracy and Human Rights.

---

(1)  See page 117.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/253 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/253

---

(2004/C 88 E/0258)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0941/04

by Robert Evans (PSE) to the Commission

(26 March 2004)

Subject:   GMOs

Is the Commission aware of the case before the Supreme Court of Canada of Percy Scmeiser v Monsanto? The case involves the issue of liability in the case of GM crops spreading into conventional or organic crops as well as the intentional and non-intentional spread of GMOs into the environment on the one hand and infringement of patent on the other.

Questions have been raised in the court case as to whether infringement of patent can occur even if the farmers accused of infringement may have themselves been victims of non-intentional spread of GMOs.

In response to Written Question E-0819/03 (1), the Commission referred to its international discussions on liability and redress in the context of the Biosafety Protocol. Will the Commission be seeking to ensure that safeguards are included so that a recurrence of such a legal situation may be prevented?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(30 April 2004)

The Honourable Member mentions in his question the case before the Supreme Court of Canada of Percy Schmeiser v Monsanto regarding an alleged infringement of a patent following the spread of genetic material into conventional crops.

In the EU, the infringement of patents is governed by the law of the Member States. The Commission is not aware of the existence of any difficulties of the kind in question within the EU.

The Honourable Member refers in particular to the discussions on liability and redress for damage resulting from the transboundary movement of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in the context of the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety.

The First Meeting of the Parties to the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety to the Convention on Biological Diversity, held in Kuala Lumpur in February 2004, agreed to launch a process with respect to the elaboration of appropriate international rules and procedures in the field of liability and redress. For this purpose the Meeting of the Parties established an Ad Hoc Working Group of Legal and Technical Experts on Liability and Redress – open to all Parties – which will meet five times between 2005 and 2007, and adopted broad terms of reference for this Group. In addition, the Meeting of the Parties decided that later in 2004 a technical group of experts will meet to undertake the necessary preparatory work for this process.

The terms of reference adopted by the Meeting of the Parties are rather broad and leave all options open for discussion by Parties. It is therefore impossible at this early stage to predict the scope and nature of the rules and procedures to be adopted at the end of the negotiation process.

The Honourable Member can rest assured that the Commission will do its utmost in the forthcoming negotiations to achieve workable and effective rules and procedures which will contribute to the achievement of the objectives of the Cartagena Protocol.

---

(1)  OJ C 78 E, 27.3.2004, p. 358.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/254 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/254

---

(2004/C 88 E/0259)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0943/04

by Cristiana Muscardini (UEN) to the Commission

(26 March 2004)

Subject:   Research programme and multiple sclerosis

The causes of multiple sclerosis are still largely unknown, although it is thought that the disease stems from a combination of genetic, environmental and immunological factors. Correlating those various factors could be a way of studying the causes of the disease, 400 000 cases of which have (according to the European Multiple Sclerosis Platform) been diagnosed in the EU.

In view of the fact that (as stated in Parliament's resolution A5-0451/2003 – P5_TA(2003) 0601 of 18 December 2003) ‘it is essential to enhance the financial resources available for research into multiple sclerosis within the European Union and to improve the complementarity of research projects given the combination of factors that are said to trigger the disease’, does the Commission not consider:

| 1. | that the next Research Framework Programme should include a specific reference in the field of neuro-degenerative pathologies to diseases of the brain and, in particular, to multiple sclerosis? |
| --- | --- |

1.

that the next Research Framework Programme should include a specific reference in the field of neuro-degenerative pathologies to diseases of the brain and, in particular, to multiple sclerosis?

| 2. | that such a commitment should be made a priority under the Seventh Framework Programme, since the Sixth Framework Programme failed to incorporate disability issues into Community policies and the amount of research being carried out in the EU into disability and diseases such as multiple sclerosis has been drastically cut back? |
| --- | --- |

2.

that such a commitment should be made a priority under the Seventh Framework Programme, since the Sixth Framework Programme failed to incorporate disability issues into Community policies and the amount of research being carried out in the EU into disability and diseases such as multiple sclerosis has been drastically cut back?

Answer given by Mr Busquin on behalf of the Commission

(28 April 2004)

The Commission would like to comment that basic and clinical research on brain diseases and disorders and in particular on neurodegenerative diseases, including multiple sclerosis (MS), are areas of major support in the Sixth Framework Programme (FP6). Specifically, the first two out of four Calls foreseen for the sub-priorities ‘Major diseases’ and ‘Application of knowledge and technologies of genomics and biotechnology for health’ within Priority 1 ‘Life sciences, genomics and biotechnology for health’ already offered several topics for Integrated Projects (IP) or Networks of Excellence (NOE) on neurodegenerative brain diseases and novel therapies (‘Role and mechanisms of protein aggregation in neurodegenerative diseases – IP’, ‘Molecular mechanisms of neuronal degeneration – NOE,’‘Stem cells and nervous system – NOE’, ‘Novel therapeutic substances for neurodegenerative diseases in CNS and PNS – IP’. The third Call for proposals, currently under discussion, may also include topics highly relevant for MS.

In addition, the Commission (Directorate General Health and Consumer Protection) is exploring within the frame of its 2004 Call for proposals in the Public Health Programme the possibility of receiving proposals for a European study about the situation of neurodegenerative diseases, including MS, to assess the epidemiological and health systems impact of those diseases. A Call for Tender in 2005 for this subject could be launched if no proposal is received in 2004.

Further information on Calls, Programmes and selected projects can be found at the following web sites:

| — | http://fp6.cordis.lu/fp6/home.cfm |
| --- | --- |

—

http://fp6.cordis.lu/fp6/home.cfm

| — | http://europa.eu.int/comm/research/fp6/firstcallresult_en.html |
| --- | --- |

—

http://europa.eu.int/comm/research/fp6/firstcallresult_en.html

| — | http://europa.eu.int/comm/health/ph_programme/howtoapply/how_to_apply_en.htm |
| --- | --- |

—

http://europa.eu.int/comm/health/ph_programme/howtoapply/how_to_apply_en.htm

The Commission considers these FP6 activities as a significant contribution to health research directed towards a better understanding and improved treatment of neurodegenerative diseases such as MS. With regard to the Seventh FP, the Commission is currently in the process of defining the main pillars on which this programme will be built in the context of its communication on the financial perspectives 2006-2013. For the discussions to follow on the content of FP7, the Commission will duly take into consideration relevant aspects of health research arising from FP6 as well as major public health issues.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/255 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/255

---

(2004/C 88 E/0260)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0950/04

by Paul Rübig (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(29 March 2004)

Subject:   Hindrances to traffic on the River Danube

Because of the low water level in 2003, Austrian transport undertakings using the River Danube were faced with massive additional costs, since, for example, in the Komarno, Dunaujvaros, region, barges, albeit reduced to carrying half-loads, were prevented by the Inland Waterway Police from continuing their journeys.

Furthermore, there were times when it was not possible for the pontoon bridge in Novisad to be opened, with the result that one journey from Linz to Ismael took two and a half months. In some instances, the transport of heavy steel plate had to be transferred to HGVs, and that resulted in significant additional costs for the transport undertakings.

With regard to transport westwards (to Duisburg, Antwerp and Rotterdam, etc.), from June 2003 until mid-January 2004, as happens almost every year, the barges could be loaded to no more than half or even one quarter of their capacity, with the undertakings having to pay low-water supplements which, in some cases, amounted to as much as the initial charge.

The development of the sections of the Danube between Regensburg and Passau and in Hungary and the construction of a bridge at Novisad would significantly increase the attractiveness of the Danube as the most important waterway in Europe. (It is currently carrying no more than about 10 % of its capacity).

What measures is the Commission thinking of taking in order to eliminate the hindrances to traffic on the Danube referred to above and to help bring about the urgently required reduction in transit traffic using the roads?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(30 April 2004)

The Commission White Paper on the European transport policy (1) calls for an integrated approach combining ‘inter alia’ measures to revitalise the rail sector, in particular for freight services, to promote inland waterway shipping and short sea shipping, to encourage greater complementarities between high speed rail and air transport, to promote the development of interoperable intelligent transport systems in order to ensure increased network efficiency and safety.

The Commission proposed in its decision of 1st October 2003 (2), the Rhine-Meuse-Main-Danube corridor as a transeuropean network (TEN) priority project and identified a series of bottlenecks which need to be removed in order to use this transport mode best in the interest of the enlarged Europe. The Commission proposal has been recently agreed upon by Council and the Parliament (Parliament's vote took place on 21st April 2004).

The river Danube area is broadly covered by the Interreg III D Cadses (Central Adriatic Danubian South-Eastern European Space) programme. Interreg is a Community Initiative financed from the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF). The programme can support projects related to the development of sustainable transport systems along the river Danube by co-operation of the countries in the Danube area.

---

(1)  COM(2001) 370 final.

(2)  COM(2003) 564 final.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/256 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/256

---

(2004/C 88 E/0261)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0958/04

by Manuel dos Santos (PSE) to the Commission

(23 March 2004)

Subject:   Risk transfer in the loan establishment operation carried out by the Portuguese Government

The media have reported that, following the investigation opened by Eurostat into public book-keeping, the Commission validated a 2,8 % GDP budgetary deficit (in 2003) submitted by the Portuguese Government.

This figure can only be confirmed if the public accounts include the result of a government loan establishment operation carried out in agreement with Citigroup.

It is not clear that the agreement ensures the total transfer of government risk to the investors in the loan establishment operation; if this turns out to be the case, it will invalidate the deficit figure submitted.

The Commission:

| 1. | Is it in a position to ensure that the credit establishment operation entails no risks for the Portuguese government, which means that all the extraordinary receipts entered on the accounts in 2003 will materialise? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is it in a position to ensure that the credit establishment operation entails no risks for the Portuguese government, which means that all the extraordinary receipts entered on the accounts in 2003 will materialise?

| 2. | Is it familiar with the opinion drawn up by the IDEFE (a body linked to the Higher Economics and Management Institute), which claims that 19 % of the loans now transferred are cancellable? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Is it familiar with the opinion drawn up by the IDEFE (a body linked to the Higher Economics and Management Institute), which claims that 19 % of the loans now transferred are cancellable?

| 3. | Was it informed, and with what guarantees, of the existence of other government loans which could, possibly, replace any that should be cancelled? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Was it informed, and with what guarantees, of the existence of other government loans which could, possibly, replace any that should be cancelled?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(19 April 2004)

According to the Code of Best Practice on the compilation and reporting of data in the context of the excessive deficit procedure, adopted by the Ecofin Council of 18 February 2003, Member States should consult Eurostat whenever there are doubts on the accounting treatment of specific or complex transactions.

On 6 October 2003, the Portuguese authorities wrote to Eurostat describing a transaction they were considering, namely the sale of non-performing tax claims, and asking Eurostat's views on the recording of this transaction.

To answer this request, Eurostat met a delegation of Portuguese officials in Luxembourg on 13 October 2003. Based on the information provided by Portugal, Eurostat considered, on 4 November 2003, that the sale of the claim of uncollected taxes and social contributions could be considered as revenue, that is, as a non-financial transaction.

Eurostat based its answer on the following main reasons.

| (a) | In the Portuguese government accounts, tax and social contributions are recorded on a cash basis, or on a time adjusted cash basis, in line with Regulation (EC) No 2516/2000 (1). Therefore, the tax claims that were sold had never been recorded as revenue. |
| --- | --- |

(a)

In the Portuguese government accounts, tax and social contributions are recorded on a cash basis, or on a time adjusted cash basis, in line with Regulation (EC) No 2516/2000 (1). Therefore, the tax claims that were sold had never been recorded as revenue.

| (b) | The Portuguese government would not provide any explicit or implicit guarantee to the acquirer: either guarantees on the recovery performance of the tax claims, or on the funding needs involved in the purchase. |
| --- | --- |

(b)

The Portuguese government would not provide any explicit or implicit guarantee to the acquirer: either guarantees on the recovery performance of the tax claims, or on the funding needs involved in the purchase.

| (c) | The difference between the initial payment and the market-based estimated price was less than 15 %, thus implying an effective transfer of risk to the acquirer. This is in line with the Eurostat framework decision of 3 July 2002 on securitisation. |
| --- | --- |

(c)

The difference between the initial payment and the market-based estimated price was less than 15 %, thus implying an effective transfer of risk to the acquirer. This is in line with the Eurostat framework decision of 3 July 2002 on securitisation.

On 16 February 2004, Portugal provided Eurostat with copies of the contract and associated documents, including the independent report by IDEFE mentioned by the Honourable Member.

The Commission is aware that the sale involves a set of non-performing claims, which are legally disputed. If a tax claim is considered to be inexistent (and only in this case), in full or in part, the Portuguese State will have to provide a substitute for that claim. However, this does not constitute a guarantee on the amounts collected or on the taxpayers' solvency. The sole purpose of this mechanism is to ensure the material integrity of the claim portfolio that was sold.

---

(1)  Regulation (EC) No 2516/2000 of the Parliament and of the Council of 7 November 2000 modifying the common principles of the European system of national and regional accounts in the Community (ESA) 9 5 as concerns taxes and social contributions and amending Council Regulation (EC) No 2223/96, OJ L 290, 17.11.2000.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/257 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/257

---

(2004/C 88 E/0262)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0971/04

by José Ribeiro e Castro (UEN) to the Commission

(29 March 2004)

Subject:   Venezuela – referendum

The media report that the Coordenadora Democrática, the umbrella organisation covering the political parties opposed to President Hugo Chávez, have welcomed the decision of the Supreme Court of Justice (SCJ) to urge the National Electoral Council (NEC) to validate 876 017 signatures whose authenticity has been called into doubt, despite the fact that they were accompanied by the signatories' fingerprints.

The SCJ has decided to urge the NEC to add a further 876 000 signatures to the 1 832 493 already validated (making a total of 2 708 510) and to call the referendum on revoking the President's mandate.

A Coordenadora Democrática spokesman told the Venezuelan media of the movement's satisfaction at the ‘return of legality and constitutionality’, stressing the obligation to respect the impending NEC jurisdictional decision.

Meanwhile, the Mayor of Libertador (one of the two Caracas local authorities), Fredy Bernal, has announced that the Movimento Quinta República (MVR), the government party, was going to appeal against the decision of the Electoral Chamber of the SCJ.

Various political analysts believe that there could shortly be conflict between Venezuela's various legal authorities and institutions, particularly between the SCJ's electoral and constitutional chambers, and the NEC.

The Commission:

| 1. | What information does it have concerning these facts? |
| --- | --- |

1.

What information does it have concerning these facts?

| 2. | Does it believe that the holding of the referendum revoking the presidential mandate should remain unscheduled? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Does it believe that the holding of the referendum revoking the presidential mandate should remain unscheduled?

| 3. | What consequences does it think that this situation could have for Venezuela? |
| --- | --- |

3.

What consequences does it think that this situation could have for Venezuela?

| 4. | What initiatives is it taking or does it intend to take to help prevent this possible tension between institutions, and ensure that the Venezuelan people are finally given the chance to speak, the only way of resolving the democratic crisis which Venezuela is undergoing? |
| --- | --- |

4.

What initiatives is it taking or does it intend to take to help prevent this possible tension between institutions, and ensure that the Venezuelan people are finally given the chance to speak, the only way of resolving the democratic crisis which Venezuela is undergoing?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(30 April 2004)

After the National Electoral Council (CNE) announced the preliminary results for the Presidential recall referendum on 2nd March 2004, the legal activity on the recall referendum has been intense. The CNE ruled that, out of the amount of signatures examined (3 086 013 – the opposition said it submitted 3 467 050), just over 1,8 million signatures have been declared valid, 876 017 doubtful, and more than 230 000 invalid. The signatures considered doubtful are the result of the so called ‘planillas planas’ (signature forms where the basic data of those who signed have been filled in similar handwriting) and would have to be double-checked in a ‘repair process’ (‘reparo’), together with certain other signatures originally declared invalid. As a consequence, according to the CNE, more than 1 million signatures needed further verification and they had to be confirmed, by those who signed. 2,4 million signatures are needed to call the Presidential referendum.

Nevertheless, the Supreme Court's Electoral Chamber ruled, on 15 March 2004, that the ‘planillas planas’ were valid. The CNE appealed this ruling to the Supreme Court's Constitutional Chamber, which considered that the Electoral Chamber was not competent according to the 1999 Constitution and ordered it to refrain from ruling on the referendum process. The Electoral Chamber has reaffirmed its competence on the matter and asked the Court's plenary to decide. The outcome cannot be predicted with any certainty. This Constitutional controversy is causing further delays for the possible referendum on President Chávez.

The European Union supports the role of the Organisation of American States (OAS) and the Carter Center in the conflict and the efforts they are making to implement the political agreement signed on 29 May 2003 by the Venezuelan government and the opposition, in line with the OAS resolution 833, which calls for a pacific, democratic, constitutional and electoral solution. The EU has reiterated the importance of implementing this agreement. Nevertheless, even if a referendum takes place, the polarisation in society will take time to overcome as will the recovery of the economic situation.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/258 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/258

---

(2004/C 88 E/0263)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0972/04

by José Ribeiro e Castro (UEN) to the Commission

(29 March 2004)

Subject:   Natura Network – funding

The Portuguese Secretary of State for the Environment, José Eduardo Martins, recently stated that the amounts which the EU was preparing to assign Portugal for the management of the Natura Network were quite clearly inadequate, and fell far short of what was required. He said that merely for the management of Portugal's Natura Network between 2003 and 2007, Portugal needed some 220 million euros, but that the EU financial perspective fell far short. Apparently, a similar problem will occur with Spain, Italy, France and Greece.

It appears that the problem is a result of the fact that the environment and agriculture, under the new financial framework, appear on the same budgetary line, where in the case of Portugal, 80 % of the money is then captured by agriculture.

The Commission:

| — | how is it going to respond to these problems, difficulties and inadequacies; |
| --- | --- |

—

how is it going to respond to these problems, difficulties and inadequacies;

| — | can it guarantee that the Natura Network and its objectives are not going to be thrown into crisis by financial shortfalls and inadequate budgeting? |
| --- | --- |

—

can it guarantee that the Natura Network and its objectives are not going to be thrown into crisis by financial shortfalls and inadequate budgeting?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(30 April 2004)

The Commission has committed itself to submiting a Communication on the Financing of Natura 2000 in 2004. This Communication is expected for the first half of 2004. Furthermore, the Commission has so far integrated the Natura 2000 network and its needs in all its major proposals for future Community Financing. These include the Commission's proposal for the future Financial Perspectives and the Third Report on Economic and Social Cohesion.

The Commission stated in the Communication on the new Financial Perspectives for the period post-2006 (1) that rural development actions related to Natura 2000 would be an important objective of the future rural development policy. Furthermore, one of the important activities included in the environmental priorities for the period 2007-2013 within the same chapter of the future financial perspectives is the development and implementation of the Natura 2000 network of sites to protect European biodiversity as well as the implementation of the biodiversity action plans. The Commission has also indicated in the Third Cohesion Report on economic and Social Cohesion (2), that investing in infrastructures which are linked to Natura 2000 and contribute to overall regional competitiveness is one of the areas in which structural funds interventions may take place in the future.

At the same time, the Commission confirmed that cohesion policy is based on the principles of subsidiarity and of partnership with Member States and regions, and that the co-funded measures should reflect regional priorities and economic development needs. The Commission cannot go against these key principles and oblige Member States and regions to finance precise actions or, even more, to earmark financial resources to a given policy area. However, in the course of the programming dialogue, which will be reinforced and made more strategic, the Commission would discuss with Member States and regions the best way to incorporate Community priorities, including the financial needs of the Natura 2000 network.

---

(1)  Communication from the Commission to the Council and the Parliament Building – our common Future – Policy Challenges and budgetary means of the Enlarged Union 2007-2013, COM(2004) 101 final.

(2)  Third Report on Economic and Social Cohesion, COM(2004) 107 final.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/259 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/259

---

(2004/C 88 E/0264)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0977/04

by John Bowis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(30 March 2004)

Subject:   Health insurance in the Czech Republic

Is the Commission aware that, in the Czech Republic, there is one large and several smaller health insurance companies? Is it also aware that the large company has experienced financial problems? Is it further aware that the Czech Government has authorised the redistribution of premiums from the smaller companies to the large company, without the approval of the policyholders involved? Does the Commission agree that this would appear to be in the interests neither of competition nor of policyholders, and will it raise this issue with the Czech authorities?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(30 April 2004)

The Commission is aware of the organisation of the health insurance system in the Czech Republic. There is currently one general health insurance company, covering the majority of the population, and eight branch health insurance companies which were originally foreseen for employees of particular sectors (banking, mining), but are now open to all. All permanent residents are covered by an obligatory health care insurance managed by these funds.

According to the information available to the Commission, an amendment to the legal acts governing the operation of the health insurance companies is currently being debated in the Czech Parliament, including provisions on the redistribution of collected funds.

The organisation and financing of healthcare and social protection systems is the responsibility of Member States. However, Member States must exercise their responsibilities in this area in accordance with Community law. In order to assess whether a health insurance provider is subject to EU competition rules, it is necessary to assess whether the provider performs an economic activity or manages a social security scheme. It follows from the case law of the European Court of Justice that bodies entrusted with the management of certain compulsory social security schemes are not subject to competition rules.

According to the information available to the Commission, health care in the Czech Republic is paid by obligatory health insurance covering all permanent residents. The insurance providers therefore appear to primarily manage a social security scheme, which is not subject to competition rules. On the basis of the information available, the Commission does not intend at present to raise this issue with the Czech authorities.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/260 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/260

---

(2004/C 88 E/0265)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0978/04

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(30 March 2004)

Subject:   Ingredients in food products

| 1. | In the light of the increasing concerns for public health – in terms of obesity, high blood pressure and diabetes, etc. – can the Commission outline any action that it has taken to help Member States tackle this problem? |
| --- | --- |

1.

In the light of the increasing concerns for public health – in terms of obesity, high blood pressure and diabetes, etc. – can the Commission outline any action that it has taken to help Member States tackle this problem?

| 2. | Does the Commission plan any action as regards placing a maximum limit on sugar/salt content in food products and/or placing clear labelling on such products? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Does the Commission plan any action as regards placing a maximum limit on sugar/salt content in food products and/or placing clear labelling on such products?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(30 April 2004)

| 1. | The European Commission has prepared a document entitled ‘Status report on the European Commission's work in the field of nutrition. October 2002’, which has been sent to the Information offices of the Parliament, Commission offices in the Member States, Cabinets of the Commission, National Parliaments, some information networks and consumer associations and it is available on the Public Health web site.
  A network on Nutrition and Physical Activity composed of Member States, Acceding Countries and European Economic Area (EEA) expert institutes, the World Health Organisation (WHO) and the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) has been established by the Commission. The network is a forum for exchanging experience and establishing and disseminating best practice. In this way, it will contribute to a coordination of Member State policies. The network also advises the Commission on the creation of a Community strategy to improve public health nutrition, reduce and prevent diet-related diseases, promote physical activity and to fight obesity.
  The Commission is financing projects aimed at collecting data on obesity, nutrition and physical activity within the Public Health Action Programme (2003-2008) (1) and its 2003 and 2004 Work Plans. Moreover, a major project aimed at preventing obesity in children will be supported under the programme.
  The Council Conclusions on Healthy lifestyles from December 2003 underline the need for an integrated approach to fostering health, an approach which combines the promotion of healthy lifestyles with actions aimed at addressing social and economic inequalities and the physical environment, and with a commitment to pursue health objectives through other Community policies. This is very much in line with the approach taken by the Commission with the Public Health Action Programme, and will include action on promoting healthy nutrition and preventing obesity.
  A specific working group has been established to deal with ‘health information’ aspects of lifestyles. The purpose is to bring together the various projects dealing with lifestyle related indicators and data and to consider what additional elements need to be addressed.
  The Commission has actively supported the Irish Presidency's initiatives on cardiovascular diseases and obesity. This process is now leading to Council Conclusions on Promoting Heart Health. In the draft proposal, the Commission is invited to bring forward a Proposal for Council Recommendations on health determinants of major importance for the promotion of cardiovascular health; the prevention of obesity will be an essential element in any such measure. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The European Commission has prepared a document entitled ‘Status report on the European Commission's work in the field of nutrition. October 2002’, which has been sent to the Information offices of the Parliament, Commission offices in the Member States, Cabinets of the Commission, National Parliaments, some information networks and consumer associations and it is available on the Public Health web site.

A network on Nutrition and Physical Activity composed of Member States, Acceding Countries and European Economic Area (EEA) expert institutes, the World Health Organisation (WHO) and the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) has been established by the Commission. The network is a forum for exchanging experience and establishing and disseminating best practice. In this way, it will contribute to a coordination of Member State policies. The network also advises the Commission on the creation of a Community strategy to improve public health nutrition, reduce and prevent diet-related diseases, promote physical activity and to fight obesity.

The Commission is financing projects aimed at collecting data on obesity, nutrition and physical activity within the Public Health Action Programme (2003-2008) (1) and its 2003 and 2004 Work Plans. Moreover, a major project aimed at preventing obesity in children will be supported under the programme.

The Council Conclusions on Healthy lifestyles from December 2003 underline the need for an integrated approach to fostering health, an approach which combines the promotion of healthy lifestyles with actions aimed at addressing social and economic inequalities and the physical environment, and with a commitment to pursue health objectives through other Community policies. This is very much in line with the approach taken by the Commission with the Public Health Action Programme, and will include action on promoting healthy nutrition and preventing obesity.

A specific working group has been established to deal with ‘health information’ aspects of lifestyles. The purpose is to bring together the various projects dealing with lifestyle related indicators and data and to consider what additional elements need to be addressed.

The Commission has actively supported the Irish Presidency's initiatives on cardiovascular diseases and obesity. This process is now leading to Council Conclusions on Promoting Heart Health. In the draft proposal, the Commission is invited to bring forward a Proposal for Council Recommendations on health determinants of major importance for the promotion of cardiovascular health; the prevention of obesity will be an essential element in any such measure.

| 2. | The Commission does not have any plans regarding setting maximum levels on sugar/salt content in food products. Regarding labelling, it is obligatory to list sugars and salt in the list of ingredients if they are used in the manufacture of a food product and in decreasing order of weight. In addition, the Commission has submitted for adoption to Parliament and Council a proposal for a Regulation (2) to harmonise the rules on nutrition and health claims in the labelling, presentation and advertising of foods. Specific conditions relating to nutrition claims regarding sugars and salt are proposed therein. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The Commission does not have any plans regarding setting maximum levels on sugar/salt content in food products. Regarding labelling, it is obligatory to list sugars and salt in the list of ingredients if they are used in the manufacture of a food product and in decreasing order of weight. In addition, the Commission has submitted for adoption to Parliament and Council a proposal for a Regulation (2) to harmonise the rules on nutrition and health claims in the labelling, presentation and advertising of foods. Specific conditions relating to nutrition claims regarding sugars and salt are proposed therein.

---

(1)  Decision No 1786/2002/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 September 2002 adopting a programme of Community action in the field of public health (2003-2008), OJ L 271, 9.10.2002, p. 1.

(2)  COM(2003) 424 final.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/261 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/261

---

(2004/C 88 E/0266)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0980/04

by Luigi Vinci (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(30 March 2004)

Subject:   Instructions from the Army High Command in Turkey

In January, with the subsequent approval of Military Headquarters, the Army High Command in Turkey instructed its own intelligence services and provincial governments to gather information on members of the public and organisations in favour of Turkey entering the European Union, in favour of the United States or with Satanist and Masonic links and on Internet groups, minorities, children of well-off families, etc. In the High Command's view, all such persons and organisations could become involved in separatist or subversive activities.

This initiative has been fiercely criticised in the Turkish press.

Despite the brutally anti-democratic nature of this intrusion, which is hostile to Turkey's entry to the European Union and, furthermore, is in breach of Turkish law, The Turkish Government does not appear to have raised any objections.

What are the Commission's views on this matter, and what action does it intend to take in response to this behaviour with a view to upholding the Copenhagen principles in general and to facilitating the democratisation process within Turkey agreed between the Turkish Government and the European Union?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(30 April 2004)

The Commission is aware of the events to which the Honourable Member refers.

Under the revised Accession Partnership as adopted by the Council of Ministers on 19 May 2003, there is a priority for Turkey to align civilian control of the military with practice in Member States.

In its last Regular Report of November 2003 (1), the Commission noted that ‘the Armed Forces in Turkey exercise influence through a series of informal mechanisms. At various occasions, military members of the National Security Council expressed their opinions about political, social and foreign policy matters in public speeches, statements to the media and declarations.’

On 16 March 2004, the Turkish General Staff published a Statement concerning the above-mentioned facts denying any intention of the army to give specific orders to compile any blacklist of people according to their politicai view or lifestyle. The statement indicated however that it was the duty of the Armed forces to carry out activities against ‘separatist and fundamentalist threats’. These facts triggered a debate in the Turkish Parliament in the course of which the question was raised of the compatibility of this type of intelligence gathering with the principle of freedom of thought.

The Commission will continue to follow the developments related to civil-military relations in Turkey in light of the Copenhagen political criteria and where necessary raise it directly with the Turkish authorities.

---

(1)  COM(2003) 676 final.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/262 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/262

---

(2004/C 88 E/0267)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0981/04

by Giovanni Pittella (PSE) and Guido Sacconi (PSE) to the Commission

(30 March 2004)

Subject:   Protection and conservation of the marine environment

On 19 June 2003 Parliament adopted a resolution on the Commission communication: ‘Towards a strategy to protect and conserve the marine environment’ (P5_TA(2003)0295). In the resolution Members called for greater integration of environmental protection considerations into decision-making processes and for the protection and conservation of marine ecosystems, which are of vital importance in safeguarding biodiversity.

Parliament also called on the Commission to put forward, as soon as possible, a consistent and harmonised thematic strategy on the marine environment, not least in view of the current critical state of some marine ecosystems.

Can the Commission state whether, when it drew up the strategy, it took due account of the following:

| — | the precautionary principle; |
| --- | --- |

—

the precautionary principle;

| — | the concept of sustainability; |
| --- | --- |

—

the concept of sustainability;

| — | a strategic environmental assessment; |
| --- | --- |

—

a strategic environmental assessment;

| — | an integrated approach to address threats caused by all human activities affecting the marine environment and a careful assessment of their impact on this environment and the mutual influence and dependency of such impacts; |
| --- | --- |

—

an integrated approach to address threats caused by all human activities affecting the marine environment and a careful assessment of their impact on this environment and the mutual influence and dependency of such impacts;

| — | an integrated approach regarding coastal and offshore marine management; |
| --- | --- |

—

an integrated approach regarding coastal and offshore marine management;

| — | a regional approach taking into account regional diversities, ecological characteristics, threats and socio-economic aspects; |
| --- | --- |

—

a regional approach taking into account regional diversities, ecological characteristics, threats and socio-economic aspects;

| — | strategic marine spatial planning for the regional seas covering the whole of the EU continental shelf, which would introduce a plan-led approach to the sectoral decision-making systems? |
| --- | --- |

—

strategic marine spatial planning for the regional seas covering the whole of the EU continental shelf, which would introduce a plan-led approach to the sectoral decision-making systems?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(30 April 2004)

The Commission is currently in the process of drawing up a European Maríne Strategy. As part of this process, a Stakeholder Conference will be organised jointly with the Dutch Presidency in November 2004. Publication of the final proposal is foreseen in March 2005.

The main elements of the foreseen strategy will be a common approach for all European seas, combined with:

| — | a specific regional approach to enable regional problems and solutions to be addressed; |
| --- | --- |

—

a specific regional approach to enable regional problems and solutions to be addressed;

| — | a holistic integrated approach to address all human uses impacting on the marine environment. |
| --- | --- |

—

a holistic integrated approach to address all human uses impacting on the marine environment.

An essential element in the implementation of the strategy will be an ecosystem approach for the management of human activities impacting on the marine environment which will take account of all the elements mentioned in the Honourable Member's written question.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/263 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/263

---

(2004/C 88 E/0268)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0984/04

by Piia-Noora Kauppi (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(30 March 2004)

Subject:   The role of tiredness in road accidents

According to the Finnish Road Safety Organisation (Suomen Liikenneturva), the statistics compiled by fatal road accident investigation boards indicate that 12 % of head-on collisions with a fatal outcome are due to drivers falling asleep. The true figure is likely to be higher still, as many accidents which are actually caused by tiredness are attributed to some kind of error in the handling of the vehicle. A survey in Norway has shown that as many as one third of all head-on collisions and run-off-the-road accidents were due in one way or another to tiredness, whereas for example alcohol or drugs are involved in only 11 % of accidents.

One of the priorities of the Commission's transport policy is promoting transport safety. When seeking practical ways of improving road safety, how will the Commission take account of the prevalence of accidents caused by tiredness? Has the Commission investigated – and if not, will it investigate – the role of tiredness in road accidents throughout the EU?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(30 April 2004)

The Commission is aware of the figures quoted by the Honourable Member which show that tiredness plays an important role in road accidents.

Tiredness is an important consideration in the legislation on the working hours and the driving and rest periods of professional drivers (1) for which the Commission has recently made several proposals, including one on roadside inspections which is currently before Parliament and the Council (2).

The Commission is supporting research projects such as the AWAKE (3) project under the 5th Framework Programme, which aims to improve our understanding of the causes, other than just lack of sleep, of tiredness leading to road accidents, and to develop technology to detect hypo-vigilance and alert the driver.

The Commission will continue to promote research in this field.

---

(1)  In particular Regulations (EEC) No 3820/85 and 3821/85, OJ L 370, 31.12.1985, and Directive 2002/15/EC, OJ L 80, 23.3.2002.

(2)  COM(2003) 628 final.

(3)  Assessment of driver vigilance and Warning According to traffic risK Estimation.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/264 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/264

---

(2004/C 88 E/0269)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0992/04

by Francesco Fiori (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(24 March 2004)

Subject:   Telecommunications

The new regulatory framework enables authorities to intervene in the telecommunications market and gives them broad discretionary powers when deciding which obligations would be most appropriate in order to remedy market failure. The directives do not provide sufficiently detailed guidance on how to modulate regulatory action in terms of the possible range of obligations which the authorities may impose.

The Commission indicated in its 2004 work programme that it had adopted a recommendation seeking to lay down guidelines for choosing regulatory action in accordance with the proportionality principle and in keeping with the regulatory objectives laid down in the framework directive.

In its 2004 work programme the ERG states that it plans to adopt a document which it calls a ‘draft joint ERG/EC approach on appropriate remedies in the new regulatory framework’. For harmonisation purposes, legislative action is indeed required in order to establish criteria for the application of remedies in the new regulatory framework. Clarifications should therefore be provided as to the legal status of the joint ERG/EC approach and its role in the Community and national legal systems.

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(30 April 2004)

The new regulatory framework has the objective of achieving a harmonised framework for the regulation of electronic communications services, electronic communications networks, associated facilities and associated services. However, a regulator's choice of the particular remedy or remedies to be applied to firms with significant market power is addressed at national level. Aside from exceptional remedies (which are in any case subject to Commission control), all remedies available to be imposed on undertakings designated as having Significant Market Power (SMP) are laid out in Articles 9 to 13 of the Access and Interconnection Directive (1) and in Chapter III of the Universal Service Directive (2).

As set out in Article 7(2) of the Framework Directive (3), national regulatory authorities, when exercising their independent powers under the new regulatory framework, must contribute to the development of the internal market by co-operating with each other, and with the Commission, in a transparent manner to ensure consistent application of the framework. In particular, national regulatory authorities must seek to agree on the types of instruments and remedies best suited to address particular types of situations in the market place.

This is the basis upon which the European Regulators Group (ERG) has adopted an ERG Common Position on the approach to appropriate remedies in the new regulatory framework. Directorate-General (DG) Information Society and DG Competition collaborated with the ERG in preparing this document, but the Common Position remains a document of the ERG.

---

(1)  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, OJ L 108, 24.4.2002.

(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)  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, OJ L 108, 24.4.2002.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/265 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/265

---

(2004/C 88 E/0270)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0994/04

by Proinsias De Rossa (PSE) to the Commission

(31 March 2004)

Subject:   Child protection and future EU programmes aimed at young people

In view of its publication on 9 March 2004 of the two communications on future education and citizenship policies after 2006, ‘The new generation of education and training programmes’ and ‘Making citizenship work’, how will the Commission ensure that the issue of child protection is comprehensively addressed in the legislative programmes on future EU education and citizenship programmes due to be issued later this year?

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(30 April 2004)

The Honourable Member raises the issue of child protection in the new generation of education, training and citizenship programmes planned by the Commission (1). The Commission is fully aware of the need to ensure maximum protection for young people, while respecting the different areas of competence. It has already taken a number of initiatives in the areas in which it is competent to act. Examples are Council Directive 94/33/EC on the protection of young people at work (2), the Recommendation on the development of the competitiveness of the European audiovisual and information services industry by promoting national frameworks aimed at achieving a comparable and effective level of protection of minors and human dignity (3) and the multiannual Community action plan on promoting safer use of the Internet and new online technologies by combating illegal and harmful content, primarily in the area of the protection of children and minors (4).

However, child protection remains an essentially national matter and it is up to the Member States to take initiatives in this field.

In its proposals for a new generation of education, training and citizenship programmes, the Commission envisages two types of measures:

| — | ‘centralised’ activities, managed directly by the Commission; |
| --- | --- |

—

‘centralised’ activities, managed directly by the Commission;

| — | ‘decentralised’ activities, for which national agencies appointed by the authorities in the participating countries are responsible. |
| --- | --- |

—

‘decentralised’ activities, for which national agencies appointed by the authorities in the participating countries are responsible.

These ‘decentralised’ activities should account for most of the budget, and it is essentially in this area that activities involving young people, e.g. mobility projects, will be supported.

In the Commission's view it is up to the authorities of the participating countries, in collaboration with the National Agencies, to take the necessary steps to ensure the protection of minors, in line with the legislation in force and with national cultural sensitivities.

In general, the Commission will ensure, in view of the criteria set out in the calls for proposals, that the projects selected are of unquestionable educational value, taking full account of the interests of participants, and in particular of minors.

---

(1)  COM(2004) 154 final and COM(2004) 156 final.

(2)  Council Directive 94/33/EC of 22 June 1994 on the protection of young people at work, OJ L 216, 20.8.1994.

(3)  Council Recommendation 98/560/EC of 24 September 1998, OJ L 270, 7.10.1998.

(4)  OJ L 162, 1.7.2003.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/266 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/266

---

(2004/C 88 E/0271)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0995/04

by Bartho Pronk (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(31 March 2004)

Subject:   Restrictive measures planned by some EU Member States contrary to the right of equal treatment granted by the EU

According to the press releases of several EU Member States (United Kingdom, Ireland, Denmark) the social rights of migrants from the new Member States are going to be restricted in various ways. Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 (1) on social security coordination lays down the principle that employed and self-employed persons are per se entitled to the benefits set out in the Regulation without any residence period requirement. In my view, the condition of two years' continuous residence for entitlement to benefits granted under Regulation 1408/71 is incompatible with EC law.

| 1. | What will be the reaction of the Commission to such measures, which are clearly contrary to EC law?
  The most recent studies published forecast a migration rate of no more than 1 % from the new Member States after 1 May 2004. |
| --- | --- |

1.

What will be the reaction of the Commission to such measures, which are clearly contrary to EC law?

The most recent studies published forecast a migration rate of no more than 1 % from the new Member States after 1 May 2004.

| 2. | Does the Commission consider that Hungary really represents a threat to the labour market of the current Member States and that the restrictive measures planned by several governments with the clear objective of preventing Hungarian nationals from having access to the European labour market are therefore well-founded? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Does the Commission consider that Hungary really represents a threat to the labour market of the current Member States and that the restrictive measures planned by several governments with the clear objective of preventing Hungarian nationals from having access to the European labour market are therefore well-founded?

Answer given by Mr Dimas on behalf of the Commission

(30 April 2004)

| 1. | The transitional arrangements set out in the Accession Treaty provide that current Member States may maintain restrictions on access to their labour markets by workers from new Member States under certain conditions for a maximum period of seven years. These restrictions only apply to access to the labour market, and not to access to social security benefits or entitlement to social advantages. The Commission has reminded Member States of these principles in its regular and recent contacts with Member States' representatives at technical level. Most Member States have informed the Commission that they are at this moment still finalizing their legislative measures pertaining to the first two years of the transitional period. The Commission will also send a letter to all Member States concerned, in which it will recall the obligations under Community law and ask Member States to provide the final text of all the legislative measures relating to the first two years of the transitional period as soon as possible. The Commission will continue to follow up this matter and take appropriate action, including requesting clarification of legislative measures, where necessary. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The transitional arrangements set out in the Accession Treaty provide that current Member States may maintain restrictions on access to their labour markets by workers from new Member States under certain conditions for a maximum period of seven years. These restrictions only apply to access to the labour market, and not to access to social security benefits or entitlement to social advantages. The Commission has reminded Member States of these principles in its regular and recent contacts with Member States' representatives at technical level. Most Member States have informed the Commission that they are at this moment still finalizing their legislative measures pertaining to the first two years of the transitional period. The Commission will also send a letter to all Member States concerned, in which it will recall the obligations under Community law and ask Member States to provide the final text of all the legislative measures relating to the first two years of the transitional period as soon as possible. The Commission will continue to follow up this matter and take appropriate action, including requesting clarification of legislative measures, where necessary.

| 2. | In accordance with the terms of the Accession Treaty, there is no need for the current Member States to provide proof of disturbance to their labour market (or a threat thereof) in the case that they wish to maintain restrictions for the first five years of the transitional period. The Accession Treaty provides only that for the last two years of the transitional period, that is, after 2009, restrictions on access to the labour market can only be maintained by a current Member State if there is evidence of serious disturbances or a threat thereof to the labour market. However, the Accession Treaty also provides that a current Member State may at any time decide to fully or partially liberalise access to its labour market during the transitional period. A Member State which has lifted restrictions during this seven year period can invoke a ‘safeguard clause’ and re-impose restrictions if there is evidence of serious disturbances (or a threat thereof) of the labour market. The Commission expects that most restrictions on access to the labour market could be lifted by the end of the first five years following accession, that is from 2009 onwards. From 2011 onwards- seven years after accession – there will be complete freedom of movement for workers from new Member States. |
| --- | --- |

2.

In accordance with the terms of the Accession Treaty, there is no need for the current Member States to provide proof of disturbance to their labour market (or a threat thereof) in the case that they wish to maintain restrictions for the first five years of the transitional period. The Accession Treaty provides only that for the last two years of the transitional period, that is, after 2009, restrictions on access to the labour market can only be maintained by a current Member State if there is evidence of serious disturbances or a threat thereof to the labour market. However, the Accession Treaty also provides that a current Member State may at any time decide to fully or partially liberalise access to its labour market during the transitional period. A Member State which has lifted restrictions during this seven year period can invoke a ‘safeguard clause’ and re-impose restrictions if there is evidence of serious disturbances (or a threat thereof) of the labour market. The Commission expects that most restrictions on access to the labour market could be lifted by the end of the first five years following accession, that is from 2009 onwards. From 2011 onwards- seven years after accession – there will be complete freedom of movement for workers from new Member States.

---

(1)  OJ L 149, 5.7.1971, p. 2.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/267 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/267

---

(2004/C 88 E/0272)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0999/04

by Daniel Hannan (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(24 March 2004)

Subject:   Connection of high tension pylon lines in the Municipality of Civitella Paganico

The Municipality of Civitella Paganico is allowing the Italian electricity company Terna SpA to continue with a project to connect the two existing lines of high tension pylons between Speranza-Valmontone and Suvereto-Montalto. The area in question is the site of a hitherto unexcavated Roman settlement and is, therefore, currently being evaluated by the Italian Ministry of Cultural Assets and Activities with a view to its being designated as a cultural heritage site. Despite that evaluation and the fact that the Municipal Council has already delivered a negative opinion, the project is still going ahead.

Does the Commission consider that the actions of the Municipality of Civitella Paganico are compatible with the Union's stated commitment to the protection of public health and of Europe's cultural heritage?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(30 April 2004)

Projects such as the construction of overhead electrical power lines fall within the scope 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) (EIA Directive) as amended by Council Directive 97/11/ECof 3 March 1997 (2). It provides that Member States must ensure that, before development consent is given, projects likely to have significant effects on the environment by virtue, ‘inter alia’, of their nature, size or location are made subject to an assessment of the environmental effects. The environmental impact assessment must identify, describe and assess the direct and indirect effects of a project on human beings, fauna, flora, soil, water, air, climate and the landscape, material assets and the cultural heritage.

These projects are defined in Article 4 that refers to Annex I and II of the Directive. Construction of overhead electrical power lines with a voltage of 220 kilovolts (kV) or more and a length of more than 15 kilometres (km) falls into Annex I whereas transmission of electrical energy by overhead cables below the above mentioned thresholds is found in Annex II. For projects found in Annex I, an EIA is mandatory, while for projects found in Annex II, national authorities have to determine, either through a case by case examination or according to thresholds or criteria, whether the project is to be made subject to an assessment because of its likely significant effects on the environment taking into account the relevant selection criteria set out in Annex III of the Directive.

In this specific case, on the basis of the information given by the Honourable Member, the Commission is not in a position to take a view on the subject matter. In light of the above, the Honourable Member is kindly requested to give more information on the matter in order to enable the Commission to assess the case according to the relevant Community law.

On 12 July 2003, the Council adopted Recommendation 1999/519/EEC (3) limiting the exposure of the general public to electromagnetic fields in view of ensuring a high level of health protection. The recommended maximum limits are based on the guidelines established by the International Commission on Non-Ionising Radiation Protection and endorsed by the Scientific Steering Committee of the Commission. Full adherence to the basic restrictions and reference levels included in the Recommendation ensures that the public is provided with a high level of protection against both acute and long-term effects of non-ionising radiation across the whole spectrum. At the same time, the Commission is closely following and financing research in this area and will react, if necessary, to any new scientific evidence not yet taken into consideration.

The responsibility for integrating the provisions of the Recommendation mentioned above into national law lies with Member States. The issue should therefore be taken up with the relevant national authorities.

---

(1)  OJ L 175, 5.7.1985.

(2)  OJ L 73, 14.3.1997.

(3)  OJ L 199, 30.7.1999.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/268 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/268

---

(2004/C 88 E/0273)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1008/04

by Albert Maat (PPE-DE) and Neil Parish (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(1 April 2004)

Subject:   OIE conference on vaccination against animal diseases

From 13 to 16 April 2004 the OIE will organise an international conference in Buenos Aires on vaccination against animal diseases.

| 1. | Will the European Commission base its contribution to this conference on the report and resolution of the European Parliament's temporary committee on foot-and-mouth disease? If not, what will its contribution be? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Will the European Commission base its contribution to this conference on the report and resolution of the European Parliament's temporary committee on foot-and-mouth disease? If not, what will its contribution be?

| 2. | Is the European Commission, together with the EU Member States, prepared to enforce, within the framework of the OIE, a policy that does not differentiate between protective emergency vaccination (whereby the vaccinated animals are kept alive) on the one hand and suppressive emergency vaccination and/or preventive culling on the other? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Is the European Commission, together with the EU Member States, prepared to enforce, within the framework of the OIE, a policy that does not differentiate between protective emergency vaccination (whereby the vaccinated animals are kept alive) on the one hand and suppressive emergency vaccination and/or preventive culling on the other?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(30 April 2004)

The Commission informs the Honourable Members of its participation in and contribution to the International Conference on the Control of Animal Infectious Diseases by Vaccination, held in Buenos Aires on 13 to 16 April 2004.

At the request of the organising committee, the Commission representative is delivering a paper on: The use of antigen and vaccine banks in case of emergency vaccination in the European Community' and was invited to chair the Section on ‘Antigen and vaccine banks as a safety measure for insuring control of disease spread’.

The paper is focused on the integration of emergency vaccination in the complex of measures to be implemented in the case of an outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease (FMD). It refers to the needs for contingency planning and explains the Community antigen bank within this context. One of the conclusions should be to raise awareness in countries practicing vaccination that highly purified vaccines and sufficiently sensitive and specific tests for the detection of antibodies against non-structural proteins are essential prerequisites to substantiate any claim for absence of virus circulation following the use of vaccination. In addition, surveillance conducted for that purpose should at least meet the requirements of the World Animal Health Organisation (OIE) and should include a thorough follow-up of and decisive actions in relation to herds which had been in contact with the virus.

The Commission contribution is based on Directive 2003/85/EC of 29 September 2003 on Community measures for the control of foot-and-mouth disease (1), which reflects the lessons learned from the 2001 outbreak, the resolution of the Parliament of 13 December 2002 and the conditions for recovery of the disease and infection free status as laid down in the Terrestrial Animal Health Code of the OIE.

With regard to the differentiation between protective vaccination to live and suppressive vaccination to kill, the Commission wishes to reiterate that the latter is part of a stamping-out procedure applied in infected or contaminated herds. However, where the different strategies are concerned with phasing out protective vaccination, i.e. regaining disease- and infection-free status three months after the slaughter for human consumption of the vaccinated animals as opposed to six months where the vaccinates remain alive, the Commission wishes to draw attention to Article 62 of the above Directive which provides for a derogation from the waiting period in the light of the outcome of the post-vaccination surveillance.

The Commission maintains its position that the internationally accepted requirements for regaining freedom from disease and infection following the resort to emergency vaccination must provide a high level of security. Taking into account the biology of the virus and the epidemiology of the disease, any fast track recovery of disease- and infection-free status may seriously enhance the risk of introducing FMD virus with products of animal origin. In line with the recommendations in the report of the Temporary Committee on FMD of the Parliament, the Commission is bound to minimise such risks while complying with commitments the Community has made in the framework of international trade agreements.

---

(1)  OJ L 306, 22.11.2003.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/269 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/269

---

(2004/C 88 E/0274)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1009/04

by Johannes Voggenhuber (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(25 March 2004)

Subject:   Lobau motorway

The EIA Directive (97/11/EC (1)) requires EU Member States to carry out an assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment. An assessment of this kind is required also in the case of motorways and express roads, pursuant to Annex I of the Directive. In Austria, consent for motorways is granted by the issuing of decrees known as Trassenverordnungen, in accordance with Section 4 of the Austrian Highways Act. This means that consent for a project of this kind is given not on the basis of specific information but by a general and abstract decree.

The European Court of Justice has ruled (Case C-287/98) that, in connection with an environmental impact assessment, while authorisation may be granted in principle by an individual piece of national legislation, the details of a particular project must also be authorised by the relevant law or the decree.

The Austrian Constitutional Court has ruled, in a recent judgment on the Vienna orbital express road, that a Trassenverordnung cannot, by its legal nature, include any kind of subsidiary provisions (conditions) to meet the requirements set out by the EIA law for the authorisation of the project submitted. The Court further stated that, in the case of decrees of this kind, consideration of the findings of the environmental impact assessment was not binding.

Does the Commission deem that this method of authorising the construction of motorways, on the basis of decrees that cannot guarantee that the findings of an environmental impact assessment will be taken into account, is compatible with the EIA Directive?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(22 April 2004)

The Commission is of the view that Member States have to ensure that the results of an environmental impact assessment concerning projects covered by Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (2) as amended by Council Directive 97/11/EEC of 3 March 1997 (EIA Directive), are taken into account in the development consent procedure as is clearly stipulated in Article 8 of the aforementioned Directive.

As regards the specific motorway project mentioned in the petition (S1, the former B301), the Commission recently closed a complaint file concerning the same road project on the undertaking of the Austrian authorities that the requirements of the EIA Directive will be taken fully into account in the current development consent procedure.

The Commission will follow up the question of a potential non-conform transposition of the EIA Directive regarding road projects in Austria in the appropriate way.

Finally, the Commission is of the opinion that the said decrees granting consent for motorways (‘Trassenverordnungen’) cannot be considered as specific acts of national legislation within the meaning of Article 1(5) of the EIA Directive. Such decrees appear neither to cover all details of a particular road project (additional permits are normally required to authorise a road project in Austria) nor are they actually acts of legislation (they are issued by authorities, not by way of a law adopted by Parliament). However, the EIA Directive does not stipulate that a single development consent procedure is required (Article 2a). Member States are free to integrate the environmental impact assessment procedure into any existing procedure or other appropriate procedure according to Article 2(2) of the EIA Directive. Therefore, the integration of the environmental impact assessment procedure for a road project into the ‘Trassenverordnung’ cannot be regarded per se as infringement of the EIA Directive.

---

(1)  OJ L 73, 14.3.1997, p. 5.

(2)  OJ L 175, 5.7.1985.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/270 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/270

---

(2004/C 88 E/0275)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1010/04

by Johannes Voggenhuber (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(1 April 2004)

Subject:   Lobau motorway

The Republic of Austria intends to build a motorway in the Lobau national park, which it notified to the Commission as a designated bird conservation area under Directive 79/409/EEC (1) and as a protected FFH area under Directive 92/43/EC (2).

The planned motorway will cut into the edge of the conservation area and run under it through a tunnel. It would, however, be technically possible to choose another route which does not affect the Lobau conservation area.

There are also plans to develop a four to six-lane road (plus two hard shoulders) in the immediate vicinity of the Lobau conservation area, running in the direction of the motorway.

| 1. | Is it permissible under Community law to reduce the Lobau Natura 2000 area for a motorway project? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is it permissible under Community law to reduce the Lobau Natura 2000 area for a motorway project?

| 2. | Is it permissible to run a motorway underneath a Natura 2000 conservation area? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Is it permissible to run a motorway underneath a Natura 2000 conservation area?

| 3. | Must an environmental impact assessment also be carried out in respect of the four to six-lane expansion of the road near the conservation area pursuant to Article 6 of the FFH Directive? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Must an environmental impact assessment also be carried out in respect of the four to six-lane expansion of the road near the conservation area pursuant to Article 6 of the FFH Directive?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(30 April 2004)

The site ‘Nationalpark Donau-Auen (Wiener Teil)’ (AT1301000) was designated by Austria as a special protection area (SPA) under the Birds Directive (3) and proposed as a site of community interest (SCI) under the Habitats Directive (4). It has a size of 2 258 hectares (ha). Neighbouring that site, the site ‘Donau-Auen östlich von Wien’ in Lower Austria was designated as SPA (AT1204V00) with a size of 9 172 ha and proposed as an SCI (AT1204000) with a size of 9 579 ha. Both types of sites, SPAs and SCIs, make up the Natura 2000 network.

Referring to the specific questions of the Honourable Member, the Commission would like to answer as follows:

| — | It is not permissible under Community law to reduce the surface of a Natura 2000 site in order to carry out an infrastructure project. The obligations of a Member State under the respective EU-nature legislation cannot be avoided that way. The delimitation of Natura 2000 sites needs to be done on a purely scientific basis, based on the occurrences and needs of species and habitats of Community interest. |
| --- | --- |

—

It is not permissible under Community law to reduce the surface of a Natura 2000 site in order to carry out an infrastructure project. The obligations of a Member State under the respective EU-nature legislation cannot be avoided that way. The delimitation of Natura 2000 sites needs to be done on a purely scientific basis, based on the occurrences and needs of species and habitats of Community interest.

| — | The compatibility of a motorway development with the requirement of EU nature legislation needs to be judged on a case by case basis. Wherever a proposed plan or project is likely to affect a Natura 2000 site, the project must be subject to an assessement in accordance with the provisions of Article 6 of the Habitats Directive. This provides substantive and procedural safeguards to ensure that damaging developments are not allowed to affect Natura 2000 sites unless they can be justified, in the absence of alternative solutions, to be of overriding public interest. Where the site concerned hosts a priority natural habitat type and/or a priority species, the only considerations which may be raised are those relating to human health or public safety, to beneficial consequences of primary importance for the environment, or, further to an opinion from the Commission, to other imperative reasons of overriding public interest. |
| --- | --- |

—

The compatibility of a motorway development with the requirement of EU nature legislation needs to be judged on a case by case basis. Wherever a proposed plan or project is likely to affect a Natura 2000 site, the project must be subject to an assessement in accordance with the provisions of Article 6 of the Habitats Directive. This provides substantive and procedural safeguards to ensure that damaging developments are not allowed to affect Natura 2000 sites unless they can be justified, in the absence of alternative solutions, to be of overriding public interest. Where the site concerned hosts a priority natural habitat type and/or a priority species, the only considerations which may be raised are those relating to human health or public safety, to beneficial consequences of primary importance for the environment, or, further to an opinion from the Commission, to other imperative reasons of overriding public interest.

| — | An assessment according to Article 6 of the Habitats Directive needs to be done whenever a plan or project is likely to have a significant effect on a Natura 2000 site. If this is the case, it is of no relevance where this plan or project is located. It might be inside or outside the Natura 2000 site. |
| --- | --- |

—

An assessment according to Article 6 of the Habitats Directive needs to be done whenever a plan or project is likely to have a significant effect on a Natura 2000 site. If this is the case, it is of no relevance where this plan or project is located. It might be inside or outside the Natura 2000 site.

---

(1)  OJ L 103, 25.4.1979, p. 1.

(2)  OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7.

(3)  Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds as modified by Commission Directive 91/244/EEC of 6 March 1991, OJ L 115, 8.5.1991.

(4)  Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/271 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/271

---

(2004/C 88 E/0276)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1015/04

by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(5 April 2004)

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). Furthermore, 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. In its reply to my question E-3581/03 (2), it stated that ‘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,’ and continued ‘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 [sic] 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.’

Given that there has still been no progress whatever made and that 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, is the Commission aware of the damage being done to the EU fleet by the currently dormant state of negotiations with Norway?

Since the EU fleet's sole request is for a greater fishing presence at any one time in the area in question, and Norway may possibly agree to this, does the Commission not believe that at this point, it would be appropriate to bring forward the high level meeting scheduled for June, so as to put an end to this very prejudicial situation as soon as humanly possible?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(28 April 2004)

The Commission must reiterate the point that discussions with Norway have taken place on a number of occasions in an attempt to resolve the outstanding issue of the shrimp fishing by the Community fleet at Svalbard. Norway's position on this matter has remained unchanged for some time despite the Commission's intervention. Norway continues to seek improved trade conditions for Norwegian exports of shrimp in return for any improved access conditions for Community vessels.

Whilst it is acknowledged that the Community and Norway will next be having high level discussions in June 2004, informal contacts on the shrimp fishing conditions take place on a continuous basis with Norway. The Commission already works closely with the Member States in order to ensure the best distribution of available fishing days. The Commission last met with the Member States on this matter in March 2004.

The Commission is acutely aware of the problems encountered by certain Member States with respect to their fishing possibilities. It would like to see real improvements in the fishing conditions. The Commission is not of the opinion that it would help the Community's position in this respect if the high level discussions were brought forward to an earlier date.

---

(1)  OJ C 229 E, 26.9.2002, p. 172.

(2)  OJ C 78 E, 27.3.2004, p. 830.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/272 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/272

---

(2004/C 88 E/0277)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1023/04

by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(5 April 2004)

Subject:   Modernisation of the Portuguese fishing fleet

The Commission knows that there are major projects for modernising the fishing fleet registered in the Portuguese ports of Peniche, Nazaré, Sesimbra and Setúbal, where coastal and small-scale fishing is of major importance to the local population and to regional development. The Commission is also aware of the project to build a new canning factory in Setúbal. For this reason, it is unacceptable to suspend the submission of fresh applications under the MARE Programme (Programme for the sustainable development of the fishery sector, CSF III) for 2000/2006, which is what the Portuguese Government has just done with its Decree No 252/2004 of 8 March, for the Lisbon and Tagus Valley Region, arguing a lack of available funding.

Can the Commission answer the following:

| 1. | What measures can be taken to increase the funding of the MARE Programme, with a view to supporting the existing projects in the fishing ports of the Lisbon and Tagus Valley Region? |
| --- | --- |

1.

What measures can be taken to increase the funding of the MARE Programme, with a view to supporting the existing projects in the fishing ports of the Lisbon and Tagus Valley Region?

| 2. | What measures does the Commission intend to take in collaboration the Portuguese Government, to support the modernisation of the fishing fleet and the building of new canning factories in the area, given the rising unemployment and the fact that some 50 % of the vessels belonging to these fishing ports are already elderly? |
| --- | --- |

2.

What measures does the Commission intend to take in collaboration the Portuguese Government, to support the modernisation of the fishing fleet and the building of new canning factories in the area, given the rising unemployment and the fact that some 50 % of the vessels belonging to these fishing ports are already elderly?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(30 April 2004)

The Lisbon and Tagus Valley Region is receiving transitional level support under Objective 1 and is therefore subject to the Berlin profile ceiling for the Structural Funds at Community support framework level. This means that any increase in funding for the region under the Financial Instrument for Fisheries Guidance (FIFG) must be accompanied by an equivalent reduction in assistance from the other Funds.

FIFG support for the region, which was set at EUR 32 988 million for the period 2000-2006, is channelled exclusively through the MARE Operational Programme. Commitments to date amount to EUR 30,2 million, and the projects submitted up to the date of publication of Portaria No 252/2004 corresponded to three times the level of available appropriations.

Under Article 9(1) 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), public aid for the renewal of fishing vessels will no longer be authorised after 31 December 2004.

To meet the increased need for FIFG appropriations, under the mid-term programming adaptations provided for in Article 14(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 of 21 June 1999 laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds (2), FIFG funding is to be increased by allocating part of the performance reserve to this and by minor transfers of appropriations from the European Regional Development Fund. This additional funding may prove inadequate to cope with the volume of projects submitted, but the Berlin profile ceiling for the regions receiving transitional level support prevents any further increase.

---

(1)  OJ L 337, 30.12.1999.

(2)  OJ L 161, 26.6.1999.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/273 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/273

---

(2004/C 88 E/0278)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1027/04

by Marie Isler Béguin (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(26 March 2004)

Subject:   Respect for Community environmental legislation

The conservation and restoration of biodiversity are stated objectives of the Commission. The Community sphere has the à priori wherewithal to meet these challenges, including ‘inter alia’ the Birds and Habitats Directives, and the Directive on Environmental Impact Studies. The Member States have incorporated the main provisions of this Community framework within their own national legislation.

However, the balance sheet for the transposition of these directives, particularly in France, is unfortunately less than satisfactory. Since territorial development programmes are a major source of adverse impact on biodiversity, the prior legal conditions which have to be met before implementing any structural project, above all, affecting Natura 2000 sites, should correctly incorporate the conservation imperative.

The cases of the A831 in the marshlands of Poitiers or the A28 motorway in Sarthe demonstrate that the implementing procedures come nowhere near meeting the objectives of the texts in question. The sectoral approach to environmental impact remains in full force, thus allowing the schemes to minimise environmental damage and benefit from the obligation to choose the least harmful solutions in terms of impact in Natura 2000 sites. This means that the investigative procedures are virtually no different from traditional impact studies, which de facto neglect the strict protection status of certain species or habitats, by the direct destruction or fragmentation of biotopes. Furthermore, the fact that those promoting the damaging work have recourse to provisions permitting derogations is becoming a rule, and helping to deprive the Directives in question of any force at the very time when conservation of biodiversity should be being integrated into public policies.

| 1. | What steps does the Commission intend to take to give these Directives their real force, both within a general framework and in the specific instances cited, in order properly to reflect the account taken of biodiversity in European policies? |
| --- | --- |

1.

What steps does the Commission intend to take to give these Directives their real force, both within a general framework and in the specific instances cited, in order properly to reflect the account taken of biodiversity in European policies?

| 2. | What inspection procedures does the Commission plan to introduce in order to bring this glaring sideways slippage under control? |
| --- | --- |

2.

What inspection procedures does the Commission plan to introduce in order to bring this glaring sideways slippage under control?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(21 April 2004)

With regard to the general framework the Honourable Member refers to, the Commission would point out that Council Directives 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds (1) and 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (2) are designed to ensure the conservation of bird species, natural habitats and wild fauna and flora in order to contribute to the general objective of biodiversity.

Directives 79/409/EEC and 92/43/EEC are based on the principle of subsidiarity. As a result, Member States have a wide margin of manoeuvre in their practical implementation of specific measures to manage and protect sites in the Natura 2000 network. Each Member State is thus responsible for implementing Community law through its national legislation. However, even if Member States are free to choose their preferred method of implementing practical measures, the measures must comply with the Directive's general objective and with the specific objectives of its various provisions.

The Commission, which pursuant to Article 211 of the EC Treaty is responsible for seeing that Community law is properly applied, intervenes with a Member State whenever a report indicates failure to meet the requirements of Community legislation.

Regarding the particular cases cited by the Honourable Member, the Commission has addressed several requests for information to the French authorities in the course of its examination of a complaint concerning the A831 motorway project in the ‘Marais poitevin’, a project which has yet to receive the final go-ahead. The Commission is currently examining this dossier. The Commission has also sent the French authorities a reasoned opinion for their failure to comply 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 (3), as amended by Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997 (4), and Directive 92/43/EEC in respect of reparcelling operations connected with construction of the stretch of the A28 motorway between Le Mans and Tours.

The Commission will take all necessary steps to safeguard the integrity of Natura 2000 sites and the coherency of the network, if necessary by instituting infringement procedures.

---

(1)  OJ L 103, 25.4.1979.

(2)  OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.

(3)  OJ L 175, 5.7.1985.

(4)  OJ L 73, 14.3.1997.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/275 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/275

---

(2004/C 88 E/0279)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1028/04

by Nicole Thomas-Mauro (UEN) to the Commission

(26 March 2004)

Subject:   Tension in the steel markets

There is currently extreme tension in the steel markets, where tariffs are rising. If the major placers of orders enjoy one-year contracts, and are, for the moment at least, unaffected by these increases, smaller enterprises are being directly penalised. European companies can no longer apply themselves due to a lack of available raw materials. Companies in Champagne-Ardenne, for example, are reeling under the pressure and are no longer able to honour their commitments to their clients. They are announcing that in a few weeks' time, they will no longer be able to produce, and certain companies have already taken steps to make their staff technically unemployed.

The real reasons for these rises are claimed to be linked to purchases by China, which alone accounts for 70 % of the world market. The representatives of the industry's professional federations or of the building sector are much more nuanced in their assessment, however. While nobody disputes the reality of Chinese growth, nor pressure on the prices of raw materials (iron ore, scrap iron, coke) and even the cost of sea transport, many buyers are speaking about the building of Arcelor's margins, (the world No 1), which is profiting from the situation after a period of crisis.

What solutions can be devised to prevent the multiple repercussions of this price rise, and above all, how is the risk of penury to be tackled, should the current situation persist?

Is limiting scrap iron exports from the producer countries, particularly those of Central Europe, so as to bring the quantities of raw material available and the demand for steel back into balance, a possibility?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(15 April 2004)

The Commission is closely monitoring developments on the world markets for steel and the raw materials necessary for its production. It is studying in particular the impact of the increasing demand for these products in Asia on the Community market and prices. In fact, a large part of the difficulties currently faced by the Community market is linked to China's spectacular industrial development and its growing need for source materials, which has led to tension on the market and a sharp increase in world prices.

The EU is a major producer and exporter of steel and scrap and for the moment supplies of these two products do not pose any problems. However, with the present strong growth in demand and rising world prices, all operators are required to carefully balance their purchases and stocks in order to minimise the impact of increased financial exposure on business activity. The steel producer Arcelor is faced with this need as are all the other operators in the production and distribution sector. Of these, however, small businesses have less ability to negotiate in comparison with the big buyers of large quantities.

The Commission agrees with the Honourable Member's cautious and balanced view of the present situation. The Community market is currently experiencing strong pressure on prices rather than a problem of product availability. In general, the operators have been able to pass the price increases on to their customers, which has allowed them to maintain their standard of competitiveness, whilst waiting for the current pressure on prices to ease off. Over the last few weeks we have seen a significant slowdown in Asian demand, which has had an immediate impact on world prices. Without drawing premature conclusions at this stage, these are nevertheless encouraging signs.

The Commission would assure the Honourable Member of its commitment to continue closely monitoring developments on the markets for steel and its raw materials, using all means available to it to make sure that world trade in these products is being conducted in accordance with the rules on open and fair competition.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/276 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/276

---

(2004/C 88 E/0280)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1038/04

by Avril Doyle (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(29 March 2004)

Subject:   Proposed directive to inspect Sellafield nuclear facilities

Can the Commission confirm:

| 1. | That they will be pressing forth with a directive to ensure full disclosure by the British authorities (BNFL) of the amount of radioactive waste currently being stored at its facilities in Sellafield, Cumbria? |
| --- | --- |

1.

That they will be pressing forth with a directive to ensure full disclosure by the British authorities (BNFL) of the amount of radioactive waste currently being stored at its facilities in Sellafield, Cumbria?

| 2. | That the necessary access to the site will be accorded to EU inspectors so that they may personally verify BNFL's statement? |
| --- | --- |

2.

That the necessary access to the site will be accorded to EU inspectors so that they may personally verify BNFL's statement?

| 3. | That the results of any such inspections will be made available to other Member States that are directly affected by the Sellafield site? |
| --- | --- |

3.

That the results of any such inspections will be made available to other Member States that are directly affected by the Sellafield site?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(30 April 2004)

The Commission confirms that a Directive based on Article 82 of the Euratom Treaty was adopted on 30 March 2004.

Under Article 82 of the Euratom Treaty, Commission inspectors shall be responsible for obtaining and verifying records referred to in Article 79. They shall report any infringement to the Commission. The Commission may issue a directive calling upon the Member State concerned to take all measures necessary to bring such infringements to an end.

The Commission considers that British Nuclear Fuels plc has infringed Articles 79 and 81 of the Euratom Treaty by not producing and keeping operating records in order to permit accounting for all nuclear material presently stored in pond B30 at Sellafield (UK) and by not enabling Commission inspectors to verify all nuclear material presently stored in pond Β30, due to radiation protection constraints.

The Directive imposes on the United Kingdom the obligation to submit to the Commission, before 1 May 2004, a comprehensive plan in order to bring such infringements to an end. Furthermore, the United Kingdom should present to the Commission every six months a progress report on its implementation. On the basis of these reports and its own verifications, the Commission will assess the compliance of the United Kingdom with the obligations set out in the Directive.

Finally, under Regulation (Euratom) No 3 (1), information acquired by the Community or communicated by Member States under the Euratom Treaty and classified according to a scale of security grading shall be treated as Euratom Classified Information (ECI). Access to and possession of ECI may be granted only to persons who are duly authorised and who, in addition, on account of their duties, have a clear need to be informed of or to receive such information.

Nevertheless, since 2001 the Commission has, on a yearly basis, issued a report to Parliament and Council on the operation of Euratom Safeguards (2), which describes the role and the legal basis of Euratom Safeguards and reports on its activities for the period considered. It also provides information on current developments and includes an outlook for the future.

In the coming reports, a systematic reference to progress made by the UK authorities on the implementation of the above-mentioned directive will be made.

---

(1)  Regulation No 3 implementing Article 24 of the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community, OJ,6.10.1958.

(2)  Available at http://europa.eu.int/comm/energy/nuclear/safeguards/index_en.htm

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/277 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/277

---

(2004/C 88 E/0281)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1039/04

by Daniel Cohn-Bendit (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(29 March 2004)

Subject:   Commissioner Reding standing in the European elections

Commissioner Reding will be standing in the European election, without taking any leave, for the duration of her electoral campaign, from her current duties, as agreed with former Employment Commissioner Mrs Diamontopolou.

Why is there no general rule that applies during electoral campaigns within the College of Commissioners? Is it because the Commission does not think it appropriate to draw up an unambiguous rule within its college because it wishes to avoid conflicts of interest between the Commissioners' duties and the candidates' interests?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(28 April 2004)

Current practice within the Commission requires Members to give the President sufficient notice of their intention of standing for elective office and of their intended level of participation in the electoral campaign. If their intention is to play an active part in the election campaign, they must withdraw from the work of the Commission for the duration of the campaign (1). This avoids the risk of conflicts of interest and ensures that the Member of the Commission concerned can speak and act as freely as possible, while respecting the principle of collective action by the Commission.

As regards the situation of Members of the Commission who appear on an electoral list but do not participate actively in the electoral campaign, Members must decide, in consultation with the President, and taking account of the particular circumstances of the case, whether this is compatible with their participation in the work of the Commission.

Since Ms Reding agreed with the President not to participate actively in the election campaign, it was felt that her standing for office would not interfere with her availability to work with the Commission and that there would be no conflict of interests. Her undertaking means that there is no reason why Ms Reding should not continue her duties at the Commission during the period in question.

This conclusion is compatible with the Code of Conduct for Members of the Commission, which provides that Members of the Commission may be active members of political parties provided that such activities do not affect their availability to carry out their duties as Members of the Commission.

The future President of the Commission will be able to decide whether, in light of experience, is necessary to lay down general rules governing election campaigns by Members of the Commission.

---

(1)  See answers to Written Questions No 124/68, OJ C 83, 23.8.1968, No 858/76, OJ C 70, 21.3.1977 and No 2752/94, OJ C 88, 10.4.1995.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/277 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/277

---

(2004/C 88 E/0282)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1051/04

by Paulo Casaca (PSE) to the Commission

(5 April 2004)

Subject:   Reaffirmation of the Commission's position on the validity of Article 15 of Regulation (EC) No 1954/2003

On 12 March, the Council's Legal Service [Note 7327/04] reaffirmed its position recognising the validity of the whole of Article 15 of Regulation (EC) No 1954/2003 (1).

On the same date, Commissioner Fischler wrote me a letter in which he acknowledged that regulations 685 and 2027 of 1995 are, at the present time, still applicable; these regulations make fishing in the Portuguese economic exclusion zone of the Azores the exclusive preserve of vessels with licences issued by the Portuguese national authorities.

To my utter consternation, Commissioner Fischler last night stated on Portuguese television that Spanish vessels could fish in the Portuguese economic exclusion zone of the Azores since they are licensed to do so.

Does the Commission possess information indicating that the Portuguese authorities have issued any fishing licence with effect from 1 January 2004 to Spanish vessels in the Portuguese economic exclusion zone of the Azores?

If not, can the Commission explain how it reconciles the Commissioner's two statements?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(30 April 2004)

We can inform the Honourable Member that the Portuguese authorities have not issued any fishing licences with effect from 1 January 2004 to Spanish vessels allowing them to operate in Portugal's Azorean economic exclusion zone.

We reaffirm our position on application of the 1995 arrangements and of those introduced by Council Regulation (EC) No 1954/2003 of 4 November 2003 (2). It is as follows:

| — | Article 5 of Regulation (EC) No 1954/2003 contains provisions for limiting fishing effort in Azorean and other waters. These differ from the arrangements of Council Regulation (EC) No 2027/95 of 15 June 1995 (3). Article 5 came into force on 14 November 2003; |
| --- | --- |

—

Article 5 of Regulation (EC) No 1954/2003 contains provisions for limiting fishing effort in Azorean and other waters. These differ from the arrangements of Council Regulation (EC) No 2027/95 of 15 June 1995 (3). Article 5 came into force on 14 November 2003;

| — | some uncertainty has been expressed about the validity of that date given that Article 15 of Regulation (EC) No 1954/2003 does not repeal the previous Regulations until the date of entry into force of the implementing Regulation, or 1 August 2004 at the latest; |
| --- | --- |

—

some uncertainty has been expressed about the validity of that date given that Article 15 of Regulation (EC) No 1954/2003 does not repeal the previous Regulations until the date of entry into force of the implementing Regulation, or 1 August 2004 at the latest;

| — | but that provision does not affect the date of entry into force of Regulation (EC) No 1954/2003, including its Article 5. It often happens in law that the same matter is regulated by two or more sets of provisions. If these conflict the most recent rule applies. In this case Article 5 of Regulation (EC) No 1954/2003 gives less extensive exclusivity to Spanish and Portuguese vessels than the previous arrangements, which have not yet been formally repealed, and as the most recent rule takes precedence. |
| --- | --- |

—

but that provision does not affect the date of entry into force of Regulation (EC) No 1954/2003, including its Article 5. It often happens in law that the same matter is regulated by two or more sets of provisions. If these conflict the most recent rule applies. In this case Article 5 of Regulation (EC) No 1954/2003 gives less extensive exclusivity to Spanish and Portuguese vessels than the previous arrangements, which have not yet been formally repealed, and as the most recent rule takes precedence.

---

(1)  OJ L 289, 7.11.2003, p. 1.

(2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1954/2003 of 4 November 2003 on the management of the fishing effort relating to certain Community fishing areas and resources and modifying Regulation (EC) No 2847/93 and repealing Regulations (EC) No 685/95 and (EC) No 2027/95, OJ L 289, 7.11.2003.

(3)  Council Regulation (EC) No 2027/95 of 15 June 1995 establishing a system for the management of fishing effort relating to certain Community fishing areas and resources, OJ L 199, 24.8.1995.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/278 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/278

---

(2004/C 88 E/0283)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1076/04

by Christopher Heaton-Harris (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(6 April 2004)

Subject:   Cockle and mussel fishermen

Could the Commission confirm if cockle and mussel fishermen in Northern Ireland receive EU subsidies? If so, please could the Commission give details on the amount of these subsidies and how they were obtained?

Would cockle and mussel fishermen in Boston in the East Midlands region also be eligible for such subsidies?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(30 April 2004)

The Commission can confirm that no funding has been made available to cockle and mussel fishermen in Northern-Ireland. They could, however, indirectly benefit from aid for port facilities and apply for vessel modernisation to improve quality. Shellfish processors may also benefit from aid for the processing, marketing and promotion of shellfish products. Through the Financial Instrument for Fisheries Guidance (FIFG) funded aquaculture schemes, eligible shellfish cultivation projects have received funding in the past.

For Boston, the same range of grants is available under the FIFG to cockle and mussel fishermen i.e. aid for port facilities, for vessel modernisation to improve quality, and for the processing, marketing and promotion of shellfish products. For assistance to be provided, however, the relevant managing authority needs to include these measures in its programme.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/279 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/279

---

(2004/C 88 E/0284)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1078/04

by Philip Claeys (NI) to the Commission

(1 April 2004)

Subject:   Political neutrality of the Info-Point Europe of the Province of Flemish Brabant

On 15 April the Flemish Brabant Info-Point Europe is to hold a debate in the provincial government building in Leuven on the European elections. Although five parties represented in parliament are to take part in Flanders in the forthcoming European elections, only representatives of three parties have been invited to participate in this debate, namely Marianne Thyssen (CD & V), Saïd El Khadraoui (SPA) and Dirk Sterckx (VLD). A small party, the ‘Greens’, has not been invited. Likewise the Vlaams Blok, despite the fact that it came in third in Flanders in the last European election. Contacted by telephone and asked about this, the Info-Point Europe said that the debate concerns Flemish Brabant and Europe. However, one of the participants does not live in the province concerned, unlike one of the two Vlaams Blok MEPs who does live there. The Info-Point Europe and the province of Flemish Brabant have apparently decided on a completely arbitrary basis that the Vlaams Blok is not to be invited. The Flemish Brabant ‘Info-Point Europe’ evidently only wishes to provide part of the information about the European Parliament.

The leaflet containing an invitation to the debate includes not only the logos of the Info-Point Europe (which receives financial support from the Commission) and of the province, but also the European flag.

Does the Commission consider it usual for a public service partly financed by it to arbitrarily exclude political parties from public debate?

Are Info-Points Europe not required to show political neutrality?

What measures are intended to prevent such a deplorable state of affairs?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(30 April 2004)

The Commission thanks the honourable member for his question.

The Commission would like to draw his attention to the fact that the debate ‘U stemt toch ook voor Europa?’ was organised by the Leuven Info-Point Europe and not by the Commission.

Like the other information relays for the general public subsidised by the Commission, this Info-Point is provided by a host structure, in this case the Province of Flemish Brabant (Provincie Vlaams-Brabant), under an agreement with the Commission whereby the host structure and its Info-Point act in their own name and assume full responsibility for the information they supply to the public and the measures taken in order to do so.

Their objectives and activities must be based on the Union's principles and aims and respect the diversity of opinion of its citizens. The Commission has inquired into the case at hand and has not observed any violation of these principles.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/280 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/280

---

(2004/C 88 E/0285)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1083/04

by Rolf Linkohr (PSE) to the Commission

(1 April 2004)

Subject:   Project-related mechanisms under the Kyoto Protocol

Can the Commission say which Member States have already concluded agreements with third countries on the use of project-related mechanisms (CDM)?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(30 April 2004)

Under the new Monitoring and Implementing Decision (280/2004/EC) which entered into force on 10 March 2004, Member States will have to report information on their (intended) use of flexible mechanisms under the Kyoto Protocol from 15 March 2005 (and then every two years).

In order to obtain some information before that date, the Commission sent questionnaires to Member States on their intentions and preparations for using the Kyoto mechanisms (Articles 6,12 and 17 of the Kyoto Protocol) to be answered on a voluntary basis. Information provided by Member States, however, has been very limited and not sufficient to provide a comprehensive overview. Six Member States (Belgium, Spain, the Netherlands, Austria, Portugal and the United Kingdom) have already decided in principle to use these Kyoto mechanisms in addition to domestic policies and measures to achieve their targets for the first commitment period. Two Member States have presented their first quantitative estimations. A slightly more detailed summary can be found in the latest report (1) from the Commission under Council Decision 93/389/EEC of 24 June 1993 (2) as amended by Council Decision 1999/296/EC of 26 April 1999 for a monitoring mechanism of Community greenhouse gas emissions (3).

Further information on the intended use of flexible mechanisms may, however, be given in Member States' National Allocation Plans for the 2005-2007 emissions trading period, notably in cases where such use is crucial for a Member State in reaching its emissions target under the Kyoto Protocol.

---

(1)  COM(2003) 735 final.

(2)  OJ L 167, 9.7.1993.

(3)  OJ L 117, 5.5.1999.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/280 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/280

---

(2004/C 88 E/0286)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1105/04

by Massimo Carraro (PSE) to the Commission

(5 April 2004)

Subject:   Raw materials

The prices of many raw materials such as aluminium, copper, coke and scrap metal, which are crucial for a whole range of industrial production processes essential to the European economy, have risen sharply causing production problems.

This situation affecting the European steel market is largely due to measures taken by China which, despite joining the WTO, has maintained quantitative trade restrictions.

Does the European Commission not consider that it is necessary to:

| 1. | intervene as a matter of urgency to restrict exports of scrap metal from Europe, possibly introducing a licensing requirement, so as to prevent a further surge in the cost of steel? |
| --- | --- |

1.

intervene as a matter of urgency to restrict exports of scrap metal from Europe, possibly introducing a licensing requirement, so as to prevent a further surge in the cost of steel?

| 2. | call on China to abolish all quantitative trade restrictions now that it is a member of the WTO and has undertaken to abide by its rules? |
| --- | --- |

2.

call on China to abolish all quantitative trade restrictions now that it is a member of the WTO and has undertaken to abide by its rules?

| 3. | introduce a system at Community level to monitor the situation in the steel industry so as to tackle the economic disadvantages facing European producers and prevent speculation on the cost of raw materials? |
| --- | --- |

3.

introduce a system at Community level to monitor the situation in the steel industry so as to tackle the economic disadvantages facing European producers and prevent speculation on the cost of raw materials?

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/281 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/281

---

(2004/C 88 E/0287)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1148/04

by Renato Brunetta (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(6 April 2004)

Subject:   Availability of ferrous metal scrap on the Union market

Is a known fact that the overwhelming increase in the consumption of steel products in eastern Asia (China, India, Taiwan and Thailand) and substantial renewed consumption in the United States have led to a massive and sudden increase in the amount of ferrous metal scrap purchased by these manufacturers in the Union. European steel producers have therefore had to face not only steep price rises (between EUR 70 and 250 per tonne) but actual problems in finding scrap metal, which have led to production being suspended, and obvious repercussions on fulfilling supply contracts. The higher price of metal scrap has naturally increased the price of finished steel products.

In view of the principle – often mentioned by Parliament – of the strategic need for the Union to be able to rely on a strong, independent and competitive European manufacturing industry, and the importance of steel products for a whole range of industrial consumer goods, can the Commission say:

| — | how it intends to tackle this situation, which has now become a structural problem and how it intends to implement the above-mentioned principle now that safeguarding the European electrical steel industry has become a real problem, with the attendant risk – likely to emerge in the next few months – of a rise in the prices of finished products containing steel; |
| --- | --- |

—

how it intends to tackle this situation, which has now become a structural problem and how it intends to implement the above-mentioned principle now that safeguarding the European electrical steel industry has become a real problem, with the attendant risk – likely to emerge in the next few months – of a rise in the prices of finished products containing steel;

| — | what immediate practical measures it will take to find a swift solution to the problems caused by this situation before the increase in China's steel consumption causes job losses and spiralling inflation in Europe? |
| --- | --- |

—

what immediate practical measures it will take to find a swift solution to the problems caused by this situation before the increase in China's steel consumption causes job losses and spiralling inflation in Europe?

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/281 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/281

---

(2004/C 88 E/0288)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1161/04

by Mario Mauro (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(20 April 2004)

Subject:   Foundry sector: shortages of raw materials

Europe is undergoing a serious steel and foundry crisis, which, by extension, affects all major steel users, from construction firms to the automobile and electric appliance industries.

This crisis has two causes: China's decision to reduce coke exports, with serious repercussions in Europe, and a rise in scrap prices due to a shortage of material and as a result of speculation.

The shortage of raw materials, coke and scrap is a stark reminder of the need for Europe to be in a position to produce its own coke that can be used in steel production, rather than having to rely on imports from producer countries that provide such materials only after meeting their own needs.

The difficulty of finding scrap in turn makes it more difficult to continue to supply electric steel furnaces, making them less sustainable.

Can the Commission indicate what measures it intends to take to increase the ‘circulation’ of raw materials on the market?

Joint answer

to Written Questions P-1105/04, P-1148/04 and E-1161/04

given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(29 April 2004)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Members to its replies to Written Questions P-0949/04 by Mr Costa (1), E-1020/04 by Ms Muscardini (2) and P-1028/04 by Ms Thomas-Mauro (3).

---

(1)  OJ C 84 E, 3.4.2004, p. 698.

(2)  OJ C 84 E, 3.4.2004, p. 929.

(3)  See page 275.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/282 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/282

---

(2004/C 88 E/0289)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1110/04

by Christine De Veyrac (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(14 April 2004)

Subject:   Transeuropean transport networks

The list of priority projects stemming from transeuropean transport networks is currently being finalised by the Council and the European Parliament.

With which authority does the decision to determine the exact course of these projects lie?

Is it the European Commission on the grounds of its power to implement the decision?

Is it the Parliament and Council, as co-legislators and holders of the power of codecision in this case?

Or is it for each Member State to decide for the part of the project situated on its territory?

Will local authorities be consulted?

Finally, to what extent will local community associations and citizens be made partners in the process of determining the guidelines?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(30 April 2004)

The determination of the exact route alignment of a priority project falls under the responsibility of the project promoter, which can be the State, a region or a local administration depending on the legal framework applicable in the Member State concerned. 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) and 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (2) apply to these projects. These lay down requirements for the consultation of all relevant stakeholders. In addition, national procedures for granting development consent or building permits are applicable and foresee consultation of concerned stakeholders.

---

(1)  OJ L 197, 21.7.2001.

(2)  OJ L 175, 5.7.1985 as amended by Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997, OJ L 73, 14.3.1997.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/283 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/283

---

(2004/C 88 E/0290)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1114/04

by Proinsias De Rossa (PSE) to the Commission

(14 April 2004)

Subject:   Civil protection

During my recent meetings with representatives of the Dublin Fire Brigade Union, they expressed an interest in being consulted during the preparation of future EU Community Action Programmes in the field of Civil Protection.

To ensure that Irish fire fighters are prepared for the implementation of current Community Action Programmes, the Dublin Fire Brigade representatives believe that a conference should be held for fire fighting groups from all 25 EU Member States and accession countries.

The conference would provide an opportunity for those responsible for the protection of European civilians to discuss coordination of EU activities. It would be one vital step towards better protection against, and reactions to, crises. I believe that a conference of EU fire brigades and police forces is particularly imperative in the wake of the tragic Madrid bombings in March.

Would the Commission consider organising such a conference? If so, what EU funding might be available?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(30 April 2004)

The Community Action Programme in the field of civil protection aims at supporting and supplementing Member States' efforts and at facilitating cooperation, exchange of experience and mutual assistance between Member States in the field of civil protection. To that effect the Commission consults on a regular basis with the competent authorities of the Member States. The fire fighters associations should liaise with the national civil protection authorities in order to contribute to the future action programme in the field of civil protection.

The recently finalised fire safety project developed under the Civil Protection Action Programme foresees the establishment of a network of national civil protection authorities in order to examine the most urgent issues to be handled by the fire safety community. Amongst these issues, the coordination of EU activities might be considered as a vital step towards better protection against and reactions to crises involving fire brigades.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/284 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/284

---

(2004/C 88 E/0291)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1181/04

by Salvador Jové Peres (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(14 April 2004)

Subject:   Correction for irregular grant of supplementary processed tomato quotas

In my Written Question P-0850/04 (1) I put various questions to the Commission which have not received an adequate answer. The Commission has confined itself to clarifying that the shortcomings in checks on the quality of end products concerned the marketing year 1997/98 and that the irregular grant of supplementary quotas concerned the marketing years 1998/99 to 2000/01. The Commission has provided information on the volume of the supplementary quotas granted, but not on the volume of those granted improperly, even though it is the latter which must have given rise to the financial correction. The Commission further states that in principle, all the undertakings which acquired a higher number of raw materials at the minimum price than the quota allocated at the start of the marketing year benefited from the supplementary quotas and that, in principle, all the undertakings which indicated that they were prepared to conclude contracts for the supplementary amounts were eligible for the supplementary quotas. All this does not explain the nature of the irregularities which gave rise to the financial correction, nor their impact in terms of possible distortions of competition.

Given that the questions raised in Written Question P-0850/04 have not been answered, I am now resubmitting them:

| 1. | What was involved in the shortcomings in checks on the quality of the end products? In what marketing years did such shortcomings occur? |
| --- | --- |

1.

What was involved in the shortcomings in checks on the quality of the end products? In what marketing years did such shortcomings occur?

| 2. | What irregularities have given rise to the correction? |
| --- | --- |

2.

What irregularities have given rise to the correction?

| 3. | In what marketing years did they occur? |
| --- | --- |

3.

In what marketing years did they occur?

| 4. | What volume of supplementary quotas was granted improperly in each marketing year? |
| --- | --- |

4.

What volume of supplementary quotas was granted improperly in each marketing year?

| 5. | To how many firms were supplementary quotas granted improperly in each of the marketing years to which the correction relates? |
| --- | --- |

5.

To how many firms were supplementary quotas granted improperly in each of the marketing years to which the correction relates?

| 6. | How many firms were eligible for the supplementary quotas in each of the marketing years to which the correction relates? |
| --- | --- |

6.

How many firms were eligible for the supplementary quotas in each of the marketing years to which the correction relates?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(29 April 2004)

We refer to the Summary Report annexed to our first reply (2). This sets out our findings in detail and the grounds of the financial correction.

In reply to the Honourable Member's questions:

| 1. | The shortcomings in quality control lay in the fact that the Spanish authorities' administrative practices were such that processors could probably tell at the beginning of the year whether or not they might be checked. See points B.2.2.1.2 and B.2.2.3.2. of the Summary Report annexed to our first reply and the first point of the reply itself (the marketing years in question were those up to 2000-2001). |
| --- | --- |

1.

The shortcomings in quality control lay in the fact that the Spanish authorities' administrative practices were such that processors could probably tell at the beginning of the year whether or not they might be checked. See points B.2.2.1.2 and B.2.2.3.2. of the Summary Report annexed to our first reply and the first point of the reply itself (the marketing years in question were those up to 2000-2001).

| 2. | On assignment of supplementary quotas, the basic fact is not the irregularities themselves but that the quota management system set up by the Spanish authorities did not comply with the Community legislation – see Summary Report points B.2.2.1.1., B.2.2.3.1. and B.2.2.5.(second paragraph). |
| --- | --- |

2.

On assignment of supplementary quotas, the basic fact is not the irregularities themselves but that the quota management system set up by the Spanish authorities did not comply with the Community legislation – see Summary Report points B.2.2.1.1., B.2.2.3.1. and B.2.2.5.(second paragraph).

| 3. | These failings in the quota management system were found by us to relate to the 1998-1999 to 2000-2001 marketing years. See the first point of our first reply. |
| --- | --- |

3.

These failings in the quota management system were found by us to relate to the 1998-1999 to 2000-2001 marketing years. See the first point of our first reply.

| 4. | The actual supplementary quotas improperly granted amounted to 35 027 tonnes (1998-1999), 14 341 tonnes (1999-2000), and 21 224 tonnes (2000-2001). |
| --- | --- |

4.

The actual supplementary quotas improperly granted amounted to 35 027 tonnes (1998-1999), 14 341 tonnes (1999-2000), and 21 224 tonnes (2000-2001).

| 5. | Our investigation covered the inspection system in general but not the enterprises individually. The financial correction we decided on was accordingly imposed on the totality of the quotas granted improperly, i.e. in a way that did not conform with the Community rules, no reference being made to individual enterprises. The third point of our first reply gives additional information. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Our investigation covered the inspection system in general but not the enterprises individually. The financial correction we decided on was accordingly imposed on the totality of the quotas granted improperly, i.e. in a way that did not conform with the Community rules, no reference being made to individual enterprises. The third point of our first reply gives additional information.

| 6. | Point 5 replies to this question. The fourth point of our first reply gives additional information. |
| --- | --- |

6.

Point 5 replies to this question. The fourth point of our first reply gives additional information.

---

(1)  See page 237.

(2)  See reply No AGR08472 of 24.3.2004.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/285 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/285

---

(2004/C 88 E/0292)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1199/04

by Helmuth Markov (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(14 April 2004)

Subject:   VAT levy on EU aid

Recipients of aid from the ESF have asked me to inform the Commission that, under the split taxation assessment procedure, recipients in the Federal Republic of Germany are required to pay VAT and, in addition, must provisionally provide finance for projects as the EU does not make funding available concurrently.

The Commission:

| 1. | Does it share the view that the allocation of aid in general and, in the case of the ESF in particular, should not be organised under Member States' rules in such a way that the recipients are required to pay VAT, thereby making European funding subject to taxation in the Member State? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Does it share the view that the allocation of aid in general and, in the case of the ESF in particular, should not be organised under Member States' rules in such a way that the recipients are required to pay VAT, thereby making European funding subject to taxation in the Member State?

| 2. | What steps does it intend to take to put an end to such a procedure? |
| --- | --- |

2.

What steps does it intend to take to put an end to such a procedure?

| 3. | On what legal basis can the recipients concerned lodge a complaint or initiate proceedings in response to such a procedure? |
| --- | --- |

3.

On what legal basis can the recipients concerned lodge a complaint or initiate proceedings in response to such a procedure?

| 4. | What action will it take so that, in future, the eventual recipients of EU aid do not have to provide provisional funding themselves over a period of months? |
| --- | --- |

4.

What action will it take so that, in future, the eventual recipients of EU aid do not have to provide provisional funding themselves over a period of months?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(30 April 2004)

According to the Honourable Member, the recipients of aid from the European Social Fund have complained that in Germany they are required to pay VAT under the split taxation assessment procedure (gesplittete Zuwendungsbescheide). He asks whether the Commission shares the view that the allocation of aid, especially in the case of the European Social Fund, may be organised in such a way that the recipients are required to pay VAT, thereby making European funding subject to taxation in the Member State concerned.

It is not clear from the question exactly what cases are concerned and without more detailed information the Commission is unable to provide specific answers to the questions put. Note, however, that under Article 11, A, (1)(a) of the Sixth VAT Directive (amended) (1), within the territory of the country, the taxable amount in respect of supplies of goods and services is everything which constitutes the consideration which has been or is to be obtained by the supplier from the purchaser, the customer or a third party for such supplies, including subsidies directly linked to the price of such supplies. The taxation of aid, including Community aid, is therefore not in principle excluded, but it can be, if the funding does not constitute the consideration for the supplies of goods or services – for example if there is no consumption (2). Hence each individual case must be examined in detail to decide whether or not it comes under the scope of VAT and therefore whether or not VAT is due on that transaction. Checking the correct application of Community law by a Member State is the primary responsibility of the national courts, which can examine the specific aspects of a case on a more direct and personal level and can, if they see fit, put preliminary questions to the Court of Justice. European citizens can also lodge a complaint with the Secretariat-General of the Commission. There is a form on the Commission's web site designed to help complainants draft their complaints. (http://europa.eu.int/comm/sg/lexcomm).

The eligibility of VAT in the context of operations cofinanced by the Structural Fund is governed by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1685/2000 (3) laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 as regards eligibility of expenditure of operations cofinanced by the Structural Funds

Rule No 7 of the Annex to that Regulation provides that VAT does not constitute eligible expenditure except where it is genuinely and definitively borne by the final beneficiary, or individual recipient, following national rules that must comply with the Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC on VAT. In this case, VAT taxation constitutes eligible expenditure and can be included as a cost inherent in the project. VAT is not eligible and is therefore borne by the final beneficiary when it is recoverable by the latter.

In no case may Community cofinancing exceed total eligible expenditure excluding VAT.

According to Article 32(2) of Council Regulation (EC) 1260/1999: ‘when the first commitment is made, the Commission shall make a payment on account to the paying authority. This payment on account shall be 7 % of the contribution from the Funds to the assistance in question. (...) Throughout the lifetime of assistance, the paying authority shall use the payment on account to pay the Community contribution to expenditure relating to this assistance.’

This initial payment on account of 7 % of the amount granted for the period 2000/2006, represents about half the sum for a yearly period.

It is the sole responsibility of the Member States, in accordance with their national rules on financial management, if they decide to use this payment on account or any other source of national financing to pre-finance individual projects.

---

(1)  Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonization 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)  Judgments of the Court of Justice of 29 February 1996 in Case C-215/94, Mohr, ECR 1996 Page I-00959, of 18 December 1997 in Case C-384/95, Landboden-Agrardienste, ECR 1997, p. I-7387, of 22 November 2001 in Case C-184/00, Office des produits wallons, ECR 2001, p. I-9115, and of 13 June 2002 in Case C-353/00, Keeping Newcastle Warm, ECR. 2002, p. I-5419.

(3)  As last amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 448/2004 of 10 March 2004, OJ L 72, 11.3.2004.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/286 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/286

---

(2004/C 88 E/0293)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1202/04

by Françoise Grossetête (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(14 April 2004)

Subject:   Definitions of waste and waste management and treatment methods

Definitions of waste and waste management and treatment methods are interpreted differently by Member States and the persistence of these differences is an obstacle to satisfactory legal certainty and effective management of waste in Europe.

How and on the basis of what timetable does the European Commission envisage undertaking a radical reform of waste policy, and in particular simplifying the definition of waste and waste management and treatment methods?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(30 April 2004)

The Commission is currently looking at waste policy in the context of the Thematic Strategy on the prevention and recycling of waste. The Strategy will be adopted in spring 2005.

In relation to the definition of waste, in the Communication towards the Thematic Strategy on the prevention and recycling of waste (1), the Commission flagged up the possibility of amending the definition of waste if there was a clear added value in doing this and a high level of protection of the environment was maintained. From the stakeholder consultation on the Communication, it would appear that there is little demand for such a fundamental revision, but that it may be useful to clarify some aspects of the definition of waste, and notably when waste ceases to be waste. The Commission is reflecting on how to handle this issue.

As for the different modes of waste treatment and management, these differences can reflect the different geographic, social and economic conditions that apply across the EU. It is important that a high and harmonised level of environmental protection is set for the different waste management operations, but the choice of waste treatment operation needs to retain flexibility to allow for local circumstances. The Communication towards the Thematic Strategy on the prevention and recycling of waste notes the absence of a level playing field for recycling facilities, and the Thematic Strategy will look at options for remedying this.

---

(1)  COM(2003) 301 final.

---

WRITTEN QUESTIONS WITH ANSWER (Part 2)

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/288 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/288

---

(2004/C 88 E/0294)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0811/02

by Michl Ebner (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(25 March 2002)

Subject:   Harmonisation of rules on motor vehicles

News of delays to coach tours passing through Austria has recently provoked astonishment. On Sunday, 10 March 2002, the police in Kundl carried out checks and stopped coaches from Germany, Denmark and Belgium from continuing their journeys because they exceeded the maximum permissible length of 12 metres. Special authorisation is required so that such coaches can travel through Austria.

Does the Commission not take the view that rules on vehicles, in this case on the maximum length of coaches, must be brought into line and harmonised EU-wide? It is also incomprehensible that the special authorisations currently required cannot be obtained at all times, including on Sundays.

Will the Commission comment on this situation and explain what progress is being made in this area?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(6 May 2002)

The Commission is aware of the problem submitted by the Honourable Member.

Indeed, Directive 2002/7/EC of the Parliament and of the Council 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 (1) and the maximum authorised weights in international traffic, has fixed the following maximum lengths for buses:

| — | 13,50 meter (m) for a bus with two axles; |
| --- | --- |

—

13,50 meter (m) for a bus with two axles;

| — | 15,00 m for a bus with more than two axles; |
| --- | --- |

—

15,00 m for a bus with more than two axles;

| — | 18,75 m for an articulated bus; |
| --- | --- |

—

18,75 m for an articulated bus;

| — | 18,75 m for a bus with trailer. |
| --- | --- |

—

18,75 m for a bus with trailer.

Member States shall bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive by 9 March 2004 at the latest. Until the transposition of this Directive by the Austrian authorities, the current national restrictions would remain applicable.

---

(1)  OJ L 67, 9.3.2002.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/289 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/289

---

(2004/C 88 E/0295)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1776/02

by Patricia McKenna (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(24 June 2002)

Subject:   Discrimination against visually impaired people

An EU-financed pilot project in Ireland, England and Sweden empowered visually impaired people to campaign for change around minimum changes to improve life for people with such a disability. These include the installation of audio signals at all road crossings, removal of obstructions on streets and other public places, improved transport facilities, social outlets, etc.

In view of the fact that 2003 is the European Year of Disability, what does the Commission propose to do to address this de facto discrimination against visually impaired people?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(15 July 2002)

In the Commission's Communication ‘Towards a barrier-free Europe for people with disabilities’ (1), the Commission confirms its commitment to establish a work group which will be tasked to identify appropriate measures in order to improve the build environment for all people with disabilities. This will include people with visual impairments.

The composition and management arrangements for this group are currently being examined. It is intended that this group shall start its tasks this year in order to complete these during 2003, European Year of People with Disabilities.

A number of different services in the Commission will participate in the work of this group. Representatives of disability organisations, as well as the different sectors of industry and experts in these matters will also be closely associated with this work.

---

(1)  COM(2000)284.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/289 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/289

---

(2004/C 88 E/0296)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2081/02

by Christoph Konrad (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(8 July 2002)

Subject:   Use of Objective 2 funding in North-Rhine-Westphalia

A big firm in Mülheim, North-Rhine-Westphalia (NRW), needs to move from its current location due to continuous expansion and is looking for a new site. There are two serious contenders in NRW: Mülheim and Oberhausen. Oberhausen town council has announced that it would make a EUR 1,5 million investment grant available under the Land government's regional economic development programme, which is known to be co-financed by Objective 2 funding from the EU, if the firm chose to relocate to Oberhausen. As Mülheim is not an Objective 2 area, it would not get a look-in.

Does the Commission consider this to be legitimate use of Objective 2 funding?

If so, under what conditions may a town/city or Land use such funding to ensure that it is successful when competing against other towns/cities or Länder to attract companies looking for new sites?

If not, what action should, in its opinion, be taken in such cases?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(12 August 2002)

The Oberhausen town council has no authority with regard to the approval of projects for financial support under the North Rhine Westphalia Objective 2 Single Programming Document (SPD). This responsibility belongs only to the managing authority which is the regional government of North Rhine Westphalia in this case.

Support for private investments under the SPD is in general restricted to small and medium-sized enterprises. As an exception, big companies can be supported where they contribute to building the strength of the region, for example, under measure 2.8, ‘new energies’ or measure 3.4, ‘logistics’.

Decisions on company location are a responsibility for the management which must take into account all the circumstances prevailing. Such decisions are unlikely to be influenced solely by opportunities for financial support from public sources. In addition, all public support of this kind, whether it is of national or Community origin, has to respect Community legislation concerning State aids.

With regard to the Structural Funds, the rules in force envisage two measures that are intended to limit the effects of relocation for companies in receipt of EU support. First, in the Commission's guidelines on national regional aid (1), it is required that recipients of EU support must maintain, for a five-year period, any investment or any jobs thus created. Secondly, Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 of 21 June 1999 laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds (2) stipulates that the contribution of European funds in productive activities is conditional on the location of these activities remaining unchanged during five years following the decision to grant support.

---

(1)  OJ C 74, 10.3.1998.

(2)  OJ L 161, 26.6.1999.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/290 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/290

---

(2004/C 88 E/0297)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2280/02

by Emilia Müller (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(24 July 2002)

Subject:   Relaxing of the ban on the use of bonemeal in animal feed

What is the exact quantity of old stocks of bonemeal in the EU and how are they distributed among the individual Member States and their regions?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(25 September 2002)

In March 2001 the Commission carried out a questionnaire survey asking for details of disposal routes, amounts of animal by-products (ABP) disposed of via each route, and costs. The survey was carried out in order to monitor the level of increase in ABP, and its impact in particular on the storage and disposal capacities of processed animal proteins (PAP), including meat-and-bone meal in Member States. Among other things, the survey revealed the following stocks of PAP at that time:

| (Tonnes) |
| --- |
| Member States | Estimated amount of PAP stored in March 2001 |
| Belgium | 14 000 |
| Denmark | 56 000 |
| Germany | 27 453 |
| Greece | 5 000 |
| Spain | 4 194 |
| France | 200 000 |
| Ireland | 100 000 |
| Italy | 30 000 |
| Luxembourg | 0 |
| The Netherlands | 75 000 |
| Austria | <1 000 |
| Portugal | 83 617 |
| Finland | 10 000 |
| Sweden | 12 600 |
| United Kingdom | 436 000 |

(Tonnes)

Member States

Estimated amount of PAP stored in March 2001

Belgium

14 000

Denmark

56 000

Germany

27 453

Greece

5 000

Spain

4 194

France

200 000

Ireland

100 000

Italy

30 000

Luxembourg

0

The Netherlands

75 000

Austria

<1 000

Portugal

83 617

Finland

10 000

Sweden

12 600

United Kingdom

436 000

Luxembourg sends all his ABP to Belgium for rendering and therefore, has no stocks of PAP. Four Member States (Greece, France, the Netherlands and Portugal) and two Federal States in Germany (Baden-Württemberg and Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania) indicated a shortage of storage capacity.

Recently, the Commission sent again a request for information to Member States. In particular, each Member State was asked to submit formal plans on the manner in which stocks of meat-and-bone meal are currently being handled, transported and stored and the plans for their disposal. The data was requested for 30 August 2002. The Commission intends in due course to report on the responses to this questionnaire and its implications.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/291 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/291

---

(2004/C 88 E/0298)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2677/02

by Chris Davies (ELDR) to the Commission

(24 September 2002)

Subject:   Fire safety

What role does the Commission have in promoting best practice between Member States and their fire authorities with a view to reducing death and injury from fire?

Does the Commission have any plans to introduce new building design regulations intended to provide all EU citizens with minimum standards for protection from fire-related injury by requiring the installation of such devices as smoke detectors and sprinkler systems?

Does the Commission recognise national or regional fire brigades in each Member State as the lead bodies to deal with issues of community fire safety, and are they treated as such for the purpose of consultation about health and safety issues relating to fire?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(15 October 2002)

The Community has no general competence in fire safety. However, the Community does contribute to fire safety through several directives and initiatives taken under different Community policies, in accordance with the subsidiarity principle.

As a direct consequence, the structure and the competences of national, regional or local fire brigades vary from one Member State to the other, and the Commission has no competence to establish common rules on which all Member States could agree.

In the area of civil protection, the Commission has taken several initiatives to allow fire brigades to identify their most urgent needs. As far as the promotion of best practices between Member States is concerned, within the Community action programme for civil protection, Sweden has recently been mandated as the lead country for a fire prevention project that aims to identify best practice between Member States.

The Commission does not have plans to make mandatory the installation of smoke detectors and sprinkler systems. In many of the Member States such provisions exist already. However, fire alarm/detection, fixed fire-fighting and fire and smoke controlproducts are covered by 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 (1). Under this Directive there are common instruments for labelling the safety in case of fire characteristics of construction products. These are the ‘Euroclasses’ for reaction to and resistance to fire, which will allow the performances of products to be easily recognised in all Member States.

Only Member States have the prerogative to designate which bodies should deal with Community fire safety issues. However, at Community level, relevant initiatives are usually discussed with all the interested parties represented at European level.

---

(1)  OJ L 40, 11.2.1989.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/292 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/292

---

(2004/C 88 E/0299)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2970/02

by Christa Prets (PSE) to the Commission

(22 October 2002)

Subject:   Culture 2000 programme – closing date for submitting projects for ‘St Petersburg 2003’

The Culture 2000 programme includes the promotion of special cultural events with a European or international dimension. On 22 August 2002 the Commission's Directorate-General for Education and Culture accordingly called on the appropriate agencies in the Member States to submit cooperation projects on the theme of ‘A European presence in St Petersburg’.

The projects are supposed to involve not only the project coordinator but also at least three co-organisers from at least three other countries taking part in the Culture 2000 programme. The Commission gives 1 October 2002 as the closing date, so there were only 40 days between their first call for project submissions and the closing date, of which 29 were working days. This time frame is surely too short to plan for such an extensive project. Why did the Commission release information on the possibility of submitting projects so late in the day?

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(29 November 2002)

Having noticed the recent increased involvement of Member States in cultural projects in St Petersburg and the interest of operators in them, the Commission decided – as part of an experimental action aimed at exploiting the opportunities under Action 3 of the Culture 2000 programme – to put to the test the idea of organising a multilateral cooperation project around an event of this kind (this was also advocated by the Parliament in resolution 2000/2323 on cultural cooperation within the European Union).

After the necessary debates and procedures had been carried out, a special call for projects was launched in August 2002 on the subject of the European presence in St Petersburg during the tercentenary celebrations there in 2003. It was sent to the Member States taking part in the programme via their permanent representatives to the EU. The initial deadline for submission of the projects by the permanent representations was 1 October 2002 but was this was put back to 15 October 2002 so that the Member States would have as much time as possible and the initiative could also be finalised by the end of 2002. The projects which were received are now being examined and the Parliament will of course be kept informed of the results of the initiative.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/293 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/293

---

(2004/C 88 E/0300)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3331/02

by Mihail Papayannakis (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(26 November 2002)

Subject:   Community Information Society Programme

Can the Commission say what progress has been made in implementing the programme concerning the ‘Information Society’ in the light of reports in the Greek press that the ministries responsible for implementation are dragging their heels and are having difficulty issuing calls for tenders owing to a lack of coordination? Is it possible that these delays will result in a loss of funding for the 3rd Community Support Framework?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(6 March 2003)

The Operational Programme (OP) ‘Information Society’ was approved by the Commission Decision C(2001)551, on 14 March 2001. A table summarising the progress of this OP since the first actions were ‘activated’ (1) in July 2001, according to information (2) received from the Managing Authority of the programme is sent direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat. More recent information suggests that the public spending of the programme so far is EUR 73,8 million, or 3,3 % of the public spending foreseen by the programme.

It can be concluded from this information that the OP ‘Information Society’ is one of the slower programmes to be implemented in Greece as far as expenditure figures are concerned. The main explanation is that, with the partial exception of e-government actions, this programme consists of new actions, which due to their technological nature require careful planning and thus take time to start.

In view of the limited success of previous attempts to promote the information society in Greece, a considerable effort is being made by the authorities in charge of the programme to explain what kind of projects would be funded and how these projects should be implemented. A significant part of the programme is linked to the progress in the liberalisation of the telecommunications market. Although the current communications services regulatory framework in Greece is in compliance with Community legislation and the new EU regulatory framework in this area is expected to be adopted by the Greek authorities in the first quarter of 2003, the full impact of the liberalisation is yet to be felt in the market. This has caused an additional delay in the implementation of the programme.

The Commission is currently examining the situation with the Greek authorities and in particular whether there is a risk to lose credits at the end of the year 2003 (‘n+2’ rule). At this moment in time, there does not seem to be a risk for 2003.

---

(1)  According to the Greek authorities, the chain of the implementation of a programme is defined as follows: ‘Activation’ of a measure: Invitation to the Final Beneficiary (-ies) (= the implementing body, see definition in Regul. 1260/99) of the measure to submit their project proposal to the Managing Authority for evaluation.

(2)  See also web site (www.infosoc.gr).

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/294 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/294

---

(2004/C 88 E/0301)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3361/02

by Maria Sanders-ten Holte (ELDR) to the Commission

(27 November 2002)

Subject:   Insurance

Large museums in all the Member States regularly organise exchanges of their collections so that the public in their respective countries can enjoy the great European artistic tradition. Unfortunately, such exchanges are seriously hampered by insurance problems. When, for example, the Teylers Museum in Haarlem and the British Museum wanted to hold a joint exhibition of the Michelangelo drawings in their respective collections, the British Museum did not have to spend anything on insurance premiums, whereas the Teylers Museum had to pay several million euro as a result of the Netherlands Finance Ministry's limited indemnity arrangements. European museums would be able to share Europe's cultural heritage with the public in their respective countries much more easily if a comprehensive indemnity arrangement was in place in every Member State.

| 1. | Does the Commission agree that exchanges of cultural treasures make a contribution to European integration? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Does the Commission agree that exchanges of cultural treasures make a contribution to European integration?

| 2. | Is the Commission aware that insurance arrangements vary from one Member State to another, and that some have none at all? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Is the Commission aware that insurance arrangements vary from one Member State to another, and that some have none at all?

| 3. | Does the Commission agree that the present situation is undesirable, not least from the point of view of free movement of goods and ideas in Europe? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Does the Commission agree that the present situation is undesirable, not least from the point of view of free movement of goods and ideas in Europe?

| 4. | If so, is the Commission prepared to take steps to place this issue on the European agenda? |
| --- | --- |

4.

If so, is the Commission prepared to take steps to place this issue on the European agenda?

| 5. | If so, is the Commission willing to put in place interim provisions as a temporary solution? |
| --- | --- |

5.

If so, is the Commission willing to put in place interim provisions as a temporary solution?

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(27 January 2003)

The Commission agrees with the Honourable Member that exchanging works of art can contribute to European integration.

The Commission knows that the insurance schemes available in the Member States vary considerably – this being a direct result of the differences between national policies.

The Commission agrees with the Honourable Member that the present situation is not ideal from the point of view of the free movement of goods and ideas in Europe.

As part of the efforts to implement the single market, the Commission is therefore willing to launch a discussion on the measures required to promote the coordination and exchange of good practice as regards insurance schemes which cover works of art.

As far as the purely cultural aspect of the problem is concerned, the Commission wishes to draw the Honourable Member's attention to the fact that, owing to the small size of the budget for the ‘Culture 2000’ programme (the sole Community instrument for promoting cooperation in the cultural sphere), there is no prospect of any financial support being provided by the Community for this purpose.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/295 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/295

---

(2004/C 88 E/0302)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3496/02

by Paulo Casaca (PSE) to the Commission

(2 December 2002)

Subject:   State aid for small-scale coastal shipping on the Azores

On 26 November 2002, at around one o'clock in the afternoon, the ‘Rival’, a small cargo ship about 100 years old, was wrecked in the channel between the towns of Horta and Madalena in the autonomous region of the Azores, causing the death of the captain, Manuel Fernando Costa.

Seamen working for the small shipping company Cristiano Lda, which owned the vessel, had already told me of their wish to modernise their two vessels and obtain a licence for passenger transport.

However, the regional authorities have informed me that the current regional development programme financed under the Structural Funds – the main financial mechanism available on the Azores for providing public aid for economic modernisation – did not make any provision for supporting local maritime transport firms since the corresponding proposal submitted by the regional authorities in the Azores was not approved in time by the European authorities responsible for supervising competition.

Does the Commission consider it appropriate to subject possible state aid for tiny maritime transport firms on the Azores to the same type of examination as support for large European maritime transport companies?

Does the Commission take account of the fact that the small maritime shipping firms still operating on the Azores play an extremely important and irreplaceable role for people living on the smallest islands, and does it take account of maritime safety conditions in the autonomous region of the Azores and the need to improve safety levels in local transport?

Does the Commission take due account of Article 299(2) in its state aid procedures in the field of maritime transport?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(22 January 2003)

As far as structural funding is concerned, the Operational Programme for the Azores (Prodesa) included in the Community Support Framework for Portugal 2000-2006 provides, under priority 5, measure 5.4, for the possibility of supporting the purchase of facilities for use in the carriage of passengers by air and ship between the islands provided the facilities are used throughout their useful life for the purposes originally intended.

Similarly, in order to increase safety and accessibility to the islands, measure 1.1 of priority 1 in the above Operational Programme provides for the possibility of funding projects for the construction/renovation of commercial ports, harbour stations and other projects to support port-related activities and for the purchase of facilities, means of transport and machinery for the handling and transportation of goods and passengers in ports and airports. The range of possibilities offered should make it possible to increase the safety of access and facilitate transport between the islands.

The Commission is prepared to study any useful changes to Prodesa which the national and regional authorities feel it is necessary to propose in this field during the mid-term review due to take place in a year's time.

With regard to the monitoring of State aid, the Commission has not been notified of any planned aid scheme specifically addressing the needs of local shipping companies which provide links between the islands in the Azores Archipelago under the competition rules on State aid.

Last year the Commission received a notification concerning the (re-)creation of an aid scheme for the free zone of Madeira for the period 2003-2006 which had been suspended by the Portuguese authorities between 2000 and 2001. According to the notification, the free zone of Madeira will have an international shipping register, an industrial free zone and an international services centre. On 11 December, the Commission adopted a decision authorising the main points of the scheme. A decision on the international shipping register will follow before the end of the month. The aid is intended more for the international sectors of the islands, however.

Whatever the situation, the rules on aid to maritime transport (‘Community guidelines on State aid to maritime transport’ (1)) allow aid to be granted under certain conditions and the Commission, when examining such aid, takes account of the socio-economic context of the aid scheme. If it were notified of any plan for aid to shipping companies providing links between the islands in the Azores Archipelago, the Commission would consider it favourably.

The question of taking due account of Article 229(2) when applying the Community competition rules is still being considered by the Commission. In general, the Commission takes the view that transport is a strategic factor for the development of the outermost regions, as underlined in the Conclusions of the Seville European Council and the recent declaration by the Presidents of the outermost regions adopted on La Palma on 15 October 2002. This subject will therefore be considered in great detail in the framework of the report on the future of the outermost regions which the Commission will be presenting at the end of 2003 in conformity with the conclusions of the Seville European Council. The matters considered will in particular focus on State aid and public service obligations in the transport sector and mobilisation of the Structural Funds to maintain and develop transport to overcome the handicap these regions suffer in being the outermost regions.

As it announced in the White Paper European transport policy for 2010: time to decide (2), the Commission is already preparing to relax the Community rules on public maritime services where links to small islands are involved.

---

(1)  OJ C 205, 5.7.1997, p. 5.

(2)  COM(2001) 370 final.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/297 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/297

---

(2004/C 88 E/0303)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3540/02

by Chris Davies (ELDR) to the Commission

(11 December 2002)

Subject:   Health inequalities

I refer the Commission to the paper ‘A strategy for tackling health inequalities in the Netherlands’, by Professors Johan Ρ Mackenbach and Karien Stronks of the University of Amsterdam, published in the British Medical Journal, volume 325, 2 November 2002.

The study points to a number of innovations that have helped reduce socio-economic inequalities in health in that country but concludes that no single country has the capacity to contribute more than a fraction of the knowledge necessary to support and develop such strategies. It suggests that there is an important role for the European Union in promoting such collaboration.

What are the Commission's current commitments and future plans in this respect?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(27 January 2003)

The Commission is well aware of the work conducted by Professor Mackenbach and his collaborators, on health inequalities. Some of this has been supported from the Community's health promotion programme.

The new Public Health Programme (2003-2008) highlights the importance of addressing the (wider) determinants of health. Areas such as low income/poverty unhealthy living conditions, working conditions, unemployment, as well as life-style factors are all important determinants of health. The unequal distribution of health and its determinants is associated with social class/socio-economic position.

The programme includes specific actions to tackle inequalities in health. It recognises that strategies to reduce health inequalities in the Community are required to provide co-ordinated actions across major policy areas.

Initially, it is planned to focus work on developing health inequality indicators, collecting information and best practice across Europe about policies and interventions and developing pilot networks to assure effective exchanges between countries on addressing health inequalities.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/297 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/297

---

(2004/C 88 E/0304)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3566/02

by Freddy Blak (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(12 December 2002)

Subject:   Contracts between Eurostat and Eurogramme

On 14 November 2002 I sent the following letter to Commissoner Pedro Solbes: ‘I have been informed that the contracts of the company Eurogramme Ltd, with which Eurostat has several contracts, have been moved from this company to a new company simply called Eurogramme. Can you confirm this and if so, could you please explain how this is compatible with the rule that Eurostat only enters into contracts with companies that can show three years' full and correct accounts?’

In his answer Commissioner Solbes writes: ‘Thank you for your letter of 14 November concerning the contracts of Eurostat with the company Eurogramme. This issue has been transmitted for investigation to OLAF, and I am therefore not in a position to comment until the investigation has been completed.’

My questions to the Commission are now:

| 1. | What rules determine that the Commission cannot answer a question about its present contractors only because there is an ongoing OLAF investigation into its former contractors? |
| --- | --- |

1.

What rules determine that the Commission cannot answer a question about its present contractors only because there is an ongoing OLAF investigation into its former contractors?

| 2. | What is the name of the Eurostat contractor? Is it Eurogramme Limited or Eurogramme? And if it is Eurogramme, could you please then tell me how this change of contractor is compatible with the rule that Eurostat only enters into contracts with companies that can show three years' full and correct accounts? |
| --- | --- |

2.

What is the name of the Eurostat contractor? Is it Eurogramme Limited or Eurogramme? And if it is Eurogramme, could you please then tell me how this change of contractor is compatible with the rule that Eurostat only enters into contracts with companies that can show three years' full and correct accounts?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(6 February 2003)

As a matter of principle, the Commission does not wish to comment on this file which is subject to investigation by European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF). Pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1073/1999 of the Parliament and of the Council of 25 May 1999 concerning investigations conducted by OLAF (1), governing the investigations of OLAF, the information obtained in the context of OLAF investigations is subject to confidentiality and the protection of data rules.

The name of the contractor is Eurogramme SARL. This company signed an Addendum with the Commission at the end of 2001, by which it succeeded to all contractual rights and obligations of Eurogramme Limited Succursale Luxembourg.

There is no rule that the Commission may only enter into contracts with companies that can show three years' accounts. Article 31 of Council Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992 (2) relating to the coordination of procedures for the award of public service contracts sets out a number of alternative methods for proving financial capacity. Such alternative methods are appropriate, for example, in the case of newly created companies.

---

(1)  OJ L 136, 31.5.1999.

(2)  OJ L 209, 24.7.1992.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/298 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/298

---

(2004/C 88 E/0305)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3607/02

by Mary Banotti (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(16 December 2002)

Subject:   Interchangeability of postage stamps of the euro zone

Given that postage stamps are now the same price in many countries of the euro zone, will there be a possibility of interchanging stamps within the euro zone (e.g. using an Irish stamp in Belgium)?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(30 January 2003)

It appears that there are a number of preconditions for stamps to become interchangeable. The prices would have to be identical, the services the same, and the possibility of easily administered and non controversial stamp revenue allocation between postal operators assured.

As the Honourable Member is aware, there remain differences in postal tariffs across the Community. This reflects the Postal Directive 97/67 requirement that tariffs should ‘be geared to costs’, in that different postal service providers incur different levels of cost in the provision of postal services, due for example to national conditions, such as geography or cost of living, and also to different domestic quality of service standards.

Further, some operators also price differently according to the weight, size or dimensions of the postal item.

Many postal operators now offer a wide range of services to their customers, with a wide range of prices. This would make it difficult to easily compare and price identically like- for-like services.

Finally, the allocation of stamp revenues across postal operators would be extremely difficult to assess were stamps to become interchangeable. For example, if Irish stamps were used in Belgium, the postal operator in Ireland would benefit from the stamp revenue but incur no costs towards the delivery of the postal item in Belgium. Tackling this distortion would imply a complex, costly and potentially controversial system of revenue reallocation between postal operators.

In light of the above, the preconditions for the ‘interchangeability’ of stamps do not seem to be present, or look likely to be present in the near future.

However, the Honourable Member question raises an interest point about one possible future development in the postal services market and the Commission will continue to monitor the issue.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/299 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/299

---

(2004/C 88 E/0306)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3626/02

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(10 December 2002)

Subject:   Implementation by Greece of Directive 1999/70/EC

Under Council Directive 1999/70/EC (1) of 28 June 1999 on fixed-term work, the Member States are required to bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive by 10 July 2002. Three months after the deadline for Greece to comply with Directive 1999/70/EC, the Greek Government published a draft Presidential Decree which unlawfully exempts from the scope of the directive individuals employed on contract by the public administration, legal persons governed by public law, local government and many other sectors of economic activity.

In its opinion on the Presidential Decree, with which employees and employers fully agreed, the Economic and Social Committee of Greece rejected the above exemptions introduced by the Presidential Decree as ‘contrary to the letter of the Directive’. Given that Directive 1999/70/EC affects many thousands of workers in Greece who work under insecure and uncertain conditions, will the Commission say why it does not initiate proceedings against the Member State in question in the Court of Justice for its failure to comply with the deadlines for implementing Directive 1999/70/EC and for the Greek Government's unacceptable restriction of the scope of that Directive?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(14 January 2003)

As Greece has not communicated to the Commission any information regarding the transposition of Directive 1999/70/EC concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP, the Commission will be obliged to examine the possibility of launching infringement proceedings against Greece on these grounds.

---

(1)  OJ L 175, 10.7.1999, p. 43.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/300 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/300

---

(2004/C 88 E/0307)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3650/02

by Paul Rübig (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(11 December 2002)

Subject:   More SME-friendly structuring of tendering conditions for EU third-state assistance programmes

The tendering conditions laid down by the EU for third-state assistance programmes (ALA, CARDS, EDF, ISPA, MEDA, PHARE, Sapard, TACIS), often apply criteria that seriously complicate bidding by SMEs and the very smallest enterprises, since the trend is for ever larger-scale projects to be put out to tender. Bidders are thus frequently being required to show an annual turnover of between double and ten times the project budget, with that condition also applying separately to each participating enterprise that joins in the bidding as a partner in a consortium. Similarly, for well-nigh every tender, staff complements of up to 100 experts in some specialist areas must be demonstrated, even for project turnovers of as little as 0,6 m EUR. Successful participation in some of the abovenamed EU programmes within the past three years and in the same region and of the same complexity is also frequently expected, effectively excluding new enterprises from bidding. Tender conditions are often specified in such detail that the time necessary to complete a submission acts as a deterrent to the greater part of potential participants. Tender documents often contain no more than a rough outline of requirements with only a few performance criteria, which forces bidders to perform additional — and unremunerated — planning services, which, for SMEs, are economically unsustainable and impossible to cost. A further problem for SMEs is that of the cost-intensive bank guarantees to which participation in the tendering process is subject. It would also be desirable for the fiscal and social-security confirmations laid down in the Practical Guide to be defined more specifically, since these are often obtainable only by way of time-consuming and bureaucratic formalities that vary from one country to another. For SMEs, most of which usually maintain no direct contacts with tender-issuing departments, it is difficult to enter into communication with the latter and to obtain information or justifications for rejections. Consideration might also be given to publishing the offer prices of all bidders, following the award of contracts, making it easier for unsuccessful bidders to assess their own competitiveness retrospectively.

What specific measures will the Commission adopt without delay to structure conditions for participating in EU third-state assistance programmes in ways more congenial to SMEs, so as to rule out continuing distortions of competition and the disadvantaging of competitive positions?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(7 February 2003)

The current procedures are intended to encourage, rather than deter, the participation of Small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). The situation improved significantly with the introduction of the ‘Practical Guide to EC external aid contract procedures’ in January 2001. The Practical Guide procedures, which are published on the EuropeAid Web site (1), are based on the key principles of fair competition and transparency. Contract forecasts, procurement notices, shortlist notices and contract award notices are now required to be published on the EuropeAid Web site, which has become the most heavily consulted Web page of the European institutions. These aspects and others have contributed to the overall process of simplifying and harmonising the procedures in this domain.

Furthermore, by encouraging participation in tender procedures by consortia (which may be a permanent, legally-established grouping or a grouping which has been constituted informally for a specific tender procedure), SMEs should have access even to larger contracts by associating themselves with other companies to form such a consortium. In this case, the participation of a small enterprise or even a startup in a consortium might be an opportunity for it to gain experience.

The selection criteria in every tender procedure have to be clear and detailed but not overly restrictive. However, the Commission is aware of instances in the past in which some contracting authorities have established selection criteria which apply to individual consortium partners and not to the consortium as a whole. Consequently, a reminder was circulated in March 2002 that selection criteria must apply to consortia as a whole. The situation should have been corrected since then but any SME which comes across overly restrictive selection criteria should complain to the contracting authority responsible.

The Commission has addressed the problem (see, for example, the 2nd report of the Committee of Independent Experts in 1999) of assessing the solvency of potential contractors before awarding contracts to them. Consequently, in order to protect the financial interests of the Community, the Practical Guide procedures oblige contracting authorities to publish financial criteria in their procurement notices. Similarly, the requirement to provide financial guarantees for larger amounts derives from the principle of sound financial management. Faced with these requirements, the small enterprise has also the possibility of sharing this cost with others, being part of a consortium.

The documents which tenderers need to provide are now more clearly specified in the Financial Regulation adopted by the Council on 25 June 2002 (2). The Commission is also contacting the national authorities of the Member States to establish an up-to-date list of the authorities and organisations which are able to provide the necessary certificates for entities based in these countries. The Practical Guide is currently being revised in order to take these changes into account. The standard application form for service contracts is also being revised to ensure that overall data are provided for the consortium as a whole, as well as for each individual consortium partner. At the same time, additional guidance will be issued concerning the setting of selection criteria, such as basing the annual turnover criterion on the average annual contract budget, rather than on the total contract budget.

Concerning the extent to which tender documents contain details of the requirements, all tenderers have the opportunity to seek clarifications from the contracting authority, especially if the terms of reference or technical specifications are unclear.

Concerning the availability of information or justification for rejections the Practical Guide already contains standard letters to unsuccessful applicants and tenderers which require comparative information to be provided in order to allow them to assess their own competitiveness retrospectively. For example, for service contracts, the letter to unsuccessful tenderers includes a detailed breakdown of the scores obtained both the addressee and the successful tenderer.

---

(1)  http://europa.eu.int/comm/europeaid/tender/gestion/index_en.htm.

(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.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/301 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/301

---

(2004/C 88 E/0308)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3676/02

by Toine Manders (ELDR) to the Commission

(18 December 2002)

Subject:   Incapacity for work

A cross-border worker previously employed under an insurance system with benefits not based on the insured period (the Netherlands) and last employed subsequently under an insurance system with benefits that are insured-period-based (Germany) who becomes incapable of working is entitled, in principle, to Dutch and German disability benefit on a pro rata basis. The lack of harmonisation means that a cross-border worker may be declared completely unfit for work under Dutch law and completely fit for work under German law. Often — because they may have been covered for only a few years by an insurance system with benefits not based on the insured period (the Netherlands) — such cross-border workers will receive a small amount, on a pro rata basis, by way of disability benefit from the Netherlands (and no such benefit from Germany).

Where there is no longer a German employment contract, the question is which Member State is required to pay unemployment benefit. The country of residence (the Netherlands) will refuse to pay unemployment benefit because the person concerned is completely unfit for work. The question is whether there is an entitlement to German unemployment benefit.

| 1. | Are cross-border workers resident in the Netherlands and declared completely unfit for work under Dutch law entitled to German unemployment benefit if they last worked in Germany and are not entitled to German disability benefit because, under German law, they are fit for work? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Are cross-border workers resident in the Netherlands and declared completely unfit for work under Dutch law entitled to German unemployment benefit if they last worked in Germany and are not entitled to German disability benefit because, under German law, they are fit for work?

| 2. | On what articles of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 (1) or, as the case may be, case law (Miethe, C-1/85) is this based? |
| --- | --- |

2.

On what articles of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 (1) or, as the case may be, case law (Miethe, C-1/85) is this based?

| 3. | Can the competent German authority (employment office) stipulate that, in order to qualify for German unemployment benefit, a cross-border worker resident in the Netherlands who becomes unemployed because his or her employment in Germany ends must have paid national insurance contributions in Germany for more than 50 % of the total period in which he or she has been in employment? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Can the competent German authority (employment office) stipulate that, in order to qualify for German unemployment benefit, a cross-border worker resident in the Netherlands who becomes unemployed because his or her employment in Germany ends must have paid national insurance contributions in Germany for more than 50 % of the total period in which he or she has been in employment?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(27 January 2003)

The Commission wishes to inform the Honourable Member that Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 (2) determines the Member State where an unemployed worker may request unemployment benefits: an unemployed worker who, during his last employment, did not reside in the Member State where he worked, shall receive unemployment benefits in accordance with the legislation of the Member State of residence according to Article 71 (1) (a) if he was a frontier worker — i.e. a worker who resides in one and works in another Member State and who returns to the Member State of residence regularly, but at least once a week. If he was a ‘person other than a frontier worker’ he has, according to Article 71 (1) (b), an option regarding the payment of unemployment benefits according to the legislation of the State of residence or according to the legislation of the State of last employment if he makes himself available for work to the employment service of either State.

Furthermore, the European Court of Justice in the case C-l/85 Miethe held that an ‘atypical frontier worker’ — i.e. a frontier worker who has exceptionally maintained personal and professional ties in the State of employment so that it is there that he has the best prospects of finding another job — must be regarded as a ‘person other than a frontier worker’ coming under the scope of Article 71 (1) (b). However, it is solely a matter for the national court to determine in an individual case whether a worker who resides in a State other than the State of employment has, nevertheless, maintained his best prospects of finding another job in that State and ought therefore to come under the scope of Article 71 (1) (b).

Therefore, the person referred to by the Honourable Member may request unemployment benefits under German legislation according to Article 71 (1) (b) either if he can be considered an ‘atypical frontier worker’ according to the ruling of the European Court of Justice in the Miethe case, or if he was a ‘person other than a frontier worker’. The fact that he receives a Dutch invalidity pension has no impact on this principal determination of Germany as the Member State competent for paying unemployment benefits.

However, whether the person will actually be entitled to receive German unemployment benefits depends upon him fulfilling the conditions stipulated by German legislation for receiving unemployment benefits. As Community law does not harmonise the social security schemes of Member States, but coordinates them, each Member State is competent to determine the conditions for receiving benefits. If, however, a national legislation requires completion of a certain insurance period before opening entitlement to a benefit (waiting period), and if a migrant worker has not been insured long enough under the legislation of this Member State to fulfill the waiting period, Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 stipulates that insurance periods completed under the legislation of any other Member State must be taken into consideration as if they had been completed in the said Member State.

---

(1)  OJ L 149, 5.7.1971, p. 2.

(2)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons and their families moving within the Community, Regulation updated by Council Regulation (EC) No 118/97 of 2 December 1996 (OJ L 28, 30.1.1997).

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/303 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/303

---

(2004/C 88 E/0309)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3737/02

by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(19 December 2002)

Subject:   ‘ABEJ — Solidarités’

‘ABEJ — Solidarités’, based in Lille (France), is an association which performs important work with street children. Its work, however, is now being put at risk thanks to a 55 % cut in the health budget for 2003.

Between 700 and 800 recipients of help at street level could be affected by this, with the consequent worsening of social exclusion.

Can the Commission explain the reasons for the reduction in support to associations of this kind, and state what measures it intends to take to prevent social exclusion from becoming worse?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(30 January 2003)

The Commission has no information concerning the reduction of the aid granted to the French association ‘ABEJ — Solidarités’. The amount of this aid is determined solely by the French Government when adopting the national annual budget.

An analysis of the efforts made by the governments of the Member States to combat poverty and social exclusion is to be conducted by the Commission, in partnership with the Member States, when the second series of national action plans to combat poverty and social exclusion is presented in July 2003. The results of this analysis will be given in the second joint report on social inclusion, to be submitted to the European Council in spring 2004.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/303 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/303

---

(2004/C 88 E/0310)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3780/02

by Kathleen Van Brempt (PSE) to the Commission

(6 January 2003)

Subject:   Implementation of Regulation (EC) No 1259/1999: reports by the Member States concerning environmental measures and aid schemes in agriculture

Regulation (EC) No 1259/1999 (1) and Implementing Regulation (EC) No 963/2001 (2) lay down common rules relating to the aid scheme under the common agricultural policy, with, in particular, the receipt of aid being made conditional upon environmental protection measures being taken. In this instance, Member States may opt either for general, binding environmental requirements, for aid granted in exchange for specific agri-environmental measures or for specific environmental measures upon which the payment of direct income support is conditional. Member States may reduce or withdraw such aid in the event of noncompliance with the relevant environmental requirements. The first report on the implementation of this Regulation during the period 2000-2001 had to be submitted to the Commission no later than 30 April 2002.

| 1. | Has each Member State duly submitted that report? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Has each Member State duly submitted that report?

| 2. | Has the Commission completed an evaluation report on the reports so submitted, and can it give a detailed description of all the measures taken under the two Regulations? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Has the Commission completed an evaluation report on the reports so submitted, and can it give a detailed description of all the measures taken under the two Regulations?

| 3. | To what extent do the Member States use the opportunities and impose the legal penalties set out in these Regulations? |
| --- | --- |

3.

To what extent do the Member States use the opportunities and impose the legal penalties set out in these Regulations?

| 4. | What are the general environmental implications of these measures? |
| --- | --- |

4.

What are the general environmental implications of these measures?

| 5. | How, and to what extent, have these measures had an impact on the use of pesticides in agriculture in the various Member States and regions and in specific areas? |
| --- | --- |

5.

How, and to what extent, have these measures had an impact on the use of pesticides in agriculture in the various Member States and regions and in specific areas?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(28 February 2003)

The reporting obligations for the application of the horizontal Council Regulation (EC) No 1259/1999 of 17 May 1999 establishing common rules for direct support schemes under the common agricultural policy are laid down in the implementing Commission Regulation (EC) No 963/2001 of 17 May 2001. Its Articles 2 and 3 contain the provisions on the content and timetable of the information to be transmitted to the Commission.

According to Article 3(1) of Regulation (EC) No 963/2001 annual reports on the implementation of environmental protection requirements (Article 3 of Regulation (EC) No 1259/1999) and modulation (Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 1259/1999) shall be submitted by 30 April each year, starting in 2002.

The Commission has received the first annual reports from all Member States with the exception of Belgium, Spain, Luxembourg and Portugal.

The Agriculture' Council, in its conclusions on Environmental Integration and Sustainable Development in the Common Agricultural Policy for the European Council at Göteborg, 15-16 June 2001, invited the Commission ‘to submit a synthesis report in year 2003 on the measures carried out by Member States in relation to measures referred to in the Common Rules Regulation (EC) No 1259/1999 including a qualitative indication of the effects on environment and sustainable development based on the reporting by Member States’.

The Commission, based on the information submitted by the Member States in 2002 and 2003, will be preparing this report in the course of the year 2003. Based on two years of reporting it will be possible to give a first overview of the application of the horizontal Regulation by the Member States and a qualitative appraisal of the effects of the measures that they have taken.

---

(1)  OJ L 160, 26.6.1999, p. 113.

(2)  OJ L 136, 18.5.2001, p. 4.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/305 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/305

---

(2004/C 88 E/0311)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3817/02

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(9 January 2003)

Subject:   Effective measures to render it impossible once and for all for EU residents to benefit from child labour elsewhere

| 1. | Is the Commission aware that in November the youth organisation of the Belgian trade union federation ABVV collected 10 000 signatures to a petition against child labour and presented them to the speaker of the federal parliament in Belgium, and that the reason for doing this was that, despite International Labour Organisation (ILO) Conventions 138 and 182, which set age limits and seek to prohibit the worst forms of child labour, it is estimated that 250 million children worldwide are still working at a very early age in dangerous and distressing conditions, while being shamelessly exploited? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is the Commission aware that in November the youth organisation of the Belgian trade union federation ABVV collected 10 000 signatures to a petition against child labour and presented them to the speaker of the federal parliament in Belgium, and that the reason for doing this was that, despite International Labour Organisation (ILO) Conventions 138 and 182, which set age limits and seek to prohibit the worst forms of child labour, it is estimated that 250 million children worldwide are still working at a very early age in dangerous and distressing conditions, while being shamelessly exploited?

| 2. | Is the Commission furthermore aware that those who launched the campaign referred to in question 1 consider that child labour in the Third World can only be combated effectively if it is made a criminal offence in their own countries for residents of rich countries to organise or benefit from child labour in other parts of the world, in the same way as legislation exists making it a criminal offence for residents to sexually abuse children abroad? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Is the Commission furthermore aware that those who launched the campaign referred to in question 1 consider that child labour in the Third World can only be combated effectively if it is made a criminal offence in their own countries for residents of rich countries to organise or benefit from child labour in other parts of the world, in the same way as legislation exists making it a criminal offence for residents to sexually abuse children abroad?

| 3. | The cooperation which has existed since 1996 between the secretariats of the World Trade Organisation (WTO) and the ILO, the authorisation of a social dimension in international trade agreements and Article 32 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, which has been ratified worldwide, are not producing clear-cut results, and there is no provision for punishing offenders. Will the Commission therefore propose that products of child labour be banned and provision made for punishment of offenders, either in the legislation of the EU Member States or in that of the EU itself? |
| --- | --- |

3.

The cooperation which has existed since 1996 between the secretariats of the World Trade Organisation (WTO) and the ILO, the authorisation of a social dimension in international trade agreements and Article 32 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, which has been ratified worldwide, are not producing clear-cut results, and there is no provision for punishing offenders. Will the Commission therefore propose that products of child labour be banned and provision made for punishment of offenders, either in the legislation of the EU Member States or in that of the EU itself?

| 4. | Are there are any EU Member States which have not yet ratified ILO Convention 182 of 17 June 1999, which includes Recommendation 190, or the earlier Convention 138? If so, which? Does the Commission know why these countries have not so far ratified them? |
| --- | --- |

4.

Are there are any EU Member States which have not yet ratified ILO Convention 182 of 17 June 1999, which includes Recommendation 190, or the earlier Convention 138? If so, which? Does the Commission know why these countries have not so far ratified them?

| 5. | Will the Commission itself take steps to find an adequate solution to this problem, which is important in the interests both of protecting human rights and of preventing distortion of competition? |
| --- | --- |

5.

Will the Commission itself take steps to find an adequate solution to this problem, which is important in the interests both of protecting human rights and of preventing distortion of competition?

Source: Metro, Flemish edition, 14 November 2002.

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(17 February 2003)

The Commission is committed to promoting the world-wide application of core labour standards including the prohibition of child labour. On 18 July 2001 it adopted a Communication on promoting core labour standards and social governance in the context of globalisation (1), in which it proposed an integrated approach in order to mobilise all relevant actors including Member States, the international social, economic and financial organisations such as ILO, WTO, the International Monetary Fund (IMF), World Bank and others. The Commission also proposed to reinforce the positive incentives to promote the core labour standards. In that context the incentive related to core labour standards in the European Generalised System of Preferences has been strengthened in December 2001. The promotion of core labour standards, including the fight against child labour and the worst forms of child labour, is also included in different initiatives such as the European Initiative on Human Right and Democracy (EIDHR).

But the Commission has rejected a negative approach based on trade sanctions.

The Parliament supported this approach in its Resolution of 4 July 2002 on core labour standards and social governance (2), while Member States have not yet completed the discussion on the Communication and the integrated strategy.

Some measures suggested in the Honourable Member's question of the relate to, for instance, criminal law requires full involvement of the Member States.

The Commission has widened and strengthened its cooperation with the International Labour Organisation. This renewed cooperation was confirmed in the exchange of letters between the Commission and the Director General of the ILO on 14 May 2001. In addition, the annual High Level Meeting between the Commission and the ILO on 14 February 2002 agreed to launch technical cooperation on ILO programmes regarding core labour standards, poverty reduction and promotion of the ILO Decent work agenda.

The Commission strongly supported the establishment by the ILO in February 2002 of the World Commission on the Social Dimension of Globalisation, and has committed itself to contributing to its work. The Commission will organise a High Level Seminar on 3-4 February 2003, with the participation of World Commission, and representatives of the Member States, Candidate Countries, Members of the Parliament, social partners, non-governmental organisations, local authorities.

The Member States have responded positively to the Commission Recommendation of 15 September 2000 (3) to ratify the ILO core Convention No 182 on the worst forms of child labour. All Member States have ratified Convention 182 and in addition all Member States have ratified Convention No 138 on the minimum age for employment.

---

(1)  COM(2001)416 final.

(2)  A5-0251/02.

(3)  OJ L 243, 28.9.2000.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/306 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/306

---

(2004/C 88 E/0312)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3824/02

by Jan Wiersma (PSE) to the Commission

(20 December 2002)

Subject:   Roma citizens — Buhusi

Has the Commission been informed of the serious incident that took place recently in the Romanian municipality Buhusi in which three Roma citizens were killed by the police?

What caused the incident and what explains the severe reaction of the Roma citizens to the police intervention that led to the tragic killing?

Can the Commission verify that this was not a case of use of excessive force by the police, keeping in mind the recent statement by the Council of Europe that this type of action still takes place during the searching of Romani houses or the arresting of suspected Roma, and if excessive force was used, what kind of action will the Commission take?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(24 January 2003)

The Commission has been informed of the incident between the Romanian police forces and the Roma community from Buhusi, which took place on 5 December 2002, through the Romanian press, a report by a Roma Human Rights organisation and a declaration made by the police. The information available to the Commission shows that the incident resulted in two Roma persons killed and two others injured by the police, and four policemen injured as well.

The incident occurred as the police (a group of about 45 policemen, who were later joined by 40 gendarmes) set out to arrest four persons, all ethnic Romas, against whom arrest warrants had been issued for theft and assault.

According to the police, 200 persons armed with pitchforks and axes surrounded them; a riot erupted, the persons they had come to arrest tried to escape, whereupon the police warned them then started shooting.

According to a Roma Human Rights organisation the police used force disproportionately during the search, and the suspects were targeted because of their ethnic origin.

According to the first results of the investigation conducted by the Prosecution Office of Bacau, as reported by the head of the Public Order Directorate of the Romanian Police in a declaration made on 11 December 2002, the police forces used their weapons in self-defence after they were attacked by members of the Roma community.

The final conclusions of the investigation by the Prosecution Office are not yet available.

The Commission monitors respect and protection of minorities in candidate countries as part of the Copenhagen political criteria and reports on a yearly basis in its Regular Reports. The Commission will take into account all relevant information on this issue and, more generally, on treatment of Roma people by the police when drawing up this year's Regular Report on Romania.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/307 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/307

---

(2004/C 88 E/0313)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3906/02

by Anna Karamanou (PSE) to the Commission

(7 January 2003)

Subject:   Problem of malnutrition in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank

The latest available UN data show that there is a serious problem of malnutrition in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. The Palestinians are mainly suffering from micronutrition deficiency — what the World Health Organisation refers to as ‘hidden starvation’. Micronutrition deficiency deprives children of proper development, damages their cognitive faculties often severely and immutably, depresses the immune system of both children and adults and weakens mental and physical powers. In exceptional cases, it may even cause blindness and death. At the same time, research carried out by the United States Agency for International Development reveals that four out of five children in Gaza and the West Bank suffer from iron and zinc deficiency and over 50 % of children show signs of carbohydrate and vitamin A deficiency.

In what way does the Commission allocate EU financial aid to Palestine to help deal directly with this situation?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(29 January 2003)

The Commission recently decided to allocate EUR 10 million in support to the World Food Programme (WFP) Emergency Operation Plan (EMOP) n. 10190 through its Food Security Budget Line in order to address the needs of the victims of conflict in the Palestinian Territories (PT). Target beneficiaries are some 360 000 vulnerable and destitute people from among the non-refugee Palestinian population. These include children under five, pregnant women and lactating mothers, the elderly, handicapped and chronically ill. These people were eligible for welfare assistance (cash and in kind) provided by the Palestinian Ministry of Social Affairs, a programme that had to be discontinued due to the present crisis situation.

The products that will be made available through the Commission funds are wheat flour, rice, lentils, sugar, vegetable oil and olive oil. In order to ensure flexibility and a swift mobilisation according to the WFP plans, these commodities will be procured and mobilised partly by the Commission from Member States and partly directly by WFP from the Palestinian Territories and neighbouring countries.

In the framework of the WFP EMOP n. 10072 that terminated in August 2002, the Commission had also made available EUR 5 million for the purchase of some 7 400 metric tonnes of wheat flour and 3 200 metric tonnes of rice for the benefit of a similar caseload.

By so doing, the Commission has been by far the biggest contributor to these two programmes (a table with contributions to the Palestinian territory is sent direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat).

Since the mid nineties, the Commission has been financing every year a food aid and cash assistance programme in favour of the vulnerable Palestine refugee population. This envelope stood at EUR 15 million in 2002. The programme is run by UNRWA (United Nations Relief and Works Agencies) and covers five operation areas, namely Jordan, Lebanon, the Syrian Arab Republic the West Bank and Gaza Strip. The programme provides assistance to some 224 000 Special Hardship Cases, including 105 000 pregnant and lactating women and their children, 500 Tuberculosis outpatients, families headed by widows, orphans, elderly, medically unfit to work, etc. The beneficiaries assisted by this programme in the Palestinian territories are 73 000 people in Gaza Strip and 31 000 in the West Bank. A recent evaluation study carried out on the programme emphasised the relevance of the nutrition and supplementary feeding programme components. These allow providing dry rations to women beginning in the fifth month of pregnancy until one year after delivery, and iron supplementation to pre-school children and women of reproductive age at Maternal & Child Health clinics.

In order to update the available data on food security, the Commission, in close collaboration with the Food and Agricultural Organisation (FAO), WFP and UNRWA, as well as United States Agency for International Development (USAID) and its partners is in the process of finalising terms of reference for a comprehensive food security assessment that will cover urban and rural areas, as well as refugee and non-refugee populations living in the Palestinian Territories. The mission will study and analyse the issues related to food availability and food access in the Palestinian Territories and provide recommendations to the Palestinian Authority for better co-ordinating the efforts put in place by the international community to tackle the food insecurity situation. The mission is expected to be launched at the beginning of 2003. It will be composed by a Senior Team of FAO and National Experts.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/308 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/308

---

(2004/C 88 E/0314)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3907/02

by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(7 January 2003)

Subject:   Economic and social consequences of EU enlargement

As I pointed out in a previous question to the Commission, the forthcoming enlargement of the EU to include the countries of Central and Eastern Europe will have significant economic and social consequences, in particular for regions and Member States with economic structures similar to these countries, such as Portugal.

Moreover, it is difficult to understand how it was possible to propose a funding framework for enlargement based solely on an assessment of the impact of enlargement ‘at EU level’, since it is clear that the EU does not have a homogenous economy and there are enormous differences between countries, regions and sectors of production.

As far as Portugal is concerned, various consequences of enlargement have been pointed out, such as the relocation of undertakings and the loss of direct foreign investments in favour of the new EU Member States against a background of increased competition, which will have adverse consequences for employment and the economic development of the country.

In the meantime — and only after the Copenhagen Summit had agreed on a financial framework for enlargement — the Commission has decided to set up a group of experts to study the consequences of enlargement and reply to ‘questions posed by the public’.

Will the Commission say:

| — | is it aware that the EU is not a homogenous economy and that the impact of enlargement will differ from country to country in the EU? If so, how does it assess this impact for each country; |
| --- | --- |

—

is it aware that the EU is not a homogenous economy and that the impact of enlargement will differ from country to country in the EU? If so, how does it assess this impact for each country;

| — | what financial resources does it intend to allocate and what measures does it intend to take to support those countries, regions and sectors most affected by enlargement, such as Portugal? Does it intend to create mechanisms (special economic development support programmes, as occurred in the case of previous enlargements) to help offset these adverse economic and social consequences; |
| --- | --- |

—

what financial resources does it intend to allocate and what measures does it intend to take to support those countries, regions and sectors most affected by enlargement, such as Portugal? Does it intend to create mechanisms (special economic development support programmes, as occurred in the case of previous enlargements) to help offset these adverse economic and social consequences;

| — | what objectives is it pursuing and what results does it hope to achieve with the recently formed group of experts? |
| --- | --- |

—

what objectives is it pursuing and what results does it hope to achieve with the recently formed group of experts?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(29 January 2003)

The macroeconomic impact of the enlargement of the European Union is expected to be relatively small for the 15 Member States (EU-15).

The assessment of a study carried out within the Commission (1) is that a cumulated surplus of growth of 0,7 % for the 15 Member States will occur in the ten years following this forthcoming enlargement.

The economic impact will be higher in border regions neighbouring the candidate countries, mainly in Germany and Austria, and more remote regions will be less affected by enlargement.

Portugal's share in total exports of the candidate countries towards the Union was only 0,7 % in 2002 and its share in total imports of the candidate countries from the European Union was only 0,3 %.

Drawing the comparison between foreign direct investment towards candidate countries and allocations to Member States is much more complex. The European Agreements have promoted substantial market opening already before accession. According to the World Investment Report 2002 of the United Nations, gross inward investment in candidate countries increased continuously since 1996. The report also mentions that the Czech Republic received EUR 5,3 billion of foreign direct investment (FDI) in 2000 and EUR 5,5 billion in 2001, whereas Hungary received EUR 1,6 billion in 2000 and EUR 2,6 billion in 2001. Portugal, however, received EUR 6,9 billion in 2000 and EUR 6,7 billion in 2001, a remarkable increase as compared to the period 1996/1999. Therefore, the Commission considers enlargement a win-win situation.

Economic and social disparities within the EU-25 will at the beginning increase after enlargement. This is, however, a statistical effect, due to the lower level of gross domestic product (GDP) of the acceding countries.

Based on the decisions of the Copenhagen European Council (12 and 13 December 2002), the per capita assistance through structural funds in the new Member States will reach EUR 118 in 2006, whereas it stands at an average of EUR 217 in 2000/2006 in the objective 1 regions of the 15 Member States.

---

(1)  The economic impact of enlargement. Enlargement Papers No 4, June 2001.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/310 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/310

---

(2004/C 88 E/0315)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3916/02

by Juan Naranjo Escobar (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(14 January 2003)

Subject:   Gambling on the Net

As the Commission acknowledged in its answer to Written Question E-2885/01 (1), internet gambling activities are regulated differently across the Member States giving rise to internal market barriers that deserve consideration.

Given that internet gambling activities are cross-border in nature and that national lottery operators have warned of the need for this issue to be dealt with at European level, what measures has the Commission taken in this respect? Has the Commission examined the need for harmonisation in this area, and what form it should take?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(3 March 2003)

As regards internet gambling, a number of Member States are adjusting their laws on gambling activities or introducing new laws to regulate such information society services. These new laws are notifiable under Directive 98/48/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 20 July 1998 amending Directive 98/34/EC laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical standards and regulations (2). The Commission would, therefore, wish to reassure the Honourable Member that, on the basis of this mechanism, it is monitoring developments in this field and ensuring that such new national laws do not result in unjustified Internal Market barriers taking into account the specificity of these services as recognised by the Court of Justice's jurisprudence. However, the Commission does not consider that harmonisation is required in this area at the current time.

---

(1)  OJ C 81 E, 4.4.2002, p. 211.

(2)  OJ L 217, 5.8.1998.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/310 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/310

---

(2004/C 88 E/0316)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3917/02

by Juan Naranjo Escobar (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(14 January 2003)

Subject:   Border regions

In its communication ‘Community Action for Border Regions’ (1), the Commission proposed allocating appropriations totalling EUR 195 million over the period 2002-2006 for additional measures in regions bordering with candidate countries.

These measures, which affect 23 regions of five Member States, would be managed through the TEN, Interreg and Youth programmes and the pilot project for SMEs under budget heading B5-3003.

Can the Commission provide a breakdown by heading of the total sum of appropriations allocated to the border regions under the 2002 and 2003 budgets, including additional funds approved by the budgetary authority?

Can the Commission provide a breakdown of the payments allocated in 2002 and 2003 to each of the regions concerned?

What were the total payments made to each of these regions in 2002?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(27 February 2003)

The total amount of the additional commitment appropriations for the Union regions bordering the acceding countries in the budgets 2002 and 2003 is some EUR 98 million. The amount is split up as follows.

As regards the 2002 budget:

| — | EUR 30 million has been committed to the 13 Strand A Interreg programmes covering the borders with candidate countries as well as to the Strand Β Interreg programme for the Baltic Sea Region in the framework of a common priority ‘Special Support for Regions bordering the Candidate Countries’ (budget line B2-1411); |
| --- | --- |

—

EUR 30 million has been committed to the 13 Strand A Interreg programmes covering the borders with candidate countries as well as to the Strand Β Interreg programme for the Baltic Sea Region in the framework of a common priority ‘Special Support for Regions bordering the Candidate Countries’ (budget line B2-1411);

| — | EUR 20 million has been allocated to three strand C programmes of Interreg (East, North and South) and to the Interact programme for actions intended to encourage and facilitate co-operation in border regions; this amount is derived from paragraph 53 of the Interreg Guidelines (budget line B2-1410); |
| --- | --- |

—

EUR 20 million has been allocated to three strand C programmes of Interreg (East, North and South) and to the Interact programme for actions intended to encourage and facilitate co-operation in border regions; this amount is derived from paragraph 53 of the Interreg Guidelines (budget line B2-1410);

| — | EUR 20 million is under the ‘pilot project on the impact of enlargement in the border regions of the EU’ (budget line B5-3003), of which






  — | EUR 3 million has been granted to ARGE28 to support a project in favour of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) (‘Growing together with Europe’); |
| --- | --- | --- |

—

EUR 20 million is under the ‘pilot project on the impact of enlargement in the border regions of the EU’ (budget line B5-3003), of which

—

EUR 3 million has been granted to ARGE28 to support a project in favour of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) (‘Growing together with Europe’);

| — | EUR 15 million is to be committed in the framework of three calls for proposals launched by the Commission, which aim at improving the competitiveness of SMEs, addressing the needs of employees and workers, as well as strengthening the capacity of local and regional authorities to prepare for the administrative effects of enlargement; |
| --- | --- |

—

EUR 15 million is to be committed in the framework of three calls for proposals launched by the Commission, which aim at improving the competitiveness of SMEs, addressing the needs of employees and workers, as well as strengthening the capacity of local and regional authorities to prepare for the administrative effects of enlargement;

| — | EUR 2 million is to be used to finance additional measures in favour of young people in border regions according to the sets of rules, criteria and procedures applied in the YOUTH programme. |
| --- | --- |

—

EUR 2 million is to be used to finance additional measures in favour of young people in border regions according to the sets of rules, criteria and procedures applied in the YOUTH programme.

As regards the 2003 budget:

| — | EUR 17 million will derive from the budget line B5-3003 ‘Impact of enlargement in the border regions of the EU — preparatory actions’; |
| --- | --- |

—

EUR 17 million will derive from the budget line B5-3003 ‘Impact of enlargement in the border regions of the EU — preparatory actions’;

| — | EUR 3 million will be committed to finance additional measures in favour of young people in border regions in the framework of the YOUTH programme (B3-1010); |
| --- | --- |

—

EUR 3 million will be committed to finance additional measures in favour of young people in border regions in the framework of the YOUTH programme (B3-1010);

| — | EUR 8 million will be committed in the framework of the ‘Enlargement Programme for SMEs’ (budget line Β5-514). This programme has, however, a wider geographical scope than that of the present Union border regions. |
| --- | --- |

—

EUR 8 million will be committed in the framework of the ‘Enlargement Programme for SMEs’ (budget line Β5-514). This programme has, however, a wider geographical scope than that of the present Union border regions.

No additional commitments in favour of Union regions bordering the acceding countries have been made in the framework of the trans-European networks since the corresponding legislative proposal adopted by the Commission on 2 October 2001, i.e. the draft regulation amending Council Regulation (EC) No 2236/95 laying down general rules for the granting of Community financial aid in the field of trans-European networks (2), has not yet been adopted.

The Commission is not in a position to deliver an overview of the exact financial allocation to each border region in 2002 and 2003. Especially where the Interreg programmes are concerned, the geographical pattern of expenditures is a result of the location of the projects supported, the projects themselves being selected on quality criteria.

The process of committing the additional financial resources for regions bordering the acceding countries in 2002 has been completed. Project implementation is, however, still in its early stage. Payment data are therefore not meaningful at present.

Concerning the above mentioned Interreg A and Β programmes, most of the adjusted programme complements were sent to the Commission by the end of 2002. Spending on projects can thus start in early 2003. It will be the task of the respective steering committees to commit these financial means to concrete projects according to criteria of the programme complements. Future payments will therefore depend on spending on the ground. The closing date for the eligibility of expenditure for this funding is 31 December 2004.

---

(1)  COM(2001)437.

(2)  OJ C 75 E, 26.3.2002.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/312 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/312

---

(2004/C 88 E/0317)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0046/03

by Pasqualina Napoletano (PSE) and Giovanni Pittella (PSE) to the Commission

(21 January 2003)

Subject:   Crisis in Venezuela

Venezuela is being torn apart by a dramatic political and social crisis, which includes both organised violence on the part of the most radical groups close to the government of President Chavez and acts on the part of extremist opposition groups which are little short of a coup d'état. The situation is a real threat to democracy and freedom in a country where a very large section of the population is of European origin (including a large community of Italian origin).

What steps have already been taken (and with what results) and what further action is planned to ensure that the European Union can help to enhance the role of the international community and institutions, which is of decisive importance for the purposes of overcoming the crisis in the context of political negotiation and respect for democracy and the Constitution?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(13 February 2003)

On the current crisis in Venezuela, the Union has issued three declarations in 2002, after the April coup, on 9 October and on 23 December. In them, the Union expressed its full support for the Organisation of American States (OAS) efforts to facilitate a national dialogue between the Government of Venezuela and the Coordinadora Democrática (organised opposition) as well as other relevant sectors of society. These declarations, as others issued by other countries, regions and international institutions, have probably had a positive impact in that they encouraged the Venezuelan population to abstain from violence, and made it clear to the most radical elements in the opposition that the international community would not tolerate any non-democratic or non-constitutional solutions.

The OAS efforts have, however, as yet not produced any concrete results in resolving the political crisis. The parties in conflict appear to be unable to engage in a constructive dialogue to solve the situation. A new initiative to help address the conflict, the creation of a ‘Group of Friends’, was launched in Quito on 15 January 2003. Two Member States are part of the group, Spain and Portugal, whose creation the Union welcomed in a Declaration of 21 January 2003. The Group of Friends will work in support of the OAS efforts.

Furthermore, the Commission has approved a project of financial assistance to the OAS in its efforts to implement possible agreements reached between the parties of the OAS mediated dialogue. In addition to facilitating the ongoing dialogue, it has three main components: support for free and fair elections; investigation of the events of April 2002 (failed coup); and disarming the civilian population.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/313 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/313

---

(2004/C 88 E/0318)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0070/03

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(23 January 2003)

Subject:   Rise of fuel-inefficient and unsafe off-road vehicles in the United States and measures to prevent similar developments in the EU

| 1. | Is the Commission aware of the sharp rise in the production and sale in the United States of four-wheel-drive off-road vehicles and that more of these heavy cars with an extremely high energy consumption are now being sold than conventional cars? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is the Commission aware of the sharp rise in the production and sale in the United States of four-wheel-drive off-road vehicles and that more of these heavy cars with an extremely high energy consumption are now being sold than conventional cars?

| 2. | Is the Commission also aware that the rise in this type of car in the United States is attracting increasing criticism and opposition as it makes the United States even more dependent on oil imports and makes a major call on oil stocks and a significant contribution to environmental pollution? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Is the Commission also aware that the rise in this type of car in the United States is attracting increasing criticism and opposition as it makes the United States even more dependent on oil imports and makes a major call on oil stocks and a significant contribution to environmental pollution?

| 3. | Is the Commission also aware that this type of car is dangerous for passengers and their environment in that they can easily roll over in the case of unexpected movements and have a 5 m rear blind spot which prevents the driver from seeing children at the side when reversing? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Is the Commission also aware that this type of car is dangerous for passengers and their environment in that they can easily roll over in the case of unexpected movements and have a 5 m rear blind spot which prevents the driver from seeing children at the side when reversing?

| 4. | What proportion of cars in the EU do off-road vehicles account for? |
| --- | --- |

4.

What proportion of cars in the EU do off-road vehicles account for?

| 5. | Has a similar sharp increase in off-road vehicles been seen in the Member States of the EU? |
| --- | --- |

5.

Has a similar sharp increase in off-road vehicles been seen in the Member States of the EU?

| 6. | What is being done to discourage the production, import and sale of such cars in the EU to a greater extent than hitherto? |
| --- | --- |

6.

What is being done to discourage the production, import and sale of such cars in the EU to a greater extent than hitherto?

Source: RTL4 TV in the Netherlands, News, 4 January 2003.

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(7 March 2003)

The Commission is fully aware that the sales and the market share in the United States of so-called sport utility vehicles (SUVs), vans and pick-up trucks has increased substantially and now amount to about 50 % of the new sales of light vehicles. Their share of the total fleet of light vehicles is approaching 30 %. These vehicles are almost exclusively equipped with petrol engines and have a relatively high fuel consumption. The low price of petrol in the United States has been a contributing factor to the rising sales of such vehicles.

The Commission is aware of the growing concern in the United States about the increased use of these types of vehicles. Recently the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) publicly raised their concerns, primarily focussing on the roll-over risks. Discussions on environmental impact and energy dependence are also taking place. Another area of concern in both the United Sates and Europe is the issue of compatibility between these vehicles and the relatively smaller average passenger vehicle in crash situations. The construction of the SUVs will, in general, provide a much higher level of impact with a consequent increase in potential injury levels. This issue is now being taken up by some manufacturers and legislative authorities.

All SUVs and pick-up trucks that are sold in the European market must comply with all relevant Community and national legislation.

The Commission is closely following the performance of these vehicles, particularly high-riding and heavy SUVs to see if any measures are necessary. However, some forthcoming and already proposed requirements will deal with some of the most important elements with regard to this kind of vehicle. In this regard, as has already been announced, a Framework Directive will be proposed by the Commission concerning the protection of pedestrians and cyclists which will cover this kind of vehicles up to 2,5 tonnes weight. In addition, the Commission will further propose a Directive concerning so-called bull-bars, equipment which is quite frequently used on these vehicles. Finally, the Commission has already proposed a Directive concerning improved indirect vision (1), which will require mirrors or alternative measures to reduce ‘dead angles’.

The term ‘Sport Utility Vehicles’ is not exactly defined. However, it is estimated that of all light vehicles registered in the Community about 3 % are SUVs, so the share is only about a tenth of the American level. It is difficult to foresee how the market will develop but there are some factors that would limit the use of these vehicles, like the price of them, the fuel consumption and the price of fuel, and the size of them, which makes them impractical in many urban areas in Europe. Still, there is no doubt that their sales are increasing.

It is important to note that the vehicle industry has undertaken a commitment to achieve a reduction of Carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from M1 passenger cars down to the average of 140 grammes per kilometer (gr/km) by 2008/2009 for sales on the Community market. The monitoring of the commitment has shown decreasing CO2 emission over recent years. As far as SUVs and similar vehicles are classified as M1 passenger cars they would fall under this commitment. Improved fuel consumption is therefore an important factor for the industry. The Commission has proposed to extend the measurements of CO2 to include vehicles of category N1 (vehicles used for carriage of goods) (2). Currently, the Commission is conducting a study in order to evaluate options if and how this category could be covered by CO2 reduction measures. It is planned to inform Council and the Parliament about the outcome of this study still in 2003.

It is not the policy of the Commission to discourage the sale of any particular vehicle type as long as they fulfil all safety and emission requirements. However, the Commission is examining and working continuously on initiatives to increase the environmental and safety standards of vehicles sold in the Internal Market.

---

(1)  OJ C 126 E, 28.5.2002.

(2)  OJ C 51 E, 26.2.2002.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/314 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/314

---

(2004/C 88 E/0319)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0106/03

by Luciano Caveri (ELDR) to the Commission

(28 January 2003)

Subject:   Fire in the Mont Blanc tunnel

While the French judiciary continues its enquiry into the notorious fire which caused the deaths of 39 people in the Mont Blanc tunnel on 24 March 1999, great concern has been aroused by the news that there may have been a defect in the Volvo lorry which caught fire inside the tunnel and triggered the tragedy. Suspicions centre on a construction fault on a certain model of lorry, which is said to result in the lorry catching fire in the event of a cigarette end entering the air intake. Does the Commission have any information on this matter?

Answer given by M. Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(20 March 2003)

The Commission has not been informed of any developments in the investigation being conducted by the French authorities to determine the full circumstances of how this disaster occurred, as the matter is still sub judice. The Commission is, however, familiar with a number of official reports which establish the facts and are in the public domain. The Commission is aware, for instance, that the disaster began with a fire breaking out in a semi-trailer towing vehicle a few minutes after it had driven through the Chamonix toll-station. Various possible explanations have been put forward as to how this fire actually started in the towing vehicle. At the moment, none of these theories can be either confirmed or ruled out, and it is up to the experts appointed by the examining magistrate to check their relevance.

On 30 December 2002 the Commission submitted a proposal for a Directive on minimum safety requirements for tunnels in the trans-European road network, in order to prevent such accidents and to protect tunnel users.

The Commission also intends to make it mandatory for hand-held fire extinguishers or fire extinguishing systems to be fitted in all vehicles with a maximum mass of more than 3,5 tonnes. It will also endeavour to resolve the safety problems posed by the additional fuel tanks which may be mounted on heavy goods vehicles.

Lastly, in the course of 2003, the Commission will submit a proposal to extend Community type-approval to commercial vehicles. In the meantime, type-approval of such vehicles remains the responsibility of each Member State and national regulations apply to the construction standards governing such vehicles.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/315 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/315

---

(2004/C 88 E/0320)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0110/03

by Peter Liese (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(21 January 2003)

Subject:   Vaccination against smallpox in the Member States

Various preparations are currently being made in the Member States to combat possible terrorist attacks using the smallpox virus. Media reports have caused great alarm among the general public. Since the smallpox virus would obviously not stop at the frontiers of the Member States, an EU-wide approach is essential.

Does the European Commission have any information about the various strategies in the Member States? What plans are there for transfrontier coordination of the various strategies of the individual Member States? Can the Commission offer to assist the Member States, with particular regard to an assessment of the possible side effects of vaccination against smallpox? To what extent will it be possible to take advantage of the benefits of the single market in order to ensure that supplies of highly-effective vaccines which have minimal side effects are available in all the Member States as rapidly as possible when required?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(12 February 2003)

As indicated in its Communications ‘Civil protection — State of preventive alert against possible emergencies’ (1) and ‘Civil protection — Progress made in implementing the programme for preparedness for possible emergencies’ (2), the Commission and the Member States are working together in the framework of a programme on health security to strengthen preparedness for and response to deliberate releases of biological and chemical agents to cause harm. This involves, inter alia, the confidential exchange of information and sharing of best practice on national strategies to face up to a smallpox outbreak and allow the highest possible degree of co-ordination in introducing counter-measures. It also involves the dissemination of information, reviews and guidelines for health professionals on priority issues such as surveillance, detection, laboratory analysis and case management.

The side-effects of smallpox vaccination dating from the World Health Organisation's (WHO) eradication programme have been well documented and published. New data arising out of planned vaccination in some countries will, however, be disseminated by the Commission's Task Force on Health Security once they become available.

There are currently no authorised small pox vaccines in the Community. New vaccines are in development, but no application for marketing authorisation has been received yet. In the absence of a product that has received market authorisation in the Community, Member States are building up national stocks from either first generation or second generation unlicensed vaccines.

The ad hoc expert group on vaccines established at the request of the Commission by the European Medicines Evaluation Agency (EMEA) developed guidance on the development of vaccinia virus vaccines against small pox (3). This was published on the Commission and EMEA websites in July 2002. It includes a section on the assessment of safety and post-authorisation studies.

Any new vaccine would be eligible to apply for marketing authorisation through the centralised procedure, for which an accelerated assessment could be provided. If the necessary criteria of safety, efficacy and quality were met this would result in a Community authorisation, immediately applicable in all Member States.

Under the Sixth Framework Research Programme, research leading to new vaccines against potential bio agents and novel therapeutics will be supported.

---

(1)  COM(2001) 707 final.

(2)  COM(2002) 302 final.

(3)  Note for guidance on the development of vaccinia virus based vaccines against smallpox. http://phar-macos.eudra.org/F2/home.html or http://www.emea.eu.int/.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/316 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/316

---

(2004/C 88 E/0321)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0131/03

by Joan Colom i Naval (PSE) to the Commission

(28 January 2003)

Subject:   Implementation of budget heading B2-1411 (Support for regions bordering candidate countries)

Budget heading B2-1411 (Support for regions bordering candidate countries) was created under the 2002 budget procedure and was allocated EUR 30 million in commitment appropriations and EUR 14 million in payment appropriations.

According to the Commission report on the implementation of commitments and payments as at 31 December 2002, the implementation rate for the commitment appropriations was 100 % but for the payment appropriations only 14 %.

Will the Commission state the reasons for such a low rate of payment-appropriation implementation?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(4 March 2003)

The Honourable Member is requested to refer to the Commission's answer to Written Question E-3917/02 by Mr Naranjo Escobar (1).

---

(1)  See page 310.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/317 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/317

---

(2004/C 88 E/0322)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0141/03

by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(28 January 2003)

Subject:   EU-Guinea-Bissau international fisheries agreement and development cooperation

In the context of the current EU-Guinea-Bissau international fisheries agreement, can the Commission indicate:

| 1. | how much the EU has earmarked for the development of the fisheries sector in Guinea-Bissau? |
| --- | --- |

1.

how much the EU has earmarked for the development of the fisheries sector in Guinea-Bissau?

| 2. | how much the EU pays by way of a financial contribution in exchange for fishing rights for the Community fleet? |
| --- | --- |

2.

how much the EU pays by way of a financial contribution in exchange for fishing rights for the Community fleet?

| 3. | how much Community shipowners have to pay in fees for fishing licences and fishing rights? |
| --- | --- |

3.

how much Community shipowners have to pay in fees for fishing licences and fishing rights?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(6 March 2003)

| 1. | The Protocol in force (16 June 2001 to 15 June 2006) of the Fishing agreement between the Community and the Republic of Guinea-Bissau stipulates in its Article 2 that EUR 1 million per year of the total financial counterpart will be used for the payment of the specific actions established in Article 4 of the latter. Aforementioned actions have as specific aim the development of the Guinea fishing sector. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The Protocol in force (16 June 2001 to 15 June 2006) of the Fishing agreement between the Community and the Republic of Guinea-Bissau stipulates in its Article 2 that EUR 1 million per year of the total financial counterpart will be used for the payment of the specific actions established in Article 4 of the latter. Aforementioned actions have as specific aim the development of the Guinea fishing sector.

| 2. | The Protocol states in its Article 2 that the financial counterpart rises to EUR 10 million per year (EUR 10,5 million for the two last years). Of that amount, the financial compensation rises to EUR 9 million for the first three years of validity of the Protocol and EUR 9,5 million for the last two.
  According to that article, the government of the Republic of Guinea-Bissau has exclusive competence to determine the use of the financial compensation established by the Protocol.
  The fishing possibilities determined by Article 1 of that Protocol are the following:






  — | trawler shrimp fishermen deep freezers: 9 600 (gross registered tonnage) (GRT) per year; |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

The Protocol states in its Article 2 that the financial counterpart rises to EUR 10 million per year (EUR 10,5 million for the two last years). Of that amount, the financial compensation rises to EUR 9 million for the first three years of validity of the Protocol and EUR 9,5 million for the last two.

According to that article, the government of the Republic of Guinea-Bissau has exclusive competence to determine the use of the financial compensation established by the Protocol.

The fishing possibilities determined by Article 1 of that Protocol are the following:

—

trawler shrimp fishermen deep freezers: 9 600 (gross registered tonnage) (GRT) per year;

| — | trawler deep freezers (finfish and cephalopods): 2 800 GRT per year; |
| --- | --- |

—

trawler deep freezers (finfish and cephalopods): 2 800 GRT per year;

| — | purse-seine tuna vessels: 40 vessels; |
| --- | --- |

—

purse-seine tuna vessels: 40 vessels;

| — | pole-and-line and surface long-liners: 36 vessels. |
| --- | --- |

—

pole-and-line and surface long-liners: 36 vessels.

| 3. | The fees payable by ship owners shall be as follows in EUR per GRT:






  — | for annual licences:






  — | 197 for fin-fish trawlers, |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.

The fees payable by ship owners shall be as follows in EUR per GRT:

—

for annual licences:

—

197 for fin-fish trawlers,

| — | 219 for cephalopod trawlers, |
| --- | --- |

—

219 for cephalopod trawlers,

| — | 279 for shrimp trawlers; |
| --- | --- |

—

279 for shrimp trawlers;

| — | for six-month licences:






  — | 102 for fin-fish trawlers, |
| --- | --- | --- |

—

for six-month licences:

—

102 for fin-fish trawlers,

| — | 113 for cephalopod trawlers, |
| --- | --- |

—

113 for cephalopod trawlers,

| — | 144 for shrimp trawlers; |
| --- | --- |

—

144 for shrimp trawlers;

| — | for three-month licences:






  — | 52 for fin-fish trawlers, |
| --- | --- | --- |

—

for three-month licences:

—

52 for fin-fish trawlers,

| — | 58 for cephalopod trawlers, |
| --- | --- |

—

58 for cephalopod trawlers,

| — | 73 for shrimp trawlers. |
| --- | --- |

—

73 for shrimp trawlers.

These fees shall be increased by 5 % as from the fourth twelve-month period of application of the Protocol.

As an alternative to the compulsory landing at market prices provided for under point 4, the supplementary fees for ship owners opting not to land fish shall be as follows:

| — | EUR 7/GRT for three-month licences, |
| --- | --- |

—

EUR 7/GRT for three-month licences,

| — | EUR 14/GRT for six-month licences, |
| --- | --- |

—

EUR 14/GRT for six-month licences,

| — | EUR 23/GRT for annual licences. |
| --- | --- |

—

EUR 23/GRT for annual licences.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/318 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/318

---

(2004/C 88 E/0323)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0215/03

by Marco Cappato (NI) to the Commission

(27 January 2003)

Subject:   Drug-related escalation of violence in Bolivia

The situation in Bolivia vis-à-vis the demonstrations by indigenous groups that advocate the use of traditional produce such as coca leaf — currently strictly regulated by the Bolivian Government — should become of particular concern to the international community. In fact, over the last few days in Bolivia there has been a series of clashes between the police and army and the protesters, mainly farmers, who were demonstrating against the eradication of their traditional crop. According to Bolivian media outlets the situation is characterised by an escalation of violence that has led to at least 17 deaths, dozens wounded and hundreds arrested.

Is the Commission aware of the nature of such an escalation in the confrontation between the Government and indigenous groups on the eradication of coca, and what measures is the Commission enforcing or does it intend to enforce in its support to the Bolivian authorities in their crop eradication activities?

Does the Commission not believe that the time has come to address the failures, and disastrous consequences, that prohibition is provoking in producer and consumer countries alike and initiate at the upcoming ministerial segment of the UN Commission on Narcotics, scheduled for 16 and 17 April 2003, a process of revision of the three international Conventions on Narcotic and Psychotropic Substances in order to promote a more effective pragmatic approach to the drug question?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(24 February 2003)

The Commission has been monitoring closely the escalation in the confrontation between the Government of Bolivia and coca producers and other social sectors and noted with concern the incidents of violence associated with the road blocks which have been erected since 13 January 2003. The Commission is pleased to note that an agreement reached between Evo Morales and President Sánchez de Lozada on 26 January 2003 appears to have scaled down the confrontation and enabled the two sides to engage in a dialogue, including on the Government's coca eradication policy and drug control enforcement practices.

On the basis of the principle of co-responsibility, the Commission has been supporting alternative development projects in Bolivia in line with the priorities for cooperation identified in its Country Strategy Paper. Three projects worth a total of EUR 30 million are currently underway with a fourth for EUR 13 million likely to be approved during 2003.

The approach adopted by the Commission starts from the fact that most of the people working in illegal coca plantations have left behind, temporary or permanently, poor living conditions and depressed local economies in the mining communities of the western Highlands and the high valleys of the Cochabamba region. Since the income which can be generated by growing coca is much higher than that which can be earned by working in the mining areas or by growing legal crops, it is essential to give farmers access to viable alternative sources of income.

The Commission is funding and plans to fund activities in the coca-producing areas of Chapare and Los Yungas which will create sustainable agricultural and other income-generating activities to encourage coca producers to give up growing coca. It is also providing local infrastructure such as health centres and schools. The Commission is also seeking to improve living conditions and support economic development in the labour-expulsion zones of the Highlands to reduce the pressures of extreme poverty which stimulate the migration of workers to the coca-producing areas. The Commission works with local authorities and has a dialogue with coca farmers, and its projects seen well received by the population.

The Commission is an active Permanent Observer of the United Nations Commission on Narcotic Drugs (CND), where it has defended a balanced approach between prevention and treatment and the fight against production and trafficking. Alternative development projects are an illustration of the latter by providing alternative livelihoods, they seek to decrease the dependence of farmers on drug cultivation.

There are no plans for the next session of the CND to engage in a process of revising the three United Nations Conventions. This matter has not been raised by Member States nor by the Commission in the periodic discussions of Union drug policy.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/319 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/319

---

(2004/C 88 E/0324)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0226/03

by Guido Podestà (PPE-DE) and Amalia Sartori (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(3 February 2003)

Subject:   Regulatory obstacles to intra-Community trade in gold products — breach of Article 28 of the EC Treaty

It is now almost 50 years since the entry into force of the EC Treaty and the related provisions establishing a common market and yet many regulatory obstacles still exist and are preventing the free movement within the EU of gold products legally hallmarked and marketed in a Member State.

This applies, in particular, to Italian gold products which, although manufactured, legally hallmarked and marketed in Italy, find it difficult to move from Italy to some other Member State of the EU because of the legislation and regulatory obstacles in force, particularly in France, Ireland and the United Kingdom.

It is now consistently established by Community case law that any trade regulations enacted by Member States which may actually or potentially impede intra-Community trade directly or indirectly are regarded as measures with an effect equivalent to quantitative restrictions and hence a breach of Article 28 of the EC Treaty.

Despite recent complaints — some of which are still pending — and despite the seriousness of the violations established, which erode a freedom, that of the free movement of goods, which is crucial for the Community, the Commission does not appear to have paid the necessary attention to this issue so far.

| 1. | In the light of the situation described above, can the Commission say how it intends finally to put an end to any impediments or obstacles to free movement between Member States, within the common market, of gold products legally manufactured, hallmarked and marketed in a Member State? |
| --- | --- |

1.

In the light of the situation described above, can the Commission say how it intends finally to put an end to any impediments or obstacles to free movement between Member States, within the common market, of gold products legally manufactured, hallmarked and marketed in a Member State?

| 2. | Can the Commission explain why, despite repeated reports, it has so far failed to intervene with sufficient rigour to put an end to the breaches described above? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Can the Commission explain why, despite repeated reports, it has so far failed to intervene with sufficient rigour to put an end to the breaches described above?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(5 March 2003)

The Commission is asked how it intends to remove obstacles to the free movement of gold products legally manufactured, hallmarked and marketed in a Member State and what steps have been taken to bring an end to breaches of article 28 of the EC Treaty in this area.

The first point to make is that, in the past, harmonising legislation in this area was proposed by the Commission but never came to fruition. Pending any harmonisation of the rules relating to hallmarking, obstacles to the free movement of gold products within the Union fall to be examined under articles 28 to 30 of the EC Treaty.

In the early 1990s, several infringement cases concerning obstacles to trade in precious metals were brought against various Member States including France, Ireland and the United Kingdom. However, in the light of the ruling of the European Court in the Houtwipper case (Case-293/93) delivered on 15 September 1994, these cases were closed. In Houtwipper, the Court expressly rejected the argument of the German government that:

| | a Member State may not prohibit the marketing in its territory of articles of precious metal hallmarked by the producers themselves in the Member State of exportation, where compliance with the law, and consequently, consumer protection and the safeguarding of fair trading are assured by a range of measures capable of ensuring that the hall mark functions as a guarantee. |
| --- | --- |

a Member State may not prohibit the marketing in its territory of articles of precious metal hallmarked by the producers themselves in the Member State of exportation, where compliance with the law, and consequently, consumer protection and the safeguarding of fair trading are assured by a range of measures capable of ensuring that the hall mark functions as a guarantee.

Instead the Court said that, in the absence of Community rules, the Member States had a wide discretion, and it was for them to choose the appropriate measures to deal with the risk of fraud. The choice between prior control by an independent body and a scheme permitting hallmarking by manufacturers, backed up by training, quality rules and sanctions was a matter for the legislative policy of the Member States; the Court would review that choice only where there had been ‘a manifest error of assessment’.

In its judgement in Commission v. Ireland (case C-30/99), delivered on 21 June 2001, the Court chose not to revisit ‘the question whether a hallmark struck by a manufacturer or his laboratory offers sufficient guarantees of independence to be considered equivalent to a hallmark struck by an independent body’.

The Commission recently received new complaints against the three Member States referred to in the question, alleging that their policy of failing to recognise hallmarks struck by the manufacturer in the context of a scheme of accreditation, monitoring and surveillance is contrary to article 28 of the EC Treaty. The Commission is currently examining whether the refusal to recognise such marks might constitute ‘a manifest error of assessment’ by the authorities of these Member States.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/320 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/320

---

(2004/C 88 E/0325)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0230/03

by Helle Thorning-Schmidt (PSE) to the Commission

(4 February 2003)

Subject:   Implications of enlargement for jobs of customs agents

Analyses show that almost 22 000 customs agents stand to lose their jobs in 2004; 20 000 of those lost jobs will be in the Central and Eastern European countries as a result of enlargement. Some customs agents are therefore already looking for other employment because they know that most of them will lose their jobs as of May 2004. This situation may give rise to a number of practical problems as customs agents are responsible for ensuring that both the EU's and the applicant countries' customs regulations are complied with as a condition of goods crossing the EU's external borders.

What steps will the Commission take to safeguard the EU's cross-border trade with the applicant countries through to 1 May 2004? Will the Commission take measures to provide customs agents with an incentive to remain in their jobs until enlargement takes place? Can the Commission envisage introducing an arrangement similar to the one that applied in 1992 for the transition to the internal market? If not, how will the Commission resolve this emerging problem?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(14 March 2003)

As the Commission has already indicated, in its reply to Mr Lisi's Written Question E-2488/02 (1), it does not intend to introduce an arrangement similar to the one applied in 1992 for the transition to the internal market. In its reply to the above Question, the Commission pointed out the options available to Member States under the Structural Funds and the guidelines adopted for State aid.

---

(1)  OJ C 52 E, 6.3.2003, p. 179.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/321 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/321

---

(2004/C 88 E/0326)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0267/03

by Laura González Alvarez (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(6 February 2003)

Subject:   Abuse of a dominant position and misleading advertising by the airlines Spanair and Iberia (Spain)

The consumer group Unión de Consumidores de Asturias has denounced the latest advertising campaign by the airlines Iberia and Spanair as concealing important information from the consumer (e.g. having to spend the Saturday night at the destination, stay for a maximum of ten days, book their tickets at least four days before departure, etc.) as being a violation of Directive 97/55/EC (1) on misleading advertising.

Moreover, Unión de Consumidores de Asturias has accused these airline companies and Air Nostrum of ticket price fixing, which would constitute an abuse of a dominant position and a contravention of Article 82 of the EC Treaty on the exploitation of dominant positions.

Is the Commission aware of this situation?

What measures will it adopt, as guardian of the Treaties, to ensure compliance with Community law in the case in point?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(14 March 2003)

The Commission has become aware of a number of complaints from consumer organisations about certain misleading advertising practices in the air transport sector. Indeed, a key aspect of Community consumer and transport policy is that passengers should be entitled to receive comprehensive and clear information. Omission of essential information in adverts for air transport services may infringe Community law. Council Directive 84/450/EEC of 10 September 1984 (2) as amended by Directive 97/55/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 6 October 1997 concerning misleading advertising so as to include comparative advertising, provides an effective tool to take action against misleading practices. The practical every day enforcement of this Directive is, however, a matter for the Member States who are best placed to determine how this should be achieved in their country. Unfortunately, the Commission is not able to directly intervene on individual complaints addressed by citizens to Member States. The examination of the measures communicated by the Spanish Government for misleading and comparative advertising does not allow the Commission to conclude that there is an infringement to Community law.

To address the grievances of airline passengers, the Commission on 7 June 2002 issued a consultation paper on airlines' contracts with passengers. This concerned, among other things, the information the passenger should receive before buying an airline ticket. The consultation yielded numerous contributions from stakeholders and the Commission is currently assessing if and what action should follow to tackle what has been identified as unsatisfactory for the airline passengers.

In relation to the allegation of anti-competitive practices it is true that undertakings which hold a dominant position on the relevant market could, under certain circumstances, abuse that dominant position within the meaning of Article 82 of the EC Treaty. However, in the absence of further details on the alleged abuse by the Spanish airline companies, it is not possible to determine whether the EC Treaty has been violated.

---

(1)  OJ L 290, 23.10.1997, p. 18.

(2)  OJ L 250, 19.9.1984.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/322 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/322

---

(2004/C 88 E/0327)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0303/03

by Roger Helmer (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(10 February 2003)

Subject:   Malta's accession to the EU

Would the Commission please comment on reports that 900 mentally-competent senior citizens have been crossed off the electoral register in Malta and will not be allowed to vote in the forthcoming referendum on Malta's accession to the EU?

Would the Commission further comment on reports that the ‘Yes’ National Party have engaged in improper and undemocratic practices to further their campaign and impede the ‘No’ campaign — such as biasing the civil service, restricting the number of mass meetings that the ‘No’ Labour Party can hold and comparing ‘No’ supporters with the Nazis?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(13 March 2003)

The Honourable Member raises questions concerning important democratic rights. Article 6(1) of the Treaty on the European Union provides that the Union is founded on principles of democracy and respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. However, the Union does not have a general competence as regards the fundamental rights, but it can intervene only in the event of violation of the fundamental rights in the field of the application of the Union legislation.

The electoral issues, including criteria for the right to vote in national referenda belong to the powers of the Member States. There is no Union legislation on the subject. In 1993, the Member States agreed about the so called Copenhagen criteria for accession. According to these criteria, membership requires that the Candidate Country has achieved among others ‘stability of institutions guaranteeing democracy, the rule of law, human rights and respect for and protection of minorities’. The questions of the Honourable Member concerning Malta can be considered from this point of view.

The General Elections Act of Malta foresees that any decision to transfer, correct or cancel voters can only be taken by an Electoral Commission, which includes appointees of both political parties. In addition, in the case of a challenge of a citizen's right of vote on the ground on mental infirmity, the Electoral Commission can take a decision to cancel a registration only if the appointed Medical Board has previously decided by unanimous vote that the voter is of unsound mind. this Medical Board is composed of a medical doctor appointed as chairperson and a medical doctor appointed by each of the political parties. This legal procedure guarantees that no abusive cancellation of a citizen from the voters' register takes place.

Therefore, while there have been challenges by both parties of some citizens' right of vote, on the ground of mental infirmity, a cancellation of a registration can only be done following legally established procedures. The Commission is not aware that this has resulted in the cancellation of hundreds of registrations of these citizens. The Commission also noted that the Nationalist Party has withdrawn its challenges of some citizens' right of vote on the ground of mental infirmity, and presented apologies to those who had been unduly challenged.

The Commission believes that the political campaign for the accession referendum in Malta has taken place until now in conformity with basic democratic rules. There has been, to its knowledge, no limitation to the right of the Labour Party and the ‘No side’ to hold meetings. The Commission is not aware of any attempt ‘to bias the civil service’.

The Commission wishes, however, to stress that the issue of accession to the Union is a subject of historical importance for Malta and which rises a lot of passion in a country that applied for membership already in 1990.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/323 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/323

---

(2004/C 88 E/0328)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0370/03

by José Ribeiro e Castro (UEN) to the Commission

(6 February 2003)

Subject:   Closure of the Clarks factory in Portugal — Community aid — Relocation

The Portuguese media have extensively reported the recent announcement of the forthcoming closure of a shoe factory belonging to the British multinational Clarks in Castelo de Paiva, in the north of the country. As a result of this unexpected closure, some 600 workers will be made redundant and this will have a particularly devastating impact on the living conditions of families and workers resident in the area, which is in fact situated, for the purposes of the structural funds, in an Objective 1 region.

To set up the plant in 1988 and begin production in Castelo de Paiva, the company received considerable support from national and Community funds and was scheduled to continue production at least until 2007.

It has frequently been reported that Clarks is relocating the factory from Portugal to Romania and is now hoping that, by opening the new plant in Romania, it will become eligible for further Community funding as part of the aid being made available for pre-accession and the future integration of this Eastern European country.

Does the Commission have duly substantiated information regarding Clarks' intention to relocate its factory from Portugal to Romania? Can the Commission guarantee that, as direct or indirect Community funding was granted for the Portuguese factory, no further direct or indirect funding will be granted to the Clarks group for the new factory in Romania (which would be equivalent to an indirect ‘premium’ for the closure of the Portuguese factory)?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(24 April 2003)

The Commission does not have any specific information concerning this company's intention to relocate from Portugal to Romania. Moreover, to the Commission's knowledge, the company in question has not received pre-accession aid for the relocation of one of its plants, initially set up in Portugal, to Romania. Direct aid to companies under the PHARE programme is essentially aid for small and medium-sized enterprises, and aid for the ‘relocation’ of companies is not eligible. In general, pre-accession aid is administered by the candidate countries within programmes approved by the Commission, which means that there is no direct aid from the Commission and that the programming of aid is based on recognised development needs and/or a region or country's need for preparation for accession. The choice of location of a business depends on the market and is based on an analysis of the regions' and countries' comparative advantages. The direct aid available plays only a very minor role in these choices, especially as it is determined in accordance with global development needs rather than the needs of individual companies.

The Commission would also like to draw the Honourable Member's attention to its reply to Written Question P-89/03 by Ms Bastos (1), and in particular to those aspects related to the Community provisions which apply in this area.

---

(1)  OJ C 11 E, 15.1.2004, p. 67.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/324 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/324

---

(2004/C 88 E/0329)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0430/03

by Rosa Miguélez Ramos (PSE) to the Commission

(18 February 2003)

Subject:   ‘Prestige’: State aid

The disaster resulting from the sinking of the Prestige oil tanker off the coast of Galicia has caused severe losses for many firms linked to the fishing industry and other marine activities, as well as significant socioeconomic troubles for the regions affected.

The possibilities for alleviating these enormous losses include various exceptions to the rule laid down by Article 87(2) of the Treaty, which establishes the incompatibility with the common market of aid granted by the Member States to certain firms or for the production of certain goods. Paragraph 2(b) of that article states that ‘aid to make good the damage caused by natural disasters or exceptional occurrences’ is compatible with the common market.

Furthermore, Article 87(3)(e) states that ‘such other categories of aid as may be specified by decision of the Council acting by a qualified majority on a proposal from the Commission may be considered to be compatible with the common market’.

In addition, Article 88 establishes that ‘on application by a Member State, the Council may (...) decide that aid which that State is granting or intends to grant shall be considered to be compatible with the common market, (...) if such a decision is justified by exceptional circumstances.’

Can the Commission provide information on the initiatives it has put forward so that, in accordance with Article 87 of the Treaty, the firms affected are able to alleviate the losses resulting from this disaster by means of state aid, without this being considered incompatible with the common market?

Has any Member State submitted an application to be able to grant aid to firms or for the production of certain goods adversely affected by this disaster?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(1 April 2003)

Under Articles 87 et seq. of the EC Treaty, to which the Honourable Member refers, the Commission has a specific power to decide on compatibility of State aids with the common market. On the other hand it falls to Member States, not to the Commission, to take the initiative in proposing aids that can be considered compatible. No Member State has so far sent any proposal for fishery or aquaculture sector aid in connection with the Prestige disaster. It should be made clear however that under Article 19(2) of Regulation 2792/1999 (1), as amended by Regulation 2369/2002 (2), the Member States' obligatory financial contributions to development plan measures co-financed by the Community need no longer be notified to the Commission in advance.

In the same Structural Fund context the Commission, using its powers of initiative under the EC Treaty, sent the Council a proposal (3) for a Regulation, following which the Council adopted Regulation (EC) 2372/2002 of 20 December 2002 instituting specific measures to compensate individuals and enterprises in the Spanish fishing, shellfish culture and aquaculture industries affected by oil spills from the Prestige (4). Waiving certain provisions of Regulation (EC) No2792/1999 and providing additional Community funding, this Regulation affords an exceptional level of support in the Spanish coastal zones affected. In addition, under the existing Financial Instrument for Fisheries Guidance (FIFG) provisions compensation for temporary cessation of activities can be given to fishermen from other Member States who have had to stop fishing because of the Prestige disaster. The Commission has not yet received any applications to this end.

---

(1)  OJ L 337, 30.12.1999.

(2)  Council Regulation, (EC) No 2369/2002, of 20 December 2002 amending Regulation (EC) No 2792/1999 laying down detailed rules and arrangements regarding Community structural assistance in the fisheries sector, OJ L 358, 31.12.2002.

(3)  COM(2002) 766 final.

(4)  OJ L 358, 31.12.2002.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/325 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/325

---

(2004/C 88 E/0330)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0432/03

by Dorette Corbey (PSE) to the Commission

(18 February 2003)

Subject:   Air pollution: exceeding of threshold values for particulate matter

Pursuant to Council Directive 1999/30/EC (1), a report is due to be published before the end of this year based on the experience acquired in the application of this Directive. An initial provisional Commission report (entitled Overview of Methods and Results of the Preliminary Assessment of Air Quality in Europe under Directives 96/62/EC and 1999/30/EC') shows that the threshold values for particulate matter (PM10) have been exceeded in a large number of cases.

Can the Commission indicate the extent to which more recent data have confirmed this alarming picture?

Can the Commission indicate the number of early deaths in the European Union that may be attributed to air pollution caused by particulate matter?

Does the Commission feel that the Member States in which the limits have been exceeded in this way have taken measures which were inadequate to ensure that emissions of particulate matter remained below the threshold values?

Can the Commission indicate what measures it is thinking of taking?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(1 April 2003)

According to 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, Member States were obliged to send data for the year 2001 to the Commission no later than 30 September 2002. The Commission will prepare a summary report based on this data, which will also show the extent of exceedances of limit values. The recent data indicates that, compared to the limit values, PM10 (2) levels in parts of Europe are indeed rather high. Problems are more related to exceedances of the short term limit value (no more than 35 exceedances of the daily average limit of 50 micrograms per cubic metre (μg/m3)), especially at hot spot locations such as traffic-related or industrial sites, rather than the long term limit value of 40μg/m3 (annual mean). At urban background stations, exceedances are more frequently reported in southern Europe than in northern and western regions. It must be noted, however, that these limit values will only become legally binding in 2005.

In order to assess the health impacts of air pollution, including particulate matter, the Commission is giving financial support to a systematic review of health aspects of air quality in Europe being carried out by the World Health Organisation (WHO). According to a final draft report recently available, the long-term exposure to current ambient PM concentrations may lead to a marked reduction in average life expectancy, potentially reaching one to two years. Furthermore, a recent independent study for the combined population of France, Austria and Switzerland (around 75 million people) estimates that some 40 000 deaths per year can be attributed to ambient PM (Kunzli et al. 2000 (3)).

At this stage, it is too early to draw any clear conclusions on whether the Member States are taking adequate measures to ensure compliance with the limit values by 2005, as required by Directive 1999/30/EC. According to the two Directives (96/62/EC (4) and 1999/30/EC), Member States have to report annually on plans and programmes showing how they will achieve compliance, with the first report due in December 2003. At that time the Commission will be in a position to assess the prospects for compliance with the limit values.

However, in view of the urgent need to reduce PM levels, the Commission has already identified PM as one of the core pollutants being dealt with under the Clean Air For Europe (CAFE) programme, launched in May 2001 (5). The aim of CAFE is to prepare the development of the thematic strategy for air pollution foreseen in the Sixth Environmental Action Programme and due to be delivered in 2005. This strategy will include policy options on how to decrease further the health risks from PM. The Commission is supported in this task by several working groups comprising experts from Member States, Accession Countries, industry and environmental non-governmental organisations.

---

(1)  OJ L 163, 29.6.1999, p. 41.

(2)  Particulate Matter less than 10 micrometer (μm) in diameter.

(3)  Kunzli, Ν. et al. Public-health impact of outdoor and traffic-related air pollution: a European assessment. Lancet 356: 795 - 801 (2000).

(4)  Council Directive 96/62/EC of 27 September 1996 on ambient air quality assessment and management, OJ L 296, 21.11.1996.

(5)  COM(2001) 245 final.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/326 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/326

---

(2004/C 88 E/0331)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0547/03

by Struan Stevenson (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(19 February 2003)

Subject:   Beef and live cattle exports to the Lebanon and Egypt

Would the Commission let me know the quantity (expressed in carcass weight equivalent of (1) live cattle and (2) beef exported by the Community to (a) the Lebanon and (b) Egypt in the three most recent calendar years for which figures are available?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(7 March 2003)

The table below shows the Community exports of live bovine animals and beef to Lebanon and Egypt for the calendar years 1999, 2000 and 2001.

Complete statistical data for the calendar year 2002 are not yet available.

EU 15 exports in metric tonne carcass equivalent

| | To Lebanon | To Egypt |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 1999 | 2000 | 2001 | 1999 | 2000 | 2001 |
| Live bovines | 53 705 | 49 402 | 40 923 | 8 493 | 14 067 | 277 |
| Beef | 8 506 | 8 022 | 2 339 | 192 271 | 171 107 | 5 436 |

To Lebanon

To Egypt

1999

2000

2001

1999

2000

2001

Live bovines

53 705

49 402

40 923

8 493

14 067

277

Beef

8 506

8 022

2 339

192 271

171 107

5 436

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/327 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/327

---

(2004/C 88 E/0332)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0570/03

by Freddy Blak (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(28 February 2003)

Subject:   Punitive charges on imported vehicles

The Danish Government imposes various charges on imported used motor vehicles depending on the age of the vehicle.

§ 4, paragraph 6 (1) and (2) of Law No 977 of 2 December 2002 on registration fees for motor vehicles, for example, indicates that the older the vehicle is, the higher the rate applied to the value of the vehicle (180 % as opposed to 105 %).

This means in practice that the system of importing used motor vehicles into Denmark in many cases makes it more expensive to import and register a foreign motor vehicle than an equivalent vehicle bought in Denmark, which constitutes a technical barrier to trade to the detriment of imported goods.

Will the Commission say whether this system is consistent with the provisions on the free and nondiscriminatory movement of goods across borders in the EU?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(8 April 2003)

At present there is little Community legislation or harmonisation of national fiscal provisions applied by the Member States in the area of taxation of passenger cars. Additionally, Community law on vehicle taxation is extremely complex and is not in keeping with the needs of an internal market. However, any change to that law can only be brought about by the unanimous agreement of the Member States, and in practice there is little that the Commission can do to improve the position in the short term.

In principle, Member States remain free to apply internal taxation to motor cars on the occasion of their first entry into circulation within their territory, and the majority of Member States in fact apply such taxes. However, Member States' rights in that respect are considerably restricted by the provisions of both the EC Treaty and derived Community law.

First, under Article 90 of the EC Treaty, Member States are not allowed to charge higher taxes on imports than on similar and competing domestic products. Bearing that in mind, a number of Member States charge their taxes on imported 2nd hand vehicles by reference to arbitrary valuation criteria.

Such a system of valuation came before the Court in case C-393/98 (Gomes Valente), recently confirmed by case C-101/00 (Antti Siilin). The Court ruled that:

| | The first paragraph of Article 95 of the Treaty (now Article 90) does not permit a Member State to apply to second-hand vehicles imported from other Member States a system of taxation in which the depreciation in the actual value of those vehicles is calculated in a general and abstract manner, on the basis of fixed criteria or scales determined by a legislative provision, a regulation or an administrative provision, unless those criteria or scales are capable of guaranteeing that the amount of the tax due does not exceed, even in a few cases, the amount of the residual tax incorporated in the value of similar vehicles already registered in the national territory. |
| --- | --- |

The first paragraph of Article 95 of the Treaty (now Article 90) does not permit a Member State to apply to second-hand vehicles imported from other Member States a system of taxation in which the depreciation in the actual value of those vehicles is calculated in a general and abstract manner, on the basis of fixed criteria or scales determined by a legislative provision, a regulation or an administrative provision, unless those criteria or scales are capable of guaranteeing that the amount of the tax due does not exceed, even in a few cases, the amount of the residual tax incorporated in the value of similar vehicles already registered in the national territory.

In other words, no matter what system of valuation is used, where tax is charged on a 2nd hand import, the value on which tax is charged plus the tax itself should never exceed the price of an equivalent tax-paid 2nd hand vehicle already within the Member State. Denmark has yet to adapt its law in accordance with the ruling. The resulting legal position is currently under examination.

In addition to the provisions of the EC Treaty, two Council Directives severely restrict the rights of Member States to apply consumption taxes to vehicles that citizens import for their personal use from other Member States.

The first of these, Council Directive 83/182/EEC of 28 March 1983 on tax exemptions within the Community for certain means of transport temporarily imported into one Member State from another (1). The second Directive, Council Directive 83/183/EEC of 28 March 1983 on tax exemptions applicable to permanent imports from a Member State of the personal property of individuals (1).

In this respect, the Commission has already taken action against Denmark concerning the application of article 1 of the above-mentioned Directive. In particular, a reasoned opinion was recently sent to Denmark on this matter. If the Commission does not receive a satisfactory response within two months, the matter could be taken to the Court of Justice. At this regard, it is made reference to the press communication that was released on 23 January 2003.

The Commission presented recently a Communication on taxation of passenger cars in the Union (2), in order to launch a consultation with Member States, other Community Institutions and important stakeholders, on future options for action at Community and national levels. This consultation is currently underway. Based on the main principles of the Communication and in the light of the results of the consultation process, the Commission could submit proposals in 2004 for Community legislation covering, inter alia, the method of calculation of registration tax on used passenger cars transferred from one Member State to another.

---

(1)  OJ L 105, 23.4.1983.

(2)  COM(2002)431 final.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/328 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/328

---

(2004/C 88 E/0333)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0610/03

by José Ribeiro e Castro (UEN) to the Commission

(3 March 2003)

Subject:   EU/São Tomé and Príncipe 1999-2003: cooperation, development, human rights, assistance, etc.

For the years 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002 and 2003 and with regard to São Tomé and Príncipe, can the Commission provide information on the following: What programmes have been or are being undertaken by the EU with São Tomé and Príncipe? What are the funds allocated? What is the expected duration of the individual programmes? What results have been obtained by the programmes, and what assessment has been made of their success or otherwise? What particular developments have characterised each of the programmes?

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/329 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/329

---

(2004/C 88 E/0334)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0611/03

by José Ribeiro e Castro (UEN) to the Commission

(3 March 2003)

Subject:   EU/Guinea-Bissau 1999-2003: cooperation, development, human rights, assistance, etc.

For the years 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002 and 2003 and with regard to Guinea-Bissau, can the Commission provide information on the following: What programmes have been or are being undertaken by the EU with Guinea-Bissau? What are the funds allocated? What is the expected duration of the individual programmes? What results have been obtained by the programmes, and what assessment has been made of their success or otherwise? What particular developments have characterised each of the programmes?

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/329 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/329

---

(2004/C 88 E/0335)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0612/03

by José Ribeiro e Castro (UEN) to the Commission

(3 March 2003)

Subject:   EU/Cape Verde 1999-2003: cooperation, development, human rights, assistance, etc.

For the years 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002 and 2003 and with regard to Cape Verde, can the Commission provide information on the following: What programmes have been or are being undertaken by the EU with Cape Verde? What are the funds allocated? What is the expected duration of the individual programmes? What results have been obtained by the programmes, and what assessment has been made of their success or otherwise? What particular developments have characterised each of the programmes?

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/329 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/329

---

(2004/C 88 E/0336)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0613/03

by José Ribeiro e Castro (UEN) to the Commission

(3 March 2003)

Subject:   EU/Mozambique 1999-2003: cooperation, development, human rights, assistance, etc.

For the years 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002 and 2003 and with regard to Mozambique, can the Commission provide information on the following: What programmes have been or are being undertaken by the EU with Mozambique? What are the funds allocated? What is the expected duration of the individual programmes? What results have been obtained by the programmes, and what assessment has been made of their success or otherwise? What particular developments have characterised each of the programmes?

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/329 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/329

---

(2004/C 88 E/0337)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0614/03

by José Ribeiro e Castro (UEN) to the Commission

(3 March 2003)

Subject:   EU/Angola 1999-2003: cooperation, development, human rights, assistance, etc.

For the years 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002 and 2003 and with regard to Angola, can the Commission provide information on the following: What programmes have been or are being undertaken by the EU with Angola? What are the funds allocated? What is the expected duration of the individual programmes? What results have been obtained by the programmes, and what assessment has been made of their success or otherwise? What particular developments have characterised each of the programmes?

Joint answer

to Written Questions E-0610/03, E-0611/03, E-0612/03, E-0613/03 and E-0614/03

given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(21 May 2003)

The Honourable Member's questions are wide-ranging and detailed.

European Development Fund

The main source of financial co-operation with these countries is the European Development Fund (EDF). These funds were provided in the framework of the Lomé Conventions and since 1 April 2003 the Cotonou Agreement. The attached table which is sent direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat summarises commitments and payments in respect of each country for the period 1999-2002, in order to show the scale of each programme and its development over the period.

The Head of Delegation produces reports on the implementation of EDF-financed programmes in the country in question.

These cover inter alia:

| (a) | the amount of the Indicative Programme, commitments, disbursements, and the timetable for the implementation of the indicative programme and the regional programmes; |
| --- | --- |

(a)

the amount of the Indicative Programme, commitments, disbursements, and the timetable for the implementation of the indicative programme and the regional programmes;

| (b) | a progress report on projects and programmes; |
| --- | --- |

(b)

a progress report on projects and programmes;

| (c) | an assessment of the operations of the Fund in the African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) State and regional programmes. |
| --- | --- |

(c)

an assessment of the operations of the Fund in the African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) State and regional programmes.

The reports on the situation up to the end of 2002 are currently being finalised, and will be sent to the Honourable Member as soon as they are available.

Other funding

Funding may also be provided to these countries from the general Community budget. Information concerning projects to support democracy and human rights is being sent direct to the Parliament and to Parliament's Secretariat. Information on other budget-financed projects will be sent as soon as possible.

Effectiveness

The Commission attaches the highest importance to maximising the effectiveness of the actions financed. The strategy for interventions in each country is decided after careful discussion with the Government, other donors and civil society. Summaries of the five strategies are being sent to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat. The full text of each strategy is available on the website of Directorate General (D) Development, under (http://europa.eu.int/comm/development/body/csp_rsp/csp_en.cfm).

Various evaluations have been carried out in relation to the five countries; summaries of those completed since 1999 are being sent to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat. The full text of each report is available on the EuropeAid website under (http://europa.eu.int/comm/europeaid/evaluation/program/acprep.htm).

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/331 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/331

---

(2004/C 88 E/0338)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0697/03

by Brice Hortefeux (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(10 March 2003)

Subject:   Harmonising size labelling systems

Last January we celebrated the tenth anniversary of the internal market. These ten years have seen changes which have profoundly transformed Europe and the lives of its citizens. Barriers have been removed and doors have been opened. Consumers have an indisputably wider choice of high quality products, and thanks to the euro, can compare prices more easily.

However, there currently exist at least four different systems for indicating clothing and shoe sizes within the European Union. Italy, France, Germany and the UK all have their own systems. This lack of harmonisation does not make the life of consumers and exporters any easier.

Does the Commission not believe that the elimination of these technical differences would make it easier to complete the European single market? If so, how does the Commission intend to achieve such harmonisation?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(2 April 2003)

The Commission would like to refer the Honourable Member to its reply to written question E-3437/02 by Mr Menrad (1).

The Commission would like to reiterate that it does not, at present, foresee any initiative to standardise or harmonise clothing and footwear sizes and labelling in Europe.

Although many operators in the Community clothing sector claim that a harmonised system would improve industrial competitiveness, the existence of different sizing systems in itself has not been recognised as a barrier to trade, as defined by Community law. Besides, the Commission is not aware of any Community-wide consensus between stakeholders and/or Member States on the matter. One possible way forward would be through an industry led initiative to establish voluntary agreements between all interested parties (manufacturers, importers, consumers ...) and, possibly, national authorities.

The European Committee for Standardisation is currently developing work on size labelling for all kinds of garments, and on measurement methods. These standards have not been mandated by the Commission and are industry-led. Industry will be free to apply these standards as and when it sees fit.

As far as footwear is concerned, the Commission is aware of initiatives developed by industry aimed at establishing standardised measurements in order to increase the use of information and communication technologies in the sector. However, as in the textiles sector, a consensus of stakeholders and national authorities on a Community-wide harmonisation of sizing systems has not emerged. Under these circumstances, the Commission believes that voluntary agreements are at the moment the best way forward for this sector.

---

(1)  OJ C 137 E, 12.6.2003, p. 208.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/332 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/332

---

(2004/C 88 E/0339)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0761/03

by Charles Tannock (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(12 March 2003)

Subject:   EU requirements relating to the erection of mobile telephone masts

In answer to Written Question E-3246/02 (1), Commissioner Byrne states inter alia that:

| | Regarding the potential existence of any European regulation governing the erection of mobile telephone masts, the positioning of mobile telephone masts is a matter falling under the responsibility for local, regional and State authorities. |
| --- | --- |

Regarding the potential existence of any European regulation governing the erection of mobile telephone masts, the positioning of mobile telephone masts is a matter falling under the responsibility for local, regional and State authorities.

| | Union legislation governing radio products, including mobile telephone masts, obliges manufacturers to ensure that the products are safe when used for their intended purpose but national or local authorities may impose additional restrictions on the use of radio products, for instance, by prescribing minimum distances from the public, so as to ensure that telephone masts are appropriately installed. |
| --- | --- |

Union legislation governing radio products, including mobile telephone masts, obliges manufacturers to ensure that the products are safe when used for their intended purpose but national or local authorities may impose additional restrictions on the use of radio products, for instance, by prescribing minimum distances from the public, so as to ensure that telephone masts are appropriately installed.

| | Regarding the potential dangers of mobile telephone masts, the Community has further provided guidance on the safety levels to be respected by establishing a set of maximum exposure limits. |
| --- | --- |

Regarding the potential dangers of mobile telephone masts, the Community has further provided guidance on the safety levels to be respected by establishing a set of maximum exposure limits.

Can the Commission clarify the legal status of Council Recommendation 1999/519/EEC (2)? Specifically, does the guidance on the safety levels referred to in the Recommendation have only advisory effect, or would a Member State which failed to ensure that these guidelines were adhered to either by manufacturers or the appropriate planning authorities be in breach of Directive 1999/5/EC (3) (bearing in mind the general requirement contained in preamble 14 of the Directive that ‘care should be taken that radio equipment and telecommunications terminal equipment should not represent an avoidable hazard to health’) or any other EU legislation?

Is the Commission in a position to positively affirm that the regulations governing the erection of mobile telephone masts in each Member State conform to the requirements on manufacturers or others laid-down in Directive 1995/5/EC or does the Commission only investigate after a complaint is received?

Finally, does the Commission have information on which Member States insist that mobile telephone masts be located at least 500 metres away from schools and residential areas?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(14 April 2003)

The exposure limits of Council Recommendation 1999/519/EEC of 12 July 1999 on the limitation of exposure of the general public to electromagnetic fields (0 Hz to 300 GHz) are not binding on Member States, since recommendations are non binding pursuant to the EC Treaty. The majority of Member States, including the United Kingdom, have adopted them. While some Member States apply more stringent levels, no Member State applies less stringent levels.

As indicated in its reply to the Honourable Member's written question E-2736/00 (4), the Commission, in the application of radio and telecommunications terminal equipment (R&TTE) Directive 1999/5/EC (5), mandated the European Standardisation Organisations to take full account of these limits in drafting harmonised safety standards for mobile communications equipment. As a consequence, equipment which would expose the public beyond the levels of the Council Recommendation would clearly not comply with the essential safety requirements of the Directive. In such cases, article 9 of the Directive obliges Member States to take appropriate action against such non-compliant equipment.

Under article 7.2 of the R&TTE Directive, Member States may further restrict the putting into service of radio equipment in particular for reasons relating to public health. The Commission is aware of a large number of national and local regulations governing the erection of mobile telephone masts. Even though an extensive study of these regulations is practically impossible (as many of these regulations have been adopted at local level), the Commission is not aware of any national regulation which would impose requirements which would effectively relax the regime laid down in Directive 1999/5/EC.

As regards ensuring compliance by equipment with the requirements of the R&TTE Directive, this is primarily a task for Member States. Pursuant to Article 9 of the Directive, the role of the Commission is to arrive at an opinion on notified cases of non-compliance, not to take upon itself to start legal actions against equipment manufacturers. However, where Member States would fail to live up to their obligations to ensure such compliance, the Commission could start infringement procedures under article 226 of the EC Treaty. There are however no reasons for the Commission to believe that this is currently the case. Measurement campaigns, which were performed by a number of Member States have shown that exposure levels from mobile telephone masts were well below the limits of the Council Recommendation.

As regards the final question, the Commission is not aware of any regulations setting minimum distances which would have been adopted at Member State level. Some local authorities, in reaction to public concern, have adopted such type of regulations.

---

(1)  OJ C 137 E, 12.6.2003, p. 179.

(2)  OJ L 199, 30.7.1999, p. 59.

(3)  OJ L 91, 7.4.1999, p. 10.

(4)  OJ C 174 E, 19.6.2001.

(5)  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.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/333 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/333

---

(2004/C 88 E/0340)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0867/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(20 March 2003)

Subject:   Economic crisis in Venezuela

In the last few months the social, economic and political crisis in South America has worsened and is also affecting Venezuela.

There are many Italian nationals in Venezuela and one of the largest Italian communities in the world lives there, together with the Spanish community.

The current situation has led to the virtual collapse of all economic activities and the closure of businesses, leading to an enormous fall in profits for Italian firms operating in Venezuela and widespread unemployment.

All this is in effect causing a state of civil war, in which looting, murder, theft and robbery are commonplace, but no international institution is interested in finding an effective solution to the problem.

Now, after years of deprivation, European citizens living in Venezuela have still not been given any support by the EU.

In view of all this, can the Commission say:

| 1. | whether there are any specific aid programmes for the South American countries currently in a state of crisis; |
| --- | --- |

1.

whether there are any specific aid programmes for the South American countries currently in a state of crisis;

| 2. | whether there are any action programmes for the benefit of European citizens living in Venezuela? |
| --- | --- |

2.

whether there are any action programmes for the benefit of European citizens living in Venezuela?

Can it also give a general assessment of the situation?

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/334 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/334

---

(2004/C 88 E/0341)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0937/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(26 March 2003)

Subject:   Support for EU citizens living in Venezuela

In recent months the social, economic and political crisis in Venezuela has taken a dramatic turn for the worse, effectively triggering the collapse of all economic activities, with the consequent closure of companies and an exponential growth in unemployment, and throwing the country into something akin to civil war. Moreover, many Venezuelans, including high-ranking military officials, who have stated their opposition to the current president, Hugo Chavez, have been forced into exile.

Responsibility for the situation appears to lie primarily with President Chavez who, despite having been democratically elected, would seem to have quickly established an authoritarian regime and concentrated all the powers of state into his own hands.

Furthermore, according to those forced into exile, there is constant violation of even the most basic democratic principles, such as freedom of opinion and respect for human rights, which are enshrined in numerous international conventions and in the Charter on Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

Venezuela is home to European citizens from Spain and Portugal, and to one of the largest communities of Italians resident abroad who, in the fifty years and more they have lived in that country have made a noteworthy contribution to its development. However, it would appear that they have not to date received any support from the European Union and that international organisations have failed to show any real interest in them either.

Four and a half million signatures have so far been collected on a petition to the Venezuelan Parliament to organise new elections as swiftly as possible.

In the light of the above, could the Commission indicate:

| 1. | whether there are any specific aid agreements with Venezuela; |
| --- | --- |

1.

whether there are any specific aid agreements with Venezuela;

| 2. | whether there are any action programmes for EU citizens living in Venezuela; |
| --- | --- |

2.

whether there are any action programmes for EU citizens living in Venezuela;

| 3. | whether there is a consensus on this issue within the EU; |
| --- | --- |

3.

whether there is a consensus on this issue within the EU;

| 4. | what political action the EU will take with regard to this matter? |
| --- | --- |

4.

what political action the EU will take with regard to this matter?

Joint answer

to Written Questions E-0867/03 and E-0937/03

given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(30 April 2003)

The political, economic and social crisis remains unresolved in Venezuela and the high grade of polarisation creates serious difficulties in finding a rapid solution. The Venezuelan Government has been ambivalent towards the international community (notably the Organisation of American States (OAS)) in supporting the current negotiations with the opposition, and the latter is afraid that the President will use dilatory tactics to postpone a possible revocatory referendum to 2004. The economic situation will not improve significantly in the short run. A contraction of 20 % of gross domestic product in 2003 is forecast, which will cause higher unemployment, a decline of the standard of living and an increase in poverty. Government income will probably not reach pre-general strike levels during this year, which will make it difficult to satisfy social demands.

The Commission and the Member States are following the situation in Venezuela with great attention. Preoccupied by the evident split of society into supporters and opponents of President Chávez, the Union has emphasised, as has the OAS, the need for a peaceful, democratic, constitutional and electoral solution to the crisis. Two Member States (Spain and Portugal) are members of the ‘Group of Friends’, which has been created to support the OAS in its efforts.

There is no specific aid agreement between the Community and Venezuela, co-operation is based on the ‘Framework Agreement on Co-operation between the Community and the Andean Community’, which entered into force in 1998. A Memorandum of Understanding between the Community and Venezuela, signed on 15 October 2001, allocates an amount of EUR 38,5 million to bilateral co-operation for 2000-2006. It foresees support to Venezuela in the areas of reconstruction and prevention of disasters and economic diversification. An additional amount of EUR 25 million was made available to support the rehabilitation process.

Beyond this, in response to the current crisis, the Commission is financially supporting the OAS in facilitating the ongoing dialogue between the parties and the implementation of possible agreements on three main points: free and fair elections, investigation of the events of April 2002 and disarming the civilian population. The Commission is also prepared to send an electoral observation mission, if the referendum takes place.

Under the Community contribution towards operations in developing countries carried out by nongovernmental organisations (Budget line Β7-6000), the Commission is considering giving priority to proposals related to the social sector in Latin American countries, including Venezuela.

The Commission has not taken any specific action to protect Union citizens in Venezuela. Their protection and support is normally ensured by their countries of origin.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/335 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/335

---

(2004/C 88 E/0342)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0896/03

by Klaus-Heiner Lehne (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(21 March 2003)

Subject:   The German tax authorities' practices with regard to turnover tax

The German tax authorities are increasingly requiring firms not based in Germany to pay German turnover tax when goods are sent from the firm's place of business to customers in Germany. They take the view that sellers based abroad owe German turnover tax because they deliver to German customers. This is also the case when the goods are not transported directly to the German buyer, but placed in a warehouse by the haulage company contracted by the seller for the purpose of checking that the order is complete and in perfect condition. Only once the buyer has paid for the goods and they have been checked does the non-German seller release them from storage, i.e. the buyer collects them or has them collected. The German tax authorities work from the principle that, in spite of there already being a definite buyer, these goods are first transported to Germany for the seller's own purposes. This greatly obstructs intra-Community trade with Germany.

| 1. | How does the Commission view the German tax authorities' interpretation of the law? |
| --- | --- |

1.

How does the Commission view the German tax authorities' interpretation of the law?

| 2. | What measures will the Commission take if it judges that the behaviour of the German tax authorities violates Community legislation on turnover taxes? |
| --- | --- |

2.

What measures will the Commission take if it judges that the behaviour of the German tax authorities violates Community legislation on turnover taxes?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(7 May 2003)

The Honourable Member's question concerns the place where goods are deemed to be supplied when sellers established outside Germany sell to customers resident in Germany if the goods are first placed in the haulage company's warehouse where the buyer comes to collect them.

The answer depends on the circumstances specific to each transaction and the actual terms of the contracts between the sellers subject to VAT and their customers. In particular, the issue is whether the goods were transported as part of the supply or with a view to a possible supply.

The Commission is already aware of the matter raised by the Honourable Member and intends to contact the German authorities to clarify details of the practice.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/336 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/336

---

(2004/C 88 E/0343)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0900/03

by Richard Corbett (PSE) to the Commission

(21 March 2003)

Subject:   Internal market restrictions

| 1. | Is the Commission aware that Italy appears to be using technical administrative procedures as a protectionist device to squeeze out trade from companies from other Member States? In particular, SKOPOS Design Ltd of Dewsbury in Yorkshire obtained, over a year ago, the ‘certificato di classificazione di reazonaone al fuoco’ necessary to sell its products in Italy, but is still waiting for the ‘homologation’ from the Ministero dell'Interno. I personally wrote to this Ministry on 20 November 2002 and as yet have had no response. I have subsequently written twice to the Ambassador of the Italian Permanent Representation to the European Union in Brussels about this matter and have had no satisfactory response either. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is the Commission aware that Italy appears to be using technical administrative procedures as a protectionist device to squeeze out trade from companies from other Member States? In particular, SKOPOS Design Ltd of Dewsbury in Yorkshire obtained, over a year ago, the ‘certificato di classificazione di reazonaone al fuoco’ necessary to sell its products in Italy, but is still waiting for the ‘homologation’ from the Ministero dell'Interno. I personally wrote to this Ministry on 20 November 2002 and as yet have had no response. I have subsequently written twice to the Ambassador of the Italian Permanent Representation to the European Union in Brussels about this matter and have had no satisfactory response either.

| 2. | Does the Commission agree that Italy has failed to respect the rules of the internal market and the obligation of loyal cooperation laid down in Art. 10 of the Treaty? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Does the Commission agree that Italy has failed to respect the rules of the internal market and the obligation of loyal cooperation laid down in Art. 10 of the Treaty?

| 3. | What action will the Commission take to rectify this situation? |
| --- | --- |

3.

What action will the Commission take to rectify this situation?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(25 April 2003)

The Commission is aware that authorisation procedures existing for a certain number of products in all the Member States risk to create problems to free movement of goods, often due to the time required by national administrations to carry the procedure out even when these procedures are lightened as much as possible.

The excessive delay for obtaining an answer to the request of authorisation in the case referred by the Honourable Member is certainly regrettable, as it is regrettable the silence of the Italian authorities to whom the Honourable Member requested clarifications twice. Therefore, the case will be registered as a complaint.

In order to reinforce the administrative co-operation and directly involve Member States in handling difficulties that their citizens and enterprises face for entering other domestic markets, a co-operation network has been created to deal with administrative problems having a cross-border impact. This network is called Solvit.

A short presentation of the mission of Solvit and some tips to contact the network are available at the following address: (http://europa.eu.int/comm/internal_market/solvit/index_en.htm).

The Commission considers that Solvit can efficiently deal with the problem the Honourable Member brings to the attention of the Commission. Accordingly, the file will be transmitted to the Solvit network, that will try to solve the problem within ten weeks.

The Commission will closely follow the development of the case.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/337 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/337

---

(2004/C 88 E/0344)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0921/03

by José Ribeiro e Castro (UEN) to the Commission

(24 March 2003)

Subject:   East Timor — 1999 massacres; trial of those responsible; Indonesia; human rights

On 12 March an Indonesian brigadier-general was sentenced to five years' imprisonment by a special court in Jakarta on charges of crimes against humanity, because he did prevent the massacres committed in East Timor in 1999. At the time General Noer Muis held the rank of colonel and was the military commander of East Timor.

The judicial process of finding out who was responsible for the acts of oppression and genocide perpetrated, encouraged or tolerated by the Indonesian forces is being called a ‘sham’ by international human rights groups, because the accused do not include senior military commanders such as General Wiranto, who was Commander of the Armed forces and Minister of Defence.

On 19 December 2002 the written question (E-3865/02 (1)) to the Council tabled by Jules Maaten and Lousewies van der Laan asked ‘does the Council recognise that the trials on East Timor show, as the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights states, that Indonesia has not taken responsibility for crimes against humanity in East Timor?’ The answer to the question is not yet known.

Since the court in question seems to have been set up as a result of international pressure exerted on the Indonesian Government to ensure that those responsible for crimes committed in East Timor were prosecuted and punished, can the Commission say:

| — | whether it has followed the deliberations of the court closely; whether it can confirm that the then Indonesian military leaders are not being charged; if so, whether it considers that this lends credibility to the court and Indonesia's declared intention to establish the truth and punish the guilty; or whether it rather confirms the concern expressed by the Council in the earlier question of 12 June 2001 (E-1646/01 (2)) on the same subject ‘that recent judgements did not seem to meet international standards of justice and fairness’; |
| --- | --- |

—

whether it has followed the deliberations of the court closely; whether it can confirm that the then Indonesian military leaders are not being charged; if so, whether it considers that this lends credibility to the court and Indonesia's declared intention to establish the truth and punish the guilty; or whether it rather confirms the concern expressed by the Council in the earlier question of 12 June 2001 (E-1646/01 (2)) on the same subject ‘that recent judgements did not seem to meet international standards of justice and fairness’;

| — | will the Commission have information concerning the Indonesian Government's ability to place the military under civilian control? What information does it have regarding respect for human rights in Indonesia; |
| --- | --- |

—

will the Commission have information concerning the Indonesian Government's ability to place the military under civilian control? What information does it have regarding respect for human rights in Indonesia;

| — | might these issues have an impact on relations between the European Union and Indonesia? In particular, might the Commission consider reviewing the projects for cooperation and development with that country? |
| --- | --- |

—

might these issues have an impact on relations between the European Union and Indonesia? In particular, might the Commission consider reviewing the projects for cooperation and development with that country?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(6 May 2003)

The Commission through its Delegation in Indonesia has been following closely, in co-ordination with representatives of Union embassies, the proceedings of the Indonesian Ad-Hoc Human Rights Tribunal for Crimes Committed in East Timor.

Brigadier General Noer Muis is among 18 Indonesian officials and militiamen who have been tried for the violence which erupted before and after the referendum in East Timor in 1999. Noer Muis was sentenced on 12 March 2003 to five years in jail for failing to prevent two fatal attacks against civilians.

The Tribunal of first instance has so far acquitted 12 defendants. Two lower-ranking officers and two civilians have been sentenced to imprisonment ranging from three to ten years. The trials of two other people are still in progress: Brigadier General Tono Suratman, Military Commander, and Major General Adam Damiri, the former chief Bali based Udayana Military Command overseeing Bali, Nusa Tenggara and East Timor. It is expected that the verdicts of these trials will be delivered in early May 2003.

On 21 August 2002, the Union issued a Declaration, following the delivery of the Tribunal's first verdicts, in which it expressed its concern ‘that the proceedings, so far, have not taken full account of the violence that took place in East Timor in 1999’ and urged ‘the Indonesian authorities to ensure that the proceedings of the Tribunal take place in conformity with the rule of law — and in full respect of the international human rights standards’.

The Union is reviewing the Tribunal's activities constantly and may address this issue further, possibly on the occasion of the issuing of the last expected verdict in early May 2003 and before the launch of the appeals process.

The Commission feels that with the holding of the 1999 elections Indonesia has taken a further important step in its transition from an autocratic regime to a fully-fledged democracy. The forthcoming Presidential and Parliamentarian elections of 2004 will strengthen this process, notably as regards efforts to bring the military under full civilian control. However, the Commission considers that much remains to be done in this respect.

The Commission Delegation and the Member States embassies in Indonesia monitor the human rights situation in this country in a thorough and continuous manner and report regularly to the Council Group on Human Rights. The latest such report was prepared in spring 2002.

Human rights are a central plank in the enhanced political dialogue between the Union and Indonesia. The Commission's Country Strategy Paper (2002-2006) and National Indicative Programme (2002-2004) for Indonesia puts a strong emphasis on the promotion of good governance and on the strengthening of the judicial system and of human rights. Community-supported programmes in these important areas are either ongoing or under preparation.

---

(1)  OJ C 280 E, 21.11.2003, p. 30.

(2)  OJ C 40 E, 14.2.2002, p. 70.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/339 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/339

---

(2004/C 88 E/0345)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1180/03

by Marco Pannella (NI), Emma Bonino (NI), Marco Cappato (NI), Gianfranco Dell'Alba (NI) and Benedetto Della Vedova (NI) to the Commission

(1 April 2003)

Subject:   Secret Vietnamese prison set up next to the Cambodian border for the detention of Montagnards repatriated after having requested asylum; cases of arrest, torture and disappearance

Various independent observers have reported that the Vietnamese government has set up a secret prison on the border with Cambodia in Mokdeng district, Pleiku province, where the 773rd military division and the 721st military brigade are detaining 28 Montagnard (Degar) refugees repatriated by Cambodia.

On 12 February 2003, the Vietnamese police arrested, and took to the prison in Buonmathuot, N'Gran (39 years old, from Buon Dak R'la, Dak Mil district, Dak Lac province) because he was in possession of a mobile phone which, according to the government, was used to maintain contacts with Montagnards in the US; his physical condition is unknown.

On 13 February 2003, at about 10 p.m., the Vietnamese police arrested Y-Dhem Nie (36 years old, from Buon Ea Kao, Buonmathuot district, Dak Lac province) because he had given food to another two Degars who were in hiding in the jungle; his whereabouts and condition are unknown.

On 14 February 2003 the police arrested, in Buonmathuot, Y-Suar (33 years old, from Buon Jun Yuh, Dak Mil district, Dak Lac province); his physical condition is unknown.

On 17 February 2003 Y-Yan Buon Ya (37) and H'Powel Nie (31), a married couple, fled into the jungle to avoid being arrested by the security forces, leaving at home their two children H'Nong Nie (9) and Y-Le Nie (6).

On 22 February 2003, at about 11 a.m., the Vietnamese police arrested and took to Buonmathuot prison Y-Dhun Eban (42, from Buon Krue, Krong Ana district, Dak Lac province), who had gone into hiding to avoid arrest. On the following day his sister H'Nget Eban and her husband Y-Lia Ken, both 28 years old, were arrested and taken to Buonmathuot prison because they were suspected of having given assistance to Y-Dhun Eban.

In view of the foregoing detailed information, would the Commission state:

| 1. | whether it intends to ask the Vietnamese Government to explain why Montagnards are being systematically arrested and maltreated by the security forces? |
| --- | --- |

1.

whether it intends to ask the Vietnamese Government to explain why Montagnards are being systematically arrested and maltreated by the security forces?

| 2. | whether it intends to ask the Vietnamese authorities to grant international agencies such as UNHCR and other NGOs full and immediate access to Vietnam's Central Highlands and the regions on the Cambodian border, where there is systematic abuse of human rights, as requested by the United Nations Commission on Human Rights in its conclusions of 27 June 2000 and whether, if the Vietnamese government continues to deny such access, the Commission intends to denounce the cooperation agreement signed with Vietnam, which is clearly conditional on respect for human rights and democracy in Vietnam? |
| --- | --- |

2.

whether it intends to ask the Vietnamese authorities to grant international agencies such as UNHCR and other NGOs full and immediate access to Vietnam's Central Highlands and the regions on the Cambodian border, where there is systematic abuse of human rights, as requested by the United Nations Commission on Human Rights in its conclusions of 27 June 2000 and whether, if the Vietnamese government continues to deny such access, the Commission intends to denounce the cooperation agreement signed with Vietnam, which is clearly conditional on respect for human rights and democracy in Vietnam?

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/340 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/340

---

(2004/C 88 E/0346)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1181/03

by Marco Pannella (NI), Emma Bonino (NI), Marco Cappato (NI), Gianfranco Dell'Alba (NI) and Benedetto Della Vedova (NI) to the Commission

(1 April 2003)

Subject:   Arrest by the Vietnamese authorities of Montagnards suspected of supporting the Montagnard Foundation, of being Christians and of recruiting members for the Transnational Radical Party

The following Montagnards (Degar) have been arrested because they were suspected of supporting the Montagnard Foundation, of being Christians and of collecting the names of Montagnards wishing to join an NGO with consultative status at the UN (the Transnational Radical Party), which promotes the enforcement of human rights world-wide by non-violent means:

| — | at around noon on 28 January 2003: Y-Nen Buon Ya (24) and Y-Ne Buon Ya (27), from the hamlet of Buon Buor, Cu Jut district; Y-Ne Buon Ya has been tortured (beating and electric shock) in Cu Jut prison; |
| --- | --- |

—

at around noon on 28 January 2003: Y-Nen Buon Ya (24) and Y-Ne Buon Ya (27), from the hamlet of Buon Buor, Cu Jut district; Y-Ne Buon Ya has been tortured (beating and electric shock) in Cu Jut prison;

| — | on 29 January 2003: Y-Thim Eban (57) and Y-Seo Buon Ya (29), from Buon Kdun, Buonmathuot district; there has been no news of either of them since; |
| --- | --- |

—

on 29 January 2003: Y-Thim Eban (57) and Y-Seo Buon Ya (29), from Buon Kdun, Buonmathuot district; there has been no news of either of them since;

| — | on 12 February 2003: Y-Mul Buon Ya (39), from the village of Buon Cu Dlue, Cu Jut district: tortured in Cu Jut prison; |
| --- | --- |

—

on 12 February 2003: Y-Mul Buon Ya (39), from the village of Buon Cu Dlue, Cu Jut district: tortured in Cu Jut prison;

| — | around noon on 12 February 2003: Y-Ngoan Buon Ya (41), from the village of Buon Nui, Cu Jut district: tortured in Cu Jut prison; |
| --- | --- |

—

around noon on 12 February 2003: Y-Ngoan Buon Ya (41), from the village of Buon Nui, Cu Jut district: tortured in Cu Jut prison;

| — | at around 3 a.m. on 13 February 2003: Y-Uen Buon Krong (27), from the hamlet of Buon Buor, Cu Jut district: detained in Cu Jut; |
| --- | --- |

—

at around 3 a.m. on 13 February 2003: Y-Uen Buon Krong (27), from the hamlet of Buon Buor, Cu Jut district: detained in Cu Jut;

| — | on 24 February 2003: Y-Gedion Nie (42), from the hamlet of Buon Tong Ju, Krong Ana district: detained in cells at the former radio station in Buonmathuot, where he has been tortured; |
| --- | --- |

—

on 24 February 2003: Y-Gedion Nie (42), from the hamlet of Buon Tong Ju, Krong Ana district: detained in cells at the former radio station in Buonmathuot, where he has been tortured;

| — | on 27 February 2003:Y-Put Hdok, from the hamlet of Buon Cuor Knia, Buon Don district: there has been no news of Y-Put Hdok since then. |
| --- | --- |

—

on 27 February 2003:Y-Put Hdok, from the hamlet of Buon Cuor Knia, Buon Don district: there has been no news of Y-Put Hdok since then.

In the light of the foregoing detailed information, would the Commission state:

| 1. | what action it intends to take to establish and ensure that those responsible for these atrocities against Montagnards are duly tried and that the victims of their violence are freed immediately? |
| --- | --- |

1.

what action it intends to take to establish and ensure that those responsible for these atrocities against Montagnards are duly tried and that the victims of their violence are freed immediately?

| 2. | its view of the fact that the Vietnamese Government regards as a criminal act the exercise of an individual's political right to join an NGO with consultative status with Ecosoc and the UN, such as the Transnational Radical Party, which promotes the enforcement of international law on human rights by non-violent means? |
| --- | --- |

2.

its view of the fact that the Vietnamese Government regards as a criminal act the exercise of an individual's political right to join an NGO with consultative status with Ecosoc and the UN, such as the Transnational Radical Party, which promotes the enforcement of international law on human rights by non-violent means?

| 3. | whether it regards the behaviour of the Vietnamese authorities as compatible with the cooperation agreements signed with the Vietnamese Government, which consistently orders its own security forces to imprison, beat up and torture Montagnards who try to exercise their fundamental rights of freedom of religion, freedom of opinion, freedom of assembly and freedom of association, as enshrined in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights ratified by Vietnam? |
| --- | --- |

3.

whether it regards the behaviour of the Vietnamese authorities as compatible with the cooperation agreements signed with the Vietnamese Government, which consistently orders its own security forces to imprison, beat up and torture Montagnards who try to exercise their fundamental rights of freedom of religion, freedom of opinion, freedom of assembly and freedom of association, as enshrined in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights ratified by Vietnam?

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/341 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/341

---

(2004/C 88 E/0347)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1182/03

by Marco Pannella (NI), Emma Bonino (NI), Marco Cappato (NI), Gianfranco Dell'Alba (NI) and Benedetto Della Vedova (NI) to the Commission

(1 April 2003)

Subject:   Individual cases of arbitrary arrest and torture of Montagnards (Degar) by the Vietnamese authorities

On 15 March 2003, the Montagnard Foundation and ABC Radio Australia reported that, at around 7 a.m. on 24 February 2003, security officials arrested the following Montagnards (Degar) from the village of Buon Cuor Knia (Buon Don district, in the province of Dak Lac) who were members of the Transnational Radical Party: Y-Phan Buon Krong, born in 1950, Y-Be Nie, born in 1945, Y-Pen Buon Ya, born in 1970, Y-Glen Buon Krong, born in 1976 and Y-Gun Hwing, born in 1974. These persons were arrested because they were suspected of supporting the Montagnard Foundation, of being Christians and of collecting the names of Montagnards wishing to join an NGO with consultative status at the UN (the Transnational Radical Party), which promotes the enforcement of human rights world-wide by non-violent means. They were handcuffed and beaten unconscious with clubs and rocks in front of their relatives; in particular, the security officials repeatedly smashed the knees of Y-Phan Buon Krong and Y-Glen Buon Krong with a large rock. The five men were then taken to the Buon Don district prison. The Vietnamese officials who tortured each of them in turn are Nguyen Truong That and Pham Huu Nhat, both of whom had been sent to the Central Highlands by the government authorities in Hanoi.

In the light of the foregoing detailed information, would the Commission state:

| 1. | what action it intends to take to establish and ensure that those responsible for these atrocities against Montagnards are duly tried and that the victims of their violence are freed immediately? |
| --- | --- |

1.

what action it intends to take to establish and ensure that those responsible for these atrocities against Montagnards are duly tried and that the victims of their violence are freed immediately?

| 2. | its view of the fact that the Vietnamese Government regards as a criminal act the exercise of an individual's political right to join an NGO with consultative status with Ecosoc and the UN, such as the Transnational Radical Party, which promotes the enforcement of international law on human rights by non-violent means? |
| --- | --- |

2.

its view of the fact that the Vietnamese Government regards as a criminal act the exercise of an individual's political right to join an NGO with consultative status with Ecosoc and the UN, such as the Transnational Radical Party, which promotes the enforcement of international law on human rights by non-violent means?

| 3. | whether it regards the behaviour of the Vietnamese authorities as compatible with the cooperation agreements signed with the Vietnamese Government, which consistently orders its own security forces to imprison, beat up and torture Montagnards who try to exercise their fundamental rights of freedom of religion, freedom of opinion, freedom of assembly and freedom of association, as enshrined in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights ratified by Vietnam? |
| --- | --- |

3.

whether it regards the behaviour of the Vietnamese authorities as compatible with the cooperation agreements signed with the Vietnamese Government, which consistently orders its own security forces to imprison, beat up and torture Montagnards who try to exercise their fundamental rights of freedom of religion, freedom of opinion, freedom of assembly and freedom of association, as enshrined in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights ratified by Vietnam?

Joint answer

to Written Questions E-1180/03, E-1181/03 and E-1182/03

given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(13 May 2003)

The Commission, together with the Member States represented in Vietnam, monitors closely human rights developments in Vietnam, including individual cases of concern and issues related to the rights of ethnic minorities, freedom of religion and freedom of opinion, as part of the policy of the Union to encourage and support the continued commitment of the Government of Vietnam to progress in the field of human rights. The Commission also participates with the Member States in regular dialogue with and in all démarches to the Government of Vietnam on human rights issues. It has not so far been possible to obtain independent confirmation of the alleged cases of human rights abuses that the Honourable Members refer to in their questions.

Moreover, the Member States as members and the Commission as observer fully support the work of the United Nations (UN) High Commissioner for Human Rights and actively work with the UN Committee for Human Rights. The Commission shares the concerns and concluding observations expressed by the UN Human Rights Committee concerning the implementation of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to which Vietnam is a party. This is particularly true for the Committee's observations pertaining to the respect of the rights of members of indigenous communities, the freedom of expression in the media and the right to register and freely operate political parties.

The Commission and Member States have repeatedly urged the Government of Vietnam to strengthen its respect for political and religious freedoms, as well as further strengthen economic and social freedoms. They again expressed this request in their joint declaration at the Consultative Group meeting in Hanoi in December 2002.

The reference to the respect for Human Rights and democratic principles in Article 1 of the Commission-Vietnam Co-operation Agreement constitutes the enabling framework for the Human Rights dialogue of the Commission with the Government of Vietnam, for instance in the context of Joint Commission meetings.

The Commission, together with the Member States, will continue to follow closely the human rights situation in Vietnam, including the cases that have been mentioned by the Honourable Members, and raise specific concerns with the Government of Vietnam and take appropriate action.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/342 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/342

---

(2004/C 88 E/0348)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1209/03

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(2 April 2003)

Subject:   Distribution of infant milk in African countries

While the World Health Organisation (WHO) advises against the advertising of milk powder for babies in order to promote breastfeeding, companies producing milk and manufacturing infant milk powder, for example Nestlé and Danone, have infringed WHO guidelines, arguing that they are seeking to reduce child mortality and are distributing milk powder and other items to pregnant women, for example stethoscopes, free of charge. In the accompanying advertising material they maintain that their milk is comparable to breast milk.

Given that such actions infringe WHO guidelines regarding the promotion of breastfeeding and given the European interests in these companies, what action will the Commission take in response to this situation?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(21 May 2003)

The Commission fully supports the International Code of Marketing of Breast-milk substitutes, which was adopted by the World Health Assembly in 1981. The Commission is aware and concerned that there are still baby food companies that do not adhere to the Code and governments which have not implemented its provisions. The Commission will continue to encourage the compliance of the private sector, and particularly the companies, mentioned by the Honourable Member, with the International Code of Marketing of Breast-milk substitutes in the context of the European Union Corporate Social Responsibility Stakeholders Forum and associated dialogues and partnerships.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/343 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/343

---

(2004/C 88 E/0349)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1247/03

by Robert Evans (PSE) to the Commission

(2 April 2003)

Subject:   Burmese refugees

Is the Commission aware of the current plight of Burmese refugees inside Thailand?

Constituents have raised concerns around the Thai Government's inability to cope with the refugees and the Government's desire to close the refugee camps and return them across the border. Is the European Union providing any financial or diplomatic support to the Thai Government or the refugees to prevent a human rights disaster?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(7 May 2003)

The Commission is well aware of the situation of Burmese refugees, mainly of ethnic minority origin, sheltered in camps on the Thai-Burma border.

The Commission is currently one of the most important donors to the Burmese refugee population in Thailand. Its assistance, implemented by European non-governmental organisations (NGOs), predominantly takes the form of provision of food and basic goods teamed with medical assistance and training. During the last years the Commission has provided between EUR 7 and 7,5 million per year to these activities.

The Commission Delegation in Thailand follows the situation of the Burmese refugees very closely, through direct visits to the camps and via frequent contacts with NGOs and other organisations supporting the refugee population.

In addition, the Commission continues to have an open dialogue with the Thai authorities about the situation in the refugee camps and on its policy towards the Burmese refugees. Its concerns regarding the treatment of Burmese refugees and reports of forced deportations by Thai authorities have been raised in recent bilateral meetings, such as the Community-Thailand Senior Officials' Meeting which took place on 29 and 30 January 2003 in Brussels.

The Commission will continue to monitor the situation and remains ready to take further action should the situation of the Burmese refugees deteriorate dramatically.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/343 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/343

---

(2004/C 88 E/0350)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1251/03

by Carlos Bautista Ojeda (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(26 March 2003)

Subject:   Crisis in the European tourist industry

At the end of 2002 the possibility that an armed conflict might break out in Iraq put a freeze on the reserves for summer 2003 and this brought to a halt the tentative recovery which the tourist industry had been experiencing since the middle of 2002. The outbreak of war in Iraq has only made matters worse.

This state of uncertainty may have a damaging effect on the European tourist industry and, consequently, on the EU's economy.

Has the Commission done anything to alleviate this state of affairs and if so, what? If not, is it intending to take any action?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(23 April 2003)

The Commission has no evidence that the ongoing armed conflict in Iraq would result in a general crisis of the European tourism sector. It is aware of difficulties increasingly noticed for certain segments of the tourism industry in particular big tour operators and their mainstream package travel product. There is, however, uncertainty as to what extent these phenomena should be attributed to the Iraq conflict, or to general problems of national economies or rapid changes in tourist consumer preferences and in the way that tourists appraise and buy the product. The Commission would also not exclude that any potential impact of the Iraq conflict on the tourist consumer choice could effect certain regional destinations in Europe more than others. The situation can therefore not be faced with general measures, but would require a differentiated and fine-tuned response.

Prior to the military intervention in Iraq, the Commission consulted with the European tourism industry on what measures in respect of tourism the Commission should undertake in the case of such event. It raised this issue also in the framework of the World Tourism Organisation's Recovery Committee, early in March 2003.

The reaction received from tourism professionals indicated that no specific action should be taken as long as the armed conflict in Iraq was underway. The sector felt that the support they would need during that time was travel advice, messages that the sector is prepared for the situation, national contingency plans etc., which however do not fall under Community competence. However, the European tourism industry and the international sector bodies indicated that significant measures should be envisaged after the military actions have come to an end. Nevertheless, it also considers that these measures should largely focus on marketing and promotion of European tourism, which is a sphere for which the Commission had until now, neither a mandate nor the specific means.

Given the current uncertainty as to how long the armed conflict in Iraq will last, the Commission and the European tourism industry agreed to look in detail at the issues in due time. However, the Commission will carefully observe the developments in the tourism industry and is prepared for more careful analysis as it had done after the 11 September 2001.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/344 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/344

---

(2004/C 88 E/0351)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1287/03

by Olivier Dupuis (NI) to the Commission

(31 March 2003)

Subject:   Macabre electoral farce in Chechnya

Several newspapers, including The Financial Times, Le Monde and Libération, as well as eye-witness reports, state that the ‘referendum’ organised by the Kremlin on Sunday, 23 March on the adoption of a new ‘constitution’ by the people of Chechnya — and Russian troops — was conducted in a completely irregular manner. According to the Russian authorities, 65 % of the electorate took part in the vote and 95 % of the voters who went to the polling booths voted in favour of the ‘constitution’ proposed by the Kremlin. However, according to the information gathered by various international correspondents, the polling stations were equipped with ‘supplementary electoral rolls’ which made all kinds of manipulation possible, to the extent that a French journalist even managed to add his name to the electoral roll and vote at polling station No 372. According to the same reports, a bus service was organised to take groups of ‘voters’ from one polling station to another in order to give the impression of a constant flow of voters and, in all likelihood, to swell the ‘supplementary rolls’ with new voters. Lastly, according to a representative of the OSCE, who emphasised that he was not there as an observer, the circumstances surrounding the organisation and conduct of the vote were ‘far from ideal’.

Does the Commission consider that the statements by its spokesman, to the effect that the referendum might represent a firm step towards a political solution that would satisfy the majority of the Chechens, square with the information which suggests that it was no more than a macabre electoral farce organised by the Kremlin? Will the Commission rectify without delay the irresponsible statements made by its spokesman, and clearly indicate to the authorities of the Russian Federation that it cannot be taken in by such crass behaviour, which is far removed from democratic practices and from the criteria that govern Russia's membership of the Council of Europe? Will the Commission take genuine steps to induce Mr Putin and Mr Maskhadov to negotiate a political solution to the Chechen tragedy?

Answer given by M. Patten on behalf of the Commission

(15 April 2003)

According to information provided by the Russian authorities, voter turnout in the constitutional referendum, which took place in Chechnya on Sunday 23 March 2003, is estimated at 85 %. The vote in favour of the draft constitution was 95 %.

The Commission did not monitor the referendum. The Office of Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR) (Organisation on Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE)), which sent an expert team to the Russian republic at the time of the poll, also concluded in advance that it could not monitor the referendum on account, inter alia, of the security situation in Chechnya. ODIHR did, however, note that many inhabitants of Chechnya and internally displaced persons hope that the referendum will lead to a political process and bring peace and stability.

The Commission is aware of reports of certain irregularities that took place during the vote. The Commission, nevertheless, hopes that the referendum may mark a first step towards a political solution to the Chechnya conflict and to the re-establishment of the rule of law in the republic.

As the Commission's spokesman stated in the aftermath of the referendum, this can only be achieved, if serious efforts are taken to address a number of issues, which have been repeatedly raised by the Commission in the context of the Union's political dialogue with Russia. The Commission position is that Russia should pursue a political, inclusive, solution, which must respect Russia's sovereignty and territorial integrity. There should be an immediate end to disappearances and human rights violations followed by the thorough, independent investigation and prosecution of those responsible. Russia should also guarantee that there will be no forced return of internally displaced persons, as well as permit the safe and effective delivery of humanitarian aid. This position is reflected in discussions on a resolution on Chechnya at the 59th United Nations Committee on Human Rights (UNCHR), which is now in session in Geneva.

The Commission will closely follow developments in the coming months, in particular the Russian intention to negotiate a treaty between the federal centre and Chechnya — clarifying Chechnya's status in the Russian Federation — and proposed Presidential and Duma elections for the republic.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/345 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/345

---

(2004/C 88 E/0352)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1290/03

by Camilo Nogueira Román (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(4 April 2003)

Subject:   Anti-dumping measures applicable to the import of ferroalloys; the problem of the firm Ferroatlántica, located in Cee and Dumbria on the Costa da Morte in Galicia

The development of the business of the firm Ferroatlántica, which manufactures ferroalloys and is of fundamental importance for the economy of the Costa da Morte in Galicia, is affected by the EU's importing these products at dumping prices from countries such as China, Kazakhstan, Russia and Ukraine. In view of the non-legitimate interests of the steel producers promoting these imports — quite apart from the unfair competition involved — ferroalloy manufacturers such as Ferroatlántica are urging the Commission to impose effective anti-dumping measures. The Commission started proceedings aimed at the adoption of anti-dumping measures, which did not meet with the approval of European ferroalloy manufacturers, since they seem to favour the steel manufacturers who use cheap imported products. What progress has been made on this issue, which affects the viability of companies like Ferroatlántica?

Answer given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(7 May 2003)

The Commission pays careful attention to problems of unfair trade suffered by the Community industry, and initiates investigations and proposes the imposition of remedial measures if the legal conditions are met. In the case of anti-dumping investigations, measures may be imposed by the Council if it is found that dumped products materially injure the Community industry, and that such measures would not be against the global interest of all economic operators concerned.

Based on duly documented requests by the Community ferroalloy industry, the Commission initiated 37 anti-dumping investigations concerning unfair trade in ferroalloys over the last ten years. This has led to the imposition of measures in 30 cases, seven of which continue to be under measures. The last investigation was initiated in October 2002 regarding imports of silicon metal originating in Russia—and in the same month a review investigation of the measures on the same product originating in China. These investigations are on-going, and it is expected that they will be concluded within 15 months after initiation. Should they confirm that unfair trade practices exist, the Commission will propose the extension of measures for five years for Chinese products, and the imposition, equally for five years, of remedial measures against Russian products.

Should any other unfair trade problems occur, the Commission remains, as always in the past, disposed to examine substantiated claims by the Community industry.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/346 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/346

---

(2004/C 88 E/0353)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1294/03

by José Ribeiro e Castro (UEN) to the Commission

(7 April 2003)

Subject:   Venezuela — democratic solution to the crisis

Thanks to the initiative taken by former US President Jimmy Carter, the agreement reached between President Chávez and the Venezuelan opposition means that there are two options for ending the conflict between the two sides: either a constitutional amendment limiting the presidential mandate, or a referendum revoking that mandate.

Carter believes that the constitutional amendment would be more rapid and feasible. The referendum, which is covered by the current Constitution, could take place from 19 August 2003, when Chávez's mandate reaches its halfway point. The President apparently prefers this second option.

Negotiations are still going on.

The media have reported that Rafael Alonso, a member of the leadership of Coordinadora Democrática, has now protested that Chávez, having promised that he would submit his mandate to the will of the people on 19 August, and even criticised the opposition for its impatience, has now, in his latest television appearance, made it clear that he is thinking of going to full term in 2006 after all.

The Commission:

| — | what information does it have about the way the negotiations are going; |
| --- | --- |

—

what information does it have about the way the negotiations are going;

| — | what approaches has it made or does it intend to make to the Venezuelan Presidency with a view to encouraging the end of a crisis which is affecting the whole of Venezuelan society, so that one of these two options is really taken up, thus ensuring a democratic solution? |
| --- | --- |

—

what approaches has it made or does it intend to make to the Venezuelan Presidency with a view to encouraging the end of a crisis which is affecting the whole of Venezuelan society, so that one of these two options is really taken up, thus ensuring a democratic solution?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(15 May 2003)

Since the start of the negotiations on 8 November 2002 between representatives of the Government of Venezuela and the ‘Coordinadora Democrática’ (organised opposition), two agreements have been reached. The first was a Pact against Violence, reached in February 2003. The second agreement was presented by the Organisation of American States (OAS) facilitator on 11 April 2003 and was due to be signed on 22 April 2003. This ‘pre-agreement’ moves towards a possible revocatory referendum on the mandate of President Chávez, once he reaches half term on the 19 August 2003, as provided by the Constitution. It seems that the opposition is ready to sign it while the government has presented some amendments. The signing of the agreement was postponed. However the government is under international pressure, mainly from members of the ‘Group of Friends’, to accept and sign it.

The main disagreement during the negotiations on this ‘pre-agreement’ has been whether the sitting president can participate in the new elections should his mandate be revoked through the referendum. An opposition party demanded clarification on this point from the Supreme Court, which is yet to be issued.

The ‘pre-agreement’ includes the role of the international actors, naming the United Nations Development Programme, Carter Center and OAS as international guarantors. The Group of Friends has expressed its satisfaction with the latest developments and its readiness to assist in the future process.

The Commission and the Member States are following the situation in Venezuela with great attention. Preoccupied by the evident split of society into supporters and opponents of President Chávez, the Union has expressed in several declarations (October and December 2002, January 2003) its full support for the OAS efforts, and the Group of Friends, to facilitate a national dialogue between the Government and the ‘Coordinadora Democrática’ (organised opposition) as well as other relevant sectors of society. The Union has emphasised the need for a peaceful, democratic, constitutional and electoral solution to the crisis. Two Member States (Spain and Portugal) are members of the Group of Friends.

Furthermore, the Commission is financially supporting the OAS in facilitating the ongoing dialogue between the parties and the implementation of possible agreements on three main points: free and fair elections, creation of a Truth Commission to investigate the events of April 2002 and disarming the civilian population. The Commission is also prepared to send an electoral observation mission, in the event that an electoral consultation takes place and the Venezuelan government requests such a mission.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/347 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/347

---

(2004/C 88 E/0354)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1296/03

by José Ribeiro e Castro (UEN) to the Commission

(7 April 2003)

Subject:   Clashes in southern Nigeria

There are reports that clashes between the army and rival gangs of ethnic militants have caused dozens of deaths in southern Nigeria, in the oil-rich Niger delta. Local inhabitants fleeing the fighting, which has been going on for several days, are talking of indiscriminate shooting by soldiers and rebels alike, and the wholesale burning of entire villages. Apparently, the clashes involved two local communities, Ijaw and Itsekiri, and have already brought thousands of soldiers into the region. Leaders of the Ijaw community were claiming that 50 militants were killed in fighting with navy and army forces during clashes in the locality of Okorenkoro, on Thursday. They are complaining that they were encircled by the troops on returning to their villages. International petroleum companies operating in the area made hundreds of local inhabitants leave the area at the end of the week, and the clashes have already led the three companies operating there, Chevron Texaco, Shell and the Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation, to reduce their output. The Nigerian President, Olusegun Obasanjo, has already issued a serious warning to the effect that the level of violence is beginning to threaten the successful holding of the elections scheduled for next month.

The Commission:

| — | what information does the Commission have about the situation? Are the elections at risk; |
| --- | --- |

—

what information does the Commission have about the situation? Are the elections at risk;

| — | what approaches have been made or are to be made to the Nigerian authorities? |
| --- | --- |

—

what approaches have been made or are to be made to the Nigerian authorities?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(6 May 2003)

The Commission is following the security situation in Delta State in Southern Nigeria very closely. There were large-scale outbreaks of violence in February 2003 and March 2003 in and around Warri which left dozens dead and several villages destroyed in fighting first between Urhobos and Itsekiris, and then between Ijaws and Itsekiris. A large military contingent was deployed to the area in March 2003 amid reports of indiscriminate attacks by the security forces on Ijaw communities, in retaliation to the killing of four soldiers.

This violence seems in part triggered by local political interests in the run-up to the April 2003 elections, with disputes over the sharing of councillor posts between the principal ethnic groups, but also feeds on frustration at the lack of development in the area despite the enormous oil wealth. This has precipitated attacks on oil company installations and most recently the blowing up of two pipelines, leading the companies to shut down production and withdraw staff for safety reasons.

The situation remains volatile and tense. The Delta State Commissioner announced the deployment of 7 000 police to cover 3 500 polling booths for the elections. The Independent National Electoral Commission said that it required special security arrangements to conduct elections in the State of Delta.

The Union and a number of other organisations had election observer teams in the country. The Union team numbering 111 observers was deployed as planned and observed serious irregularities in the conduct of the Presidential and Gubernatorial elections in Delta State. Their observations are detailed in their Second Preliminary Statement issued on 22nd April 2003. The Commission Delegation, in co-ordination with the representatives of Member States monitored the security situation in the country in the run-up to the elections. They did not recommend an approach to the Nigerian Authorities specifically on the problems in Delta State.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/349 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/349

---

(2004/C 88 E/0355)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1310/03

by Bill Newton Dunn (ELDR) to the Commission

(7 April 2003)

Subject:   The situation of the Nigerian national, Mr Abubakir, a practising Christian

The Commission may be aware of the situation of Mr Abubakir and his two daughters Rakiya and Dije from the village of Bilkawa in Kano state, Nigeria. There is evidence that the Muslim authorities in Nigeria have put pressure on the two girls to convert to Islam and to marry Muslim men. This is particularly important considering that the Nigerian authorities have signed up to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

Has the Commission:

| 1. | made representations to the Nigerian Government about the situation of Mr Abubakir? |
| --- | --- |

1.

made representations to the Nigerian Government about the situation of Mr Abubakir?

| 2. | other plans, to try to ensure that the Nigerian authorities respect the human rights of the Christian minority in their country? |
| --- | --- |

2.

other plans, to try to ensure that the Nigerian authorities respect the human rights of the Christian minority in their country?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(6 May 2003)

The Commission has not been alerted as to the situation of Mr Abubakir and his family and has not made any representation to the Nigerian Authorities on this matter. The Commission has asked its Delegation in Abuja to make enquiries on this matter to Federal and State officials.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/349 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/349

---

(2004/C 88 E/0356)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1316/03

by Hanja Maij-Weggen (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(7 April 2003)

Subject:   Autonomy of the Indonesian province of Papua

Is the Commission aware that in late January 2003 the Indonesian Government issued a decree stipulating that the process of dividing the province of Papua into three would be speeded up?

Can the Commission state how this self-explanatory decree can be reconciled with the earlier decision by the Indonesian Government to grant Papua special autonomy?

Can the Commission state what precise form this autonomy takes at present and what effect it has?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(15 May 2003)

The Commission follows closely the developments in Eastern Indonesia, in particular the situation in Papua, and is very much aware of the Presidential Decree mentioned by the Honourable Member.

The Government of Indonesia at the provincial and national levels have started discussions on how to reconcile this decision to divide the province into three distinct provinces with the provisions of the Special Autonomy Law (SAL) passed by the Parliament in 2001. No final decision has however been made public so far.

The Commission refers the Honourable Member to the Council conclusions on Indonesia of 14 April 2003 stressing ‘the importance of full implementation of the letter and spirit of the SAL in Aceh and Papua’ and ‘the need for clarification of the relation between the SAL for Papua and the recent Presidential Decree’, and expressing ‘its concern on the delays on the Indonesian side in accepting international support for the implementation of the SAL’.

Since the SAL is awaiting implementation, it is not yet possible to give details on its precise form and effect.

The Community Delegation in Jakarta is monitoring the situation in co-ordination with the representatives of the Member States and will recommend possible actions when appropriate.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/350 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/350

---

(2004/C 88 E/0357)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1317/03

by Nelly Maes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(7 April 2003)

Subject:   Implementation of Community programmes in Slovakia

Will the Commission please provide a detailed account of Slovakia's use of ISPA, PHARE and Sapard funding for 2000, 2001 and 2002 (tables, implementation and distribution by region)?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(12 June 2003)

With regard to PHARE, almost EUR 240 million were committed to the Slovak Republic in the frame of Phare assistance in the period 2000-2002. The overall allocations listed in the table below include inter alia funding for the National Programme, Cross-Border Co-operation (CBC) Programmes, participation in Community programmes and agencies and assistance in the field of nuclear safety (Decommissioning of the Bohunice NPP).

| Year | Commitments | Contracted | % |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 2000 (1) | 78 818 979 | 76 800 648 | 97,44 |
| 2001 (2) | 80 500 000 | 14 307 444 | 17,77 |
| 2002 (3) | 79 100 000 | 7 497 800 | 9,48 |

Year

Commitments

Contracted

%

2000 (1)

78 818 979

76 800 648

97,44

2001 (2)

80 500 000

14 307 444

17,77

2002 (3)

79 100 000

7 497 800

9,48

Phare assistance has aimed at supporting Slovakia's efforts to fulfil the commitments of legislative approximation and the implementation of the ‘acquis’ in accordance with the commitments made in the context of the negotiation process. The Action Plan for the reinforcement of the administrative and judicial capacity, elaborated jointly with the Slovak authorities, identified the steps to be undertaken in order for the Slovak Republic to achieve an adequate level of administrative and judicial capacity by the time of accession. The activities were selected to match the priorities listed in the Accession Partnership and in line with the Slovak National Programme for the Adoption of the Acquis (NPAA).

As regards the geographical distribution of Phare assistance, in 2000 and 2001, the projects financed in the frame of Economic and Social Cohesion (National Programmes) were located in the regions identified by the Slovak Government as the least developed areas, i.e. Košice, Prešov and Banská Bystrica. EUR 6,3 million and EUR 18,4 million were allocated in 2000 and 2001 respectively for Economic and Social Cohesion activities.

The Cross-Border Co-operation Programmes provide funding to a certain number of infrastructure projects (notably in the environment, transport and economic development fields) to the following eligible regions:

| — | CBC Slovakia/Hungary: Bratislava, Trnava, Nitra, Banská Bystrica and Košice; |
| --- | --- |

—

CBC Slovakia/Hungary: Bratislava, Trnava, Nitra, Banská Bystrica and Košice;

| — | CBC Slovakia/Poland: Zilina and Prešov; |
| --- | --- |

—

CBC Slovakia/Poland: Zilina and Prešov;

| — | CBC Slovakia/Austria: Bratislava and Trnava. |
| --- | --- |

—

CBC Slovakia/Austria: Bratislava and Trnava.

The relevant CBC allocations for the period in reference are as follows:

| | 2000 | 2001 | 2002 | Total |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Slovak/Hungarian border | 2 | 2 | 2 | 6 |
| Slovak/Polish border | 4 | 4 | 4 | 12 |
| Slovak/Austrian border | 6 | 6 | 6 | 18 |
| Overall total | 12 | 12 | 12 | 36 |

2000

2001

2002

Total

Slovak/Hungarian border

2

2

2

6

Slovak/Polish border

4

4

4

12

Slovak/Austrian border

6

6

6

18

Overall total

12

12

12

36

Detailed information on PHARE implementation can be found in the PHARE annual reports for 2000 and 2001 (http://europa.eu.int/comm/enlargement/pas/phare/publist.htm). The PHARE annual report for 2002 will be adopted later this year.

For ISPA, a total of EUR 278 million have been allocated to Slovakia in 2000, 2001 and 2002 of which EUR 106 million in the environment sector and EUR 172 million in the transport sector respectively. Together with national co-financing this corresponds to a total project value of EUR 511 million.

During the first three years of ISPA implementation 11 environment projects were financed focusing mainly on supporting Slovakia's compliance with the drinking and waste water Directives and they are equally spread over the country.

Projects in the transport sector consist of three rail projects, aiming at upgrading the international rail corridor between Bratislava and Zilina, as well as one motorway project located in Bratislava. Detailed information on ISPA implementation can be found in the ISPA annual reports for 2000 and 2001 (http://europa.eu.int/comm/regional_policy/funds/ispa/docum_en.htm). The ISPA annual report for 2002 will be adopted later this year.

Additional information can also be found on the ISPA web site (http://europa.eu.int/comm/regional_policy/ funds/ispa/ispa_en.htm).

In respect of the Special Accession Programme for Agriculture and Rural Development (Sapard), a total of EUR 96 million have been allocated to the Slovak Republic for the years 2000-2004. The programme is based on three priorities: (i) the improvement of the agricultural production sector including food processing industry (ii) sustainable rural development; and (iii) human resources development.

As the management and implementation of the programme is fully decentralised to the candidate countries, the Slovak authorities first had to have their implementing agency (the so-called Sapard agency) accredited in order for the programme to operate.

This accreditation process (4) was concluded on 15 April 2002 with the Commission Decision to confer the management of Sapard aid to the Slovak authorities and Slovakia could begin the implementation of its Sapard programme as of that date.

Since the first appeal concerning the submission of applications for financial aid within the Sapard programme, the Agency had approved 75 projects by the middle of March 2003.

These approvals can be broken down by region as follows:

| Region | Submitted Projects | Approved Projects |
| --- | --- | --- |
| B. Bystrica | 11 | 6 |
| Kosice | 15 | 3 |
| Nitra | 35 | 16 |
| Presov | 12 | 9 |
| Trencin | 13 | 10 |
| Trnava | 35 | 10 |
| Zilina | 29 | 21 |
| Total | 150 | 75 |

Region

Submitted Projects

Approved Projects

B. Bystrica

11

6

Kosice

15

3

Nitra

35

16

Presov

12

9

Trencin

13

10

Trnava

35

10

Zilina

29

21

Total

150

75

Detailed information on Sapard implementation can be found in the Sapard annual reports for 2000 (http://europa.eu.int/comm/agriculture/publi/reports/sapard2000/index_en.htm) and 2001 (http://europa.eu.int/comm/agriculture/publi/reports/sapard2001/index_en.htm). The Sapard annual report for 2002 will be adopted later this year.

Additional information can also be found on the AGRI web site (http://europa.eu.int/comm/agriculture/ external/enlarge/countries/slovakia/index_en.htm).

Further information on the implementation of the 3 pre-accession instruments in 2002 are contained in the General Assistance Document 2003 presented to the Phare Management Committee on 9 April 2003, which will become available shortly on the Enlargement website (http//europa.eu.int/comm/enlargement/docs/index.htm).

---

(1)  The contracting period expired on 31 December 2002.

(2)  The contracting period will expire on 30 November 2003.

(3)  The contracting period will expire on 30 November 2004.

(4)  To this end Slovakia has concluded its national accreditation work, which was accepted in the form of an Act of Accreditation issued by the competent Slovak authority on 19 December 2001. The Slovak authorities notified the Commission of this accreditation process and a complete package of information was sent to the Commission on 7 January 2002. The Commission examined the basis for the national accreditation, obtaining supplementary information and clarification as part of a detailed audit.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/352 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/352

---

(2004/C 88 E/0358)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1321/03

by José Ribeiro e Castro (UEN) to the Commission

(8 April 2003)

Subject:   Angola — return of refugees

The Media have reported complaints from the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) about the violation of the rights of Angolan refugees seeking to leave the Democratic Republic of Congo, the Congo and Zambia and return to Angola.

The same source claims that the refugees have been forced to pay for illegal taxis or hand over some of their possessions at frontier posts on both sides of the border, and that there are rumours of women being raped and a great deal of discrimination being practised.

Ester Benazri, the official responsible for refugee protection, believed that such situations can only be due to the fact that the displaced populations did not wait for official repatriation, which begins only next May and she forecast that the situation would improve with an increased UNCHR and international community presence in the border areas.

The Commission:

| — | what information has it concerning these matters; |
| --- | --- |

—

what information has it concerning these matters;

| — | what approaches has it made or will it make to the countries involved, with a view to putting an end to these human rights violations as soon as possible? |
| --- | --- |

—

what approaches has it made or will it make to the countries involved, with a view to putting an end to these human rights violations as soon as possible?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(15 May 2003)

The Commission is aware of reports of abuses which some Angolan refugees returning spontaneously from neighbouring countries are allegedly suffering. The reports speak of abusive practices such as harassment, robbery, sexual abuse and extortion, particularly at the Democratic Republic of Congo/Angola border. Such practices, if proven, would be in contravention of the Tripartite Agreements governing the repatriation of refugees signed in November and December 2002 by the Government of Angola, the United Nations High Commissioner for Regugees (UNHCR), and the respective governments of the Democratic Republic of Congo, Namibia, the Republic of Congo and Zambia.

Whilst the Angolan government is the prime actor to intervene to put a stop to such practices, the Commission undertakes to raise this issue with the UNHCR in view of its role as signatory to the Tripartite Agreements and holder of the special mandate for refugees. Moreover, the Commission will examine these issues within the framework of any future Community financing of interventions to support the repatriation of refugees.

Furthermore, should these allegations be confirmed and persist, the Commission will, in close collaboration with Member States' representations in the countries involved, consider the appropriate steps to take vis-à-vis the national authorities.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/353 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/353

---

(2004/C 88 E/0359)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1336/03

by Ilka Schröder (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(2 April 2003)

Subject:   Persecution of homosexuals in the Palestinian autonomous areas

In recent months there have been repeated reports in the press (including in New Republic, 19 August 2002, East Bay Voice, 19 September 2002, Ha'aretz, 6 March 2003 and 10 September 2001, Jerusalem Post, 5 June 2001) and by civil rights groups (e.g. Agudah, http://agudah.israel-live.de) on serious violations of the human rights of gays, lesbians, transsexuals and trans-genders in the autonomous areas ruled by the Palestinian Authority (PA). In 2000, it is claimed, four Palestinians were killed for being homosexual, and hundreds were forced to flee to Israel. It is alleged that ‘harassment of gays’ is ‘practically official policy’ in the PA. The victims are frequently called collaborators and accused as such. However, there have also been two cases in the last three years where people have been specifically accused of homosexuality. In the wake of the ‘Al-Aqsa Intifada’, Sharia courts have also been set up where homosexuals are threatened with the death penalty by stoning, burning and hanging. These courts also declare persons suspected of homosexuality to be ‘outlaws’, who can be murdered with impunity. It is also reported that the PA police regularly inflicts appalling torture on homosexuals.

The EU has committed enormous amounts of financial aid to the region. Since 1993, over EUR 1,4 billion has flowed into the ΡΑ-ruled areas, and since June 2001 the EU has paid a steady EUR 10 million per month to the PA through direct budget payments. Further large appropriations are granted through the MEDA programme. Is the Commission aware of the above-mentioned facts about the situation of gays, lesbians, transsexuals and trans-genders in the PA areas? Does it have any other information? If so, what? Does it know about the situation of homosexuals in the UNWRA camps co-funded by the EU? Has the Commission already taken any measures to bring about a change in this intolerable situation? If not, does the Commission consider that the EU — in view of the extent to which it supports the PA — has a right to insist on compliance with human rights obligations by the PA, and must assert this right? If not, would the Commission agree that the EU and its Member States should grant those affected immediate and unlimited asylum? If not, why not?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(7 May 2003)

The Commission is aware of press reports referred to by the Honourable Member concerning alleged persecution of homosexuals in addition to informal accounts of human rights violations in the Palestinian Territories.

The Commission is concerned by these reports of human rights violations and has, in conjunction with international donors, called on the Palestinian Authority to undertake democratic reforms, to ensure the rule of law, and to respect basic human rights.

The Union is actively participating in the Quartet and the International Task Force on Palestinian Reform, which was established in July 2002 to monitor and support the implementation of Palestinian civil reforms, and to guide the international donor community in its support for the Palestinian's reform agenda. The Task Force is composed of the United States, the Union, the Russian Federation, the United Nations, Norway, Japan, Canada, the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. It is monitoring progress across key areas such as civil society, public administration and rule of law and recommends further actions to be undertaken by the Palestinian Authority.

The Commission is unaware of the specific situation of homosexuals among UNRWA refugees referred to by the Honourable Member, nor has it received any reports on this matter.

The Commission will continue to monitor progress on reform within the framework of Union bilateral relations with the Palestinian Authority as well as in conjunction with other international donors.

Regarding asylum, the Commission would remind the Honourable Member that assessment of applications for recognition of asylum status is carried out on an individual basis by the competent Member State authorities, and in line with the 1951 Geneva Convention relating to the status of refugees.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/354 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/354

---

(2004/C 88 E/0360)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1400/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(16 April 2003)

Subject:   Seat of the European Food Safety Authority

It was reported a few days ago in the Italian press that the future European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) may be split between two seats, each being assigned different tasks and functions.

Under such an arrangement there would be one seat in Helsinki dealing with health and scientific matters and the study of nutritional policy and GMOs, and another in Parma concerned with quality control, product origin, the agri-food sector, and the promotion of European food and wine.

However, the committee promoting Parma's candidacy to host the Authority (made up of representatives of the municipal and provincial authorities, banking institutions and Parma University) and major Italian farmers' associations have expressed astonishment at the possibility of the Authority having two seats, as Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 (1), which establishes the Authority, only provides for one. Moreover, such a step would necessitate a long and complex legislative process delaying still further the establishment of the future second Authority.

Despite this the Commissioner for Agriculture, Franz Fischler, has expressed his support for the idea, declaring that it would be technically possible for there to be two seats. Even the Italian Minister for Agriculture, Giovanni Alemanno, has stated that the two seats would be equal and independent.

In light of the above, can the Commission state:

| 1. | what tasks will be assigned to these two Authorities, and whether it will be possible in practice to divide their areas of responsibilities as outlined above; |
| --- | --- |

1.

what tasks will be assigned to these two Authorities, and whether it will be possible in practice to divide their areas of responsibilities as outlined above;

| 2. | on what legislative and legal basis the second Authority, based in Parma, will be founded; and |
| --- | --- |

2.

on what legislative and legal basis the second Authority, based in Parma, will be founded; and

| 3. | what the timetable will be for the setting up of the two Authorities, given that Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 only provides for one? |
| --- | --- |

3.

what the timetable will be for the setting up of the two Authorities, given that Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 only provides for one?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(18 June 2003)

The Honourable Member is kindly asked to refer to the Commission's answer to written question P-1395/03 from Mr Colom I Naval (2) concerning the establishment of the seat of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA).

As regards the establishment of the EFSA and the distribution of tasks between food safety and quality, the Commission can provide the following information:

| — | under Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 (3) establishing the EFSA, the Authority's scientific mission covers all issues which may have a direct or indirect effect on the safety of the food chain, including all areas relating to animal health and welfare and plant health. The Authority will also provide scientific opinions on genetically modified organisms even if they are not food and feed, and on nutrition; |
| --- | --- |

—

under Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 (3) establishing the EFSA, the Authority's scientific mission covers all issues which may have a direct or indirect effect on the safety of the food chain, including all areas relating to animal health and welfare and plant health. The Authority will also provide scientific opinions on genetically modified organisms even if they are not food and feed, and on nutrition;

| — | consequently, the brief of the EFSA and its sphere of responsibility in no way include the aspects of quality or the protection of the origin of food products; |
| --- | --- |

—

consequently, the brief of the EFSA and its sphere of responsibility in no way include the aspects of quality or the protection of the origin of food products;

| — | the EFSA is already operating. Accordingly, its Management Board began work in September 2002, and, at the beginning of 2003, its Executive Director took up his duties and the Advisory Forum began functioning. The Scientific Committee and the standing Scientific Panels of the EFSA are currently being set up. Finally, an initial core of staff, especially scientists, has been set up, and further recruitment is expected in the near future; |
| --- | --- |

—

the EFSA is already operating. Accordingly, its Management Board began work in September 2002, and, at the beginning of 2003, its Executive Director took up his duties and the Advisory Forum began functioning. The Scientific Committee and the standing Scientific Panels of the EFSA are currently being set up. Finally, an initial core of staff, especially scientists, has been set up, and further recruitment is expected in the near future;

| — | there are currently no plans to set up an agency for designations of origin, geographical indications and certificates of specific character. |
| --- | --- |

—

there are currently no plans to set up an agency for designations of origin, geographical indications and certificates of specific character.

---

(1)  OJ L 31, 1.2.2002, p. 1.

(2)  OJ C 242 E, 9.10.2003, p. 228.

(3)  Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2002 laying down the general principles and requirements of food law, establishing the European Food Safety Authority and laying down procedures in matters of food safety, OJ L 31, 1.2.2002.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/356 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/356

---

(2004/C 88 E/0361)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1576/03

by Chris Davies (ELDR) to the Commission

(8 May 2003)

Subject:   EU-wide energy taxation

Following the recent agreement in the Council regarding the introduction of minimum energy taxation across the EU, what steps will the Commission now take to secure implementation of the agreement?

When does it plan to propose the necessary measures, and by when does it hope that they will be applied through the EU?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(5 June 2003)

The Council unanimously reached a political agreement on the draft energy tax Directive on 23 March 2003. Supporting the view of the Commission, the Council decided on 9 April 2003 to reconsult the Parliament. This decision was adopted because the latest compromise is significantly different from the proposal presented by the Commission in 1997 (1). It is, therefore, important that the Parliament has the opportunity to give its opinion on the draft Directive.

The formal Council decision on the adoption of the energy tax Directive will only intervene after the Parliament has delivered its opinion.

The Commission is committed to helping Member States and Applicant Countries in their work for the transposition of the Directive. Technical meetings will be organised at services level to streamline the transposition process and secure a rapid high quality transposition.

The Directive will normally enter into force on 1 January 2004, with the exception of a few articles which apply retrospectively from 1 January 2003.

---

(1)  OJ C 139, 6.5.1997.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/356 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/356

---

(2004/C 88 E/0362)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1580/03

by Chris Davies (ELDR) to the Commission

(8 May 2003)

Subject:   Data analyses of illegal drugs in the EU

Further to the answer given to my written question E-0315/03 (1), is the Commission now satisfied that it has common definitions concerning data collection and analyses on illegal drug use?

If not, what actions are being undertaken to bring this about and when will they be complete?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(16 June 2003)

The nature of data collection calls for continous efforts at the Community level as well as at Member State level in order to improve comparability and reliability. Work has been done in this regard under the public health programmes and by the Emcdda (European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction), in cooperation with the European Statistical System (ESS). These efforts will continue.

In addition the Council Recommendation on the prevention and reduction of risks associated with drug dependence, which is ready for adoption by the Council includes a range of measures which are relevant:

| — | developing and implementing adequate evaluation protocols for all drug prevention and risk reduction programmes; |
| --- | --- |

—

developing and implementing adequate evaluation protocols for all drug prevention and risk reduction programmes;

| — | establishing and implementing evaluation quality criteria, taking into account the Recommendations of the Emcdda; |
| --- | --- |

—

establishing and implementing evaluation quality criteria, taking into account the Recommendations of the Emcdda;

| — | organising standardised data-collection and information dissemination according to the Emcdda recommendations through the Reitox National Focal Points (2). |
| --- | --- |

—

organising standardised data-collection and information dissemination according to the Emcdda recommendations through the Reitox National Focal Points (2).

---

(1)  OJ C 51 E, 26.2.2004, p. 18.

(2)  The European Information Network on Drugs and Drug Addiction (Reitox) consists of one national focal point (NFP) set up in each of the 15 EU Member States and in Norway, and one at the European Commission. The role of a Focal point involves co-ordinating its national information centres to meet the EMCDDA's requirements for a set of core data, annual National Reports on the drug situation in each Member State and a national information network (http://www.emcdda.org/partners/nfp.shtml).

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/357 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/357

---

(2004/C 88 E/0363)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1607/03

by Antonio Tajani (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(7 May 2003)

Subject:   Repeated violations of human rights in Cuba

In the first few months of 2003 the Communist regime in Cuba decided to silence democratic dissent, targeting journalists, opponents and advocates of human rights. On 18 March Fidel Castro's police arrested about 80 people who were complaining about the lack of democracy.

On 1 April eleven opponents of the regime hijacked a ferry in order to escape to the United States. Three of the young men involved were executed 10 days later.

Since then there have been further reports concerning the inhuman conditions in Cuba's prisons. Castro turned down the UN's request to be allowed to inspect the island's prisons to ascertain whether they respect human rights. According to the Cuban Commission for Human Rights and National Reconciliation there are about 300 political prisoners in Cuba.

What steps will the Commission take to help safeguard human rights in Cuba?

Does the Commission President Romano Prodi intend to ask Fidel Castro directly whether Commission and Parliament representatives may visit to ascertain whether and how EU cooperation funding is used?

How does the Commission intend to safeguard the rights of European citizens living and working on the island?

Does Mr Prodi intend to back the request made by 31 Italian MEPs calling for a cooperation agreement between the Union and the Cuban dictator to be signed without any prior check as to how democratic Cuban institutions are?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(18 June 2003)

The recent large-scale arrest of dissidents, the unfair trials and the arbitrary and excessive sentences imposed on them, as well as the execution of three Cuban citizens accused of hijacking a Cuban ferry, have had a prompt, firm and sustained reaction from the Union. The Commission has fully and actively supported the actions that have been taken in this context.

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 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 cooperation between the Union and Cuba.

The Cuban authorities decided on 16 May 2003 to withdraw their application.

As far as the Community cooperation funding is concerned, the recent opening of a Delegation in Havana makes possible a closer follow-up of the use of funds. Community cooperation is focused since 2000 on projects promoting economic reform and civil society development. Seven of the projects financed by the Commission in Cuba were subject to an independent monitoring mission contracted by the Commission in 2002, and a new monitoring mission is foreseen during the third quarter of 2003.

Issues regarding the rights of European citizens in Cuba are the responsibility of their respective national authorities.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/358 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/358

---

(2004/C 88 E/0364)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1629/03

by Eija-Riitta Korhola (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(14 May 2003)

Subject:   Promoting fair-trade products in the EU

During Fair Trade Week, which begins on 3 May, campaigners in Finland will draw attention to fair-trade products and seek to persuade members of churches, among others, to increase their use of fair-trade coffee.

In reply to my written question P-3856/02 of 24 January 2003 (1), Commissioner Pascal Lamy wrote: ‘In the long run, however, only a sustained trend of increased demand for fair trade products by European consumers is likely to lead to large reductions in prices [of fair-trade products].’

Would it be possible for the EU to promote demand for fair-trade products by publicising European Fair Trade Week (3 to 9 May) and by committing itself to the ideas already endorsed when the European Communities were set up concerning the beneficial impact of cross-border economic cooperation on stability? (After all, Schuman Day also falls during the same week).

Will the Commission for its part promote demand for fair-trade products by means of public procurement in the Community institutions and Member States?

Answer given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(30 June 2003)

The idea of a European Fair Trade Week during which it would be possible to call the attention of a wider public on fair trade products is certainly one worth exploring. Such an initiative would, prima facie, fit with the overall Commission policy of raising awareness on fair trade products via the financing of private-led activities.

It is difficult for the Union to commit itself, via this reply, to the implementation of such an initiative, as it requires further analysis on the actual form that such a support could take. It would be therefore useful if the promoters of the Fair Trade Week could approach the relevant services (Directorate General (DG) Trade) of the Commission to study the support that could eventually be given by the Commission.

In this context it should be noted that specific actions of support will take place during the fair trade week in Belgium (6 to 9 October 2003), alongside an advertisement campaign. Companies will be encouraged, to the extent possible, to offer fair trade products and to continue the practice of offering such products as long as demand is sustained.

The Commission is assisting a number of developing countries in the promotion of trade as a means for economic growth and poverty reduction: in this context the principles underlying the Fair Trade concept are duly taken into account. As stated in the Communication on Fair Trade (2), fair trade gives producers in developing countries higher revenues for their goods, as well as increased opportunities to find new markets. Fair trade is particularly helpful to small-scale producers, especially in agriculture and the handicraft sector, since small-scale producers in developing countries are often living in isolated rural areas and do not produce a sufficient quantity to export directly. In an upcoming Staff Working Document on Agricultural Commodity Trade, Dependence an Poverty' which explores strategy elements that could support commodity-producing farmers in developing countries, fair trade is brought up as one path of the important task of assisting producers to tap into new market segments.

Finally, the promotion of the use of fair trade products is of particular concern to the Commission and the coffee served during meetings in Commission buildings is fair trade coffee. In addition, in the framework of the promotion of corporate social responsibility, the Commission is negotiating the use and promotion of fair trade products in the Euro-City supermarket in Brussels and in all selling points inside the Commission buildings.

---

(1)  OJ C 70 E, 20.3.2004, p. 26.

(2)  COM(1999) 619 final.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/359 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/359

---

(2004/C 88 E/0365)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1631/03

by Carlos Coelho (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(12 May 2003)

Subject:   Discrimination on grounds of nationality

The European Community's development is no longer confined to the economic sphere. The Community is now made up of 375 million people, who are not merely consumers in a large single market, but also citizens of the European Union who have the right to move freely within the EU and to settle in any part of that Union for personal or professional reasons and who hope they can live without fear of being discriminated against in any way.

I have been contacted by a Portuguese national who has opted for an international career with Shell Accounting Service in Glasgow, and has been living and working in the United Kingdom (Scotland) for some two years. He maintains that he has been discriminated against on account of his nationality by the Halifax Bank (a member of the Bank of Scotland group), which has rejected his request for his bank account to be ‘upgraded’ on the grounds that this is only possible once a person has been resident in the country for three years. As an EU citizen, does he not have the same rights and duties as a UK national?

Article 12 of the EC Treaty stipulates that ‘within the scope of this Treaty, and without prejudice to any special provisions contained therein, any discrimination on grounds of nationality shall be prohibited’. Does the Commission agree that the Halifax Bank's policy may be considered discriminatory in that it is contrary to the very essence of the European Union and constitutes a clear violation of the principle of non-discrimination enshrined in the Treaty?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(13 June 2003)

In principle, a bank has the contractual freedom to enter into contractual agreements with a potential customer. This applies both to any intended contractual relationship (e.g. opening an account) and to the conditions under which a corresponding contract is concluded (particularly account maintenance fees, interest rates, overdraft facilities, etc.).

There is therefore, in principle, no reason to challenge the Halifax Bank's decision not to grant a customer better conditions on the grounds that the customer has to have lived in the country for at least three years in order for his/her bank account to be upgraded. This is not necessarily discrimination on grounds of nationality. The reasons for rejecting the application could rather be based on specific economic considerations (risk assessment, account history, volume of deposits and withdrawals, payment record or other reasons relating to the individual customer). The information provided is not sufficient to allow a clear legal assessment to be delivered.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/360 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/360

---

(2004/C 88 E/0366)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1640/03

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(16 May 2003)

Subject:   Lack of money for maintaining infrastructure and for cofinancing projects in Member States which use tax cuts to gain a competitive advantage

| 1. | Is the Commission aware of a trend in one or more of the countries due to become new Member States of the EU in 2004 or 2007 to lower taxes, particularly taxes on high income and company profits? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is the Commission aware of a trend in one or more of the countries due to become new Member States of the EU in 2004 or 2007 to lower taxes, particularly taxes on high income and company profits?

| 2. | Is this reduction being made in the expectation that a combination of low taxes and assistance to be provided from EU funds will deliver a significant competitive advantage favouring the relocation of companies from the current Member states to the future Member states? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Is this reduction being made in the expectation that a combination of low taxes and assistance to be provided from EU funds will deliver a significant competitive advantage favouring the relocation of companies from the current Member states to the future Member states?

| 3. | Does this trend go hand in hand with abolition of the minimum wage, abolition of maximum working hours for employees, removal of protection against dismissal and a reduction in rights in the area of social security, pensions and reimbursement of medical expenses? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Does this trend go hand in hand with abolition of the minimum wage, abolition of maximum working hours for employees, removal of protection against dismissal and a reduction in rights in the area of social security, pensions and reimbursement of medical expenses?

| 4. | In which of the future new Member States is this trend most pronounced? |
| --- | --- |

4.

In which of the future new Member States is this trend most pronounced?

| 5. | Which new Member States have chosen not to follow this trend? |
| --- | --- |

5.

Which new Member States have chosen not to follow this trend?

| 6. | Is it already becoming apparent that Member States which lower taxes will in future not have sufficient resources to maintain and modernise their infrastructure and to cofinance projects funded partly with assistance from EU funds, with the result that they will be increasingly dependent on large long-term loans? |
| --- | --- |

6.

Is it already becoming apparent that Member States which lower taxes will in future not have sufficient resources to maintain and modernise their infrastructure and to cofinance projects funded partly with assistance from EU funds, with the result that they will be increasingly dependent on large long-term loans?

| 7. | What steps is the Commission taking to try to avoid a situation in which Member States, in anticipation of the receipt of money from EU funds, create new problems that will have a negative impact in terms of the level of financial resources required and the possibility of actually being able to use such money for cofinancing? |
| --- | --- |

7.

What steps is the Commission taking to try to avoid a situation in which Member States, in anticipation of the receipt of money from EU funds, create new problems that will have a negative impact in terms of the level of financial resources required and the possibility of actually being able to use such money for cofinancing?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(27 June 2003)

Concerning the respect of Community policy in general, the Commission points out that the Candidate Countries made commitments in the Accession Negotiations to modify their legislation and procedures to bring them into line with all fields of the Community ‘acquis’ by 1 May 2004, except for areas where transitional arrangements have been granted. In this context the Commission monitors the state of implementation of these commitments and informs the Council on a regular basis. A comprehensive Monitoring Report is in preparation which will be submitted to the Council and the Parliament on 5 November 2003.

On the specific question of tax levels, the lowering of statutory tax rates on corporate and personal income since the late 1990s is not only a trend in the acceding States but also in the current Member States. In most cases the lowering of the statutory tax rate is accompanied by a broadening of the taxable base, thus compensating for a possible loss to the budget. In some situations increasing the rates of the VAT or other indirect taxes (notably ‘green’ taxes) further compensates the lower tax rates.

Since the early 1970s, there has in fact been a persistent and largely unbroken trend for the ratio of actual tax revenue to gross domestic product (GDP) to increase across most of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) area. Provisional revenue figures for 2001 now tend to show a decline in a number of OECD countries (both in current Member States and in some acceding States), which suggests that this trend may be coming to an end. However, it should be noted that this partly reflects recent cyclical developments and deteriorating stock market performance.

Concerning the features of social policy referred to in the Honourable Member's question, it is recalled that Community labour law is an essential part of the European social ‘acquis’. It includes 15 Directives in various fields such as information and consultation of employees, working time or protection of workers with part-time or fixed-term relationships. Most of these Directives establish minimum requirements, i.e. on working hours, rest periods or annual leave, which have to be transposed by acceding countries and the Commission thoroughly monitors the process of implementation. The objective of labour law Directives is not the harmonisation of labour law within the Community. In all Directives there is a balance between protection of workers rights and flexibility. As regards individual dismissals, minimum wages and collective rights, there are no comprehensive labour law Directives at European level in these areas. It is up to Member States, both present and future, to define these issues in line with their own traditions and within their specific employment context.

Finally, concerning Community funds, the Commission notes that in the course of negotiations with the Member States, present and future, on the programming documents for the Structural and Cohesion Funds, the Commission thoroughly examines the respect of Community legislation, e.g. competition rules, relevant to the implementation of the Funds as well as the soundness and conformity of the administrative and financial arrangements proposed for adoption by the competent national or regional authorities. After approval of the programming documents in a Commission Decision, the Commission monitors and evaluates their implementation.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/362 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/362

---

(2004/C 88 E/0367)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1641/03

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(16 May 2003)

Subject:   Failure to grant Slovene nationality to persons who in 1991 were residents of the then Yugoslav republic of Slovenia and had Yugoslav nationality

| 1. | Can the Commission confirm that the future EU Member State Slovenia removed large numbers of residents from its population register following its declaration of independence in 1991, with the result that the persons concerned no longer enjoy the right in that country to education, employment, housing, healthcare and pensions? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Can the Commission confirm that the future EU Member State Slovenia removed large numbers of residents from its population register following its declaration of independence in 1991, with the result that the persons concerned no longer enjoy the right in that country to education, employment, housing, healthcare and pensions?

| 2. | Can the Commission also confirm that residents of Slovenia formerly of Yugoslav nationality who, for whatever reason, failed during the first six months after independence to apply for Slovene nationality, have been unable to obtain it since, unless, as permanent residents, they briefly had the right in 1998 to submit a new application? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Can the Commission also confirm that residents of Slovenia formerly of Yugoslav nationality who, for whatever reason, failed during the first six months after independence to apply for Slovene nationality, have been unable to obtain it since, unless, as permanent residents, they briefly had the right in 1998 to submit a new application?

| 3. | Has the creation of the new state of Slovenia led to an increase in the number of people without nationality? Which population groups are most affected? Does this concern in particular people whose parents belonged to Italian, Hungarian, German, Bosnian, Macedonian and Roma minorities? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Has the creation of the new state of Slovenia led to an increase in the number of people without nationality? Which population groups are most affected? Does this concern in particular people whose parents belonged to Italian, Hungarian, German, Bosnian, Macedonian and Roma minorities?

| 4. | Do the new Member States have an obligation to give residents and former residents who had the nationality of a former state the opportunity to acquire the new nationality, with no one running the risk of being unable to exercise that right in practice as a result of temporary absence, ignorance, illness or other circumstances? Do those affected have the possibility to apply again? |
| --- | --- |

4.

Do the new Member States have an obligation to give residents and former residents who had the nationality of a former state the opportunity to acquire the new nationality, with no one running the risk of being unable to exercise that right in practice as a result of temporary absence, ignorance, illness or other circumstances? Do those affected have the possibility to apply again?

| 5. | Has the Commission to date pursued a policy directed against loss of nationality and the removal of normal rights for permanent residents? What measures is the Commission taking to prevent new problems from arising as a result of the creation of a group of stateless, second-class citizens without rights? |
| --- | --- |

5.

Has the Commission to date pursued a policy directed against loss of nationality and the removal of normal rights for permanent residents? What measures is the Commission taking to prevent new problems from arising as a result of the creation of a group of stateless, second-class citizens without rights?

Source: TV Nederland-2, current affairs programme 2-Vaandag, 2 May 2003.

Answer given by M. Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(30 June 2003)

When Slovenia declared its independence in 1991, citizens of Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (SFRY) residing in Slovenia were given the possibility to apply for Slovenian citizenship. A deadline was set for submitting applications and a large number of people submitted an application and were granted Slovenian citizenship. Others opted for citizenship of one of the other successor states of SFRY, a number of people left Slovenia to live in the other successor states of SFRY and others stayed in Slovenia without applying for citizenship. The people who did not apply for citizenship, were erased from the population register. According to the Slovenian Ministry of the Interior, the number of people concerned is 18 300. However, the Commission does not have any statistical information on the population groups affected.

A law adopted in 1999 attempted to regulate the status of these former citizens of SFRY living in Slovenia (the so-called ‘erased’) by providing them a possibility to apply for permanent residence within three months. According to Slovenian authorities, about 13 000 applications for permanent residence were received. In September 2002, 10 200 decisions had been taken, 9 800 of them being positive. Furthermore, a number of the people who had applied for permanent residence were in the meantime granted Slovenian citizenship.

In April 2003, the Constitutional Court ruled that the deadline for submitting applications in the law of 1999 was too short and therefore not in line with the Constitution. It requested the Parliament to bring the legislation on this matter into line with the Constitution within six months.

The amendments to the Law on Citizenship of October 2002 also aim at contributing to the resolution of the problem of the ‘erased’ by stipulating easier procedures for obtaining Slovenian citizenship for stateless people.

The question of citizenship of newly emerged states is a particularly complex one. A nationality of a Member State is entirely a matter for the Member States concerned, as the Declaration on nationality of a Member State appended to the Treaty of Maastricht confirms (1). It is therefore for each Member State, having due regard to Community law, to lay down the conditions for acquisition and loss of nationality (2). However, the Commission has encouraged the Slovenian authorities to resolve this issue and has followed up progress made in its yearly Regular Reports under the political criteria section.

---

(1)  Declaration no 2 on nationality of a Member State, OJ C 191, 29.7.1992.

(2)  See judgement of the Court of Justice in case C-369/90 Micheletti of 7.7.1992, ECR 1992.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/363 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/363

---

(2004/C 88 E/0368)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1646/03

by María Rodríguez Ramos (PSE) to the Commission

(16 May 2003)

Subject:   Application of the safeguard clause in respect of imports into the EU of tinned mandarin-orange segments from China

Last October I submitted a priority written question (P-2956/02 (1)) to the Commission on the application of the safeguard clause in respect of the overwhelming increase in imports of tinned mandarin-orange segments from China.

In its answer the Commission indicated that it was waiting for the Spanish authorities to provide the necessary documentation since the information previously submitted did not meet the WTO's strict regulations.

Can the Commission confirm whether the Spanish authorities have already submitted all the relevant information requested?

If this is the case, what are the reasons preventing the Commission from taking the steps set out for such cases in Regulation (EC) 2201/96 (2)?

---

(1)  OJ C 161 E, 10.7.2003, p. 55.

(2)  OJ L 297, 21.11.1996, p. 29.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/363 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/363

---

(2004/C 88 E/0369)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1920/03

by Carlos Bautista Ojeda (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(12 June 2003)

Subject:   Imports of preserved mandarin segments from China

On 5 June 2002, because of massive imports of preserved mandarin segments from the People's Republic of China, Spain urgently requested application of Regulation (EC) No 2201/96 (1), in particular Article 22 thereof concerning the safeguard clause in the event of the Community market being disturbed by imports.

If the Commission considered its application dubious, because of China's entry into the WTO or for some other reason, can it say:

| — | why it did not apply the measures laid down in Regulation (EC) No 3285/94 (2) establishing common rules for imports, after receiving all the relevant reports from the Spanish Government, the latest in March 2003: |
| --- | --- |

—

why it did not apply the measures laid down in Regulation (EC) No 3285/94 (2) establishing common rules for imports, after receiving all the relevant reports from the Spanish Government, the latest in March 2003:

| — | why it did not apply Council Regulation (EC) No 427/2003 (3) on a transitional product-specific safeguard mechanism for imports originating in the People's Republic of China? |
| --- | --- |

—

why it did not apply Council Regulation (EC) No 427/2003 (3) on a transitional product-specific safeguard mechanism for imports originating in the People's Republic of China?

The Community market in mandarin segments, originating almost exclusively in Spain, is being irreversibly damaged and seriously disturbed. When does the Commission envisage adopting measures to protect its own market?

---

(1)  OJ L 297, 21.11.1996, p. 29.

(2)  OJ L 349, 31.12.1994, p. 53.

(3)  OJ L 65, 8.3.2003, p. 1.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/364 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/364

---

(2004/C 88 E/0370)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1921/03

by Carlos Bautista Ojeda (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(12 June 2003)

Subject:   Preserved mandarin segments from China

The enormous increase in imports of preserved mandarin segments from China has seriously upset the Community market, whose mandarin segment production is located almost exclusively in Spain and fell by 36 % between the 1998/1999 and 2001/2002 marketing years.

Bearing in mind the safeguard clause in Article 22 of Council Regulation (EC) 2201/96 (1) which states that if the Community market is seriously disturbed by imports the Commission shall, at the request of a Member State or on its own initiative, decide upon the necessary measures within three working days following receipt of the request.

Why has the Commission not adopted any measure, in view of the serious situation there has been since 5 June 2002, when the Spanish Government urgently requested implementation of such measures?

Why has the Commission not adopted any measures on its own initiative?

Joint answer

to Written Questions E-1646/03, E-1920/03 and E-1921/03

given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(25 July 2003)

The Commission would like to take this opportunity to inform the Honourable Members that it has now received a fully documented request from the Spanish Government under Article 5 of Council Regulation (EC) No 427/2003 of 3 March 2003 on a transitional product-specific safeguard mechanism for imports originating in the People's Republic of China and amending Regulation (EC) No 519/94 on common rules for imports from certain third countries (2).

The Commission recognises the urgency of this request, which it is already in the course of analysing, and a copy of the request has been sent to all Member States with a view to consultation.

---

(1)  OJ L 297, 21.11.1996, p. 29.

(2)  OJ L 65, 8.3.2003.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/365 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/365

---

(2004/C 88 E/0371)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1677/03

by José Ribeiro e Castro (UEN) to the Commission

(19 May 2003)

Subject:   Cuba – Cotonou

Following the tragic events of recent weeks, the Commission has announced that consideration of Cuba's application to accede to the Cotonou Agreement has been suspended for an indefinite period. This decision is to be welcomed even though it should have been taken earlier, given the clear evidence of an extremely serious deterioration in the human rights situation.

It should be borne in mind that, at the time of the opening of the Commission representation in Havana, Commissioner Poul Nielson stated that he could see no obstacles to Cuba's accession to the Cotonou Agreement.

In view of the above:

| — | Did the Commission have information on the real situation in Cuba before the recent events occurred? |
| --- | --- |

—

Did the Commission have information on the real situation in Cuba before the recent events occurred?

| — | Did the information available at the time of the opening of the Commission's representation – especially the situation denounced by Oswaldo Payá at the Sakharov Prize award ceremony (see my Written Question of 12 March 2003) – not already constitute sufficiently alarming evidence regarding the Cuban Government's attitude? |
| --- | --- |

—

Did the information available at the time of the opening of the Commission's representation – especially the situation denounced by Oswaldo Payá at the Sakharov Prize award ceremony (see my Written Question of 12 March 2003) – not already constitute sufficiently alarming evidence regarding the Cuban Government's attitude?

| — | What minimum conditions (an end to political persecution, unconditional release of all political prisoners, democratisation of political structures and methods?) must the Cuban Government fulfil in order to regain the Commission's trust? |
| --- | --- |

—

What minimum conditions (an end to political persecution, unconditional release of all political prisoners, democratisation of political structures and methods?) must the Cuban Government fulfil in order to regain the Commission's trust?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(15 July 2003)

The Commission has always followed the situation in Cuba closely and is now even better placed to do so since opening a Delegation in Havana.

During his visit to Havana of 9 to 15 March 2003 the Member of the Commission responsible for Development and Humanitarian Aid met a group of dissidents and hearing at first-hand their views on human rights in Cuba. Some of these representatives of Cuban civil society expressed concerns about Cuban membership of Cotonou. Others, among them Osvaldo Payá, described it as a historic opportunity and possibly the only agreement signed by the Cuban government in 44 years with binding provisions on democratisation and human rights.

The Presidency's declaration of 26 March 2003, the Council's conclusions of 14 April 2003 and the Parliament resolution of 10 April 2003 all condemned these actions and stated that they would affect the Union's relations with Cuba and the prospects for increased cooperation. At its meeting of 30 April 2003 the Commission again roundly condemned the situation and considered that examination of Cuba's application to accede to the Cotonou Agreement should be deferred. Noting Cuba's re-election to the UN Commission for Human Rights, it considered that the conditions for membership of that Commission should be seriously reviewed.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/366 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/366

---

(2004/C 88 E/0372)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1680/03

by Anna Karamanou (PSE) to the Commission

(15 May 2003)

Subject:   Torture and inhuman treatment of women in Turkish jails

On 13 June, the first trial will be held in Turkey involving two women, Mrs Naziye Tsogaltaf 22 years of age, and Mrs Sounai Yesildag, 28 years of age, who were tortured whilst in prison in Instanbul. The two women were arrested on 23 September 2002 for alleged membership of an illegal organisation. During their imprisonment they were tortured as confirmed by forensic medical examination. Specifically, the women were beaten, subjected to electric shock treatment and then obliged to open their mouths into which their torturers spat and to swallow the spittle.

The barbaric conditions of imprisonment in certain Turkish prisons are contrary to fundamental human rights and directly violate international agreements and the principles of democracy and freedom. Does the Commission intend to intervene to end torture in prisons, humanise the prison system in Turkey, an applicant country, giving priority to respect for the human rights of women?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(10 June 2003)

The Commission is aware of the problems in Turkey regarding torture (which mainly occurs during pretrial detention under police custody), violence against women and detention conditions. In its 2002 Regular Report on Turkey (1), the Commission outlined the key concerns in these areas. The recently adopted revised Accession Partnership with Turkey sets out the priority areas with respect to these concerns.

Priorities include the need to implement measures to fight against torture, in line with Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights and the Recommendations of the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture. They also include the need to adopt further measures to ensure that prosecutors conduct timely and effective investigations of alleged cases and that courts impose adequate punishments on those convicted of abuses. With respect to detention conditions, the Accession Partnership outlines the need for Turkey to guarantee in practice the right for detained and imprisoned persons to have access in private to a lawyer and to have relatives notified, from the outset of their custody, in line with the European Convention on Human Rights. Turkey is also asked to continue to bring conditions in prisons into line with standards in Member States.

As acknowledged by these priorities, the Commission notes that whilst some progress has been made, with respect to the implementation of legislation there is still need for considerable improvement. Recent reports by the United Nations Committee Against Torture, Amnesty International, and the World Organisation Against Torture (OMCT) have all suggested that torture during pre-trial detention, including sexual and physical violence against women, is still a major concern in Turkey.

The Commission notes that Turkey has, however, made considerable progress in terms of legal reform in the fight against torture. In particular, Turkey has lifted the requirement to seek permission from a superior officer in order to open investigations on a police officer for torture allegations; prison sentences for torture cannot now be reduced to fines, a suspension of the police officer in question or any other measure; and defendants under the competence of the State Security Courts – like all other defendants – have now been granted access to a lawyer from the outset of custody.

As a Candidate Country, Turkey aims to fulfil the Copenhagen political criteria. This includes the need to end torture of all kinds as well as to guarantee the full enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms in line with the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and relevant international and European instruments to which Turkey is party. The Commission will continue to monitor all developments related to allegations of torture in Turkey as well as the implementation of the above-mentioned legislation.

---

(1)  COM(2002) 700 final.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/367 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/367

---

(2004/C 88 E/0373)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1708/03

by Emma Bonino (NI) to the Commission

(19 May 2003)

Subject:   Murder of Joyce Miamuna Katai, State Commissioner for women's affairs and social development of the Nigerian State of Nasarawa

Joyce Miamuna Katai, Commissioner for women's affairs and social development of the State of Nasarawa in central Nigeria was assassinated on 5 May in Toto. Two of her assistants were killed at the same time and only a third, Phoebe Ayenajeh, managed to escape the massacre. This triple murder occurred inside a police station and amounted to nothing less than a lynching, according to a spokesman of the forces of law and order.

The local population had asked Joyce Miamuna Katai for help and protection from an organised gang which was trying to remove ballot boxes in order to falsify the results; the Commissioner tried to help by involving the local police, but they were not even able to guarantee her safety.

The institutional role taken on by Joyce Miamuna Katai as Commissioner for women's affairs and social development was part of the programme of the government of President Obasanjo and the Governor of the State of Nasarawa, Abdullahi Adamus, which made the education, training and social emancipation of women a key policy in Nigeria's transition to democracy.

Obasanjo's Presidency has given and is still giving a strong impetus to the democratic process in Nigeria, a country which up until 1999, the year in which Obasanjo was elected, suffered continuous coups d'état. Since the government declared certain aspects of Islamic law to be unconstitutional in 2002, following the case of Amina Lawal, there has been an upsurge in tension between ethnic Moslems and Christians, which also led to the massacre of civilians at the time of the Miss World contest which was to have taken place in Nigeria.

The First Lady, Stella Obasanjo, has backed the President's policy of supporting women's rights by encouraging women to go to university, stand for election, and play an active role in the social and political life of the country, and promoting an international campaign against the practice of female genital mutilation, still suffered by 40 % of young women and girls in Nigeria.

Is the Commission aware of these horrendous events in the State of Nasarawa?

Has the Commission already expressed its indignation at what happened on 5 May 2003 to President Obasanjo and the representatives of the democratic states of Nigeria?

In view of the very grave nature of these events, what measures does the Commission intend to take to facilitate the transition to democracy in the democratic states of Nigeria?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(10 July 2003)

The Commission is aware that Mrs. Joyce Miamuna Katai was murdered by youths at Rafin Kunama polling station at Toto in Nasarawa State on 3 May 2003. It appears that the deceased had intervened to stop election fraud when the youths attacked and chased her to the local police station where they killed the Commissioner and two assistants.

The Commission has not made a specific demarche to the authorities on this matter, however, in writing to congratulate President Obasanjo on his re-election, it has made an explicit reference to electoral violence and the need to ensure that all cases are fully investigated and that perpetrators will be brought to justice.

The Commission is supporting the transition to democracy in Nigeria. The ACP-EU Partnership Agreement signed in Cotonou on 23 June 2000 sets out in article 9 three essential elements – respect for human rights, democratic principles and the rule of law. The Country Strategy signed with Nigeria on 16 July 2002 (1) will directly support measures to promote these principles. Nigeria is also a focal country for the European Initiative for Democracy and Human Rights (EIDHR). The Commission supported local observers and fielded a large international team to monitor the recent elections.

---

(1)  http://europa.eu.int/comm/development/body/csp_rsp/csp_en.cfm.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/368 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/368

---

(2004/C 88 E/0374)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1746/03

by Proinsias De Rossa (PSE) to the Commission

(20 May 2003)

Subject:   Carrickmines Castle archeological finds

Could the Commission please indicate the current position as regards its investigations into the Environmental Impact Assessment carried out under Directive 85/337/EEC (1) and, in particular, its failure to appraise the impact on the archaeological heritage of the Carrickmines site? Further to the Commission's answer to Oral Question H-0649/02 (2), will it please indicate when it expects to report on its investigation, bearing in mind the urgent nature of this situation, given the imminent destruction of this archaeological treasure?

Supplementary answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(5 April 2004)

In July 2003, the Commission obtained its own expert opinion on the archaeological content of the environmental impact assessment carried out on the M50 motorway project pursuant 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 as amended by Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997 (3). It sought comments from the Irish authorities on this, which it subsequently received. It has since provided the Honourable Member with a copy of both the expert opinion and the response of the Irish authorities.

---

(1)  OJ L 175, 5.7.1985, p. 40.

(2)  Written reply dated 22 October 2002.

(3)  OJ L 73, 14.3.1997.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/369 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/369

---

(2004/C 88 E/0375)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1750/03

by José Ribeiro e Castro (UEN) to the Commission

(27 May 2003)

Subject:   Cooperation with Angola: stability – demobilisation of UNITA

There have been many reports of the worrying situation in which demobilised former UNITA combatants find themselves. This has been the subject of various complaints made by leaders of UNITA to the Angolan Government and expressions of concern on the part of United Nations bodies. The socio-professional reintegration of these former combatants and their families forms part of the agreements which brought the long military conflict to an end and is vital to the country's stability. Frustration, uprooting, poverty, hunger and the absence of any prospects may lead some to despair, with the danger that extremely serious social problems may arise and unrest may spread around the country.

It should be added that, while the situation was relatively controlled and stable (albeit with considerable difficulties and shortages) as long as these former UNITA military and their families were housed in some 30 holding camps set up immediately after the end of the armed conflict, it could deteriorate rapidly in human and social terms when such camps are closed abruptly unless minimum reception and reintegration arrangements are made before then and appropriate professional training, agricultural rehabilitation and rural development measures are taken in the areas to which these populations will be heading.

In answer to my question of 4 March 2003 (E-0608/03 (1)), the Commission, through Commissioner Poul Nielson, confirmed the fact – which we welcome – that Community aid will be concentrated in the medium and long term on the social (health and education) sectors and on food security, with priority being given for the time being to financing the measures required to support the peace and national reconciliation process.

The Commission:

| — | what information does it have regarding the situation of these demobilised UNITA fighters; |
| --- | --- |

—

what information does it have regarding the situation of these demobilised UNITA fighters;

| — | what measures has it taken or does it intend to take in this respect; |
| --- | --- |

—

what measures has it taken or does it intend to take in this respect;

| — | is it prepared to allocate specific resources from the global amount earmarked for the 2002-2007 cooperation strategy, approved on 28 January 2003, to improving the living conditions of demobilised UNITA combatants, in particular with regard to the rehabilitation of communities, rural development, health, education and professional training, thereby providing direct support for the implementation of this part of the peace agreements and contributing directly to the peace process, reconciliation and stability in Angola; |
| --- | --- |

—

is it prepared to allocate specific resources from the global amount earmarked for the 2002-2007 cooperation strategy, approved on 28 January 2003, to improving the living conditions of demobilised UNITA combatants, in particular with regard to the rehabilitation of communities, rural development, health, education and professional training, thereby providing direct support for the implementation of this part of the peace agreements and contributing directly to the peace process, reconciliation and stability in Angola;

| — | is it also open to the idea that these specific programmes should be managed jointly by the Government and UNITA, as envisaged by the World Bank? |
| --- | --- |

—

is it also open to the idea that these specific programmes should be managed jointly by the Government and UNITA, as envisaged by the World Bank?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(18 July 2003)

The de-mobilisation and re-integration of ex-UNITA soldiers is a key for the success of the peace process and there have indeed been complaints about the government's handling of the demobilisation and reintegration process. With the official closure of the gathering areas by 31 March 2003, a large number of ex-UNITA soldiers and their families had been sent to transit centres, from which they were supposed to be transported to their areas of resettlement. There have been logistical delays and thousands are still held up in these centres with inadequate facilities, as conditions in the resettlement areas are not in place. However, with the numbers of ex-fighters (and family members) turning out to be much higher then envisaged in the Memorandum of Understanding of April 2002 (approx. 105,000 ex-fighters instead of 55,000), the government has a valid explanation for some of the problems encountered.

The Commission is convinced that the emergency demobilisation and reintegration program (ADRP) worth an estimated USD 180 million, which the Government has prepared and negotiated with the World Bank, will address and resolve these problems. As mentioned in the answer to the Honourable Member's written question E-1678/03 (2), the Commission participates in the ADRP through its contribution of EUR 20 million to the Multi-Donor Trust Fund within the framework of the Multi-country Demobilisation and Re-Integration Program (MDRP).

In addition to the Commission's engagement in the ADRP, ex-UNITA soldiers and their families also benefit from the distribution of seeds, tools and food aid from the EUR 30 million Emergency Programme to Support the Peace Programme. UNITA ex-combatants and their families have also benefited from emergency nutrition and health interventions financed by the Community. Furthermore the Commission's support programme for reconstruction (Programa de Apoio a Reconstrução), which is the main rural rehabilitation and reconstruction programme in Angola (EUR 55 million) and targets the improvement of access to basic social services mainly in the central highlands, will also benefit returning ex-UNITA soldiers and their families. The Commission is currently considering a financial contribution from the 9th European Development Fund (EDF) to the FAS (Fondo de Apoio Social). The objective of this fund (now in its 3rd phase) is to achieve improved, expanded and sustainable utilisation of basic social and economic services and to support a governance system where local government and communities are mutually accountable.

On a final note it should be mentioned that, in general, discrimination between the different groups (ex-combatants, internally displaced persons, returning refugees, etc.) is not advisable, as it is likely to cause tensions between these groups. That said, UNITA is of course a special case, and preferential treatment of the ex-combatants and their families in the interest of the consolidation of the peace process is unavoidable. The situation is, however, sensitive and needs to be handled with care. The Commission is open to a joint management of specific programmes by the government and UNITA.

---

(1)  OJ C 33 E, 6.2.2004, p. 57.

(2)  See page 39.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/370 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/370

---

(2004/C 88 E/0376)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1751/03

by José Ribeiro e Castro (UEN) to the Commission

(27 May 2003)

Subject:   Venezuela – unemployment and referendum

According to Venezuelan media reports, the unemployment rate now stands at 22,6 % in the country and 792 811 people lost their jobs in the last year.

There are regular reports of political confusion in Venezuela and a general climate of social conflict between supporters of President Chávez and the opposition, and there are indications that Mr Chávez is seeking in various ways to prevent the holding of a referendum on the possible revocation of his mandate.

Having regard to the European Parliament's resolution of 13 February 2003, will the Commission answer the following questions:

| — | What information does it have regarding the political, social and economic situation in Venezuela? |
| --- | --- |

—

What information does it have regarding the political, social and economic situation in Venezuela?

| — | What developments is it expecting in the medium and long term? |
| --- | --- |

—

What developments is it expecting in the medium and long term?

| — | Has the Commission taken any measures to deal with the repercussions of the Venezuelan crisis on immigrant communities from the Member States? |
| --- | --- |

—

Has the Commission taken any measures to deal with the repercussions of the Venezuelan crisis on immigrant communities from the Member States?

| — | Is the Commission considering the possibility of assisting these nationals of Member States and their children should the situation deteriorate? |
| --- | --- |

—

Is the Commission considering the possibility of assisting these nationals of Member States and their children should the situation deteriorate?

| — | What information does it have regarding the measures taken by the Venezuelan President and his government to make the necessary arrangements for the holding of the revocation referendum? |
| --- | --- |

—

What information does it have regarding the measures taken by the Venezuelan President and his government to make the necessary arrangements for the holding of the revocation referendum?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(10 July 2003)

Venezuela continues to have an unstable political situation, with society deeply divided between supporters and opponents of the government. Representatives of the government and opposition signed an Agreement on 29 May 2003. The Agreement contains the three main points included in the agenda of the Negotiating Table: support for an electoral solution; investigation of the events of April 2002; and disarming the civilian population. The agreement opens the door to a referendum, provided for in the Constitution, and thus paves the way for a ‘constitutional, peaceful, democratic and electoral’ solution, which the international community, including the Union, has demanded.

It is difficult to forecast how the situation in Venezuela will develop. The procedure envisages the appointment of the members of the National Electoral Council (CNE). Its five members will have to be appointed by the National Assembly, where it may not be easy to reach agreement. It is not clear if the signatures already collected by the opposition, when they attempted to bring about a non-binding referendum in February 2003 against President Chávez staying in office, will be considered valid by the CNE, once established. If this is not the case, the opposition will have to launch a new attempt to collect the signatures needed to call the referendum. These will have to be validated and confirmed to be the right percentage (i.e. at least 20 % of registered voters) by the new CNE. President Chávez has declared that he will respect Article 72 of the Constitution and the Agreement. He insists that the referendum should not be limited to the President but include other elected authorities. Calling early elections remains another possibility for President Chávez.

In parallel, the economy is suffering a grave economic crisis with important social consequences. The forecast for 2003 is one of an economic contraction of 15 % with a jump in unemployment, now standing at around 20 %.

The Commission is closely following the political situation. The Union has fully supported the Organisation of American States (OAS), and the tripartite working group together with the United Nations Development Program (UNDP) and the Carter Centre, and the Group of Friends, in their efforts to facilitate a national dialogue. The Union, in several Declarations, has emphasised the need for a peaceful, democratic, constitutional and electoral solution. In the last declaration, 5 June 2003, the Union welcomes the Venezuelan Government and opposition's signing of a political agreement on 29 May 2003 and called upon all parties to proceed without delay to the necessary follow-up needed to implement the Agreement. It also stressed that the Union stands ready to assist in the implementation of the agreement.

In response to the current crisis, the Commission has signed a project to assist the OAS in its efforts to implement possible agreements reached between the parties of the OAS mediated dialogue. The project amounts to EUR 600 000. It includes the three components of the Agreement: support for an electoral solution, investigation of the events of April 2002, and disarming the civilian population. In addition, Venezuela is on the list of countries proposed by the Commission as priorities for possible Election Observation, in the event that an electoral consultation takes place. The final decision on whether to send an Election Observation Mission would be made on the basis of an Exploratory Mission which would assess whether a EU observation is advisable, useful and feasible. The decision on sending on Exploratory Mission will be made once the further electoral process is clarified.

No specific actions to protect Union citizens in Venezuela have been taken at the Union level. Their protection and support is normally ensured by their Member States of origin.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/372 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/372

---

(2004/C 88 E/0377)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1767/03

by Charles Tannock (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(28 May 2003)

Subject:   Persecution of Christians in Indonesia

There are continuing reports of persecution by Muslims of Christians in Indonesia. That said, Christians have nonetheless been arrested for instigating sectarian violence as in the case of the three Christians arrested in Palu, central Sulawesi in September 2000 and convicted on capital charges. During the trial there were thousands of demonstrators chanting outside the courtroom, with threats made against both lawyers and witnesses. As a result, of the eighteen witnesses prepared initially to testify for the defence and the four lawyers prepared to defend the accused only one witness gave evidence and two lawyers were prepared to present a case for the defence.

Can the Commission indicate what indications it has regarding the fate of these men and whether it has raised their case as well as the ongoing persecution of Christians in various parts of Indonesia? Does the Commission have any indication as to whether or not the violence has been officially orchestrated or received support of any kind from the authorities and does the Commission believe that the situation is improving or getting worse.

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(30 June 2003)

The question refers to the case of Fabianus Tibo, Marianus Riwu and Dominggus da Silva who have all been sentenced to death in April 2001 by the Palu District court for their involvement in the Poso riot in May-June 2000. The riot claimed the lives of up to 200 people. In May 2001 the Central Sulawesi High Court rejected appeals for lighter sentences. The three defendants submitted a request for case review in September 2002. No further decision has been taken until now.

The Commission has been following and continues to follow closely the situation in Central Sulawesi, including the legal processes related to the violence perpetrated in the region. The Commission has also provided humanitarian assistance to IDPs and local communities through the Humanitarian Aid Office (ECHO) and Aid to Uprooted People programmes.

According to Community counterparts and other international organisations and international nongovernmental organisations (NGOs) working in Central Sulawesi, the situation in Central Sulawesi has stabilized over the past year. The Malino (1) process, despite some important flaws, has started to provide an opportunity for an end to the conflict.

---

(1)  In December 2001, the national government led by Coordinating Minister for People's Welfare, Jusuf Kalla, convened and mediated a two-day meeting between twenty-five Muslim and twenty-four Christian leaders from Poso in the South Sulawesi town of Malino. The two parties agreed to end their conflict and work together to maintain peace in Poso, Central Sulawesi, and issued a 10-point joint declaration (the ‘Malino Declaration’). The government's immediate priority is to separate the warring communities and to maintain peace and order, which will be followed by dissemination of the Malino Declaration to the grassroots. Extra security personnel have been deployed and have conducted ‘sweeping operations’ to disarm militiamen and fighters on both sides of the warring factions. The Government is also providing financial assistance amounting to 100 billion rupiah (USD 10 million) to resettle displaced persons and for reconstruction purposes. Since the Malino meeting and subsequent actions, the security conditions in Poso have much improved, transportation links have been reestablished and thousands of arms have been surrendered voluntarily.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/373 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/373

---

(2004/C 88 E/0378)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1776/03

by Claude Moraes (PSE) to the Commission

(28 May 2003)

Subject:   Child asthma and allergic diseases

A recent World Health Organisation Report has indicated that the number of European cases of child asthma and allergic diseases doubled between the 1970s and 1990s.

Does the Commission have its own analysis of the causes and does it include bad air quality and the impact of synthetic chemicals in water and food?

What is the Commission's view on why in at least two EU countries – the UK and Italy – child asthma and allergic diseases are now ‘easing’, according to the WHO?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(19 June 2003)

Under the Action Programme on pollution-related diseases (1) in the context of the framework for action in the field of Public Health (1999/2001), the Commission funded several projects on asthma and respiratory allergies prevention. The list and the summary of these projects can be found on our web site at the following address: (http://europa.eu.int/comm/health).

According to numerous scientific studies, the origin of asthma and allergic diseases is multi-factorial and therefore highly difficult to tackle.

The Commission does not have any particular information on a decrease of the incidence of asthma and allergies in Italy and United Kingdom.

The reduction of the number of people affected by such diseases is one of the priorities of the new Public Health Programme adopted in 23 September 2002 (2). In addition, asthma and respiratory allergies prevention is also considered as a priority in the Commission Communication ‘A European Environment and Health Strategy’ adopted on 11 June 2003, which can be found on our web site at the following address: (http://europa.eu.int/comm/press room/presspacks/health/pp health en.htm).

---

(1)  Decision No 1296/1999/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 1999 adopting a programme of Community action on pollution-related diseases in the context of the framework for action in the field of public health (1999 to 2001), OJ L 155, 22.6.1999.

(2)  Decision No 1786/2002/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 23 September 2002 adopting a programme of Community action in the field of public health (2003-2008) – Commission Statements, OJ L 271, 9.10.2002.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/373 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/373

---

(2004/C 88 E/0379)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1800/03

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(28 May 2003)

Subject:   SARS and airline air recycling

What regulations apply to airlines operating in the EU concerning high efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filters? How often are such filters changed? How quickly does their efficiency deteriorate with use? Why do passengers have to breathe recycled air at all? What is the range of ventilation allowed (i.e. the number of minutes before air is fully changed in the cabin)? Once suspect cases of passengers are found, what procedure is in place to prevent other passengers from being infected by the same aircraft? Is the Commission satisfied that these procedures are now adequate to the risks involved?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(15 July 2003)

All aircraft designed after 1985 have standard high efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filters fitted in the recirculation system. HEPA filters are highly efficient in removing dust and airborne contaminants such as droplets, bacteria and large microbes. The normal life of such filters is one C-Check, i.e. between 12 and 18 months of operation. Efficiency will not deteriorate during service provided that elements are changed at the required intervals.

During flight, fresh air is introduced into the cabin continuously. Depending on the type of aircraft, the entire cabin air volume is exchanged every two minutes. Air recirculated helps reduce fuel consumption related to the air conditioning system. Measures carried out by European aircraft producers demonstrate that on the ground, recirculated air is cleaner than outside air.

The Network for the Epidemiological Surveillance and Control of Communicable Diseases in the Community endorsed the technical guidance document prepared by the EU Expert Group on SARS ‘Recommendation by the European Community for airlines, flight personnel and ground medical personnel for measures to be taken before and during flights from countries with local transmission of SARS’. The document reports recommendations on measures and procedures to be undertaken in case of SARS-suspect cases identified on board.

These guidelines include recommendations concerning action to be taken by flight attendants should a passenger show symptoms such as fever, cough or shortness of breath, or if he/she is obviously ill. The passenger should be asked to wear a surgical mask, and people serving him/her should wear a FFP2/3 mask. If possible, the passenger should be seated separately, i.e. as far as possible from other passengers. If the passenger is very symptomatic, e.g. has a severe cough, at least passengers within two-three meters (approximately two rows) of the ill passenger, as well as the entire crew, should use a mask.

They also recommend that airlines should ensure that information material be distributed to all passengers informing them of potential risks. Passengers sitting within two meters of the ill passenger, and the crew, should also receive a registration card (if they have not completed one at the time of departure) and an information sheet ‘Important health information for passengers concerning possible contact with the severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS)’. It is also recommended that the airline should collect the registration cards and keep them available for the health authority for 14 days after landing.

Further information concerning measures to be undertaken in this situations are available on Europa web site at: (http://europa.eu.int/comm/health/ph_threats/com/sars/keydo_sars_en.htm).

The Commission is discussing with Member States, the international air transport organisations and the airport authorities on how to take forward these recommendations.

As reported by World Health Organisation (WHO), the risk of transmission of SARS on aircraft is very low. To date, symptomatic probable SARS cases on four flights have been associated with possible transmission on board. Two of these flights preceded WHO's 15 March 2003 emergency travel advice. Since the introduction of exit screening on 23 March 2003, no further cases of SARS in-flight have been documented.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/375 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/375

---

(2004/C 88 E/0380)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1806/03

by Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(23 May 2003)

Subject:   Settlement of payments to EU Member States under the second CSF.

Given that procedures have commenced for settlement of payments under the second CSF, can the Commission provide the following information:

| — | what amounts were finally requested by each Member State? |
| --- | --- |

—

what amounts were finally requested by each Member State?

| — | what appropriations were not taken up by each of the Member States? |
| --- | --- |

—

what appropriations were not taken up by each of the Member States?

| — | what percentage of total earmarked appropriations were represented by the amounts not taken up by Member States in each case? |
| --- | --- |

—

what percentage of total earmarked appropriations were represented by the amounts not taken up by Member States in each case?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(23 June 2003)

The Commission asks the Honourable Member to refer to its reply to Oral Question No H-0310/03 by Mr Mastorakis during Question Time at Parliament's June 2003 part-session (1).

---

(1)  Written reply given on 3.6.2003.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/375 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/375

---

(2004/C 88 E/0381)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1821/03

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(2 June 2003)

Subject:   Sausage meat

Is the Commission satisfied that the labelling of the ingredients of sausages makes clear to consumers what they are eating, particularly as regards fat content? What measures have been taken now that the food industry has developed new products to ensure that fats remain solid when cooked to make clear to consumers that the fat content of economy sausages has increased?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(10 July 2003)

The labelling of sausages intended to be delivered as such to the ultimate consumer is subject to the rules laid down by Directive 2000/13/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 March 2000 (1), as amended in particular by Commission Directive 2001/101/EC of 26 November 2001 (2) and Commission Directive 2002/86/EC of 6 November 2002 (3).

Directive 2000/13/EC (Article 7.2) provides that the quantity of the ingredient which characterises the foodstuff must be stated. In the case of sausages, therefore, it is the quantity of meat which must be stated.

Although there is no obligation to indicate the quantity of fat present in the meat or present in the end product, there is a maximum limit of fat that meat may contain, for example 30 % fat in pigmeat and 25 % fat in beef and veal (Annex to Directive 2001/101/EC).

Moreover, if these maximum fat limits are exceeded, the meat content must be adjusted downwards and the presence of fat must be indicated in the list ingredients.

Pursuant to Directive 2002/86/EC, the labelling of the products concerned must be in conformity with the rules indicated above with effect from 1 July 2003.

---

(1)  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.

(2)  Commission Directive 2001/101/EC of 26 November 2001 amending Directive 2000/13/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, OJ L 310, 28.11.2001.

(3)  Commission Directive 2002/86/EC of 6 November 2002 amending Directive 2001/101/EC as regards the date from which trade in products not in conformity with Directive 2000/13/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council is prohibited, OJ L 305, 7.11.2002.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/376 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/376

---

(2004/C 88 E/0382)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1931/03

by Horst Schnellhardt (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(5 June 2003)

Subject:   Introduction of European food standards legislation in the accession countries

According to press reports, serious problems have emerged with regard to the introduction of European food standards legislation in undertakings in the accession countries.

Can the Commission answer the following:

| 1. | How much weight should be given to those reports? |
| --- | --- |

1.

How much weight should be given to those reports?

| 2. | How many undertakings (expressed as a percentage of all undertakings) in Poland and Hungary applied for transitional periods? |
| --- | --- |

2.

How many undertakings (expressed as a percentage of all undertakings) in Poland and Hungary applied for transitional periods?

| 3. | What measures has the European Commission taken to ensure that undertakings in the food industry cease production as from 1 May 2004 in the event of a failure to transpose hygiene legislation? |
| --- | --- |

3.

What measures has the European Commission taken to ensure that undertakings in the food industry cease production as from 1 May 2004 in the event of a failure to transpose hygiene legislation?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(30 June 2003)

The Commission is closely monitoring the food safety issues in the acceding Member States. By the day of accession, all new Member States will have to apply the high level of European standards, as defined by the ‘acquis communautaire’.

In general terms, important progress has already been achieved in the Candidate Countries with regard to food safety. There is no doubt that the accession to the Union will significantly improve the food safety standards in these countries.

Through regular missions undertaken by the Commission's Food and Veterinary Office, peer reviews and other missions, complemented by various other monitoring tools such as Monitoring Tables and Tables of Correspondance, the Commission follows closely the developments in the acceding Member States. Any problem so far identified was communicated to the respective countries. Should any shortcoming arise in the field of food safety by the day of accession, appropriate measures, which may include safeguard measures, will be taken to protect consumers in the Union.

As regards agro-food establishments in Poland and Hungary, a limited number of transitional periods were granted in the conclusion of the accession negotiations in December 2002. Such transitional periods were granted to 370 meat establishments in Poland (including cold stores and fish processing plants). These represent 13 % of the total number of Polish meat establishments expected at the day of accession. Transitional periods were also granted to 169 Polish milk establishments representing 51 % of the total number of Polish milk establishments expected at accession. These transitional periods are valid for Poland until 31 December 2007. In Hungary, 44 high capacity meat establishments have been granted transitional periods, representing 7 % of the total number of Hungarian meat establishments. These transitional periods for Hungary are valid until 31 December 2006.

During the transitional period, all products from establishments subject to such a transitional measure must be specifically labelled and only marketed locally; consequently releasing into the Internal Market will be prohibited.

Based on the Commission's monitoring, agro-food establishments without a transitional period and not complying with the Union food safety requirements by accession will need to be closed. In the meantime, the Commission provides assistance in the upgrading of agro-food establishments by providing expertise through Technical Assistance Information Exchange Office (TAIEX) and peer reviews, training activities and through the Twinning programme. It furthermore provides significant financial support from PHARE and Sapard.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/377 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/377

---

(2004/C 88 E/0383)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1933/03

by Dana Scallon (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(5 June 2003)

Subject:   Social development

The Commission proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on aid for policies and actions on reproductive and sexual health and rights in developing countries (1) provides for the funding of healthcare in developing countries. During the legislative procedure, it became clear that the Commission intends to use the appropriations allocated to this programme to fund – inter alia – abortion on demand.

The Community's powers with regard to development policy, set out in Article 177(1) of the Treaty, uses the term ‘social development’, which is open to interpretation. Articles 136 to 145 of the Treaty expand the meaning of the term ‘development’ in social policy with regard to domestic policies. It is undisputed that the Community has no power to rule on or to finance abortion within the Community. It would, therefore, be inconsistent if the same legal term were to be interpreted differently. It therefore seems appropriate, with regard to the first sentence of Article 5 of the Treaty, to interpret Article 177(1) of the Treaty accordingly and not to authorise Community activities which are legally not possible within the Community.

Does the Commission take the view that the term ‘social development’ referred to in Article 177(1) of the Treaty provides a legal basis for activities facilitating abortion on demand?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(30 June 2003)

The recently adopted Regulation on aid for policies and actions on reproductive and sexual health and rights in developing countries (2) aims to fund innovative actions that will improve the reproductive and sexual health of men and women in developing countries. The assertion of the Honourable Member that this regulation will fund abortion on demand is misleading. It is clearly stated in Recital 16 of the Regulation that ‘No support is to be given under this Regulation to incentives to encourage sterilisation or abortion, or to the improper testing of contraception methods in developing countries. When cooperation measures are implemented, the decisions adopted at the ICPD (3), in particular point 8.25 of the ICPD Programme of Action, according to which, inter alia, abortion should in no case be promoted as a method of family planning, must be rigorously observed. Post-abortion counselling, education and family planning services should be offered promptly, which will also help to avoid repeat abortions.’

As already explained in the Commission's answer to the Honourable Member's written question E-3323/02 (4), Community competence in the field of development policy is provided for in title XX of the Treaty establishing the European Community. Accordingly, all actions of the Community in the field of development co-operation must fall under the objectives defined in Article 177 of the EC Treaty.

The Commission recalls that it follows from the judgement of the Court of Justice in Case C-268/1994 (Portugal/Commission, [1996] ECR I-6177) that a measure in the field of development co-operation may lay down provisions on specific matters without there being any need to have recourse to other legal bases, or indeed to participation of the Member States in the conclusion of the agreement, in so far as the essential purpose of the agreement is to pursue the objectives referred to in Article 177, and on condition that the clauses concerning specific matters do not impose obligations so extensive that they in fact constitute objectives distinct from those of development co-operation.

The Community, therefore, has full competence in the area of Sexual and Reproductive Health in developing countries. Community developmental assistance is always implemented within the legal framework of the country concerned.

---

(1)  COM(2002) 120 final – OJ C 151 E, 25.6.2002, p. 260 and COM(2003) 168 final.

(2)  OJ L 224, 6.9.2003.

(3)  ICPD: International Conference on Population and Development.

(4)  OJ C 11 E, 15.1.2004.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/378 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/378

---

(2004/C 88 E/0384)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1948/03

by Roger Helmer (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(13 June 2003)

Subject:   Lithuanian referendum

Would the Commission please comment on the fact that seriously underhand tactics appear to have been used in Lithuania's referendum campaign for accession to the EU, namely that:

| — | electoral law was broken with consistent campaigning for a ‘Yes’ vote in the 30 hours preceding the referendum, which is contrary to Lithuanian electoral law, |
| --- | --- |

—

electoral law was broken with consistent campaigning for a ‘Yes’ vote in the 30 hours preceding the referendum, which is contrary to Lithuanian electoral law,

| — | senior government officials, celebrities and businessmen were used to put out the key ‘Yes’ message on State radio and television during the 30 hour purdah period before the referendum and throughout the two days of voting; that they used key political messages to persuade the voters not just to turn out but also to vote Yes', |
| --- | --- |

—

senior government officials, celebrities and businessmen were used to put out the key ‘Yes’ message on State radio and television during the 30 hour purdah period before the referendum and throughout the two days of voting; that they used key political messages to persuade the voters not just to turn out but also to vote Yes',

| — | the key Yes' message, to ‘vote for tomorrow's youth’, cannot be interpreted as merely awareness-raising, |
| --- | --- |

—

the key Yes' message, to ‘vote for tomorrow's youth’, cannot be interpreted as merely awareness-raising,

| — | goods – drinks, confectionery and detergent – were offered by the largest supermarket chain to Lithuanians who could prove that they had voted in the referendum, which promoted a surge of voters who took the overall vote above the necessary 50 % participation level, |
| --- | --- |

—

goods – drinks, confectionery and detergent – were offered by the largest supermarket chain to Lithuanians who could prove that they had voted in the referendum, which promoted a surge of voters who took the overall vote above the necessary 50 % participation level,

| — | this surge of over 300 000 voters after the announcement of free goods for votes may be directly attributed to this ‘special offer’, which was announced hourly on State radio, since the enormous increase in voting after the announcement was not consistent with the voting pattern for the first day of voting, |
| --- | --- |

—

this surge of over 300 000 voters after the announcement of free goods for votes may be directly attributed to this ‘special offer’, which was announced hourly on State radio, since the enormous increase in voting after the announcement was not consistent with the voting pattern for the first day of voting,

| — | senior government officials met after the first day of voting and decided to use ‘further agitation’ to promote a ‘Yes’ vote, which is specifically banned under Lithuanian electoral law, |
| --- | --- |

—

senior government officials met after the first day of voting and decided to use ‘further agitation’ to promote a ‘Yes’ vote, which is specifically banned under Lithuanian electoral law,

| — | the extraordinary efforts of senior officials and businessmen, especially the free goods for votes offered in the supermarket chain, materially affected the outcome of the referendum? |
| --- | --- |

—

the extraordinary efforts of senior officials and businessmen, especially the free goods for votes offered in the supermarket chain, materially affected the outcome of the referendum?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(18 July 2003)

The questions raised by the Honourable Member falls exclusively within the competence of Lithuania as a democratic and sovereign country. It is also fully within the responsibility of Lithuania to organise the Accession Referendum Information Campaign, including the choice of the slogans.

The referendum on Lithuania's accession to the Union was held on 10 and 11 May 2003. There was a 63,3 % turnout and 91,07 % voted in favour of accession.

The organisation of the Referendum has been based on the Lithuanian Referendum Law. According to this law any complaints about possible violations of the law, which prohibits campaigning during 30 hours before the referendum and on the days of the referendum are to be handled by the Central Electoral Committee of Lithuania. Following the referendum on Lithuania's accession to the Union, several Lithuanian citizens submitted complaints, which have been dealt with by the Central Electoral Committee of Lithuania. As a result the referendum has been considered as being valid.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/379 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/379

---

(2004/C 88 E/0385)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1960/03

by Elspeth Attwooll (ELDR) to the Commission

(13 June 2003)

Subject:   Road transport managers

Is the Commission of the opinion that, in order to implement correctly Council Directive 96/26/EC (1) on admission to the occupation of road haulage operator and road passenger transport operator [etc.], a Member State must require road transport operators to employ a road transport manager, in the strict sense of the term (i.e. have an employer/employee relationship according to national law), as opposed to having a different contractual relationship (such as a contract for services with a self-employed manager) that meets all the requirements imposed by the Directive?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(16 July 2003)

Article 3(1) of Council Directive 96/26/EC of 29 April 1996 on admission to the occupation of road haulage operator and road passenger transport operator and mutual recognition of diplomas, certificates and other evidence of formal qualifications intended to facilitate for these operators the right to freedom of establishment in national and international transport operations, stipulates that where a transport operator is a natural person but does not himself possess the required professional competence, he must have a designated transport manager, who satisfies the Directive's good repute and professional competence criteria and who continuously and effectively manages the transport operations. If the transport operator is not a natural person, the good repute criterion and professional competence criteria must still be satisfied by the transport manager, who again continuously and effectively manages the transport operations.

The Commission notes that in all cases the transport manager must be continuously and effectively managing the undertaking's transport operations. It is by this criterion that compliance with the Directive's requirements is to be judged. The Directive is however silent as to whether this can be achieved by directly employing a transport manager or by a different contractual arrangement and hence neither option is automatically excluded.

---

(1)  OJ L 124, 23.5.1996, p. 1.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/380 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/380

---

(2004/C 88 E/0386)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2011/03

by Ioannis Marínos (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(17 June 2003)

Subject:   Application of the Community ‘acquis’ in Cyprus

Thousands of Turkish Cypriots have left the territory of northern Cyprus that has been under occupation since 1974, and today they represent scarcely 50 % of the numbers who used to live there before the invasion of ‘Attila’ (18 % of the total population according to the 1972 official census), as continually stated by the Turkish Cypriot newspaper ‘Afrika’, which is relentlessly persecuted by the Denktash regime.

According to statements made by Mr Papadopoulos, the President of Cyprus, on Greek state television (NET) on 18 May 2003, Cyprus's land registration office officially registered the amount of real assets belonging to Turkish Cypriots – before the invasion by the Turkish army – at 12,9 %. In the same interview Mr Papadopoulos stressed that the ban on vessels flying Cypriot flags preventing them from approaching Turkish ports, regardless of their ownership, is still in force.

Is the maintenance of this ban on vessels of a country which from 1 May 2004 will be an EU Member State consistent with Community law? Provisions in the Annan plan restrict the amount of property and the number of Greek refugees who are to return to the regions intended – under the plan – to be under the administration of the Turkish Cypriot ‘component state’, as it is referred to in the plan. Are these provisions consistent with the Community ‘acquis’? What comments does the Commission have to make on the failure of Mr Denktash's main project concerning ‘forced separation of the Greeks and Turks of Cyprus since trouble will begin if they coexist’, after thousands of Greeks and Turks crossed the ‘green line’, without the occurrence of any noteworthy incident between them? Is it consistent with the Community ‘acquis’ that 9 %, in actual fact, of the native population of a country (which owns 12,9 % of its territory) should be in control of 29,5 % of the Cyprus's total territory, as the Annan plan proposes?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(28 July 2003)

As the European Council stated in Luxembourg in 1997, the solution of the Cyprus problem has to be found through talks under the aegis of the United Nations (UN). Only the UN has a mandate of good offices. The UN Secretary General Kofi Annan recently (1 April 2003) presented a report on his mission of good offices in Cyprus where he addresses the problems found since his mandate started in 1999.

As regards the restriction on vessels flying Cypriot flags from approaching Turkish ports, such a measure would not be consistent with the ‘acquis communautaire’. While there is no obligation on Turkey to apply the ‘acquis’ in this area, as a Candidate country, and in the framework of the Association Agreement, it has been encouraged on several occasions to make progress with the adoption and implementation of the ‘acquis’. Furthermore, the restrictions appear to be contrary to international rules, including those of the World Trade Organisation (WTO) and Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). Finally and as a matter of principle, restrictive actions within the field of maritime transport run against standing Union policy considerations for further liberalising the maritime services sector. The Commission will continue to raise this issue in its bilateral contacts with Turkey.

With regard to ‘acquis’ related questions in the Annan plan, the Commission wishes to recall that the European Council has repeatedly stated that the Union would accommodate the terms of a settlement of the Cyprus problem in line with the principles on which the Union is founded. The Commission cannot prejudge the outcome of negotiations which have to take place between the parties concerned.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/381 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/381

---

(2004/C 88 E/0387)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2029/03

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(18 June 2003)

Subject:   Increase in charges for transit visas authorising people travelling between present and future Members States of the EU to enter Serbia

| 1. | Is the Commission aware that up until 2002 transit visas at the borders of the former Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro) for people in transit from other European countries were issued at a cost of between 6 and 10 euro and that, on leaving the country, the ‘Turisticka Propusnica’ tourist pass issued simply had to be handed back to the police without further evidence having to be provided? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is the Commission aware that up until 2002 transit visas at the borders of the former Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro) for people in transit from other European countries were issued at a cost of between 6 and 10 euro and that, on leaving the country, the ‘Turisticka Propusnica’ tourist pass issued simply had to be handed back to the police without further evidence having to be provided?

| 2. | Is the Commission also aware that the rules changed in 2003 and that people in transit first have to pay an amount of EUR 33 to a bank (for instance the Vojvodina Bank at Šid railway station at the Croatian border) and then take the receipt to the border police office where evidence of payment is issued and a visa is stuck into the passport and stamped? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Is the Commission also aware that the rules changed in 2003 and that people in transit first have to pay an amount of EUR 33 to a bank (for instance the Vojvodina Bank at Šid railway station at the Croatian border) and then take the receipt to the border police office where evidence of payment is issued and a visa is stuck into the passport and stamped?

| 3. | Does the Commission know the reasons for this significant price increase and much more time-consuming procedure? Is it a levy to meet the costs of war damage caused in 1999, is it a sign of deteriorating relations with the outside world, or is it a response to new visa requirements imposed by the EU or its Member States? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Does the Commission know the reasons for this significant price increase and much more time-consuming procedure? Is it a levy to meet the costs of war damage caused in 1999, is it a sign of deteriorating relations with the outside world, or is it a response to new visa requirements imposed by the EU or its Member States?

| 4. | How long does the Commission expect this exceptional situation to continue? Are discussions taking place between the EU and the governments of Serbia or Serbia-Montenegro on these visa regulations and the way in which they are implemented? If not, why not? |
| --- | --- |

4.

How long does the Commission expect this exceptional situation to continue? Are discussions taking place between the EU and the governments of Serbia or Serbia-Montenegro on these visa regulations and the way in which they are implemented? If not, why not?

| 5. | Does the Commission not consider that the EU has an interest in facilitating transit travel by individuals through Serbia, in view of the fact that road and rail connections between the current and future EU Member States cross Serbia? |
| --- | --- |

5.

Does the Commission not consider that the EU has an interest in facilitating transit travel by individuals through Serbia, in view of the fact that road and rail connections between the current and future EU Member States cross Serbia?

| 6. | What action can the Commission take to reduce the long waiting times for international trains and the need for passengers to disembark at Serbia's external borders at stations such as Šid, Subotica, Dimitrovgrad and Preševos? |
| --- | --- |

6.

What action can the Commission take to reduce the long waiting times for international trains and the need for passengers to disembark at Serbia's external borders at stations such as Šid, Subotica, Dimitrovgrad and Preševos?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(23 July 2003)

The Commission is very pleased to inform the Honourable Member that the Council of Ministers of Serbia and Montenegro (SCG) has recently decided to grant to Union citizens, citizens of other states of the former Socialist Federative Republic of Yugoslavia (SFRY) and of states in the Schengen white list the right to visa free access to SCG.

At the same time, the European Council meeting in Thessaloniki in June 2003 has acknowledged ‘the importance that the peoples of the Western Balkan attach to the perspective of liberalisation of the Union's visa regime towards them’. The Commission will hold, within the framework of the Stabilisation and Association process, discussions with each country regarding the necessary requirements in terms of reforms in areas such as the strengthening of the rule of law, combatting organised crime, corruption and illegal immigration and strengthening administrative capacity in border control and security of documents to take these issues forward.

In particular in Serbia and Montenegro, the Commission is providing special attention to assisting the authorities in the modernisation of its customs services and border police and to the improvement of its integrated border management. Over EUR 50 million from the Community Assistance for Reconstruction Development and Stabilisation (CARDS) programmes to be committed in the 2002-2004 timeframe will be consecrated to the reform of these services and procedures aiming at achieving European standards. This assistance will help the administration to facilitate the circulation of people and goods transiting SCG while at the same time safeguarding the safety and security of citizens not only in Serbia and Montenegro but in the wider South Eastern region and the Union.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/382 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/382

---

(2004/C 88 E/0388)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2077/03

by Paulo Casaca (PSE) to the Commission

(24 June 2003)

Subject:   Community support for torture victims

The author of this question has received disturbing information from a number of torture-victim support agencies to the effect that, in 2002, the amount of funding which had hitherto been made available to such agencies was reduced by nearly 45 %.

As a consequence of that reduction, approximately 30 rehabilitation centres in 20 or so countries may have to close or to make drastic cutbacks in the assistance which they provide.

According to the agencies concerned the reduction is attributable to a change in the policy followed by the Commission, which has apparently decided to place greater emphasis on prevention at the expense of rehabilitation.

Can the Commission confirm this information?

Is the Commission aware of the harm which has been done by the change in its policy?

Has the Commission any information concerning the amount of funding which will be required if the rehabilitation projects financed by the Community are to continue?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(6 August 2003)

The reply to written question E-1858/03 by Mr De Rossa (1) provided a comprehensive account of the situation with respect to funding for rehabilitation activities for torture victims in 2002 and 2003.

Further to that reply, the Commission is currently reflecting on the programming of the European Initiative for Democracy and Human Rights for 2004 and beyond. A special Non-Governmental Organisation (NGO) seminar was convened on 14 July 2003 (with attendance also by several Members of Parliament) in order to canvass views on thematic priorities for future funding, including torture.

---

(1)  See page 48.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/383 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/383

---

(2004/C 88 E/0389)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2131/03

by Mihail Papayannakis (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(26 June 2003)

Subject:   Re-opening of mineral extraction plant at Pergamon (Bergama)

The re-opening of Eurogold's gold extraction plant in the Pergamon area of Turkey, opposite the island of Lesbos, is a danger to the ecosystem and public health in the region. Data compiled by experts show that 6,8 tonnes of gold and 8,5 tonnes of silver were produced in 2002 and that these were extracted using 25 tonnes of cyanide. This quantity of toxic waste is stored at a distance of only 25 kilometres from the shores of the Greek island of Lesbos and the town of Mytilini, while a storage basin for toxic waste and cyanide salts has been set up near the village of Ovacik. Given the high level of seismic activity in the area and the possibility of a leakage of toxic cyanide waste into the water table and the Aegean as the result of a major earthquake, the potential consequences are catastrophic.

In view of the fact that Parliament has already adopted a resolution condemning activities of this kind (B4-0410/94) (1), will the Commission ask Turkey for information on the above matter, in the context of that country's efforts to forge closer links with Europe, and take the necessary measures to avoid far-reaching environmental damage in both Greece and Turkey?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(7 August 2003)

The Commission is aware of the facts mentioned by the Honourable Member. The activities of the companies involved in mineral extraction in Bergama have been subject to a judgement of the Izmir Administrative Court of 10 January 2002. In accordance with the principle of the rule of law, which is part of the Copenhagen criteria, the Turkish Authorities are expected to fully abide by decisions of the judiciary. Mining activities such as those mentioned by the Honourable Member may have potentially serious implications for the protection of the environment and human health if they are not carried out properly. As part of its preparations for accession, Turkey undertakes to adopt and implement the ‘acquis’ in due course.

The Commission will continue to monitor the situation closely in light of the relevant political and ‘acquis’ criteria.

---

(1)  OJ C 341, 5.12.1994, p. 169.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/383 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/383

---

(2004/C 88 E/0390)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2139/03

by Maurizio Turco (NI) to the Commission

(26 June 2003)

Subject:   Violation of religious freedom and legal restrictions on the exercising of religious activity in Belarus

Mikhail Balyk, a Pentecostal evangelist, is refusing to pay a fine for conducting religious ceremonies of an unregistered religion, an activity that constitutes a crime under Belarusian law.

Balyk emphasises the fact that the state authorities have committed a number of procedural violations in drawing up the protocol against him: he was not in fact approached at the time of the illegal activity of which he is accused, and thus the authorities have no proof that he created or led an unregistered religious organisation.

Balyk and his lawyer, Nina Shavtsova, claim that the current legislation creates a vicious circle.

According to the new, more restrictive law on religion, which came into force last November:

| (a) | an organisation can be registered and function legally only when it is made up of at least 20 members; however, according to the administrative code, a religious organisation cannot conduct religious activity without being registered; |
| --- | --- |

(a)

an organisation can be registered and function legally only when it is made up of at least 20 members; however, according to the administrative code, a religious organisation cannot conduct religious activity without being registered;

| (b) | only large national religious organisations, or those made up of a minimum of ten communities in at least four of the country's six regions, have the right to found monasteries, convents or other educational institutions for the exercise of religious activity. |
| --- | --- |

(b)

only large national religious organisations, or those made up of a minimum of ten communities in at least four of the country's six regions, have the right to found monasteries, convents or other educational institutions for the exercise of religious activity.

New organisations must be registered and those already in existence have until 16 November 2004 to conform to the guidelines required by the new law and thereby be able to continue operating.

According to Article 19 of the new law, monasteries, convents and other monastic institutions must be made up of a minimum of ten participants, while educational institutions must have qualified bilingual (Russian and Belarusian) teachers.

At the current time very few Belarusian organisations are in a position to meet the law's requirements and thus be able to continue to conduct religious activity.

In view of the excellent relations that exist between the EU and Belarus in terms of economic and trade cooperation, can the Commission state:

| — | whether it is aware of these facts; and |
| --- | --- |

—

whether it is aware of these facts; and

| — | what initiatives, within the limits of the cooperation relationship, could constitute a serious and effective instrument to make Belarus respect freedom of religion? |
| --- | --- |

—

what initiatives, within the limits of the cooperation relationship, could constitute a serious and effective instrument to make Belarus respect freedom of religion?

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/384 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/384

---

(2004/C 88 E/0391)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2183/03

by Maurizio Turco (NI) to the Commission

(30 June 2003)

Subject:   Further violations of religious freedom and legal restrictions on religious practice in Belarus

On the evening of 1 June, a group of armed police burst into a private apartment in the capital, Minsk, interrupting a Hindu meditation ritual.

The leader of the group, Natalya Solovyova, said that the raid had occurred exactly one week after a similar meditation meeting had been interrupted in another part of the city.

The Hindu group was not fined for meeting, but was threatened with legal repercussions, including prison, after having been dismissed as a sect by the police.

On no occasion have the authorities cited any legal grounds for such raids.

The group had attempted unsuccessfully to register before the entry into force of the more restrictive law on religion introduced last November.

No official responsible for national or local religious affairs, including Alla Ryabitseva, head of the Department for Ethnic and Religious Affairs in Minsk, has provided an explanation of the grounds for the armed raids on these meetings.

In view of the foregoing, and of the excellent cooperation existing between the European Union and Belarus in economic and trade matters:

| — | Is the Commission aware of the facts stated here? |
| --- | --- |

—

Is the Commission aware of the facts stated here?

| — | What initiatives, in the field of cooperation, might represent a serious and effective means of inducing Belarus to uphold freedom of religion? |
| --- | --- |

—

What initiatives, in the field of cooperation, might represent a serious and effective means of inducing Belarus to uphold freedom of religion?

Joint answer

to Written Questions E-2139/03 and E-2183/03

given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(28 July 2003)

At the outset it is worth recalling that in September 1997 the Council concluded that the EC and their Member States would conclude neither the interim agreement nor the Partnership and Co-operation Agreement (PCA) with Belarus and that the implementation of Community and Member states technical assistance programmes would be halted, except in the case of humanitarian or regional projects or those which directly support the democratisation process.

The suspension of the ratification of the PCA and the freezing of interim agreement strongly limits trade and economic relations between the Union and Belarus.

Member States and the Commission are aware of the law on religion introduced last November 2002 in Belarus, and are deeply concerned about some of its provisions and the way it is applied. The Union has also expressed these concerns in the context of the Organisation on Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE), of which Belarus is a member. The Commission is disturbed by the two cases referred to by the Honourable Member.

The Commission would like to reiterate that it attaches great importance to the rights of freedom of religion, belief and expression. The Union has repeatedly affirmed that human rights and democratisation must form an integral part of all political dialogues with third countries. 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's action in fora such as the United Nations (UN) Commission on Human Rights or the Third Committee of the UN General Assembly.

The Commission remains committed to support freedom of religion and Human Rights in Belarus, in close co-operation with Member States, the Council of Europe, OSCE and the United Nations and will continue to raise the issue with Belarus in all possible fora. The Commission is not aware of any further initiative, within the limit of the cooperation framework, which could constitute a serious and effective instrument to make Belarus respect freedom of religion.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/385 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/385

---

(2004/C 88 E/0392)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2140/03

by Maurizio Turco (NI) to the Commission

(26 June 2003)

Subject:   Violation of freedom of religion in Uzbekistan

In May 2003, four Jehovah's Witnesses suffered physical violence at the hands of local authority representatives near Kagan police station, having been caught praying in the street. One of them was left unconscious and another, according to the medical report, suffered damage to the skull caused by blows to the head. The police deny that the four were victims of violence. The courts are undecided as to whether to pursue criminal or administrative proceedings against the four.

Two Jehovah's Witnesses, Shukhrat Ashurov and Alisher Argeliyev, were investigated under the code of administrative offences, leading to a police raid of the flat of one of the two in which some of their materials were confiscated (the Koran, the New Testament and the Bible). Ashurov stated that the books had been brought into Uzbekistan legally, but Khusan Imanaliyev of the Anti-Terrorism and International Affairs Department of the district of Gazalkent justified the action by stating that the two, although not considered to be terrorists, were, on the basis of the evidence found, guilty of proselytism, which is a crime under Uzbek law.

Bakhtier Tuichiev, a Pentecostal pastor, has been trying to have his church in Andijan registered with the local authorities for about a year. Tuichiev received the authorisation from his district in February 2002, but the central administration has refused to register the request, repeatedly delaying the decision for scarcely credible reasons. In January and April of this year, Tuichiev was warned of possible administrative proceedings against him if he continued to exercise religious activity without authorisation (which has been requested but not granted). The church is under strict and continuous surveillance by police officers.

Last September, a group of people who claimed to be BBC and CNN journalists visited Tuichiev, but it is likely that they were in fact officers of the National Security Service (ex KGB).

In view of the excellent relations that exist between the EU and Uzbekistan in terms of economic and trade cooperation, can the Commission state:

| — | whether it is aware of these facts; and |
| --- | --- |

—

whether it is aware of these facts; and

| — | what initiatives, within the limits of the cooperation relationship, could constitute a serious and effective instrument to make Uzbekistan respect freedom of religion? |
| --- | --- |

—

what initiatives, within the limits of the cooperation relationship, could constitute a serious and effective instrument to make Uzbekistan respect freedom of religion?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(30 July 2003)

The Commission is fully aware of the very difficult conditions facing religious minorities in Uzbekistan.

The EU-Uzbekistan Partnership and Co-operation Agreement provides an appropriate framework for the discussion of such issues.

The Commission attaches great importance to the rights of freedom of religion, belief and expression. This is a fundamental human right and as such is enshrined in a number of international instruments including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Article 18), the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (Article 18), the European Convention on Human Rights (Article 9). In addition, the Union Charter of fundamental rights, which guides the Commission's external action in this field, makes clear that everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion (Article 10) and that cultural, religious and linguistic diversity should be respected.

The Union has repeatedly affirmed that human rights and democratisation must form an integral part of our political dialogue with third countries. Religious freedom as a fundamental human right as well as the rights of religious minorities are thus addressed through the Union's bilateral political relations, and, when appropriate, through démarches and public declarations, as well as through multilateral in fora such as the United Nations (UN) Commission on Human Rights, the Third Committee of the UN General Assembly and the Organisation on Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE).

The Commission will continue to raise this question with the Uzbek authorities wherever the opportunity arises.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/387 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/387

---

(2004/C 88 E/0393)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2146/03

by John Bowis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(27 June 2003)

Subject:   Commission response to Council Conclusions on health matters

How is DG Social Affairs working to bring forward proposals in response to the Council Conclusion of 31 March 2003 (Combating stigma and discrimination in relation to mental illness), the Council Conclusion of 18 March 1999 (Mental health promotion) and the Council Conclusion of 15 March 2001 (Combating stress and depression)?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(31 July 2003)

Issues relating to mental health fall mainly within the remit of the Directorate General for Health and Consumer Protection.

However, as far as discrimination in employment is concerned, the Community can, under Article 13 of the EC Treaty, take appropriate action within the limits of its powers to combat discrimination, inter alia, on the grounds of disability. On the basis of these powers, the Council adopted on 27 November 2000 Directive 2000/78/EC establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation (1). This Directive prohibits any discrimination in these areas, be it direct or indirect, on the grounds of religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation. The Council Directive prohibits discrimination against individuals with disabilities who otherwise meet the skill, experience, education and other job-related requirements of a position held or desired and who, with or without reasonable accommodation, can perform the essential functions of a job. People with mental health problems could, in this context, avail of the protection afforded by the Directive.

With regard to disability, this Directive recognises that the failure to provide reasonable accommodation in the workplace can constitute discrimination. The obligation to accommodate is aimed at removing barriers to the participation of people with disabilities in employment. This means that employers shall take appropriate measures to enable people with disabilities to have access to, participate in, or advance in employment, or to undergo training, unless such measures would impose a disproportionate burden on the employer.

As to the poverty and social exclusion dimension, issues relevant to the situation of disabled people are covered by common objectives agreed at the European Council of Nice in December 2000, in particular through objective 3 ‘action for the most vulnerable’.

The Joint Report on Social Inclusion (JIR), based on an analysis of the National Action Plans (NAPs) elaborated by Member States in 2001, identifies a number of recurring risks or barriers that play a critical role in limiting people's access to the main systems that facilitate inclusion in society. In the case of people with disabilities the majority of Member States clearly identify them as a group potentially at risk of social exclusion and set out a more or less coherent strategy for their inclusion.

The issue of mental health is raised by a majority of NAPs/inclusion Member States agree on the need to tackle mental health problems through various sets of policy measures, relying in particular on greater local and regional co-operation, better provision of outreach and emergency accommodation services and specific training for health and social services' employees.

---

(1)  OJ L 303, 2.12.2000.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/388 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/388

---

(2004/C 88 E/0394)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2161/03

by Glenys Kinnock (PSE) to the Commission

(30 June 2003)

Subject:   Support for accession and ACP countries

The Commission will be aware that several accession countries (Hungary, Poland, Slovakia and the Czech Republic) urgently need to upgrade agri-food establishments in order to meet EU standards on animal, public and plant health, and that there is a threat of closure to firms which cannot meet the required food safety standards. Would the Commission confirm, with figures, that much-needed assistance is being given to help these countries in their efforts to meet EU standards?

Furthermore, would the Commission offer a clear indication, with figures, of how this compares to the resources being made available to ACP countries which face even more of a challenge at this time if they are to benefit from greater access to EU markets?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(5 September 2003)

EU assistance to Candidate Countries

The Commission is well aware that the Accession Countries need to upgrade agri-food establishments in order to meet Union standards on animal, public and plant health. The pre-accession instruments, and in particular the Sapard Programme, have as one of their key objectives to help address these concerns. The Sapard programme provides annually EUR 560 million to the ten beneficiary countries, including Hungary, Poland, Slovakia and the Czech Republic. On average, 48 % of this amount is allocated to the measures concerning investments in agricultural holdings (22 %) and investments in processing and marketing of agricultural and fishery products (26 %). In the individual programmes, emphasis is put on investments in upgrading the enterprises in these sectors to meet Union standards.

These issues are addressed in more detail in the Sapard Annual Report 2000, Report from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions (1), in particular pages 23-25, and in Annex 4 thereof.

In addition, Phare funds can be used in full complementarity with Sapard for the purpose of improving structures for quality, veterinary and plant health controls, for food quality and for consumer protection, including Border Inspection Posts. The bulk of investments in the public sector, aimed at ensuring compliance with the ‘acquis’, is expected to be supported by Phare and not Sapard, as the latter only supports smaller actions (less than EUR 2 million) at local level. A table listing the amounts in euros spent in Phare-projects in the area of food safety and upgrading of agri-food establishments is in Annex 1 and is sent direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat.

Community assistance to African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) States

The Commission's co-operation programmes with the ACP States take into account the problems related to the upgrading of agri-food establishments for the export industry of ACP States to the European market. Furthermore, they also relate in a wider perspective with all the problems linked to agriculture exports into the Community market from ACP States, like sanitation legislation, organisation of the producers and export/importers, etc.

The possibility for the European Development Fund (EDF) to fund quickly responsive projects is nevertheless limited by the fact that ACP/EU Co-operation Programmes are discussed and agreed upon with the beneficiary country/region on a partnership basis and enter into the Cotonou Partnership programmation cycle.

In the field of plant protection for agriculture export crops, the Commission has worked in close collaboration with its partner countries/regions in three main directions (see details in Annex 2, sent direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat).

In the field of animal sanitation the main areas of the Commission's interventions have been in the fishery products' sanitation and in combating cattle diseases (see details in Annex 3, sent direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat).

The Commission, in response to the new ‘Food and Feed Controls’ Regulation (currently before the Council and Parliament under the co-decision procedure), is launching a feasibility study to assess the impact of the new Regulation and to define the ways to support the ACP States in the most cost-effective and sustainable way. Moreover, the forthcoming mid-term reviews of the ACP State and regional strategies will provide an opportunity to assess whether more resources should be devoted to meeting Union standards of plant and animal health, within the available resources of the EDF.

---

(1)  COM(2001) 341 final.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/389 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/389

---

(2004/C 88 E/0395)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2177/03

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(30 June 2003)

Subject:   Procurement

Will the Commission update its estimates of the proportion of the annual value of public contracts – broken down by capital and current spending – that are let to non-resident companies in each Member State?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(4 August 2003)

In reply to the earlier written question E-0563/03 from the Honourable Member on public procurement (1), the Commission provided estimates of the value of direct and indirect intra-Community imports as a percentage of total procurement in 1998, provided by a business survey.

It also indicated that it was pursuing the possibility of incorporating this survey within the framework of the structural business statistics programme carried out by Eurostat together with the Member States' statistical institutes. Member States' statistical institutes have not proved willing to incorporate such a survey within this programme and the Commission is not so far in a position to update these estimates.

All the evidence suggests that within the Union public procurement market the number and value of direct imports, or public contracts let to non-resident companies, remains low, at a comparable level with earlier figures. Current work being undertaken for the Commission should provide some new data regarding cross border activity, prices, and the participation of small and mediu- sized enterprises in public procurement markets. For example, initial results of a recent pilot panel study of both suppliers to public authorities and public authorities themselves, undertaken for the Commission, suggests that indirect imports now account for an increased amount of overall public procurement at around 14 %. If confirmed, this would be a marked increase over the estimate of 8,5 % in 1998.

The preliminary results of this work, which still remain to be analysed in detail and confirmed, also suggest, that foreign owned subsidiaries, who are significant players in many public procurement markets, have had a rate of success in winning tenders comparable to that of domestic suppliers. The results also indicate a continued active interest on the part of Union firms in bidding for public procurement contracts in Member States other than their own.

The Commission will be happy to keep the Honourable Member informed of the final results of this work, which should be available by October 2003 in time to contribute to the annual report on the functioning of Community product and capital markets.

---

(1)  OJ C 330 E, 21.11.2000.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/390 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/390

---

(2004/C 88 E/0396)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2199/03

by Marco Pannella (NI) to the Commission

(27 June 2003)

Subject:   Imprisonment in Cuba, in inhuman and degrading conditions, of 75 opposition figures sentenced by show trial in April 2003, and the particular case of Martha Beatriz Roque Cabello

Knowing that:

| — | in Cuba in April 2003, 75 opposition figures (intellectuals and independent journalists) received sentences following a show trial; |
| --- | --- |

—

in Cuba in April 2003, 75 opposition figures (intellectuals and independent journalists) received sentences following a show trial;

| — | human Rights Watch has said that the only crime committed by these prisoners was to promote ideas which are forbidden in Cuba; |
| --- | --- |

—

human Rights Watch has said that the only crime committed by these prisoners was to promote ideas which are forbidden in Cuba;

| — | the one woman member of this group is Martha Beatriz Roque Cabello (aged 58), the director of the Cuban Institute of Independent Economists named after Manuel Sánchez Herrero. She is also a writer, economist and political activist; |
| --- | --- |

—

the one woman member of this group is Martha Beatriz Roque Cabello (aged 58), the director of the Cuban Institute of Independent Economists named after Manuel Sánchez Herrero. She is also a writer, economist and political activist;

| — | martha Beatriz Roque Cabello was sentenced to 27 years' imprisonment and is being kept under a maximum-security regime in the Manto Negro jail, in a windowless, 1,5 m by 3 m cell infested by rodents and cockroaches, with only a hole for her personal necessities and the light permanently on, and is obliged to drink foul water; |
| --- | --- |

—

martha Beatriz Roque Cabello was sentenced to 27 years' imprisonment and is being kept under a maximum-security regime in the Manto Negro jail, in a windowless, 1,5 m by 3 m cell infested by rodents and cockroaches, with only a hole for her personal necessities and the light permanently on, and is obliged to drink foul water;

| — | she is now suffering from severe rheumatic ailments and a stomach ulcer, and has high blood pressure; the entire left-hand side of her body is paralysed; since April, she has lost more than 14 kilos and has been denied proper medical care and the drugs needed for treatment; |
| --- | --- |

—

she is now suffering from severe rheumatic ailments and a stomach ulcer, and has high blood pressure; the entire left-hand side of her body is paralysed; since April, she has lost more than 14 kilos and has been denied proper medical care and the drugs needed for treatment;

| — | ms Roque Cabello is well known in Cuban dissident circles: in 2002 the New York Academy of Sciences awarded her the Human Rights for Scientists prize, and she has recently been declared a prisoner of conscience by a number of international organisations. Since the 1980s she has been a member of the Transnational Radical Party. |
| --- | --- |

—

ms Roque Cabello is well known in Cuban dissident circles: in 2002 the New York Academy of Sciences awarded her the Human Rights for Scientists prize, and she has recently been declared a prisoner of conscience by a number of international organisations. Since the 1980s she has been a member of the Transnational Radical Party.

The Commission:

| — | is it aware of these facts? If so, what initiatives has it taken, or what initiatives does it intend to take, vis-à-vis the Cuban authorities to secure the release of the 75 prisoners or, at all events, to ensure that they are guaranteed conditions of imprisonment that are compatible with fundamental human rights; |
| --- | --- |

—

is it aware of these facts? If so, what initiatives has it taken, or what initiatives does it intend to take, vis-à-vis the Cuban authorities to secure the release of the 75 prisoners or, at all events, to ensure that they are guaranteed conditions of imprisonment that are compatible with fundamental human rights;

| — | has it asked for the prisoners — and especially and immediately Martha Beatriz Roque Cabello — to be visited by a delegation from the EU and any other relevant and recognised international organisation? If not, when does it intend to do so? |
| --- | --- |

—

has it asked for the prisoners — and especially and immediately Martha Beatriz Roque Cabello — to be visited by a delegation from the EU and any other relevant and recognised international organisation? If not, when does it intend to do so?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(23 July 2003)

The Commission is closely following the human rights situation in Cuba and the recent detention and sentencing of 75 dissidents and independent journalist in Cuba, including Martha Beatriz Roque, particularly through our Delegation in Havana.

The recent large-scale arrest of dissidents, the unfair trials and the arbitrary sentences imposed on them have had a prompt, firm and sustained reaction from the Union. The Commission has fully and actively supported the actions that have been taken in this context.

The Union has strongly condemned such arrests in two declarations published on 26 March 2003 and 5 June 2003, followed in each case by a formal démarche in Havana, calling for the immediate release of all political prisoners. In its declaration and démarche of 5 June 2003, the Union also appealed to the Cuban authorities that, in the meantime, the prisoners do not suffer unduly and are not exposed to inhumane treatment.

The Union has decided a series of political sanctions against Cuba, including limits to high-level visits and an early re-evaluation of the Union common position.

The Commission considered on 30 April 2003, that the examination of the Cuban request for membership of the Cotonou Agreement should be delayed, signalling that these recent developments are not conducive to furthering cooperation between the Union and Cuba. The Cuban authorities decided on 16 May 2003 to withdraw their application to accede to the Cotonou Agreement.

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 all prisoners held due to their opinions or political activities. In this context, we will certainly bring the case of Martha Beatriz Roque to the attention of the Cuban authorities, and will follow this matter closely, exerting continued political pressure on the Cuban authorities.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/391 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/391

---

(2004/C 88 E/0397)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2217/03

by Maurizio Turco (NI) to the Commission

(2 July 2003)

Subject:   Violation of religious freedom in Slovenia

Given that:

| — | the Office for Religious Communities (UCR) was established in Slovenia in 1999; |
| --- | --- |

—

the Office for Religious Communities (UCR) was established in Slovenia in 1999;

| — | Natasa Sivic, leader of the Hindu community in Slovenia, has been attempting to register her community since 21 March 2002. The community has made all the changes to its registration papers requested by the office, but has received no written answer since the date of its application; |
| --- | --- |

—

Natasa Sivic, leader of the Hindu community in Slovenia, has been attempting to register her community since 21 March 2002. The community has made all the changes to its registration papers requested by the office, but has received no written answer since the date of its application;

| — | Sivic accuses UCR director, Drago Cepar, of being responsible for the illegal situation in which the Hindu community now finds itself; |
| --- | --- |

—

Sivic accuses UCR director, Drago Cepar, of being responsible for the illegal situation in which the Hindu community now finds itself;

| — | fifteen months after the application for registration by the Hindu community and five months after that by the Buddhist community, neither has received a reply from the Office for Religious Communities. Both the Hindus and the Buddhists blame Drago Cepar for the delays; |
| --- | --- |

—

fifteen months after the application for registration by the Hindu community and five months after that by the Buddhist community, neither has received a reply from the Office for Religious Communities. Both the Hindus and the Buddhists blame Drago Cepar for the delays;

| — | according to Buddhist monk Gelong Shenphen, this problem is common to all religious communities awaiting registration since 1999 and it is the office's job to register such communities, not judge them. ‘I wonder how such discrimination can occur in a country that is to join the European Union next year’, says Shenphen; |
| --- | --- |

—

according to Buddhist monk Gelong Shenphen, this problem is common to all religious communities awaiting registration since 1999 and it is the office's job to register such communities, not judge them. ‘I wonder how such discrimination can occur in a country that is to join the European Union next year’, says Shenphen;

| — | according to Cepar, the matter is highly ‘complex’ and the state has not established criteria to ‘determine when a group constitutes a religious community’. He also maintains that the government is working ‘tirelessly’ to fill this ‘legal vacuum’, yet ‘how can there be a legal vacuum when 31 religious communities have already been registered?’ asks a monk from the Dharmaling religious community. |
| --- | --- |

—

according to Cepar, the matter is highly ‘complex’ and the state has not established criteria to ‘determine when a group constitutes a religious community’. He also maintains that the government is working ‘tirelessly’ to fill this ‘legal vacuum’, yet ‘how can there be a legal vacuum when 31 religious communities have already been registered?’ asks a monk from the Dharmaling religious community.

In the light of the above and bearing in mind that Slovenia is one of the countries that will be joining the European Union in little under a year:

| — | is the Commission aware of the above situation and, if so, what, if anything, has it done about it? |
| --- | --- |

—

is the Commission aware of the above situation and, if so, what, if anything, has it done about it?

| — | does it consider the behaviour of the Slovenian authorities to be in breach of the ‘acquis communautaire’? |
| --- | --- |

—

does it consider the behaviour of the Slovenian authorities to be in breach of the ‘acquis communautaire’?

| — | if the situation is not resolved, what formal measures could the Union take prior to Slovenia's formal accession to ensure that it observes the principle of religious freedom? |
| --- | --- |

—

if the situation is not resolved, what formal measures could the Union take prior to Slovenia's formal accession to ensure that it observes the principle of religious freedom?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(22 August 2003)

The Commission is following up on a regular basis the situation regarding freedom of religion in Slovenia as respect of freedom of religion is an important part of the Copenhagen political criteria for accession. Hence the Commission is monitoring the situation in this area, including through its contacts with international human rights organisations. It has also reported on this issue in its Regular Reports on Slovenia's progress towards accession, the latest one of which was published in October 2002 (1).

The Commission is aware of the delays some religious communities have been facing in registering their communities with the relevant authorities in Slovenia. This issue has also been brought up by the Ombudsman in Slovenia. According to the information received by the Commission, the Office for Religious Communities is now in the process of drafting new legislation in this area to update the existing legislation and to resolve problems in its implementation.

The Commission will continue to monitor the situation in this area, including the adoption of new legislation.

---

(1)  COM(2002) 700 final.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/392 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/392

---

(2004/C 88 E/0398)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2227/03

by Michael Cashman (PSE) to the Commission

(2 July 2003)

Subject:   Human rights in Western Sahara

Following the dissolution of the Sahara section of the human rights NGO ‘Forum for Truth and Justice’ in Layounne Court on 18 June 2003, can the Commission indicate what action is being taken by the European Union to protect human rights in Western Sahara?

The Commission will be aware that this is not the first measure taken to restrict the human rights of the Sahrawi people and that it is important that those who fight to protect human rights should themselves be protected and allowed to operate.

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(29 July 2003)

The Commission agrees with the Honourable Member that the protection of the freedom of action of human rights defenders, in accordance with international standards, is a matter of the utmost importance.

The Commission is aware of the dissolution of the Sahara section of the ‘Forum for Truth and Justice’, as well as persisting allegations of harassment and intimidation against Western Saharan civil society activists. The Commission understands that in this particular case, defense lawyers have announced their intention to appeal against the decision handed down in Layounne on the 18 June 2003. The Commission is following the matter closely.

Relations between Morocco and the Union are governed by the Association Agreement and questions related to human rights as well as those connected with the Western Sahara are treated, inter alia, in the framework of the political dialogue (article 2) during the Association Councils and Committees.

On 22 May 2003 the Commission issued a Communication (1) aimed at reinvigorating Union actions on Human Rights and democratisation with the Mediterranean partners, within the framework of both dialogue and cooperation under the 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 Union's financial co-operation on Human Rights issues. Several of the recommendations touch on the vital role played by civil society in the promotion and protection of human rights, and the need to collaborate constructively with partners to effectively ensure civil society freedom of action in accordance with international norms. The implementation of the Communication 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 will provide an additional, concrete platform to engage the Mediterranean partners, such as Morocco, on a continuous dialogue on all the questions of human rights and democratisation including, when appropriate, those dealing with specific cases.

In this respect the Commission would like to reassure the Honourable Member that the effective protection of human rights in Western Sahara remains a continuous and major priority for the Commission.

---

(1)  COM(2003) 294 final.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/393 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/393

---

(2004/C 88 E/0399)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2231/03

by Bill Newton Dunn (ELDR) to the Commission

(3 July 2003)

Subject:   Human rights abuses in Burma

The Commission will be aware of the human rights abuses which continue in Burma, particularly the detention of Aung San Suu Kyi.

Has the Commission:

| 1. | made representations to the Burmese Government? |
| --- | --- |

1.

made representations to the Burmese Government?

| 2. | any other plans to try to improve the dreadful situation? |
| --- | --- |

2.

any other plans to try to improve the dreadful situation?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(31 July 2003)

The Commission and Member States have repeatedly called for the immediate release of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and the arrested National League for Democracy (NLD) officials and supporters, the reopening of NLD offices throughout the country as well as the reopening of all universities in Burma/Myanmar.

On 16 June 2003 the EU also decided to implement without delay the strengthened sanctions, specifically targeted on the military leaders and their supporters, originally envisaged to enter into force on or before 29 October 2003 as agreed in the Common Position on Burma/Myanmar (2003/297/CFSP) of 28 April 2003 (1).

In addition, the EU has intensified discussions on the situation in Burma with its dialogue partners in Asia in order to encourage them to use their influence on the Burmese Government to release Aung San Suu Kyi and support progress on the issues of good governance, and economic reform. On 17 June 2003, the Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN) has launched an unprecedented call to Burma for ‘a peaceful transition to democracy’.

The Commission will continue to liase with all EU dialogue partners in order to ensure that the increased international pressure on the Burmese Government is maintained until the Burmese government releases Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and all her supporters and undertakes some firm steps towards national reconciliation and a return to democracy.

---

(1)  OJ L 106, 29.4.2003.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/394 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/394

---

(2004/C 88 E/0400)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2252/03

by Glenys Kinnock (PSE) to the Commission

(1 July 2003)

Subject:   Uncommitted and unspent EC funds in South Africa

Would the Commission confirm that in the case of South Africa, because decommitted funds cannot be reprogrammed, they are lost? There is a need to urgently consider applying a more flexible approach likely to allow the extension of essential projects. This approach would lessen the strong likelihood of serious social and/or political consequences. Would the Commission give its view on this matter?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(29 July 2003)

The Commission confirms that, in the case of external aid allocated from the general budget, funds de-committed in one budget year cannot in principle be re-used or made available again in subsequent budget years. These annual budget operations are subject to binding legal rules in the Financial Regulation (1) adopted by Council and Parliament. (Programming is essentially a longer-term planning exercise to set out key priorities – it does not constitute a formal financial commitment). This is not only the case for South Africa but applies also for all other countries that receive external aid from the Commission's general budget. Regarding this issue the Commission has conducted intensive discussions with the South African Authorities over the last months.

The Commission has always applied a large degree of flexibility for the extension of cooperation projects with South Africa. Since the start of the European Programme for Reconstruction and Development (EPRD) with South Africa, the Commission has approved over 150 riders for the extension of Financing Agreements. Unfortunately, not all of these extensions have produced the expected results. Nevertheless, the Commission remains open to continuing discussions with the South African Authorities for the extension of projects that have experienced difficulties in implementation. Some 14 projects have been identified for extensions and adjustments during 2003. The fact is that the Commission is trying to cope with the problem that too many earlier commitments and projects were launched without meeting the same standards in relation to quality and implementability as the Commission is insisting on today, – even if the objectives of these were, and are, good and valid.

Following criticism from the Parliament and Council, the Commission has undertaken to find a better balance between budgetary commitments made and funds actually spent. Moreover, as part of the effort to improve budget implementation, Parliament and Council agreed in the Financial Regulation that a final date for implementation should be fixed in compliance with the principle of sound financial management. Thus each individual request for project extension must be carefully assessed and extension may be granted only if duly justified by the relevance of the project and in terms of sound financial management.

---

(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. See Article 77 (3).

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/395 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/395

---

(2004/C 88 E/0401)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2256/03

by Maurizio Turco (NI) to the Commission

(8 July 2003)

Subject:   Violations of religious freedom with regard to Pentecostal Church evangelists in Belarus

Knowing that:

| — | in the context of the new wave of restrictions on religious meetings in the private homes of Pentecostal evangelists in town and villages in western Belarus, Aleksandr Tolochko was fined in accordance with Article 193 of the Civil Code, which condemns unregistered religious activities; |
| --- | --- |

—

in the context of the new wave of restrictions on religious meetings in the private homes of Pentecostal evangelists in town and villages in western Belarus, Aleksandr Tolochko was fined in accordance with Article 193 of the Civil Code, which condemns unregistered religious activities;

| — | individuals fined in Baranovichi, in the Brest region, include two women, one an invalid, the other a pensioner. Bishop Nikolai Kurkaev has denounced the new law on religion, which came into force last November; |
| --- | --- |

—

individuals fined in Baranovichi, in the Brest region, include two women, one an invalid, the other a pensioner. Bishop Nikolai Kurkaev has denounced the new law on religion, which came into force last November;

| — | the government signed an agreement with the Orthodox Church on 12 June which, according to a number of other religious communities, will further reduce their rights; |
| --- | --- |

—

the government signed an agreement with the Orthodox Church on 12 June which, according to a number of other religious communities, will further reduce their rights;

| — | according to Bishop Khomich, police raids in the middle of the night are illegal, since religious services in the village of Zheludok have not yet begun; |
| --- | --- |

—

according to Bishop Khomich, police raids in the middle of the night are illegal, since religious services in the village of Zheludok have not yet begun;

| — | an official, Sergei Kasperchuk, has erroneously claimed that in every European country church members must be registered in order to hold meetings (Belarus is the only European country to impose this requirement, contrary to international laws on human rights). |
| --- | --- |

—

an official, Sergei Kasperchuk, has erroneously claimed that in every European country church members must be registered in order to hold meetings (Belarus is the only European country to impose this requirement, contrary to international laws on human rights).

In view of the excellent economic and commercial cooperation relations between the European Union and Belarus, can the Commission say:

| — | whether it is aware of the facts outlined above; |
| --- | --- |

—

whether it is aware of the facts outlined above;

| — | what measures, in the context of cooperation, might constitute a serious and effective way of persuading Belarus to respect religious freedom? |
| --- | --- |

—

what measures, in the context of cooperation, might constitute a serious and effective way of persuading Belarus to respect religious freedom?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(8 August 2003)

The September 1997 Council Resolution on Belaras concluded that the EC and their Member States would conclude neither the interim agreement nor the Partnership and Co-operation Agreement with Belarus and that implementation of Community and Member states technical assistance programmes would be halted, except in the case of humanitarian or regional projects or those which directly support the democratisation process.

The Commission is certainly concerned by the application of the law ‘On liberty of conscience and religious organisations’ in Belarus. The Union has expressed these concerns in the Organisation on Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE).

The Commission would like to reiterate that it attaches great importance to the rights of freedom of religion, belief and expression. The Union has repeatedly affirmed that human rights and democratisation must form an integral part of all political dialogues with third countries. Religious freedom, as one of the fundamental human rights, as well as the rights of religious minorities are thus addressed through the EUs bilateral political dialogues, and, when appropriate, through démarches and public declarations, as well as through Union action in fora such as the United Nations Commission on Human Rights or the Third Committee of the United Nations General Assembly.

The Commission remains committed to supporting freedom of religion and Human Rights in Belarus, in close co-operation with Member States, the Council of Europe, OSCE and the United Nations and will continue to raise the issue with Belarus in all possible fora.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/396 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/396

---

(2004/C 88 E/0402)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2262/03

by Mario Mastella (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(1 July 2003)

Subject:   Serious political, social and economic crisis in Venezuela

Considering that:

| — | the political crisis in Venezuela is dragging that country into a very serious economic and social crisis. On top of a two-month old general strike, imports to a country reliant on the outside world for almost all types of good have been paralysed for over 130 days now, and the government has adopted exchange rate control as a political weapon to punish everyone participating in the strike; |
| --- | --- |

—

the political crisis in Venezuela is dragging that country into a very serious economic and social crisis. On top of a two-month old general strike, imports to a country reliant on the outside world for almost all types of good have been paralysed for over 130 days now, and the government has adopted exchange rate control as a political weapon to punish everyone participating in the strike;

| — | thousands of companies have closed down and unemployment has increased to 26 %, to add to a rate of 56 % employment in the hidden economy; |
| --- | --- |

—

thousands of companies have closed down and unemployment has increased to 26 %, to add to a rate of 56 % employment in the hidden economy;

| — | as from 19 August 2003, it will be possible for a recall referendum to be held, on the basis of the Venezuelan constitution and the agreement signed between the government and the Democratic Coordination, and with mediation by the OAS, to end the President's term of office. The Venezuelan Government is contriving to delay and delegitimize this by every means possible; |
| --- | --- |

—

as from 19 August 2003, it will be possible for a recall referendum to be held, on the basis of the Venezuelan constitution and the agreement signed between the government and the Democratic Coordination, and with mediation by the OAS, to end the President's term of office. The Venezuelan Government is contriving to delay and delegitimize this by every means possible;

| — | moreover, with a view to forthcoming elections, the government is granting citizenship to Cubans, Chinese, and Colombians; |
| --- | --- |

—

moreover, with a view to forthcoming elections, the government is granting citizenship to Cubans, Chinese, and Colombians;

| — | venezuela is home to millions of EU citizens and their descendants, who are the lifeblood of the SME sector that has been throttled by economic measures and whose safety is endangered by the increase in violence that has resulted in 50 deaths during demonstrations and in 25 murders a day owing to the general chaos and absence of the rule of law. |
| --- | --- |

—

venezuela is home to millions of EU citizens and their descendants, who are the lifeblood of the SME sector that has been throttled by economic measures and whose safety is endangered by the increase in violence that has resulted in 50 deaths during demonstrations and in 25 murders a day owing to the general chaos and absence of the rule of law.

In the light of the above, could the Commission indicate:

| 1. | what action it will take to protect European citizens in Venezuela and to avert their potential return migration; |
| --- | --- |

1.

what action it will take to protect European citizens in Venezuela and to avert their potential return migration;

| 2. | whether it is considering any form of action to address the unconstitutional measures and human rights violations of which the present Venezuelan Government stands accused; |
| --- | --- |

2.

whether it is considering any form of action to address the unconstitutional measures and human rights violations of which the present Venezuelan Government stands accused;

| 3. | whether the European Union plans to send international observers to Venezuela to ensure that the referendum is conducted lawfully and reflects the opinions of the inhabitants of that country? |
| --- | --- |

3.

whether the European Union plans to send international observers to Venezuela to ensure that the referendum is conducted lawfully and reflects the opinions of the inhabitants of that country?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(30 July 2003)

The Commission is closely following the political situation in Venezuela. The Union has fully supported the Organisation of American States, together with the United Nations Development Program (UNDP) and the Carter Centre in the tripartite working group, and the Group of Friends, in their efforts to facilitate a national dialogue. The Union, in several Declarations, has emphasised the need for a peaceful, democratic, constitutional and electoral solution. In its last Declaration of 5 June 2003, the Union welcomed the Venezuelan Government and opposition's signing of a political agreement on 29 May 2003 and called upon all parties to proceed without delay to the necessary follow-up needed to implement the Agreement. It also stressed that the Union stands ready to assist in the implementation of the Agreement, which comprises support for an electoral solution, investigation of the events of April 2002, and disarming the civilian population.

In order to do so, the Commission signed a project to assist the Organisation of American States in its efforts to implement the Agreement. The amount budgeted is EUR 600 000.

In the event that an electoral consultation takes place, the Commission is ready to consider a possible Election Observation. The final decision on whether to send an Election Observation Mission would be made on the basis of receiving an invitation from the Venezuelan authorities which could open up the possibility for a possible Exploratory Mission which would assess whether an Union observation is advisable, useful and feasible.

No specific actions to protect Union citizens in Venezuela have been taken at the Union level. Their protection and support is normally ensured by their Member States of origin.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/397 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/397

---

(2004/C 88 E/0403)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2286/03

by Ozan Ceyhun (PSE) to the Commission

(7 July 2003)

Subject:   Customs regulations at the Serbia and Montenegro (former Yugoslavia) border

I have received a fax from the Consul-General of the Republic of Turkey in Frankfurt drawing attention to border and entry regulations in Serbia and Montenegro (former Yugoslavia). This information relates to Turkish citizens legally resident in the Union and EU citizens of Turkish extraction. I subsequently read an article on the subject in the Turkish newspaper ‘Millyet’. The newspaper reported that, under these regulations, foreign citizens travelling to Serbia and Montenegro are required to declare the amount of foreign currency they are carrying to the customs office if that amount exceeds EUR 2 000. Otherwise, the authorities of Serbia and Montenegro withhold the amount in excess of EUR 2 000 on their departure from the country. Around EUR 1 million have been withheld in this way from more than 190 Turkish citizens who were travelling to Turkey over land through Serbia and Montenegro. Refunding the money is reported to take between two and five years, owing to the lengthy bureaucratic and legal procedures. Oral declarations on sums of money exceeding EUR 2 000 are not accepted. It is compulsory to fill out written declaration forms.

Does the Commission have any information regarding this problem? We would request the Commission's assistance in finding a solution. What steps is the Commission prepared to take in order to resolve this problem?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(4 August 2003)

Reporting obligations and exchange restrictions on import and export of currencies are not unusual for countries that aim to prevent money laundering and/or control capital outflows.

On 27 April 2002, a new Foreign Exchange Law has come into force in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (now Serbia and Montenegro). Concerning the physical transfer of foreign currency a number of restrictions are in place, in particular with regard to taking it out of the country.

The Customs administration may temporarily seize (against a certificate) from both residents and nonresidents at border crossings Dinars, foreign cash, checks and securities that exceed the amount prescribed by the ‘National Bank of Yugoslavia’.

The measures are not targeted at nationals of any specific country or origin. Reportedly, also citizens from other European Union countries have also been subject to these measures.

The Commission intends to inform the Minister of International Economic Relations of the State Union, Minister Lukovac, of this worrying situation with particular emphasis on the long period (2-5 years) that is reported to elapse between seizure of currency and reimbursement. In addition, the Commission will suggest that at all border crossings, information about the requirement to report on the import and export of foreign currency is presented in the clearest possible way to the travellers, so as to minimise the cases in which the required written declaration that a sum larger than the maximum amount (EUR 2 000) is taken into the country is forgotten to be requested.

As far as the Community assistance is concerned, the Community Assistance to Reconstruction, Development and Stabilisation Programme (CARDS) (1) and other Community instruments in the context of the Stabilisation and Association Process are already contributing to the reform process that will bring Serbia and Montenegro's legislation in line with the EU Acquis. This will imply also a liberalisation of foreign exchange transactions in the medium term.

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 2666/2000 of 5 December 2000 on assistance for Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, repealing Regulation (EC) No 1628/96 and amending Regulations (EEC) No 3906/89 and (EEC) No 1360/90 and Decisions 97/256/EC and 1999/311/EC, OJ L 306, 7.12.2000.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/398 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/398

---

(2004/C 88 E/0404)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2296/03

by Alejo Vidal-Quadras Roca (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(11 July 2003)

Subject:   Autonomous Community levy on the premises occupied by large commercial enterprises

On 31 October 2002 the author of this question tabled a parliamentary question to the Commission (Written Question P-3185/02 (1)) on the serious restriction of freedom of establishment caused by the levy on premises occupied by large commercial enterprises introduced by Law 16/2000 of the Catalan Autonomous Community. In his answer of 17 December 2002 on behalf of the Commission, Mr Monti said that the Commission had no intention whatsoever of authorising the retention of any rules contrary to Article 43 of the EC Treaty relating to freedom of establishment.

However, there is as yet no indication that the Directorate-General for the Internal Market, which is competent in this sphere, has taken any action against the Spanish authorities with regard to Catalan laws 16/2000 and 17/2000, which hamper freedom of establishment for Community businesses.

This inaction on the part of the Commission is creating a situation of obvious inconsistency, since it is allowing this kind of legislation to survive within the EU whilst demanding that the accession countries abolish it.

| 1. | Does the Directorate-General for the Internal Market intend to bring any kind of proceedings against the Spanish State in connection with Catalan laws 16/2000 and 17/2000? If so, when does it envisage doing so? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Does the Directorate-General for the Internal Market intend to bring any kind of proceedings against the Spanish State in connection with Catalan laws 16/2000 and 17/2000? If so, when does it envisage doing so?

| 2. | Does the Directorate-General for the Internal Market intend to take any kind of general action against measures of this sort, which prevent large commercial enterprises from exercising freedom of establishment? If so, what is the timetable for such action? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Does the Directorate-General for the Internal Market intend to take any kind of general action against measures of this sort, which prevent large commercial enterprises from exercising freedom of establishment? If so, what is the timetable for such action?

| 3. | Is the Commission aware how important it is to act swiftly in order to prevent not only the spread of such measures, which hamper freedom of establishment, but also the implementation of existing ones, such as the Catalan Law 16/2000, which is already artificially and irreversibly diverting investment? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Is the Commission aware how important it is to act swiftly in order to prevent not only the spread of such measures, which hamper freedom of establishment, but also the implementation of existing ones, such as the Catalan Law 16/2000, which is already artificially and irreversibly diverting investment?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(5 September 2003)

The Commission would like first to confirm to the Honourable Member that it does not intend to authorise the retention of rules which could be considered as contrary to Article 43 of the EC Treaty relating to freedom of establishment, regardless of whether these emanate from the Member States or the accession countries.

As mentioned by the Honourable Member, the Commission plans to take general action against measures which prevent large commercial enterprises from exercising freedom of establishment. The Commission also asked the Member States to communicate their national rules on the establishment of large commercial enterprises, and has recently obtained this information from them. It is therefore now in a position to examine all these rules in order to assess their compatibility with the principles of the EC Treaty, and particularly Article 43 on freedom of establishment. It should be pointed out that as part of its strategy for the internal market for services (2), the Commission attaches particular importance to examining national legislation which might affect distributive undertakings, and in particular measures relating to the establishment of large commercial enterprises.

With regard to Catalan laws 16/2000 and 17/2000, the Commission can inform the Honourable Member that it is currently investigating a complaint concerning these laws which it received in March 2003. It is also on the point of sending a letter to the Spanish authorities requesting further information, particularly on the justification and impact of the measures introduced in Catalonia. If it turns out that an infringement procedure has to be opened following this investigation, this should happen at the earliest opportunity.

---

(1)  OJ C 192 E, 14.8.2003, p. 102.

(2)  Report from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament on the state of the internal market for services, 30 July 2002, COM(2002)441 final.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/399 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/399

---

(2004/C 88 E/0405)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2307/03

by José Ribeiro e Castro (UEN) to the Commission

(14 July 2003)

Subject:   Timor – 1999 massacres; trial of those responsible; Indonesia – human rights

In his answer to the earlier written question (E-0921/03 (1)) on the same subject Commissioner Patten said that the Union was constantly following the activities of the ad hoc court set up to judge crimes committed in East Timor and would be able to return to the issue when the latest judgment, expected at the beginning of May, was known and before appeal proceedings were launched.

Can the Commission therefore say:

| — | what information it currently has on the work of the ad hoc court; |
| --- | --- |

—

what information it currently has on the work of the ad hoc court;

| — | what conclusions it draws from it; |
| --- | --- |

—

what conclusions it draws from it;

| — | what degree of credibility the court's decisions have, in the light of the requirements of the primacy of the rule of law and full observance of international human rights legislation; |
| --- | --- |

—

what degree of credibility the court's decisions have, in the light of the requirements of the primacy of the rule of law and full observance of international human rights legislation;

| — | what programmes between the EU and Indonesia are under way or being planned as regards good governance, strengthening of the judicial system and respect for human rights? |
| --- | --- |

—

what programmes between the EU and Indonesia are under way or being planned as regards good governance, strengthening of the judicial system and respect for human rights?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(15 September 2003)

The Commission, through its Delegation in Jakarta and together with the Member States Representations in Indonesia, has been monitoring closely the course of the Ad Hoc tribunal on East Timor.

Following the most recent verdict, issued on 5 August 2003, the Union issued a ‘Declaration’ in which it expressed its disappointment and stated that ‘the deficiencies in the process have jeopardised the credibility of the verdicts’.

The Commission intends to encourage the competent authorities to improve the proceedings for the appeal process, according to international standards of justice to ensure that the verdicts are proportionate to the seriousness of the crimes committed.

Considering the deficiencies of the judicial system in Indonesia, the Commission has a standing commitment of EUR 13 millions to the ‘Partnership for Good Governance’ programme, implemented by the United Nations Development Programme UNDP. The Commission is also designing a EUR 11 million ‘Judiciary Support Programme’, focused on the training of judges and prosecutors. Moreover, the Commission is considering a request by the National Commission on Human Rights KOMNAS HAM for specialised technical assistance in the field of investigation techniques, in conflict areas in Indonesia.

---

(1)  See page 337.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/400 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/400

---

(2004/C 88 E/0406)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2310/03

by Baroness Sarah Ludford (ELDR) to the Commission

(8 July 2003)

Subject:   EU nationals imprisoned in Japan

Given that it has the right to attend the monthly meetings of the EU Consular officials, can the Commission supply details of how many EU nationals, broken down into numbers from each EU Member State, are currently in prisons in Japan?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(24 July 2003)

The Commission Delegation in Tokyo participates in Union co-ordination meetings on consular affairs only in so far as the Commission is specifically competent for the matters under discussion. Prison visits and care of Member State citizens in need of consular help do not fall within the remit of the Commission Delegation. However, during discussions at the consulate meeting the latest figure mentioned for Western prisoners in Tokyo alone was 100. Precise data is difficult to obtain, particularly if Union citizens are arrested and held in local prefectures. (In some cases this also involves a different interpretation of nationality as for instance the United Kingdom Embassy does not accept Hong Kong citizens to be considered as Chinese nationals by the Japanese authorities). The highest proportion of cases concern the violation of drug related laws. The Commission is not in a position, therefore, to give a more detailed breakdown in terms of numbers from each Member State. This information should be sought from the Member States themselves.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/401 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/401

---

(2004/C 88 E/0407)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2317/03

by Armando Cossutta (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(14 July 2003)

Subject:   European citizens' right to privacy

The EU-US summit was held on 25 June this year. One of the topics was or should have been the TIA project (originally ‘Total Information Awareness’, subsequently changed to ‘Terrorism Information Awareness’), basically a project to provide a gigantic apparatus for gathering and analysing information obtained from the most varied sources, ranging from existing data banks to commercial transactions, from people's movements to intercepted communications. According to Stefano Rodotà, the guarantor of the Italian privacy watchdog, we are witnessing a new dimension of surveillance, which increases the power of the State to obtain any personal data, irrespective of who gathered it and the original purpose for which it was gathered. The European Parliament, via its President Pat Cox, made its views clear: ‘we cannot let the US dictate law in Europe’.

| 1. | What was the outcome, as regards the TIA, of the summit meeting between the EU and the US held on 25 June this year? |
| --- | --- |

1.

What was the outcome, as regards the TIA, of the summit meeting between the EU and the US held on 25 June this year?

| 2. | Does the Commission not consider that US legislation on the subject cannot and must not have extraterritorial validity and that, if necessary, the most appropriate way of settling such issues is by international treaty? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Does the Commission not consider that US legislation on the subject cannot and must not have extraterritorial validity and that, if necessary, the most appropriate way of settling such issues is by international treaty?

| 3. | Did the Commission uphold the principle that it is unacceptable that the United States should gather, by any means at its disposal, information resulting from communications freely exchanged between European citizens? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Did the Commission uphold the principle that it is unacceptable that the United States should gather, by any means at its disposal, information resulting from communications freely exchanged between European citizens?

| 4. | What steps will the Commission take to safeguard the privacy of European citizens? |
| --- | --- |

4.

What steps will the Commission take to safeguard the privacy of European citizens?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(16 September 2003)

| 1. | The Commission is following closely the whole range of initiatives introduced by the United States of America since 11 September 2001, which aim at enhancing security.
  Among these is the Terrorism Information Awareness (TIA) project, raised by the Honourable Member. Since the beginning of 2003, various congressional actions have aimed at imposing a moratorium on the use, without congressional approval and appropriate civil liberties protections, of data mining technology by the Defence department and by the new Department of Homeland Security. In February 2003, Congress suspended funding for the Total Information Awareness programme and required the Defence Department to explain the project's privacy and civil liberties implications. It also restricted the implementation of the programme on American persons to specific authorisation by law from Congress. This text was signed into law by the President of the United States on 20 February 2003. On 20 May 2003, the Department of Defence Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) published that report. The name of the programme was changed from ‘Total’ to Terrorism Information Awareness project, as noted by the Honourable Member. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The Commission is following closely the whole range of initiatives introduced by the United States of America since 11 September 2001, which aim at enhancing security.

Among these is the Terrorism Information Awareness (TIA) project, raised by the Honourable Member. Since the beginning of 2003, various congressional actions have aimed at imposing a moratorium on the use, without congressional approval and appropriate civil liberties protections, of data mining technology by the Defence department and by the new Department of Homeland Security. In February 2003, Congress suspended funding for the Total Information Awareness programme and required the Defence Department to explain the project's privacy and civil liberties implications. It also restricted the implementation of the programme on American persons to specific authorisation by law from Congress. This text was signed into law by the President of the United States on 20 February 2003. On 20 May 2003, the Department of Defence Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) published that report. The name of the programme was changed from ‘Total’ to Terrorism Information Awareness project, as noted by the Honourable Member.

| 2. | Given the nature of the TIA programme and the possibility that its activities might involve the rights of European citizens, the Commission is actively monitoring developments in this field and has already raised the issue in the framework of the ongoing discussions with the United States on access to personal data collected by airlines (Passenger Name Record or ‘PNR’). The Commission shares the Honourable Member's view that the scope of United States' legislation on data collection should not operate extra-jurisdictionally. The nature of the activities under examination, however, is such that international cooperation will be needed to find solutions to areas of concern. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Given the nature of the TIA programme and the possibility that its activities might involve the rights of European citizens, the Commission is actively monitoring developments in this field and has already raised the issue in the framework of the ongoing discussions with the United States on access to personal data collected by airlines (Passenger Name Record or ‘PNR’). The Commission shares the Honourable Member's view that the scope of United States' legislation on data collection should not operate extra-jurisdictionally. The nature of the activities under examination, however, is such that international cooperation will be needed to find solutions to areas of concern.

| 3. | Although the TIA was not formally on the agenda of the Union-United States Summit of 25 June 2003, the broader issue of data protection was, in connection with the discussions on PNR referred to above.
  The Commission agrees with the Honourable Member that the various United States' laws aimed at collecting data are likely to affect the rights of European citizens and will therefore continue to monitor developments and discuss the matter with the United States in order to find satisfactory solutions that ensures the greatest possible respect for European data protection principles and safeguard the right to privacy of European citizens. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Although the TIA was not formally on the agenda of the Union-United States Summit of 25 June 2003, the broader issue of data protection was, in connection with the discussions on PNR referred to above.

The Commission agrees with the Honourable Member that the various United States' laws aimed at collecting data are likely to affect the rights of European citizens and will therefore continue to monitor developments and discuss the matter with the United States in order to find satisfactory solutions that ensures the greatest possible respect for European data protection principles and safeguard the right to privacy of European citizens.

| 4. | The Commission takes note of the Honourable Member's opinion that the most appropriate way of settling such issues is an international treaty and will give consideration to this option in its internal deliberations as well as in its discussions with the United States. The Commission will continue to keep the Civil Liberties Committee of the Parliament informed on the progress of these discussions and would welcome further debate on this matter in that forum. |
| --- | --- |

4.

The Commission takes note of the Honourable Member's opinion that the most appropriate way of settling such issues is an international treaty and will give consideration to this option in its internal deliberations as well as in its discussions with the United States. The Commission will continue to keep the Civil Liberties Committee of the Parliament informed on the progress of these discussions and would welcome further debate on this matter in that forum.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/402 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/402

---

(2004/C 88 E/0408)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2357/03

by Maurizio Turco (NI) to the Commission

(17 July 2003)

Subject:   Violation of religious freedom against Muslims in Uzbekistan

Given that:

| — | on 17 June about 50 women met in Namangan to call for the release of their husbands, who are ‘prisoners of conscience’, imprisoned because of their Muslim faith; |
| --- | --- |

—

on 17 June about 50 women met in Namangan to call for the release of their husbands, who are ‘prisoners of conscience’, imprisoned because of their Muslim faith;

| — | Misor Ubaidulaeva, one of the demonstrators, is complaining about the conditions in which her husband is detained. He is beaten daily and has now lost his hearing because of the blows he has received; |
| --- | --- |

—

Misor Ubaidulaeva, one of the demonstrators, is complaining about the conditions in which her husband is detained. He is beaten daily and has now lost his hearing because of the blows he has received;

| — | the local police do not deny that they have put pressure on her to sign a written statement promising that she will not take part in any more ‘unlawful meetings’. |
| --- | --- |

—

the local police do not deny that they have put pressure on her to sign a written statement promising that she will not take part in any more ‘unlawful meetings’.

In view of the excellent economic and commercial cooperation relations between the European Union and Uzbekistan can the Commission say:

| — | whether it is aware of the facts outlined above; |
| --- | --- |

—

whether it is aware of the facts outlined above;

| — | what steps it will take, in the context of cooperation relations, as a serious and effective means of inducing Uzbekistan to respect religious freedom? |
| --- | --- |

—

what steps it will take, in the context of cooperation relations, as a serious and effective means of inducing Uzbekistan to respect religious freedom?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(14 August 2003)

The Commission is fully aware of the very difficult conditions facing Muslims in Uzbekistan. The Commission is aware of this meeting in Namangan and is following the situation carefully.

The EU/Uzbekistan Partnership and Cooperation Agreement provides the appropriate framework for the discussion of such issues.

The Commission will continue to raise the question of religious freedom with the Uzbek authorities at each bilateral meeting.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/403 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/403

---

(2004/C 88 E/0409)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2359/03

by Maurizio Turco (NI) to the Commission

(17 July 2003)

Subject:   Violation of religious freedom in Kosovo

Given that:

| — | on 27 June 2003 on a visit to Pristina the Secretary-General of Nato, George Robertson, called on the Kosovo Albanians to be more tolerant and to build a multi-ethnic society; |
| --- | --- |

—

on 27 June 2003 on a visit to Pristina the Secretary-General of Nato, George Robertson, called on the Kosovo Albanians to be more tolerant and to build a multi-ethnic society;

| — | on the same day graves in the Orthodox cemetery in Kosovska Vitina were desecrated and the Orthodox church of St Nicolas in Pristina, from which the Nato peace-keeping force KFOR had withdrawn its protection at the end of last year, was attacked; |
| --- | --- |

—

on the same day graves in the Orthodox cemetery in Kosovska Vitina were desecrated and the Orthodox church of St Nicolas in Pristina, from which the Nato peace-keeping force KFOR had withdrawn its protection at the end of last year, was attacked;

| — | on 28 March 2003 unknown individuals shot at two Spanish KFOR sentries, who were guarding the Orthodox convent of Gorioc near Istok; |
| --- | --- |

—

on 28 March 2003 unknown individuals shot at two Spanish KFOR sentries, who were guarding the Orthodox convent of Gorioc near Istok;

| — | on 31 May 2003 a grenade was thrown at the Greek KFOR checkpoint protecting the church of St Czar Uros in Urosevac in the south of the country; |
| --- | --- |

—

on 31 May 2003 a grenade was thrown at the Greek KFOR checkpoint protecting the church of St Czar Uros in Urosevac in the south of the country;

| — | the United nations mission, UNMIK, and KFOR are trying to find those responsible for the latest incidents, but in the last three years there have not been any arrests in connection with the hundreds of similar attacks against Orthodox churches and cemeteries; |
| --- | --- |

—

the United nations mission, UNMIK, and KFOR are trying to find those responsible for the latest incidents, but in the last three years there have not been any arrests in connection with the hundreds of similar attacks against Orthodox churches and cemeteries;

| — | Kosovo and Metohija are areas suffering the aftermath of war, where four years after the end of the conflict it has not yet been possible to restore the places sacred to Christians. |
| --- | --- |

—

Kosovo and Metohija are areas suffering the aftermath of war, where four years after the end of the conflict it has not yet been possible to restore the places sacred to Christians.

In view of the enormous sums the European Union is investing in Kosovo:

| — | can the Commission say whether it is aware of the events mentioned above; and |
| --- | --- |

—

can the Commission say whether it is aware of the events mentioned above; and

| — | what measures might constitute a serious and effective means of inducing the Kosovar administration to respect religious freedom? |
| --- | --- |

—

what measures might constitute a serious and effective means of inducing the Kosovar administration to respect religious freedom?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(12 August 2003)

The protection of Serb Orthodox religious sites in Kosovo is a matter of considerable concern to the international community. The Commission strongly condemns the attacks that have taken place against such sites and welcomes the fact that the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO)-led peacekeeping force in Kosovo (KFOR) devotes considerable troop resources to the protection of patrimonial sites in Kosovo.

The Commission supports the efforts of the United Nations Mission in Kosovo to establish democratic institutions which should pave the way for reconciliation of all communities. This is the key to decreasing levels of violence and to building a multi-ethnic and tolerant Kosovo.

More specifically, the Commission has encouraged the international civil administration in Kosovo (the UN Mission in Kosovo – UNMIK) and the Provisional Institutions for Self-government (PISG) to include, as part of their priorities for public reconstruction and investment, the funding for the repair of the damaged sites under the Kosovo Consolidated Budget to which the Community contributes. This measure would underline the importance of this issue and would foster more ownership of the political leadership and the Kosovo society to address this problem.

The Commission does not therefore itself intend separately to undertake the reconstruction, with EC funding, of any religious buildings in Kosovo. However, it is worth mentioning that, under the initiative of President Prodi and the support of the Member of the Commission responsible for Education and Culture, the Commission is co-financing an ‘Integrated Rehabilitation Project Plan (IRPP)/Joint action for a survey of the architectural and archaeological heritage (including religious heritage of all denominations)’ and the establishment of a priority list of monuments and sites in need of urgent conservation/restoration in the Balkans. This Joint Action is being developed within the Regional Programme for Cultural and Natural Heritage in South East Europe, implemented by the Council of Europe between 2003 and 2005 and will be a very useful source of information to promote the involvement of authorities and donors and international agencies in this field.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/404 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/404

---

(2004/C 88 E/0410)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2360/03

by Maurizio Turco (NI) to the Commission

(17 July 2003)

Subject:   Violation of religious freedom and legal restrictions on religious activity in Slovakia

Given that:

| — | leaders of small protestant churches, Muslims and followers of Hare Krishna are complaining about the 1991 law on religion, which prevents religious communities with fewer than 20 000 members from obtaining legal status; |
| --- | --- |

—

leaders of small protestant churches, Muslims and followers of Hare Krishna are complaining about the 1991 law on religion, which prevents religious communities with fewer than 20 000 members from obtaining legal status;

| — | Ivan Zustiak, the leader of the Brethren protestant church, applied for registration but the Office for Religious Affairs refused his application; |
| --- | --- |

—

Ivan Zustiak, the leader of the Brethren protestant church, applied for registration but the Office for Religious Affairs refused his application;

| — | Mohamed Safwan Hasna, a Syrian imam of Slovak nationality, complains that refusal to allow registration and the fact that no mosques can be built is very humiliating. Muslims do not have an appropriate place to gather regularly to pray, meet one another or give instruction in Islamic culture. Hasna purchased a plot of land in the historic centre of the city around three years ago, but the mayor has not granted building permission. There are about 5 000 Muslims in Slovakia, most of them in Bratislava. The Muslim community there, which had to be registered as a charity, has been trying to build an Islamic centre for many years; |
| --- | --- |

—

Mohamed Safwan Hasna, a Syrian imam of Slovak nationality, complains that refusal to allow registration and the fact that no mosques can be built is very humiliating. Muslims do not have an appropriate place to gather regularly to pray, meet one another or give instruction in Islamic culture. Hasna purchased a plot of land in the historic centre of the city around three years ago, but the mayor has not granted building permission. There are about 5 000 Muslims in Slovakia, most of them in Bratislava. The Muslim community there, which had to be registered as a charity, has been trying to build an Islamic centre for many years;

| — | Martin Huncar, the assistant pastor of the protestant church Word of Life in Bratislava, says that his church has not even tried to become registered, knowing it was pointless. The church was obliged to register with the Ministry of the Interior as an organisation carrying out social and Christian activities with young people. They cannot use the word ‘church’ in their official documents. Mr Huncar stresses that without registration it is impossible for a church to conduct legally valid weddings or funerals and cannot work in schools or prisons; |
| --- | --- |

—

Martin Huncar, the assistant pastor of the protestant church Word of Life in Bratislava, says that his church has not even tried to become registered, knowing it was pointless. The church was obliged to register with the Ministry of the Interior as an organisation carrying out social and Christian activities with young people. They cannot use the word ‘church’ in their official documents. Mr Huncar stresses that without registration it is impossible for a church to conduct legally valid weddings or funerals and cannot work in schools or prisons;

| — | Ragunatha Priya, the leader of the Hare Krishna community in Abranovce, near Prsov, says that they were obliged to register as a civil organisation; |
| --- | --- |

—

Ragunatha Priya, the leader of the Hare Krishna community in Abranovce, near Prsov, says that they were obliged to register as a civil organisation;

| — | when asked whether the fact that new religious groups are refused registration constitutes discrimination, Jan Juran, Director of the religious affairs department at the Ministry of Cultural Affairs replied ‘it probably does, but that's the way things are. So far there has been no criticism from the Slovak Parliament or the Helsinki Committee’. He refused to say whether pressure not to allow the registration of religious groups came from the dominant Catholic Church. |
| --- | --- |

—

when asked whether the fact that new religious groups are refused registration constitutes discrimination, Jan Juran, Director of the religious affairs department at the Ministry of Cultural Affairs replied ‘it probably does, but that's the way things are. So far there has been no criticism from the Slovak Parliament or the Helsinki Committee’. He refused to say whether pressure not to allow the registration of religious groups came from the dominant Catholic Church.

Can the Commission say whether it is aware of the facts mentioned?

Does it consider that the law of 1991 is compatible with the European treaties and the internationally recognised conventions on and definitions of religious freedom?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(12 August 2003)

Freedom of religion is a universal and fundamental right of the individual and, as such, it supersedes national jurisdiction.

The Commission is following up on a regular basis the situation regarding freedom of religion in Slovakia as respect of freedom of religion is an important part of the Copenhagen political criteria for accession. The right to manifest freely his or her religion or belief in Slovakia is guaranteed by Article 24 of the Slovak constitution. These guarantees are regulated in more detail in Act No 308/1991 Collection on freedom of religious faith and on the position of churches and religious societies as amended. The Act regulates also certain conditions for the registration of churches, in conjunction with Act No 192/1992 Collection on the registration of churches and religious societies. Registration is the condition for the recognition of a church and religious society. It is on this legal basis that the associations, which the Honourable Member has mentioned, have been denied registration as a church or religious association. However, the requirement for registration does not constitute a restriction of the rights and freedoms guaranteed in Article 24 of the Slovak Constitution. The right of the individual to freely manifest his or her religion or belief remains untouched. Moreover, creating the category of the ‘registered church’ does not violate the state's confessional neutrality (also granted by the Slovak Constitution).

This has also been acknowledged by a recent Council of Europe report on Slovakia, adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 3 July 2003 (CM/Monitor(2003)9). The report emphasizes that freedom of religion should not be put on the same level with ‘equality of entitlements’. Entitlement rights are acquired by churches upon its registration as a recognition of its socially beneficial nature through the State. The report concludes by saying that ‘churches and religious societies can de jure and de facto operate freely regardless of being or not being registered’.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/405 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/405

---

(2004/C 88 E/0411)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2361/03

by Maurizio Turco (NI) to the Commission

(17 July 2003)

Subject:   Violation of religious freedom in Belarus by means of a new concordat conferring greater power on the Orthodox Church

Given that:

| — | a concordat was signed between the Orthodox Church and the State on 12 June 2003, enhancing the influence of the Orthodox Church in State bodies and allowing it to develop cooperation programmes with all influential sectors; |
| --- | --- |

—

a concordat was signed between the Orthodox Church and the State on 12 June 2003, enhancing the influence of the Orthodox Church in State bodies and allowing it to develop cooperation programmes with all influential sectors;

| — | by virtue of the concordat the State accepts the designation of Belarus as a ‘canonical territory’ of the Orthodox Church; |
| --- | --- |

—

by virtue of the concordat the State accepts the designation of Belarus as a ‘canonical territory’ of the Orthodox Church;

| — | previously, Georgia was the only former Soviet republic to have concluded a high-level concordat with a local Orthodox church – the ‘constitutional agreement’ signed by the President Eduard Shevardnadze with the Patriarch-Catholicos Ilya II on 14 October 2002; |
| --- | --- |

—

previously, Georgia was the only former Soviet republic to have concluded a high-level concordat with a local Orthodox church – the ‘constitutional agreement’ signed by the President Eduard Shevardnadze with the Patriarch-Catholicos Ilya II on 14 October 2002;

| — | the provisions of that document, however, such as exemption from tax and restitution of church property, broadly correspond to those in existing laws on religion in Russia, but the new Belarusian concordat goes much further by introducing into the legal terminology of the State several key concepts vigorously promoted by the Moscow Patriarchate since the break-up of the Soviet Union. |
| --- | --- |

—

the provisions of that document, however, such as exemption from tax and restitution of church property, broadly correspond to those in existing laws on religion in Russia, but the new Belarusian concordat goes much further by introducing into the legal terminology of the State several key concepts vigorously promoted by the Moscow Patriarchate since the break-up of the Soviet Union.

In view of the excellent economic and commercial cooperation relations between the European Union and Belarus can the Commission say:

| — | whether it is aware of the facts outlined above; |
| --- | --- |

—

whether it is aware of the facts outlined above;

| — | what steps it will take, in the context of cooperation relations, as a serious and effective means of inducing Belarus to respect religious freedom? |
| --- | --- |

—

what steps it will take, in the context of cooperation relations, as a serious and effective means of inducing Belarus to respect religious freedom?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(12 September 2003)

As regards relations with Belarus, it must be kept in mind that the Union and Member States actions with Belarus are strictly defined, in compliance with the September 1997 Council Resolution establishing a number of restrictions on political contact. In this framework economic and commercial relations between the Community and Belarus cannot be described as being ‘excellent’.

The Commission would like to reiterate that it attaches great importance to the rights of freedom of religion, belief and expression. The Union has repeatedly affirmed that human rights and democratisation must form an integral part of all political dialogues with third countries. 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 United Nations (UN) Commission on Human Rights or the Third Committee of the UN General Assembly.

The Commission remains engaged to support freedom of religion and Human Rights in Belarus, in close co-operation with Member States, the Council of Europe, Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) and the United Nations.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/406 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/406

---

(2004/C 88 E/0412)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2370/03

by Anna Karamanou (PSE) to the Commission

(16 July 2003)

Subject:   Gang rape of women by British troops in Kenya

It was recently reported that 650 women from the town of Isiolo in eastern Kenya have complained that they have been subjected to rape, in many cases gang rape, by British solders. There is a British army base in the region where exercises are held every year. According to their complaints, the rapes began in 1977; although the British Ministry of Defence was informed, it failed to intervene. As a result of these rapes, many women have given birth to half-cast babies and are marginalized, having been driven out by their families. Most of these women, acting with financial assistance from the Kenyan authorities, have filed law suits and are seeking compensation.

In view of:

| — | the anger and indignation caused by the sexual abuse of these women by European citizens as a form of entertainment; |
| --- | --- |

—

the anger and indignation caused by the sexual abuse of these women by European citizens as a form of entertainment;

| — | the total lack of respect for their physical and psychological integrity; and |
| --- | --- |

—

the total lack of respect for their physical and psychological integrity; and

| — | the price they and their children have to pay, in terms of marginalization and expulsion by their families, for events for which they bear no responsibility. |
| --- | --- |

—

the price they and their children have to pay, in terms of marginalization and expulsion by their families, for events for which they bear no responsibility.

Does the Commission intend to intervene to shed light on this affair and ensure that these Kenyan women receive moral and financial compensation and that the culprits receive exemplary punishment? Furthermore, what measures does the Commission intend to take to prevent such incidents of sexual violence and abuse of women in future which constitute flagrant violations of their human rights?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(14 August 2003)

The Commission has received information on the alleged gang rape of women committed by British troops in Kenya. The Commission considers this issue one to be pursued by the Government of the Member State concerned, and for them to take appropriate measures. In this context the Commission would like to draw attention to the report of Amnesty International entitled ‘Decades of Impunity: Serious allegations of Rape of Kenyan Women by UK Army Personnel’ which notes that in April 2003 the British Royal Military Police Special Investigation Branch (RMP-SIB) opened an investigation into a number of rape allegations.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/407 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/407

---

(2004/C 88 E/0413)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2371/03

by Michael Cashman (PSE) to the Commission

(16 July 2003)

Subject:   EU-Egypt Association Agreement

Can the Commission provide assurances that when the EU-Egypt Association Agreement comes into force, it will remain vigilant as to the extent Egypt fulfils the terms set out in Article 2, concerning respect for human rights? How will the Commission measure Egypt's compliance with this article and what steps will the Commission take to ensure that Egypt adheres fully to its obligations?

Is there any possibility that Egypt may be able to take advantage ‘at an early stage’ of some benefits that would result from the Agreement, and if so, can the Commission clarify what benefits may be offered, and when? Furthermore, will the Commission agree that should such benefits be made available, Egypt will also be required to take steps in respect of other aspects of the Agreement, particularly Article 2?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(4 August 2003)

The respect of human rights is a matter of great importance for the Commission, which has been following closely the situation in Egypt independently of the entry into force of the association agreement. The Honourable Member will be aware of the Union's many efforts on issues of Human Rights and Democratisation in Egypt. Most recently discussions on human rights questions took place during the Union-Egypt ministerial meeting of 16/17 June 2003.

When the Association Agreement enters into force, article 3 foresees the start of a formal political dialogue, inter alia on human rights and democratisation, in the framework of Association Councils and Committees. This dialogue will provide a solid basis for developing more profound dialogue and cooperation with Egypt in the areas of human rights and democratisation.

In addition, the Commission intends to further build on an enhanced dialogue and cooperation through the implementation of a recent Commission initiative. On 22 May 2003, the Commission issued a Communication aimed at ‘reinvigorating Union actions on Human Rights and democratisation with the Mediterranean partners’, within the framework of both dialogue and co-operation under the Euro-Med Association Agreements. The communication is now under the consideration of the Council and the Parliament.

As regards the ‘possibility that Egypt may be able to take advantage “at an early stage” of some benefits that would result from the Agreement’, this would first depend on the date of entry into force of the association agreement, in view of the necessary ratification by each Member State. A provisional application of the association agreement would cover trade and trade related provisions and would require both parties to the association agreement to come to an understanding to proceed in such manner. Examples of provisional application of association agreements already exist (e.g. with Lebanon). In such case, the benefits would be the ones set out in the association agreement signed on 25 June 2001. It would concern in particular the dismantling of tariffs for industrial products imported into Egypt, and the arrangements for agricultural, fisheries and processed agricultural products. Industrial products originating in Egypt already enjoy free access to the Community according to the Co-operation Agreement signed in 1977.

In order to implement the objectives of the agreement and in particular, in the framework of the New Neighbourhood policy, the Commission will ensure that progress is made in all the components of the agreement, including article 3.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/408 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/408

---

(2004/C 88 E/0414)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2372/03

by Eija-Riitta Korhola (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(16 July 2003)

Subject:   Transfer of EU citizens being held prisoner to prisons in their home countries

According to information supplied by the Finnish Foreign Service, in Venezuela alone 500 citizens of EU countries are serving long prison sentences, often under particularly inhuman conditions. In some cases, for example, the prison makes no provision whatsoever for even basic services, and the prisoners themselves are instead obliged to pay EUR 300 a month for necessary purchases such as their daily food. Transport journeys are long and gruelling.

Although Venezuela has acceded to the international convention on serving sentences in the country of origin (and ratified it in April), it does not seem possible in practice, at the level of private individuals, to reach agreement on the transfer of a prisoner to his home country. Even EU Member States acting on their own appear to be powerless. One reason that the transfers have failed to happen may be the large-scale corruption within the Venezuelan bureaucracy.

Is the Commission willing to organise one-off negotiations with a view to having all the EU citizens being held prisoner in Venezuela transferred to serve the rest of their sentences to prisons in their home countries? To that end, could a high-level delegation be sent to Venezuela within the next few months in order to have the matter dealt with on the highest possible tier of the Venezuelan authorities?

Does the Commission have any knowledge of the situation in other non-member countries? Should the EU develop a system enabling it to intervene more quickly, at any rate when they are being held under the harshest conditions, in order to have EU citizens transferred to serve their sentences in their home countries?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(12 August 2003)

The Commission is aware of the general situation in Venezuelan prisons and the conditions of detention.

The consular protection of Union citizens is a matter for the respective Member States rather than a Community competence. Through their respective diplomatic missions, Member States closely follow the situation of individual imprisoned Union citizens. Some Member States have mechanisms to support prisoners, which they put to use to the best of their ability. These include the possibility of repatriation as well as financial help and health services.

In addition to the international convention on serving sentences in the country of origin, some Member States have bilateral agreements with Venezuela. However, procedures under these agreements are cumbersome and can take up to two years.

Three Member States, Germany, Italy and the Netherlands, presented a démarche to the Venezuelan Home Minister in May 2003. The Commission is prepared to consult Member States with a view to carrying out a EU démarche at EU level vis-à-vis the Venezuelan authorities. The objective of the démarche should be to urge the Venezuelan authorities to comply with the obligations under the International Convention on serving sentences in the country of origin, as well as to request an improved application of relevant bilateral agreements with Member States. The démarche could also remind the Venezuelan authorities of their obligation under international law to ensure humane conditions of detention for imprisoned aliens.

In view of a lack of Community competence, the Commission does not receive systematic information about the situation of Union citizens imprisoned in third countries.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/409 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/409

---

(2004/C 88 E/0415)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2401/03

by Avril Doyle (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(21 July 2003)

Subject:   Exemption from VAT on postage for charities

Further to the Commission proposal to put VAT on postage and recognising that this would impose a severe financial burden on charities that depend on direct mail fundraising and are not eligible to reclaim VAT in the same way as ordinary businesses.

Can the Commission advise whether it will be possible for charities that have the specific difficulty of not being able to reclaim VAT under Irish tax law to secure an exemption from this EU legislation?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(5 September 2003)

The Commission's Proposal (1) amending Directive 77/388/EEC (2) as regards value added tax (VAT) on services provided in the postal sector, would allow Member States to apply a reduced rate to most postal services now used by private consumers. The scope of the proposed reduced rate would include direct mail sent by charities for fundraising purposes. According to the Commission's projections, were Ireland to apply a reduced rate of 5 % to those postal services, prices should not increase. The reason is that An Post is currently unable to deduct VAT it pays on its costs, most of it at the standard 21 % VAT rate. Once the proposal is adopted, the Post Office's costs will go down since it will be able to deduct VAT paid on them.

VAT takes account of the particular social interest involved in charitable activities by exempting certain supplies of goods and services effected by charities. It does not however exempt supplies effected by other businesses and acquired by charities. It is not practical to devise a system with different VAT liabilities for postal services depending on who is the person acquiring those services. Such a system would involve enormous compliance costs for postal operators, and be difficult for tax administrations to control.

---

(1)  COM(2003) 234 final.

(2)  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.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/410 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/410

---

(2004/C 88 E/0416)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2420/03

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(21 July 2003)

Subject:   Repeated Israeli accusations against Palestinian media and school textbooks and the consequent continued campaign against payments from the EU

| 1. | Is the Commission aware that the Israeli ‘Palestinian Media Watch’ organisation, which has been monitoring Palestinian TV broadcasts, newspapers and school textbooks for the past six years, takes the view that, even in recent broadcasts and publications, the Jewish inhabitants of Israel are being depicted as casual colonial invaders who have no historical connection with the region, that Jaffa (currently a suburb of Tel Aviv), Beersheba and the Sea of Galilee (Yam Kinneret) are being described as being part of Palestine and that young people are being urged to sacrifice themselves and die a martyr's death through ‘shahada’? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is the Commission aware that the Israeli ‘Palestinian Media Watch’ organisation, which has been monitoring Palestinian TV broadcasts, newspapers and school textbooks for the past six years, takes the view that, even in recent broadcasts and publications, the Jewish inhabitants of Israel are being depicted as casual colonial invaders who have no historical connection with the region, that Jaffa (currently a suburb of Tel Aviv), Beersheba and the Sea of Galilee (Yam Kinneret) are being described as being part of Palestine and that young people are being urged to sacrifice themselves and die a martyr's death through ‘shahada’?

| 2. | Is the Commission also aware that, according to that same source, an opinion poll carried out in August 2002 at the Palestinian Birzeit University showed that 42 % of all Palestinians were in favour of a multiparty democracy and 42 % of an Islamic one-party state, whereas, as a result of the propaganda aimed at the younger generation, 58 % of those aged between 18 and 25 were in favour of an Islamic one-party state? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Is the Commission also aware that, according to that same source, an opinion poll carried out in August 2002 at the Palestinian Birzeit University showed that 42 % of all Palestinians were in favour of a multiparty democracy and 42 % of an Islamic one-party state, whereas, as a result of the propaganda aimed at the younger generation, 58 % of those aged between 18 and 25 were in favour of an Islamic one-party state?

| 3. | Is the Commission aware that this disturbing information is being used again and again as an argument for ending EU financial support for the areas administered by the Palestinian Authority, thereby hampering efforts to bring Palestine's educational system and economy as far as possible up to the level of Israel's? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Is the Commission aware that this disturbing information is being used again and again as an argument for ending EU financial support for the areas administered by the Palestinian Authority, thereby hampering efforts to bring Palestine's educational system and economy as far as possible up to the level of Israel's?

| 4. | In the light of the most recent accusations, is the Commission still certain that the budgetary support and project funding supplied by the EU cannot also be allocated for propaganda purposes by the parties concerned with a view to achieving unilateral and violent solutions to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? |
| --- | --- |

4.

In the light of the most recent accusations, is the Commission still certain that the budgetary support and project funding supplied by the EU cannot also be allocated for propaganda purposes by the parties concerned with a view to achieving unilateral and violent solutions to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict?

| 5. | What can the Commission do in order to ensure that, with the welcome continuation and expansion of aid to the Palestinian people, the climate for the establishment of a fully-fledged Palestinian State and peaceful coexistence with its neighbour Israel in recognised and secure borders is not destroyed? |
| --- | --- |

5.

What can the Commission do in order to ensure that, with the welcome continuation and expansion of aid to the Palestinian people, the climate for the establishment of a fully-fledged Palestinian State and peaceful coexistence with its neighbour Israel in recognised and secure borders is not destroyed?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(12 September 2003)

| 1. | The Commission is aware of the work of the Israeli ‘Palestinian Media Watch’ organisation and other organisations which have produced reports on the content of Palestinian media and school curricula. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The Commission is aware of the work of the Israeli ‘Palestinian Media Watch’ organisation and other organisations which have produced reports on the content of Palestinian media and school curricula.

| 2. | The Commission is also aware of the opinion poll referred to. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The Commission is also aware of the opinion poll referred to.

| 3. | The Commission is aware of the use being made of this information. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The Commission is aware of the use being made of this information.

| 4. | The Commission has no evidence of Community funding to the Palestinian Authority (PA) being misused for anything other than its agreed purpose. Should such evidence come to light, immediate action would be taken. |
| --- | --- |

4.

The Commission has no evidence of Community funding to the Palestinian Authority (PA) being misused for anything other than its agreed purpose. Should such evidence come to light, immediate action would be taken.

| 5. | Commission support to the Palestinians is aimed at alleviating the economic and humanitarian crisis whilst at the same time building the institutions of a future independent, democratic and viable Palestinian state living side by side in peace and security with Israel, as laid out most recently in the Roadmap.
  Deepening reform, helping the population to face the economic crisis and promoting the principles of good governance and of mutual tolerance and understanding is the best strategy to establish a peaceful coexistence between Israel and the Palestinian people. These principles have long underpinned the Commission programme in support of the Palestinians. The Commission has put its weight behind reform by designing tailor-made institution-building programmes for the Palestinian Authority (e.g. in the area of judiciary) and by attaching strict reform conditions to its assistance. This has already yielded positive results most notably in the area of public finances and the adoption of key legal acts.
  The new PA Government under Prime Minister Abbas has committed itself to a wide-ranging reform programme, including concrete measures to eradicate incitement, which was outlined during the Joint Committee Meeting of the EC-PA Interim Association Agreement on Trade and Cooperation of 26 June 2003. The Roadmap obligations are being monitored closely by the international community.
  The Commission is supportive of the efforts of a number of Member States to develop a modern Palestinian education system based on tolerance and mutual understanding and regularly facilitates, in this respect, contacts with the PA and dialogue with all relevant parties.
  Finally, the Commission should like to inform the Honourable Member that the importance of Community donor support in both keeping the Palestinian economy alive and in supporting the implementation of key democratic reform measures has been widely recognised by the international community, notably at the Ad Hoc Liaison Committee meeting of international donors (including the Union, United States, Norway, and the World Bank) in London on 18/19 February 2003. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Commission support to the Palestinians is aimed at alleviating the economic and humanitarian crisis whilst at the same time building the institutions of a future independent, democratic and viable Palestinian state living side by side in peace and security with Israel, as laid out most recently in the Roadmap.

Deepening reform, helping the population to face the economic crisis and promoting the principles of good governance and of mutual tolerance and understanding is the best strategy to establish a peaceful coexistence between Israel and the Palestinian people. These principles have long underpinned the Commission programme in support of the Palestinians. The Commission has put its weight behind reform by designing tailor-made institution-building programmes for the Palestinian Authority (e.g. in the area of judiciary) and by attaching strict reform conditions to its assistance. This has already yielded positive results most notably in the area of public finances and the adoption of key legal acts.

The new PA Government under Prime Minister Abbas has committed itself to a wide-ranging reform programme, including concrete measures to eradicate incitement, which was outlined during the Joint Committee Meeting of the EC-PA Interim Association Agreement on Trade and Cooperation of 26 June 2003. The Roadmap obligations are being monitored closely by the international community.

The Commission is supportive of the efforts of a number of Member States to develop a modern Palestinian education system based on tolerance and mutual understanding and regularly facilitates, in this respect, contacts with the PA and dialogue with all relevant parties.

Finally, the Commission should like to inform the Honourable Member that the importance of Community donor support in both keeping the Palestinian economy alive and in supporting the implementation of key democratic reform measures has been widely recognised by the international community, notably at the Ad Hoc Liaison Committee meeting of international donors (including the Union, United States, Norway, and the World Bank) in London on 18/19 February 2003.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/411 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/411

---

(2004/C 88 E/0417)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2471/03

by Catherine Stihler (PSE) to the Commission

(24 July 2003)

Subject:   Italy and compliance with animal welfare regulation

The Independent recently reported that police in Italy say anglers are using live kittens as bait, while fishing for the gigantic sheat-fish.

Giuseppe Lagana, a police officer in Mantua in the Po valley, says the first case of kittens being used in the Po river was detected in May. But Mr Lagana, who doubles as a commander with Ampana, Italy's voluntary nature protection force, said the incident was not isolated.

Could the Commission confirm whether Italy is in full compliance with general EU animal welfare legislation?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(11 September 2003)

The Commission is on record as deploring animal cruelty in all its forms and would be horrified if live kittens were used as fishing bait as alleged by the Honourable Member.

However, Community law in relation to animal welfare is limited in scope and covers essentially only the rearing of animals on farms and the slaughter or killing of those animals, transport of all species and the treatment of laboratory animals.

Prevention of cruelty to domestic cats for example, falls within the exclusive competence of the Member States and it is therefore, for the Italian authorities to investigate the allegations referred to by the Honourable Member.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/412 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/412

---

(2004/C 88 E/0418)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2476/03

by Juan Naranjo Escobar (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(24 July 2003)

Subject:   Reduced VAT for hotels, restaurants and cafés in the European Union

At present, hotel and catering services are included in Annex H to the Sixth VAT Directive.

On the basis of that Directive, 12 of the 15 Member States have decided to apply a VAT rate below 15 % for this category of services, but it is clear that the disparity in the rates applicable in the various countries is leading to unequal treatment which may distort competition in the industry, which is highly sensitive to any kind of tax-related question.

Will the Commission take action, on the basis of its power of initiative, with a view to suggesting to the Member States that they take account of the accumulation of circumstances which affect the hotel sector so that the VAT rate applicable to the sector is as low as possible?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(5 September 2003)

In its 2000 communication the Commission set out a strategy to improve the operation of the value-added tax (VAT) system in the context of the internal market (1).

No changes in the level of VAT rates are envisaged during the implementation of this strategy. Mindful of the principle of subsidiarity, the Commission does not wish to interfere with the Member States' fiscal competence any more than is necessary for the smooth operation of the internal market, especially as regards the VAT rates the Member States wish to set.

However, it is the role of the Commission to propose to the Council any rules necessary for the smoother operation of the internal market. The Commission has therefore chosen to focus on the disparities in present system of rates with a view to making an important step in this direction. More equal treatment must be ensured in all the Member States, including the new members, and a stop put to the distortions created by the fact that some may apply reduced rates for certain sectors that are elsewhere prohibited.

Accordingly, on 23 July 2003 the Commission adopted a proposal for a Directive on reduced rates (2). Catering services have now been added to hotel services on the new list of goods and services eligible for the reduced rate. In any event, the reduced rates remain entirely optional and it is therefore up to the Member States to decide on the sectors where they wish to apply reduced rates.

The Council now has to decide unanimously on the future scope of reduced VAT rates.

---

(1)  COM(2000) 348 final.

(2)  COM(2003) 397 final.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/413 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/413

---

(2004/C 88 E/0419)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2478/03

by Miet Smet (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(24 July 2003)

Subject:   Women's rights in Afghanistan

The Taliban's seizure of power in 1996 went hand in hand with a spectacular decline in the situation of Afghan women. Women were subjected to extreme psychological and physical repression in the form of a partial or total withdrawal of medical care, education, opportunities to earn a living and freedom of movement.

Many had hoped that the end of the Taliban regime would usher in a new era for Afghan women. In the European Parliament resolution of 5 September 2002 (1) it was stressed that absolute priority must be given to the situation of women in Afghanistan. Members of the European Parliament also asked for a new Afghan government to adopt and implement effective measures to improve the situation of women. The European Union also wishes to contribute to this process, and has provided for part of Europe's support for Afghanistan to be targeted directly at specific women's projects.

But a year and a half after the Bonn conference the situation of women is anything but favourable. In the country, where three-quarters of Afghans live, nothing has changed for women. This has been confirmed by Members of the European Parliament who participated in the EP delegation to Afghanistan: since the fall of the Taliban women's rights have improved only in Kabul, and over the whole country only 30 % of girls go to school.

How does the EU react to this continuing violation of women's rights? Which specific women's projects in Afghanistan are being funded by the EU? As well as supporting specific women's projects, is the EU taking other steps to improve the situation of women? What proportion of the European budget for Afghanistan is used entirely for the benefit of women?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(18 August 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.

The 2003-2004 Country Strategy Paper underlines the need to put women at the heart of the Commission's approach to Afghanistan. It will continue to fund projects specifically for women — for example, women's baths in six regional cities outside Kabul. And to ensure that their specific needs are mainstreamed across all projects. A minimum of 2 % of the Commission reconstruction programme will be devoted to specific women's projects. However, it is the overall approach to mainstreaming that will ensure that women benefit substantially from all of the Community's interventions. For example, the Commission's health programme is heavily focussed on women's health needs.

More broadly, the Commission alongside the international community, must ensure that the women's 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 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 and to the justice sector. This will help finance judicial reform and ensure that laws are implemented effectively.

---

(1)  P5-TA(2002)0407.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/414 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/414

---

(2004/C 88 E/0420)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2486/03

by Maurizio Turco (NI) to the Commission

(25 July 2003)

Subject:   Violation of religious freedom in Uzbekistan with respect to Adventists and members of the Asia Protestant Church

Given that:

| — | five months after a raid on their small congregation in Nukus, capital of Karakalpakstan, an autonomous republic in north-western Uzbekistan, and more than two months after being fined, a group of Adventists has been summoned to appear in court in Nukus on 20 July 2003. |
| --- | --- |

—

five months after a raid on their small congregation in Nukus, capital of Karakalpakstan, an autonomous republic in north-western Uzbekistan, and more than two months after being fined, a group of Adventists has been summoned to appear in court in Nukus on 20 July 2003.

| — | the Nukus Prosecutor, Sultan Ibragimov, is refusing to provide any information on the reasons for this summons. |
| --- | --- |

—

the Nukus Prosecutor, Sultan Ibragimov, is refusing to provide any information on the reasons for this summons.

| — | the official responsible for religious affairs, Nurula Jamalov, has admitted that the material confiscated from the Adventists during the raid will not be distributed in Uzbekistan. |
| --- | --- |

—

the official responsible for religious affairs, Nurula Jamalov, has admitted that the material confiscated from the Adventists during the raid will not be distributed in Uzbekistan.

| — | on 21 June 2003 Nelya Denisova, a member of the Asia Protestant Church, was questioned for four hours by an official of the National Security Service (formerly KGB). The NSS has forbidden her to divulge what was said at the interrogation. |
| --- | --- |

—

on 21 June 2003 Nelya Denisova, a member of the Asia Protestant Church, was questioned for four hours by an official of the National Security Service (formerly KGB). The NSS has forbidden her to divulge what was said at the interrogation.

| — | the Asia Protestant Church has not yet succeeded in obtaining the registration which would allow it to operate legally on the grounds that Article 8 of Uzbekistan's Law on Religion requires pastors to receive specific religious training. |
| --- | --- |

—

the Asia Protestant Church has not yet succeeded in obtaining the registration which would allow it to operate legally on the grounds that Article 8 of Uzbekistan's Law on Religion requires pastors to receive specific religious training.

In view of the excellent economic and trade relations between the European Union and Uzbekistan, will the Commission state:

| — | whether it is aware of the serious and repeated violations of religious freedom in Uzbekistan and of the above incidents? |
| --- | --- |

—

whether it is aware of the serious and repeated violations of religious freedom in Uzbekistan and of the above incidents?

| — | what measures could, in its view, be taken within this cooperation framework as a serious and effective means of encouraging Uzbekistan to respect religious freedom? |
| --- | --- |

—

what measures could, in its view, be taken within this cooperation framework as a serious and effective means of encouraging Uzbekistan to respect religious freedom?

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/414 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/414

---

(2004/C 88 E/0421)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2487/03

by Maurizio Turco (NI) to the Commission

(25 July 2003)

Subject:   Violations of religious freedom in Turkmenistan and protection of Muslim and Russian Orthodox communities

Given that:

| — | on 27 May 2003, an operational group from the Ashgabad city division of the Ministry of the Interior raided the home of a Hare Krishna female devotee, Gaurabhakta Devi Dasi, whose home was used as a place of worship. |
| --- | --- |

—

on 27 May 2003, an operational group from the Ashgabad city division of the Ministry of the Interior raided the home of a Hare Krishna female devotee, Gaurabhakta Devi Dasi, whose home was used as a place of worship.

| — | during the raid, two other devotees, Varshana Prabhu and Mishra Bhagavan Prabhu, were arrested. In attempting to extract information from Mishra Bhagavan, the police beat him so hard that they drew blood. |
| --- | --- |

—

during the raid, two other devotees, Varshana Prabhu and Mishra Bhagavan Prabhu, were arrested. In attempting to extract information from Mishra Bhagavan, the police beat him so hard that they drew blood.

| — | the Turkmenistan authorities are still refusing to allow non-Muslim and non-Russian Orthodox communities to register. |
| --- | --- |

—

the Turkmenistan authorities are still refusing to allow non-Muslim and non-Russian Orthodox communities to register.

| — | the Constitution of Turkmenistan upholds the right to privacy in one's home, which may be restricted only in exceptional circumstances and on a legal basis, neither of which was the case in the events which occurred on 27 May. |
| --- | --- |

—

the Constitution of Turkmenistan upholds the right to privacy in one's home, which may be restricted only in exceptional circumstances and on a legal basis, neither of which was the case in the events which occurred on 27 May.

Will the Commission state:

| — | whether it is aware of the serious and persistent violations of religious freedom in Turkmenistan and of the above incidents? |
| --- | --- |

—

whether it is aware of the serious and persistent violations of religious freedom in Turkmenistan and of the above incidents?

| — | what action does it intend to support or call for in order to bring pressure to bear on the Turkmenistan authorities with a view to guaranteeing religious freedom in the country? |
| --- | --- |

—

what action does it intend to support or call for in order to bring pressure to bear on the Turkmenistan authorities with a view to guaranteeing religious freedom in the country?

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/415 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/415

---

(2004/C 88 E/0422)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2543/03

by Maurizio Turco (NI) to the Commission

(30 July 2003)

Subject:   Violation of religious freedom in Armenia

Given that:

| — | since the beginning of July one Jehovah's Witness has been sentenced to one and a half years in a labour camp and two others have been arrested and are currently being tried because they refuse to do military service. |
| --- | --- |

—

since the beginning of July one Jehovah's Witness has been sentenced to one and a half years in a labour camp and two others have been arrested and are currently being tried because they refuse to do military service.

| — | this brings the number of Jehovah's Witnesses convicted for refusing to do military service to 24, whilst 8 others are awaiting trial. |
| --- | --- |

—

this brings the number of Jehovah's Witnesses convicted for refusing to do military service to 24, whilst 8 others are awaiting trial.

| — | there are around 7 500 Jehovah's Witnesses in Armenia and they have been denied the right to register as a religious organisation. |
| --- | --- |

—

there are around 7 500 Jehovah's Witnesses in Armenia and they have been denied the right to register as a religious organisation.

| — | in December 2002 legislation was passed stipulating that only members of the Armenian Apostolic Church may join the police. Members of other confessions are to undergo ‘training and educational work’ designed to make them spontaneously renounce membership of other religious organisations. If the ‘training and educational work’ prove inadequate, those who are already members of the police force will be dismissed and anyone who wants to become a police officer will be turned down. |
| --- | --- |

—

in December 2002 legislation was passed stipulating that only members of the Armenian Apostolic Church may join the police. Members of other confessions are to undergo ‘training and educational work’ designed to make them spontaneously renounce membership of other religious organisations. If the ‘training and educational work’ prove inadequate, those who are already members of the police force will be dismissed and anyone who wants to become a police officer will be turned down.

In view of the fact that:

| — | when Armenia joined the Council of Europe in January 2001 it undertook to adopt legislation on alternatives to military service and at the same time to free conscientious objectors, but so far no such legislation has been adopted nor have the conscientious objectors been released; |
| --- | --- |

—

when Armenia joined the Council of Europe in January 2001 it undertook to adopt legislation on alternatives to military service and at the same time to free conscientious objectors, but so far no such legislation has been adopted nor have the conscientious objectors been released;

| — | on 13 December 2002 the European Commission against Racism and Intolerance of the Council of Europe (ECRI) deemed the Armenian authorities' attitude towards Jehovah's Witnesses ‘unsatisfactory’. |
| --- | --- |

—

on 13 December 2002 the European Commission against Racism and Intolerance of the Council of Europe (ECRI) deemed the Armenian authorities' attitude towards Jehovah's Witnesses ‘unsatisfactory’.

The European Union has an excellent economic and commercial cooperation relationship with Armenia.

Can the Commission say whether it is aware of the facts outlined above?

What measures, in the context of cooperation relations, might constitute a serious and effective means of inducing Armenia to respect religious freedom?

Joint answer

to Written Questions E-2486/03, E-2487/03 and E-2543/03

given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(22 August 2003)

The Commission is concerned about the problem of increased violations of religious freedom in Southern Caucasus and in Central Asia. It is fully aware of the situation of Adventists and members of the Asia Protestant Church of Muslim and Russian Orthodox communities in Turkmenistan and of Jehovah's Witnesses in Armenia.

As Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, Armenia and Georgia have Partnership and Cooperation Agreements (PCA) with the Union, the Commission raises at each meeting in PCA framework the points concerning violations of freedom of religion and more generally violations of basic human rights. Despite the fact that the PCA with Turkmenistan is not yet ratified, the Commission raises also these points at each bilateral meeting with the Turkmen authorities.

The Commission would like to reiterate that it attaches great importance to the rights of freedom of religion, belief and expression. The Union has repeatedly affirmed that human rights and democratisation must form an integral part of political dialogue with third countries. In its May 2001 Communication on the Union's role in the promotion of Democracy and Human Rights with third countries (1), the Commission is committed to mainstreaming human rights and democratisation issues in all Community assistance programme.

In addition to its Tacis assistance, the Commission, under the European Initiative for Democracy and Human Rights (EIDHR), funds a number of activities to support freedom of religion and democratisation process in Southern Caucasus and in Central Asia.

---

(1)  COM(2001) 252 final.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/416 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/416

---

(2004/C 88 E/0423)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2500/03

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(25 July 2003)

Subject:   Beef exports

Will the Commission list those countries still refusing to accept exports of beef from one or more EU Member States, and will it state the grounds for such refusal? Which of those countries were a significant market for EU beef exports in the past, and what measures is the Commission taking to reopen those markets to EU exports? How many of those countries are members of the Commonwealth?

Answer given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(5 September 2003)

The Commission becomes involved when an import ban is brought to its attention by individual Member States and/or Union industry.

The Commission would then assess the World Trade Organisation (WTO) compatibility of the Third Country measure and if it is considered that there could be a possible violation of the Sanitary and Phytosanitary Agreement of the WTO, the Commission would intervene with a range of possible actions. This process would be carried out in consultation with the Member States.

At this point in time (August 2003), the Commission is aware of the following import bans on EU beef from one or more Member States:

| — | Foot-and-Mouth Disease (FMD): South Korea still has yet to lift its restriction imposed on the United Kingdom as a result of the 2001 crisis. Korea informed the Commission that this will soon be lifted.
  However, due to a previous Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE) ban which remains in place, United Kingdom beef would continue to be banned. |
| --- | --- |

—

Foot-and-Mouth Disease (FMD): South Korea still has yet to lift its restriction imposed on the United Kingdom as a result of the 2001 crisis. Korea informed the Commission that this will soon be lifted.

However, due to a previous Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE) ban which remains in place, United Kingdom beef would continue to be banned.

| — | BSE: nearly all countries in the world have banned Union beef from one or more countries of the Union and in particular from the United Kingdom.
  In terms of markets, the bans in relation to BSE are of most relevance. Even where bans are not in place, there are frequently additional restrictions (age of animal, herd of origin, etc.) going beyond the protective measures in place in the Union in relation to BSE. These restrictions also limit the export potential of Member States, especially in key former markets in North Africa and the Middle East. However, taking into account the long history of restrictions in relation to BSE and intervening developments (evolution of the world market in beef, etc.) it is difficult to identify the contribution of BSE towards loss of market share.
  The Commission is sending direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat a table containing figures for the total Union beef exports (meat and live animals) in tonnes carcase weight equivalent for the most recent years (1999-2002).
  It is worth noting that the Union beef market is at present relatively stable, with a balanced supply-demand situation. |
| --- | --- |

—

BSE: nearly all countries in the world have banned Union beef from one or more countries of the Union and in particular from the United Kingdom.

In terms of markets, the bans in relation to BSE are of most relevance. Even where bans are not in place, there are frequently additional restrictions (age of animal, herd of origin, etc.) going beyond the protective measures in place in the Union in relation to BSE. These restrictions also limit the export potential of Member States, especially in key former markets in North Africa and the Middle East. However, taking into account the long history of restrictions in relation to BSE and intervening developments (evolution of the world market in beef, etc.) it is difficult to identify the contribution of BSE towards loss of market share.

The Commission is sending direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat a table containing figures for the total Union beef exports (meat and live animals) in tonnes carcase weight equivalent for the most recent years (1999-2002).

It is worth noting that the Union beef market is at present relatively stable, with a balanced supply-demand situation.

The Commission has frequently addressed the disproportionate BSE trade restriction regimes of third countries during bilateral and multilateral contacts — such as in the WTO/Sanitary and Phytosanitary Committee — with the relevant countries, insisting that import restrictions must be science-based and comply with international standards. The Commission is also responsible for co-ordinating the position of the Member States on proposed changes to the Office International des Epizooties (OIE) animal health code, including the BSE chapter. In this regard, Union efforts are directed towards ensuring that the international standard is based on the latest scientific knowledge. This standard includes the scientifically justifiable measures which importing countries should adopt in relation to the import of bovine animals and products, and is aimed at enabling trade to take place in safe conditions. In addition, the Commission is ensuring that the ten acceeding Member States will fully implement the ‘acquis communautaire’ in the area of veterinary health and food safety, including BSE measures. This will open up new markets to beef exports from all existing Member States as existing restrictions of the acceding Member States will be required to be lifted to the extent they are not compatible with the relevant Community rules. Finally, in its bilateral dealings with third countries, the Commission continues to press for recognition that the existing series of protective measures is sufficient to allow for trade in beef and beef products to take place from all Member States.

The Commission does not have any formal trading agreements with the Commonwealth. However, it is reasonable to assume that most Commonwealth Countries maintain bans or restrictions on Union beef exports in relation to BSE. The Commission is currently negotiating with New Zealand a range of measures which would lead to the opening up of its markets to imports from the Union.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/417 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/417

---

(2004/C 88 E/0424)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2507/03

by Paolo Bartolozzi (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(29 July 2003)

Subject:   Charges in the tourist industry

The ever closer union of the peoples of the Member States must find expression in the free movement of persons and goods in Union countries.

Under the Schengen Agreement, European citizens are entitled to move freely on Union territory without being subjected to national constraints.

In some parts of Italy (for example Tuscany) many local authorities require tourists to pay entrance fees, thus restricting de facto the free movement of persons at no charge.

Does the Commission agree that, without overstepping its powers, the Union should intervene in order to guarantee the safe, free movement of persons at no charge on Union territory and call on Member States to remove the difficulties currently preventing it?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(16 September 2003)

The information provided in the question does not allow the Commission to have a clear and complete assessment of the problem referred.

The Commission would like to recall from a general point of view that the Court of Justice has ruled, in its judgment of 16 January 2003 (case C-388/01) with regard to entrance fees to monuments etc., that advantageous rates discriminating between foreign and national tourists without any direct link with the need to protect either public order, security or health (see Article 46 EC) or any other overriding requirement in the general interest are incompatible with Community law (Articles 12 and 49 EC).

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/418 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/418

---

(2004/C 88 E/0425)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2571/03

by Maurizio Turco (NI) to the Commission

(6 August 2003)

Subject:   Violations of freedom of religion in Azerbaijan

Given that:

| — | on 13 July 2003, at a private flat in Gyanja (Azerbaijan), police burst into the meeting of a Baptist group, alleging it to be illegal, confiscating all the group's religious publications, including Bibles and hymnbooks, and arresting two people; |
| --- | --- |

—

on 13 July 2003, at a private flat in Gyanja (Azerbaijan), police burst into the meeting of a Baptist group, alleging it to be illegal, confiscating all the group's religious publications, including Bibles and hymnbooks, and arresting two people;

| — | the two persons arrested, Mr Ismailov and Mr Musayev, were filmed at the police station: they were interrogated for approximately three-and-a-half hours and their identity cards were confiscated. The film was later broadcast on local television; |
| --- | --- |

—

the two persons arrested, Mr Ismailov and Mr Musayev, were filmed at the police station: they were interrogated for approximately three-and-a-half hours and their identity cards were confiscated. The film was later broadcast on local television;

| — | Mr Ismailov was fined 65 000 manats under Article 299 of the Code of Administrative Offences, which punishes ‘violation of the regulations on the creation and functioning of religious associations’; |
| --- | --- |

—

Mr Ismailov was fined 65 000 manats under Article 299 of the Code of Administrative Offences, which punishes ‘violation of the regulations on the creation and functioning of religious associations’;

| — | Mr Musayev, who had recently returned to Azerbaijan from Russia, was fined 165 000 manats under Article 300 of the same code, which punishes ‘religious propaganda by foreigners’; |
| --- | --- |

—

Mr Musayev, who had recently returned to Azerbaijan from Russia, was fined 165 000 manats under Article 300 of the same code, which punishes ‘religious propaganda by foreigners’;

| — | the Gyanja Baptist church belongs to the International Council of Churches of Evangelical Christians/Baptists, which rejects the notion of official registration of religious associations in the former Soviet republics, believing that such registration leads to state interference and unacceptable restrictions on church activity; |
| --- | --- |

—

the Gyanja Baptist church belongs to the International Council of Churches of Evangelical Christians/Baptists, which rejects the notion of official registration of religious associations in the former Soviet republics, believing that such registration leads to state interference and unacceptable restrictions on church activity;

| — | the authorities concede that believers have the right to ‘meet privately’, but insist that such meetings of unregistered groups are illegal even if the laws on religious observance do not make registration mandatory; |
| --- | --- |

—

the authorities concede that believers have the right to ‘meet privately’, but insist that such meetings of unregistered groups are illegal even if the laws on religious observance do not make registration mandatory;

| — | Azerbaijan's international human rights obligations give it no authority to place restrictions on freedom of belief or association. |
| --- | --- |

—

Azerbaijan's international human rights obligations give it no authority to place restrictions on freedom of belief or association.

In view of the excellent relations of cooperation existing between the EU and Azerbaijan, can the Commission state whether it is aware of the above facts and indicate what initiatives, in the context of the cooperation relationship, could constitute an effective and workable means of inducing Azerbaijan to ensure respect for freedom of religion?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(18 September 2003)

The Commission is aware of the arrest of Mr Ismailov and Mr Musayev.

The Commission is of the opinion that dialogue with Azerbaijan within the Partnership and Cooperation framework will provide the best mechanism for addressing the issues to which the Honourable Member refers. Therefore, it is proposed to raise the general issue of freedom of belief with the Azerbaijani authorities at the earliest opportunity.

The Commission is working actively with the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) Office for Democratic Institutions on promoting human rights in Azerbaijan.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/419 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/419

---

(2004/C 88 E/0426)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2576/03

by Philip Claeys (NI) to the Commission

(6 August 2003)

Subject:   ‘Enlargement Weekly’ only in English

The Commission web site quite correctly pays attention to the enlargement process that the European Union is currently undergoing. A separate home page is even devoted to enlargement, which includes a feature entitled ‘Enlargement Weekly’. In its own words, the newsletter provides ‘an overview of where European enlargement has got to, who's doing what in the EU, in the institutions and the candidate countries, and how the main challenges are being met’.

Unlike the remainder of the web site which, quite correctly, appears in all the official languages of the European Union, ‘Enlargement Weekly’ is, however, available only in English.

What are the grounds for this linguistic restriction?

Is the Commission planning to have the newsletter translated into all the official languages? If so, when will the relevant texts be available in the other official languages of the EU?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(15 September 2003)

Increasing the multi-lingual nature of the Enlargement website has been a priority since its relaunch in 2002. The first priority was to provide in all Community languages the main pages, main texts, and those parts of the website, which are not subject to continuous revision, as is the case in much of the enlargement process. This is an ongoing process. The Enlargement Weekly Newsletter to which the Honourable Member refers is not an official document of the Commission, but an element of the Communication Strategy on enlargement that the Commission makes publicly available as it is specified in the text at the bottom of the web page. It is produced every week on Monday in order to give a continuous and rapidly available account of the main developments in the enlargement process. A summary of the main items is e-mailed the following day to approximately 20 000 persons around the world who are subscribed to it. Therefore, it requires a rapid production, which would inevitably be delayed and more expensive if more than one language version were required. It is only because of these reasons that the production in only one language is used in this specific case.

There are no plans to produce any other linguistic versions of the newsletter.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/420 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/420

---

(2004/C 88 E/0427)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2590/03

by Claude Moraes (PSE) to the Commission

(4 August 2003)

Subject:   Situation in Liberia

What is the EU's involvement in relation to the current situation in Liberia in terms of representations from the Commission or the EU's CFSP High Representative Javier Solana?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(9 September 2003)

The main objective of the Union's approach to the region is to contribute strategically to peace, security and stability. To this end, the Union participates in the International Contact Group for Liberia (ICGL) through the Special Representative of the Presidency for the Mano River Union, Mr Dahlgren as well as the Commission.

The Presidency and the Commission participate at the Ecowas led peace talks for Liberia in Accra as observers. Further political support to the talks is provided by the Union declarations of 13 June 2003, 23 June 2003, 21 July 2003 and 28 July 2003. The Community contributes financially to the talks in the amount of EUR 390 000 and a request for further financing is under consideration. The Commission is exploring the legal and financial possibilities to contribute to the peace process. In the light of a fact finding mission to Accra and Abuja (1 to 8 August 2003) the Commission proposed urgent support to some components of the Ecowas peace mission in Liberia by re-programming the European Development Fund (EDF) financing for Liberia, following the procedure of Article 96 of the Cotonou Agreement. A financing proposal is currently under preparation. Finally, the Commission's Humanitarian Office provides humanitarian relief in the form of health, nutrition, protection and water and sanitation projects in Liberia.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/420 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/420

---

(2004/C 88 E/0428)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2617/03

by Emma Bonino (NI) to the Commission

(25 August 2003)

Subject:   Infringements of legality in Lebanon

Knowing 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); but |
| --- | --- |

—

the appeal lodged by Dr Mugraby against the disciplinary measure is still pending (Appeal No 222/2003); but

| — | the Beirut Bar Association has nevertheless accused him of ‘impersonating a lawyer’; and |
| --- | --- |

—

the Beirut Bar Association has nevertheless accused him of ‘impersonating a lawyer’; and

| — | 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;

| — | 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;

| — | 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 and 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 and 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 Commission 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?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(16 September 2003)

The Commission is well aware of the arrest of the Lebanese human rights lawyer Dr Muhammad Mugraby on 8 August 2003. He has now been released, pending resolution of the case. The Commission's Delegation in Beirut is following the case closely, in liaison with Member States.

The Commission views very seriously infringements of the rule of law and of the principles of human rights and democracy, principles which the Lebanese Government has accepted in the recently signed Association Agreement.

It is for this reason that the Commission presented its recent Communication to the Parliament and Council on reinvigorating Union actions on human rights and democratisation with its Mediterranean partners (1). This allows the Union to redouble its efforts at dialogue with the signatories to the Barcelona Declaration on human rights issues, and to reinforce funding of co-operation in such areas as the judiciary, rule of law, and strengthening of civil society. The Commission believes that a positive, incentive-based approach is the most effective and productive way to assist its partners to achieve levels of practice in the application of the rule of law consistent with the Barcelona Declaration, and with article 59 of the Association Agreement. The ten measures listed in the Communication spell out in distinct, action-based steps how the Commission and the Union intend to consolidate and intensify political dialogue and cooperation on human rights and democracy with Lebanon, as well as with the other partner countries in the Euro-Mediterranean area, without prejudice to the Union's right to speak out on specific human rights cases whenever violations occur.

The Commission will continue to consult closely with the Presidency and Member States regarding the actions of the Bar Association of Lebanon, and as the Lebanese authorities pursue their case against Dr Mugraby.

---

(1)  COM(2003) 294 final.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/422 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/422

---

(2004/C 88 E/0429)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2620/03

by Richard Howitt (PSE) to the Commission

(2 September 2003)

Subject:   Human rights abuses in Colombia

In the context of recent civilian killings by paramilitary forces in Colombia, in particular those of Rosemary Serrano Rojas and Jorge Ivan Carvajal Angarita, who were taken from their home in Cucuta and murdered in front of their four-year-old son, and the pressure placed by these paramilitaries on the government not to investigate their crimes, what action is the Commission taking in Colombia to encourage the President to withdraw such paramilitary groups? In addition, what action is the Commission taking to ensure that crimes committed by these paramilitaries are brought to justice?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(24 September 2003)

The Commission has repeatedly expressed its concern with respect to the situation of human rights in Colombia, and urged the Colombian Government to increase its efforts in these areas and take effective action against impunity and collusion between paramilitary groups and members of the public forces. The Commission supports the recommendations made by the Bogotá office of the United Nations Human Rights High Commissioner (UNHRHC) on these issues, as well as the observations made by the same institution on 28 August 2003 on the bill ‘on the reincorporating of members of illegal armed groups’ sent by the Colombian Government to the Colombian Congress on 21 August 2003.

The fight against impunity is one of the priorities of the financial and technical co-operation between the Commission and the Colombian Government. EUR 10,5 million has been earmarked for the reform of the justice sector in the indicative multi-annual programming of the relevant budget line (B7-310), with an emphasis on the fight against impunity. The corresponding programme should be developed in the course of 2004.

The fight against human rights abuses is also dealt with through the European Initiative for Democracy and Human Rights (EIDHR, budget line B7-701), for which Colombia is a focus country. 19 projects are running or about to start, at a total amount of EUR 14 810 844, involving 19 local non-governmental organisations (NGOs), seven European NGOs, two universities, and the Bogotá office of the UNHRHC. This includes a micro-projects program with an annual allocation of EUR 500 000, designed to strengthen the local civil society, whose main lines make reference to pacific conflict prevention and resolution as well as to providing support and assistance to the victims of human rights violations due to the conflict.

The United Self-defence of Colombia (AUC) paramilitaries were also added to the so-called ‘Union terrorist list’ on 2 May 2002 (following a Commission proposal (1), the Council adopted on 27 December 2001 Common Position 2001/931/CFSP (2) and Council Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 (3) listing the persons, groups and entities whose funds and financial resources are frozen, in line with Resolution 1373(2001) of the United Nations Security Council).

---

(1)  OJ C 332 E, 27.11.2001.

(2)  OJ L 344, 28.12.2001.

(3)  Council Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 of 27 December 2001 on specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism, OJ L 344, 28.12.2001.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/423 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/423

---

(2004/C 88 E/0430)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2621/03

by Piia-Noora Kauppi (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(2 September 2003)

Subject:   Enhanced consumer safety through additional private certification marks

The European Commission recently presented its proposal for the review of the ‘New Approach’. In this context it is also taking further steps in order to promote the use of the CE marking.

The CE marking is attached to the product by the producer himself declaring conformity with the respective EU directives. In order to protect the consumer from faulty or even dangerous products this system of ‘self-declaration’ has to be based on sufficient market surveillance in the Member States. As a result of various discussions on this issue I have the impression that an equally high level of market surveillance cannot be guaranteed throughout a growing European Union at that time.

Given the current situation, is the Commission willing to promote the use of well-accepted private certification marks, which are provided by an independent third party after a series of tests and production monitoring, certifying the proper functioning and safe use of a product?

If so, why is that not reflected in the review of the ‘New Approach’, where the requirements for the attachment of additional private certification marks are raised even higher? In many cases European private certification bodies will not be allowed to apply their marks even though the lack of market surveillance strongly calls for independent expertise to guarantee consumer safety.

Is the Commission aware of the fact that its current approach will result in significant discrimination against European private certification bodies, as competitors from the US (e.g. UL) or other non-European countries will still be in a position to apply their certification marks on products for the European market?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(7 October 2003)

The CE marking symbolises the conformity of a product with the applicable harmonised requirements as contained in the relevant New Approach Directives (1) and imposed on the manufacturer. With its affixing, the manufacturer declares that the product conforms to all applicable Community provisions, and that the appropriate conformity assessment procedures have been carried out. The CE marking is mandatory and must be affixed before any product subject to it is placed on the market and put into service, except where specific Directives require otherwise. On the other hand, a product may not be CE marked unless this product is covered by a Directive providing for the affixing of the CE marking. As an outcome of the extensive consultation procedure preceding the publication of the Communication, the Commission has identified a strong need to clarify and promote the understanding of the CE marking and to clarify its relation to voluntary product marks.

According to the ‘Global Approach to certification and testing’ (2), specific modules have been devised for the various phases of conformity assessment procedures. With the exception of module A, which requires a manufacturer's declaration, all modules provide for the mandatory involvement of an independent third party body (so-called ‘notified body’) during one or all phases of conformity assessment. The replies received during the above-mentioned consultation process have confirmed the efficiency of this specific pre-market control system aimed at ensuring both flexibility for manufacturers and safety for users and consumers of the products covered.

The Commission has always considered effective market surveillance to be an essential tool for the enforcement of New Approach Directives and has, on numerous occasions, underscored the importance of an efficient and coherent market surveillance system throughout the Union. The appropriate balance between pre-market (conformity assessment procedures) and post-market (market surveillance) controls depends upon the specificities of the various product sectors. It must, however, be stressed that, as experience outside the Union has clearly shown, market surveillance is independent of the conformity assessment system applied and equally necessary in systems providing for overall mandatory third party certification.

New Approach Directives and the General Product Safety Directive (3) specifically require Member States to take all necessary measures to ensure that products may be placed on the market and put into service only if they do not endanger the safety and health of persons, or other interests covered by the applicable Directives, when correctly constructed, installed and maintained, and used in accordance with their purpose. This implies an obligation for Member States to organise and carry out market surveillance in a way that is effective and sufficiently extensive to discover non-compliant products. The Commission has been very active in this field encouraging Member States to reinforce administrative co-operation between their national market surveillance authorities and to align their levels of enforcement; supporting initiatives to increase the efficiency of information exchange procedures; and initiating projects on cross border market surveillance which involve both Member States and Candidate Countries.

With regard to the relationship between the CE marking and additional voluntary marks, the Commission continues to consider that the latter may be applied to a product provided they fulfil a different function from that of the CE marking; they do not create confusion as to the meaning or form of the CE marking; and they do not reduce the legibility and visibility of the CE marking. The CE marking is not a commercial quality mark for the consumer but an administrative mark directed at national market surveillance authorities. It has been conceived as a ‘European passport’ for products that are in conformity with all harmonised requirements of the applicable New Approach Directive(s) to guarantee their free movement within the European Economic Area (EEA) and beyond (where the CE marking is recognised). The Commission is unaware of any case in the past, where private certification bodies have been denied the right to apply their marks.

With regard to private voluntary certification marks that can be accepted in addition to the CE marking along the lines described above, the Commission has always considered that it has in principle to be left to the markets to determine whether there is a demand for such marks. The Commission sees neither a sufficient legal basis nor a specific need to ‘promote the use’ of voluntary marks. The existence of a wide variety of national private certification marks appears to be a clear indication that certification services have properly addressed the respective market needs in this regard. Currently, the Commission is considering initiating a study on private voluntary marking within the context of its Internal Market Strategy.

---

(1)  Council Directive 89/686/EEC of 21 December 1989 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to personal protective equipment, OJ L 399, 30.12.1989 Council Directive 90/384/EEC of 20 June 1990 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to non-automatic weighing instruments, OJ L 189, 20.7.1990 Council Directive 93/42/EEC of 14 June 1993 concerning medical devices, OJ L 169, 12.7.1993 Council Directive 96/48/EC of 23 July 1996 on the interoperability of the trans-European high-speed rail system, OJ L 235, 17.9.1996 Directive 98/79/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 27 October 1998 on in vitro diagnostic medical devices, OJ L 331, 7.12.1998.

(2)  Council Resolution of 21 December 1989 on a Global Approach to Conformity Assessment, OJ C 10, 16.1.1990.

(3)  Directive 2001/95/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 3 December 2001 on general product safety, OJ L 11, 15.1.2002.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/425 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/425

---

(2004/C 88 E/0431)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2646/03

by Elizabeth Lynne (ELDR) to the Commission

(28 August 2003)

Subject:   Customs classification of ostomy appliances

Is it true that the European Commission is proposing to reclassify ostomy appliances under CN Heading 3926 (general plastic) instead of Heading 9021 (appliances that compensate for a disability)?

Is the Commission aware that in practice this would make ostomy appliances more expensive, because of import duties, which would be zero-rated if the appliances were classified under Heading 9021?

Is the Commission aware that if the proposed classification is used in the World Customs Organisation, the access of ostomates to such products in Eastern Europe and developing countries would be extremely difficult and expensive, due to higher import duties in these countries?

With which organisations has the European Commission consulted when it decided to propose the reclassification?

Does the Commission agree that ostomy appliances perform the function of the removed part of the gut or urinary tract?

Could they not be considered ‘appliances which are worn or carried or implanted in the body, to compensate for a defect and disability’ (CN Heading 9021)?

In any event, what does the Commission intend to do in order to ensure that disabled people (ostomates) in the EU and developing countries are not affected by this customs classification?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(23 September 2003)

No. The Commission is not proposing to reclassify ostomy appliances. The Commission has taken action to clarify the classification of the two main components of ostomy appliances which are presented separately, namely the adhesive wafer and the pouch. Therefore, the Commission adopted in 1999 Decision 2000/41/EC (1) invalidating a number of decisions issued by Member States, so-called binding tariff information (BTIs) classifying incorrectly certain components of ostomy products under CN codes 9018 90 85 and 9021 90 90. Furthermore, in 2002 the Commission published an Explanatory Note to the Combined Nomenclature (2) clarifying what is meant by the expression ‘to compensate for a defect or disability’, the result of which is that the adhesive wafer and the pouch are not classifiable in the Harmonised System (HS) heading 9021 but according to the constituent material.

Yes. The Commission is aware of the economic consequences of the application of the correct products classification. However, classification decisions are not taken on the basis of their economic consequences but in order to ensure the correct and uniform application of the Combined Nomenclature within the Union.

When determining the duty rate to be applied, correct heading in the nomenclature used in the Community's Common Customs Tariff (CCT) (3) in accordance with the General Interpretative Rules, must be identified. These rules can be found in the introductory part of the tariff. It should be noted that the duty rates in question are the outcome of tariff negotiations based on the HS nomenclature in the World Trade Organisation/General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (WTO/GATT).

Yes. The Commission is aware that some contracting parties to the HS Convention, such as the United States and Norway, classify the two main components of ostomy appliance, namely the adhesive wafer and the pouch, under HS heading 3962 when made of plastics.

None. When the Commission adopts classification measures, this is done to ensure a uniform application within the Union of the Common Customs Tariff as foreseen by Article 23 of the consolidated version of the EC Treaty. In order to adopt such measures, the Commission applies the rules for the interpretation of the nomenclature to the product concerned on the basis of the available documentation including laboratory controls.

The products to be classified are the adhesive wafer and the pouch. The Honourable Member will find the answer in the Explanatory Note referred to above.

At international level the Commission envisages two types of action.

The first will address part of the classification issue by suggesting a transfer of the adhesive wafers from Chapter 39 to Chapter 30. A transfer of products from one HS heading to another will unfortunately not resolve all economic issues resulting from the classification of products.

Therefore, a second action will be envisaged when reviewing tariff levels on all products in the context of the next round of multilateral market access negotiations for industrial products to take into account demands from European industry.

---

(1)  Commission Decision 2000/41/EC of 29 December 1999 concerning the validity of certain binding tariff information, OJ L 13, 19.1.2000.

(2)  OJ C 256, 23.10.2002.

(3)  The CCT rates for 2003 are published in the OJ L 290, 28.10.2002.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/426 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/426

---

(2004/C 88 E/0432)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2661/03

by Ian Hudghton (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(10 September 2003)

Subject:   Missing persons in Cyprus

While Cyprus prepares to join the EU next year, and Turkey is an applicant state, the issue of missing persons, believed to have been killed or apprehended at the time of the Turkish invasion of the island in 1974, is as yet unresolved.

With reference to the Commission's response of 2 May 2001 to Question E-0506/01 (1), when it was stated that the ‘matter can be further addressed in the framework of the Union's enhanced political dialogue with Turkey’, can the Commission report on what progress has been made on this issue?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(1 October 2003)

Mr Clerides and 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. Currently, the United Nations tries to resume work of the Committee of Missing Persons.

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 (Appendix E). 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 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.

---

(1)  OJ C 261 E, 18.9.2001, p. 130.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/427 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/427

---

(2004/C 88 E/0433)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2667/03

by Jean Lambert (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(10 September 2003)

Subject:   Illegal timber trade (Indonesia) and the FLEGT

In May 2003, the European Commission launched an action plan to combat illegal logging and the trade in illegal timber: the ‘Action Plan for Forest Law Enforcement, Governance and Trade’ (FLEGT).

This will seek to combat illegal logging and the trade in illegally harvested timber. Measures set out in this Plan include support for improved governance in wood-producing countries, voluntary partnerships with wood-producing countries to ensure only legally harvested timber enters the EU market, and efforts to develop international collaboration to combat the trade in illegally harvested timber.

Indonesia is home to 10 % of the world's remaining tropical forest and is experiencing an illegal logging crisis. More than 80 % of the logging in Indonesia is carried out in breach of the law. The EU is providing funding to Indonesia and is seeking signed agreement to help tackle the problem.

Despite this, Indonesian ramin continues to be traded illegally. Indonesian ramin is being illegally laundered through Malaysia — the only other country where ramin grows — and is continuing to reach the EU market. Seizures of illegal ramin have occurred in Italy and the UK.

Why has the European Commission delayed placing ramin on Annex Β (as requested by the Indonesian Government) and will the European Commission be placing ramin on Annex Β at the earliest possible opportunity, which will be the European Union CITES Committee meeting?

Does the Commission support the principle that legislation should be introduced to make it illegal to import illegally logged timber into the EU?

Does the Commission plan to propose co-decision legislation to support the Action Plan and thereby seek to impose stricter penalties for those who trade illegally logged timber and timber products into the EU?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(10 October 2003)

The Commission and Member States remain to be convinced that unilateral listing of ramin on Annex Β 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 (1) (which implements CITES in the Community) will be any more effective than the present régime, in which ramin is listed on Appendix III of CITES and the corresponding Annex C of the Regulation. Under the present provisions, importers of ramin must produce an export permit — if the consignment comes from Indonesia — or a certificate of origin from the exporting country if it originates elsewhere. The only additional requirement that would be obtained if ramin were listed on Annex B of Regulation (EC) No 338/97 would be that in addition to the export permit issued by the exporting country, an import permit would also be required from the relevant Member State. This would be of rather marginal value; encouraging customs administrations to better enforce the current provisions would probably be more effective.

Considerable effort has already been made at Union level to ensure enforcement of the current provisions and seizures have been made in Member States. In any case, since Malaysia has significant supplies of its own ramin, its views have to be taken into account before the Community considers additional measures concerning ramin. The Commission wrote to the Malaysian authorities in June 2003 and is now waiting for their reply. However, irrespective of what decision is finally made at Union level, the best approach would be for the Indonesian Government to seek an uplisting of ramin to CITES Appendix II at the 13th Conference of the Parties of CITES in October 2003. If successful, this would allow trade in ramin to be more closely regulated, not only with the Union, but worldwide.

The Commission supports the principle that the Union should not act as a market for illegally logged timber. In the FLEGT Action Plan (2) referred to in the question it is proposed that legislation be introduced to underpin voluntary agreements between the Community and third countries so as to prevent the importation of illegally harvested timber from such countries. A general ban on importation of illegally harvested timber raises a number of issues, hence the Commission proposes to examine this option in more detail and report back in 2004. In general, the Commission would favour multilateral rather than unilateral action.

In the FLEGT Action Plan the Commission proposed to introduce legislation to support the implementation of proposed voluntary FLEGT Partnership Agreements under Article 133 of the EC Treaty — on the basis that this would fall under the chapter on common commercial policy. Legislation under this Article is in generally not subject to co-decision.

---

(1)  OJ L 61, 3.3.1997.

(2)  COM(2003) 251 final.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/428 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/428

---

(2004/C 88 E/0434)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2674/03

by María Rodríguez Ramos (PSE) to the Commission

(10 September 2003)

Subject:   Application of the safeguard clause in respect of EU imports of tinned satsuma segments from China

In its recent reply to my Question E-1646/03 (1), the Commission recognised the urgent nature of the request that the safeguard clause be applied to tinned satsuma segments from China, and stated that it was ‘currently’ [actualmente] in receipt of a request from the Spanish Government, complete with all requisite documentation.

Given that Spain requested the application of the clause at the beginning of June 2002, and that, in November 2002, the Commission's reply to my Question P-2956/02 (2) justified its inactivity by the fact that the file submitted by the Spanish authorities was not rigorous enough, it appears to me that the sector affected has a right to know the real reasons for the delay of over a year in dealing with this request.

In July 2003, the Commission used the term ‘currently’ [actualmente]. Will the Commission state on what exact date the Spanish authorities forwarded adequate information as to the nature and scale of the disruption being caused to sales, and the seriousness of the impact this is having on the Community producers affected, as demanded by WTO rules?

Answer given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(23 October 2003)

As explained in its joint reply to the Honourable Member's written questions E-1646/03, E-1920/03 and 1921/03 (3), the Commission received a fully documented formal request for safeguard measures under the transitional product specific safeguard mechanism (TPSSM) (4), and this was received on 10 June 2003. Spain re-submitted the request under the general erga omnes safeguard regulations, and this was received on 20 June 2003 (5).

Having analysed the requests and consulted with the Member States, investigations under both the general erga omnes safeguard instrument and under the TPSSM were opened on 11 July 2003 (6). Those investigations were pursued throughout the summer and are still ongoing. Member States are being kept closely informed of developments.

With regard to the fact that it took more than a year since Spain's initial contact to propose the initiation of an investigation, the Commission would like to inform the Honourable Member that this time was necessary to clarify a number of legal and substantive issues surrounding the case and to make sure that the Spanish requests meet the very high standards required by World Trade Organisation (WTO) and Community rules. As the Honourable Member may well understand, gathering up and assessing the relevant information as well as holding a series of consultations with all the parties concerned are time consuming steps, but -in any case- absolutely essential to establish the nature and reach of the alleged prejudice.

The Commission would like to note that this is the first investigation carried out under the TPSSM Regulation.

---

(1)  See page 363.

(2)  OJ C 161 E, 10.7.2003, p. 55.

(3)  See page 363.

(4)  Council Regulation (EC) No 427/2003 of 3 March 2003 on a transitional product-specific safeguard mechanism for imports originating in the People's Republic of China and amending Regulation (EC) No 519/94 on common rules for imports from certain third countries, OJ L 65, 8.3.2003.

(5)  Council Regulation (EC) No 3285/1994 of 22 December 1994 on common rules for imports, OJ L 349, 31.12.1994, and Council Regulation (EC) No 519/1994 of 7 March 1994 on common rules for imports from certain third countries, OJ L 67, 10.3.1994.

(6)  OJ C 162, 11.7.2003.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/429 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/429

---

(2004/C 88 E/0435)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2676/03

by Ulrich Stockmann (PSE) to the Commission

(10 September 2003)

Subject:   US market access for DHL Airways

Since the takeover of the international express service provider DHL by Deutsche Post World Net, UPS and FedEx have employed various means to exclude DHL from the American market. UPS and FedEx control the US parcels market, in a kind of duopoly, with a market share of 80 %, while DHL's market share in the US stands at 0,9 %. The legal and political means that UPS and FedEx have employed to partition of the US market from foreign competitors is the rule that airlines can only be considered US carriers if 75 % of their voting rights and 51 % of their capital shares are in the hands of US citizens. Both of these requirements are met by DHL Airways and have been since DHL was bought by Deutsche Post AG, when DHL's land-based and airborne operations were split into two companies, leaving DHL International with only a 25 % stake in DHL Airways. The US Department of Transportation (DoT) has confirmed this, rejecting numerous complaints brought by UPS and FedEx. On 16 April 2003, however, an amendment was made to the war budget so that airlines that are not effectively controlled by US citizens, or 50 % of whose turnover derives from foreign companies, or that belong to a foreign state, cannot be awarded military contracts from the budget appropriations that have now been released. This amendment affects only DHL Airways and therefore blatantly discriminates against one single company, given that the US State Department and the Pentagon are major customers of DHL Airways. The anti-competitive actions of FedEx/UPS are in stark contrast to UPS's unrestricted business opportunities in Europe: while UPS's market share alone in the US is around 64 % and DHL's is only 0,9 %, Deutsche Post (including DHL) holds a 23 % share of the more competitive German market and UPS an 8 % share.

Is the Commission aware of this situation? How does it intend to combat this discrimination? What steps does the Commission plan to take, particularly in the context of the negotiations on an ‘open skies’ agreement between the US and the EU, to guarantee market access to the US and to achieve full reciprocity?

Answer given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(14 October 2003)

The Commission is following closely any developments concerning United States market access for European companies.

The question concerns market access for express service provider DHL in the United States. Recent legislation in the United States sets a new restriction on ownership requirement for air carriers in order to benefit from military contracts. More specifically Section 2710 of the Emergency Wartime Supplemental Appropriations Act of April 2003 states that: ‘None of the funds in this Act or any other Act may be obligated or expended to pay for transportation described ... to be performed by any air carrier that is not effectively controlled by citizens of the United States ... an air carrier shall not be considered to be effectively controlled by citizens of the United States if the air carrier receives 50 percent or more of its operating revenue over the most recent three year period from a person not a citizen of the United States and such person, directly or indirectly, either owns a voting interest in the air carrier or is owned by an agency or instrumentality of a foreign state.’

In the view of the Commission these provisions went right against European interests and in particular those of DHL. DHL needs the services of United States cargo airlines for the air transport part of its delivery services. Since these airlines derive a huge share of their operating revenues from DHL, they would be excluded from the military contracts under the Wartime Supplemental Appropriations Act.

However, the Commission also notes that Section 2710 gives a possibility for the Secretary of Defense to waive the restriction: ... ‘That when the Secretary of Defense decides that no air carrier holding a certificate under section 41102 is capable of providing, and willing to provide, such transportation, the Secretary of Defense may make a contract to provide the transportation with an air carrier not having a certificate’. As far as the Commission knows, DHL is currently providing mail delivery services for the Department of Defense to both Iraq and Afghanistan.

In any case, it should be noted that DHL has sold its 25 % stake in DHL Airways to United States investors. DHL Airways has been renamed into AStar Air Cargo and is now 100 % owned by United States citizens.

The Commission is aware that United States cargo airlines are entitled to operate intra-Union flights while Union cargo airlines are not entitled to operate domestic flights in the United States. This imbalance will be addressed in the upcoming negotiations on a Union-United States open aviation area. The negotiations aim at opening up the United States domestic market to Union airlines and vice versa. A key element in this will be the removal of the special restrictions which currently apply to foreign ownership and control of airlines.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/431 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/431

---

(2004/C 88 E/0436)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2677/03

by Bernd Lange (PSE) to the Commission

(10 September 2003)

Subject:   Circumventing more stringent exhaust emission values by unsuitable categorisation

It would appear that heavy vehicles weighing over 2,5 tonnes, such as off-road vehicles (SUVs), which are overwhelmingly used as private motor vehicles (category Ml), are increasingly being registered as light-duty vehicles (category N1) on account of their weight.

Will this practice not lead to the limits for private motor vehicles EURO III/EURO IV set out in Directive 98/69/EC (1) being circumvented? How does the Commission plan to deal with this?

When will the Commission present an amendment to Directive 70/156/EEC (2) on type-approval of motor vehicles and their trailers and to Directive 70/220/EEC (3) as amended by 98/69/EC (table, annex I, item 13, section 5.3.1.4., footnote 2), to close this loophole?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(8 October 2003)

The possibility for category Ml vehicles whose maximum mass exceeds 2 500 kilogrammes (kg) to be type-approved according to the less stringent emission limits for category N1 vehicles has been included in Directive 70/220/EEC (4) for some time. This practice was continued through an agreement between the legislators in the conciliation procedure that resulted in Directive 98/69/EC (5). This Directive also gave such category Ml vehicles one extra year to comply with the relevant Euro III or Euro IV emission limits.

The Commission has no information at this time to confirm the numbers of passenger cars whose maximum mass exceeds 2 500 kg including off-road vehicles (e. g. 4 x 4 or Sport Utility Vehicles — (SUV's)) being registered as category N1 vehicles or whether off-road vehicles are being deliberately designed to cross the 2 500 kg threshold and thereby comply with less stringent emission standards.

With respect to type-approval, the categorisation depends on the maximum mass for the vehicle declared by the manufacturer. Vehicle manufacturers determine the category for their vehicle types as a function of the construction features and in accordance with the provisions of Annex II to Directive 70/156/EEC (6).

On 14 July 2003, the Commission adopted a proposal (7) for a recasting of Directive 70/156/EEC that aims to extend Community type-approval to all categories of vehicles. It is proposed that Community type-approval would be compulsory for new types of complete vehicles belonging to category N1 from 1 January 2007.

The Commission is aware that there are concerns over the possibility that heavy passenger cars are being type-approved in accordance with the emission limits for category N1 and thereby comply with less stringent requirements than they otherwise might. Therefore, in the framework of its future proposal for more stringent emission standards (a proposal for Euro V) the Commission will be examining whether it is appropriate to remove the distinction between category M1 vehicles that are above and below 2 500 kg.

---

(1)  OJ L 350, 28.12.1998, p. 1.

(2)  OJ L 42, 23.2.1970, p. 1.

(3)  OJ L 76, 6.4.1970, p. 1.

(4)  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.

(5)  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.

(6)  Council Directive 70/156/EEC of 6 February 1970 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the type-approval of motor vehicles and their trailers.

(7)  COM(2003)418 final.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/432 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/432

---

(2004/C 88 E/0437)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2690/03

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(10 September 2003)

Subject:   Freedom of cantons in Switzerland to turn themselves into a tax haven for international companies

| 1. | Is the Commission aware that the taxation of companies registered in Switzerland is a matter for the individual cantons rather than for the ‘Confederatio Helvetia’ to which they belong, and that the level of company tax can therefore differ according to canton? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is the Commission aware that the taxation of companies registered in Switzerland is a matter for the individual cantons rather than for the ‘Confederatio Helvetia’ to which they belong, and that the level of company tax can therefore differ according to canton?

| 2. | Is the Commission also aware that such tax competition between Swiss cantons has led to the canton of Schwyz becoming the statutory place of establishment of international companies or branches thereof which only have a small office and a P.O. box in the canton, and that in particular the northern part of this canton, which falls within the sphere of influence of the city of Zurich, especially the district of Höfe including the towns of Pfäffikon (SZ) on the Lake of Zurich, Schindellegi and Feusisberg, has become an attractive place of establishment? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Is the Commission also aware that such tax competition between Swiss cantons has led to the canton of Schwyz becoming the statutory place of establishment of international companies or branches thereof which only have a small office and a P.O. box in the canton, and that in particular the northern part of this canton, which falls within the sphere of influence of the city of Zurich, especially the district of Höfe including the towns of Pfäffikon (SZ) on the Lake of Zurich, Schindellegi and Feusisberg, has become an attractive place of establishment?

| 3. | Does the Commission know how many companies that do not conduct their business mainly in Switzerland but in the EU have moved the statutory seat of the company or branches thereof to the canton of Schwyz? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Does the Commission know how many companies that do not conduct their business mainly in Switzerland but in the EU have moved the statutory seat of the company or branches thereof to the canton of Schwyz?

| 4. | In the light of the wish to restrict tax competition not only within the EU but also in directly neighbouring countries, is the Commission engaged in direct consultations with the canton of Schwyz, rather than just with the ‘Confederatio Helvetia’? |
| --- | --- |

4.

In the light of the wish to restrict tax competition not only within the EU but also in directly neighbouring countries, is the Commission engaged in direct consultations with the canton of Schwyz, rather than just with the ‘Confederatio Helvetia’?

| 5. | If the answer to question 4 is affirmative, what has been the outcome of these consultations? If the answer is negative, when will consultations be opened? |
| --- | --- |

5.

If the answer to question 4 is affirmative, what has been the outcome of these consultations? If the answer is negative, when will consultations be opened?

| 6. | Would it be possible, as a means of applying pressure, to impose sanctions if necessary against the government of the canton of Schwyz that would not affect Switzerland as a whole? Does the Commission intend to avail itself of this possibility if necessary? |
| --- | --- |

6.

Would it be possible, as a means of applying pressure, to impose sanctions if necessary against the government of the canton of Schwyz that would not affect Switzerland as a whole? Does the Commission intend to avail itself of this possibility if necessary?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(16 October 2003)

The Commission is aware of the fact that the federal system of Switzerland provides for corporate tax to be levied at federal, cantonal and municipal level and that the individual cantons apply different rates of corporate tax. The resulting difference in tax rates existing between different municipalities within Switzerland has, for many years, been subject of an internal political debate in Switzerland. The Commission does not have specific information on the effects of tax competition between cantons within Switzerland; nor does it have specific information on the number of companies conducting their business mainly in the Union but resident in the Swiss canton of Schwyz.

The questions from the Honourable Member appear to suggest that the canton of Schwyz attracts passive investment without any real economic activity taking place or without any real economic presence being transferred there. However, it should be noted that the tax legislation of Member States and their bilateral tax treaties with Switzerland contain specific rules limiting the possibilities of tax planning structures involving the use of so-called ‘mailbox’ companies. Most Member States also have specific anti-abuse measures in their domestic legislation designed to discourage aggressive tax planning structures that are based on artificial location of passive investment in low tax jurisdictions.

Regarding tax competition, the Commission is of the opinion that fair tax competition can have positive effects, such as reducing unnecessary tax burdens and increasing the competitiveness of the Union. However, unfair tax competition that affects, in a significant way, the location of business, without having an overall positive impact, is harmful. This is why the Commission is taking active part in the work against harmful tax competition in the enlarged Union, mainly through the Code of Conduct exercise. For the same reason the Commission is also actively engaged in the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) work against harmful tax practices, which has a global approach and attempts to change the behaviour both of tax havens and of the OECD member countries (including Switzerland) to the extent that they participate in harmful tax competition.

So far the discussions, which have been taking place both at an Union level and elsewhere, including in the OECD, have been exclusively with Switzerland as it is the Confederation that is responsible for international relations. International law requires the Community to respect the constitutional division of powers in Switzerland and to conduct consultations with the Federal Government.

While not excluding a different approach in the future, the Commission is confident that, at present, the above approach provides the best means of ensuring fair tax competition, at a truly global level and would not, at this stage, wish to speculate on other measures.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/433 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/433

---

(2004/C 88 E/0438)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2700/03

by Glenys Kinnock (PSE) to the Commission

(10 September 2003)

Subject:   Inquiry into the kidnapping of Peter Shaw

Would the Commission give a clear and detailed account of any progress made by the Georgian authorities in the inquiry into the circumstances surrounding the kidnapping of Peter Shaw?

Does the Commission deem it unacceptable that so little information is available and that Peter Shaw has every right to expect that a full and comprehensive inquiry will be carried out?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(3 October 2003)

Ever since Peter Shaw regained his freedom in November 2002, the Commission has used every opportunity to stress to the Georgian Government the importance it attaches to bringing his kidnappers to justice. The Commission considers this to be an important signal of efforts to strengthen the rule of law in Georgia. The forthcoming EU-Georgia Cooperation Council will provide a further occasion to discuss the state of the investigations.

The Commission, through its Delegation and in cooperation with the British Embassy in Georgia, has regularly sought information from the Prosecutor General of Georgia on progress in the investigation. The Prosecutor General has recently informed the Commission that the case is still being investigated. Individuals involved in the kidnapping of Mr Shaw have been identified but more evidence is needed before they can be arrested and brought to court. Mr Chichiashvili, a Georgian national, wanted in Georgia in connection with several kidnappings, including that of Mr Shaw, has been arrested in Moscow.

The Commission deeply regrets that, almost one year after Mr Shaw regained his freedom, the perpetrators of his kidnapping have not been brought to justice and that the suspect arrested in Moscow has yet to be extradited.

The Commission shares the Honourable Member's opinion that more information should be made available and has asked the Georgian authorities for a detailed written report on the state of the investigations. The Commission remains determined to do all that it can to pursue this case.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/434 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/434

---

(2004/C 88 E/0439)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2701/03

by Geoffrey Van Orden (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(11 September 2003)

Subject:   Child protection funding in Bulgaria

With regard to pre-accession funding for Bulgaria, what amounts have been allocated for projects relating to child protection and welfare, and what proposals have been submitted for more resources to be targeted on this area?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(30 September 2003)

As outlined in the Commission's Regular Report 2002 (1) on Bulgaria's progress towards accession, Bulgaria needs to continue to strengthen its efforts in reform of the child care system, ensuring that the United Nations (UN) Convention on the Rights of the Child is fully respected, that the best interests of the child are reflected and that children are placed in institutions only as a last resort.

The Commission supports Bulgaria's efforts in this area through pre-accession funding. A Phare project entitled ‘Child Welfare Reform’, with EUR 3,5 million of funding from Phare and; and Bulgarian co-financing of EUR 0,5 million, is already being implemented, largely through twinning. The project aims to assist the authorities to improve policies towards socially marginalised children (including a significant number of Roma children and children with disabilities). It provides support and training to relevant bodies at national and regional levels and seeks to promote the development of alternative forms of childcare as well as supporting the reform of the management and care of children in a number of selected homes.

Another project has been agreed, in principle, under pre-accession assistance provided for in 2003, namely ‘Improvement of quality of life of people with mental disabilities’ (Phare budget: EUR 2 million; Bulgarian co-financing: EUR 0,67 million). This project aims to support the development and improvement of alternative medical, social and educational services for both children and adults with mental disabilities.

A number of projects provide indirect support to child protection in Bulgaria e.g. the project ‘Roma Population Integration’ (Phare budget: EUR 1,65 million). This seeks to improve school attendance by Roma children by removing economic and cultural barriers at pre-school and primary level, increase the number of skilled teachers working in a multi-cultural environment and introduce a nationwide multicultural content revised curriculum. There are also projects related to civil society which include project activities in the area of social integration of vulnerable groups.

Finally, further pre-accession assistance is envisaged in the framework of multi-annual programming 2004-2006. Relevant proposals from the Bulgarian authorities are expected in the near future.

The Commission will continue to closely follow developments in this area, working closely with other major donors and international agencies such as the World Bank and UN Development Programme (DP).

---

(1)  COM(2002) 700 final.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/435 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/435

---

(2004/C 88 E/0440)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2723/03

by Francisca Sauquillo Pérez del Arco (PSE) to the Commission

(3 September 2003)

Subject:   European Initiative for Democracy and Human Rights and indigenous peoples

According to the Commission, one of the priorities under the European Initiative for Democracy and Human Rights (EIDHR) must be the fight against racism, xenophobia and discrimination towards ethnic minorities and indigenous peoples. The Council has also, on several occasions, confirmed its promise of support for indigenous peoples (see Conclusions of the Council of June 2001 and November 2002). There are, however, reports that indigenous peoples receive no mention in the EIDHR budget for 2004.

Can the Commission confirm that, in accordance with the guidelines of the Council, the Commission itself and the European Parliament, the EIDHR programming document, which is currently being drawn up, will take indigenous peoples into consideration, according them a particular mention and a specific budget item?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(26 September 2003)

Following up on the commitments of the Union regarding support for the rights of indigenous peoples, the European Initiative for Democracy and Human Rights (EIDHR) contributes to achieve these objectives by opening up access to funding for projects of organisations representing indigenous peoples or working with them. The EIDHR Programming Document 2002-2004 identified the empowerment of indigenous peoples to promote their rights and the enhancement of respect for the rights of indigenous peoples at the international level for specific support. For the period from 2002 to 2004, the programming document included an indicative allocation of EUR 15 million in support of corresponding projects. On the basis of this multi-annual programming and within the framework of the identified objectives, the EIDHR programming update for 2004 continues to provide opportunities for project funding in support of the rights of indigenous peoples at global, regional and focus country level.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/435 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/435

---

(2004/C 88 E/0441)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2726/03

by Nelly Maes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(10 September 2003)

Subject:   Russian minority's schools in Latvia

Languages are part of the richness of Europe. Several international charters recognise the right of citizens to maintain and develop their own languages.

In Latvia, the significant Russian-speaking community is struggling against the Government's intention to eliminate minority educational systems. In its resolution on Latvia's progress in the accession process (2002) the European Parliament called for a study into possibilities of retaining secondary education in minority languages.

Does the Commission consider this attitude compatible with the European values of fundamental rights and cultural and linguistic diversity? Has the Commission asked for any information from the Latvian authorities on this issue?

Does the Commission consider that a People's Europe should promote the protection and development of all languages? Would the Commission consider supporting projects from organisations acting in support of the Russian language and other minority languages in Latvia?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(25 September 2003)

Since the 1997 opinion on Latvia's application for membership, the Commission has repeatedly confirmed that Latvia continues to comply with the political criteria for membership, namely respect for democracy, the rule of law, human rights and the protection of minorities. This position has been shared by international human rights organisations and was endorsed by Member States in the enlargement context.

The Commission attaches great importance to the integration of minorities into the Latvian society, in full compliance with European standards of national minority rights, including the planned transition to bilingual education in minority schools and is closely following these developments. The Commission is not aware of any Latvian intentions to eliminate minority education systems. On the contrary, Latvia, as a multicultural country, supports education in eight minority languages, including in Russian. Moreover, the education reform of 1998, introducing gradually bilingual education, is seen as an essential element of developing an integrated society in Latvia.

The Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe's (OSCE) High Commissioner on National Minorities, who is closely engaged in the issue of education reform of the minority schools, has confirmed this and has made it clear that, while there is a lawful right to promote the state language, there is also the right for minorities to preserve their native tongue and cultural identity.

The Commission believes that the ability of all young individuals of Latvia to speak both their national and native language is to their long-term social and economic advantage and will further assist the integration process.

Since its 2002 Regular Report (1), the Commission has taken every opportunity to stress that sufficient flexibility should be provided in the transition phase in minority schools in order to ensure equal educational opportunities for, as well as a close dialogue with, minority groups.

Supported by the OSCE, Latvia has taken a number of steps to ease the transition process in 2004 regarding the gradual shift in secondary schools from 10th grade onwards to a curriculum in which 60 % of subjects are being taught in Latvian or bilingually, and 40 % in the minority language, and in amending the respective legislation.

Special attention is being paid to maintaining a systematic dialogue with all stakeholders (minority schools, teachers, students, parents, etc.), including specific support to them to improve the bilingual skills in order to smooth the transition phase. The Latvian Minister for Society Integration, a former head of a human rights organisation for minorities, who supervises the work of the Society Integration Foundation and its assistance programmes, is closely involved in this process.

Understandably, there are practical difficulties, reflected by concerns of the people involved in the demanding transition process of educational reform for ethnic minorities in Latvia. With this in mind, the Latvian authorities have confirmed their intention to apply individual timetables for those schools facing particular difficulties in the transition process.

The process of society integration continues to be closely followed and has been supported by the Commission since 1996 through Phare funding, including more recently through assistance to organisations acting in favour notably of the Russian speaking minorities (since 2000).

Finally, the Commission has a general policy of promoting regional and minority languages and their use in both current and future Member States. As a result it has recently published the Action Plan on ‘Promoting language learning and linguistic diversity’. Language diversity is one of the components of the overall objective of cultural diversity (2), enshrined in the EC Treaty (Article 151).

---

(1)  COM(2002) 700 final.

(2)  COM(2003) 449 final.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/437 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/437

---

(2004/C 88 E/0442)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2727/03

by Antonio Tajani (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(10 September 2003)

Subject:   Telekom Serbia

Piero Fassino, formerly Italian Under-secretary for Foreign Affairs and currently Secretary of the Democrats of the Left party, has claimed that the European Union encouraged investment in Serbia during the leadership of the dictator Milosevic.

Can the Commission confirm this claim?

Which Community institution encouraged European businesses to invest in Serbia, and how did it do so?

Which Community institution is authorised to give the ‘go-ahead’ to investments outside the frontiers of the Union, in this case in the former Yugoslavia?

Is the Commission aware that the papers relating to the UN's investigations into the hidden wealth of Slobodan Milosevic, handed over to the court in The Hague, contain references to sums amounting to around EUR 500 million being paid by Italy to off-shore companies based in Cyprus?

Does the Commission know that the UN investigators think that these sums were part of the payment for the share in Telekom Serbia (29 %) purchased by Telecom Italia?

Is the Commission in possession of any data which might be of use to the investigations into the financial sources of Milosevic's secret wealth?

What steps will the Commission take to help to shed light on these matters?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(10 October 2003)

In the absence of economic and financial sanctions imposed by the European Community in line with a common EU position on a third state, European businesses are free to invest in that country. It is worth noting that in the period to which the Honourable Member seems to refer the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia was not subject to an investment ban under Community law. Generally, there is no specific ‘go-ahead’ or ‘authorisation’ or ‘encouragement’ by Union institutions for investments made outside the Union.

Although liaising closely with the respective institutions, the Commission is not in a position to comment on specific details of investigations undertaken by the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) and other law enforcement bodies on this matter.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/438 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/438

---

(2004/C 88 E/0443)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2741/03

by Richard Corbett (PSE) to the Commission

(11 September 2003)

Subject:   Croatia

When it considers Croatia's application for accession to the European Union, will the Commission look at the situation in Krajina as regards the return to their homes of the population driven out by the Croatian army in 1995? Does it consider that the possibility for displaced persons to return home and the treatment of minorities are matters that falls under the Copenhagen criteria for membership of the European Union?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(26 September 2003)

When it considers Croatia's application for accession to the Union the Commission will review the extent of compliance of Croatia with the criteria laid down in Articles 49 and 6 of the Treaty establishing the European Union and further enshrined in the conclusions of the European Council of Copenhagen (1993). According to the latter (‘Copenhagen criteria’) a prospective member must: (i) be a stable democracy respecting human rights, the rule of law, and the protection of minorities; (ii) have a functioning market economy and the capacity to cope with competitive pressure and market forces within the Union; (iii) adopt the common rules, standards and policies that make up the body of Community law.

Therefore the review of the process of refugee return in Croatia, and the treatment of minorities will be crucial to assessing the Government's fulfilment of the Copenhagen criteria, on the basis of which the Commission will make its recommendation to the Council on whether or not to open accession negotiations with Croatia in spring 2004.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/438 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/438

---

(2004/C 88 E/0444)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2796/03

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(19 September 2003)

Subject:   Uncertainties regarding the need for financial compensation by national authorities for regional projects no longer receiving EU regional funding after 2006

| 1. | Can the Commission confirm that, with regard to the EU Structural Funds, in the near future a choice will have to be made between two options:






  (a) | a preference on the part of the current beneficiary regions for strong growth, in order to be able both to preserve the existing grants and to pay for major projects in new Member States, and |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

Can the Commission confirm that, with regard to the EU Structural Funds, in the near future a choice will have to be made between two options:

(a)

a preference on the part of the current beneficiary regions for strong growth, in order to be able both to preserve the existing grants and to pay for major projects in new Member States, and

| (b) | a preference on the part of some Member States for stabilising the current level of expenditure and, in future, assigning priority in projects to solidarity and internal EU development aid for the most disadvantaged regions in the present and future Member States with the lowest per capita Gross National Product? |
| --- | --- |

(b)

a preference on the part of some Member States for stabilising the current level of expenditure and, in future, assigning priority in projects to solidarity and internal EU development aid for the most disadvantaged regions in the present and future Member States with the lowest per capita Gross National Product?

| 2. | Is the Commission aware that in the Netherlands, pending the decision between these options, a difference of opinion is arising between the north-eastern provinces, which expect to be able to continue to draw on the Structural Funds after 2006, and the government, which considers it probable and desirable that such regions in more affluent Member States will then no longer be eligible for aid? Is the Commission aware whether there are other regions in the EU where uncertainty about the amount of funding available from the Structural Funds and its mode of deployment after 2006 is giving rise to such differences of opinion and problems in the preparation of projects? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Is the Commission aware that in the Netherlands, pending the decision between these options, a difference of opinion is arising between the north-eastern provinces, which expect to be able to continue to draw on the Structural Funds after 2006, and the government, which considers it probable and desirable that such regions in more affluent Member States will then no longer be eligible for aid? Is the Commission aware whether there are other regions in the EU where uncertainty about the amount of funding available from the Structural Funds and its mode of deployment after 2006 is giving rise to such differences of opinion and problems in the preparation of projects?

| 3. | Does the Commission agree that it is desirable that the Member States and their regional or local authorities should be promptly informed about the amount of future EU cofinancing and the need for national authorities to compensate regional and local authorities financially for the loss of EU grants (‘renationalisation’), to enable them to draw up multiannual financial estimates and formulate policies for regional projects in and after 2006? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Does the Commission agree that it is desirable that the Member States and their regional or local authorities should be promptly informed about the amount of future EU cofinancing and the need for national authorities to compensate regional and local authorities financially for the loss of EU grants (‘renationalisation’), to enable them to draw up multiannual financial estimates and formulate policies for regional projects in and after 2006?

| 4. | How will the Commission inform all authorities concerned as quickly as possible about the amount of money which will be available from the Structural Funds and Cohesion Fund in future, how it will be allocated and what regions in the present Member States will or will not again be eligible for such funding after 2006? |
| --- | --- |

4.

How will the Commission inform all authorities concerned as quickly as possible about the amount of money which will be available from the Structural Funds and Cohesion Fund in future, how it will be allocated and what regions in the present Member States will or will not again be eligible for such funding after 2006?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(22 October 2003)

The Commission is currently in the process of formulating proposals for reforming regional and cohesion policies for the post-2006 period. These proposals will be made in the Third Cohesion report, which should be adopted by the end of 2003. The proposals will be consistent with the global proposals on the new financial perspectives covering the same period, which also need to be decided. It is therefore too early to speculate on the nature of the Commission's proposals in the field of regional and cohesion policy, although it can be said that the options for the future are not necessarily limited to the two mentioned by the Honourable Member.

The Commission is aware of the debate taking place in the Netherlands, and other Member States. A stable planning framework for regional policy is clearly important, which is why the proposals on the future are being drawn up for the attention of the Parliament and the Council at the earliest possible moment.

The aim is to decide the new regulations in sufficient time to allow Member States, regional and local authorities to prepare a new generation of programmes for implementation from the beginning of 2007.

Decisions on the eligibility of regions and on financial allocations must follow the adoption of the new regulations. Where the decisions are the responsibility of the Commission, they will be taken as quickly as possible, and the results published in the Official Journal.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/439 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/439

---

(2004/C 88 E/0445)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2843/03

by Astrid Thors (ELDR) to the Commission

(25 September 2003)

Subject:   Placement of children in institutions in Latvia

The Council attaches very great importance to the applicant countries' respect for the political criteria for accession laid down by the European Council meeting in Copenhagen, particularly those concerning democracy, the rule of law, human rights and protection of minorities (Council's written answer of 4 June 2003 to question H-0350/03).

Has the Commission at any stage considered the situation of children in children's homes in Latvia, particularly given that the Commission has actively endeavoured to develop similar strategies in other applicant countries?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(22 October 2003)

Since the opinion of 1997, the Commission has concluded in its annual Regular Reports that Latvia continues to comply with the so-called Copenhagen political criteria, namely the respect for democracy, the rule of law, human rights and the protection of minorities. Latvia has continued to address any existing outstanding issue in this area.

In the context of children's rights, Latvia has ratified several Conventions such as the European Convention on the Exercise of Children's Rights (May 2001) and also the European Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Decisions concerning Custody of Children and on Restoration of Custody of Children (April 2002). Within the obvious budgetary constraints of a country in transition, Latvia continues to invest in upgrading social institutions, including children's homes.

Latvia is primarily responsible for its children's policy. However, the Commission has provided assistance for projects via non-governmental organisations (NGOs) active in this field, under the horizontal Access programme in order to support the situation of children and children's homes in Latvia. This support has been directed at child care institutions such as orphanages, schools with ‘risk’ children, day support centres for children suffering from unfavourable conditions and families with socio-psychological and rehabilitation reintegration as well as socially and health wise endangered children, including street and abused children.

The Commission will continue to monitor the situation in Latvia until accession. The ongoing encouraging developments regarding economic and social cohesion as well as availability of future Structural Funds will certainly also contribute to further improvements and upgrading of social institutions, including children's homes in Latvia.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/440 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/440

---

(2004/C 88 E/0446)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2856/03

by Jens-Peter Bonde (EDD) to the Commission

(26 September 2003)

Subject:   Status of the Turkish language

What will be the status of the Turkish language following the accession of Cyprus on 1 May 2004? Will the Commission make a comparison with the status of Gaelic and Luxembourgish?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(21 October 2003)

In the absence of a settlement before 1 May 2004, the Turkish language will not have the status of an official or working language of the Institutions of the Union, as no such provision has been included in the Accession Treaty. Instead, Protocol No 10 annexed to the Accession Treaty, foresees in this case that the ‘acquis’ is suspended in those areas of Cyprus in which the Government of Cyprus does not exercise effective control.

The Commission continues to encourage all parties to reach a solution to the Cyprus problem before 1 May 2004. The mentioned Protocol No 10 therefore contains an enabling clause allowing for adaptations to the terms concerning the accession of Cyprus to the Union with regard to the Turkish Cypriot Community. Such adaptations can also relate to the status of the Turkish language.

The Commission has decided to dedicate EUR 3 million for the translation of relevant pieces of the ‘acquis’ into the Turkish language to prepare and facilitate the process bringing the northern part of Cyprus closer to the Union. This project is currently implemented.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/441 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/441

---

(2004/C 88 E/0447)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2857/03

by Graham Watson (ELDR) to the Commission

(26 September 2003)

Subject:   Seychelles

Is the Commission aware of recent murders in the Seychelles which are widely believed to be instigated by the Government?

What action has the Commission taken about these?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(5 November 2003)

The Commission is aware and concerned by rise in violent crime in the Seychelles which appears to be caused, at least in part, by worsening socio-economic conditions. It is also aware of claims of an involvement of the security forces of the Government but has no first-hand information to back this up.

If the Commission were to receive evidence of Government involvement in recent crimes, or if there were other indications of a worsening human rights situation, we would review our relations with the Seychelles.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/441 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/441

---

(2004/C 88 E/0448)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2859/03

by Mario Borghezio (NI) to the Commission

(26 September 2003)

Subject:   Quantity of European funding for the Palestinian Islamic fundamentalist organisation Hamas

Since the European Union grants substantial funding to the Palestinian Authority, and at the recent summit at Riva del Garda it finally gave the go-ahead for the inclusion of the Palestinian organisation Hamas on the blacklist of terrorist movements whose funds should be frozen, can the Commission say how much European funding has been granted to Hamas directly or indirectly up until now?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(17 November 2003)

The Union has not entered into any contract with, nor granted any direct or indirect financial support to the organisation Hamas.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/441 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/441

---

(2004/C 88 E/0449)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2904/03

by Miet Smet (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(1 October 2003)

Subject:   CARDS Programme

The EU is encouraging compliance with the rule of law, good governance, public accountability and freedom of opinion in the western Balkans through its regional programme ‘Community Assistance for reconstruction, development and stabilisation’ (CARDS). Under this regional programme the Commission published in 2002 an open appeal for submission of proposals for ‘Support to the rule of law, good governance, public accountability and freedom of opinion’ (114716/C/G/multi).

There has been a response from at least three women's centres from the former Yugoslavia (the Belgrade Women's Studies Center, Women's Studies Center of Zagreb and the Alternative Academic Network-Belgrade), each with a project proposal. Despite the fact that promoting the equal participation of men and women in the democratisation process was one of the priorities of the CARDS Democratic Stabilisation Programme for 2002, none of the three centres has obtained support from the EU for project funding.

Are there any other organisations that advocate equal opportunities for men and women and are receiving EU funding via the open appeal 114716/C/G/multi for their project? If so, which ones?

Why were the project proposals from the Belgrade Women's Studies Center, Women's Studies Center of Zagreb and the Alternative Academic Network-Belgrade not considered?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(14 November 2003)

The Commission pays utmost attention to ensure that gender issues are integrated in the mainstream of all European Community assistance programmes. The selection of projects participating in calls for proposals within the Community Assistance for Reconstruction, Development and Stabilisation Programme (CARDS) follow very strict evaluation procedures, which aim to select the best proposals to match the financial resources available.

As far as the proposed project that the Honourable Member mentions, it is important to highlight that out of the 130 proposals received from the six beneficiary states in the Western Balkans, only nine have been chosen. These nine were selected strictly on the basis of the quality of the projects in respect to factors such as the capacity of the management and the Sustainability of the proposals. The three organisations which are mentioned by the Honourable Member unfortunately did not achieve an evaluation score which enables them to be funded. However, it may be of interest for the Honourable Member to know that the non governmental organisation (NGO) ‘Woman Kind World-Wide’ will be awarded a grant to develop, with the aid of local partners, an Albanian Women's Leadership programme.

As a general note, promotion of equal participation of men and women in the democratisation process in Serbia and Montenegro is also one of the priorities of the European Initiative for Democratisation and Human Rights programme (EIDHR). The 2000 EIDHR micro-projects programme which will end in December 2003 has supported four local women organisations from Serbia (Novi Sad Women's Center; SOS hotline and Center for Girls; Women's Multiethnic Group Seleus; and Autonomous Women's Center) and two local women organisations from Montenegro (League of Women Voters of Montenegro and Women Forum). The Commission will continue to pay special attention to gender issues both in the CARDS and EIDHR programmes.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/442 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/442

---

(2004/C 88 E/0450)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2956/03

by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(8 October 2003)

Subject:   Increased financial support for the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA)

Although the US State Department cleared the UN Population Fund (UNFPA) of accusations of abortion and forced sterilisation, the US House of Representatives decided on Tuesday, 23 July not to make any further contributions to the Fund. As a result, the Fund will be deprived of nearly USD 100 million in 2004 and 2005.

The Fund helps developing countries to improve gynaecological healthcare and is an important body in the fight against population explosion and other demographic trends that lead to poverty. One of the Fund's responsibilities in this area is (advice on) contraception. The cancellation of American contributions will lead to two million unwanted pregnancies and 800 000 abortions going unprevented. It is estimated that thousands of mothers will die in childbirth and children at birth for lack of resources.

What is the Commission's view of this step by the USA, and has it made its position known to the US Administration?

Is the Commission prepared to provide UNFPA with extra financial support so that countless lives can be saved?

If so, how much will the Commission make available?

If not, why not?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(19 November 2003)

The Commission is very disappointed at the decision taken by the United States House of Representatives to end contributions to the UNFPA. The Commission fully supports the policies set out in the Programme of Action adopted at the 1994 International Conference on Population and Development in Cairo. The Commission considers that this latest decision by the United States House of Representatives puts implementation of the Programme at risk.

The Commission has supported UNFPA projects on many occasions. Last year the Commission financed a project to support UNFPA for EUR 20 million as part of a EUR 32 million package for sexual and reproductive health agreed after earlier cuts in United States support. A further EUR 12 million has been set aside for an extension of this programme. The Commission is also ready to review any proposals received from UNFPA in the call for proposals launched under 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). In the draft budget for 2004, this budget line has been increased to EUR 17,8 million in order to respond to increased needs in this field.

---

(1)  OJ L 224, 6.9.2003.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/443 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/443

---

(2004/C 88 E/0451)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2972/03

by Bill Newton Dunn (ELDR) to the Commission

(6 October 2003)

Subject:   EU funding in Kenya

Where have EU funds given to Kenya, particularly to the Gitaru Sub-location, gone and how are they tracked? What mechanisms exist to monitor the dispersal of these funds? If no such mechanism exists, could the Commission explain why this is the case? Furthermore, is the Commission able to provide information on the source of funding for places in secondary education for children in Kenya and the Gitaru Sub-location?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(24 October 2003)

The basis of cooperation between the Community and Kenya is the Country Strategy Paper (CSP), which includes an indicative programme. The CSP has been negotiated with the Government of Kenya in support of sectoral and macroeconomic policies. The 9th European Development Fund (EDF) Country Strategy Programme approved by the Commission on 16 September 2003 (EUR 215 million of programmable aid for the period 2003-2007) mainly focuses on general budget support, rural development and road transport. Education is not a focal sector for Community co-operation. A copy of the CSP is forwarded directly to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat.

All actions financed by the Community are subject to detailed appraisal to establish clearly identified objectives, beneficiaries and results to be achieved by a set of activities. They also have monitoring schemes adapted to the different activities, providing regular operational and financial information. This may also include external monitoring. Furthermore, Community programmes are, in general, subject to mid-term and end of term evaluations in order to learn lessons and improve performance.

On the financial side, increasing use is being made of regular external audits to confirm that funds have been utilised correctly. The Finance and Contract section of the Delegation in Kenya (deconcentrated since April 2002) also carries out its own controls on the use of funds.

Whilst education is not a focal sector for Community support in Kenya, assistance to a certain number of individual schools has been provided under the Community Development Trust Fund (CDTF), which aims to support self help programmes. A list of secondary schools supported by CDTF is being sent directly to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat. The CDTF has not supported any projects in Gitaru sub-location to date.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/444 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/444

---

(2004/C 88 E/0452)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2990/03

by Professor Sir Neil MacCormick (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(6 October 2003)

Subject:   Benes Decrees (October 2002)

With reference to the background papers and expert reflections prepared in relation to the Commission's official opinion on the Benes Decrees (October 2002), I request the following information:

| 1. | What sources were used? |
| --- | --- |

1.

What sources were used?

| 2. | What were the main considerations? |
| --- | --- |

2.

What were the main considerations?

| 3. | Did the Commission administration follow consultations? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Did the Commission administration follow consultations?

| 4. | If yes, with whom? |
| --- | --- |

4.

If yes, with whom?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(24 October 2003)

The document entitled ‘The Czechoslovak presidential decrees in the light of the “acquis communautaire” — Summary Findings of the Commission Services’ dated 14 October 2002 was made available to the Parliament and the public at large. A further copy of this document is now sent directly to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat.

| 1. | Apart from the relevant Czechoslovak primary legal texts, European and international law, the main sources used were the relevant rulings by Czech courts, in particular the Constitutional Court and the Supreme Court, as well as various other information papers submitted by Czech officials. All these sources have been listed in annexes 1 to 3 of the document of 14 October 2002 referred to above. In addition, the Commission consulted a variety of legal opinions, of its own Legal Service as well as from independent experts. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Apart from the relevant Czechoslovak primary legal texts, European and international law, the main sources used were the relevant rulings by Czech courts, in particular the Constitutional Court and the Supreme Court, as well as various other information papers submitted by Czech officials. All these sources have been listed in annexes 1 to 3 of the document of 14 October 2002 referred to above. In addition, the Commission consulted a variety of legal opinions, of its own Legal Service as well as from independent experts.

| 2. | The main considerations are set out in the above-mentioned document of 14 October 2002. Essentially, the question to be answered in the document was whether the decrees posed an obstacle to the Czech Republic's accession to the Union in the light of the ‘acquis communautaire’. The conclusion of the Commission's investigation is that this is not the case. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The main considerations are set out in the above-mentioned document of 14 October 2002. Essentially, the question to be answered in the document was whether the decrees posed an obstacle to the Czech Republic's accession to the Union in the light of the ‘acquis communautaire’. The conclusion of the Commission's investigation is that this is not the case.

| 3. and 4. | The Commission took note of various legal positions from all sides of the argument. Among the legal opinions available, conclusions and recommendations regarding the decrees vary considerably. While the Commission, in determining its own assessment, carefully took into account positions that are critical of the decrees, it considered it equally essential to conduct a thorough fact-finding investigation based on the actual legal situation and practice in the Czech Republic. |
| --- | --- |

3. and 4.

The Commission took note of various legal positions from all sides of the argument. Among the legal opinions available, conclusions and recommendations regarding the decrees vary considerably. While the Commission, in determining its own assessment, carefully took into account positions that are critical of the decrees, it considered it equally essential to conduct a thorough fact-finding investigation based on the actual legal situation and practice in the Czech Republic.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/445 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/445

---

(2004/C 88 E/0453)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2997/03

by Bill Newton Dunn (ELDR) to the Commission

(14 October 2003)

Subject:   Double taxation in Finland and UK

I have two constituents who are Finnish born, who are now living in the UK. The husband's pension comes from Finland. But the Helsinki Tax Office is deducting 17 % ‘council tax’ from the pension before it is paid to him. The deduction is, apparently, to pay for the Helsinki fire service, street lighting, libraries, subsidised evening classes, etcetera.

As my constituents now live in the UK and are not able to use any of these services in Helsinki, is it correct that the 17 % deduction can be made from his pension?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(12 November 2003)

In general, Member States are free to decide on the distribution of taxing rights between themselves. As the Court of Justice stated in Gilly (Case C-336/96, paragraph 24) the Member States are competent to determine the criteria for taxation on income with a view to eliminating double taxation by means of bilateral tax treaties.

The application of the bilateral tax treaty between Finland and the United Kingdom is in principle a matter for the Member States concerned. That tax treaty gives Finland the exclusive right to tax pensions paid from Finland under the Finnish social security legislation. It also gives Finland the exclusive right to tax pensions paid by the Finnish State for services rendered to Finland, if the pension is paid to Finnish nationals. The tax treaty expressly covers the Finnish ‘communal’ tax. Private pensions paid from Finland to the United Kingdom are exclusively taxable in the United Kingdom. Therefore, the correctness of the application of the tax treaty depends on the character of the pension of the Honourable Member's constituent.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/446 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/446

---

(2004/C 88 E/0454)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3006/03

by Joachim Wuermeling (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(14 October 2003)

Subject:   Tax exemptions in the Czech Republic

| 1. | Is the Commission aware that the Czech Republic grants a 10-year exemption from corporation tax for first-time investments in manufacturing sectors, and a 10-15 % reduction in the income tax base for the purchase of new machinery? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is the Commission aware that the Czech Republic grants a 10-year exemption from corporation tax for first-time investments in manufacturing sectors, and a 10-15 % reduction in the income tax base for the purchase of new machinery?

| 2. | Are these tax breaks compatible with the aid rules under the Association Agreement, and will they be compatible with the provisions of the EC Treaty on the granting of aid? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Are these tax breaks compatible with the aid rules under the Association Agreement, and will they be compatible with the provisions of the EC Treaty on the granting of aid?

| 3. | If not, is the Commission taking steps to ensure that the relevant tax regulations are amended? |
| --- | --- |

3.

If not, is the Commission taking steps to ensure that the relevant tax regulations are amended?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(5 December 2003)

| 1. | Yes, the Commission is aware of the schemes mentioned by the Honourable Member in his question. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Yes, the Commission is aware of the schemes mentioned by the Honourable Member in his question.

| 2. | Through a protocol to the Europe Agreement adopted in July 1998, the Czech Republic committed itself to aligning its legislation on the State Aid rules of the Community. This commitment was translated into Czech legislation by the State Aid Act that entered into force on 1 May 2000. The Act made the Office for the Protection of Economic Competition the Czech State Aid monitoring authority. Therefore, in the pre-accession period, while the content of the applicable State Aid rules in the Czech Republic are aligned on the State Aid rules of the Community, the enforcement of these rules rests with the Office for the Protection of Economic Competition. The investment scheme requires every individual aid granted under it to be notified to the Office for the Protection of Economic Competition. This office has assessed whether the individual tax exemptions are compatible with the ‘acquis’, in particular the Community guidelines on national regional aid.
  Under the Europe Agreement, the Commission has engaged itself in an ongoing process of contacts with the Office for the Protection of Economic Competition and other Czech authorities, in order to ensure that tax breaks and other investment schemes are compatible with the State Aid rules of the Community. These contacts have led the Czech authorities to enact amendments to the investment incentives legislation in order to align the schemes further with the practice in the EU.
  After accession, any new aid, or any modification of existing aid has to be notified to the Commission in accordance with Article 88(3) of the EC Treaty. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Through a protocol to the Europe Agreement adopted in July 1998, the Czech Republic committed itself to aligning its legislation on the State Aid rules of the Community. This commitment was translated into Czech legislation by the State Aid Act that entered into force on 1 May 2000. The Act made the Office for the Protection of Economic Competition the Czech State Aid monitoring authority. Therefore, in the pre-accession period, while the content of the applicable State Aid rules in the Czech Republic are aligned on the State Aid rules of the Community, the enforcement of these rules rests with the Office for the Protection of Economic Competition. The investment scheme requires every individual aid granted under it to be notified to the Office for the Protection of Economic Competition. This office has assessed whether the individual tax exemptions are compatible with the ‘acquis’, in particular the Community guidelines on national regional aid.

Under the Europe Agreement, the Commission has engaged itself in an ongoing process of contacts with the Office for the Protection of Economic Competition and other Czech authorities, in order to ensure that tax breaks and other investment schemes are compatible with the State Aid rules of the Community. These contacts have led the Czech authorities to enact amendments to the investment incentives legislation in order to align the schemes further with the practice in the EU.

After accession, any new aid, or any modification of existing aid has to be notified to the Commission in accordance with Article 88(3) of the EC Treaty.

| 3. | The Commission will ensure, possibly under the ‘interim procedure’ laid down in the Accession Treaty, otherwise under the normal rules applicable after accession, that the tax exemption scheme will fully respect the ‘acquis’. To that effect, contacts with the Czech authorities have been ongoing to ensure that the investment incentives legislation is fully compatible with the State Aid rules of the Community. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The Commission will ensure, possibly under the ‘interim procedure’ laid down in the Accession Treaty, otherwise under the normal rules applicable after accession, that the tax exemption scheme will fully respect the ‘acquis’. To that effect, contacts with the Czech authorities have been ongoing to ensure that the investment incentives legislation is fully compatible with the State Aid rules of the Community.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/446 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/446

---

(2004/C 88 E/0455)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3020/03

by Anna Karamanou (PSE) to the Commission

(8 October 2003)

Subject:   Human rights in Romania — underage marriages in the gypsy community

The shocking case of Ana-Maria Cioaba, a 12-year-old gypsy girl regarded as a princess by the Roma community in Romania, who was forced into a marriage which she desperately opposed, has spotlighted the serious violations of fundamental human rights in an applicant country due to join the European Union in 2007.

Adherence by the gypsy community to its traditions in cases such as this constitutes flagrant violation of the human rights of children belonging to the gypsy community who are not asked whether and whom they wish to marry but are compelled by force to comply with the choice of their male relatives. This is tolerated if not actually covered up by the Government, which chooses not to implement its own laws, particularly regarding the Roma. For example, the legal age for marriage in Romania is 18 while, under certain conditions, it may be allowed at the age of 16. Concerning the Roma community, however, the authorities tend to turn a blind eye, allowing the practice of forced marriages such as that referred to above to be perpetuated.

What measures will the Commission take and what representations will it make to the Romanian Government with a view to protecting the human rights of underage members of the gypsy community given that Romania's application for European Union membership must denote a significant step forward by the country regarding the protection of human rights?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(24 October 2003)

The Commission is aware of the traditional Roma wedding of two minors that recently took place in Romania. This wedding does not have legal force because the two minors have not reached the legal age for marriage under Romanian law.

The Commission can inform the Honourable Member that the Child Protection Department of the province where the traditional wedding took place reached an agreement with the parents concerned. As a result both children have returned to their parents' homes, they will go to school and will attend counselling sessions at the Child Protection Service until they reach the legal age of marriage.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/447 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/447

---

(2004/C 88 E/0456)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3023/03

by Anders Wijkman (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(8 October 2003)

Subject:   Combating meningitis in Africa

Meningitis epidemics frequently occur in Africa, killing and permanently disabling thousands of people. The emergence of a new strain of the meningitis bacteria — W135 — has rendered the traditionally used vaccine insufficient, if not useless. In record time, a public-private partnership, under the leadership of WHO, has been able to produce a vaccine against the new strain. In order to ensure an effective response in the case of a likely outbreak in parts of Africa early in 2004, a stock of several million doses of the new vaccine will be needed. The estimated cost for an effective preparedness programme is estimated at EUR 8,5 million. Most of that money has to be spent immediately and cannot wait for an epidemic to occur.

What will be the role of the EU in the efforts to prevent a serious meningitis epidemic in the so-called meningitis belt countries in the short term?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(18 November 2003)

The European Commission is aware of the worrying situation of meningitis epidemics in Africa, particularly in view of the emergence of the new W-135 strain.

The European Community is supporting in West Africa, the region worst affected, the regional programme ‘Support for the Strengthening of vaccine independence in Africa d'Appui au reinforcement de ľlndependence Vaccinale en Afrique’. This programme strengthens the co-ordination amongst countries in the region to the management and mobilisation of vaccine stocks, in collaboration with WHO. This programme, in collaboration with ECHO, proved itself most effective in the last yellow fever epidemics in the region, and could also support related activities for meningitis epidemics.

At present a health sector programme under the West Africa Regional Strategy (EUR 15 million) is being identified by the European Commission and we are exploring the possibilities on preparedness (including vaccine stocks), early detection and response to the main epidemics (including meningitis) in the region. More efficient prevention would come from extending trivalent vaccine to endemic countries through strategies such as those supported by GAVI and others in the region, but there are still technical difficulties in the immunogenicity of this vaccine for children and hence its inclusion in the Expanded Programme of Immunization. The European Community is also supporting research into more effective and appropriate meningitis vaccines.

The European Community also has a clear strategy in Disaster Preparedness and Prevention (DPP) in place and there is a need to increase DPP support from our regular programming (A or B envelops), subject to the prioritization by our partner countries.

During the last year, the European Community funded interventions in response to outbreaks of meningitis in Africa for a total of EUR 920 000 through ECHO. The bulk of this contribution was directed to the purchasing of around 600 000 doses of meningitis vaccines, most of the Trivalent ACW including the classical A and C serotypes, and the new resistant strain W135. At present ECHO is designing a one-year programme to react more rapidly to epidemics in the region. The Commission is also contributing to essential prevention and care services which will be the basis for long term capacities in early warning, detection and reaction to epidemics in the region.

In the framework of humanitarian interventions dealt with by the Humanitarian Aid Office (ECHO), as a general principle no pre-positioning of stocks can be financed in connection with the forecast of a potential humanitarian emergency. ECHO's policy is to tackle identified needs in a given humanitarian crisis, and resources are speedily mobilised through ECHO implementing partners when emergencies break out, upon presentation of operational proposals by humanitarian organisations. Costs incurred by partners that fall within the operational period are financed by ECHO, which may also consider the cost of products purchased and put into stock before the grant is signed and for which later distribution takes place, provided that these stocks are used within the contract period and in the framework of the financed operation.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/448 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/448

---

(2004/C 88 E/0457)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3057/03

by Bartho Pronk (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(14 October 2003)

Subject:   Human rights situation in Guatemala, particularly the situation of Mr Rogoberto Dueñas Morales

| 1. | Is the Commission aware of the disappearance of Mr Rogoberto Dueñas Morales, deputy Secretary-General of the Unión Autónoma de Campesinos and deputy Secretary-General of the Central General de Trabajadores de Guatemala? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is the Commission aware of the disappearance of Mr Rogoberto Dueñas Morales, deputy Secretary-General of the Unión Autónoma de Campesinos and deputy Secretary-General of the Central General de Trabajadores de Guatemala?

| 2. | Is the Commission aware that his disappearance is probably connected to the fact that he raised the question of government-linked corrupt practices in the Guatemalan social security system, for which the government is partly responsible? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Is the Commission aware that his disappearance is probably connected to the fact that he raised the question of government-linked corrupt practices in the Guatemalan social security system, for which the government is partly responsible?

| 3. | Is the Commission prepared to express its concern at this disappearance, and to exert the necessary pressure to obtain a clarification about the fate of Mr Dueñas Morales? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Is the Commission prepared to express its concern at this disappearance, and to exert the necessary pressure to obtain a clarification about the fate of Mr Dueñas Morales?

| 4. | What, in the light of this disappearance, is the opinion of the Commission on the human rights situation in Guatemala? |
| --- | --- |

4.

What, in the light of this disappearance, is the opinion of the Commission on the human rights situation in Guatemala?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(5 November 2003)

The Commission is aware of the Mr Rigoberto Duenãs Morales case in Guatemala and is trying to get more detailed information. The Commission is also exchanging views with Member States before deciding what measures could be taken. Contact has also been made on this issue with Mr José Pinzón, Secretary General of the Central General de Trabajadores de Guatemala.

The Commission is concerned about the general deterioration in the situation of human rights and impunity in the country, as it has been reported recently by local and international human rights organisations including the United Nations Verification Mission in Guatemala (Minugua) and the Inter-American Human Rights Commission of the Organisation of the American States (OAS). In particular, as declared by the Union Presidency on 22 August 2003 and by the European Council on 18 October 2003, the Commission is worried about the build-up of tension and continuous infringements of human rights that has been occurring during the pre-electoral phase.

Within this framework the Commission and the Member States have asked the representatives of the judicial system, including the President of the Supreme Court of Justice, to redouble their efforts to investigate the attacks against human rights and fight against impunity. As far as the upcoming elections are concerned, a Union Election Observation Mission has been deployed throughout the country since the end of September 2003, aimed at monitoring the whole election process until the beginning of January 2004. In addition to providing a comprehensive report and recommendations on the election process, the Union Election Observation Mission seeks to enhance the confidence of Guatemalan voters in the electoral process and to reduce tension and violence in the country.

It should be underlined that the Commission is present in Guatemala by means of co-operation programmes aimed at encouraging the local counterparts and authorities to make progress in areas such as the promotion of human rights or the justice system, including the ‘EU Initiative for Democracy and Human Rights’ (EIDHR).

Finally, one of the Commission's main objectives further to the Consultative Group Meeting held in Guatemala City in May 2003, is to encourage the Guatemala authorities and society to accelerate the implementation of the Peace Accords signed in 1996, as well as to promote human rights and the fight against impunity.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/449 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/449

---

(2004/C 88 E/0458)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3080/03

by David Bowe (PSE) to the Commission

(20 October 2003)

Subject:   Water supply in Palestine

The World Health Organisation's recognised minimum domestic water consumption is 100 litres per capita per day. Figures show that the current domestic water supply for Palestinians is only 57-76 litres per capita per day, whilst Israeli consumption is approximately four times that amount.

Is the EU taking action to encourage a more equitable division of this resource? If not, why not?

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/450 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/450

---

(2004/C 88 E/0459)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3081/03

by David Bowe (PSE) to the Commission

(20 October 2003)

Subject:   Sewage systems in Palestine

Only 37,5 % of Palestinian homes are connected to a sewage system. This creates a serious environmental hazard.

Is the Commission aware of the effect that this has on the health of Palestinians? What action is it taking to address this issue?

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/450 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/450

---

(2004/C 88 E/0460)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3082/03

by David Bowe (PSE) to the Commission

(20 October 2003)

Subject:   Alleged Israeli dumping of toxic waste in Palestine

Is the Commission aware that Israel is accused of dumping toxic waste on Palestinian settlements, a violation of the Oslo II Palestinian-Israeli agreement? Will it take action against Israel to prevent further violation of this agreement? If not, why not?

Joint answer

to Written Questions E-3080/03, e-3081/03 and E-3082/03

given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(21 November 2003)

Together with the Member States, the Commission accounts for almost half of all financial assistance to the Palestinians and is the single-most important donor. The objective of its assistance is to strengthen the institutions of a future Palestinian State whilst at the same time addressing the most urgent needs of the Palestinian population.

In close co-operation with other international donors, the Commission addresses the general problem of basic services in health, education, relief and social services as well as the more specific problem of insufficient water supply and treatment, and waste through a number of projects on the ground. By contributing about EUR 60 million/year to the regular budget of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) for example, the Commission supports UNRWA's work on municipal and regional utility issues which provides water, wastewater, and solid waste services to the refugee population.

In addition, through its EUR 30 million emergency support programme for Palestinian municipalities which is currently being implemented, the Commission helps rehabilitate basic public services in municipalities in the West Bank and Gaza. Projects implemented under this programme are for instance the replacement of water pipes in Bethlehem, and the rehabilitation of roads including the construction of a new sewage system in Gaza.

Moreover, the Commission considers water to be an important element in the Middle East Peace Process. It has supported the work of the EU's Special Representative on the water issue financially and politically and actively participates in a sub-working group of the Council on this issue. It has also launched a regional project, involving Israeli, Jordanian and Palestinian governmental water institutions and authorities, to develop a real time monitoring system of water resources with the aim of improving capabilities for preventing and managing critical changes in drainage areas and river basins, the Regional Water Data Banks Project (RWDB).

The Commission is aware of reports alleging that Israel has released quantities of hazardous waste without treatment in the West Bank and Gaza. We are also conscious of the lack of infrastructure in the Palestinian Territories to process hazardous waste and to separate hazardous from non-hazardous waste. The Commission has been in contact with the United Nations Environment Programme on their Desk Study of January 2003 on the environment in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. The Desk Study addressed the question of alleged dumping, but did not reach any conclusions. It recommended to conduct a field study to collect evidence on this matter.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/451 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/451

---

(2004/C 88 E/0461)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3110/03

by María Sornosa Martínez (PSE) to the Commission

(17 October 2003)

Subject:   Withdrawal of Community funding for the Juan XXIII project in Alicante (Spain)

The Finance Ministry recently notified Alicante Town Council of the formal decision taken by the Commission to suspend ERDF funding for the rehabilitation of the Juan XXIII district of Alicante.

Why has the Commission withdrawn the Community support for the project?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(11 November 2003)

The Commission can inform the Honourable Member that the project for the rehabilitation of the Juan XXIII district of Alicante to which she refers was not included in any proposal to the Commission for part-financing under the Structural Funds.

The Commission contacted the authorities at the Ministry of Finance responsible for the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) in Spain, who confirm that this project was not put forward for Community part-financing under the local operational programme (2000-2006) for reasons relating to compliance with the Community rules on public procurement.

The Commission would remind the Honourable Member that, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, the Member States have sole responsibility for the selection of individual projects in each programme for part-financing under the Structural Funds and for their implementation.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/451 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/451

---

(2004/C 88 E/0462)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3132/03

by José Ribeiro e Castro (UEN) to the Commission

(17 October 2003)

Subject:   Cuba — Sakharov Initiative

On 4 September 2003, during the September part-session, the European Parliament adopted a resolution on Cuba by an overwhelming majority. Paragraph 12 of this resolution reads:

| | 12. Asks that Mr Oswaldo Payá Sardiñas, winner of the Sakharov Prize for Freedom of Thought in 2002, be officially invited to Europe at the earliest opportunity in order to meet in person with the EU Presidency, the High Representative for the CFSP, the President of the Commission and the relevant Commissioners; supports the decision taken by its Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy to invite Mr Sardiñas, and asks the Cuban authorities not to prevent his presence. |
| --- | --- |

12. Asks that Mr Oswaldo Payá Sardiñas, winner of the Sakharov Prize for Freedom of Thought in 2002, be officially invited to Europe at the earliest opportunity in order to meet in person with the EU Presidency, the High Representative for the CFSP, the President of the Commission and the relevant Commissioners; supports the decision taken by its Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy to invite Mr Sardiñas, and asks the Cuban authorities not to prevent his presence.

This part of the resolution represents the follow-up to what I have called the ‘Sakharov initiative’, promoted by myself within Parliament. This initiative has already obtained the individual signatures of 205 MEPs, and has been highlighted in my letters, sent to recipients including, notably, the President of the Commission, of 28 May, 3 July and 24 September 2003.

In the meantime, it has been reported that a petition bearing more than 14 000 signatures has been submitted to the Cuban Parliament by Oswaldo Payá Sardiñas, in support of the Varela project'. This is a particularly important development in view of the extremely harsh climate now confronting democrats in Cuba.

Has the Commission taken any action in implementation of the ‘Sakharov Initiative’, pursuant to paragraph 12 of Parliament's joint resolution on Cuba adopted on 4 September 2003? If so, what is the nature of the action taken?

Following the recent submission by Oswaldo Payá Sardiñas of a petition bearing over 14 000 signatures to Cuban Parliament, and the considerable media coverage given to that event, does the Commission not believe that the time is now right to act on Parliament's initiative?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(5 February 2004)

The Commission took note of Parliament's resolution on Cuba adopted on 4 September 2003, and in particular its paragraph 12 concerning Oswaldo Payá. The Commission is well aware of the situation concerning Mr Paya and regrets the Cuban authorities' decision not to allow him to come to Brussels to attend a meeting of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy on 1 December 2003.

On 5 June 2003, the Union decided on a series of measures in response to the action taken by the Cuban authorities against members of the opposition and independent journalists. The events in Cuba also subsequently led the Council to re-evaluate its Common Position on Cuba (1) on 21 July 2003 (2), nearly six months in advance of the due date.

The Commission and the Member States continue to follow the situation in Cuba attentively, particularly with regard to members of the opposition such as Mr Payá. The Commission wishes to give them the fullest possible support in the present situation. This requires, of course, fully taking into account the difficult circumstances in which they live.

The Commission firmly backs democratisation efforts in Cuba, and the President and relevant Members of the Commission would certainly be glad to meet with Mr Payá when he comes to Brussels.

---

(1)  Common Position 96/697/CFSP defined by the Council on the basis of Article J. 2 of the Treaty on European Union, on Cuba, OJ L 322, 12.12.1996.

(2)  http://europa.eu.int/abc/doc/off/bull/en/200307/pl06154.htm.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/452 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/452

---

(2004/C 88 E/0463)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3147/03

by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(23 October 2003)

Subject:   Recent escalation of Israeli aggression in the Middle East

On a recent visit to Palestine with other members of Parliament, I was able to observe that the Israeli Government, despite criticism and protest, is pushing ahead with:

| — | building colonies on the West Bank, military occupation and destruction of infrastructure (some of it built with Community funding), agriculture, housing and other facilities; |
| --- | --- |

—

building colonies on the West Bank, military occupation and destruction of infrastructure (some of it built with Community funding), agriculture, housing and other facilities;

| — | selective murder, and the constant violation of the most basic rights of the Palestinian people, in what can only be called full-blown State terrorism; |
| --- | --- |

—

selective murder, and the constant violation of the most basic rights of the Palestinian people, in what can only be called full-blown State terrorism;

| — | the building of a completely unacceptable wall, about which the UN Special Rapporteur for Human Rights in the Palestinian Occupied Territories has stated that ‘It is time to condemn this wall as an illegal act of annexation, just as the annexation of East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights by Israel was condemned’. |
| --- | --- |

—

the building of a completely unacceptable wall, about which the UN Special Rapporteur for Human Rights in the Palestinian Occupied Territories has stated that ‘It is time to condemn this wall as an illegal act of annexation, just as the annexation of East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights by Israel was condemned’.

Meanwhile, the Government is escalating its military aggression, with attacks on Syria for the first time since 1974.

Given these realities, it is totally inadequate merely to express ‘concern’, and it is even less acceptable to follow the US line and make Israel and Palestine equally responsible, confusing aggressor and victim, or make cynical demands that the Palestinian authorities control terrorist attacks, while Israel is destroying the Palestine authorities' wherewithal to do so.

Bearing in mind, furthermore, the repeated appeals from the Palestinian authorities:

| — | What initiatives does the Commission intend to take to ensure that the successive UN resolutions on the Middle East are applied? |
| --- | --- |

—

What initiatives does the Commission intend to take to ensure that the successive UN resolutions on the Middle East are applied?

| — | Does the Commission not believe that the suspension of the Euro-Mediterranean Association Agreement between the EU and Israel, requested in the EP resolution on the situation in the Middle East of 10 April 2002, has been fully justifiable for quite some time? |
| --- | --- |

—

Does the Commission not believe that the suspension of the Euro-Mediterranean Association Agreement between the EU and Israel, requested in the EP resolution on the situation in the Middle East of 10 April 2002, has been fully justifiable for quite some time?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(4 December 2003)

The Union recognises Israel's irrevocable right to live in peace and security within internationally recognised borders. It continues to press the Palestinian Authority, as the legitimate governing body in the Palestinian territories, to do everything possible to prevent terrorist acts, to bring perpetrators to justice and to dismantle all terrorist networks. At the same time, the Union calls for the establishment of a democratic and viable sovereign Palestinian State. Union Heads of Government have endorsed the Road Map and, in line with its proposals and relevant United Nations Resolutions on this matter, have repeatedly called on Israel to withdraw its military forces and occupation; to stop extra-judicial killings; to change the route of the security barrier; to lift closures and other restrictions imposed on the Palestinian people; and to dismantle settlement outposts and freeze any expansion of settlements.

On the question of suspending the Association Agreement with Israel, the Commission recognises the frustration of those who feel that things have gone from bad to worse over the last three years. On balance, however, it is the Commission's view, reflecting the views of Union Foreign Ministers meeting in the External Relations Council, that suspending the agreement would at this stage make the Israeli authorities less rather than more responsive to the efforts of the international community to promote a lasting settlement.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/453 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/453

---

(2004/C 88 E/0464)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3179/03

by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission

(20 October 2003)

Subject:   Cambodian deadlock

Has the Commission made representations to the Cambodian authorities in order to help solve the current constitutional deadlock, especially in the context of the country's troubled and violent history?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(12 November 2003)

The Commission and Member States represented in Phnom Penh are following the recent political developments in Cambodia closely. Commission representatives have on several occasions encouraged all political parties to do their utmost, in a peaceful manner, to find an agreement on the formation of a new government reflecting the wishes of the electorate.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/454 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/454

---

(2004/C 88 E/0465)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3181/03

by Antonio Tajani (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(27 October 2003)

Subject:   Sending EU representatives to observe the referendum on Chavez

The political, economic and institutional crisis in Venezuela is steadily worsening. Since Hugo Chavez's election as President of the Republic in 1998, a series of events have produced deep divisions among Venezuelans.

The extreme populism of Chavez, who claims to be conducting an imaginary ‘Bolivarian’ revolution, has given rise to a succession of electoral consultations whose sole result has been to produce violent street protests, months of strike action, deaths and injuries. The mediation carried out by former US President Jimmy Carter and the President of the Organisation of American States, César Gaviria, did not succeed in defusing the situation. Chavez has formed a close alliance with Castro, whose political and social model he claims to wish to follow in Venezuela. On one occasion, he even paid a visit to the dictator Saddam Hussein. His relations with the FARC, the violent narcocommunist guerrilla groups in Colombia, have been the subject of much controversy. At its most recent meeting, the Socialist International expressed a clear and severe condemnation of President Ugo Chavez's policies and methods. This has brought together a vast opposition movement comprising trade unions, businesses, traditional political parties and the media. All these forces, with the unequivocal support of the Catholic Church, have joined together in the ‘Coordinadora Democrática’. Following a failed attempt in August, this organisation has asked the National Electoral Council to initiatite the procedure for the collection of signatures with a view to holding a referendum within three months. The Venezuelan Constitution provides for the possibility of holding a Revocation Referendum, on a request from 20 % of voters, half-way through the term of office.

What action does the Commission intend to take to uphold the democratic rights of Venezuelans? What does it intend to do to reassure and protect the large Italian, Spanish and Portuguese communities?

Does President Prodi intend to approach Chavez directly with a view to allowing Commission representatives to visit the country in order to ascertain how EU cooperation funds are being used?

Does the Commission intend to support the sending of EU observers to monitor the collection of signatures for the referendum and ensure that the procedure is conducted in a democratic manner.

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(11 December 2003)

The Commission is closely following the political situation in Venezuela. The EU has fully supported the OAS (Organisation of American States), together with the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) and the Carter Centre in the tripartite working group, and the Group of Friends, in their efforts to facilitate a national dialogue. The EU, in several Declarations, has emphasised the need for a peaceful, democratic, constitutional and electoral solution. Besides, the Commission has offered financial and technical assistance for the implementation of the Agreement reached between the government and the opposition on 29 May 2003. In order to do so, the Commission signed a project to assist the OAS in its efforts to implement the Agreement, which comprises support for an electoral solution; investigation of the events of April 2002; and disarming the civilian population. The amount budgeted is EUR 600 000. The Commission is working with the OAS with a view to ensuring the project's timely implementation.

Furthermore, the Commission is following closely developments concerning a possible referendum/election and is prepared to consider providing support, possibly including electoral observation, if invited by the Venezuelan authorities to do so. Any decision to deploy an EU Electoral Observation Mission would depend on the recommendations made by a preliminary exploratory mission as to whether conditions on the ground are conducive to such a mission as well as needs, timing and financial capacities. In any case, a recall referendum or new elections could only take place if the necessary number of signatures is collected according to the Venezuelan constitution. As regards the collection of signatures to request a referendum to recall President Chávez, the CNE (National Electoral Council) has invited the OAS, the UNDP and the Carter Centre to act as observers, but no invitation has been addressed to the EU.

No specific actions to protect EU citizens in Venezuela have been taken at EU level. Their protection and support is normally ensured by their Member States of origin.

With respect to bilateral development cooperation, the Delegation of the Commission in Caracas monitors the implementation of the projects. Brussels-based Commission representatives visit the country regularly and have not experienced any difficulty accessing Commission projects. Neither they nor the Commission's Delegation in Caracas are aware of any indications of inappropriate use of cooperation funds.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/455 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/455

---

(2004/C 88 E/0466)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3190/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(28 October 2003)

Subject:   Promotion of the pilot responsible for the Cermis tragedy

On 3 February 1998, a US Maríne Corps aircraft, stationed at the Aviano base as part of the ‘Deliberate Guard’ operation, took off for a low-flight training mission. Shortly after take-off, the aircraft struck the cables of a cable-car linking the village of Cavalese (Trento) with Mount Cermis, at a height of 300/400 feet above the ground, as the descending passenger cabin was at a distance of some 300 metres from the arrival station.

The impact caused the carrier and driving cables to snap immediately, the cabin fell to the ground and all 20 passengers died.

In the proceedings opened to establish who was responsible, the case was entrusted to a US military tribunal, which decided not to punish nor hold responsible the superiors of the four crew members. On 4 March 1999 the eight Camp Lejeune court-martial jurors, all Maríne Corps officers, then found the pilot himself not guilty. This ruling caused surprise, bewilderment and indignation in Italy and other European countries because it seemed to contradict all the evidence and to accept that such a cruel tragedy could occur during a peace-time training flight, without any failure that might cause the aircraft to get out of control and without any criminal liability.

The Italian press has recently revealed that Captain Chandler Seagrave, who acted as navigator during the mission to Mount Cermis and has already been condemned for this multiple killing by the Italian parliamentary committee responsible for investigating the case, has not only remained unpunished for the tragedy which he caused but has recently been promoted to major by the US army.

In view of the extreme affront which this decision represents to the memory of the 20 victims and to members of their families, will the Commission answer the following questions:

| 1. | Will the European Union take a stand on the seriousness of these events? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Will the European Union take a stand on the seriousness of these events?

| 2. | What power does the European Union have to investigate these facts and to show the US army in an effective manner that it is appalled at this decision? |
| --- | --- |

2.

What power does the European Union have to investigate these facts and to show the US army in an effective manner that it is appalled at this decision?

| 3. | Can the European Union in any way help to ensure that those responsible for this tragedy do not go unpunished? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Can the European Union in any way help to ensure that those responsible for this tragedy do not go unpunished?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(26 November 2003)

This matter raised by the Honourable Member is for the relevant judicial authorities in the United States and Italy. The Commission has no grounds on which to express an opinion.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/456 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/456

---

(2004/C 88 E/0467)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3247/03

by Baroness Sarah Ludford (ELDR) to the Commission

(28 October 2003)

Subject:   Annual report on Turkey

Will the Commission address the following urgent questions in its annual report on Turkey's progress towards meeting EU accession criteria due on 5 November:

| 1. | Do the Host Government Agreements for the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan oil pipeline breach the terms of Turkey's Accession Partnership by moving away from the ‘acquis communautaire’ and the prospect of implementing the Copenhagen criteria? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Do the Host Government Agreements for the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan oil pipeline breach the terms of Turkey's Accession Partnership by moving away from the ‘acquis communautaire’ and the prospect of implementing the Copenhagen criteria?

| 2. | Does this project potentially infringe the human rights and minority rights of the people living along the pipeline route in Turkey, such as through the expropriation of land without proper compensation? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Does this project potentially infringe the human rights and minority rights of the people living along the pipeline route in Turkey, such as through the expropriation of land without proper compensation?

| 3. | What is the potential environmental impact of the project, and has a proper environmental impact assessment been carried out? |
| --- | --- |

3.

What is the potential environmental impact of the project, and has a proper environmental impact assessment been carried out?

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/456 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/456

---

(2004/C 88 E/0468)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3249/03

by Richard Howitt (PSE), Jean Lambert (Verts/ALE) and Renate Sommer (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(3 November 2003)

Subject:   Annual report on Turkey

Will the Commission address the following urgent questions in its annual report on Turkey's progress towards meeting EU accession criteria due on 5 November:

| 1. | Do the Host Government Agreements for the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan oil pipeline breach the terms of Turkey's Accession Partnership by moving away from the ‘acquis communautaire’ and the prospect of implementing the Copenhagen criteria? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Do the Host Government Agreements for the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan oil pipeline breach the terms of Turkey's Accession Partnership by moving away from the ‘acquis communautaire’ and the prospect of implementing the Copenhagen criteria?

| 2. | Does this project potentially infringe the human rights and minority rights of the people living along the pipeline route in Turkey, such as through the expropriation of land without proper compensation? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Does this project potentially infringe the human rights and minority rights of the people living along the pipeline route in Turkey, such as through the expropriation of land without proper compensation?

| 3. | What is the potential environmental impact of the project, and has a proper environmental impact assessment been carried out? |
| --- | --- |

3.

What is the potential environmental impact of the project, and has a proper environmental impact assessment been carried out?

Joint answer

to Written Questions P-3247/03 and E-3249/03

given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(19 November 2003)

In its regular report on Turkey's progress towards accession published on 5 November 2003 (1), the Commission sets out its assessment of developments over the last year and the overall situation with regard to human rights and the protection of minorities.

As regards the specific questions raised by the Honourable Member concerning the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan oil pipeline project, any potential violations as regards human rights or the protection of minorities arising from the implementation of the pipeline project would have to be considered in the context of the Copenhagen political criteria. Turkey is at this stage not bound by the environmental ‘acquis’, but the Commission is aware that environmental impact assessments have been carried out for this project, for example, to meet the conditions of international lending organisations.

---

(1)  COM(2003) 676 final.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/457 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/457

---

(2004/C 88 E/0469)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3253/03

by Cristiana Muscardini (UEN) to the Commission

(3 November 2003)

Subject:   Somalia: internal situation, refugees and terrorism

The deaths of various Somali refugees, mostly from Mogadishu, close to the Italian coast, due to hunger, fatigue and drowning, reminds us of the thousands of Somalis who have died since 1991 in the Indian Ocean, the Gulf of Aden and the Red Sea. All of them were desperately fleeing a dictatorial system linked to the Islamic fundamentalism which was responsible for the deaths of lay missionary Annalena Tonelli and two British nationals working for SOS and is represented by terrorist organisations such as Al-Ittihad and Al-Islah.

Interim President Salad Hassan, whose term of office expired several months ago and who, according to the list of international terrorist organisations, is leader of Al-Islah, has left the Nairobi Conference, which was convened over a year ago, and asked for the decisions agreed to in Nairobi by representatives of the Somali state in the presence of international observers to be annulled in order to hold a new Reconciliation Conference in Mogadishu, a city which Somalis are fleeing, at the cost of their own lives.

The President of the Transitional National Government (TNG) has issued a proclamation against the Somali leaders, who denounce ‘Muslim brothers’ accused of terrorism to the Kenyans and Americans, and has called for the USD 8,5 million of the Al-Barakat financial network to be frozen, claiming that they are private funds, including his own.

In Somalia there are regular murders and executions of militiamen involved in fighting fundamentalism and terrorism. It would seem that the ‘new coalition’ in Mogadishu includes Jumale, the chairman of Al-Barakat, who was expelled from the Arab Emirates.

| 1. | Will the Commission take vigorous diplomatic action to ensure that the Nairobi Conference is brought to a successful conclusion and that Somalia is given a federal government to take the necessary measures to hold democratic elections? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Will the Commission take vigorous diplomatic action to ensure that the Nairobi Conference is brought to a successful conclusion and that Somalia is given a federal government to take the necessary measures to hold democratic elections?

| 2. | Will the Commission take real steps to root out terrorism and isolate those who have, in recent years, openly or indirectly accepted or protected terrorist groups linked to Al Qaeda which have been responsible for bomb attacks in Nairobi, Dar-el-Salam and Mombasa? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Will the Commission take real steps to root out terrorism and isolate those who have, in recent years, openly or indirectly accepted or protected terrorist groups linked to Al Qaeda which have been responsible for bomb attacks in Nairobi, Dar-el-Salam and Mombasa?

| 3. | Can the Commission launch — independently or in cooperation with the United Nations — a plan of humanitarian aid for the local population? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Can the Commission launch — independently or in cooperation with the United Nations — a plan of humanitarian aid for the local population?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(12 December 2003)

The Commission has been actively supporting the Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD) peace conference held in Kenya since it started in October 2002. The Commission has provided a substantial financial contribution to the process (EUR 5,6 million) and is part of the international observer group attending the Conference.

The Commission has also participated in several Union troika missions, at different levels, aimed at drawing the attention of key international stakeholders to the Somali situation and urging them to support the IGAD peace talks.

The legal basis for the European fight against terrorism, a priority policy objective for the Union, is to be found in the so-called ‘third pillar’, namely in the provisions on police and judicial co-operation in criminal matters. In this context the Commission has tabled several proposals to facilitate police and judicial cooperation including a European arrest warrant and a common definition of terrorism. In addition the Commission, together with Member States, has been playing an active role in the combat against the funding of terrorism including the implementation of the United Nations Security Council Resolutions 1373/2001, freezing of assets, and 1390/2002 on the Taliban sanctions regime.

The Commission further recalls that it strictly abides by the Security Council stipulations regarding the list established under Resolutions 1267/1999 and 1333/2000 and referring to individuals and organizations belonging to, or associated with, the Taliban and Al-Qaida including in Somalia.

Despite the difficult situation in Somalia, the Commission has been continuously present in the country where it plays a central role in the donor community. EUR 25 million in disbursements are foreseen in 2003 in the full continuum ranging from humanitarian aid, to relief, rehabilitation and development. This will be sustained in the years to come with the implementation of the special aid package to Somalia which made available EUR 199 million for the period 2002-2007. In addition, the Commission will continue to mobilise funds from its own budget lines, including humanitarian aid through its Humanitarian Aid Office.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/458 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/458

---

(2004/C 88 E/0470)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3270/03

by Baroness Sarah Ludford (ELDR) to the Commission

(4 November 2003)

Subject:   Progress in Cameroon

In the context of the donors' meeting on Cameroon scheduled for 29 October 2003, what reports has the Commission received on progress towards democracy, the rule of law and human rights in Cameroon? In particular, is the Commission satisfied that the necessary reforms are being implemented to enable a free and fair Presidential election to be held in October 2004?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(10 December 2003)

In the context of the Commonwealth-sponsored ‘Meeting of Cameroon's international partners’, which took place on 31 October 2003 in London, the Commission received the report ‘Strengthening the Electoral Process in Cameroon’. This report, made by a Commonwealth Team of Experts, underlines the shortcomings in the organisation of the previous elections in Cameroon and proposes concrete measures to redress the situation. At the meeting itself the Cameroonian authorities reported on the plans for wide-ranging reforms in the areas of election management, human rights, the rule of law, decentralisation and the independence of the judiciary. In concrete terms, the Cameroonian authorities committed to present to the parliamentary sessions in March 2004 and June 2004 legislation concerning the reform of the National Commission for Human Rights and Freedoms and the National Electoral Observatory, in order to increase the independence of these bodies, as well as on decentralisation.

In the area of election management, the Commission regrets that the necessary reforms have not yet begun to be implemented. The Commission, as well as the other donors present at the meeting in London, urged the government to speed up the measures to be taken, stressing, the need for (a) a clear and publicly available calendar of the various processes and procedures leading up to the October 2004 Presidential election, (b) the elaboration of a new voters' roll; (c) the adoption of the proposed draft legislation on the Observatory as early as possible to allow for its application in good time before the election and (d) ensuring full consultations and transparency on all aspects of the electoral process.

The Commission will follow closely the concrete measures the government takes.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/459 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/459

---

(2004/C 88 E/0471)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3277/03

by Cristiana Muscardini (UEN) to the Commission

(5 November 2003)

Subject:   New relations with Libya

The lifting of the embargo against Libya, imposed as a result of its mistaken support for terrorism, should present the European Union with the possibility of establishing new relations with that country that reflect, among other things, the Mediterranean policy that the European Parliament has for several years been hoping for in its regard.

In this connection:

| 1. | Could the Commission indicate whether it has already taken steps to tailor relations with Libya towards a Mediterranean policy? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Could the Commission indicate whether it has already taken steps to tailor relations with Libya towards a Mediterranean policy?

| 2. | In the context of possible discussions on the economy and trade, does it intend to tackle the issue of compensation for the assets confiscated from the 20 000 Italians expelled by the Libyan regime in the past, and for the companies from Italy and other European countries who are still waiting for the Libyan Government to pay the balance of their fees along with any eventual damages? |
| --- | --- |

2.

In the context of possible discussions on the economy and trade, does it intend to tackle the issue of compensation for the assets confiscated from the 20 000 Italians expelled by the Libyan regime in the past, and for the companies from Italy and other European countries who are still waiting for the Libyan Government to pay the balance of their fees along with any eventual damages?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(1 December 2003)

The lifting of the United Nations sanctions on 12 September 2003 is indeed an important step towards the reintegration of Libya into the international community. This was a condition for Libya to join the Barcelona Process, which is the framework of Union relations towards Mediterranean Countries. Libya is invited to become a full member of the Barcelona Process as soon as it has accepted fully all its ‘acquis’.

Libya's accession to the Barcelona process remains the main Union policy towards this country. In the meantime, possible co-operation on specific areas of interest, as is the case for example for illegal immigration, is being developed.

In the context of Union enlargement, consideration should be given to how it could incorporate Libya into its policy towards neighbouring countries, on the basis of the respect of shared values.

The issue of compensation for assets confiscated from Italians expelled by the Libyan regime is a bilateral one and therefore is not being dealt with at the EU level.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/460 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/460

---

(2004/C 88 E/0472)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3319/03

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(10 November 2003)

Subject:   Mines and migrants on the Greek-Turkish border

On numerous occasions in recent years, many migrants have lost their lives attempting to cross the Greek-Turkish border. Recently, seven Pakistanis were blown to pieces attempting to cross the Greek-Turkish border through a minefield. According to information from the Greek General Army Staff, since 1999 31 illegal immigrants have been killed by mines while attempting to enter Greece from Turkey.

Bearing in mind that the Greek-Turkish border is also the external border of the European Union, will the Commission say:

| 1. | what view it takes of this situation in the light of Parliament's resolution on anti-personnel landmines (B5-0802/2000) (1) in which Parliament asks the European Union to commit itself to work towards the total elimination of anti-personnel landmines, and |
| --- | --- |

1.

what view it takes of this situation in the light of Parliament's resolution on anti-personnel landmines (B5-0802/2000) (1) in which Parliament asks the European Union to commit itself to work towards the total elimination of anti-personnel landmines, and

| 2. | what steps it will take to clear the minefields at its external (Greek-Turkish) borders, taking into account the international community's recognition of the prominent role played by the European Union and the fact that the Union offers its support for measures to deal with mines in all countries affected by them? |
| --- | --- |

2.

what steps it will take to clear the minefields at its external (Greek-Turkish) borders, taking into account the international community's recognition of the prominent role played by the European Union and the fact that the Union offers its support for measures to deal with mines in all countries affected by them?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(10 December 2003)

On 25 September 2003 Greece and Turkey formally joined the Mine Ban Treaty. The Commission hopes that this joint move will put an end to the suffering caused by anti-personnel mines on the border between the two countries.

In addition, as part of the confidence building measures agreed in the context of their bilateral relations, both countries have undertaken to clear their border areas from landmines as mentioned in the Commission's Regular Report of November 2001 (2).

Council Regulation (EC) No 1725/2001 of 23 July 2001 concerning action against anti-personnel landmines in third countries other than developing countries (3) does not apply to Member States.

---

(1)  OJ C 197, 12.7.2001, p. 193.

(2)  COM(2001) 700 final.

(3)  OJ L 234, 1.9.2001.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/461 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/461

---

(2004/C 88 E/0473)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3347/03

by Esko Seppänen (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(13 November 2003)

Subject:   Enlargement and social security advantages

Once EU enlargement is completed and EU citizens are free to move within new areas, new kinds of problems will arise. One such problem is the different standard of public health in the old and new Member States. In Estonia, for example, there are diseases highly resistant to antibiotics that will spread more easily from one country to another when Estonia belongs to the Union. Estonia has as many carriers of the HIV virus as Finland, even though, in population terms, it is less than a third of Finland's size. Given that the care of persons with HIV is expensive in any case but standards in the present EU countries are higher than in the new Member States, the movement of sick people to other EU countries in search of better care may pose a problem. Does the Commission think that it will be possible to prevent carriers of dangerous diseases seeking a better standard of care from moving freely from country to country? What progress has been made with the plans to set up a communicable diseases agency and is there any proposal regarding its seat?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(18 December 2003)

The Honourable Member has raised a number of topics. The first relates to the spreading of communicable diseases from one country to another. In order to provide a mechanism to observe and respond to patterns in disease development, the Community has put in place a Community network for the epidemiological surveillance and control of communicable diseases under Parliament and Council Decision No 2119/98/EC of 24 September 1998 (1). This mechanism allows for continuous surveillance for diseases constituting a major public health threat and for an alert and response system that enables the competent national authorities to rapidly exchange relevant information. Accession countries have made considerable progress in taking action to meet the provisions laid down by this Decision.

As regards questions relating to the mobility of patients between Member States, these issues are being considered as part of the high-level reflection process on patient mobility and healthcare developments in the Union.

The final meeting on this reflection process took place on 8 December 2003. The Commission plans to respond to the recommendations of the process through a Communication in early 2004. As regards more specifically the issue of assumption of medical costs incurred in another Member State, it should be pointed out that the Court, in a series of judgements (2), has recognised rights for patients to benefit from medical treatment in another Member State and be reimbursed. Furthermore, the Court has clarified conditions subject to which rights may be exercised in order, in particular, to guarantee the financial balance of Member States' social security systems and to ensure a high level of public health.

Finally, as regards the progress made in setting up the European Communicable Diseases Agency, the Commission adopted in July 2003 the proposal for a Regulation establishing a European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC) (3). The proposal aims at creating a European Centre able to provide a structured and systematic approach to the control of communicable diseases and other serious health threats which affect Union citizens. The creation of the ECDC as an independent European agency would mobilise and significantly reinforce the synergies between the existing national centres for disease control. It is expected to start operation in 2005. The Commission did not propose a site for the Centre, as this issue will be addressed by the Institutions once the substance of the proposal has been agreed.

---

(1)  OJ L 268, 3.10.1998.

(2)  Kohll, case C-155/96, 28.04.98, ECR 1998 1-1931; Decker, case C-120/95, 28.04.98, ECR 1998 1-1831; Smits and Peerbooms, case C-157/99, 12.07.01, ECR 2001 1-05473; Vanbraekel, case C-368/98, 12.07.01, ECR 2001 I-05363; V.G. Müller-Fauré v Onderlinge Waarborgmaatschappij O.Z Zorkverzekeringen UA and E.E.M. Van Riet v Onderlinge Waarborgmaatschappij ZAO Zorkverzekeringen, case C-385/99, 13.05.03 (not yet published); Patricia Inizan v Caisse Primaire d'Assurance Maladie des Hauts de Seine, case C-56/01, 23.10.03 (not yet published).

(3)  COM(2003)441 final.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/462 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/462

---

(2004/C 88 E/0474)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3369/03

by Cees Bremmer (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(14 November 2003)

Subject:   Detention of EU citizen in Thailand

Is the Commission aware of the sentencing of a European citizen, the Netherlands national Machiei Kuijt, to life imprisonment for alleged drugs dealing? Is the Commission aware that this sentence was handed down in appeal proceedings brought by the Thai Public Prosecutor after a lower Thai court had acquitted Machiei Kuijt in March 2002, and that neither the convicted man nor his counsel, Geert-Jan Knoops, has so far been allowed to see the grounds for the court's decision?

Is the Commission aware of the extremely inhumane conditions in which Machiei Kuijt has been held since 1997 in Klong Prem prison in Bangkok, where a strict regime of public corporal punishment is in force, murder and rape are everyday occurrences, water is scarce and visits by relatives have so far been permitted only twice a year?

Does the Commission agree that the above facts constitute a serious violation of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (particularly Articles 10 and 14), to which Thailand has been a party since 29 January 1997?

Will the Commission at the earliest possible opportunity bring pressure to bear on the Thai authorities to seek a fair and public judicial procedure and prevent Machiei Kuijt's being held in such inhumane conditions?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(17 December 2003)

The Commission, through its Delegation in Bangkok, has been following the case of Mr Machiei Kuijt in close liaison with the Embassy of the Netherlands in Thailand.

The Commission is aware of the recent judicial developments in this case and of the conditions of Mr Kuijt's imprisonment referred to by the Honourable Member.

The Commission does not get involved in cases of a consular nature, nor does it take a position, unless in the context of a Union démarche previously agreed with the Member States.

In the Commission's view, as indicated in its reply to written question E-2775/03 by Mr Maaten (1), the competence to intervene in Mr Kuijt's case lies primarily with the Dutch authorities.

The Commission would therefore suggest that the Honourable Member might wish to discuss this issue in the first place with the Dutch Government.

---

(1)  See page 114.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/463 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/463

---

(2004/C 88 E/0475)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3476/03

by Charles Tannock (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(24 November 2003)

Subject:   Disappearance of Ethiopian, a former coordinator for EU Aid

Mr Amanti Abdisa Jigi was head of the development department of the Oromo Relief Association (ORA) before the Ethiopian office was forcibly closed and all assets were seized by the Ethiopian government in 1996. ORA was an officially recognised relief agency whose contributors included Norwegian People's Aid, Comic Relief, Christian Aid and the European Commission. Mr Abdisa challenged this closure in court, but to no avail. On 20 August 2000 Mr Abdisa was upon his arrival to the Addis Ababa airport, escorted off of the plane in transit to a conference in Kenya and detained by Ethiopian Government forces. On 25 January 2003 Mr Abdisa was seen being transported from the Bole area of Addis Ababa, near the airport, to a destination believed to be the Shoa Robit prison. His detention violates both international law and the Ethiopian constitution which states that anyone who is detained should be brought to a court within 48 hours and given a prompt and fair trial according to international standards.

Since the European Commission has committed EUR 500 million to its programme in Ethiopia over the next four years, is the office aware of Mr Abdisa's disappearance? Can the Commission indicate whether or not it is planning to question various levels of the Ethiopian Government about the control of prisons, namely Mr Abdisa's whereabouts and the official legal charges against him? ORA covers the territory of the Oromo Liberation Front Oromia region, which makes up about 40 % of the total population in Ethiopia. Challenges in this region have consequences for Europe as there is an ORA office in Germany helping Ethiopian refugees.

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(10 December 2003)

The Commission has made several unsuccessful attempts to trace Mr Amanti. Neither the Ministry of Justice, nor the Federal Prisons Authority has any record of his whereabouts. Following the Honourable Member's information that Mr Amanti may be in detention in Shoa Robit, the Commission Delegation in Addis Ababa contacted, through a Member State, the Federal Prisons Authority requesting a search in the Shoa records. The Commission will keep the Honourable Member informed of any progress.

Any further information which may assist in the search for Mr Amanti would be very welcome to the Commission. In the Commission's experience, the Ministry of Justice and Federal Prisons Authority are helpful in providing information, even in potentially sensitive cases, as long as records exist. The Commission is concerned that, for a variety of reasons, such records may simply not exist for Mr Amanti. No organisation in Ethiopia contacted by the Commission has any records of Mr Amanti.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/463 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/463

---

(2004/C 88 E/0476)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3496/03

by José Ribeiro e Castro (UEN) to the Commission

(24 November 2003)

Subject:   Colombia — ELN hostages

In a video recording released by Reuters, the Colombian guerrillas of the Ejército de Liberación National (ELN) have shown that the seven tourists kidnapped on 12 September, whilst visiting Indian ruins, are alive.

Three of the seven are citizens of EU Member States (Spain, UK and Germany) and four are Israelis.

The ELM has agreed to the gradual release of the hostages, following the visit by a Humanitarian Commission to testify to the difficult living conditions of the inhabitants of Sierra Nevada, but has warned that it will kill them should the Colombian army attempt to rescue them.

The Commission:

| — | can it confirm that these hostages are alive and in good health; |
| --- | --- |

—

can it confirm that these hostages are alive and in good health;

| — | what approaches has it made or will it make to the ELN or humanitarian organisations with a view to encouraging their release; |
| --- | --- |

—

what approaches has it made or will it make to the ELN or humanitarian organisations with a view to encouraging their release;

| — | what approaches has it made to the Colombian Government to make it aware of the hostages' situation, and to protect their lives and ensure their release? |
| --- | --- |

—

what approaches has it made to the Colombian Government to make it aware of the hostages' situation, and to protect their lives and ensure their release?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(22 December 2003)

Since the Honourable Member asked his question, two of the three European citizens who had been abducted have been released by the ELN guerrilla through the mediation of the Catholic Church, with the assistance of the United Nations (UN). One European citizen is still detained by the ELN guerrilla, who has promised to free him before Christmas together with the other four Israeli hostages.

According to the persons already released, they were not mistreated by their captors.

The Commission strongly condemns these and all other kidnappings taking place in Colombia, and demands the immediate and unconditional release of the European citizen and the other persons still detained. Their captors are accountable for their health and safety.

The Commission has made no approach to the Colombian Government, humanitarian organisations or the ELN. Diplomatic and consular protection is a competence of the Member States, and not of the Community. Article 20 of the EC Treaty only establishes the right to protection by the diplomatic and consular authorities of any Member State, on the same conditions as the nationals of that State, in the territory of a third country where the Member State of which the citizen is a national is not represented.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/464 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/464

---

(2004/C 88 E/0477)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3497/03

by José Ribeiro e Castro (UEN) to the Commission

(24 November 2003)

Subject:   Georgia — parliamentary elections

The media report that the Georgian opposition is accusing regional government officials of manipulating the result of the recent parliamentary elections. Thousands have taken to the streets.

Opposition leaders in Georgia are demanding that President Shevarnadze be taken to court, if he does not sack those responsible for the alleged ballot fraud.

Official sources indicate that the first partial results, with 60 % of the votes counted, show that the government coalition is 2 % ahead of the opposition.

The Commission:

| — | what information does it have on the Georgian electoral situation? |
| --- | --- |

—

what information does it have on the Georgian electoral situation?

| — | how much faith does it put in the official results already announced? |
| --- | --- |

—

how much faith does it put in the official results already announced?

| — | what developments does it foresee in the Georgian political situation? |
| --- | --- |

—

what developments does it foresee in the Georgian political situation?

| — | in what ways could this situation affect regional stability? |
| --- | --- |

—

in what ways could this situation affect regional stability?

| — | what measures has it taken, or does it intend to take to ensure the safety of EU citizens in Georgia? |
| --- | --- |

—

what measures has it taken, or does it intend to take to ensure the safety of EU citizens in Georgia?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(17 December 2003)

It would seem that the situation in Georgia, as outlined in the Honourable Member's question, has been overtaken by events.

The Union is conscious of the need to help ensure that new elections in Georgia, both presidential and parliamentary, meet international standards and is considering how best to work with the Organisation on Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE)/Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR) and the wider international community to achieve this end.

The Commission would remind the Honourable Member that its delegation in Georgia does not have consular responsibilities for Union citizens. Security of Union citizens is handled by the Union embassies in the country and with which the Commission delegation remains in close contact.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/465 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/465

---

(2004/C 88 E/0478)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3500/03

by Michl Ebner (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(24 November 2003)

Subject:   Accession of Croatia to the EU

In June 2004 ten new countries will join the EU, and in 2007 the candidate countries Bulgaria and Romania will also join, provided they meet the EU's requirements.

What steps is the Commission taking to ensure that Croatia is ready to join the EU together with Bulgaria and Romania?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(16 January 2004)

Croatia applied for Union Membership in February 2003 and in April 2003 the Council requested the Commission to prepare an Opinion on this Membership Application. The Commission is planning to deliver its Opinion in spring 2004 and it is currently working to assess Croatia's fulfilment of the three Copenhagen criteria. It is, therefore, premature to say what will be the results of the Opinion and what will be the consequent decision of the Council.

The European Council of 12 December 2003 concluded ‘that the accession negotiations’ for Romania and Bulgaria ‘can be brought to a successful conclusion in 2004 on the basis of own merits, and the Accession Treaty can be signed as soon as possible in 2005’. These two countries therefore are already very advanced in the accession negotiations.

Croatia will enter into the Union as soon as it is ready, i.e. when it has successfully fulfilled the necessary criteria, and completed the accession negotiations. The pace of reforms in Croatia will determine the speed of negotiations.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/466 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/466

---

(2004/C 88 E/0479)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3517/03

by Baroness Sarah Ludford (ELDR) to the Commission

(25 November 2003)

Subject:   Fair trade

Would it be considered as discriminatory under EU public procurement regulations to stipulate that Fair Trade products must be used in public tenders for catering services?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(8 January 2004)

Once a contracting authority has decided on the subject matter of the procurement contract intended for its catering services (what generic type of products to buy), it is free to define the technical specifications of those products. The requirements must, however, relate to the characteristics or performance of the products (e.g., glasses or plates made out of recycled material) or the production of the products (e.g. organically grown ones).

A contracting authority wishing to procure Fair-trade products (meaning products certified using standards set by the private Fair-trade Labelling Organisations International) for catering services must define the technical specifications of the products in relation to the social or environmental performances underlying the label. While the contracting authority may indicate that products having that label are deemed to comply with the technical specifications, it must also allow economic operators to prove compliance with the technical specifications by other means of proof. Only on a case by case basis it can be determined which of Fair-trade's diverse standards (or parts thereof) describe the characteristics or performance of the product to be purchased.

Contracting authorities procuring goods must respect the fundamental Community principles, including the principle of equal treatment, of which non-discrimination is a specific expression. It follows from established case law of the European Court of Justice that not only acts of de jure discrimination are prohibited under the EC Treaty, but also acts which hinder non-nationals more than nationals (de facto discrimination).

Due to the wide range of standards comprised by the Fair-trade label and the wide range of products available in the catering business, it is only possible on a case by case basis, taking into account all circumstances surrounding the purchase, to determine whether a contracting authority infringes upon the principle of non-discrimination.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/466 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/466

---

(2004/C 88 E/0480)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3521/03

by Anne Van Lancker (PSE) to the Commission

(25 November 2003)

Subject:   Human rights violations in the USA

Fernando González, Rene González, Gerardo Hernández, Ramón Labanino and Antonio Guerrero are five Cubans currently imprisoned in the USA for, amongst other things, conspiracy to commit espionage and conspiracy to commit murder. They had, in fact, infiltrated Cuban organisations in Miami in order to prevent terrorist attacks on Cuba. The trial of the five Cubans was held in Miami. With a Cuban immigrant community largely hostile to the Cuban Government, the city cannot be considered a neutral venue for such a trial. Holding the trial there thus constitutes a violation of the Fifth and Sixth Amendments to the US Constitution. They were convicted without any evidence. On the basis of this information, 105 British MPs signed a motion calling for a review of the case. In addition, the wives of two of those convicted who have already been in prison for five years (Gerardo Hernández and Rene González) have, to date, been denied the right to visit their husbands. Amnesty International has already condemned the denial of visiting rights.

Is the Commission aware of the above? Will the Commission bring this matter to the attention of the US Administration in the context of its relations with the USA?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(15 January 2004)

The Union has taken no position with regard to the specific case referred to by the Honourable Member. As a general rule, the Union does not intervene in individual cases except where the death penalty is invoked, and where the case falls under the guidelines established by the Council's Common Position of 29 June 1998.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/467 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/467

---

(2004/C 88 E/0481)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3550/03

by José Ribeiro e Castro (UEN) to the Commission

(28 November 2003)

Subject:   Zimbabwe — Censorship and repression

In the last few weeks, the ZANU-PF Government of President Mugabe closed down Zimbabwe's only independent daily newspaper — The Daily News — and stepped up repression of political opponents and dissidents. The newspaper's lawyers went to the local Administrative Court seeking the revocation of the decision to close the paper, which they were granted by the ruling of 24 October, in which it was acknowledged that the government's Committee for the Media and Information had no legitimate right to stop the publication of the newspaper.

After a single edition appeared, the police closed the paper again, on the basis of a government appeal to the Supreme Court, which suspended the effects of the previous ruling. Zimbabwe's Supreme Court, currently presided over by Judge Godfrey Chidyausiku, a former Mugabe minister, may take years to consider this appeal.

Given the climate of violence and intimidation, the Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) opposition party has apparently already reorganised itself in such a way as to enable it to operate clandestinely.

John Makumbe, professor of political science at Harare's University of Zimbabwe, claims that the next target will be NGOs, given that the Zimbabwean Parliament is drafting legislation demanding that such organisations be registered, and providing for possible suspension of their senior personnel.

The Commission:

| — | what information does it have about this fresh wave of human rights violations in Zimbabwe; |
| --- | --- |

—

what information does it have about this fresh wave of human rights violations in Zimbabwe;

| — | what steps has it taken or will it take to bring pressure to bear on the Zimbabwean authorities to cease carrying out action of this kind; |
| --- | --- |

—

what steps has it taken or will it take to bring pressure to bear on the Zimbabwean authorities to cease carrying out action of this kind;

| — | can it confirm the imminent promulgation of laws infringing the freedom and independence of the press and the non-governmental organisations operating in Zimbabwe; |
| --- | --- |

—

can it confirm the imminent promulgation of laws infringing the freedom and independence of the press and the non-governmental organisations operating in Zimbabwe;

| — | what approaches has it made recently to civil society and the opposition in Zimbabwe, with a view to ascertaining and promoting the best way of tackling the current political and social situation there? |
| --- | --- |

—

what approaches has it made recently to civil society and the opposition in Zimbabwe, with a view to ascertaining and promoting the best way of tackling the current political and social situation there?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(9 January 2004)

The Commission is aware of the facts mentioned by the Honourable Member and follows events in Zimbabwe with concern and very closely. The Union has reacted promptly to the latest attacks against fundamental rights made by the Government of Zimbabwe.

Being deeply worried about the deterioration of the current situation with regard to the above, the Commission has fully supported the last two Declarations issued by the Presidency on behalf of the Union related to these matters: on 18 September 2003, a declaration on Freedom of Press in Zimbabwe by which the Union has condemned the closure of the Daily News and, recently, on 28 November 2003, a declaration expressing concern on the current situation in Zimbabwe, calling on the Government of Zimbabwe to respect fundamental rights and urging it to engage in active and meaningful dialogue with internal stakeholders as a way forward to solve the current crisis.

The Commission cannot confirm the information as referred to by the Honourable Member on the imminent promulgation of laws infringing the freedom and independence of the press and the nongovernmental organisations (NGO's) operating in Zimbabwe.

The Commission intends to pursue its assistance to civil society actors in order to support human rights and democratisation projects/activities and to allow them to enhance their capacity to promote internal dialogue.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/468 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/468

---

(2004/C 88 E/0482)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3560/03

by José Ribeiro e Castro (UEN) to the Commission

(1 December 2003)

Subject:   Al-Qa'ida — international funding networks

The Financial Times (UK) of 11 November 2003 reported that a UN report had revealed that despite ‘considerable progress’, al-Qa'ida and those funding it continue to operate on the international financial markets.

The international system set up to stop the flow of funds to al-Qa'ida is seriously endangered by the inadequate cooperation of many countries, legislative loopholes and the lack of political will to tackle this extremely serious problem.

The UN report makes particular reference to Youssef Nada and Ahmed Idris Nasreddin, administrators of the al-Taqwa financial Group, which the USA views as the most significant canvasser of funds for al-Qa'ida. European and North American researchers see the Group as the core of multiple terrorist activity funding networks, all benefiting from the collaboration of various Islamic financial and even charitable organisations.

The two men in question allegedly continue to have interests and property in Switzerland and Italy, despite their being classified as ‘terrorist financiers’, and their bank accounts being frozen.

Use of offshore financial centres and trusts appears to be the most common way of disguising the ownership and source of these financial flows.

Youssef Nada apparently travelled to Liechtenstein in January to change the registration of two companies linked to the al-Taqwa group, in violation of the UN-imposed ban.

Al-Qa'ida, the Taliban and their collaborators and associates, according to the report, still possess the ability to obtain, demand, receive, transfer and distribute considerable sums.

The Commission:

| — | what information does it have about these facts? |
| --- | --- |

—

what information does it have about these facts?

| — | is it aware of the existence of negotiations involving terrorists within the European Union? |
| --- | --- |

—

is it aware of the existence of negotiations involving terrorists within the European Union?

| — | what information does it have as to the activities of the al-Taqwa Group on Community territory, and in countries with which the EU has special relations, such as the other members of the EEA? |
| --- | --- |

—

what information does it have as to the activities of the al-Taqwa Group on Community territory, and in countries with which the EU has special relations, such as the other members of the EEA?

| — | what measures has it taken or will it take to encourage compliance with the UN resolutions and prevent the movement of capital destined to fund terrorist organisations? What innovations and improvements would the Commission suggest? Is it already attempting to implement such improvements within the territory of the EU? |
| --- | --- |

—

what measures has it taken or will it take to encourage compliance with the UN resolutions and prevent the movement of capital destined to fund terrorist organisations? What innovations and improvements would the Commission suggest? Is it already attempting to implement such improvements within the territory of the EU?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(12 January 2004)

The Commission has taken note of the second Report prepared by a United Nations (UN) Monitoring Group chaired by Mr Chandler, which reports to the Al Qaeda and Taliban Sanctions Committee of the UN Security Council (hereinafter the UN Committee). This report, which was issued on 1 December 2003 and apparently seen by the Financial Times beforehand, concerns the implementation of the restrictive measures targeting Usama bin Laden and the Al Qaeda network which have been imposed by the UN Security Council in a number of Resolutions based on Chapter VII of the UN Charter.

The Commission considers that it is primarily up to the UN Committee and, indeed, the UN Security Council itself to review whether the information contained in the Monitoring Group's report justifies the imposition of any additional measures or an amendment of existing measures. The Security Council will review the relevant Resolutions in January 2004.

As regards the existing measures, it should be noted that Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 (1) requires the freezing of funds and economic resources of persons, groups and entities which have been identified by the UN Committee as meeting the conditions set out in Resolution 1267(1999) or in Resolution 1390(2002). The Regulation also prohibits making funds and economic resources available to such persons, groups and entities.

Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 restricts the use of funds and economic resources owned by the persons, groups and entities concerned. It should be noted that these measures are not tantamount to confiscation and that these persons, groups and entities thus continue to have interests and property until, in accordance with applicable (criminal or other) procedures of the Member States, a competent authority decides otherwise.

The Monitoring Group's second report describes some actions of Mr Youssef Nada and Mr Ahmed Idris Nasreddin by way of example of the continued use of shell companies and offshore trusts by persons, groups and entities listed by the UN Committee. The reason why the Monitoring Group selected these persons for an ‘in-depth inquiry’, as paragraph 70 of the report calis it, are not entirely clear. The example shows, however, that effective prevention of the financing of terrorism requires that adequate registration requirements apply as regards legal persons or entities. Only such requirements will allow the authorities to identify the beneficial owners of legal persons or entities.

Third countries such as Switzerland and Liechtenstein have not provided the Commission with any information about possible activities of Mr Nada and Al Taqwa Ltd. in the Community. It is up to the Member States to investigate whether the provisions of Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 have been infringed and whether legal persons or entities have links with persons, groups or entities which have already been identified by the UN Committee as meeting the conditions set out in Resolution 1267(1999) or in Resolution 1390(2002). Where appropriate, Member States should propose that the UN Committee makes a similar finding as regards the legal person or entity investigated.

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 of 27 May 2002 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with Usama bin Laden, the Al-Qaida network and the Taliban, and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 467/2001 prohibiting the export of certain goods and services to Afghanistan, strengthening the flight ban and extending the freeze of funds and other financial resources in respect of the Taliban of Afghanistan, OJ L 139, 29.5.2002.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/470 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/470

---

(2004/C 88 E/0483)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3567/03

by Chris Davies (ELDR) to the Commission

(2 December 2003)

Subject:   Water for Life

On 3 September 2002 the European Union launched its ‘major global Water Initiative aimed at creating strategic partnerships to achieve the World Summit on Sustainable Development goals on clean water and sanitation’, viz. to halve the proportion of people without access to safe drinking water and improved sanitation by 2015.

| 1. | How many ‘strategic partnerships’ have now been established and how many people have to date benefited from access to safe drinking water and improved sanitation as a result? |
| --- | --- |

1.

How many ‘strategic partnerships’ have now been established and how many people have to date benefited from access to safe drinking water and improved sanitation as a result?

| 2. | The EU made clear that it was ready to increase financial resources over and above the EUR 1,4 billion per year then being invested in water-related aid. By how much has it done so? |
| --- | --- |

2.

The EU made clear that it was ready to increase financial resources over and above the EUR 1,4 billion per year then being invested in water-related aid. By how much has it done so?

| 3. | Given that 10 per cent of the time needed to reach the 2015 goals has now passed, what is the Commission's assessment of progress to date and the likelihood of the targets being realised? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Given that 10 per cent of the time needed to reach the 2015 goals has now passed, what is the Commission's assessment of progress to date and the likelihood of the targets being realised?

| 4. | What action must a developing country take in order to take advantage of the EU promise to increase financial resources towards water-related development aid? |
| --- | --- |

4.

What action must a developing country take in order to take advantage of the EU promise to increase financial resources towards water-related development aid?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(28 January 2004)

| 1. | Important progress has been made since the launch of the EU Water Initiative at the World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) in 2002, with the establishment of two strategic partnerships covering Africa and twelve countries of Eastern Europe, Caucasus, and Central Asia (EECCA). Two additional geographical components, covering respectively the Mediterranean and Latin America, are in the process of being designed.
  On the Africa front, following the signing of the ‘strategic partnership’ during WSSD in Johannesburg, there have been extensive technical exchanges between the European and African partners, through a continued dialogue during the Water Week in August 2003 in Stockholm, the African Ministerial Council on Water (AMCOW) technical meeting in Ougadougou in October 2003 and the Panafrican Water Conference in Addis Ababa in December 2003, culminating in the following four key milestones:






  — | Adoption of a Joint Declaration on the implementation of the Union-African Strategic Partnership on Water Affairs and Sanitation; |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

Important progress has been made since the launch of the EU Water Initiative at the World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) in 2002, with the establishment of two strategic partnerships covering Africa and twelve countries of Eastern Europe, Caucasus, and Central Asia (EECCA). Two additional geographical components, covering respectively the Mediterranean and Latin America, are in the process of being designed.

On the Africa front, following the signing of the ‘strategic partnership’ during WSSD in Johannesburg, there have been extensive technical exchanges between the European and African partners, through a continued dialogue during the Water Week in August 2003 in Stockholm, the African Ministerial Council on Water (AMCOW) technical meeting in Ougadougou in October 2003 and the Panafrican Water Conference in Addis Ababa in December 2003, culminating in the following four key milestones:

—

Adoption of a Joint Declaration on the implementation of the Union-African Strategic Partnership on Water Affairs and Sanitation;

| — | Adoption of an outline work programme providing guidelines to drive the future stages of the development of the Union Water Initiative in Africa; |
| --- | --- |

—

Adoption of an outline work programme providing guidelines to drive the future stages of the development of the Union Water Initiative in Africa;

| — | Selection of the first river basins which will benefit from initial Union support (EUR 10 million); |
| --- | --- |

—

Selection of the first river basins which will benefit from initial Union support (EUR 10 million);

| — | Pre-Selection of the first countries for the country dialogue on water supply and sanitation. |
| --- | --- |

—

Pre-Selection of the first countries for the country dialogue on water supply and sanitation.

Process-wise, two working groups were set up to address the provision of water and sanitation (under the leadership of Denmark and Lesotho), and the issue of integrated water resources management including for transboundary basins (under the leadership of France and Tanzania). A financial strategy has also been outlined (with United Kingdom lead). These groups involve all relevant stakeholders and are developing activities at national and regional levels for which the objectives of the Water Initiative will be applied (i.e. reinforce political ownership, increase demand based on national strategies and poverty reduction plans, reinforce coordination and efficiency of development assistance, promote partnerships involving all actors). This will take place in the first countries and river basins selected by AMCOW. A more detailed programme for the development of the African component of the EU Water Initiative including specific actions (deriving from the outputs of each programmatic objective and each Working group) will be jointly established in the coming months.

Under the leadership of Denmark, significant progress has been made on the development of the Union-EECCA ‘Strategic Partnership on Water for Sustainable Development’ since its launch at the WSSD in September 2002 as part of the Union Water Initiative. The 5th United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) Pan-European Conference of Environment Ministers held in Kyiv in May 2003 was an important step: participants from the 55 countries represented expressed a high level of interest in the EECCA component of the Union Water Initiative, as reflected in the Ministerial Declaration; and a Programme Document on the future development and implementation of the Union-EECCA Strategic Partnership on Water was adopted. The next stage is to take further steps towards concrete action on the ground based on the list of ‘building blocks’ identified, in order to contribute to the achievement of international targets on water and sanitation in the EECCA Region.

In the Mediterranean region, under the stewardship of Greece we are very close to finalising the design of a Mediterranean component of the Water Initiative. In parallel, Spain and Portugal, in close co-operation with Mexico, are close to finalising the Latin American component of the Initiative.

In recognition of the importance of financial questions, the United Kingdom is leading a working group on financial resources, while the Commission is leading an initiative on research. Additionally, monitoring tools are being developed, by international institutions and in the context of the Union Water Initiative, which should enable the progress towards the achievement of the water and sanitation targets to be reviewed.

| 2. | The approach of the EU Water Initiative — towards increased coordination and a more efficient use of existing instruments — is applied to specific projects and programmes under implementation within Community and Member States development programmes (for example, Community-supported water projects are ongoing in more than 20 African countries, and water is a focal sector in 12 African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) countries). The Community already provides a EUR 10 million support to transboundary basins in Africa.
  In addition to reinforcing the use of existing instruments, and recognising the need to use Official Development Assistance (ODA) as a catalyst to the leverage of other financial resources (financial institutions, private, domestic, etc), the Commission has proposed to allocate the conditional billion EUR of the 9th European Development Fund (EDF) to establish a Water Facility for ACP countries. This Facility would constitute an innovative and flexible instrument, and build on the ownership demonstrated by the African partners in the field of water and sanitation (AMCOW, as well as in the framework of New Partnership for Africa's Development (NEPAD)). A resolution supporting the creation of this Facility was presented by the African Ministerial Council during the Pan African Water Conference held in December 2003. A Communication on the modalities for the establishment of the ACP-Union Water Facility is being prepared, to be submitted for the agreement of EU Member States and subsequently the ACP-EU Council of Ministers. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The approach of the EU Water Initiative — towards increased coordination and a more efficient use of existing instruments — is applied to specific projects and programmes under implementation within Community and Member States development programmes (for example, Community-supported water projects are ongoing in more than 20 African countries, and water is a focal sector in 12 African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) countries). The Community already provides a EUR 10 million support to transboundary basins in Africa.

In addition to reinforcing the use of existing instruments, and recognising the need to use Official Development Assistance (ODA) as a catalyst to the leverage of other financial resources (financial institutions, private, domestic, etc), the Commission has proposed to allocate the conditional billion EUR of the 9th European Development Fund (EDF) to establish a Water Facility for ACP countries. This Facility would constitute an innovative and flexible instrument, and build on the ownership demonstrated by the African partners in the field of water and sanitation (AMCOW, as well as in the framework of New Partnership for Africa's Development (NEPAD)). A resolution supporting the creation of this Facility was presented by the African Ministerial Council during the Pan African Water Conference held in December 2003. A Communication on the modalities for the establishment of the ACP-Union Water Facility is being prepared, to be submitted for the agreement of EU Member States and subsequently the ACP-EU Council of Ministers.

| 3. | Despite these important steps, much remains to be done to achieve tangible results: in order to realise the drinking and sanitation targets, we need to ensure that everyday until 2015 an extra 120 000 people should receive drinking water and an extra 240 000 people should be provided with sanitation.
  This requires further steps with a renewed emphasis on:






  — | Improving co-operation and co-ordination in the way that water-related interventions are developed and implemented to maximise the efficiency of present and future action; |
| --- | --- | --- |

3.

Despite these important steps, much remains to be done to achieve tangible results: in order to realise the drinking and sanitation targets, we need to ensure that everyday until 2015 an extra 120 000 people should receive drinking water and an extra 240 000 people should be provided with sanitation.

This requires further steps with a renewed emphasis on:

—

Improving co-operation and co-ordination in the way that water-related interventions are developed and implemented to maximise the efficiency of present and future action;

| — | Developing an integrated approach, and notably better governance arrangements involving all stakeholders concerned; further developing the multistakeholder process set in place for implementing the Water Initiative will be key in this respect; |
| --- | --- |

—

Developing an integrated approach, and notably better governance arrangements involving all stakeholders concerned; further developing the multistakeholder process set in place for implementing the Water Initiative will be key in this respect;

| — | Catalysing additional funding; a significant boost would be given to the Initiative if the Council of Ministers can agree to release the additional EUR 1 billion Water Facility for implementation for ACP countries as proposed by the Commission. |
| --- | --- |

—

Catalysing additional funding; a significant boost would be given to the Initiative if the Council of Ministers can agree to release the additional EUR 1 billion Water Facility for implementation for ACP countries as proposed by the Commission.

| 4. | Developing countries have to lead this process, by increasing the importance of water and sanitation in their national poverty reduction and sustainable development strategies; which is the key to access development aid. Establishing national policies and improving the institutional environment are essential to attract additional resources for water and sanitation infrastructure, mainly from private investors. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Developing countries have to lead this process, by increasing the importance of water and sanitation in their national poverty reduction and sustainable development strategies; which is the key to access development aid. Establishing national policies and improving the institutional environment are essential to attract additional resources for water and sanitation infrastructure, mainly from private investors.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/472 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/472

---

(2004/C 88 E/0484)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3570/03

by Gerhard Schmid (PSE) to the Commission

(5 December 2003)

Subject:   Setting-up of mobile customs control units in the Federal Republic of Germany after the accession of the Czech Republic to the European Union

Annex V of the Act of Accession bans exports of certain agricultural products from holdings which are only obliged fully to meet the structural requirements of the European Union's veterinary legislation after a transitional period. The German customs authorities therefore have the task of verifying compliance with the export ban and will do so by means of mobile customs control units, since controls of goods at the borders will cease from 1 May 2004. The German authorities point out that only a limited number of such units may be set up.

Given that the Treaty of Accession permits Member States to carry out the necessary controls in the domain of the general system of ownership, transport and inspections of goods subject to consumer tax, providing the smooth functioning of the internal market is not thereby impaired, will the Commission say whether it has imposed restrictions on the number or frequency of mobile customs control units and what criterion should determine the frequency of mobile customs control units?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(9 January 2004)

As highlighted by the Honourable Member, products issuing from establishments which have been granted a transitional period for certain structural requirements may only be marketed on the national (domestic) market, and consequently cannot be sent to other Member States.

Annex V of the Act of Accession refers to certain establishments in the Czech Republic and lays down rules to guarantee this limitation in marketing. In addition, the Commission is currently preparing detailed implementing rules for the control and marketing of these products. The overall responsibility for ensuring that Community rules are respected lies with the country of origin. As regards the country of destination, the general rules foreseen by 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 (1), will be applicable. In this context the provisions of Chapter II Article 5. 1(a) of the Directive are applicable, viz:

| | The competent authority may, at the places of destination of goods, check by means of nondiscriminatory veterinary spot-checks that the requirements of Article 3 have been complied with; it may take samples at the same time. |
| --- | --- |

The competent authority may, at the places of destination of goods, check by means of nondiscriminatory veterinary spot-checks that the requirements of Article 3 have been complied with; it may take samples at the same time.

| | Furthermore, where the competent authority of the Member State of transit or of the Member State of destination has information leading it to suspect an infringement, checks may also be carried out during the transport of goods in its territory, including checks on compliance as regards the means of transport. |
| --- | --- |

Furthermore, where the competent authority of the Member State of transit or of the Member State of destination has information leading it to suspect an infringement, checks may also be carried out during the transport of goods in its territory, including checks on compliance as regards the means of transport.

The intervention of mobile customs control groups is possible but must be in accordance with this Directive. For these controls on the circulation of products subject to excise duties, the Commission does not impose any restriction, nor standard for the frequency. This issue falls under the subsidiarity principles. Nevertheless, when putting in place these controls, Member States must ensure that the principles governing the internal market are respected.

---

(1)  OJ L 395, 30.12.1989.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/473 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/473

---

(2004/C 88 E/0485)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3591/03

by José Ribeiro e Castro (UEN) to the Commission

(5 December 2003)

Subject:   Côte d'Ivoire — the war breaks out again

The rebel forces controlling the northern part of Côte d'Ivoire yesterday announced a state of emergency in the regions where they operate, and accused President Laurent Gbagbo of getting ready to resume fighting the war which was interrupted at the beginning of this year.

Disagreements about a government of national unity have brought the two sides to the brink of fresh fighting, four months after the official ending of the conflict.

Politicians from other West African countries have attempted to save the peace process, but the rebels, who walked out of the ‘transition executive’ in September, are now accusing the President of planning to attack the towns of Man and Bouaké.

The Commission:

| — | is it following this fresh upsurge of conflict in Côte d'Ivoire? What impact will a resumption of the fighting have on political stability in that part of the world; |
| --- | --- |

—

is it following this fresh upsurge of conflict in Côte d'Ivoire? What impact will a resumption of the fighting have on political stability in that part of the world;

| — | is it in contact with the two sides? What means is it using in order to try to bring pressure on them to put an end to this situation, and to encourage them to reach agreement; |
| --- | --- |

—

is it in contact with the two sides? What means is it using in order to try to bring pressure on them to put an end to this situation, and to encourage them to reach agreement;

| — | what steps has it taken or does it intend to take with regard to ensuring the safety of EU citizens resident in Côte d'Ivoire? |
| --- | --- |

—

what steps has it taken or does it intend to take with regard to ensuring the safety of EU citizens resident in Côte d'Ivoire?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(15 January 2004)

The Commission is following closely the evolution of the political situation in Côte d'Ivoire, both from headquarters and through its Delegation in Abidjan. At headquarters, in addition to a daily monitoring of the situation, an ad hoc Task Force on Côte d'Ivoire headed by the Director for West and Central Africa, meets regularly. It is composed of representatives of all the concerned Directorates General of the Commission. In Abidjan, a Political Adviser has recently been appointed at the Delegation, and the Head of Delegation is one of the 13 members of the Monitoring Committee of the Marcoussis Agreement, which meets at least once a week.

Through the Monitoring Committee of the Marcoussis Agreement, the Commission is in contact with the two sides. Furthermore, President Prodi visited Abidjan on 13 November 2003: he met President Ggbabo, Prime Minister Diarra and members of his government, the Monitoring Committee of the Marcoussis Agreement and the ten political forces signatories of the Marcoussis Agreement. He stressed the necessity to reach agreement between them solves and that the Union was willing to disburse its aid to the country, but would do it only when peace is reached, which means that the disarmament process has to be launched and the country has to be reunified. He urged the New Forces to come back to the Council of Ministers and President Gbagbo and the government to fully implement the Marcoussis Agreement.

This matter remains within the competence of the Member States: the Commission does not have at its disposal the logistic means to ensure the safety of the Union citizens in third countries.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/474 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/474

---

(2004/C 88 E/0486)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3674/03

by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(9 December 2003)

Subject:   Textile and clothing industry

Protectionist measures have been adopted by the US against imports of various articles from China, notably knitwear and brassieres, following complaints from professional organisations representing the US textile industry.

Meanwhile, in the EU 2002 saw a considerable increase in imports of Chinese textile and clothing products, especially those which have been the object of liberalisation. The Portuguese Textile and Clothing Association states that, by way of example, China's market share of anoraks and tracksuits, which stood at less than 20 % in 2001, rose in 2002 to over 50 %, leading to a fall in price levels of some 40 %.

The protectionist measures by the US could lead to a diversion of trade to Europe, bringing increased pressure to bear on the EU market and endangering the industries of Member States such as Portugal, in areas where the textile and clothing industry is the dominant economic activity.

Can the Commission state what action it is taking to monitor this situation and what measures it intends to take for the protection of the industry, employment and regional development in those parts of Portugal where these sectors are of vital importance, such as the Vale do Ave, the Vale do Câvado and the Beiras?

Answer given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(9 February 2004)

The Commission is fully aware of the concerns expressed by the Honourable Member regarding the Chinese export potential and the results already achieved in increasing the Chinese share in the EU market place. The growth of Chinese exports in value has out-paced that of any other country. Its share of EU imports has increased from 6,6 % to 11,5 % for textiles between 1994 and the first nine months of 2003, from 13,8 % to 19,3 % in clothing, and from 11,4 % to 17,7 % in textiles and clothing over the same period, China always being the largest EU supplier.

Apart from the general World Trade Organisation (WTO) safeguard provisions in force, which are available to counter risk of market disruption, China is also subject to specific safeguard measures which may be applied according to China's protocol of accession to the WTO. Indeed, the United States (US) took measures under the specific textiles safeguard, with effect from 24 December 2003, against Chinese exports of three products, namely knitted fabric, dressing gowns and bathrobes, and bras. Obviously a risk of diversion of trade may exist, but the US measures may only have limited effect, not only because there is little US production of the goods concerned. Such measures will not imply a cutback on Chinese exports to the US but rather a brake on their growth, which in itself will limit risks of trade diversion. As regards impact on the EU, there does not appear to be a significant trade deflection risk for knitted fabrics or for bras which are still subject to quotas for most of its types. The impact for dressing gowns may be higher as there are no EU quotas, and although China is already the largest EU supplier, such EU imports have already been growing considerably over the past years.

The Commission shares the view that it will be necessary to carefully monitor the impact of the US measures, including the risk of diversion. However, the EU may ultimately also have recourse to trade remedies, in conformity with the WTO agreements and the provisions of the China Protocol of Accession to the WTO.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/475 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/475

---

(2004/C 88 E/0487)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3851/03

by Baroness Sarah Ludford (ELDR) to the Commission

(16 December 2003)

Subject:   Ratification of international conventions in the field of human rights

Will the Commission indicate the most recent state of play (broken down by country) as regards all 25 current and future Member States' signature and ratification of all United Nations, Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, Council of Europe and other international conventions in the field of human rights, equality, protection of minorities and anti-discrimination?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(30 January 2004)

Within the United Nations there are several conventions on human rights, equality, protection of minorities and non-discrimination.

All 25 current and future Member States are party to the following core conventions in these fields:

| — | the International covenant on civil and political rights; |
| --- | --- |

—

the International covenant on civil and political rights;

| — | the International covenant on economic, social and cultural rights; |
| --- | --- |

—

the International covenant on economic, social and cultural rights;

| — | the Convention against torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment and punishment; |
| --- | --- |

—

the Convention against torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment and punishment;

| — | the Convention on the elimination of all forms of discrimination against women; |
| --- | --- |

—

the Convention on the elimination of all forms of discrimination against women;

| — | the International convention on the elimination of all forms of racial discrimination; |
| --- | --- |

—

the International convention on the elimination of all forms of racial discrimination;

| — | the Convention on the rights of the child; |
| --- | --- |

—

the Convention on the rights of the child;

| — | the 1951 Convention relating to the status of refugees. |
| --- | --- |

—

the 1951 Convention relating to the status of refugees.

Within the Council of Europe, there are several conventions and protocols on human rights, equality, protection of minorities and non-discrimination. The two most important conventions are the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and the European Convention for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. All 25 current and future Member States are parties to them.

The question also mentions the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). To the Commission's knowledge, there are no conventions on human rights, equality, protection of minorities and non-discrimination within the framework of the OECD. Regarding the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe, OSCE, all 25 current and future members of the Union are participating States. As such, they subscribe to political commitments of OSCE in the fields of human rights, equality, protection of minorities and non-discrimination. The OSCE, as a political organisation, has no legally binding texts in these fields.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/476 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/476

---

(2004/C 88 E/0488)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3859/03

by Raffaele Costa (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(16 December 2003)

Subject:   Funding of small Tacis Programme projects

Having regard to the fact that the percentage share of funding allocated to small projects under the Tacis programme increased by 15 % in 2002, could the Commission state how many small projects received funding, and what amounts of money were involved? Was the successful outcome of the projects verified?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(4 March 2004)

The Commission understands that the Honourable Member is referring to the two principal types of ‘small projects’ which exist under Tacis, namely the Tacis Cross-Border Co-operation (CBC) Programme Small Project Facility and the Civil Society component of the Institution-Building Partnership Programme. With reference to the Tacis Cross-Border Co-operation Programme Small Project Facility, an allocation of EUR 6,7 million was made under the Tacis CBC Action Programme 2002. This resulted in a total number of 32 small projects being recommended for funding and contracted. In addition, 12 micro projects (less than EUR 50 000 each) were also contracted. The last evaluation round for the micro-project component has recently been completed. The contracts for the micro-projects selected will be concluded in the coming weeks.

As regards the Institution-Building Partnership Programme, the total amount allocated to the envelope for Support to Civil Society and Local Initiatives under AP 2002 was EUR 11,7 million. A total of 62 projects were recommended for funding and 61 were contracted by December 2003.

In both cases, the first projects began only recently, hence it is too early to assess the outcome at this stage. Projects will be subject to monitoring and supervision by the Delegations.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/477 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/477

---

(2004/C 88 E/0489)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3881/03

by Emmanouil Bakopoulos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(16 December 2003)

Subject:   Encroachment on the Almyra wetlands in the prefecture of Xanthi

From the mid-1980s the coast in the region of Xanthi has been subject to intense development, a process which has led to the disappearance of large areas of wetlands.

In addition, the last few years have seen the illegal artificial draining of the Almyra wetlands which are contained in the RAMSAR Convention as some sections of these wetlands which are special protection areas (pursuant to Directive 79/409/EEC (1)), and antiquities have been found in other sections.

The work which began in 1997 covers approximately 25 hectares, and this area has been earmarked for housing. The government has so far done nothing to restore the environment there.

Is the Commission aware of these developments and, if so, what measures has it taken to restore the environment of the Almyra wetlands?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(23 February 2004)

The Commission has been informed by local non-governmental organisations (NGOs) of the situation in the Almyra wetlands in the prefecture of Thrace and the concerns voiced about the protection of the site. The majority of the issues raised refer to housing developments in the area, to property issues and to the bad implementation of the legislation concerning the rules of urban construction. However, the Community has no competence in such matters. In addition, the national authorities have already taken appropriate enforcement measures in this regard (revocation of permits, imposition of penalties).

However, the general issue related to the adequate protection of the site ‘Limnes kai Limnothalasses Thrakis -Evryteri perioxi kai paraktia zoni’, which has been proposed as a Site of Community Interest 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 (2) (code GRU 3009) in view of its conservation objectives, has not yet been tackled. Following the investigation of complaints, the Commission noted that the Common Ministerial Decision 5796/1996 designating the zones of the Nestos Delta and the Vistonida and Ismarida Lakes as a national park, was no longer in force. According to Greek law, the necessary legal framework aiming at the protection of the sites and complying with the objectives set out in Council Directives 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979, on the conservation of wild birds, and 92/43/EEC, is composed of an approved management plan (specific environmental study), a Common Ministerial Decision and a Management Body.

According to the information available, the Greek authorities have adopted Law 3044/2002 which provides for the establishment of 25 Management Bodies for a number of sites that Greece has already proposed for inclusion in the Natura 2000 network. This Law establishes a Management Body for the area ‘Delta of Nestos-Vistonida-Ismarida’ and was followed by the Common Ministerial Decision 125208/394/30.1.2003, which determined the composition of the Management Body Board. It appears that the process of creation and full operation of the Management Body has not yet been finalised. Its full establishment is expected to contribute towards the conservation objectives of these areas, the implementation of the approved management plans and their efficient protection.

Nevertheless, as the national legal framework was not in place, the Commission initiated an infringement procedure under Article 226 of the EC Treaty, considering that Greece had failed to provide the special protection area with an appropriate legal framework capable of ensuring its protection and its conservation. The Commission wishes to assure the Honourable Member that it will not hesitate to take all the appropriate measures, in order to guarantee the correct application of Community environmental law.

---

(1)  OJ L 103, 25.4.1979, p. 1.

(2)  OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/478 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/478

---

(2004/C 88 E/0490)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3967/03

by Gian Gobbo (NI) to the Commission

(5 January 2004)

Subject:   Compensation for expropriated property of Istrian refugees in Croatia

In view of the impending decision by the Council to open negotiations with Croatia, does the Commission not believe it desirable and necessary to raise the sensitive issue of the expropriations suffered by Italian citizens and other Europeans who were obliged after the Second World War, by the new Yugoslavian authorities, to abandon their property and land?

Does the Commission not believe that the legislation invoked by the Croatian authorities to justify their refusal to return this property to the Istrian refugees is contrary to the principles of both the European Union and the European Convention on Human Rights?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(6 February 2004)

The issue of the expropriations after the Second World War is an open bilateral issue between the countries concerned and the Commission has no legal competence on the matter.

However, the Commission, on the basis of the principle of good neighbourly relations, has on several occasions recommended Croatia to find an acceptable solution to the problem through a dialogue with the parties concerned. The problem has been mentioned in the last Stabilisation and Association Report on Croatia of April 2003, and in the regular meetings between the Commission and Croatian Government.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/478 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/478

---

(2004/C 88 E/0491)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3977/03

by Paulo Casaca (PSE) to the Commission

(5 January 2004)

Subject:   Mediation in Nepal

The civil war in Nepal has worsened considerably over the last few years, and a number of nongovernmental organisations, some of them based in Nepal and others based in Europe, recently visited the European Parliament and expressed their concerns.

One of their main concerns is the disastrous impact of the war on children and adolescents, who are forced to collaborate in guerrilla activities or, even when they have not been involved, are suspected of doing so and treated accordingly by the authorities.

Does the Commission not believe that the European Union could play a useful mediation role in this conflict?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(9 February 2004)

The Commission agrees with the Honourable Member that the violence in Nepal is a matter of great concern and that the interruption of the truce and peace talks by the Maoists on 27 August 2003 has generated a new wave of instability urban guerrilla warfare and a high number of victims.

The Commission, whose main cooperation objective is poverty reduction, has programmed resources to mitigate the impact of the conflict. The new Country Strategy Paper adopted by the Commission on 18 December 2003 gives special attention to poverty alleviation, good governance and consolidation of democracy, particularly in areas of the Mid-West, improving living conditions of local farmers and the reduction of Maoist influence. The Commission is also actively engaged in conflict mitigation activities with the media, civil society and local communities.

Another key priority of EU action in Nepal is human rights. The conflict is causing a worrying deterioration of the human rights situation. The Commission, through the European Initiative for Democracy and Human Rights, is committed to stepping up its support to projects aimed at promoting Human Rights, including the rights of children and adolescents in Nepal. In particular, the EIDHR supports the Human Rights Commission, and a micro-projects scheme was introduced in Nepal in 2003. The EU is also committed to observing elections if and when they take place.

The Commission believes that there cannot be a military solution to the conflict and that it is of the utmost importance that a new cease-fire be declared. However, there seems to be presently no room for external mediation. Though the country is faced with a constitutional crisis and a political stalemate, the Nepalese authorities have not asked for external mediation. The Commission's current focus is on helping confidence-building measures to re-establish the necessary level of trust among local political forces and to promote civil society participation in the peace process.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/479 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/479

---

(2004/C 88 E/0492)

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?

Supplementary answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(27 May 2004)

As it promised to do in its holding answer to the Honourable Member's Written Question E-3982/03 (1), the Commission approached the Greek authorities on 17 February 2004 for information about the facts to which the Honourable Member refers.

In their reply, which reached the Commission on 30 March, the Greek authorities make the following observations:

| — | the Rainbow Party's congress was not prevented by outside persons or organisations. On 7 December a small march protesting against the planned holding of the congress did take place in the streets in the centre of Edessa. The march caused no disturbance or threat to public order, so that there was no need for action on the part of the police present. The demonstrators did not move in the direction of the place where the congress was to take place; |
| --- | --- |

—

the Rainbow Party's congress was not prevented by outside persons or organisations. On 7 December a small march protesting against the planned holding of the congress did take place in the streets in the centre of Edessa. The march caused no disturbance or threat to public order, so that there was no need for action on the part of the police present. The demonstrators did not move in the direction of the place where the congress was to take place;

| — | on both of the dates announced, namely 30 November and 7 December 2003, the police authorities had taken all necessary steps to ensure the smooth running of the congress. In both cases measures had been taken the day before the congress was to be held in order to be able to deal with any protests; |
| --- | --- |

—

on both of the dates announced, namely 30 November and 7 December 2003, the police authorities had taken all necessary steps to ensure the smooth running of the congress. In both cases measures had been taken the day before the congress was to be held in order to be able to deal with any protests;

| — | the postponement of the Rainbow Party congress is not due to any danger involved in holding it, or to allegedly inadequate action on the part of the Greek authorities to ensure that it proceeded regularly. In the past the Rainbow Party has held meetings and events in the town of Florina without the slightest incident; |
| --- | --- |

—

the postponement of the Rainbow Party congress is not due to any danger involved in holding it, or to allegedly inadequate action on the part of the Greek authorities to ensure that it proceeded regularly. In the past the Rainbow Party has held meetings and events in the town of Florina without the slightest incident;

| — | in reality the postponements of the congress are thought to be due to commercial differences with hotels regarding the final cost of the organisation of the congress. |
| --- | --- |

—

in reality the postponements of the congress are thought to be due to commercial differences with hotels regarding the final cost of the organisation of the congress.

The Commission considers the explanations given by the Greek authorities to be satisfactory.

The Commission would also inform the Honourable Member that the Greek authorities have protested against the use of the expression ‘the Macedonian minority’. They stressed that there is no minority of that name in Greece. They say that there are people living in West Macedonia who in addition to Greek also speak a local Slavic dialect. Only a few of these want to see themselves recognised as a national minority. The appropriation of the word ‘Macedonian’ to designate these people is a source of semantic and cultural confusion, because the term is used exclusively to refer to those Greeks who originate in Macedonia, of whom there are about two million.

---

(1)  OJ C 78 E, 27.3.2004, p. 888.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/480 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/480

---

(2004/C 88 E/0493)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-4010/03

by Reino Paasilinna (PSE) to the Commission

(8 January 2004)

Subject:   Safeguarding electricity supplies

The directive concerning common rules for the internal market in electricity (2003/54/EC (1)) was adopted on 26 June 2003. Its preamble (particularly Recitals 23, 24 and 26) stresses security of supply, protection of vulnerable customers and maintaining public service standards.

What practical measures has the Commission taken to ensure that Member States comply with their obligations as referred to above? A particular concern, especially in wintertime, is security of supply. The widespread and protracted power cuts in the past year have demonstrated the vulnerability of the existing networks.

How will the Commission ensure that a fully operational internal market in the field of electricity networks does not render operations increasingly unreliable?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(6 February 2004)

The issue of security of supply is a crucial issue for the successful operation of the internal market. This applies equally for the maintenance and the increase of public service levels and the protection of vulnerable customers. These issues are, therefore, given great emphasis in the new Electricity Directive 2003/54/EC (2), which requires Member States to monitor the demand/supply balance in their electricity systems and to provide for the necessary fall back mechanisms which they can use should the market not be able to guarantee security of supply.

Member States are now implementing this Directive into their national legislation. The Commission will evaluate whether they have complied with their obligations on these issues when national legislation is notified to it. Should a Member State fail to implement the Directive correctly, the Commission will commence an infringement procedure. However, the Commission expects that Member States will faithfully transpose the Directive. The Commission will in any event carry out a process of benchmarking and comparison of the approaches taken by Member States to promote best practice among the Member States.

Furthermore, on 10 December 2003 the Commission published a proposal for a Directive concerning measures to safeguard security of electricity supply and infrastructure investment (3). This proposal intends to ensure that Member States have a clear security of supply policy established in advance to ensure regulatory stability and a clear apportioning of responsibilities. In addition, it seeks to guarantee that the necessary investments in cross border infrastructure will be made to ensure both security of supply and the full development of competition throughout the internal market.

---

(1)  OJ L 176, 15.7.2003, p. 37.

(2)  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.

(3)  COM(2003) 740 final.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/481 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/481

---

(2004/C 88 E/0494)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-4027/03

by Geoffrey Van Orden (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(9 January 2004)

Subject:   Capital gains tax deductions

In calculating capital gains tax to be paid on the proceeds of selling a domestic property, in France the cost of improvements to the property can be deducted from the total tax payable.

Does this still apply if the work to improve the property is carried out by a British firm and paid for in UK Sterling?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(10 February 2004)

This question is a matter for the French Government and not for the Commission. There is no harmonisation of direct taxes within the European Union and Member States are free to establish their own tax laws — provided, of course, that they comply with the fundamental freedoms guaranteed by the Treaty creating the European Union.

One such freedom relates to the provision of services. A tax rule that denied a deduction for the cost of work carried out by a business established in another Member State would appear to give rise to discrimination based on the nationality or place of residence of the service provider. As such, it would be likely to constitute an infringement of the EC treaty. However, the Commission has no reason to believe that such a rule might exist in France.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/482 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/482

---

(2004/C 88 E/0495)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0008/04

by Philip Claeys (NI) to the Commission

(16 January 2004)

Subject:   Accession of Cyprus, immigration

Following the recent elections in the Turkish part of Cyprus, opposition parties are expressing concern about the massive registration of Turkey citizens on electoral rolls. There are very close links between ‘President’ Rauf Denktash (and his political supporters) and Turkey. This may lead to a whole range of problems after Cyprus's accession. For instance, there is a very real danger that the part of Cyprus occupied by Turkey will be exploited as a transit zone to allow Turks to emigrate to other EU Member States, circumventing the immigration ban applied by most Member States of the European Union. The government of Cyprus is, after all, encouraging the free movement of people throughout the whole island.

What measures is the Commission considering to tackle this potential problem? Have discussions already taken place with the authorities in Cyprus on this matter?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(4 March 2004)

Cyprus is de facto divided by a United Nations (UN) buffer zone. This dividing line between the Northern part and the Government Controlled Areas can be crossed only at four crossing points.

The policy of the Republic of Cyprus only allows the crossing of the line by all citizens of the Republic, EU citizens and third country nationals who are legally residing in the northern part, and EU citizens and third country nationals who entered the island through the Government Controlled Areas. Thus third country nationals who entered through the northern part are not allowed to cross to the Government Controlled Areas.

In the case of a solution before 1 May 2004, the issue would be addressed in the Annan plan which would serve as a basis for more detailed rules to be established by the European Union.

In the case of no solution by 1 May 2004, Article 2 of Protocol No 10 of the Act of Accession foresees that the Council shall decide on the terms under which persons will be able to cross the line. On the basis of this Article, the Commission shall prepare a proposal for a Council Regulation.

There is no risk of illegal immigration via Cyprus into the other Member States, because the new Member States will be only gradually integrated into the Schengen area.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/483 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/483

---

(2004/C 88 E/0496)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0027/04

by Marco Pannella (NI) to the Commission

(9 January 2004)

Subject:   Ongoing campaign of murder and torture by Vietnamese Government officials: arrest of Mr Nih, 41 years old, Christian and TRP supporter, on 13 December 2003 in Dak Doa

On 13 December 2003, a group of Vietnamese paramilitary police from the Dak Doa district surrounded the village of Plei O Dot, in the commune of Ia Bang, Dak Doa district, Gia Lai province, and arrested two villagers, Nih (41) and So (44), who were both Christians and supporters of the Montagnard Foundation, Inc. (MFI) and the Transnational Radical Party (TRP).

Nih and Soh were registered (under numbers 338 and 373 respectively) on the lists of MFI and TRP supporters, which may be inspected by any national or international authorities wishing to investigate this incident.

They were both transferred to the Dak Doa district prison and tortured with beatings and electric shocks. Nih refused to answer questions or to renounce his Christian faith and Major Tuan, of the Dak Doa police, stabbed him in the chest and then cut his throat.

On 15 December 2003, the Vietnamese police brought Nih's body to his family in Plei O Dot, preventing them from holding a funeral and declaring that they wished to show the whole village what happened to anyone who was not a friend of the Vietnam Government.

We still do not know whether the body has been buried. Nih was a farmer and a lay member of his local church, who had always rejected government control over its religious activities. He was killed because he had given food and help to Montagnard refugees hiding in the jungle between Vietnam and Cambodia. He leaves a widow and three children, who have also been subject to threats and discrimination.

Is the Commission aware of the events described and, if not, how it will follow up its constant assurances that it has the matter in hand, despite the fact that it has never once admonished, or taken retaliatory action against, the Vietnamese Government, to ascertain whether, and ensure that, those responsible for this atrocity are duly tried and the victims of violent acts of this kind are freed immediately?

What it thinks of the fact that the Government of Vietnam regards as a criminal act the exercise of an individual's political right to become a member of an NGO with consultative status at ECOSOC and the UN, such as the Transnational Radical Party, which promotes human rights by non-violent means?

Whether it intends, in the context of the cooperation agreements, to ask for the Central Highlands of Vietnam to be opened up and for a European delegation to have access to them?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(30 January 2004)

The Commission is aware of the reports describing the incidents in question in Gia Lai province, but has not been able to verify them, since it remains difficult to obtain independent and verifiable information on the situation in the Central Highlands.

As the Honourable Member well knows, the Union follows closely human rights-related issues in Vietnam and pays particular attention to the situation in the Central Highlands.

As regards the situation in the Central Highlands, the Union has constantly called on the Government of Vietnam to increase access to the region for Union missions, as well as for the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) and other UN bodies and representatives, in order to allow a full and independent first-hand assessment of the situation on the ground. The Government of Vietnam has allowed the Union to undertake — accompanied — Troika missions to the region, the latest in December 2003. However, access remains controlled.

The Union has continually raised concerns about confirmed human rights violations, including cases where individuals are persecuted for the peaceful expression of their personal views. In this context the Commission wishes to refer the Honourable Member to its joint reply given to written questions E-3001/03 to E-3003/03 (1) on the issue of reported human rights violations in the Central Highlands which remains entirely valid.

---

(1)  OJ C 70 E, 20.3.2004, p. 190.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/484 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/484

---

(2004/C 88 E/0497)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0089/04

by Astrid Thors (ELDR) to the Commission

(21 January 2004)

Subject:   Management of nuclear waste in Russia

Significant progress was made last year towards setting up a responsible system of management for nuclear waste in Russia, in particular waste from nuclear submarines in the north-west of the country. The Northern Dimension Environmental Partnership can call on considerable funding (over EUR 160 million available) and the Multilateral Nuclear Environmental Programme for Russia, an agreement with Russia concerning liability and tax issues in connection with nuclear waste, has been signed, though not ratified. However, there is no plan of action for the handling and final storage of the waste; coordination between the various donors could also be improved. It also emerged at a seminar held on 26 November 2003 between the Russian Duma and the European Parliament that numerous issues relating to monitoring remain unresolved.

What measures has the Commission taken, or what measures is it aware of having been taken, to facilitate agreement on a plan of action by all parties participating in the clean-up and financing? What guarantees does the Commission have that nuclear waste clean-up operations result in a high level of safety and that spent fuel is not used for new military purposes?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(3 March 2004)

The Commission has always recognised the magnitude of the problem posed by nuclear waste in Russia and particularly in the North-West. It has actively promoted a common approach which would strengthen coordination between the various donors and Russia. The ratification of the MNEPR by the Duma on 28 November 2003 and by the Federation Council on 10 December 2003 opened the way for the Northern Dimension Environmental Partnership to become effective in the field of nuclear waste management. The Commission will in 2003/2004, contribute to the Fund a total of EUR 50 million, of which EUR 40 million will be allocated to the nuclear sector.

The Commission has supported the creation of a Nuclear Operating Committee to ensure a strong coordination not only of the activities financed by the Fund, but also of the programmes of the many bilateral donors, almost all of which are represented on this Committee. The first meeting of this Committee was held on 2 February 2004. It agreed on a project to develop a strategic management plan for radioactive waste in Northwest Russia. This project will be carried out in the next months and will provide a sound basis for future coordination and selection of the projects to be supported.

The selection of the projects will have to be done according to criteria in which nuclear safety, security, cost effectiveness and environmental benefits will be of high importance. The NDEP will only finance activities aimed at ensuring safe management and storage of nuclear waste (spent nuclear fuel and radioactive waste) in Northwest Russia.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/485 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/485

---

(2004/C 88 E/0498)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0091/04

by Ilka Schröder (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(21 January 2004)

Subject:   Effects of including Hamas on the list of terrorist organisations

Since September 2003 the EU has classified the Palestinian organisation Hamas as a terrorist organisation in its entirety (Common Position 2003/651/CFSP (1)), while its military wing Izz al-Din al-Qassem has been thus classified since December 2001. Under Common Position 2001/931/CFSP (2) inclusion on this list entails the freezing of financial and economic assets, joint assistance and police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters in combating terrorism. Under Regulation (EC) 2580/2001 (3) the financial and economic assets of persons and organisations included on the list are to be frozen; furthermore, no additional resources may be made available (except for humanitarian purposes).

In the view of Commissioner Patten, inclusion on the list means that the Member States offer each other ‘the widest possible assistance’ in preventing and combating terrorist acts through police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters and that the financial restrictions set out in Regulation 2580/2001 apply (see his answer to Written Question E-2774/03 (4) by Theresa Villiers).

| 1. | What concrete measures have been taken by the Member States since December 2001 in terms both of freezing assets and of police and judicial cooperation? (a) What is the order of magnitude of the frozen assets? (b) What does ‘the widest possible assistance’ mean in practice? |
| --- | --- |

1.

What concrete measures have been taken by the Member States since December 2001 in terms both of freezing assets and of police and judicial cooperation? (a) What is the order of magnitude of the frozen assets? (b) What does ‘the widest possible assistance’ mean in practice?

| 2. | What measures has the Commission used to implement the Council decision of September 2003 (a) in legal terms and (b) in executive terms? |
| --- | --- |

2.

What measures has the Commission used to implement the Council decision of September 2003 (a) in legal terms and (b) in executive terms?

| 3. | Does the Council decision on Hamas include the network of social services run by Hamas officials? In which EU Member States are charitable collections allowed (a) for Hamas and (b) for the Hamas social network even after the Council decision of September 2003? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Does the Council decision on Hamas include the network of social services run by Hamas officials? In which EU Member States are charitable collections allowed (a) for Hamas and (b) for the Hamas social network even after the Council decision of September 2003?

| 4. | In which Member States have the greatest number of measures or the the most comprehensive measures been taken? |
| --- | --- |

4.

In which Member States have the greatest number of measures or the the most comprehensive measures been taken?

| 5. | What has the classification of Hamas as a terrorist organisation achieved in terms of the fight against terrorism? |
| --- | --- |

5.

What has the classification of Hamas as a terrorist organisation achieved in terms of the fight against terrorism?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(12 March 2004)

The Commission notes that the decision to list Hamas in its entirety was a unanimous decision of the Council. As this decision is based on the Treaty on the European Union (Articles 15 and 34) the Member States are committed to ensuring that their national policies conform to the Common Position.

The Commission understands that the Honourable Member has also put the above questions to the Council (written question E-0090/04) and refers to the Council's answer for information about Member States' actions in the field of police and judicial cooperation, including information on freezing orders issued by judicial authorities. However, it might be useful to add that the Council Decision 2003/48/JHA of 19 December 2002 (5) on the implementation of specific measures for police and judicial cooperation to combat terrorism, was adopted to flesh out Article 4 of Common Position 2001/931/CFSP. This Decision aims at improving police and judicial co-operation regarding ‘terrorist offences’ which involve ‘any of the listed persons, groups or entities’, and in particular tries to ensure that Europol and Eurojust receive the information they need to carry out their tasks. It also calls on Member States to take the necessary measures to set up joint investigation teams in order to carry out criminal investigations into terrorist offences involving any of the listed persons, groups or entities and to ensure that in such cases requests for mutual assistance and recognition and enforcement of judgements are dealt with as a matter of urgency.

Council Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 of 27 December 2001 on specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism, is directly applicable in all Member States and prohibits, inter alia, donations to Hamas (Article 2(l)(b)). The Regulation also obliges anyone under the jurisdiction of the Community to freeze funds and assets belonging to Hamas. The Commission has, however, not received any report that an account belonging to Hamas has been found in the Community.

Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 does not require the freezing of funds and assets belonging to individuals which may have links with Hamas, unless such individuals are included in the relevant list. However, it is worth noting that this Regulation prohibits funds and economic resources being made available to or for the benefit of listed persons, groups and entities such as Hamas. That prohibition also applies where funds are indirectly made available. Furthermore, the Regulation also prohibits the participation in activities circumventing that prohibition.

The Commission understands that, with a view to curbing the financing of Hamas' terrorist activities more effectively, Member States are currently investigating whether a number of persons, groups and entities which may be linked to Hamas, should also be targeted by the financial restrictions of Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001. It understands that releasing any names at this stage would compromise these investigations.

---

(1)  OJ L 229, 13.9.2003, p. 42.

(2)  OJ L 344, 28.12.2001, p. 93.

(3)  OJ L 344, 28.12.2001, p. 70.

(4)  OJ C 70 E, 20.3.2004, p. 140.

(5)  OJ L 16, 22.1.2003.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/486 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/486

---

(2004/C 88 E/0499)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0097/04

by Jean Lambert (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(22 January 2004)

Subject:   Saint Lucia environmental aid

Is Saint. Lucia a receiver of EU funds, including funds for a Community-based Nature Heritage Tourism programme? What is the value of the agreement? How exactly is the expenditure accounted for? What environmental value do the programmes have?

Is the Commission aware of the recent assassination of Jane Tipson, co-founder of the Eastern Caribbean Coalition for Environmental Awareness and coordinator of the regional programme in Saint Lucia?

Is the Commission also aware of allegations of widespread corruption and misappropriation of EU funds in Saint Lucia, and allegations that money allocated specifically for environmental projects is not being used accordingly? If so, what measures has the Commission taken to ensure that the funds are used appropriately?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(4 March 2004)

As an African, Caribbean, Pacific (ACP) state, Saint Lucia is receiving funds from the European Development Fund (EDF) under the Cotonou partnership agreement, as well as from specific budget lines such as the Special Framework of Assistance to traditional Banana growers (SFA). Community aid to St Lucia since 1985 has totalled EUR 98 million, including EUR 58 million from Stabex transfers (Stabex was a scheme under the Lomé Conventions to compensate ACP countries for falls in export earnings from certain primary crops) and EUR 24,2 million in European Investment Bank (EIB) loans and risk capital.

Under Stabex funds, a project for Community-based Heritage Tourism was indeed financed and implemented. Implementation was finished during 2003. The value of the project was EUR 2 million. As a result of this project, a natural park open to the public was established. Furthermore, the project promoted eco-tourism within the private sector.

The implementation followed normal EDF procedures under the Stabex framework; detailed work plans were prepared, on the basis of which funds were advanced. The finalisation report on project implementation, including all the financial data and the accounts, was received by the Delegation on 18 February 2004 and is in the process of being thoroughly analysed. A specific audit for the above mentioned project is foreseen, and is expected to commence in early March 2004. In addition, a detailed and comprehensive audit by independent external auditors for the entire Stabex programmes is currently being undertaken, which should be finished by mid-2004.

The Commission and the Government of Saint Lucia take very seriously any allegations of the misuse of funds. The Government, for its part, is also making exhaustive enquiries into the matter.

Jane Tipson was a member of the Eastern Caribbean Coalition for environmental awareness (ECCEA). This organisation was the beneficiary of a grant funded under the Environment budget line (B7 6200) for a project entitled ‘a regional initiative to promote community based nature tourism, environmental education and conservation of island ecosystems in the Eastern Caribbean’. This project started in April 2000 and ended on 31 December 2003. The project cost was EUR 1,7 million of which the Commission contributed EUR 1,4 million. Within this project, which had a regional scope, some activities took place in Saint Lucia, including some activities related to communication and promotion of eco-tourism and sound environmental management in the Eastern Caribbean.

The Commission deeply regrets the death of Jane Tipson. The suspected murderer has been arrested, and normal judicial procedures are being followed.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/487 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/487

---

(2004/C 88 E/0500)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0113/04

by Raina Echerer (Verts/ALE) and Eurig Wyn (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(26 January 2004)

Subject:   Maltese language for the next parliamentary term

Languages are one of Europe's greatest assets, therefore it is vital that the European institutions protect and promote the diversity of languages and cultures in Europe. Both the European Parliament and the Commission have always given importance to having proper working tools in order to translate and interpret into all the official languages of the European Union. However, it has been brought to our attention that it is likely that there will be a shortage of translators and interpreters in the Maltese language. Thus, there is a strong risk that Maltese parliamentarians and officials will not be able to use Maltese in any EU institution, as from 1 May 2004.

As part of the enlargement process, Malta should have been able to supply enough interpreters and translators in order for Maltese to be an official language of the European institutions. However, the current university course for such disciplines held at the University of Malta has only been activated this year for the first time, on a part-time basis which has not provided a sufficient number of professionals in this field.

| 1. | Does the Commission know for what reasons this part of the enlargement process has not been respected? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Does the Commission know for what reasons this part of the enlargement process has not been respected?

| 2. | Would it be possible for the Commission to address this situation by offering financial assistance to the University of Malta so that the above course is run on a full-time basis, thus enabling Maltese interpreters and translators to qualify in a shorter space of time? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Would it be possible for the Commission to address this situation by offering financial assistance to the University of Malta so that the above course is run on a full-time basis, thus enabling Maltese interpreters and translators to qualify in a shorter space of time?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(5 March 2004)

The Commission shares the view that diversity of languages and cultures is an asset for the Union that should be preserved. The recognition of the Maltese language as an EU official language reflects this principle.

The organisation and content of training is the responsibility of the national authorities. In the framework of enlargement preparations the Commission has had a number of contacts with the Maltese authorities and interested bodies over the last two years on the subject of training interpreters and translators. These discussions emphasised the need for appropriate and timely preparations in order to ensure the supply of suitably qualified translators and particularly interpreters since there was no tradition of interpreting in Maltese.

The severity of the shortage of qualified translators and interpreters in the Maltese language only became fully evident to the Commission when it launched a call for applications mid-2003. The limited number of qualified applications received gave concrete evidence of this shortcoming, obviously related to the small size of the Maltese population. At the same time, the Commission undertook to set up in Malta a translation field office in order to assist the Maltese authorities in finding a solution to this problem.

The Commission is currently considering supporting the Maltese authorities, with financial assistance, in organising training courses for interpreters and translators. However the Commission's experience shows that these courses need to be organised carefully and to full professional standards if the trained translators and interpreters are to have the qualifications required by EU institutions. The Commission is working with the Maltese authorities to ensure, as quickly as possible, this outcome.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/488 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/488

---

(2004/C 88 E/0501)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0202/04

by Michl Ebner (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(29 January 2004)

Subject:   Lack of clarity in the rules excluding firms from applying for projects funded by the EU

The ‘Practical Guide to contract procedures financed from the general budget of the European Communities in the context of external actions’ sets out the rules on application and selection procedures for projects funded by the EU.

Despite being revised in 2003, this guide is, in part, too stringent, and yet it leaves too much room for interpretation with regard to applications by companies and experts. On conflicts of interest for example, Section 2.3.6 is so strict that it excludes firms that had participated in the preparation of a project from participating in tenders based on this preparatory work. This criterion applies to all firms within the same legal group, including international firms, regardless of the share one may have in the other, even when this is as low as 1 %. It is entirely possible that precisely these applicants would achieve the best results.

Furthermore, a number of rules are ambiguously worded, and different delegations therefore intrepret them in different ways, leading to misunderstandings in the selection procedure, which means that the best possible results are not necessarily achieved.

Has the Commission studied all the legal ramifications and the correct interpretation of the ‘Practical Guide’ in all language versions? If not, what does the Commission intend to do to clarify these grey areas?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(15 March 2004)

The principles on which the ‘Practical Guide’ is based are defined in Article 89 § 1 of the Financial Regulation of 25 June 2002 applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (1). All public contracts financed in whole or in part by the budget, must comply with the principles of transparency, proportionality, equal treatment and non-discrimination. According to article 94 a) of the Financial Regulation, contracts may not be awarded to candidates or tenderers who, during the procurement procedure, are subject to a ‘conflict of interest’.

For external actions, these principles have been implemented as follows:

| — | according to Articles 237 and 238 of the Commission Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2342/2002 of 23 December 2002 (2), laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities, the implementation of procurement procedures for external actions is decided by the Commission. The Commission Decision, ‘Rules and procedures for service, supply and works contracts financed from the general budget’, was adopted on 25 March 2003 (3). This Decision replaces the Manual of Instructions adopted in 1999 by the Commission (4), with the unanimous agreement of Member States; |
| --- | --- |

—

according to Articles 237 and 238 of the Commission Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2342/2002 of 23 December 2002 (2), laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities, the implementation of procurement procedures for external actions is decided by the Commission. The Commission Decision, ‘Rules and procedures for service, supply and works contracts financed from the general budget’, was adopted on 25 March 2003 (3). This Decision replaces the Manual of Instructions adopted in 1999 by the Commission (4), with the unanimous agreement of Member States;

| — | in the new Commission Decision, the ‘conflict of interest’ is defined as ‘Any event influencing the capacity of a candidate, tenderer or contractor to given an objective and impartial professional opinion, or preventing it, at any moment, from giving priority to the interests of the contracting authority. Any consideration relating to possible contracts in the future or conflict with other commitments, past or present, of a candidate, tenderer or contractor. These restrictions also apply to subcontractor and employees of the candidate, tenderer or contractor’. It must be underlined that the same definition applied already in the Manual of Instructions; |
| --- | --- |

—

in the new Commission Decision, the ‘conflict of interest’ is defined as ‘Any event influencing the capacity of a candidate, tenderer or contractor to given an objective and impartial professional opinion, or preventing it, at any moment, from giving priority to the interests of the contracting authority. Any consideration relating to possible contracts in the future or conflict with other commitments, past or present, of a candidate, tenderer or contractor. These restrictions also apply to subcontractor and employees of the candidate, tenderer or contractor’. It must be underlined that the same definition applied already in the Manual of Instructions;

| — | on the basis of this new Commission Decision, the ‘Practical Guide to contract procedures financed from the General Budget of the European Communities in the context of external actions’ has been adopted by EuropeAid. The translation in Spanish, Portuguese and English of this Practical Guide has been done by the relevant services of the Commission; |
| --- | --- |

—

on the basis of this new Commission Decision, the ‘Practical Guide to contract procedures financed from the General Budget of the European Communities in the context of external actions’ has been adopted by EuropeAid. The translation in Spanish, Portuguese and English of this Practical Guide has been done by the relevant services of the Commission;

| — | the provision on conflict of interests of section 2.3.6 of this Practical Guide reads as follows: ‘Fair competition: To avoid any conflict of interest, any firm (including firms within the same legal group, other members of the same consortium, and subcontractors) or expert participating in the preparation of a project must be excluded from participating in tenders based on this preparatory work’. Consequently, the provision of ‘conflict of interest’ the Honourable Member refers to is legally binding on the basis of the Commission Decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

the provision on conflict of interests of section 2.3.6 of this Practical Guide reads as follows: ‘Fair competition: To avoid any conflict of interest, any firm (including firms within the same legal group, other members of the same consortium, and subcontractors) or expert participating in the preparation of a project must be excluded from participating in tenders based on this preparatory work’. Consequently, the provision of ‘conflict of interest’ the Honourable Member refers to is legally binding on the basis of the Commission Decision;

| — | the prohibition of a firm or expert participating in the preparation of a project is derived inter alia from the criticisms made by the Court of Auditors in its special report 16/2000 on tendering for service contracts under the Phare and Tacis programmes. This provision is desirable from a competition point of view to avoid irregularities that occurred in the past. Moreover it is proportional and necessary to its main objective, which is to avoid fraud and unfair tendering. The Commission's intention is to avoid collusion between bidders. Considering the very complex nature of multinational groups, the prohibition has to be very broad in order to be effective and not to be bypassed through the use of affiliate companies; |
| --- | --- |

—

the prohibition of a firm or expert participating in the preparation of a project is derived inter alia from the criticisms made by the Court of Auditors in its special report 16/2000 on tendering for service contracts under the Phare and Tacis programmes. This provision is desirable from a competition point of view to avoid irregularities that occurred in the past. Moreover it is proportional and necessary to its main objective, which is to avoid fraud and unfair tendering. The Commission's intention is to avoid collusion between bidders. Considering the very complex nature of multinational groups, the prohibition has to be very broad in order to be effective and not to be bypassed through the use of affiliate companies;

| — | this provision has now been implemented for more than three years in external aid projects. It was drafted to take into account the interests of the various actors as well as the legal context. The Commission's major concern has been to harmonise all its award procedures to make the rules more transparent and to rationalise management. On the basis of acquired experience, the specific issue of conflict of interest will be examined during the next revision of the rules. The Commission will, of course, continue to insist on the principles of fair and equal participation in tenders and contracts and of transparency, which underlie the contract award procedures in the field of Community external aid. |
| --- | --- |

—

this provision has now been implemented for more than three years in external aid projects. It was drafted to take into account the interests of the various actors as well as the legal context. The Commission's major concern has been to harmonise all its award procedures to make the rules more transparent and to rationalise management. On the basis of acquired experience, the specific issue of conflict of interest will be examined during the next revision of the rules. The Commission will, of course, continue to insist on the principles of fair and equal participation in tenders and contracts and of transparency, which underlie the contract award procedures in the field of Community external aid.

---

(1)  OJ L 248, 16.9.2002.

(2)  OJ L 357, 31.12.2002.

(3)  SEC(2003) 387/2.

(4)  Decision SEC(1999) 1801/2.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/490 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/490

---

(2004/C 88 E/0502)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0226/04

by Margrietus van den Berg (PSE) to the Commission

(2 February 2004)

Subject:   Starch factories and developing countries

On a working visit to Veendam, I was informed about the possibilities of starch being produced from cassava in developing countries and about the factors which are hampering progress in that area. In many developing countries, cassava is frequently a local crop which thrives in the natural environment and is very suitable for use in the production of starch. Starch is a raw material for the food, textiles and paper industries. Construction of a starch factory may create a large number of jobs in the rural parts of developing countries which frequently have to cope with high rates of unemployment. Many jobs can be created in agriculture, in industry and in small private businesses. It costs between EUR 4 and 5 million to construct a factory of this nature. That is an affordable investment which can give a real positive boost to local economies in developing countries. Private investors are interested in participating in the projects with venture capital, but that is not sufficient for the implementation of the projects. Banks, too, must participate by granting loans, but they are less cooperative. Participating banks want guarantees for the amounts that they lend. The provision by the European Union of bank guarantees in respect of such projects would be very valuable and would encourage the banks to participate. That would result in the green light being given for considerable small-scale investments with a huge economic spin-off in the local economy of developing countries.

| 1. | Is the Commission aware of the possibilities which the starch industry offers with regard to job-creation in developing countries, and has it already noted the problems that are occurring in respect of bank guarantees? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is the Commission aware of the possibilities which the starch industry offers with regard to job-creation in developing countries, and has it already noted the problems that are occurring in respect of bank guarantees?

| 2. | Does the Commission acknowledge that the absence of bank guarantees is creating an obstacle to these valuable projects? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Does the Commission acknowledge that the absence of bank guarantees is creating an obstacle to these valuable projects?

| 3. | Is the Commission prepared to make a contribution to a possible solution to this problem, for example by providing bank guarantees? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Is the Commission prepared to make a contribution to a possible solution to this problem, for example by providing bank guarantees?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(12 March 2004)

| 1. | The starch industry is generally a capital intensive sector; however, whilst contributing to the economic development in the rural areas producing cassava, it will insure some valuable job creation. While the Commission has no specific experience in the starch industry in developing countries, one of our main private sector development instruments, the Center for Enterprise Development (CDE), has had some selected projects in this sector. A contact person at the CDE is M. Touré (Tel. 0032-2-6791905, e-mail: cto@cde.int). |
| --- | --- |

1.

The starch industry is generally a capital intensive sector; however, whilst contributing to the economic development in the rural areas producing cassava, it will insure some valuable job creation. While the Commission has no specific experience in the starch industry in developing countries, one of our main private sector development instruments, the Center for Enterprise Development (CDE), has had some selected projects in this sector. A contact person at the CDE is M. Touré (Tel. 0032-2-6791905, e-mail: cto@cde.int).

| 2. and 3. | The Commission is aware that the absence of bank guarantees is often a problem for investment projects in African, Caribbean and Pacific countries (ACP). For this and other reasons, the Commission is currently looking into the possibilities of providing guarantees. There are two ongoing activities. First, the main instrument for private sector development, the EUR 2,2 billion investment facility (IF) managed by the European Investment Bank (EIB), has the possibility to provide guarantees to banks. A recent study of the EIB has confirmed the need to develop local financial markets and the potential use of guarantees for this purpose. The IF committee will discuss in the coming months if and how bank guarantees should be granted by the EIB. Second, the Commission, together with the ACP secretariat, is currently conducting a study on the international guarantee system. The goal of this study is to analyse if there are needs for guarantee instruments in ACP countries that are not covered by the existing guarantee system. The Commission will make sure that the issue of bank guarantees is duly taken into account in this study and that an appropriate follow-up of the recommendations of this study will take place. |
| --- | --- |

2. and 3.

The Commission is aware that the absence of bank guarantees is often a problem for investment projects in African, Caribbean and Pacific countries (ACP). For this and other reasons, the Commission is currently looking into the possibilities of providing guarantees. There are two ongoing activities. First, the main instrument for private sector development, the EUR 2,2 billion investment facility (IF) managed by the European Investment Bank (EIB), has the possibility to provide guarantees to banks. A recent study of the EIB has confirmed the need to develop local financial markets and the potential use of guarantees for this purpose. The IF committee will discuss in the coming months if and how bank guarantees should be granted by the EIB. Second, the Commission, together with the ACP secretariat, is currently conducting a study on the international guarantee system. The goal of this study is to analyse if there are needs for guarantee instruments in ACP countries that are not covered by the existing guarantee system. The Commission will make sure that the issue of bank guarantees is duly taken into account in this study and that an appropriate follow-up of the recommendations of this study will take place.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/491 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/491

---

(2004/C 88 E/0503)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0254/04

by Elspeth Attwooll (ELDR) to the Commission

(3 February 2004)

Subject:   Global TB Drug Facility

Does the Commission have any intention to make a contribution to the Global TB Drug Facility? If so, could it give an indication of the amount it would propose?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(18 March 2004)

The Commission recognises the important role the Global TB Drug Facility (GDF) plays within the Stop TB partnership to expand access to, and availability of, high-quality TB drugs to facilitate global Directly Observed Treatment Short-regime (DOTS) expansion to control TB worldwide.

The Commission does not intend to provide direct support to the GDF. Its support is provided as part of the Programme for Action: accelerated action on the human immunodeficiency virus/acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (HIV/AIDS), malaria and tuberculosis in the context of poverty reduction, which established a broad and coherent Community response for 2001-2006. Community programmed support through the various financial instruments to confront HIV/AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis, will total close to EUR 1200 million (annual average of EUR300 million) for the period 2003-2006. This figure includes support to the Global Fund to fight HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria: the Commission has disbursed to the fund EUR 120 million for 2002 and has programmed support of EUR 340 million for years 2003-2006. 17 % of the funds allocated in the initial rounds went to TB control programmes. It is estimated that these projects will provide Directly Observed Treatment Short-Regime (DOTS) coverage for 2,8 million patients as compared with a coverage of 830 000 in 2000. Furthermore, 46 % of the funds for all diseases are allocated to providing drugs and commodities. On the other side, almost all of the bilateral health programmes of the Commission foresee an integrated approach to improving delivery of primary care; this includes the diagnosis and appropriate treatment of tuberculosis, thus ensuring that anti-TB drugs are given in an effective way that avoids the emergence of further resistance to these drugs.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/492 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/492

---

(2004/C 88 E/0504)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0266/04

by John McCartin (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(4 February 2004)

Subject:   Imports of poultry meat into the EU

Can the Commission state what quantities of poultry meat have been imported into the European Union in the most recent six-month period for which statistics are available, and whether a suspension of such imports would have any significant effect on the European market for meat?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(16 March 2004)

During the first six months of 2003 the imports to the EU of poultrymeat (including live poultry and poultrymeat products) amounted to 411 000 tonnes (t). The level of imports was 26 % higher than in the corresponding period of 2002.

It is estimated that in 2003 imports of poultrymeat reached the level of 800 000 tonnes, an amount equivalent to 9 % of poultrymeat and 2 % of all meat consumed in the EU, respectively.

The main suppliers of poultrymeat to the EU in 2003 were Brazil (estimated 400 000 t), Thailand (estimated 190 000 t) and the countries of Central and Eastern Europe.

The complete suspension of poultrymeat imports to the EU market can be regarded rather as a hypothetical exercise. Although it may reduce availability of poultrymeat to the EU consumers, it would do so to a lesser extent than the 9 % indicated above. That is because the lack of imports would be compensated at least partially by European poultrymeat supply and by European pigmeat. It should be kept in mind that the EU has exported around 1 000 000 tonnes of poultrymeat in 2003 and had a trade surplus of 200 000 tonnes of that meat.

Any impact of the suspension would be, proportionally, smaller, the shorter the period in which it would be applied. In addition, any reduction in availability of meat in the EU-15 after 1 May 2004 will be mitigated by greater availability of meat from the new Member States.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/492 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/492

---

(2004/C 88 E/0505)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0302/04

by Christa Randzio-Plath (PSE) to the Commission

(2 February 2004)

Subject:   Working conditions for female flower workers in Africa, Asia and Latin America

Germany is the largest market for cut flowers from Latin America, Asia and Africa. The workers on the plantations in these regions, who are mostly women, tend to receive minimal pay and have uncertain work contracts. Poor working conditions, such as the use of pesticides that are mostly banned in Europe without the workers having access to appropriate protective clothing or other equipment, mean that these workers continue to face serious health risks in the form of cancer, respiratory diseases, miscarriages and birth defects. Female workers who set up or join trade unions are subject to discrimination and repression by plantation management, making it difficult for them to improve their working conditions by their own efforts.

| 1. | To what extent does the Commission feel it politically and technically possible to waive customs duties on imports of goods produced under ecologically and socially acceptable conditions? What other instruments does the Commission feel can be used to discriminate positively in favour of flowers produced and traded fairly? |
| --- | --- |

1.

To what extent does the Commission feel it politically and technically possible to waive customs duties on imports of goods produced under ecologically and socially acceptable conditions? What other instruments does the Commission feel can be used to discriminate positively in favour of flowers produced and traded fairly?

| 2. | What other instruments, such as trade and cooperation agreements or the use of development cooperation funds, is the EU using to encourage better working and health conditions in the Third World? |
| --- | --- |

2.

What other instruments, such as trade and cooperation agreements or the use of development cooperation funds, is the EU using to encourage better working and health conditions in the Third World?

| 3. | On 24 November 2003, one of the worst chemical accidents in the whole flower industry happened at the Aposentos Flowers plantation in Bogotá, with many workers afflicted. How does the Commission intend to react to this, and what action will it take? |
| --- | --- |

3.

On 24 November 2003, one of the worst chemical accidents in the whole flower industry happened at the Aposentos Flowers plantation in Bogotá, with many workers afflicted. How does the Commission intend to react to this, and what action will it take?

Answer given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(1 March 2004)

Respect for human rights, including core labour standards, is a priority for the EU. In its trade policy, the EU promotes the effective application of core labour standards (as defined by ILO Conventions) through positive instruments and notably the General System of Preferences (GSP). Under this system a country can benefit from extra tariff preferences if it complies with internationally agreed core labour standards (basic ILO conventions) or if it implements the substance of internationally acknowledged standards and guidelines concerning sustainable management of tropical forests. Many of the Community's existing bilateral Agreements also refer to the respect for core labour standards, for example, the Cotonou Agreement or the Agreement with Chile. The complementary role of technical assistance in this context is important.

| 1. | Nevertheless, using tariffs and preferential regimes such as the GSP to encourage trade in products with preferable conditions of production presents both technical and political difficulties.
  The technical difficulty is that the product itself may be indistinguishable from one whose conditions of production fall short of the standards the EU would like to encourage, while import duties have to relate to articles which can be distinguished from one another so that customs officials can apply the appropriate duty.
  The political difficulty resides in the fact that there is as yet no agreement between WTO members that it is legitimate to treat one product differently from another on grounds connected with the production process. Sovereign countries regard it as their own prerogative to choose and enforce their own social and environmental regime. Subject to the constraints of international treaties which those countries may have signed, the EU has no scope to dictate these conditions outside its own borders, other than on a contractual basis as a customer for goods. However, WTO members retain the power to develop voluntary measures to discriminate positively in favour of goods produced and traded fairly (for instance by granting a label). |
| --- | --- |

1.

Nevertheless, using tariffs and preferential regimes such as the GSP to encourage trade in products with preferable conditions of production presents both technical and political difficulties.

The technical difficulty is that the product itself may be indistinguishable from one whose conditions of production fall short of the standards the EU would like to encourage, while import duties have to relate to articles which can be distinguished from one another so that customs officials can apply the appropriate duty.

The political difficulty resides in the fact that there is as yet no agreement between WTO members that it is legitimate to treat one product differently from another on grounds connected with the production process. Sovereign countries regard it as their own prerogative to choose and enforce their own social and environmental regime. Subject to the constraints of international treaties which those countries may have signed, the EU has no scope to dictate these conditions outside its own borders, other than on a contractual basis as a customer for goods. However, WTO members retain the power to develop voluntary measures to discriminate positively in favour of goods produced and traded fairly (for instance by granting a label).

| 2. | That is why the Commission has watched with interest the development of a ‘Fair flowers’ movement, and the development of fair trade and ethical trade schemes in general. These allow the customer to influence production conditions by only choosing products that match his or her expectations and wishes. The Commission intends to monitor the impact of current schemes and give active consideration to whether any initiative at European level could add to their effectiveness.
  The health situation of agricultural producers is an important theme in the context of development cooperation policy. Specific programmes are always worked out in collaboration with the beneficiary countries. An example of a programme in this area is the Pesticides Initiative Programme (PIP), an all-ACP operation with a budget amounting to EUR 29,12 million. It is managed by ‘COLEACP’ (see: www.coleacp.org) and has the safety of pesticide use as one of its main objectives.
  More generally, for each agreement under negotiation, a Sustainability Impact Assessment is carried out in order to assess potential trade related impacts on the environment, social development and the economies. Poverty, gender equity and health are social dimensions that are appraised in each SIA. Ultimately, integration of SIA results into policy making help ensure increased coherence between trade and development policies and mitigate potential negative effects on disadvantaged social groups.
  The Commission is also actively engaged in the development of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) practices focused on developing countries. As well as promoting a number of established CSR instruments, the Commission established the European Multi-Stakeholder Forum on CSR in 2002, following its Communication on CSR (1). The Development Issues Round Table of the Forum has examined a number of issues relevant to sustainable development and the strengthening of social and environmental standards in developing countries. These have included the role of global CSR standards and codes, the possibility of developing sectoral approaches to CSR, the need to develop CSR-awareness at local and regional level, and the importance of ensuring that CSR practices apply throughout the supply chain in developing countries. |
| --- | --- |

2.

That is why the Commission has watched with interest the development of a ‘Fair flowers’ movement, and the development of fair trade and ethical trade schemes in general. These allow the customer to influence production conditions by only choosing products that match his or her expectations and wishes. The Commission intends to monitor the impact of current schemes and give active consideration to whether any initiative at European level could add to their effectiveness.

The health situation of agricultural producers is an important theme in the context of development cooperation policy. Specific programmes are always worked out in collaboration with the beneficiary countries. An example of a programme in this area is the Pesticides Initiative Programme (PIP), an all-ACP operation with a budget amounting to EUR 29,12 million. It is managed by ‘COLEACP’ (see: www.coleacp.org) and has the safety of pesticide use as one of its main objectives.

More generally, for each agreement under negotiation, a Sustainability Impact Assessment is carried out in order to assess potential trade related impacts on the environment, social development and the economies. Poverty, gender equity and health are social dimensions that are appraised in each SIA. Ultimately, integration of SIA results into policy making help ensure increased coherence between trade and development policies and mitigate potential negative effects on disadvantaged social groups.

The Commission is also actively engaged in the development of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) practices focused on developing countries. As well as promoting a number of established CSR instruments, the Commission established the European Multi-Stakeholder Forum on CSR in 2002, following its Communication on CSR (1). The Development Issues Round Table of the Forum has examined a number of issues relevant to sustainable development and the strengthening of social and environmental standards in developing countries. These have included the role of global CSR standards and codes, the possibility of developing sectoral approaches to CSR, the need to develop CSR-awareness at local and regional level, and the importance of ensuring that CSR practices apply throughout the supply chain in developing countries.

| 3. | The Commission learned of the chemical accident on the Apsentos plantation in November 2003 with great regret. It is beyond the remit of the Commission to react further to an incident of this kind occurring in a third country, but EC cooperation programmes do aim at avoiding such situations as the one in the flower industry in Bogotá. In Colombia, for instance, the Commission supports the ‘National Trade Union School’ (Escuela Nacional Sindical) to foster the respect of social and economic rights in this country. Furthermore, social issues will be at the core of the agenda of the coming EU-Latin America and Caribbean Summit in Guadalajara, Mexico, on 28 May. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The Commission learned of the chemical accident on the Apsentos plantation in November 2003 with great regret. It is beyond the remit of the Commission to react further to an incident of this kind occurring in a third country, but EC cooperation programmes do aim at avoiding such situations as the one in the flower industry in Bogotá. In Colombia, for instance, the Commission supports the ‘National Trade Union School’ (Escuela Nacional Sindical) to foster the respect of social and economic rights in this country. Furthermore, social issues will be at the core of the agenda of the coming EU-Latin America and Caribbean Summit in Guadalajara, Mexico, on 28 May.

---

(1)  COM(2002) 347 of 2.7.2002.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/494 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/494

---

(2004/C 88 E/0506)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0306/04

by Gerhard Schmid (PSE) to the Commission

(6 February 2004)

Subject:   Use of sky marshals

The US authorities have demanded that European airlines deploy armed sky marshals as a protective measure on certain transatlantic flights. Some Member States are willing to use armed sky marshals, whereas others are strongly opposed.

The type of ammunition is a crucial factor when deploying armed sky marshals, as conventional ammunition cannot be used due to its penetrating power.

Can the Commission therefore answer the following questions:

| 1. | What type of ammunition do the armed sky marshals use? |
| --- | --- |

1.

What type of ammunition do the armed sky marshals use?

| 2. | Does the type of ammunition used comply with the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and the European Convention on Human Rights? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Does the type of ammunition used comply with the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and the European Convention on Human Rights?

| 3. | What further action does the Commission plan to take? |
| --- | --- |

3.

What further action does the Commission plan to take?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(16 March 2004)

The Commission has no information on the weapons, ammunition or intervention techniques used by armed sky marshals. In view of the nature of these duties, such information is confidential. The methods used by the police forces of an individual Member State are a matter for that State, which is bound by the European Convention on Human Rights.

In view of US demands on the airlines of several Member States to deploy armed sky marshals on certain high-risk flights it will be necessary in future to establish a common response enabling cooperation with the US authorities to be organised on a more balanced basis. The Commission regards sky marshals as just one aspect of the broader issue of the need to adopt optimum security measures for transatlantic or domestic flights. The Commission is about to launch a wide-ranging debate on this subject with the Member States which takes the existing divergences of opinion into account.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/495 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/495

---

(2004/C 88 E/0507)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0318/04

by Glenys Kinnock (PSE) to the Commission

(6 February 2004)

Subject:   People with mental disabilities in Russia

Is the Commission aware of the lack of legal protection for people with mental disabilities in Russia?

Would the Commission identify and clarify what action is being taken on behalf of these people and whether the matter has been raised at the highest possible level with the authorities?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(10 March 2004)

According to information at the disposal of the Commission, the Russian Constitution does not directly address the issue of discrimination against persons with disabilities. In addition, although laws to prohibit discrimination do exist, it appears that these are not always adequately enforced.

The Commission has been working for several years via the Tacis programme to improve the treatment of the disabled in Russia. Examples of projects include: ‘Partnership in health, education and social assistance’, implemented as part of the 1999 Tacis Action Programme for Russia in cooperation with the Ministry of Education, which has promoted the early detection of disabilities and the better treatment of Russian children in several regions of Russia.

Further projects — to be implemented with Russian institutions including the Russian Ministry of Labour and Social Development — are currently being prepared.

These projects aim, inter alia, to:

| — | improve existing legislation; |
| --- | --- |

—

improve existing legislation;

| — | develop mechanisms of cooperation between different departments/agencies and organisations dealing with disabled children; |
| --- | --- |

—

develop mechanisms of cooperation between different departments/agencies and organisations dealing with disabled children;

| — | develop programmes for the social inclusion of children with disabilities and provide support to their families; |
| --- | --- |

—

develop programmes for the social inclusion of children with disabilities and provide support to their families;

| — | better train social workers, medical staff and teachers; |
| --- | --- |

—

better train social workers, medical staff and teachers;

| — | raise awareness of the rights of disabled children and their families, the problems which they experience and their contribution as valued members of society. |
| --- | --- |

—

raise awareness of the rights of disabled children and their families, the problems which they experience and their contribution as valued members of society.

The Commission has also provided support to a number of non-governmental organisations (NGOs), charities, parents' associations and religious organizations via its Civil Society Programme, with the aim of promoting better understanding and treatment of the disabled and in particular disabled children.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/496 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/496

---

(2004/C 88 E/0508)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0341/04

by Philip Claeys (NI) to the Commission

(4 February 2004)

Subject:   Introduction of a ‘Made in the EU’ label

According to reports, the Commission is contemplating the idea of introducing a ‘Made in the EU’ label.

Is this information correct? If so, when will a concrete proposal be issued?

What added value does a European label give over and above the Member States' national labels?

Have representatives of industry already been consulted on this? If so, what were their reactions?

Will it be possible to combine the European label with a national label?

Answer given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(2 March 2004)

In the light of renewed interest shown by some industry sectors and Member States in the development of a Community Regulation on origin marking, the Commission opted to prepare a working document submitted to the 133 Committee on 19 December 2003, setting out the implications of such a scheme, in order to launch the debate. At this stage, the Commission is not presenting any concrete proposals, but has instead invited Member States to consult domestically on the subject.

The paper — available on the Commission's External Trade website — gives an overview on the pros and cons of a ‘made in the EU’ origin marking and indicates the options to be considered, namely:

| — | the option of origin marking both for imports and domestic market products on a purely voluntary basis; |
| --- | --- |

—

the option of origin marking both for imports and domestic market products on a purely voluntary basis;

| — | the approach of a mixed system with a compulsory origin marking for imports and a voluntary scheme for domestic products; |
| --- | --- |

—

the approach of a mixed system with a compulsory origin marking for imports and a voluntary scheme for domestic products;

| — | and the third option of a compulsory origin marking both for imports and for domestic products. |
| --- | --- |

—

and the third option of a compulsory origin marking both for imports and for domestic products.

The document does not specifically address the question of national origin marking schemes and it is worth underlining that no proposal has been made to question the continued use of them. It is for all interested parties at the national and EU level to determine their interests in the issue of developing a Community Regulation on origin marking, including the value added of implementing a ‘made in the EU’ origin claim and, if they favour change, the nature and scope of any possible regulation.

The Commission has already contacted different representatives of the industry and consumers and is receiving their comments and suggestions. Considering the current stage of consultations, the Commission could submit to the Council and to the Parliament the results of these consultations at the end of March 2004, though a longer period could be necessary.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/497 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/497

---

(2004/C 88 E/0509)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0352/04

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(12 February 2004)

Subject:   The Parmalat case and its repercussions on milk and cheese production in Lazio

The consequences of the notorious Parmalat scandal have been felt particularly acutely by producers in Lazio, since the company had purchased Rome's central dairy and in practice controlled 70 % of the Lazio market. This had serious repercussions on the entire national fresh milk sector, which is largely centred in this region. Recent statistics show that Lazio is Italy's fifth largest producer of fresh milk, with 3 3 % of national production, and the leading consumer, whereas in the rest of Italy people prefer to buy long-life or microfiltered milk.

Dairy farms in Lazio have thus been damaged in two ways, both by the risks of the current crisis affecting Rome's central dairy and the sums Parmalat owes to producers, whose milk reaches the factories via associations and co-operatives.

The Italian Ministry for Agricultural Policy has already introduced a system of incentives for drawing up ‘sectoral contracts’ designed to support dairy farmers and encourage them to rationalise the internal system of each food industry sector, in order to increase efficiency and production. This will make it possible to remedy nation-wide some of the damage caused by the Parmalat crisis.

In view of the need to take specific action in the Lazio region for the reasons set out above, and bearing in mind that the European Union has full competence in the area of regional agricultural policies, can the Commission say:

| 1. | whether the EU has any progammes to tackle crises and provide incentives to be implemented at regional level; |
| --- | --- |

1.

whether the EU has any progammes to tackle crises and provide incentives to be implemented at regional level;

| 2. | whether the Region of Lazio may benefit from a fund to support farms in such cases; |
| --- | --- |

2.

whether the Region of Lazio may benefit from a fund to support farms in such cases;

| 3. | if not, whether the Commission can provide information as to how it may benefit from other forms of funding already available in the sector, to be used for such purposes? |
| --- | --- |

3.

if not, whether the Commission can provide information as to how it may benefit from other forms of funding already available in the sector, to be used for such purposes?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(6 April 2004)

In Lazio the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) helps finance the Lazio 2000/2006 rural development plan and the Leader+ programme. Neither includes any specific measures for crisis situations in agriculture, though they contain a package of assistance measure to promote agricultural holding development, processing and marketing of produce, and rural development. Council Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999 of 17 May 1999 on support for rural development from the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) and amending and repealing certain Regulations (1) therefore does not contain any suitable instrument for providing immediate assistance to small dairy farmers stricken by the Parmalat crisis.

It is the Italian national and regional authorities that are responsible for delivering Community-financed aid under the above programmes. The Commission monitors the programmes but is not responsible for managing the various measures on the ground.

The Lazio Assesorato all'Agricoltura as managing authority for the programme will be able to provide data on the various recipients.

In reply to the Honourable Member's third question, the common market organisation provides market support instruments such as the quota arrangements, export refunds, measures for the disposal of butter and milk powder, and intervention. But none of these instruments can be used specifically to help towards a solution.

Under Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty the Commission is responsible for authorising State aid by Italy to the farming sector. Dairy farmers could possibly be helped under national or regional aid schemes already authorised by us or new schemes notified under Article 88 or exempt under 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 (2).

When State aid in agriculture is notified we examine its compatibility with the common market in the light of the above Regulation and the Community Guidelines for State aid in the agriculture sector. Aid for firms in difficulty is examined on the basis of the Community Guidelines on State aid for rescuing and restructuring firms in difficult.

We are at present examining whether Italian Decree Law No 16 of 27 January 2004 on urgent measures in the agriculture and fishery sectors complies with the State aid rules. It provides support for dairy farmers who have received no payment for their produce.

---

(1)  OJ L 160, 26.6.1999.

(2)  OJ L 1, 3.1.2004.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/498 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/498

---

(2004/C 88 E/0510)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0403/04

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(16 February 2004)

Subject:   Distortion of competition to the detriment of the environment and of working conditions in the cheap production of the semi-finished product primary aluminium in Iceland

| 1. | Is the Commission aware that in Iceland, a country associated with the EU, in addition to the two current aluminium smelters belonging to the Canadian firm Alcan at Hafnarfjordur (annual production: 173 000 tonnes) and to the American firm Norderal to the north of Reykjavik (annual production: 90 000 tonnes), a third aluminium smelter is to be built from 2005 in Reydarfjordur by the large American firm Alcoa and with a planned annual production from 2007 of 295 000 tonnes of the semi-finished product primary aluminium? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is the Commission aware that in Iceland, a country associated with the EU, in addition to the two current aluminium smelters belonging to the Canadian firm Alcan at Hafnarfjordur (annual production: 173 000 tonnes) and to the American firm Norderal to the north of Reykjavik (annual production: 90 000 tonnes), a third aluminium smelter is to be built from 2005 in Reydarfjordur by the large American firm Alcoa and with a planned annual production from 2007 of 295 000 tonnes of the semi-finished product primary aluminium?

| 2. | Is the Commission aware that Alcoa's choice of location is dependent on the completion of the Karahnjukar project by the Icelandic national energy company Landsvirkjun which will create a 57 km2 reservoir several tens of metres deep and a series of dams, the largest being 750 m long and 190 m high, as a result of which the unique Hafrahvammergjufur Gorge will disappear and, with it, habitats of underwater animals? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Is the Commission aware that Alcoa's choice of location is dependent on the completion of the Karahnjukar project by the Icelandic national energy company Landsvirkjun which will create a 57 km2 reservoir several tens of metres deep and a series of dams, the largest being 750 m long and 190 m high, as a result of which the unique Hafrahvammergjufur Gorge will disappear and, with it, habitats of underwater animals?

| 3. | Is the Commission aware that the Italian construction company Impregilo, which submitted a much cheaper bid than its Danish, British and German competitors, employs workers from Romania and Portugal through an agreement with another Italian company, on much lower wages and subject to poor conditions, in breach of the provisions of its contract to observe all Icelandic rules? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Is the Commission aware that the Italian construction company Impregilo, which submitted a much cheaper bid than its Danish, British and German competitors, employs workers from Romania and Portugal through an agreement with another Italian company, on much lower wages and subject to poor conditions, in breach of the provisions of its contract to observe all Icelandic rules?

| 4. | Does the price for the energy that will be supplied to Alcoa from the hydroelectric power plant cover costs? Or is it impossible to establish this, as the price is being kept secret? |
| --- | --- |

4.

Does the price for the energy that will be supplied to Alcoa from the hydroelectric power plant cover costs? Or is it impossible to establish this, as the price is being kept secret?

| 5. | Does such conduct mean that failure to respect the environment and working conditions is a factor that may influence the decisions of other companies when deciding where to locate? |
| --- | --- |

5.

Does such conduct mean that failure to respect the environment and working conditions is a factor that may influence the decisions of other companies when deciding where to locate?

| 6. | Have this project and its consequences in terms of the environmental destruction and distortion of competition been discussed within the European Economic Area? Does the Commission intend to bring the above to the attention of the Icelandic Government? |
| --- | --- |

6.

Have this project and its consequences in terms of the environmental destruction and distortion of competition been discussed within the European Economic Area? Does the Commission intend to bring the above to the attention of the Icelandic Government?

Source: the Dutch newspaper ‘NRC-Handelsblad’, 29.1.2004.

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(23 March 2004)

| 1. | The Commission is aware that an aluminium smelter is going to be built in the eastern part of Iceland. This project is tied to the power plant investment in Karahnjukar and also a harbour facility which is going to be built in Reydarfjordur. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The Commission is aware that an aluminium smelter is going to be built in the eastern part of Iceland. This project is tied to the power plant investment in Karahnjukar and also a harbour facility which is going to be built in Reydarfjordur.

| 2. | Both the Ministry of Industry and the respective energy company (Landsvirkjun) have provided reassurance that the dam was going to be built on lava field with only musk and no other life. On 24 January 2004, the Icelandic Supreme Court came out with a ruling on the power plant environmental impact where the court confirmed all the arguments presented by the national energy company (Landsvirkjun) in its Environmental Impact Assessment and stated that the Environmental Impact Statement was conducted in a professional and lawful manner. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Both the Ministry of Industry and the respective energy company (Landsvirkjun) have provided reassurance that the dam was going to be built on lava field with only musk and no other life. On 24 January 2004, the Icelandic Supreme Court came out with a ruling on the power plant environmental impact where the court confirmed all the arguments presented by the national energy company (Landsvirkjun) in its Environmental Impact Assessment and stated that the Environmental Impact Statement was conducted in a professional and lawful manner.

| 3. | The Commission would like to underline that Annex XVIII to the European Economic Area (EEA) Agreement, as amended by the decision of the EEA Joint Committee No 37/89 of 30 April 1998, extends the geographical scope of Directive 96/71/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 1996 concerning the posting of workers in the framework of the provision of services (1) to the non-EU Member States of the European Economic Area. It follows that undertakings have to guarantee that workers posted to the territory of Iceland enjoy, whatever the law applicable to their employment relationship, the terms and conditions of employment in force in Iceland and covering the following matters: maximum work periods and minimum rest periods, minimum paid annual holidays, minimum rates of pay (including overtime rates), conditions for hiring out of workers, health, safety and hygiene at work, protective measures with regard to the terms and conditions of employment of children and young people, equality of treatment between men and women and other provisions of non-discrimination. The monitoring of compliance with these rules by individual employers is observed by the national authorities of the EEA-Member State concerned.
  According to existing information, the Commission is aware that Impregilo employs workers from Portugal and Romania, among other nationalities. Although the Confederation of Icelandic Labour Union has expressed general concerns about conditions and salaries of workers under the Italian contractor, no formal complaints have been put to Icelandic authorities or labour unions regarding violations of Icelandic law. Icelandic national legislation contains provisions on minimum rights and wages for workers of all nationalities working in the country (2). A dispute between Icelandic authorities and Impregilo on wages and working conditions has recently been settled (October 2003). According to the Icelandic Confederation of Labour, some few outstanding disagreements of working conditions are being negotiated and salaries too are in compliance with the Icelandic law. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The Commission would like to underline that Annex XVIII to the European Economic Area (EEA) Agreement, as amended by the decision of the EEA Joint Committee No 37/89 of 30 April 1998, extends the geographical scope of Directive 96/71/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 1996 concerning the posting of workers in the framework of the provision of services (1) to the non-EU Member States of the European Economic Area. It follows that undertakings have to guarantee that workers posted to the territory of Iceland enjoy, whatever the law applicable to their employment relationship, the terms and conditions of employment in force in Iceland and covering the following matters: maximum work periods and minimum rest periods, minimum paid annual holidays, minimum rates of pay (including overtime rates), conditions for hiring out of workers, health, safety and hygiene at work, protective measures with regard to the terms and conditions of employment of children and young people, equality of treatment between men and women and other provisions of non-discrimination. The monitoring of compliance with these rules by individual employers is observed by the national authorities of the EEA-Member State concerned.

According to existing information, the Commission is aware that Impregilo employs workers from Portugal and Romania, among other nationalities. Although the Confederation of Icelandic Labour Union has expressed general concerns about conditions and salaries of workers under the Italian contractor, no formal complaints have been put to Icelandic authorities or labour unions regarding violations of Icelandic law. Icelandic national legislation contains provisions on minimum rights and wages for workers of all nationalities working in the country (2). A dispute between Icelandic authorities and Impregilo on wages and working conditions has recently been settled (October 2003). According to the Icelandic Confederation of Labour, some few outstanding disagreements of working conditions are being negotiated and salaries too are in compliance with the Icelandic law.

| 4. | A contract has been signed between Landsvirkjun and Fjardaal (fully owned by Alcoa). The term of the contract is for 40 years and the energy price will be renegotiated in the middle of the term for the latter 20 years. The parent company Alcoa signed the contract with respect to guaranteeing purchase of the electricity and being responsible for completion of building the aluminium plant. The schedule is to deliver electricity from 1 April 2004. Fjardaal is obligated to pay the full price for 85 % of the contracted energy, regardless of use. |
| --- | --- |

4.

A contract has been signed between Landsvirkjun and Fjardaal (fully owned by Alcoa). The term of the contract is for 40 years and the energy price will be renegotiated in the middle of the term for the latter 20 years. The parent company Alcoa signed the contract with respect to guaranteeing purchase of the electricity and being responsible for completion of building the aluminium plant. The schedule is to deliver electricity from 1 April 2004. Fjardaal is obligated to pay the full price for 85 % of the contracted energy, regardless of use.

| 5. | According to the Commission's information, environment provisions and working conditions are in compliance with Icelandic law. |
| --- | --- |

5.

According to the Commission's information, environment provisions and working conditions are in compliance with Icelandic law.

| 6. | With regard to measures relating to competition, the European Free Trade Association (EFTA) Surveillance Authority has approved measures taken by the Icelandic authorities to apply state aid for the project as of March 2003. A smaller case concerning state aid is still pending at EFTA Surveillance Authority (ESA), which according to the EEA Agreement has the task to control the observance of internal market rules in the EEA/EFTA countries. |
| --- | --- |

6.

With regard to measures relating to competition, the European Free Trade Association (EFTA) Surveillance Authority has approved measures taken by the Icelandic authorities to apply state aid for the project as of March 2003. A smaller case concerning state aid is still pending at EFTA Surveillance Authority (ESA), which according to the EEA Agreement has the task to control the observance of internal market rules in the EEA/EFTA countries.

---

(1)  OJ L 18, 21.1.1997.

(2)  Icelandic law on the legal status of foreign employees include Act no 55/1980 on Worker's Wages and Terms of Employment and Obligatory Insurance of Pension Rights where Article 1 includes rights to mininum wages, overtime payments, vacation entitlement, maximum working hours and rest time; Act No 46/1980 on Working Environment, Health and Safety in Workplace; Act No 95/2000 on Maternity/Paternity leave and Parental Leave; Act No 30/1987 on Vacation Pay.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/500 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/500

---

(2004/C 88 E/0511)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0406/04

by Jules Maaten (ELDR) and Jan Mulder (ELDR) to the Commission

(17 February 2004)

Subject:   Discrimination against a Netherlands onion farmer in Poland

| 1. | Is the Commission aware of the article published on 3 February 2004m the Netherlands newspaper De Telegraaf (page 5), which describes the situation of the Netherlands onion farmer Hans Goense, who has established himself in Poland? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is the Commission aware of the article published on 3 February 2004m the Netherlands newspaper De Telegraaf (page 5), which describes the situation of the Netherlands onion farmer Hans Goense, who has established himself in Poland?

| 2. | Does the Commission share the view that the success of EU enlargement depends not least on entrepreneurs like Hans Goense who want to establish themselves in new Member States? Does it also share the view that there is a risk that such entrepreneurs may be discouraged by examples of this kind? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Does the Commission share the view that the success of EU enlargement depends not least on entrepreneurs like Hans Goense who want to establish themselves in new Member States? Does it also share the view that there is a risk that such entrepreneurs may be discouraged by examples of this kind?

| 3. | Does the Commission share the view that the situation set out in the article raises questions about the conduct of the Polish authorities? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Does the Commission share the view that the situation set out in the article raises questions about the conduct of the Polish authorities?

| 4. | Finally, is the Commission prepared to raise the case of Hans Goense with the Polish authorities? |
| --- | --- |

4.

Finally, is the Commission prepared to raise the case of Hans Goense with the Polish authorities?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(23 March 2004)

The Commission's response to the first three points raised by the Honourable Members in their question is affirmative.

The case in question gives rise to concerns as to the proper functioning of the law enforcement bodies in Poland and, in a broader context, the living together and integration of foreigners in Poland. Moreover, the case clearly illustrates the importance of reliable economic and legal framework conditions and, in particular, an impartial and efficient judiciary and police organisation for the success of any foreign investment in Poland. Examples like this can have negative repercussions on the general investment climate in Poland.

The Commission takes the issue seriously. However, as the Honourable Members are well aware, the Commission cannot interfere in lawsuits.

In parallel to the legal steps currently taken, the Dutch citizen could present his case to the Polish Ombudsman.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/501 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/501

---

(2004/C 88 E/0512)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0446/04

by Torben Lund (PSE) to the Commission

(23 February 2004)

Subject:   Freedom of the press in Russia

A growing amount of evidence has been provided by several independent organisations that serious infringements of freedom of the press have been committed during Mr Putin's presidency including use of the law against the free press, the murder and imprisonment of journalists and the closure of and threats against the media.

The attacks have been primarily aimed at journalists and media dealing with the situation in Chechnya, corruption, abuse of power and supporting the views of President Putin's political opponents.

Mr Putin's government has now also made attacks on freedom of the press part of his visa policy.

The Danish journalist, Vibeke Sperling, who has been a correspondent in the Soviet Union and Russia for Danish Radio and several national newspapers — most recently Politiken — since the early 1980s, has now been refused a Russian visa. Neither the Russian Foreign Minister nor the Russian ambassador in Copenhagen has been willing to state the reason for rejecting the visa application. The democratic development of Russia is a matter of deep concern in recent years.

What steps does the Commission intend to take in response to the Russian Government's increasing restrictions on freedom of the press in Russia, including the rejection of applications for visas for correspondents whom European media wish to station in Russia?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(22 March 2004)

The Commission is concerned at reports of infringements of the freedom of the press in Russia and is closely following developments, including with regard to the specific case of Ms Sperling, of which the Commission is aware. Although the decision to grant a visa or not is the prerogative of Russia, it is most regrettable that Russia has chosen to act in this restrictive and opaque manner. In this regard, the Commission recalls the public declaration of concern on media freedom issued by the EU in July 2003.

In its recent Communication on relations with Russia, the Commission underlined the need for the EU to hold an open and frank dialogue, in order to insist that Russia respect the values to which it is committed as a member of the Organisation on Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) and Council of Europe, such as respect for human rights and media freedom. These issues are frequently raised in the political dialogue which the EU holds with the Russian authorities.

The Commission's activity is not limited to political dialogue. In view of its concerns on media freedom, the Commission considers it all the more important to support the development of an independent and pluralistic media in Russia. Under the European Initiative for Democracy and Human Rights (EIDHR) 2004 call for proposals, for example, freedom of the media has been identified as a thematic priority. The Commission intends to target a number of activities, including support to enhance freedom of expression and independent media, in particular at regional level; strengthening professionalism and ethics in Russian journalism; strengthening the legal and institutional framework for the protection of press freedom; empowering journalists to take actions in defence of their rights; improving the quality of management of the media, aiming at ensuring financial viability, tax law compliance, and ultimately de facto independence; supporting local community independent media and improving the quality and coverage of human rights issues in the media.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/502 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/502

---

(2004/C 88 E/0513)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0449/04

by Charles Tannock (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(23 February 2004)

Subject:   Monolithic rock-hewn churches in Lilibela, Ethiopia

The collection of 11th century monolithic rock-hewn churches in Lalibela, Ethiopia are a remarkable and unique treasure. Sadly the lack of resources to invest in the preservation of them is leading to a rapid and incipient decay of these priceless and unique buildings.

Is it true that the EU, in partnership with the UN, made a commitment to invest in the preservation of these churches in 2000? If so, where has the money been spent, and how much of a budget has been devoted to this worthy project?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(6 April 2004)

The Commission has decided to help with the preservation and conservation of the Lalibela churches. A Financing Agreement for an amount of EUR 9 100 000 was signed in May 2002. The project provides, mainly, for the erection of new shelters for the churches. These shelters, which will replace the existing ones, will give improved protection to the churches until a comprehensive conservation programme is designed and implemented.

This project complements earlier activities financed by the Commission. These activities comprised the design of the shelters and the recording of cultural treasures.

The Commission has co-operated with the United Nations (UN) on this, notably in the past for the preparation of the international architectural competition for the design of the shelters.

The implementation of the project can be summarised as follows:

| — | an open international tender was published in July 2002 for the selection of a contractor for the construction of the shelters. The tender had to be cancelled as no offers were submitted; |
| --- | --- |

—

an open international tender was published in July 2002 for the selection of a contractor for the construction of the shelters. The tender had to be cancelled as no offers were submitted;

| — | the tender will be re-launched following in-depth discussions with the Ethiopian authorities to identify the reasons for the negative result of the first tender. |
| --- | --- |

—

the tender will be re-launched following in-depth discussions with the Ethiopian authorities to identify the reasons for the negative result of the first tender.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/502 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/502

---

(2004/C 88 E/0514)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0461/04

by José Ribeiro e Castro (UEN) to the Commission

(23 February 2004)

Subject:   Zimbabwe — EP resolution

In a letter dated 26 January 2004, the Zimbabwean Embassy and Mission to the EC forwarded its government's reply to the EP resolution of 15 January 2004 (P5_TA-PROV(2004)0033), to the Members of the European Parliament.

The government describes the resolution as straightforward propaganda, poisoned by hypocrisy and arrogance, full of wishful thinking and objective falsifications, containing ungrounded, anachronistic, frivolous and tendentious affirmations; it further accuses the European Parliament of fanning the flames of division and encouraging confrontation, ignoring the plight of black Zimbabweans and only interested in the return of land to the white farmers, and, moreover, accuses various European governments of operating a strategy to overthrow the Zimbabwean Government.

This reply leaves various questions unanswered, which contain the clear insinuation ‘who, in the end of the day, sabotaged the Zimbabwean economy? Who is responsible for the difficulties which Zimbabweans are facing?’.

Is the Commission aware of this reply?

How would it describe it, both in formal and material terms?

What comments does it have on the accusations levelled at the European Parliament and the governments of the Member States?

Does it intend to reply to the Zimbabwean Government? Has it already done so? In what shape and through what channels?

Does it remain convinced that the elections in Zimbabwe were neither free nor fair?

How does it rate the credibility of the alleged ‘occurrences’ referred to, and the accusations made against the European Parliament by the Zimbabwean Government?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(6 April 2004)

The Commission is aware of the reply mentioned by the Honourable Member as the Embassy of the Republic of Zimbabwe transmitted to the Commission a copy of its letter to the President of the Parliament attaching its response to the Parliament's Resolution on Zimbabwe.

By note verbale of 20 February 2004, the Commission acknowledged receipt without adding any comment on the content of the Government of Zimbabwe's response.

The Commission does not share the analysis made by the Zimbabwean authorities.

The Commission has not changed its view on the conduct of the March 2002 presidential elections which were considered to be characterised by the systematic use of violence, intimidation and the electoral manipulation, which led the EU to conclude that the outcome did not fairly reflect the will of the Zimbabwean people.

The Commission's critical opinion on the current situation is well known. It is the basis for its recent proposal, approved by the Council, to extend for a further period of 12 months the measures against Zimbabwe. Moreover, the Commission has taken every opportunity to convey to the Government of Zimbabwe its concern at the present state of affairs. The Commission recalls the declarations issued by the EU related to the stay-away on 3 June 2003, the declaration on Freedom of Press issued on 18 September 2003, the declarations issued on 28 November 2003 and most recently on 10 February 2004 on recent events in Zimbabwe. These declarations call the Government of Zimbabwe to respect fundamental rights urging it to engage in active and meaningful dialogue with internal stakeholders on a way forward to solve the current crisis.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/503 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/503

---

(2004/C 88 E/0515)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0492/04

by José Ribeiro e Castro (UEN) to the Commission

(23 February 2004)

Subject:   Mozambique — possible trafficking in human organs — threats to EU citizens

Five ‘Servants of Mar/missionaries (four EU citizens of Spanish nationality and one Brazilian) who have been working in the Nampula region for over 30 years have received death threats for having reported the existence of trafficking in human organs and the deaths of children and young people in that region. The threats were recently reported in the media.

The missionaries’ convent is located between the property to which the victims are brought and the airport to which it is suspected that the human organs are sent. The nuns claim to have heard evidence from individuals who managed to escape kidnap attempts and took refuge in the convent and to hold a variety of documentary evidence. A Brazilian nun — Sister Maria Eliida dos Santos — who first drew attention to this state of affairs made inquiries in Nampula and discovered, in particular, a corpse from which the eyes, hearts and kidneys had been removed.

As soon as the nuns reported such macabre practices they became the target of repeated threats and of four ambush attempts which, miraculously, they survived. They fear for their safety and they accuse the local authorities (which have apparently done nothing meaningful so far to combat the crimes reported) of corruption. They are calling for pressure to be exerted via the international press with a view to remedying the situation.

Would the Commission answer the following questions:

| — | is it aware of the above facts, which relate in particular to four EU citizens? What information does it hold regarding the nuns' safety and what action has it taken (or is it intending to take) in order to guarantee their safety; |
| --- | --- |

—

is it aware of the above facts, which relate in particular to four EU citizens? What information does it hold regarding the nuns' safety and what action has it taken (or is it intending to take) in order to guarantee their safety;

| — | in particular, has the Commission established (or is it intending to establish) contact with the Mozambique authorities in order to ensure that the nuns' safety is guaranteed and that the suspected trafficking in the region concerned is fully investigated? Is the Commission willing (and, if so, in what ways?) to help ensure that the nuns in question are able to enjoy the freedom and the safety which they need in order to be able to continue their work, which includes caring for and assisting the people affected and fully investigating the disappearance of persons in the region concerned? |
| --- | --- |

—

in particular, has the Commission established (or is it intending to establish) contact with the Mozambique authorities in order to ensure that the nuns' safety is guaranteed and that the suspected trafficking in the region concerned is fully investigated? Is the Commission willing (and, if so, in what ways?) to help ensure that the nuns in question are able to enjoy the freedom and the safety which they need in order to be able to continue their work, which includes caring for and assisting the people affected and fully investigating the disappearance of persons in the region concerned?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(6 April 2004)

Since these abominable alleged crimes were reported and as indicated in the Commission's reply to the Honourable Member written questions E-0143/04 and E-0072/04 (1), the Commission has been following closely the situation with the EU Head of Missions, the Director of the Human Right League (LDH), and the government.

The Government of Mozambique, through the Republic's General Prosecutor's office, has started investigations, with a multi-institutional team including the Attorney General's office, the investigative police and the Nampula branch of LDH. The investigation is ongoing and will go deeper into the reported cases, although from the 14 alleged cases no evidence could be established that human organs are subject to illegal trafficking. Furthermore, there is the political will in Mozambique to bring before the court any persons responsible for these crimes.

The Commission is aware of the concern regarding the nuns' safety and although this matter falls outside the Commission's competence and can be best addressed through interventions from the respective EU Embassies, the Commission will examine within the framework of the EU co-ordination and EU-Moz-ambique political dialogue the most appropriate way to raise this issue with the government.

The Honourable Member can be assured that the Commission, within its competence, will continue supporting the Government of Mozambique to reinforce its investigative capacity so that justice prevails in this country.

---

(1)  See page 169.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/505 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/505

---

(2004/C 88 E/0516)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0493/04

by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(23 February 2004)

Subject:   Closure of the Panasqueira mines in Portugal

The miners at the Panasqueira mines in Portugal are once again threatened with redundancy. The company which currently operates the mine (Primary Metal Incorporated, a multinational whose capital is mainly of Canadian origin) is threatening to close it, citing as its reasons for so doing the financial difficulties which it is experiencing, the devaluation of the dollar, the fall in ore prices, competition from China and the possible sale by the USA of 1 500 tonnes of tungsten from its strategic defence stocks.

Hence approximately 220 miners and their families living in a mountainous area of inland Portugal where there are no alternative sources of employment are threatened with redundancy and poverty on account of EU monetary and competition policies, multinational companies' lack of responsibility for their workers and the liberalisation of the world market (WTO).

Would the Commission therefore say which action it is intending to take in conjunction with the Portuguese Government with a view to protecting the rights of the workers in question and helping to ensure that the Panasqueira mines continue to operate normally?

Answer given by Mr Dimas on behalf of the Commission

(7 April 2004)

The Commission wishes to remind the Honourable Member that, under Community law, it has no authority to prevent or defer the closure of a company. This is a decision that falls to the owners of the company following the appropriate procedures.

In this sense, the Commission points out that several Community directives lay down procedures of information and of consultation of workers' representatives which can prove to be applicable in the event of closures of companies, in particular Council Directive 98/59/EC of 20 July 1998 concerning collective redundancies (1), and Council Directive 94/45/EC, of 22 September 1994 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 (2). Another Directive was also adopted on 11 March 2002 by the Parliament and the Council with the aim of supplementing the Community mechanism on the matter (Directive 2002/14/EC establishing a general framework relating to information and consultation of workers in the Community (3)). The first two Directives were transposed in the national laws of the Member States (the third having to be transposed only by 23 March 2005). It is up to the competent national authorities (notably courts) to appreciate their correct and effective application in each case.

It is important to recall that the Directive 98/59/EC on the collective redundancies stipulates that, when an employer envisages collective redundancies, it is required to carry out, in good time, consultations with the workers' representatives with a view to reaching an agreement. These consultations cover at least the possibilities of avoiding or of reducing the collective redundancies as well as the possibilities of alleviating their consequences by recourse to social accompanying measures aiming at, in particular, aid for redeployment and retraining of the redundant workers.

---

(1)  OJ L 225, 12.8.1998.

(2)  OJ L 254, 30.9.1994.

(3)  OJ L 80, 23.3.2002.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/506 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/506

---

(2004/C 88 E/0517)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0500/04

by Salvador Garriga Polledo (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(23 February 2004)

Subject:   Protecting the dignity of Arab women

The Saudi Grand Mufti, Sheikh Abdul-Aziz al Sheij's recent condemnation of the country's most powerful businesswoman, Lubna Al Olayan, for daring to make a speech to a male audience, without wearing a veil, has caused a stir in the EU media.

Al Olayan, who was attending an economic forum, was warned by the Grand Mufti of the serious consequences which her outrageous behaviour could entail.

In a world as inter-related as ours, where ceaseless efforts are being made on behalf of securing the acknowledgement of women's basic human dignity, on an absolutely equal footing with males, what is the Commission's reaction to this condemnation by the Grand Mufti?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(23 March 2004)

The Commission shares the Honourable Member's views on the importance of securing basic women's human rights and, in particular, the principle of equality and no discrimination all over the world.

As the Honourable Member is well aware, the situation of women in Saudi Arabia is of a particular nature. As the specific case of Ms Lubna Al Olayan shows, there is an important domestic debate about women's rights and their role in society currently taking place in the country. Press reports have certainly contributed to increasing European awareness of the issue and constituting hence, a positive development. The Commission believes it is important to continue monitoring closely domestic debates and incipient reforms taking place in Saudi Arabia, and some other countries in the area, so as to keep encouraging the universality and indivisibility of human rights, and in particular, women's rights. The Commission will continue doing so through the Delegation it has just opened in Riyadh.

In addition, the Commission is currently negotiating a free trade agreement with the Gulf Co-operation countries (GCC) that will include a human rights clause as an essential element and as a basis to encourage governments to ensure the promotion and respect of human rights. Furthermore, human rights are an essential component of the EU-GCC political dialogue, both at Ministerial and at Directors level. Within this context, EU concerns on the specific situation of women in the area have continually been raised. The Commission will not hesitate to raise this issue again at future occasions.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/506 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/506

---

(2004/C 88 E/0518)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0516/04

by Anna Karamanou (PSE) to the Commission

(24 February 2004)

Subject:   Illegal transplantation of children's organs in Albania intended for patients in EU countries

Reports have appeared in the Albanian press citing official Italian sources and stating that at a clinic in the Albanian town of Fieri children's organs are being removed and transferred for transplantation in Italy and France. According to the same Albanian press report, Italian and Albanian doctors are involved in this practice. The doctors contact Albanian networks which find the children and they remove the organs for transplantation for a fee paid to the children's parents. Finally, it is reported that 39 Albanian children have gone missing without trace, and that no one — not even their families — have searched for them.

What actions does the Commission intend to take to bring pressure to bear on the Albanian government to put an end to these grave incidents forthwith and on EU Member States to improve judicial and police co-operation?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(6 April 2004)

The Commission is aware of allegations that a clinic in Fieri (Albania) is involved in the trafficking of children's organs to the EU. The Commission has been in contact with the EU Police Assistance Mission in Albania, and has closely followed the reaction of the Albanian authorities in respect of this issue. The EU Police Mission has confirmed that Albanian and Italian police forces are investigating the case. The Albanian authorities have so far expressed doubts about the existence of this clinic. They claim that, to their knowledge, the technology and specialisation necessary to extract and transport organs for transplantation is not available in the country.

Besides the results of the investigations in this particular case, trafficking in human beings, including children, remains a problem in Albania. The Commission is permanently exerting pressure on the Albanian authorities, most notably in the framework of the ongoing negotiations for a Stabilisation and Association Agreement (SAA) with Albania, in order that further efforts be made to address this issue properly. While reports indicate that progress has been achieved by Albania in reducing the flows of illegal migration/trafficking in human beings through the Adriatic, more determined action remains necessary to solve this problem.

Regional and international co-operation are essential to tackle trafficking successfully. There is ongoing cooperation between Albania and the EU in this area of Justice and Home Affairs. However, the Commission has been stressing on every appropriate occasion that collaboration should be further strengthened, particularly between Albania and its neighbouring countries, with the objective of improving results in the fight against these criminal activities. The Commission has also emphasised how important it is for Albania to take the necessary steps to prepare for conclusion of an agreement with Europol, as this would also be a useful contribution to strengthening cooperation in the fight against organised crime. In this context, it is important to note that Europol's mandate has been extended to include illicit trade in human organs and tissues since 1 January 2002, and Europol is currently collecting information from Member States concerning the situation within the European Union.

With regard to the situation within the European Union, a considerable number of measures to improve cooperation between Member States' police services and customs administrations, and to strengthen external borders, have been adopted. Regarding, in particular, trafficking in human organs, in February 2003, Greece presented an initiative for the adoption by the Council of a Framework Decision concerning the prevention and control of such trafficking. The aim of the proposal is to define which types of conduct should be punishable in all Member States and the minimum penalties which should apply to such offences. The Commission welcomed the proposal in principle. The Commission has sought to support the Greek initiative by inviting applications for the funding of further projects in this area under its 2004 AGIS programme for police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/507 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/507

---

(2004/C 88 E/0519)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0518/04

by Elena Paciotti (PSE) to the Commission

(24 February 2004)

Subject:   Violation of the fundamental rights of an EU citizen by the USA

Marco Fornari, an Italian citizen, son of career diplomats and therefore born in Jeddah in Saudi Arabia where his father was posted, has studied at Suffolk University in Boston and is currently enrolled at Lubbock University in Texas. Following the attacks of 11 September, his name was placed on the blacklist of persons under suspicion because of their place of birth. After repeated questioning, the Dallas authorities informed him that his case had been resolved. He went back to Italy for the Christmas holidays and on his return to Dallas Airport he was detained, handcuffed, chained to other detainees, locked in a cold cell without being allowed to contact anyone and placed on the first flight back to Europe the following morning, bound for Stuttgart. A similar fate befell a Swedish businessman held in the same cell. Marco Fornari, refused re-entry into the USA, has missed a semester of studies but has to continue to pay the rent on his apartment, which still contains his books and personal belongings.

This is an absurd, humiliating and flagrant violation of the most basic rights of European citizens.

What does the Commission intend to do to protect the rights of our citizens infringed by the USA?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(30 March 2004)

EU statements following the events of 11 September 2001, notably in the United Nations (UN) Commission on Human Rights and the UN General Assembly Third Committee, have constantly highlighted that the fight against terrorism must be conditioned on maintaining respect for human rights, and not the other way around.

The Commission, therefore, thanks the Honourable Member for bringing the circumstances of the detention of this Italian citizen in the United States to its attention. While the Commission does not have any competence to intervene in this case, it is of course of fundamental importance that international commitments to ensure legal safeguards are honoured by all countries.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/508 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/508

---

(2004/C 88 E/0520)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0536/04

by John Bowis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(24 February 2004)

Subject:   Colombia

| 1. | What steps is the Commission taking to help the Colombian Government ensure that its national security policy is compatible with international human rights law and obligations? |
| --- | --- |

1.

What steps is the Commission taking to help the Colombian Government ensure that its national security policy is compatible with international human rights law and obligations?

| 2. | Is the Commission aware that the then United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Mary Robinson, expressed concern about the dismantling of the Human Rights Unit of the Colombian Attorney-General's office, and will the Commission discuss with the Colombian Government how they will ensure the continued effective working of independent human rights investigations and, when appropriate, legal proceedings? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Is the Commission aware that the then United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Mary Robinson, expressed concern about the dismantling of the Human Rights Unit of the Colombian Attorney-General's office, and will the Commission discuss with the Colombian Government how they will ensure the continued effective working of independent human rights investigations and, when appropriate, legal proceedings?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(22 March 2004)

| 1. | The Commission, in its contacts with the Colombian Government, expressed its deep concern regarding the still grave human rights and international humanitarian law situation in Colombia, and urged the Government to urgently address this situation.
  Furthermore, the Commission uses all the cooperation instruments at its disposal to help the Colombian Government improve the situation in this respect. All the Commission's priorities for the use of its cooperation instruments, as described in its Country Strategy Paper for Colombia (1), ultimately aim at improving the human rights and humanitarian situation.
  They consist of:






  — | the support of on-going Colombian activities in the search for Peace; |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

The Commission, in its contacts with the Colombian Government, expressed its deep concern regarding the still grave human rights and international humanitarian law situation in Colombia, and urged the Government to urgently address this situation.

Furthermore, the Commission uses all the cooperation instruments at its disposal to help the Colombian Government improve the situation in this respect. All the Commission's priorities for the use of its cooperation instruments, as described in its Country Strategy Paper for Colombia (1), ultimately aim at improving the human rights and humanitarian situation.

They consist of:

—

the support of on-going Colombian activities in the search for Peace;

| — | targeting of the roots and causes of the conflict; |
| --- | --- |

—

targeting of the roots and causes of the conflict;

| — | providing humanitarian assistance to the victims of the conflict. |
| --- | --- |

—

providing humanitarian assistance to the victims of the conflict.

In 2004, for instance, the Commission will design, with the Colombian Government, a programme worth EUR 10,5 million aiming at reducing impunity levels by improving the functioning of Colombia's justice system.

| 2. | At the London Meeting on International Support for Colombia on 10 July 2003, the Commission, together with the other representatives of the international community, voiced its strong support for the work undertaken by the Office of the United Nations (UN) High Commissioner for Human Rights in Colombia, noted with satisfaction the Colombian Government's pledge to implement the recommendations made by the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, and urged the Colombian Government to implement these recommendations promptly.
  The recommendations include:






  (a) | that the Attorney-General submit a bill to Congress establishing a career structure for officials and employees of his Office, with a view to strengthening the independence and impartiality of that institution; |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

At the London Meeting on International Support for Colombia on 10 July 2003, the Commission, together with the other representatives of the international community, voiced its strong support for the work undertaken by the Office of the United Nations (UN) High Commissioner for Human Rights in Colombia, noted with satisfaction the Colombian Government's pledge to implement the recommendations made by the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, and urged the Colombian Government to implement these recommendations promptly.

The recommendations include:

(a)

that the Attorney-General submit a bill to Congress establishing a career structure for officials and employees of his Office, with a view to strengthening the independence and impartiality of that institution;

| (b) | to ensure and to strengthen the independence of the Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law Unit in the Attorney-General's Office, to guarantee the protection of its staff and to provide it with the means necessary to carry out its investigations; |
| --- | --- |

(b)

to ensure and to strengthen the independence of the Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law Unit in the Attorney-General's Office, to guarantee the protection of its staff and to provide it with the means necessary to carry out its investigations;

| (c) | to establish within the Attorney-General's Office's Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law Unit a group specializing in the investigation of possible links between members of the military and the police and paramilitary groups. |
| --- | --- |

(c)

to establish within the Attorney-General's Office's Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law Unit a group specializing in the investigation of possible links between members of the military and the police and paramilitary groups.

During the recent high-level contacts between the Commission and the Colombian Government (visit of the Member of the Commission in charge of External Relations to Colombia on 21/22 January 2004, visit of President Uribe to Brussels and Strasbourg on 9/10 February 2004), the Commission expressed its strong support for these recommendations.

The report by the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights on the implementation of its recommendations will be discussed at the forthcoming 60th session of the UN Human Rights Committee in Geneva. On this occasion, the EU will draft the Chairperson's Statement on Colombia.

In addition to its political support for the work and recommendations of the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights in Colombia, the Commission also funded some of its activities through the ‘European Initiative for Democracy and Human Rights’ (budget chapter 19 04):

| — | EUR 783 536 have been allocated to a project in favour of municipal ombudspersons for the period 2002-2004; |
| --- | --- |

—

EUR 783 536 have been allocated to a project in favour of municipal ombudspersons for the period 2002-2004;

| — | EUR 600 000 have been allocated to a project aiming at strengthening the country's penitentiary institutions for the period 2003-2005. |
| --- | --- |

—

EUR 600 000 have been allocated to a project aiming at strengthening the country's penitentiary institutions for the period 2003-2005.

---

(1)  http://europa.eu.int/comm/external_relations/colombia/csp/index.htm.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/509 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/509

---

(2004/C 88 E/0521)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0539/04

by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(24 February 2004)

Subject:   Implementation of the Structural Funds in Portugal

What are the specific third CSF programmes still going on in Portugal, which have an uptake rate lower than 30 %? For which programmes are payments below 15 % of the total co-participation?

For which already completed programmes has the Commission requested the reimbursement of monies or refused the payment of the total amount? For what reasons?

For Portugal, what were the Structural Fund total and programmes affected by the N+2 rule at the end of 2003? For Portugal, what is the global amount, by Structural Fund programme, affected by the N+2 rule to-date?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(30 April 2004)

Structural Fund execution in Portugal has proved generally satisfactory. Thanks to the efforts made in 2003 the great majority of the 1994-1999 programmes have been closed.

Implementation of the Operational Programmes of the 3rd CSF continues. These cover the entire period 2000-2006 and accordingly none has yet been closed.

At the end of February the uptake rate for the period 2000-2004 (ratio of payments made to appropriations programmed) was 64 % for the CSF as a whole. The breakdown was: European Regional Development Fund 63 %, European Social Fund 75 %, European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund 49 %, Financial Instrument for Fisheries Guidance 60 %.

In the case of the ERDF, ESF and EAGGF no operational programme has a rate below 30 % at present. For the FIFG two programmes show a rate below 30 %: Alentejo and Centro. Neither is below 15 %.

On the basis of the estimates we have just sent the Portuguese authorities, for 2003 the only programmes affected by the N+2 rule are Economy (ESF), for an amount of EUR 2 009 015,59, and Technical Assistance, for amounts of EUR 2 634 957,55 (ERDF) and EUR 901 971 (ESF). Before 2003 the only OP affected was Health (ESF), for an amount of EUR 1 069 113,50. The FIFG measures in the regional programmes are exempted owing to late approval of the fishery aid schemes.

Closure for the 1994-1999 period involves 50 programmes. When a programme is closed the Commission often has to adjust the amounts requested by the Member State. Various parameters are involved such as the findings of national or Community Audits. Deductions, marginal by comparison with the assistance granted have already been made for a number of programmes. In the case of others (Health and Social Integration, Knowledge Bases and Innovation, Development Support Infrastructures, Modernisation of the Economic Fabric, Alentejo, IMIT) processing of the application for the balance is not yet complete. For some of these programmes we have however already made a first payment covering part of the balance requested. So far we have not acted to recover any amounts already paid.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/510 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/510

---

(2004/C 88 E/0522)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0571/04

by Herbert Bösch (PSE) to the Commission

(26 February 2004)

Subject:   Addressing the needs of disabled people in development cooperation funded by the EU

Although the European Union has expressed its commitment to poverty reduction in the Millennium Development Goals, a goal which cannot be met without considering the needs of disabled people, disabled people are still not sufficiently included in development cooperation funded by the EU.

According to the answer of 16 September 2003 to the parliamentary question E-2162/03 (1), the Commission has issued a Guidance Note on Disability and Development for EU Delegations and Services, which is supposed to provide guidance on how to address disability issues effectively within development cooperation. This guidance note is supposed to have been widely distributed throughout the services and to stress the importance of mainstreaming disability issues in policy dialogue and in country programming. The answer also made reference to the mid-term review guidelines for the ACP countries under preparation at the time, which were supposed to envisage exploring the extent to which country programmes are responsive to the needs of persons with disabilities.

| 1. | What is the actual state of information concerning the guidance note and disability issues throughout the relevant Commission services? According to our information, many services have to date no knowledge of the guidance note. |
| --- | --- |

1.

What is the actual state of information concerning the guidance note and disability issues throughout the relevant Commission services? According to our information, many services have to date no knowledge of the guidance note.

| 2. | How is the Commission planning to ensure and to verify the concrete effect of the guidance note? |
| --- | --- |

2.

How is the Commission planning to ensure and to verify the concrete effect of the guidance note?

| 3. | What is the current state of the above-mentioned mid-term review for ACP countries? |
| --- | --- |

3.

What is the current state of the above-mentioned mid-term review for ACP countries?

| 4. | Are there any indications yet concerning the extent to which the needs of persons with disabilities are and have been taken into account in country programmes and how the inclusion of persons with disabilities in country programming in general and in the Country Strategy Papers in particular will be ensured in the future? |
| --- | --- |

4.

Are there any indications yet concerning the extent to which the needs of persons with disabilities are and have been taken into account in country programmes and how the inclusion of persons with disabilities in country programming in general and in the Country Strategy Papers in particular will be ensured in the future?

| 5. | If no concrete data is available yet, when is the Commission expecting to have detailed information? |
| --- | --- |

5.

If no concrete data is available yet, when is the Commission expecting to have detailed information?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(1 April 2004)

| 1. | The Guidance note on Disability and Development was finalised following an inter-service consultation. The note has been distributed to the Heads of Delegation in all Commission delegations in developing countries. It has also been circulated internally in Directorate General (DG) Development (DEV) and has been sent to DGs Europe Aid Co-operation Office (AIDCO) and External Relations (RELEX) for internal distribution within those services. The Guidance note has now been translated into Spanish, French and Portuguese and will be printed and made available for further distribution. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The Guidance note on Disability and Development was finalised following an inter-service consultation. The note has been distributed to the Heads of Delegation in all Commission delegations in developing countries. It has also been circulated internally in Directorate General (DG) Development (DEV) and has been sent to DGs Europe Aid Co-operation Office (AIDCO) and External Relations (RELEX) for internal distribution within those services. The Guidance note has now been translated into Spanish, French and Portuguese and will be printed and made available for further distribution.

| 2. | The Guidance note has already generated some feedback and questions from Delegations. The Commission also expects the Mid-term review of Country Strategy Papers for African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) countries to give further feedback concerning to what extent the guidelines given in the note have been used and turned into practice. The Commission is also looking into opportunities for making disability better integrated in development cooperation through training of Commission staff — both in Brussels and in Delegations. It should also be noted that recent efforts to increase awareness amongst Commission officials regarding disability issues in development co-operation have included a presentation by representatives from the European Disability Forum on this issue at a meeting of the Commission's Inter-Service Group on Human Rights on 30 January 2004. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The Guidance note has already generated some feedback and questions from Delegations. The Commission also expects the Mid-term review of Country Strategy Papers for African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) countries to give further feedback concerning to what extent the guidelines given in the note have been used and turned into practice. The Commission is also looking into opportunities for making disability better integrated in development cooperation through training of Commission staff — both in Brussels and in Delegations. It should also be noted that recent efforts to increase awareness amongst Commission officials regarding disability issues in development co-operation have included a presentation by representatives from the European Disability Forum on this issue at a meeting of the Commission's Inter-Service Group on Human Rights on 30 January 2004.

| 3. | The mid-term review of ACP countries is ongoing and is expected to be finalised by mid-2005. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The mid-term review of ACP countries is ongoing and is expected to be finalised by mid-2005.

| 4. and 5. | In most country strategy papers disability is not clearly reflected. When disability does figure in the papers it is, in most cases, mentioned in the analysis but is rarely specifically translated into specific action. The Commission thinks the best way of addressing this is through the provision of training for Community staff, by raising awareness of disability issues in its dialogue with developing countries and by including organisations for people with disabilities in the dialogue at country-level. Data on disability and its impact on poverty should be generated at country-level through a general strengthening of data collecting and statistical systems. |
| --- | --- |

4. and 5.

In most country strategy papers disability is not clearly reflected. When disability does figure in the papers it is, in most cases, mentioned in the analysis but is rarely specifically translated into specific action. The Commission thinks the best way of addressing this is through the provision of training for Community staff, by raising awareness of disability issues in its dialogue with developing countries and by including organisations for people with disabilities in the dialogue at country-level. Data on disability and its impact on poverty should be generated at country-level through a general strengthening of data collecting and statistical systems.

---

(1)  See page 70.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/512 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/512

---

(2004/C 88 E/0523)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0572/04

by Graham Watson (ELDR) to the Commission

(26 February 2004)

Subject:   Czech psychiatric hospitals

Could the Commission please illustrate what undertakings have been given by the Czech Republic to improve their mental healthcare provisions, such as the Bohnice Psychiatric Hospital in Prague, prior to accession to the EU?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(13 April 2004)

Provisions on patients' rights in the Czech Republic are currently included in different laws and regulations, mainly in Act No 20/1966 on Care of People's Health, which has been amended several times. The Act includes e.g. provisions on treatment without consent, the right of complaint/appeal and compensation for damages.

The Commission has been informed that a proposal for a new Act on Health Care Services is being prepared, which includes a specific chapter on patients' rights. Furthermore, an amendment to the Act on Social Security is being drafted, banning the use of beds enclosed with iron cages or netting in institutions for mentally disabled and psychiatric hospitals. A Methodical Instruction is also being prepared to this effect, and a pilot project is under preparation which should demonstrate to staff how to replace the use of such restrictive means by modern practices.

The Czech Republic has committed itself to respecting and promoting human rights and fundamental freedoms and has set up institutions for protecting and monitoring the implementation of these rights. This creates a firm basis for assessing and developing the status and rights of patients. Increased public awareness and involvement of non-governmental organisations (NGOs) should also help to further address patients' rights issues. The implementation of patients' rights will also depend on the general situation in the health care sector in terms of resources, training and supervision of care providers and responsible authorities.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/512 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/512

---

(2004/C 88 E/0524)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0577/04

by José Ribeiro e Castro (UEN) to the Commission

(26 February 2004)

Subject:   Cuba — Sakharov Initiative

In his recent reply to my question P-3132/03 (1) of 17 October 2003 on the Commission's meeting of the ‘Sakharov Initiative’, Commissioner Nielson said that the Commission firmly supported efforts to democratise Cuba, and the President and the relevant members of the Commission would be extremely pleased to meet Oswaldo Payá, should be decide to come to Brussels.

The President of the Commission, the Secretary-General of the Council and the High Commissioner for CFSP (by letter of 9 January 2004) and the then Italian Presidency-in-Office all replied in an identical manner.

However, Oswaldo Payá has already decided to move to Brussels. The problem is that the Cuban authorities will not let him leave, are preventing him from travelling and are forcing him to remain in Havana against his will.

In fact, over and above the vain invitation from the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy for him to attend its meeting of 1 December 2003 — to which reference has already been made in my former question and the reply thereto — at the end of January Fidel Castro's regime again prevented Oswaldo Payá from travelling to Brussels to take part in the ceremony of handing on the Sakharov Prize 2003 to his successor: Kofi Annan and the United Nations, in memory of Sergio Vieira de Mello.

As a result, the European Parliament is continuing to extend an open invitation to Oswaldo Payá, so that he can come as soon as he is allowed to leave.

I know about the steps taken and the efforts made via the Commission delegation in Havana but we do need to ask ourselves what else we can and should do in view of the fact that Payá is being kept in Cuba against his will.

And how much energy is it prepared to expend on ensuring that Oswaldo Payá's wishes are respected? What specific measures has it taken, or does it plan to take, in coordination with the Council and the Member States?

Does the Commission believe it could expressly associate itself with the European Parliament's open invitation to Oswaldo Payá to travel to the EU and visit the institutions as soon as he is allowed to do so?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(5 April 2004)

The Commission, through its Delegation in Havana, is in regular contact with Mr Payá. Our ‘Chargé d'affaires’ has frequent meetings with him and the issue of how to facilitate Mr Payá's visit to the Parliament and other EU institutions is a recurrent topic in their discussions.

It has been agreed with Mr Payá that he would approach the Havana Delegation once he had in his hands the open invitation of the Parliament. If need be and so wished by Mr Payá, the Commission, through its representation in Havana, would be ready to accompany the necessary administrative steps before the Cuban authorities in the context of his visa request. It is however important to recall in this connection that the Commission's Delegation is at present ‘diplomatically frozen’ and therefore unable to conduct political discussions with the authorities on this matter.

All steps the Commission takes in Cuba in the field of human rights, are closely coordinated and previously agreed upon with its Member States, both in Brussels and in Havana.

The Commission supports the initiative of the Parliament and would welcome it if the Cuban authorities would allow Mr Payá to visit EU institutions, including, of course, the competent services of the Commission. Both Members of the Commission responsible for Development, Humanitarian Aid and External Relations have repeatedly confirmed their interest in receiving Mr Payá on such an occasion.

---

(1)  See page 451.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/513 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/513

---

(2004/C 88 E/0525)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0584/04

by Nirj Deva (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(26 February 2004)

Subject:   EU aid money to Zimbabwe

Following observations noted by the Court of Auditors in its Annual Report for the financial year 2002, more precisely in the part entitled ‘Report on the activities of the 6th, 7th and 8th European Development Funds’, Chapter V — ‘A special case: The decision taken by the General Affairs Council and the monetary situation in Zimbabwe’ (1), I would like to ask if the Commission is going to start an official audit enquiry into the implementation of its financial aid to Zimbabwe, which enabled black-listed members of the Mugabe regime — as listed in Council Regulation (EC) No 310/2002 (2) concerning certain restrictive measures in respect of Zimbabwe, Article 2 and Annex 1 — to enrich themselves with EU money by applying ‘an exchange rate which bears no relation to money-market realities and which, in 2002, reduced the value of the EDF resources by 89 %, to the detriment of the people on whom the aid had been retargeted’ (see Court of Auditors Annual Report 2002, Chapter V, Paragraph 68(a))?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(6 April 2004)

The Commission does not accept the Court of Auditors' analysis of the situation for the following reasons:

| — | the use of the parallel exchange rate for official transactions by the banks of Zimbabwe was illegal (see the Commission's reply to paragraph. 62 of the Court's report); in fact, the Reserve Bank has on several occasions threatened to prosecute banks trading on the black market. This is why the Delegation was instructed to use the official rate for the replenishment of project accounts, pending the outcome of discussions with the Government and the banks; |
| --- | --- |

—

the use of the parallel exchange rate for official transactions by the banks of Zimbabwe was illegal (see the Commission's reply to paragraph. 62 of the Court's report); in fact, the Reserve Bank has on several occasions threatened to prosecute banks trading on the black market. This is why the Delegation was instructed to use the official rate for the replenishment of project accounts, pending the outcome of discussions with the Government and the banks;

| — | the Commission was bound in 2002, in relation to aid from the European Development Funds, by the procedures set out in the Lomé Conventions, which gave clear powers to the National Authorising Officer (NAO) in relation to the management of the funds, and the rules agreed for their implementation. As the official exchange rate is a matter of national sovereignty, the only possibility of applying a different rate is to negotiate with the NAO and the country's banks. This is what the Commission did when the official rate became unrealistic; |
| --- | --- |

—

the Commission was bound in 2002, in relation to aid from the European Development Funds, by the procedures set out in the Lomé Conventions, which gave clear powers to the National Authorising Officer (NAO) in relation to the management of the funds, and the rules agreed for their implementation. As the official exchange rate is a matter of national sovereignty, the only possibility of applying a different rate is to negotiate with the NAO and the country's banks. This is what the Commission did when the official rate became unrealistic;

| — | in particular, the Commission considers that the figure of 89 % ‘reduced value’, which the Court applies to payments totalling EUR 4,5 million (less than 5 % of total Community aid to Zimbabwe in 2002), reflects neither the real situation nor the circumstances the Commission faced, if the payments were to remain legal and regular; |
| --- | --- |

—

in particular, the Commission considers that the figure of 89 % ‘reduced value’, which the Court applies to payments totalling EUR 4,5 million (less than 5 % of total Community aid to Zimbabwe in 2002), reflects neither the real situation nor the circumstances the Commission faced, if the payments were to remain legal and regular;

| — | in addition to the negotiation of a ‘blend’ rate to offset the effects of the difference between the official exchange rate and the ‘parallel’ market rate, the Commission and the Delegation took the following important measures:






  — | reducing payments in local currency to a minimum; |
| --- | --- | --- |

—

in addition to the negotiation of a ‘blend’ rate to offset the effects of the difference between the official exchange rate and the ‘parallel’ market rate, the Commission and the Delegation took the following important measures:

—

reducing payments in local currency to a minimum;

| — | making euro payments outside the country wherever possible (for instance, by focussing the health programme almost exclusively on drugs procurement); |
| --- | --- |

—

making euro payments outside the country wherever possible (for instance, by focussing the health programme almost exclusively on drugs procurement);

| — | ensuring that the imprest accounts of local project work programmes have euro components. |
| --- | --- |

—

ensuring that the imprest accounts of local project work programmes have euro components.

Total Community aid to Zimbabwe in 2002 came to EUR 94 million, of which only EUR 8 million was spent inside the country. Food aid, agricultural inputs, and medical supplies, for instance, were bought from neighbouring countries.

For these reasons, the Commission sees no justification for an audit enquiry.

---

(1)  OJ C 286, 28.11.2003, p. 355 et seq.

(2)  OJ L 50, 21.2.2002, p. 4.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/515 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/515

---

(2004/C 88 E/0526)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0606/04

by Camilo Nogueira Román (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(27 February 2004)

Subject:   The Spanish Government's respect for the principle of additionality in the funding of the Structural Funds and the Cohesion Fund

Has the Commission, in recent years, made any specific assessment of the principle of additionality in the financing of the Structural Funds and the Cohesion Fund by the Spanish Government? What were the results? Has the Commission checked the relationship which exists between the zero deficit budgetary policy of the Spanish Government and its respect for the Community principle of additionality, so that the full application of new public investment which the Community funds back up is guaranteed?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(30 April 2004)

Under Article 11 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 of 21 June 1999 laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds (1), we are required to carry out a mid-term verification of additionality in the Member States and regions receiving Structural Fund support. Additionality does not apply to the Cohesion Fund.

The results of the exercise show that Spain has complied with the additionality requirement. National public expenditure increased by an annual average of 3,61 % over the period 2000 to 2002 compared to the level set at the beginning of the period by the Spanish authorities in agreement with our officials.

Compliance with additionality — the requirement that national is not replaced by Community funding — is not by definition incompatible with a sound budget policy. Macroeconomic stability is necessary in order to create the conditions for economic growth. The experience of the cohesion countries is that budget discipline can be reconciled with maintaining a high level of investment in well targeted priorities for the less favoured regions.

---

(1)  OJ L 161, 26.6.1999.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/515 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/515

---

(2004/C 88 E/0527)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0609/04

by Ulrich Stockmann (PSE) to the Commission

(1 March 2004)

Subject:   Customs and enlargement

Following enlargement on 1 May 2004 and the ensuing expansion of the European Single Market there will be far less demand for the services provided by customs clearance agents

Transitional periods for the implementation of the Community ‘acquis’ have been agreed for many policy areas. Does this also apply to customs, customs clearance and customs services? With which countries have transitional agreements been made, and what are the precise terms of these agreements? What changes will customs clearance agents face from 1 May 2004?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(15 April 2004)

From the first day of accession, the customs administration of the new Member States acceding to the Union will have to manage and control their borders, which will then be the external borders of the EU, in the interest of the EU population and trade operators.

Two transitional periods have been granted in the Customs Union Chapter. Both concern the application of the Common External Tariff after accession.

Malta has been granted a five-year transitional period for the import of woven fabrics of combed wool or of combed fine animal hair (CN Code 5112 11 10), denim (CN Code 5209 42 00), woven fabrics of artificial filament yarn (CN Code 5408 22 10) and other made up clothing accessories (CN Code 6217 10 00), with a progressive schedule of implementation involving a maximum annual import quota and an increasing ad valorem duty.

Hungary has been granted a three-year transitional period for the import of aluminium, not alloyed (CN Code 7601 10 00), with a progressive schedule of implementation involving a decreasing import quota and an increasing ad valorem duty.

No transitional period has been granted on the remaining part of the customs ‘acquis’, which includes the Community's Customs Code and its implementing provisions; the Combined Nomenclature and other customs-related legislation outside the scope of the customs code, such as, for example, the legislation on counterfeit and pirated goods, drug precursors and export of cultural goods. However, annex IV-5 of the Act of Accession contains some specific technical provisions to cope with the situations that result from the transition between 11 separate customs territories (EU15 + 10) and one enlarged customs territory (EU25), when goods may, for example, enter a procedure in one and leave it under the other, purely as a result of enlargement. The Annex also deals with the validity of authorisations. Some special provisions apply to the Sovereign Base Areas of the United Kingdom in Cyprus, and are contained in Protocol 3 annexed to the Treaty of Accession.

The result of negotiations implies that the new Member States will be integrated in the Community customs territory and will fully apply all customs procedures as currently applied by Member States. Trade with and among new Member States will be considered as intra-Community transactions, and will not be subject to customs formalities or control, as is already the case in the Single Market. Goods which are in free circulation in a new or an existing Member State at the moment of accession will be in free circulation throughout the enlarged Union. This will have a twofold impact on the activities of the customs clearance agents: on the one hand, the formalities and procedures will be the same in all 25 Member States, and on the other hand, their services will not be needed for the new intra-Community trade.

An information document on the transitional customs measures of the Act of Accession as described above is available to the public on the Directorate-General Taxation and Customs Union web site in Europa (http://europa.eu.int/comm/taxation_customs/customs/customs.htm).

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/516 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/516

---

(2004/C 88 E/0528)

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?

Supplementary answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(15 June 2004)

In view of the length of its answer, the Commission is sending it direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/517 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/517

---

(2004/C 88 E/0529)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0620/04

by Concepció Ferrer (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(1 March 2004)

Subject:   Export of military ammunition to African countries as hunting ammunition

Various prestigious NGO's (Oxfam, Amnesty International, Greenpeace) and the Autonomous University of Barcelona's Peace Culture School have claimed that Spain has been exporting military ammunition, as if it were hunting ammunition, to the following African countries: Ghana, Guinea Conakry, Central African Republic, Mauritania, Cote d'Ivoire, Senegal, Guinea Bissau, Angola, Burkina Fasso and Cameroon.

Apparently the Customs Registers of the Spanish Tax Agency show that the cartridges exported weighed on average 40 kg, and cost an average of EUR 120 each.

Given that it is difficult to believe that hunting ammunition of such dimensions exists, and that these exports of munitions brought in over EUR 4 million in 2002, is the Commission aware of these Spanish exports?

If the Commission is aware of the claims, has it taken or does it intend to take any steps?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(15 April 2004)

The Commission is not aware of the exports in question nor does it possess the authority or the means to confirm or deny any possible misrepresentation of the stated end use of such exports.

Full responsibility for the licensing of arms exports rests with national governments. Consequently, it is not for the Commission to comment on Member States' practices in this area.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/518 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/518

---

(2004/C 88 E/0530)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0626/04

by Juan Ferrández Lezaun (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(24 February 2004)

Subject:   The Spanish NHP alternatives

The Spanish Government has submitted its request for European funding for transferring water from the River Ebro, as part of the Spanish NHP. As the Commission has already stated on several occasions, the vast scale of the water transfer means that a global assessment of the scheme will be carried out.

If the Commission finds against this global assessment, is it correct to state that the earmarked Community funding will not be allocated to this scheme?

Does the Commission know whether the Spanish Government has alternative schemes ready, should Community funding be refused for the Ebro water transfer scheme submitted?

What will happen to the funds earmarked for Spain?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(29 March 2004)

The financing of major projects through the two main Community financial instruments available to Spain, the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and the Cohesion Fund, is subject to the respect for the regulations on these funds and the programming documents adopted for their implementation.

The Commission adopts its co-financing decisions on major projects in line with the relevant Community Regulations on these funds and in full compliance with all applicable Community legislation and policies.

At present, the Commission is in the process of analysing the submitted projects. A decision concerning the possible allocation of Community funds for these projects can only be taken once all the information has been carefully analysed. Therefore, it is too early to speculate on the outcome of this evaluation.

The Commission is not aware whether the Spanish authorities have alternative projects to the ones submitted for financing in case these are not accepted.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/518 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/518

---

(2004/C 88 E/0531)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0627/04

by María Sornosa Martínez (PSE) to the Commission

(3 March 2004)

Subject:   Failure to comply with Community legislation during border veterinary checks in Spain

The Subdirectorate-General for External and Veterinary Health (SGSEV) of the Spanish Ministry of Health and Consumer Affairs has issued instructions (1) ordering official veterinarians at border inspection posts to allow the entry of consignments as direct landings of fishery products when they do not fulfil that condition under current Community rules, and even exempting certain products from compulsory veterinary checks (and, consequently, from the corresponding charges) when these rules contain no provision for doing so. The SGSEV is also allowing the captains of fishing vessels, an interested party in the trade transaction, to sign not just a simple declaration but also health certificates on behalf of the competent authority in the country of origin.

Bearing in mind the provisions of Directive 97/78/EC (2) laying down the principles governing the organisation of veterinary checks on products entering the Community from third countries, Directive 91/493/EEC (3) laying down the health conditions for the production and the placing on the market of fishery products, Decision 93/13/EEC (4) (updated and extended by Regulation (EC) No 136/2004 (5)) laying down the procedures for veterinary checks at Community border inspection posts on products from third countries and Regulation (EC) No 1093/94 (6) setting the terms under which fishing vessels of a third country may land directly and market their catches at Community ports:

| — | can the Commission guarantee that the practice currently being applied by the SGSEV complies with Community legislation protecting human and animal health and the rights of consumers and citizens in general; |
| --- | --- |

—

can the Commission guarantee that the practice currently being applied by the SGSEV complies with Community legislation protecting human and animal health and the rights of consumers and citizens in general;

| — | does the Commission not consider, furthermore, that the Spanish authorities are favouring certain import companies that are subject to fewer health and financial requirements when placing products from third countries on the market over producers in the EU Member States? |
| --- | --- |

—

does the Commission not consider, furthermore, that the Spanish authorities are favouring certain import companies that are subject to fewer health and financial requirements when placing products from third countries on the market over producers in the EU Member States?

---

(1)  Instructions from the Subdirectorate-General for External and Veterinary Health dated 1 October 2003 concerning documentary checks on direct landings of fishery products.

(2)  OJ L 24, 30.1.1998, p. 9.

(3)  OJ L 298, 24.9.1991, p. 15.

(4)  OJ L 9, 15.1.1993, p. 33.

(5)  OJ L 21, 28.1.2004, p. 11.

(6)  OJ L 121, 12.5.1994, p. 3.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/519 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/519

---

(2004/C 88 E/0532)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0628/04

by María Sornosa Martínez (PSE) to the Commission

(3 March 2004)

Subject:   Documentary irregularities when authorising third-country products during Spanish border checks

The Subdirectorate-General for External and Veterinary Health (SGSEV) of the Spanish Ministry of Health and Consumer Affairs has issued instructions (1) ordering official veterinarians at border inspection posts to allow the entry of consignments of third-country products that do not comply with current Community rules on product certification and registration. More specifically, this body has instructed those inspectors whose job it is to check on import conditions not to prevent the entry of products from third countries even if problems arise on their arrival in port, such as failure to provide the original copy of the health certificate from the country of origin (a simple faxed copy is accepted).

Inspectors have also received instructions to overlook documentary requirements, such as official recognition of the country of origin as an authorised country — as soon as the product leaves the port and not when it arrives, the failure to report product defects in writing and within the specified period, a problem that is usually remedied with a sworn declaration by the commercial agent, and a lack of information about the consignment, code, date of manufacture or the surplus of goods etc.

Bearing in mind the provisions of Decision 93/13/EEC (2) (updated and extended by Regulation (EC) No 136/2004 (3)) and Directive 97/78/EC (4):

| — | does the Commission consider that the Spanish authorities are acting properly in authorising third-country products arriving on Community territory at Spanish ports; |
| --- | --- |

—

does the Commission consider that the Spanish authorities are acting properly in authorising third-country products arriving on Community territory at Spanish ports;

| — | does the Commission not think that this watering-down of the health documentation and certification requirements for third-country products means unfair treatment of Community products, which must comply with all the rules; |
| --- | --- |

—

does the Commission not think that this watering-down of the health documentation and certification requirements for third-country products means unfair treatment of Community products, which must comply with all the rules;

| — | is the Commission not of the opinion that in irremediable situations, such as the absence of an original copy of a health certificate on arrival in a port, the Spanish authorities should, in accordance with Directive 97/78/EC, refuse to allow the entry of these goods; |
| --- | --- |

—

is the Commission not of the opinion that in irremediable situations, such as the absence of an original copy of a health certificate on arrival in a port, the Spanish authorities should, in accordance with Directive 97/78/EC, refuse to allow the entry of these goods;

| — | does the Commission not consider that, by issuing these instructions, the Spanish authorities are forcing official veterinarians at Spanish border inspection posts to disregard Community rules on the protection of human and animal health? |
| --- | --- |

—

does the Commission not consider that, by issuing these instructions, the Spanish authorities are forcing official veterinarians at Spanish border inspection posts to disregard Community rules on the protection of human and animal health?

Supplementary joint answer

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

given by Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(17 June 2004)

The Commission has been in contact with the Spanish authorities and obtained a copy of the internal Spanish instructions to which these questions refer.

The instructions are detailed and contain guidance for a number of practical situations that may arise at border inspection posts in Member States receiving products of animal origin, and also instructions for the landing of fish and fishery products.

The Commission considers that many of the issues covered as regards veterinary checks are implemented under the responsibility of the official veterinarian in the border inspection post.

As regards fishery imports and veterinary checks, there are certain areas in the instructions where the interpretation given by Spanish authorities concerning EU certification requirements requires further clarification. The Commission has already discussed these instructions with a representative of the Spanish authorities in the light of recent developments in legislation in this area. The Spanish authorities have agreed to clarify the instructions in order to avoid any misunderstandings by inspectors at border inspection posts.

The Commission agrees that where there is no original health certificate presented with a consignment of products for import, EU legislation requires the consignment to be refused entry.

There is nothing in the instructions that would authorise the import of products other than from approved countries and from approved establishments in those countries. From a hygiene viewpoint there is no evidence in the instructions of more lenient treatment of products from third countries in comparison to that of products produced in Member States.

The Commission believes, therefore, that the instructions comply with Community legislation and do not represent either unfair treatment of Community products or a requirement for Spanish veterinarians to disregard Community rules.

---

(1)  Instructions from the Subdirectorate-General for External and Veterinary Health dated 11 April 2002 concerning remediable deficiencies in goods inspections.

(2)  OJ L 9, 15.1.1993, p. 33.

(3)  OJ L 21, 28.1.2004, p. 11.

(4)  OJ L 24, 30.1.1998, p. 9.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/520 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/520

---

(2004/C 88 E/0533)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0715/04

by José García-Margallo y Marfil (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(10 March 2004)

Subject:   Polish VAT increase for citrus fruit

The Polish Parliament recently adopted a bill on taxing goods and services. The bill includes a significant increase in taxes on consumer goods, particularly citrus fruits and other imported products. The bill provides for a VAT rate of 22 % on citrus fruit, whereas all other Polish-produced fruit and vegetables will be taxed at 7 %.

Community legislation lays down that all food products qualify for the lowest rate of VAT, but that it is up to each Member State to decide the rate it wishes to apply to these products.

However, the Polish bill severely distorts competition, by favouring certain products, most of them locally produced, to the detriment of others mostly produced in other EU countries, such as citrus and other imported fruit. The current situation, which directly affects Community citrus fruit growing already discriminates against citrus fruit by applying a 7 % rate, as against the 3 % applied to other substitute products; this is completely arbitrary, given the similarity of the cost of citrus fruit with these other, similar products, which are not affected by the measure.

What measures is the Commission going to take in view of this possible tax discrimination by Poland against imported citrus fruit coming from other Member States in favour of Polish domestic products of a similar nature, with a view to safeguarding the principles of freedom of competition within the internal market?

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/521 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/521

---

(2004/C 88 E/0534)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0822/04

by María Sornosa Martínez (PSE) to the Commission

(8 March 2004)

Subject:   Distortion of competition by Poland in respect of other EU products

I have obtained information indicating that the Polish Government plans to modify VAT so as to vary the rate applicable to citrus fruits, raising it from the current 7 % to 22 %. This draft Polish legislation (draft 1874 of the bill in question), and specifically Article 36 thereof, will significantly increase consumer taxes on citrus fruit and other imported products. This bill, which is awaiting ratification by the Polish Senate, severely distorts competition by favouring local products to the detriment of products from the rest of the Union, and specifically citrus fruit, which is already discriminated against, since citrus fruit coming from other EU countries is currently taxed at 7 %, while other, similar local products are taxed at only 3 %.

Given Poland's imminent accession to the EU how does the Commission intend to approach Poland with a view to avoiding possible violation of Community competition law?

Joint answer

to Written Questions E-0715/04 and P-0822/04

given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(5 April 2004)

According to Article 12 of the Sixth VAT Directive (1), Member States have to apply a standard rate not lower than 15 % and may apply one or two reduced rates not lower than 5 %. In principle, those reduced rates shall apply only to supplies of the categories of goods and services specified in Annex H of the Directive. The first category in that Annex includes foodstuffs for human and animal consumption.

Poland has been authorized, under the Accession Treaty, to apply a super reduced rate of 3 % until 30 April 2008. Of course, Poland may apply this rate but always in conformity with Community law. In particular, the principles underlying the VAT system and the provisions of the EC Treaty must be respected.

The Commission has already received information according to which the draft Polish VAT Law provides for a super reduced rate of 3 % (which will be raised up to 7 % by 30 April 2008) to be applied to fruit in general, except for kiwis, papayas and other ‘Southern fruit’. These latter products, which include some types of fruit which are not grown in Poland and which are imported into that country from some Member States (in particular, citrus fruits), are to be subject to the standard rate of the tax (22 % in Poland, according to the draft Law).

Such a scheme could be in breach of Community law.

For that reason, the Commission has already sent a letter in this respect to the Polish authorities, stating that:

| (i) | The scheme seems to run counter to Community law, and in particular to the principle of neutrality which underlies the VAT system and to Article 90 of the EC Treaty, given its protective effect. Indeed, according to this Article, no Member State may impose on products coming from other Member States higher taxes than those imposed on similar or competing national products. |
| --- | --- |

(i)

The scheme seems to run counter to Community law, and in particular to the principle of neutrality which underlies the VAT system and to Article 90 of the EC Treaty, given its protective effect. Indeed, according to this Article, no Member State may impose on products coming from other Member States higher taxes than those imposed on similar or competing national products.

| (ii) | According to the information at the disposal of the Commission, the draft VAT Law is at an advanced stage in the legislative process and, for that reason, the issue should be addressed as soon as possible. |
| --- | --- |

(ii)

According to the information at the disposal of the Commission, the draft VAT Law is at an advanced stage in the legislative process and, for that reason, the issue should be addressed as soon as possible.

| (iii) | The Commission remains at the disposal of the Polish authorities in case they would like to send further information or in order to discuss the matter. |
| --- | --- |

(iii)

The Commission remains at the disposal of the Polish authorities in case they would like to send further information or in order to discuss the matter.

The Commission expects that the Polish authorities will adopt the necessary measures in order to ensure that the draft VAT Law complies with the requirements of Community Law.

---

(1)  Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonization 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, as last amended by Council Directive 2004/15/EC of 10 February 2004, OJ L 52, 21.2.2004.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/522 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/522

---

(2004/C 88 E/0535)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0725/04

by Daniela Raschhofer (NI) to the Commission

(11 March 2004)

Subject:   Accession of Latvia

Latvia will join the EU on 1 May 2004. As the Commission is aware, the population of Latvia is made up of several ethnic groups, including Russians. The ‘acquis communautaire’, pursuant to which Latvian legislation may not contain discriminatory provisions, will come into force in Latvia on its accession to the EU.

| 1. | Do national provisions still exist which discriminate against individual ethnic groups, for example with regard to freedom to travel? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Do national provisions still exist which discriminate against individual ethnic groups, for example with regard to freedom to travel?

| 2. | If so, what action is the Commission taking? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If so, what action is the Commission taking?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(27 April 2004)

As the Commission spelled out in its Regular Reports on EU accession preparation, Latvia meets the political criteria for EU accession, which includes the protection of minorities.

The 2003 Comprehensive Monitoring Report on Latvia (1) mentioned remaining restrictions concerning citizenship and language requirements in the field of the four freedoms. The Commission underlined that legislative requirements on language proficiency and their implementation must be in full respect of the principles of justified interests, proportionality and non-discrimination and can only be applied in very exceptional circumstances, on a case by case basis. Since then, and according to the follow-up monitoring, Latvia has further amended its legislation, e.g. by eliminating restrictions regarding security services and lawyers, in line with the ‘acquis’.

In the context of the anti-discrimination legislation, Latvia has addressed the remaining shortcomings in this field, including further legislative alignment and the establishment of the Equality Body. Latvia has committed itself to completing alignment on outstanding issues before accession.

As regards ethnic minorities in particular, Latvia was strongly encouraged to promote the integration of the Russian minority by, in particular, continuing to accelerate the speed of naturalisation procedures, and by taking other proactive measures to increase the rate of naturalisation. Since then, several further steps have been taken to ease the process and the rate of applications for naturalisation has doubled.

As regards the freedom of travel, it falls to the competence of Member States to decide whether holders of non-Latvian passports are exempted from visa requirements or not. After accession, Member States will be able to continue to waive visa requirements for holders of non-citizen passports. Once a member of Schengen, non-citizens will be able to travel to the Schengen area on the basis of their passports and a residence permit without applying for a visa.

---

(1)  COM(2003) 675 final.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/523 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/523

---

(2004/C 88 E/0536)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0728/04

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(11 March 2004)

Subject:   Ansaldo-Breda: possible monitoring of EU funding

At the meeting last week in Brussels involving trade union delegations and workers from Ansaldo-Breda, it emerged that the company has benefited from assistance supporting production activities in depressed areas of Italy, as provided for in Italian Law No 488/92, in the form of EU cofinancing. Specifically, funding has been made available for work on replacing the company's roof with eternit (asbestos lumber), so as to bring the workplace up to European standards in terms of safeguarding and protecting workers.

However, it would not appear that funding was requested to provide environmental protection for the surrounding area, despite the presence of an important acquifer in the vicinity of the establishment.

Can the Commission answer the following:

| 1. | In view of the above, can the Commission state whether Ansaldo-Breda has received funding and, if so, what kind? |
| --- | --- |

1.

In view of the above, can the Commission state whether Ansaldo-Breda has received funding and, if so, what kind?

| 2. | What instruments can be adopted to check whether any funding awarded to Ansaldo-Breda has actually been used? |
| --- | --- |

2.

What instruments can be adopted to check whether any funding awarded to Ansaldo-Breda has actually been used?

Supplementary answer givcn by Mr Barrot on behalf of the Commission

(22 June 2004)

In the 1994-1999 and 2000-2006 programming periods the European Regional Development Fund has part-financed action under Italian Law 488/92 to strengthen the industrial fabric of eligible areas.

The action part-financed includes investments by the enterprises mentioned by the Honourable Member in restructuring, modernisation and enlargement of industrial premises in the regions of Apulia, Basilicata, Campania and Sicily. A table giving the detailed information sent by the Italian authorities will be sent direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's secretariat.

Ansaldo Breda is also participating in four research projects under the 5th Research and Technological Development Framework Programme (assistance granted EUR 867 617) and in two research projects under the 6th Framework Programme (assistance granted EUR 822 115).

Provision of that assistance falls under the authority of the Italian Government, which as managing authority for the programme (Ministry for Production Activities) is responsible for selecting and monitoring the individual projects. For more detailed information the Honourable Member should therefore approach the national authorities.

Where Community measures with decentralised management are concerned, the Commission normally confines itself to system checks and on-the-spot sample checks.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/524 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/524

---

(2004/C 88 E/0537)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0733/04

by Giuseppe Di Lello Finuoli (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(4 March 2004)

Subject:   European cofinancing of the Gazzi-Annunziata tramline in Messina under the Multifund Operational Programme 1994-1999

Judging from the statements made in the Sicilian press by politicians and those involved in the project, it would seem that Community funding for the construction of the Gazzi-Annunziata tramway in Messina was not forfeited since the facility was completed before 31 March 2002.

While I would like to accept as complete a construction project that required various interventions after the above date in order to bring the service into operation, and on which work continues on some urban sections still to be restored to service, could the Commission honour my legitimate right to information on public works by indicating:

| — | whether Community cofinancing was actually granted; |
| --- | --- |

—

whether Community cofinancing was actually granted;

| — | how it views the significant change in respect of the route of the original project; |
| --- | --- |

—

how it views the significant change in respect of the route of the original project;

| — | whether it can confirm acceptance of the ruling by the Catania Regional Administrative Court, which on 6 July 1996 upheld the appeal by Messina Municipal Council against the need to submit an environmental impact assessment and ordered the responsible authorities to release the European funding that should be granted by the Regional Government? |
| --- | --- |

—

whether it can confirm acceptance of the ruling by the Catania Regional Administrative Court, which on 6 July 1996 upheld the appeal by Messina Municipal Council against the need to submit an environmental impact assessment and ordered the responsible authorities to release the European funding that should be granted by the Regional Government?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(29 April 2004)

The Commission confirms that the project referred to by the Honourable Member was part-financed under the 1994-1999 Multifund Operational Programme (MOP) for Sicily. One of the requirements for such part-financing is that the project is complete and in operation by the final date laid down in the decision adopting the programme. In its final report on the Sicilian MOP the managing authority states that these requirements were met.

Under the subsidiarity principle it is the national authorities that have prime responsibility for ensuring compliance with Community laws and regulations. Sicily Region was responsible for selecting and monitoring implementation of the projects funded under the 1994-1999 MOP.

The Commission agreed with the ruling of the regional administrative court (Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale) of 6 July 2001 that there was no need for an environmental impact assessment for the project.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/525 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/525

---

(2004/C 88 E/0538)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0740/04

by José García-Margallo y Marfil (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(11 March 2004)

Subject:   Agency to combat tax fraud

Tax fraud within the European Union deprives the Member States of significant amounts of revenue. Merely in the case of VAT, tax fraud is estimated to represent 10 % of revenue, i.e. EUR 70 000 million.

Has the Commission considered proposing the setting up of an Agency to combat tax fraud, along the lines of the many independent agencies which already exist within the EU?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(23 April 2004)

VAT fraud does indeed pose a significant problem in the Community as it affects Member States' VAT revenue, distorts competition and jeopardizes legitimate trade. Although VAT collection and control is primarily an issue for Member States, the Commission's role is to ensure an efficient legal framework making it possible for Member States' administrations to cooperate across borders and for Member States' transnational VAT fraud enforcement to be effective. The Commission therefore made a proposal for reinforced mutual assistance and exchange of information, specifically in respect of fraud cases, which was adopted by the Council on 8 October 2003, and which entered into force on 1 January 2004. This Regulation (1) has considerably improved the legal framework for administrative cooperation between Member States and is therefore a major tool for Member States in their fight against VAT fraud. In this respect, the Commission will shortly present a report to the Council and the Parliament on the use of administrative cooperation arrangements in the fight against VAT fraud. Furthermore, while the new regulation on administrative cooperation was a prerequisite in order to improve Member States' cooperation in the fight against VAT fraud, it has also been necessary to accompany this legislative initiative by concrete measures enhancing cooperation between the different tax administrations and their officials. As the Honourable Member well knows, the Fiscalis 2003-2007 programme (2) was therefore adopted by the Council and the Parliament in order to enhance day-to-day cooperation between Member States' officials.

As a further important step, the Commission is in the course of preparing a proposal for a new regulation on mutual administrative assistance for the protection of the Community's financial interests against fraud and other illegal activities. This proposal will cover, inter alia, transnational VAT fraud and related money laundering activity. It is intended to address information exchanges between Member States and the Commission and is aimed at providing the latter with an enhanced platform for both transnational VAT fraud enforcement coordination and related risk analysis/intelligence activity.

The setting-up of a Community Agency to combat tax fraud as the Honourable Member suggests would be difficult in that several Member States would be unwilling to surrender their sovereignty in the field of tax collection and control. Moreover, the Commission does not consider that such a step is justifiable at the current time. The Commission will continue where necessary and appropriate to provide both a suitably robust legislative environment and enhanced administrative cooperation machinery to make it possible for Member States to cooperate efficiently and effectively with each other and with the Commission in order to combat transnational VAT fraud.

Finally, for the information of the Honourable Member, the Commission's Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) already has a VAT team which assists the Member States with the coordination of operational cross-border VAT fraud cases in the framework of article 280 of the EU Treaty. OLAF's Intelligence Directorate and Magistrates' Unit also provide their respective support to Member States during the investigation and judicial phases of operational casework.

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1798/2003 of 7 October 2003 on administrative cooperation in the field of value added tax and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 218/92, OJ L 264, 15.10.2003.

(2)  Decision No 2235/2002/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 3 December 2002 adopting a Community programme to improve the operation of taxation systems in the internal market (Fiscalis programme 2003-2007) OJ L 341, 17.12.2002.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/526 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/526

---

(2004/C 88 E/0539)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0742/04

by José García-Margallo y Marfil (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(11 March 2004)

Subject:   Regional impact of the Growth Initiative

The purpose of the European Growth Initiative adopted by the European Council in December 2003 is to align the EU economy with the objectives laid down in the Lisbon Strategy, i.e. to turn it by 2010 into the world's most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy.

How can regional governments contribute to the structural reforms designed to bring about greater competitiveness, promote full employment and enable environmental challenges to be met? Has this regional dimension been taken into account in the planning of the Growth Initiative?

Has the Commission carried out a region-by-region assessment of the impact which the Growth Initiative is likely to have? If it has, what is the situation regarding the Valencia region in Spain?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(23 April 2004)

The aim of the European Initiative for Growth is to contribute to the achievement of the objectives laid down in the Lisbon Strategy, namely by stimulating investment both in Trans-European transport and energy networks and in a knowledge-based society. To this end, the projects, programmes and technologies listed in the Communication from the Commission ‘A European initiative for growth — Investing in Networks and Knowledge for Growth and Jobs’ (1) have been identified.

The Commission has not carried out a region-by-region assessment of the impact which the Growth Initiative is likely to have. With respect to the projects and programmes in the context of the Trans-European transport and energy networks, the aim is to improve trans-border connections and capacities as well as to cope with actual or potential bottlenecks and connecting all regions in Europe to these networks.

The Broad Economic Policy Guidelines, Internal Market Strategy and the Employment Guidelines and Recommendations point to several areas where further structural reforms would deliver more and better jobs, increased productivity and thus higher growth. Regional governments can, in particular, contribute by redirecting their public expenditures and investments towards growth and employment enhancing projects, by ensuring efficient implementation of their investment programmes and by seeking a higher leverage of public support on private investment.

For a large number of regional governments, investment programmes are in part co-financed by the EU Structural Funds. Their current mid-term evaluation provides an opportunity for reorientation and quality improvement. Better targeting would be further ensured by the future reform of the structural funds, including the European Social Fund, aimed at reinforcing the Lisbon and Gothenburg agendas by focusing on competitiveness, sustainable development and employment, as proposed by the Commission in its Communication ‘Building our common future: policy challenges and budgetary means of an enlarged Union 2007-2013’ (2) and in the third Cohesion report.

---

(1)  COM(2003) 690 final.

(2)  COM(2004) 101 final.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/527 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/527

---

(2004/C 88 E/0540)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0744/04

by José García-Margallo y Marfil (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(11 March 2004)

Subject:   Encouraging the participation of SMEs in innovative and R&D projects

Does the Commission hold any information concerning the number of, and the level of funding for, projects involving European SMEs in innovative and R&D policies which have been undertaken since the sixth R&D Framework Programme was launched?

What percentage of the total is constituted by projects involving Spanish SMEs?

In the Commission's opinion, what would be the most suitable policy to be applied in Europe in order to encourage European SMEs to take part in innovative and research projects, thereby reducing the gap between them and companies in the USA?

Answer given by Mr Busquin on behalf of the Commission

(21 April 2004)

Under the 6th Framework Programme for research, technological development and demonstration 2002-2006 (FP6) the participation of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) is strongly encouraged mainly in the following two ways: in addition to the horizontal activities for SMEs (a budget of EUR 430 million), at least 15 % of the budget relating to the seven thematic priorities (about EUR 1 700 million) is to be allocated to SMEs. Realizing that SMEs are vital for Europe to make breakthrough progress in science and technology, but also in transforming research results into successful products and services, the participation of SMEs, with universities and larger corporations, is very much encouraged throughout the Specific Programme ‘Integrating and Strengthening the ERA’, whether through Integrated Projects or the other research instruments.

Based on the first calls for proposals (deadlines before 24 June 2003) of the seven thematic priorities of the Specific Programme ‘Integrating and Strengthening the ERA’ of FP6, implemented through four main instruments (Integrated Projects, Specific Support Actions, Co-ordination Actions and Specific Targeted Research Projects), the following indicative information is available:

| — | 21,0 % of the participants in submitted proposals were SMEs (12 503 SMEs) and these SMEs have requested 17,4 % (EUR 3 122 million) of the overall requested funding. |
| --- | --- |

—

21,0 % of the participants in submitted proposals were SMEs (12 503 SMEs) and these SMEs have requested 17,4 % (EUR 3 122 million) of the overall requested funding.

| — | 19,0 % of the participants in the main-listed proposals (proposals selected for funding) were SMEs (2 158 SMEs) and these SMEs have requested 14,4 % (EUR 449 million) of the overall requested funding. For clarity, this figure becomes 13 % when the other instrument Networks of Excellence are taken into account. |
| --- | --- |

—

19,0 % of the participants in the main-listed proposals (proposals selected for funding) were SMEs (2 158 SMEs) and these SMEs have requested 14,4 % (EUR 449 million) of the overall requested funding. For clarity, this figure becomes 13 % when the other instrument Networks of Excellence are taken into account.

| — | 7,4 % of the participants in submitted proposals are from Spain (3 754 Spanish participants) of which 24,5 % are SMEs. These 919 Spanish SMEs participants have requested 19,5 % (EUR 232,8 million) of the total contribution requested by Spanish participants. |
| --- | --- |

—

7,4 % of the participants in submitted proposals are from Spain (3 754 Spanish participants) of which 24,5 % are SMEs. These 919 Spanish SMEs participants have requested 19,5 % (EUR 232,8 million) of the total contribution requested by Spanish participants.

| — | 6,2 % of the participants in main-listed proposals are from Spain (577 Spanish participants) of which 18,2 % are SMEs. These 105 Spanish SMEs participants have requested 13,4 % (EUR 26,3 million) of the total contribution requested by Spanish participants. |
| --- | --- |

—

6,2 % of the participants in main-listed proposals are from Spain (577 Spanish participants) of which 18,2 % are SMEs. These 105 Spanish SMEs participants have requested 13,4 % (EUR 26,3 million) of the total contribution requested by Spanish participants.

Please note that these figures are only provisional based on submission of proposals. More definitive data will become available after the conclusion of the negotiation of the contracts of the successful proposals.

The Economic and Technological Intelligence scheme is used to promote innovation by SMEs and to facilitate their participation in FP6. Under certain thematic priorities Integrated Projects specifically devoted to SMEs have been organised. Finally, encouraging the participation of SMEs with limited research capacity is actively done through the horizontal programmes including Cooperative and Collective Research.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/528 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/528

---

(2004/C 88 E/0541)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0747/04

by José García-Margallo y Marfil (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(11 March 2004)

Subject:   Safeguard clause relating to satsuma imports

In November 2003 the EU introduced a temporary safeguard clause for the purpose of restricting imports of tinned mandarin oranges from third countries (in particular China) in response to the huge increase in imports which has occurred over the last few years and which is seriously affecting Community production.

The EU set a quota of 11 389 tonnes for tinned produce from China and 906 tonnes for imports from other countries.

Any exports to the Community market which exceed the above quantities are subject to additional customs duties which are, however, proving insufficient, since the volume of produce sent has already significantly exceeded the quotas laid down. Furthermore, the safeguard clause will expire on 10 April 2004.

Is the Commission intending to extend the clause beyond that date and to make the necessary changes in order to convert it into an effective mechanism for protecting the Community market?

Answer given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(21 April 2004)

On 7 April 2004, after consultation with Member States, the Commission has adopted a proposal to impose definitive safeguard measures in respect of imports of canned satsumas to the Community. The provisional safeguard measures come to an end on 10 April 2004, and in order to avoid a gap in the protection afforded to the Community producers, the definitive measures will enter into force on 11 April 2004 and remain in force until 8 November 2007, thereby providing the Community industry with the necessary breathing space to implement restructuring.

Given the continuing high level of imports in the final months of 2003 and the evidence of stockpiling by importers before the imposition of provisional measures as well as the exchange rate fluctuations, the level of duty (EUR301/tonne) under the definitive measures is substantially higher than that applicable under the provisional measures (EUR155/tonne).

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/529 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/529

---

(2004/C 88 E/0542)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0760/04

by José García-Margallo y Marfil (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(11 March 2004)

Subject:   Implementation of the financial services action plan (FSAP) in the new Member States

Does the Commission envisage flanking measures for implementing the financial services action plan in the accession countries, which were basically not involved in drafting the main directives introduced by the FSAP?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(21 April 2004)

The measures of the Financial Services Action Plan (FSAP) which have an implementation deadline before 1 May 2004 will form part of the ‘acquis’ which all Acceding Countries will need to take over and implement from the date of accession.

Where implementation deadlines of FSAP measures are later than May 2004, the later deadline will also apply to Acceding Countries. To be fully informed about these measures, delegates from the Acceding Countries have been included as observers in all relevant preparatory and regulatory institutional committees over the last year (2003).

The Commission recalls that the Act of Accession foresees transitional measures — limited in scope and time — for specific Directives in the financial services sector. These transitional measures apply to the local market; it will not be possible to benefit from direct access to the European Internal Market while complying with less strict regulations. All transitional measures will end by the end of 2007 at the latest. The measures concern: the minimum capital requirement for co-operative credit institutions under the Banking Directive (1) (involving Cyprus, Hungary, Poland and Slovenia); and the Deposit Guarantee and Investor Compensation Schemes (2) (involving Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland and Slovakia).

Finally, the Commission has for some time maintained an intensive dialogue with Acceding Countries in the field of financial services, notably by means of peer reviews carried out by experts from the EU15. This has led to recommendations and action plans being drawn up by the Acceding Countries to ensure effective implementation of the ‘acquis’ in this field, including FSAP measures already adopted.

---

(1)  Directive 2000/12/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 20 March 2000 relating to the taking up and pursuit of the business of credit institutions, OJ L 126, 26.5.2000.

(2)  Directive 94/19/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 1994 on deposit-guarantee schemes, OJ L 135, 31.5.1994.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/529 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/529

---

(2004/C 88 E/0543)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0772/04

by Maurizio Turco (NI) to the Commission

(11 March 2004)

Subject:   Violation of religious freedom in Austria

In view of the following:

| — | Article 6 of the EU Treaty |
| --- | --- |

—

Article 6 of the EU Treaty

| — | Articles 10, 22 and 52 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU; |
| --- | --- |

—

Articles 10, 22 and 52 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU;

| — | Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms of 1950 (in particular Articles 9 and 14); |
| --- | --- |

—

Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms of 1950 (in particular Articles 9 and 14);

| — | the International Religious Freedom Report for 2003 issued by the US Department of State; |
| --- | --- |

—

the International Religious Freedom Report for 2003 issued by the US Department of State;

and the fact that:

| — | The Austrian Evangelical Alliance, the umbrella organization for Christian organisations not recognised in that country, has reported some delays in obtaining visas for religious workers; |
| --- | --- |

—

The Austrian Evangelical Alliance, the umbrella organization for Christian organisations not recognised in that country, has reported some delays in obtaining visas for religious workers;

| — | Members of Jehovah's Witnesses have been unable to obtain a visa for a Tagalog speaker to minister to their Filipino community; |
| --- | --- |

—

Members of Jehovah's Witnesses have been unable to obtain a visa for a Tagalog speaker to minister to their Filipino community;

| — | the Law on the Status of Religious Confessional Communities allowed twelve recognised religious societies to retain their status, but imposed new criteria on other religious groups that seek to achieve this status; numerous religious groups not recognised by the Government, as well as some religious law experts, have complained that the law's additional criteria for recognition as a religious society obstruct claims to recognition and formalise a second-class status for non-recognised groups. Some experts have questioned the 1998 law's constitutionality; |
| --- | --- |

—

the Law on the Status of Religious Confessional Communities allowed twelve recognised religious societies to retain their status, but imposed new criteria on other religious groups that seek to achieve this status; numerous religious groups not recognised by the Government, as well as some religious law experts, have complained that the law's additional criteria for recognition as a religious society obstruct claims to recognition and formalise a second-class status for non-recognised groups. Some experts have questioned the 1998 law's constitutionality;

| — | furthermore, various Austrian provinces funded offices that provided information on sects and cults; the website of the Family Office of the Government of Lower Austria included a presentation that negatively characterised many religious groups. The presentation included the Jehovah's Witnesses, despite its status as a confessional community. |
| --- | --- |

—

furthermore, various Austrian provinces funded offices that provided information on sects and cults; the website of the Family Office of the Government of Lower Austria included a presentation that negatively characterised many religious groups. The presentation included the Jehovah's Witnesses, despite its status as a confessional community.

Can the Commission say whether it is aware of these facts?

Can the Commission also say whether it considers the actions described as an infringement of the fundamental rights guaranteed in Articles 10 and 22 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU and that they therefore affect the essence of the rights, which are explicitly protected by Article 52 of the Charter?

Whether it also considers that these actions are contrary to Article 6 of the EU Treaty and therefore the principles common to all the Member States as regards respect for human and fundamental rights?

How it intends to dissuade Austria from carrying out such actions against religious freedom?

If it does not explicitly condemn these actions, on what legal principles it bases its attitude?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(28 April 2004)

As regards the Austrian authorities' refusal to grant an entry visa to certain religious workers, the Commission would point out that, on the basis of the provisions governing the issue of uniform visas valid for the territory of the states which are parties to the Schengen Convention, each Member State examines visa applications on the basis of various criteria which are indicated in the Common Consular Instructions. However, the decision to grant the said visa or not is taken at the discretion of each Member State. The Common Consular Instructions do not oblige Member States to justify refusals to grant visas.

As regards the granting of specific work permits for religious workers from third countries, the Commission would point out that at present there are no Community rules on entry and residence for work purposes for nationals of third countries, and that all decisions in this field are a matter for the Member States.

In addition, the Commission has no remit to intervene in the event of violations of fundamental rights, including religious freedom, unless such violations take place within the framework of Community law and its implementation.

Lastly, if an individual believes that his fundamental rights have been violated, he can take proceedings in the European Court of Human Rights after exhausting all domestic legal remedies.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/531 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/531

---

(2004/C 88 E/0544)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0775/04

by Maurizio Turco (NI) to the Commission

(11 March 2004)

Subject:   Violation of religious freedom in Germany

In view of the following:

| — | Article 6 of the EU Treaty |
| --- | --- |

—

Article 6 of the EU Treaty

| — | Articles 10, 22 and 52 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU; |
| --- | --- |

—

Articles 10, 22 and 52 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU;

| — | the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms of 1950 (in particular Articles 9 and 14); |
| --- | --- |

—

the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms of 1950 (in particular Articles 9 and 14);

| — | the International Religious Freedom Report for 2003 issued by the US Department of State; |
| --- | --- |

—

the International Religious Freedom Report for 2003 issued by the US Department of State;

and the fact that:

| — | the German government does not recognise the Church of Scientology as a religion and its considering the church as a potential threat to democratic order has led to job and commercial discrimination against its members in both the public and private sectors; |
| --- | --- |

—

the German government does not recognise the Church of Scientology as a religion and its considering the church as a potential threat to democratic order has led to job and commercial discrimination against its members in both the public and private sectors;

| — | the government has refused to grant visitors' visas to the leaders of the Unification Church, the Reverend Sun Myung Moon and his wife Hak Ja Har Moon; |
| --- | --- |

—

the government has refused to grant visitors' visas to the leaders of the Unification Church, the Reverend Sun Myung Moon and his wife Hak Ja Har Moon;

| — | the governments of Bavaria and Hamburg have proposed new measures to restrict the activities of the Church of Scientology and the Lutheran Church has continued its information campaign against it and other alleged ‘cults’; |
| --- | --- |

—

the governments of Bavaria and Hamburg have proposed new measures to restrict the activities of the Church of Scientology and the Lutheran Church has continued its information campaign against it and other alleged ‘cults’;

| — | several states have published pamphlets detailing the ideology and practices of minority religions and some of the latter fear that inclusion in a report on dangerous movements or cults might damage their reputation; these actions have helped to perpetuate negative public attitudes towards members of minority religions; |
| --- | --- |

—

several states have published pamphlets detailing the ideology and practices of minority religions and some of the latter fear that inclusion in a report on dangerous movements or cults might damage their reputation; these actions have helped to perpetuate negative public attitudes towards members of minority religions;

| — | the International Religious Freedom Report for 2003 expresses concern at the infringement of individual rights on grounds of religious affiliation and at potential discrimination on the international employment market as a result of foreign firms being selected on the basis of possible affiliation with Scientology. |
| --- | --- |

—

the International Religious Freedom Report for 2003 expresses concern at the infringement of individual rights on grounds of religious affiliation and at potential discrimination on the international employment market as a result of foreign firms being selected on the basis of possible affiliation with Scientology.

Can the Commission say whether it is aware of these facts?

Can the Commission also say whether it considers the actions described as an infringement of the fundamental rights guaranteed in Articles 10 and 22 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU and that they therefore affect the essence of the rights, which are explicitly protected by Article 52 of the Charter?

Whether it also considers that these actions are contrary to Article 6 of the EU Treaty and therefore the principles common to all the Member States regarding respect for human and fundamental rights?

How it intends to dissuade Germany from carrying out such actions against religious freedom?

If it does not explicitly condemn these actions, on what legal principles it bases its attitude?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(29 April 2004)

The circumstances referred to by the Honourable Member have not previously been brought to the Commission's attention.

As regards the German Government's refusal to grant entry visas to the leader of the Unification Church, Mr Moon, and his wife, the Commission would point out that, under the provisions governing the issue of uniform visas valid for all the Member States which have acceded to the Schengen Convention, each Member State examines visa applications on the basis of a number of criteria set out in the Common Consular Instructions. However, the decision to grant or refuse to grant a visa is left to the discretion of each Member State. The Common Consular Instructions do not require the Member States to provide the reasons for such refusals.

It is the Commission's view that matters relating to the status of the Church of Scientology and other religious communities in Germany are caught by the Declaration on the status of churches and non-confessional organisations attached to the Amsterdam Treaty, according to which ‘the Union respects and does not prejudice the status under national law of churches and religious associations or communities in the Member States. The Union equally respects the status of philosophical and non-confessional organisations.’

In addition, the Commission is empowered to intervene in respect of violations of fundamental rights, including religious freedom, only where such violations take place within the framework of Community law and its implementation.

In that connection, like all the Member States, since 2 December 2003 Germany has been obliged to apply Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000, which prohibits discrimination based on religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation in the field of employment and occupation (1).

Within the framework of its examination of the application by the Member States of the aforementioned Directive, the Commission has sent Germany a letter of formal notice concerning its failure to provide notification of measures transposing this legislation into national law.

Lastly, if an individual believes that his fundamental rights have been violated, he can bring proceedings in the European Court of Human Rights after exhausting all domestic legal remedies.

---

(1)  OJ L 303, 2.12.2000.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/532 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/532

---

(2004/C 88 E/0545)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0776/04

by Maurizio Turco (NI) to the Commission

(11 March 2004)

Subject:   Violation of religious freedom in Greece

In view of the following:

| — | Article 6 of the EU Treaty |
| --- | --- |

—

Article 6 of the EU Treaty

| — | Articles 10, 22 and 52 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU; |
| --- | --- |

—

Articles 10, 22 and 52 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU;

| — | Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms of 1950 (in particular Articles 9 and 14); |
| --- | --- |

—

Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms of 1950 (in particular Articles 9 and 14);

| — | the International Religious Freedom Report for 2003 issued by the US Department of State; |
| --- | --- |

—

the International Religious Freedom Report for 2003 issued by the US Department of State;

and the fact that:

| — | non-Orthodox groups in Greece are encountering administrative obstacles and legal restrictions when practising their religion and leaders of some non-Orthodox religious groups claim that all the taxes paid by religious organisations are discriminatory, since the government subsidises the Orthodox Church, whilst other groups finance themselves; |
| --- | --- |

—

non-Orthodox groups in Greece are encountering administrative obstacles and legal restrictions when practising their religion and leaders of some non-Orthodox religious groups claim that all the taxes paid by religious organisations are discriminatory, since the government subsidises the Orthodox Church, whilst other groups finance themselves;

| — | various religious groups have reported difficulties in dealing with administrative matters and that the privileges and legal prerogatives accorded to the Greek Orthodox Church are not extended to other recognised religions; |
| --- | --- |

—

various religious groups have reported difficulties in dealing with administrative matters and that the privileges and legal prerogatives accorded to the Greek Orthodox Church are not extended to other recognised religions;

| — | members of Jehovah's Witnesses have suffered harassment in the form of arbitrary identity checks, difficulties in burying their dead and local officials' opposition to their building churches; |
| --- | --- |

—

members of Jehovah's Witnesses have suffered harassment in the form of arbitrary identity checks, difficulties in burying their dead and local officials' opposition to their building churches;

| — | other religious groups such as Mormons and foreign Jews have reported problems in renewing visas for ministers and rabbis who are non-EU citizens, since the government does not have a workers' visa specifically for clerics; |
| --- | --- |

—

other religious groups such as Mormons and foreign Jews have reported problems in renewing visas for ministers and rabbis who are non-EU citizens, since the government does not have a workers' visa specifically for clerics;

| — | non-Orthodox citizens encounter problems in gaining access to careers in the army, the police, the fire brigade or the civil service owing to their religion; generally speaking only members of the Orthodox Church can become army officers, which induces members of other faiths to declare that they are Orthodox; there are also reports of pressure being put on Greek Orthodox military personnel not to marry somebody of another faith in a non-Orthodox ceremony, otherwise they may be passed over for promotion; |
| --- | --- |

—

non-Orthodox citizens encounter problems in gaining access to careers in the army, the police, the fire brigade or the civil service owing to their religion; generally speaking only members of the Orthodox Church can become army officers, which induces members of other faiths to declare that they are Orthodox; there are also reports of pressure being put on Greek Orthodox military personnel not to marry somebody of another faith in a non-Orthodox ceremony, otherwise they may be passed over for promotion;

| — | the Orthodox Church has published a list of religious practices and groups which are considered sacrilegious and officials of the Orthodox Church have admitted that they refuse dialogue with religious groups considered as prejudicial to practising members of the Orthodox Church and have even advised Orthodox Greeks to shun adherents of such faiths. |
| --- | --- |

—

the Orthodox Church has published a list of religious practices and groups which are considered sacrilegious and officials of the Orthodox Church have admitted that they refuse dialogue with religious groups considered as prejudicial to practising members of the Orthodox Church and have even advised Orthodox Greeks to shun adherents of such faiths.

Can the Commission say whether it is aware of these facts, whether it has given them due consideration and assessed them and what conclusions it has reached?

Can the Commission also say whether it considers the actions described as an infringement of the fundamental rights guaranteed in Articles 10, 22 and 52 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU and contrary to Article 6 of the EU Treaty?

If it does not explicitly condemn these actions, on what legal principles it bases its attitude?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(29 April 2004)

The Honourable Member refers to a wide variety of circumstances or practices which, he claims, result in violations of religious freedom in Greece. These circumstances and practices have not previously been brought to the Commission's attention.

The Commission's subsequent evaluation of these circumstances and the initiatives it may take in that connection will depend on whether they are covered by Community law.

Some of the circumstances referred to are totally outside the scope of Community law and therefore the Commission will not be able to take action on them. The refusal to grant a workers' visa specifically for clerics from third countries is one such case, since there are no Community rules governing the entry and residence for work purposes of third-country nationals, and all decisions in that field are taken by the Member States.

Some of the practices mentioned appear to be covered by the Declaration on the status of churches and non-confessional organisations attached to the Amsterdam Treaty, under which the European Union respects the status under national law of churches, religious communities and non-confessional organisations in the Member States. This holds true for the administrative conditions associated with the practice of religions other than Orthodoxy and for the taxes paid by religious organisations referred to by the Honourable Member.

The list of religious practices and groups considered sacrilegious by the Orthodox Church and the social conduct to which it may give rise can affect relations between private individuals only, and as such no further comment is required.

As regards the alleged discrimination against persons in gaining access to careers and receiving promotion in the civil service, the Commission points out that Greece is obliged to apply Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000, which prohibits discrimination based on religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation in the field of employment and occupation (1). Application of this Directive has been mandatory for all the Member States since 2 December 2003.

Within the framework of its evaluation of the application by the Member States of the aforementioned Directive, the Commission sent Greece a letter of formal notice concerning its failure to give notification of measures transposing the Directive into national law.

---

(1)  OJ L 303, 2.12.2000.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/534 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/534

---

(2004/C 88 E/0546)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0786/04

by Proinsias De Rossa (PSE) to the Commission

(11 March 2004)

Subject:   Police cooperation and human rights

Seeking to step up the fight against cross-border terrorism and organised crime, the Irish Presidency has prioritised the achievement of greater collaboration between police, customs and security services in all Member States.

Will the Commission guarantee that arrangements for cooperation between law enforcement services in Member States respect international human rights standards and best practices? Does the Commission intend to press for the inclusion of provisions for accountability so that the services concerned are able to ensure complete protection of human rights?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(29 April 2004)

All arrangements for cooperation between law enforcement services set up by instruments adopted under Title VI of the Treaty on the European Union are carefully considered with regard to their compatibility with Article 6 of the Common Provisions of that Treaty.

The Commission has always been particularly mindful of the need to reconcile a policy of enhancing security with full respect for fundamental rights and freedoms and the rule of law. Respect for the rule of law and fundamental rights is an absolute requirement of the legality of all public action. The Commission's mission is to promote this balance throughout the Union, where appropriate, by building up the necessary legislative framework, in order to achieve the Union's major objective of creating and promoting an area of freedom, security and justice.

Legal measures adopted by the European Union fully respect the principles recognised by Article 6 of the Treaty on the European Union and reflected in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. Where relevant, some Framework Decisions include specific reference to this respect for human rights in their preamble, for example, the Framework Decision on the European arrest warrant and the Framework Decision on Combating Terrorism both of 13 June 2002.

Moreover, all current as well as future Member States have endorsed Recommendation Rec (2001)10 of 19 September 2001 of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe to Member States on the European Code of Police Ethics (1), that highlights the need to establish common European principles and guidelines for i.a. the accountability of the police to safeguard security and individual's rights in democratic societies governed by the rule of law. The principle of accountability is set out in further detail in paragraphs 15 and 16: Member States are responsible for exercising independent supervision of the police along the principles laid down.

When implementing Union law, Member States and their law enforcement services must respect the fundamental rights recognised by Article 6 of the Treaty on the European Union and reflected in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and international instruments which, as general principles of law, are an integral part of Union law and protected by it.

---

(1)  http://www.supremecourt.ge/english/Annex2.pdf.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/535 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/535

---

(2004/C 88 E/0547)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0788/04

by Giacomo Santini (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(5 March 2004)

Subject:   Importation of ‘dumped’ copper sulphate

The production of copper sulphate is becoming increasingly important throughout the world for use in animal feeds, agricultural treatments (phytosanitary protection of vines) and in electronics and galvanising. European production has seen a significant downscaling in recent years, owing to massive imports of sulphate from third countries (Uzbekistan, Ukraine, Russia, Macedonia, Serbia and China), and is now on the verge of crisis. Europe's leading producer, which is based in Italy (Manica SpA of Rovereto), maintains a presence on the market along with a few other surviving companies in Italy, Spain and France. The main cause of the crisis is the clear ‘dumping’ by the third countries mentioned above of an excessive quantity (50 000 to 60 000 tonnes per annum) of microcrystalline copper sulphate (known as ‘snow’). This quantity accounts for over two thirds of the European market. Serious concerns also stem from the low quality of extra-Community production, which poses a threat to animal health and the environment. Regulation EC 133/2003 (1) recently introduced further stringent limitations on the use of certain salts, including copper salts, in animal feeds, for reasons relating to defecation by pigs on land and in watercourses. This restriction is further damaging to European exports.

Considering that these circumstances could lead to the closure of the few European facilities that remain, with serious consequences for product quality and for employment, could the Commission indicate:

| 1. | What it will do to curb these dumped imports with customs duties, on the basis of Council Regulation 384/96 (2); |
| --- | --- |

1.

What it will do to curb these dumped imports with customs duties, on the basis of Council Regulation 384/96 (2);

| 2. | What initiatives it will take to protect the internal market, European producers and product quality; |
| --- | --- |

2.

What initiatives it will take to protect the internal market, European producers and product quality;

| 3. | What checks it will run to verify the suspicions surrounding the illegal or scarcely transparent origin of a large proportion of the copper sulphate imported from those countries? |
| --- | --- |

3.

What checks it will run to verify the suspicions surrounding the illegal or scarcely transparent origin of a large proportion of the copper sulphate imported from those countries?

Answer given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(1 April 2004)

| 1. | The Honourable Member can rest assured that the Commission is always ready to protect the European industry from any imports under unfair and injurious conditions provided that the applicable requirements of Community's international obligations and EU law (3) are met.
  According to the relevant rules, the implementation of anti-dumping measures requires a formal procedure starting with a complaint lodged on behalf of the Community industry either in its totality or a major proportion thereof. It is followed by an investigation carried out by the Commissions' Trade Defence Service and may lead to a proposal of anti-dumping measures (e.g. an anti-dumping duty) by the Commission which has to be adopted by the Council of Ministers.
  The Commission is ready to provide the relevant Community producers with any information and help requested to enable them to lodge such a complaint. In this respect it would like to draw the attention of the Honourable Member to its web-site (http://europa.eu.int/comm/trade/policy/dumping/compl.htm) where a ‘Guide on how to draft an anti-dumping complaint’ can be found. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The Honourable Member can rest assured that the Commission is always ready to protect the European industry from any imports under unfair and injurious conditions provided that the applicable requirements of Community's international obligations and EU law (3) are met.

According to the relevant rules, the implementation of anti-dumping measures requires a formal procedure starting with a complaint lodged on behalf of the Community industry either in its totality or a major proportion thereof. It is followed by an investigation carried out by the Commissions' Trade Defence Service and may lead to a proposal of anti-dumping measures (e.g. an anti-dumping duty) by the Commission which has to be adopted by the Council of Ministers.

The Commission is ready to provide the relevant Community producers with any information and help requested to enable them to lodge such a complaint. In this respect it would like to draw the attention of the Honourable Member to its web-site (http://europa.eu.int/comm/trade/policy/dumping/compl.htm) where a ‘Guide on how to draft an anti-dumping complaint’ can be found.

| 2. | With regard to the protection of the EU market and the European producers, the Commission will take any appropriate initiative as described in the answer above. However, trade defence based on Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 does not aim for the protection of product quality.
  The use of copper sulphate in plant protection is governed by Council Directive 91/414/EEC (4). This provides that a substance can only be used if the Commission, on the basis of the evaluation of a dossier, has adopted a Directive inscribing the substance in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC. For substances that were already on the market in 1993 (including copper sulphate), national rules continue to apply pending the Commission Decision. A dossier that was submitted by industry during 2002 in support of copper is currently being evaluated at Community level. It is expected that a decision will be taken in or before 2006. Should the decision be negative, then all uses of copper in plant protection will have to be withdrawn. Should the decision be positive, it will include minimum technical standards for purity of copper (including copper sulphate) to be used in plant protection. It will be binding throughout the Community. |
| --- | --- |

2.

With regard to the protection of the EU market and the European producers, the Commission will take any appropriate initiative as described in the answer above. However, trade defence based on Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 does not aim for the protection of product quality.

The use of copper sulphate in plant protection is governed by Council Directive 91/414/EEC (4). This provides that a substance can only be used if the Commission, on the basis of the evaluation of a dossier, has adopted a Directive inscribing the substance in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC. For substances that were already on the market in 1993 (including copper sulphate), national rules continue to apply pending the Commission Decision. A dossier that was submitted by industry during 2002 in support of copper is currently being evaluated at Community level. It is expected that a decision will be taken in or before 2006. Should the decision be negative, then all uses of copper in plant protection will have to be withdrawn. Should the decision be positive, it will include minimum technical standards for purity of copper (including copper sulphate) to be used in plant protection. It will be binding throughout the Community.

| 3. | As the Honourable Member will certainly be aware, there are at present no anti-dumping duties imposed on copper sulphate. Therefore, there is no apparent justification for suspecting fraudulent trafficking. In order for anti-dumping duties to be imposed, the Community industries affected by this situation would first have to lodge an anti-dumping complaint as set out in the first part of this reply. |
| --- | --- |

3.

As the Honourable Member will certainly be aware, there are at present no anti-dumping duties imposed on copper sulphate. Therefore, there is no apparent justification for suspecting fraudulent trafficking. In order for anti-dumping duties to be imposed, the Community industries affected by this situation would first have to lodge an anti-dumping complaint as set out in the first part of this reply.

---

(1)  OJ L 22, 25.1.2003, p. 18.

(2)  OJ L 56, 6.3.1996, p. 1.

(3)  Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 of 22 December 1995 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community as last amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 461/2004 of 8 March 2004, OJ L 77, 13.3.2004 (the ‘Basic Regulation’).

(4)  Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market OJ L 230, 19.8.1991.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/536 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/536

---

(2004/C 88 E/0548)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0806/04

by Antonio Di Pietro (ELDR) to the Commission

(15 March 2004)

Subject:   Tremonti Law — Mediaset

By law No 489 of 8 August 1994 (‘Tremonti Law’) the Mediaset company, which operates in the information and media sector, was granted tax reductions of at least LIT 243 billion. As a direct result of these reductions, Mediaset has considerably strengthened its own dominant position on the market, cancelled out huge budgetary losses and been quoted on the stock exchange. The law's decision-making procedures were, for the most part, established by the head of the media company, who was at the same time Prime Minister, and hence faced with an obvious conflict of interest. In the restricted television segment of the market, the Mediaset company is in actual fact the main if not exclusive beneficiary of the law. The beneficiary's involvement in the decision-making procedures of the provision or act constitutes a serious violation of competition law if it occurs, as was undoubtedly the case, ‘in a way which may be regarded as having affected their outcome, at least where its position on the market is significantly affected by the measure’ (conclusions of Advocate-General Jacobs, of 21 March 1991, Extramet).

It is also a serious violation of competition law for the company to seek, through its representatives, to have measures adopted in its favour, with a view to strengthening its dominant position or excluding third parties from the market (Milan Court of Appeal, 9 to 13 July 1998 and judgment of 22 March — 16 June 2000), as was clearly the case here. Conflicts of interest are also extremely prejudicial to the organisations in which they arise.

Will the Commission explain why it has so far refrained from adopting any measures to protect the media market in Italy, which has clearly been seriously undermined by the above violations of competition law, given that the Commission's failure to act could also, in this particular case, result in it being impossible to prosecute these violations, thereby causing considerable prejudice to the Community and national markets and finances?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(30 April 2004)

Following a complaint, the Commission already considered the subject matter of the question and concluded that there were insufficient grounds to prolong its investigation of the case, given that there was no indication of a possible infringement of the Community law of competition.

As regards the claim that participation of the undertaking in the decision-making procedures of the law represents a violation of competition law in view of a conflict of interest, the Commission considers the following: the Community law of competition does not include any reference to the conflict of interest, therefore the Commission does not have the legal means to deal with a situation of conflict of interest in itself, independently of its effect on the market. The Commission, however, can deal with a situation of abuse of dominance or of State aid.

However, regarding dominance, the mere fact that Mediaset benefited under Law No 489 of 8 August 1994 from tax legislation which is not aimed at Mediaset only, or even at radio and television companies only, cannot be described as an abuse of a dominant position.

In addition, in the case in question, the conflict of interest is supposed to have altered competition by means of legislation granting tax relief. Distortions of competition due to advantages granted through State resources are assessed under the State aid rules of the Treaty. It is consolidated case law that article 87 ‘does not distinguish between the measures of State intervention concerned by reference to their causes or aims but defines them in relation to their effects’. What the Commission has to consider is whether a measure fulfils the Treaty definition of State aid. The elements referred to in the question of the Honourable Member do not show that this is the case and the possibility that a conflict of interest may have played a part in the drafting of such a measure cannot alter this assessment.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/537 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/537

---

(2004/C 88 E/0549)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0810/04

by José Ribeiro e Castro (UEN) to the Commission

(8 March 2004)

Subject:   Mozambique — Nampula — murder of a missionary

On 24 February Doraci Edinger, a 53-year-old Brazilian Lutheran Church missionary (for the Igreja Evangélica de Confissão Luterano no Brasil), who was involved in school- and hospital-building projects and in well-sinking projects to supply water to the region, was found dead in the flat where she had been living, in Nampula.

Given that the motive does not appear to have been robbery, rumours have emerged that this brutal crime was linked to the organ-trafficking apparently taking place in the region.

The autopsy has shown that the missionary was killed by blows from a hammer. Five suspects have already been detained in connection with her death.

Within the religious community, and especially among the Catholic nuns who have spoken out against the organ-trafficking, the fear of reprisals is mounting.

The Commission:

| — | what information does it have about these matters; |
| --- | --- |

—

what information does it have about these matters;

| — | what measures has it taken or will it take to guarantee the security of the religious and missionaries working in Nampula, especially those who are Union citizens? |
| --- | --- |

—

what measures has it taken or will it take to guarantee the security of the religious and missionaries working in Nampula, especially those who are Union citizens?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(5 April 2004)

The Commission is aware of the murder of the Brazilian nun Doraci Edinger and contacted the Embassy of Brazil in this respect, which, on the basis of the available information, considers that there is no connection with alleged organ trafficking cases.

Regarding the nuns' safety, although this matter falls outside the Commission's competence and can be best addressed through interventions from the respective Member State Embassies, the Commission will examine within the framework of the EU co-ordination and EU-Mozambique political dialogue the most appropriate way to raise this issue with the government.

The Honourable Member can be assured that the Commission, within the limits of its competence, will maintain contact with the Attorney's General office and the Human Rights League and follow the progress of the investigation.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/538 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/538

---

(2004/C 88 E/0550)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0813/04

by Johanna Boogerd-Quaak (ELDR) to the Commission

(15 March 2004)

Subject:   Agri-environmental payments

On 5 February 2004 I had the honour to host a conference on agri-environmental programmes, ‘How to improve agri-environmental measures for biodiversity and sustainable use’, organised by IUCN.

During that conference critical remarks were made about the calculation of agri-environmental payments as based on the current rules of the Rural Development Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999 (1).

| 1. | Has the Commission considered that the current basis for agri-environmental payments, as laid down in the Rural Development Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999, is not satisfactory in all situations? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Has the Commission considered that the current basis for agri-environmental payments, as laid down in the Rural Development Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999, is not satisfactory in all situations?

| 2. | Has the Commission considered proposing to base agri-environmental payments in the future on the delivery of public goods? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Has the Commission considered proposing to base agri-environmental payments in the future on the delivery of public goods?

| 3. | Has the Commission considered steps in this respect in the context of preparing the new Rural Development Regulation and in the WTO negotiations on the rules for the Green Box of the Agreement on Agriculture? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Has the Commission considered steps in this respect in the context of preparing the new Rural Development Regulation and in the WTO negotiations on the rules for the Green Box of the Agreement on Agriculture?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(28 April 2004)

The conference hosted by the Honourable Member certainly has contributed to a very useful reflection on the current design of agri-environment measures and possible approaches for their future evolution. The Commission has taken note of the points raised during the conference, including the critical remarks. In the case of measures with such a broad uptake under a great variety of objectives and regional/local conditions it is to be expected that weaknesses can occur and be observed.

| 1. | Agri-environmental payments are granted for voluntary commitments going beyond ‘good farming practice’. The reference level of ‘good farming practices’ represents at least statutory requirements with which farmers are expected to comply without being paid. The current basis for agri-environmental payments is article 24 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999 of 17 May 1999 on support for rural development from the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) and amending and repealing certain Regulations. Agri-environment payments are calculated on the basis of income foregone, additional costs resulting from the commitment given by a farmer, and — where deemed necessary to facilitate a sufficient uptake of the measure by the farmers — an incentive element covering transaction costs. These calculations reflect average cost/income situations in an area covered by a programme and not the situation in an individual holding. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Agri-environmental payments are granted for voluntary commitments going beyond ‘good farming practice’. The reference level of ‘good farming practices’ represents at least statutory requirements with which farmers are expected to comply without being paid. The current basis for agri-environmental payments is article 24 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999 of 17 May 1999 on support for rural development from the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) and amending and repealing certain Regulations. Agri-environment payments are calculated on the basis of income foregone, additional costs resulting from the commitment given by a farmer, and — where deemed necessary to facilitate a sufficient uptake of the measure by the farmers — an incentive element covering transaction costs. These calculations reflect average cost/income situations in an area covered by a programme and not the situation in an individual holding.

| 2. | The Commission considers its agri-environment policy as a reasonable and justifiable way of encouraging the provision of public goods in the field of the environment by farmers. Basing agri-environmental payments on the above described principle of calculation of farmers' costs incurred/income foregone allows a desired outcome to be achieved with respect to the delivery of public goods at lowest cost. Weaknesses and difficulties in the practical implementation identified are at present under examination and the Commission will, on this basis, make appropriate proposals for the future design of agri-environment in the framework of Rural Development. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The Commission considers its agri-environment policy as a reasonable and justifiable way of encouraging the provision of public goods in the field of the environment by farmers. Basing agri-environmental payments on the above described principle of calculation of farmers' costs incurred/income foregone allows a desired outcome to be achieved with respect to the delivery of public goods at lowest cost. Weaknesses and difficulties in the practical implementation identified are at present under examination and the Commission will, on this basis, make appropriate proposals for the future design of agri-environment in the framework of Rural Development.

| 3. | The principle is in full compliance with World Trade Organisation agreements regarding support under the Green Box. Any envisaged change in approach has to be carefully considered against this background. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The principle is in full compliance with World Trade Organisation agreements regarding support under the Green Box. Any envisaged change in approach has to be carefully considered against this background.

---

(1)  OJ L 160, 26.6.1999, p. 80.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/539 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/539

---

(2004/C 88 E/0551)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0815/04

by Charles Tannock (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(15 March 2004)

Subject:   The mass detention of Eritrean evangelical Christians

Is the Commission aware of the persecution which is taking place in Eritrea towards evangelical Christians? In a recent crackdown by the Eritrean authorities 51 evangelical Christians were arrested, this brings the total to an estimated 347 citizens arrested and imprisoned across nine locations in Eritrea because of their religious beliefs.

In Eritrea only Orthodox, Catholic, Evangelical Lutheran and Muslim faiths are recognised as official religions, all others are ‘illegal’. Subsequently, since May 2002 all Eritrean evangelical churches have been forced to shut and the meeting for worship in public places and even private homes has been banned. In keeping with the European Union's belief that the freedom to practice peacefully ones religion without persecution is a fundamental universal human right, it is clear that the Eritrean Government are in gross breach of those human rights.

What action does the Commission propose to take to ensure the release of all 347 Eritrean religious prisoners? Furthermore, what actions can it take to create greater tolerance towards different religions in Eritrea and the removal of the ban on all so-called unofficial religions?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(22 April 2004)

The Commission is aware that persecution based on religious belief is taking place in Eritrea. It recalls that the Eritrean Constitution provides for freedom of religion. However, the Government restricts this right in practice. Only the four government-sanctioned religious groups in the country — Orthodox Christians, Muslims, Catholics, and members of the Evangelical Church of Eritrea (which is affiliated with the Lutheran World Federation) — are allowed to meet freely.

In May 2002, the Minister of Information issued a decree that all religious groups should be registered, however this did not apply for the four sanctioned groups. Other groups were warned that, until the registration applications were approved, no religious activities or services could be held. No authorizations have been granted so far.

Since then, according to various reports received, persecution has intensified. The Government harassed, arrested, and detained members of non-sanctioned Protestant religious groups locally referred to collectively as ‘Pentes’, reform movements from and within the Coptic Church, Jehovah's Witnesses, and adherents of the Baha'i Faith. The reports mention that on occasion police physically mistreated those detained, and that some detainees were required to sign statements repudiating their faith or agreeing not to practice it as a condition for release. Reportedly, these events involved hundreds of individuals.

Members of Jehovah's Witnesses seem to be particularly targeted, because of their refusal to perform duties under the National Service. Many were evicted from or not allowed to occupy government-owned housing, denied passports and exit visas and some had their identity cards refused or revoked. At the end of 2003, an estimated 11 members of Jehovah's Witnesses reportedly remained in detention without charge. National service is compulsory in Eritrea for all males between 18 and 45 and all females between 18 and 28 and the Government does not provide non-military alternatives.

The Commission agrees that the above constitutes a violation of fundamental human rights and, in coordination with Member States, closely follows developments. This issue will be discussed in the framework of the political dialogue foreseen by Article 8 of the Cotonou Agreement. The dialogue restarted in 2003, after a period of suspension following the crackdown on political opposition and the media at the end of 2001. During a first phase it proved to be difficult to table the sensitive political issues. However, a second phase is about to start. The European Union has been assured that it will be possible to discuss civil, political, religious, economic, social and cultural rights.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/540 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/540

---

(2004/C 88 E/0552)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0821/04

by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(15 March 2004)

Subject:   Signing of the Agadir Agreement

The free trade agreement between Jordan, Egypt, Tunisia and Morocco was signed on 25 February 2004 in the presence of Commissioner Chris Patten. It is known as the Agadir Agreement, in reference to the political declaration of intent issued by these countries in Agadir in May 2001. The agreement is part of the broader objective of partnership between the EU and the countries on the shore of the Mediterranean, envisaged in the Barcelona process launched in 1995, with a view to creating a pan-Euro-Mediterranean free-trade area by 2010.

In this context, can the Commission say what impact it thinks the process will have on Community products of a specifically Mediterranean nature, particularly in Portugal? More specifically, what does it think the impact will be on the fruit and vegetable sector and the canning industry, including fish (sardines, tuna, etc.), particularly in Portugal?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(27 April 2004)

The Agadir Agreement signed on 25 February 2004, is a free trade agreement between four Mediterranean partners: Morocco, Tunisia, Egypt and Jordan. Therefore, the European Union is not part of this Agreement, although it has strongly encouraged its conclusion. Each of these four countries has concluded Association Agreements, including free trade provisions, with the European Union in the context of the Euro-Mediterranean partnership. The Agreements with Morocco, Tunisia and Jordan are already in force. The Agreement with Egypt should enter into force in the near future although its trade and trade related provisions have been in force since 1 January 2004. The Agadir Agreement should therefore have no direct effect on sectors in the EU.

The policy of the Commission is to promote the conclusion of free trade agreements between Southern Mediterranean partners, so that the North-South economic dimension of the Euro-Mediterranean partnership is complemented with a South-South dimension to further attract investment and promote trade between partners. The Agadir Agreement, in line with this objective, constitutes a positive step in the gradual creation of the Euro-Mediterranean Free Trade Area and should have a positive impact in the trade relations of the four countries concerned, and in the development of economic and trade relations in the whole Euro-Mediterranean region. The Commission follows very closely the impact and developments resulting from the implementation of free trade in the region and is funding a sustainability impact study on the Euro-Mediterranean Free trade Area. The study is in its initial phase, and is intended to produce an overall evaluation of the economic, social and environment sustainability of free trade in the Euro-Mediterranean region.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/541 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/541

---

(2004/C 88 E/0553)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0833/04

by Catherine Stihler (PSE) to the Commission

(15 March 2004)

Subject:   VAT rating of 0 % or 5 % on all audio-books

Can the Commission inform me if it would have objections, and if so on what grounds, to the UK Government applying a reduced VAT rating of 0 % or 5 % on all audio-books? This would bring audio-books closer into line with the 0-rating on print books in the UK and ensure that people with sight loss are not penalised for reading books in audio format rather than print format. Such measures have been supported by the Royal National Institute of the Blind Scotland and other organisations of and for people with sight loss.

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(30 April 2004)

Under present Community legislation, the United Kingdom has no legal base to apply a reduced VAT rating of 0 % or 5 % on audio-books.

The maintenance of zero rates was authorised by Council Directive 92/77/EEC (1) as a temporary derogation for the duration of a transitional period prior to the introduction of a definitive VAT system involving taxation in the country of origin. It is allowed on the condition that such rates were legally in force on 1 January 1991. Under these provisions, the United Kingdom was allowed to apply zero rates to books but not to audio books. This sort of derogation is an exception to the normal rules which foresee that the standard VAT rate should apply to all taxable transactions with an option for Member States to apply a reduced rate only to goods and services listed in Annex H (list of goods and services which may be subject to reduced rates of VAT) to the Sixth VAT Directive 77/388/EEC (2). Audio books are not, as such, included in Annex H so they are submitted to the standard rate.

The merits of extending the scope of reduced rates to new areas have been carefully examined. For historical reasons, the reduced rate applies to books in 12 Member States and the zero rate in two Member States (Denmark applies a unique rate of 25 % to all goods and services). On the other hand, all 15 Member States apply, at the current time, the standard rate of VAT to audio supports.

The proposal for a Directive concerning reduced rates of VAT (3) of 23 July 2003 aims essentially at improving the functioning of the Internal Market by rationalising the use of reduced rates by Member States to avoid potential distortions and by allowing Member States equal possibilities to apply reduced rates.

In terms of rationalising the present situation, category 6 of Annex H has not been modified by the Commission proposal and reduced rates applied to books can be maintained. Moreover, the Commission proposes including in category 4 the following goods:

| | The supply of medical equipment, aids and other appliances normally intended to alleviate or treat disability, for the exclusive personal use of the disabled, and apparatus and electrical, electronic or other equipment and means of transport, designed or specially adapted for the disabled. Repair of such goods. |
| --- | --- |

The supply of medical equipment, aids and other appliances normally intended to alleviate or treat disability, for the exclusive personal use of the disabled, and apparatus and electrical, electronic or other equipment and means of transport, designed or specially adapted for the disabled. Repair of such goods.

Should this proposal be adopted, audio, video or other supports specially designed or specially adapted for the disabled could be subject to a reduced VAT rate. As there is no other definition at Community level, Member States will have to determine if audio books should be considered as part of this category even if the mainstream population can also buy and use them.

The Commission is aware of the problem the Honourable Member referred to and it will keep this question in mind during the negotiation of the Commission proposal of 23 July 2003, currently examined by the Council.

It is now up to the Council to decide, by unanimity, and in the light of the opinion of the Parliament, on the future scope of the reduced rates of VAT. However, a more targeted solution to this particular problem could perhaps be found outside the VAT system, by a national system of grants or refunds to compensate for the VAT paid. This matter falls within the competence of the United Kingdom authorities.

---

(1)  Council Directive 92/77/EEC of 19 October 1992 supplementing the common system of value added tax and amending Directive 77/388/EEC (approximation of VAT rates) — OJ L 316, 31.10.1992.

(2)  Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonization 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.

(3)  COM(2003) 397 final.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/542 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/542

---

(2004/C 88 E/0554)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0852/04

by Michl Ebner (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(19 March 2004)

Subject:   Building projects in East Africa

East Africa covers the area east of the Central African Rift Valley between Ethiopia and the Ruvuma River and includes the countries of Uganda, Kenya, Rwanda, Burundi and Tanzania. Typical of these countries are weak and underfunded State institutions, often unable to fulfil important government responsibilities. They can therefore cope with only very few of the challenges posed by sustainable development. The result is poverty and social underdevelopment. Moreover, running water, electricity and smoothly operating infrastructure are still rarities, with a lack of educational institutions and poor health also impeding progress.

Since the regions do not possess their own financial resources to combat the poverty, they have to rely on the transfer of capital and on development work from abroad.

In the light of the precarious situation in East Africa, will the Commission say:

| — | whether there already are Commission-assisted building projects for East Africa covering all the technical fields in construction and architecture, or |
| --- | --- |

—

whether there already are Commission-assisted building projects for East Africa covering all the technical fields in construction and architecture, or

| — | whether any are planned? |
| --- | --- |

—

whether any are planned?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(27 April 2004)

The European Union's development policy since November 2000 has focused on poverty reduction and has three priority areas of cooperation: economic development, social and human development, integration and regional cooperation.

Under this approach priorities are set on a country-by-country basis and the principle of channelling resources to one or two focal sectors is a key element of cooperation. The part played by construction in this cooperation varies in each individual case, but it is impossible to estimate the value of all the assistance we have provided in this area as it forms part of broader programmes.

The majority of building projects are in two priority sectors: health and education, but other sectors also receive aid for the rehabilitation of infrastructure to underpin broader-based programmes. The European Development Fund (EDF) finances building and rehabilitation of health infrastructure ranging from small health centres to referral hospitals. In the education sector the EDF provides assistance for the setting-up and rehabilitation of primary classes, technical colleges and universities. In the 1990s alone, EUR 150 million was provided for health infrastructure in all African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) countries and accounted for some 30 % of EDF resources for the health sector. Examples include the building of two 250-bed hospitals at a total cost of EUR 23 million each in Malawi, and, in the same region, the decision taken by the Commission on 17 February this year to finance the rehabilitation of the National Assembly's buildings and the construction of a building for the Supreme Court and the Ministry of Justice in Rwanda at a cost of EUR 8 million. The implementation of this financing demonstrates Rwanda's determination to move towards the rule of law and good governance with the European Union's active support.

All these projects are designed according to the highest standard by specialised EU and local consultants which include architects, engineers and surveyors.

Projects are awarded to public works companies following invitations to tender. Because they are typically low technology and low cost compared, for example, to road projects, most building projects are undertaken by local companies and this increases their socio-economic impact.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/543 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/543

---

(2004/C 88 E/0555)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0854/04

by Roger Helmer (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(19 March 2004)

Subject:   Common external tariffs

Further to the Written Question P-0472/04 (1) by Roger Helmer (PPE-DE) and the answer given by Mrs Schreyer on behalf of the Commission on 5 March 2004:

| 1. | What was the value in 2002 of imports of agricultural products from outside EU-15 (by total and by Member State) on which aggregated agricultural duties of EUR 1,18 billion (before collection costs) were charged? |
| --- | --- |

1.

What was the value in 2002 of imports of agricultural products from outside EU-15 (by total and by Member State) on which aggregated agricultural duties of EUR 1,18 billion (before collection costs) were charged?

| 2. | What was the value in 2002 of imports of non-agricultural products from outside EU-15 (by total and by Member State) on which aggregated import duties of EUR 12,92 billion (before collection costs) were charged? |
| --- | --- |

2.

What was the value in 2002 of imports of non-agricultural products from outside EU-15 (by total and by Member State) on which aggregated import duties of EUR 12,92 billion (before collection costs) were charged?

| 3. | What was the value in 2002 of imports of goods from outside EU-15 (by total and broken down by Member State) which were partially or totally exempted from import duties; and what were the three most important categories, by value of goods imported, so exempted? |
| --- | --- |

3.

What was the value in 2002 of imports of goods from outside EU-15 (by total and broken down by Member State) which were partially or totally exempted from import duties; and what were the three most important categories, by value of goods imported, so exempted?

| 4. | Do ‘agricultural duties’ and ‘import duties’ as set out in the Written Answer of 5 March 2004 include ‘anti-dumping duties’? |
| --- | --- |

4.

Do ‘agricultural duties’ and ‘import duties’ as set out in the Written Answer of 5 March 2004 include ‘anti-dumping duties’?

| 5. | If ‘anti-dumping duties’ were charged in 2002, what was their overall value, and which were the three most important categories, by value of goods imported, subject to such duties? |
| --- | --- |

5.

If ‘anti-dumping duties’ were charged in 2002, what was their overall value, and which were the three most important categories, by value of goods imported, subject to such duties?

Answer given by Mrs Schreyer on behalf of the Commission

(30 April 2004)

Further to the written question P-0472/04 by the Honourable Member and the answer given by Mrs Schreyer on behalf of the Commission on 5 March 2004:

| 1. | Please find below the breakdown by Member State of agricultural duties (i.e. import duties on agricultural products) recorded in the EU-15 accounts in 2002 and of the corresponding imports of agricultural products on which these duties were collected (i.e. imports for the period November 2001 to October 2002 on which duties were paid — with a two-month delay — in the period January 2002 to December 2002).







  (million euros) |
| --- | --- |
| | Agricultural duties | Imports of agricultural products on which agricultural duties were charged |
| EU-15 | 1 180,3 | 10 933,8 |
| Belgium | 22,9 | 479,8 |
| Denmark | 7,4 | 94,9 |
| Germany | 144,2 | 1 789,9 |
| Greece | 12,0 | 293,9 |
| Spain | 38,1 | 1 171,9 |
| France | 132,6 | 731,5 |
| Ireland | 0,7 | 102,4 |
| Italy | 72,6 | 1 532,8 |
| Luxembourg | 0,2 | 4,7 |
| Netherlands | 201,8 | 1 249,2 |
| Austria | 10,8 | 293,0 |
| Portugal | 20,4 | 407,1 |
| Finland | 3,7 | 56,6 |
| Sweden | 14,7 | 184,8 |
| United Kingdom | 498,2 | 2 541,3 |

1.

Please find below the breakdown by Member State of agricultural duties (i.e. import duties on agricultural products) recorded in the EU-15 accounts in 2002 and of the corresponding imports of agricultural products on which these duties were collected (i.e. imports for the period November 2001 to October 2002 on which duties were paid — with a two-month delay — in the period January 2002 to December 2002).

(million euros)

Agricultural duties

Imports of agricultural products on which agricultural duties were charged

EU-15

1 180,3

10 933,8

Belgium

22,9

479,8

Denmark

7,4

94,9

Germany

144,2

1 789,9

Greece

12,0

293,9

Spain

38,1

1 171,9

France

132,6

731,5

Ireland

0,7

102,4

Italy

72,6

1 532,8

Luxembourg

0,2

4,7

Netherlands

201,8

1 249,2

Austria

10,8

293,0

Portugal

20,4

407,1

Finland

3,7

56,6

Sweden

14,7

184,8

United Kingdom

498,2

2 541,3

| 2. | Please find below the breakdown by Member State of customs duties (i.e. import duties on non-agricultural products) recorded in the EU accounts in 2002 and of the corresponding imports of non-agricultural products on which these duties were collected (i.e. imports for the period November 2001 to October 2002 on which duties were paid — with a two-month delay — in the period January 2002 to December 2002).







  (million euros) |
| --- | --- |
| | Customs duties | Imports of non-agricultural products on which customs duties were charged |
| EU-15 | 12 917,5 | 426 028,2 |
| Belgium | 1 346,2 | 26 547,4 |
| Denmark | 258,5 | 8 461,0 |
| Germany | 2 743,2 | 112 338,4 |
| Greece | 173,2 | 5 226,0 |
| Spain | 887,7 | 22 667,0 |
| France | 1 178,1 | 43 587,8 |
| Ireland | 135,4 | 4 252,8 |
| Italy | 1 290,7 | 51 233,3 |
| Luxembourg | 16,7 | 1 113,3 |
| Netherlands | 1 340,5 | 37 063,0 |
| Austria | 208,9 | 12 150,2 |
| Portugal | 123,0 | 3 672,8 |
| Finland | 98,7 | 3 868,7 |
| Sweden | 348,0 | 11 145,6 |
| United Kingdom | 2 768,7 | 82 700,8 |

2.

Please find below the breakdown by Member State of customs duties (i.e. import duties on non-agricultural products) recorded in the EU accounts in 2002 and of the corresponding imports of non-agricultural products on which these duties were collected (i.e. imports for the period November 2001 to October 2002 on which duties were paid — with a two-month delay — in the period January 2002 to December 2002).

(million euros)

Customs duties

Imports of non-agricultural products on which customs duties were charged

EU-15

12 917,5

426 028,2

Belgium

1 346,2

26 547,4

Denmark

258,5

8 461,0

Germany

2 743,2

112 338,4

Greece

173,2

5 226,0

Spain

887,7

22 667,0

France

1 178,1

43 587,8

Ireland

135,4

4 252,8

Italy

1 290,7

51 233,3

Luxembourg

16,7

1 113,3

Netherlands

1 340,5

37 063,0

Austria

208,9

12 150,2

Portugal

123,0

3 672,8

Finland

98,7

3 868,7

Sweden

348,0

11 145,6

United Kingdom

2 768,7

82 700,8

| 3. | Please find below the breakdown by Member State of imports for the period November 2001 to October 2002 (i.e. imports on which duties were paid — with a two-month delay — in the period January 2002 to December 2002), split in 3 categories: imports of agricultural products on which agricultural duties were charged, imports of non-agricultural products on which customs duties were charged and imports of goods partially or totally exempted of import duties.









  (million euros) |
| --- | --- |
| | Imports of agricultural products on which agricultural duties were charged | Imports of non-agricultural products on which customs duties were charged | Imports of goods partially or totally exempted of import duties | Total imports |
| EU-15 | 10 933,8 | 426 028,2 | 479 604,2 | 916 566,2 |
| Belgium | 479,8 | 26 547,4 | 30 768,6 | 57 795,8 |
| Denmark | 94,9 | 8 461,0 | 6 331,5 | 14 887,3 |
| Germany | 1 789,9 | 112 338,4 | 102 363,2 | 216 491,5 |
| Greece | 293,9 | 5 226,0 | 9 469,8 | 14 989,8 |
| Spain | 1 171,9 | 22 667,0 | 31 475,5 | 55 314,4 |
| France | 731,5 | 43 587,8 | 54 969,1 | 99 288,4 |
| Ireland | 102,4 | 4 252,8 | 13 992,7 | 18 347,9 |
| Italy | 1 532,8 | 51 233,3 | 49 115,5 | 101 881,7 |
| Luxembourg | 4,7 | 1 113,3 | 1 811,7 | 2 929,8 |
| Netherlands | 1 249,2 | 37 063,0 | 67 918,4 | 106 230,6 |
| Austria | 293,0 | 12 150,2 | 11 714,6 | 24 157,7 |
| Portugal | 407,1 | 3 672,8 | 5 352,9 | 9 432,8 |
| Finland | 56,6 | 3 868,7 | 7 912,8 | 11 838,1 |
| Sweden | 184,8 | 11 145,6 | 11 035,3 | 22 365,6 |
| United Kingdom | 2 541,3 | 82 700,8 | 75 372,6 | 160 614,7 |

3.

Please find below the breakdown by Member State of imports for the period November 2001 to October 2002 (i.e. imports on which duties were paid — with a two-month delay — in the period January 2002 to December 2002), split in 3 categories: imports of agricultural products on which agricultural duties were charged, imports of non-agricultural products on which customs duties were charged and imports of goods partially or totally exempted of import duties.

(million euros)

Imports of agricultural products on which agricultural duties were charged

Imports of non-agricultural products on which customs duties were charged

Imports of goods partially or totally exempted of import duties

Total imports

EU-15

10 933,8

426 028,2

479 604,2

916 566,2

Belgium

479,8

26 547,4

30 768,6

57 795,8

Denmark

94,9

8 461,0

6 331,5

14 887,3

Germany

1 789,9

112 338,4

102 363,2

216 491,5

Greece

293,9

5 226,0

9 469,8

14 989,8

Spain

1 171,9

22 667,0

31 475,5

55 314,4

France

731,5

43 587,8

54 969,1

99 288,4

Ireland

102,4

4 252,8

13 992,7

18 347,9

Italy

1 532,8

51 233,3

49 115,5

101 881,7

Luxembourg

4,7

1 113,3

1 811,7

2 929,8

Netherlands

1 249,2

37 063,0

67 918,4

106 230,6

Austria

293,0

12 150,2

11 714,6

24 157,7

Portugal

407,1

3 672,8

5 352,9

9 432,8

Finland

56,6

3 868,7

7 912,8

11 838,1

Sweden

184,8

11 145,6

11 035,3

22 365,6

United Kingdom

2 541,3

82 700,8

75 372,6

160 614,7

The three most important categories, by value of goods imported, partially or totally exempted of import duties are sent directly to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat.

| 4. | Agricultural duties do not include any anti-dumping duties. Anti-dumping duties are included under customs duties. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Agricultural duties do not include any anti-dumping duties. Anti-dumping duties are included under customs duties.

| 5. | The overall value of anti-dumping and anti-subsidy duties declared by Member States in 2002 was EUR 114 million. |
| --- | --- |

5.

The overall value of anti-dumping and anti-subsidy duties declared by Member States in 2002 was EUR 114 million.

The three most important sectors (by chapter of the Combined Nomenclature) by value of imports under anti-dumping or anti-subsidy measures were the following:

| — | Fish: EUR 846 million; |
| --- | --- |

—

Fish: EUR 846 million;

| — | Footwear: EUR 707 million; |
| --- | --- |

—

Footwear: EUR 707 million;

| — | Vehicles and parts: EUR 685 million. |
| --- | --- |

—

Vehicles and parts: EUR 685 million.

---

(1)  OJ C 84 E, 3.4.2004, p. 594.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/546 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/546

---

(2004/C 88 E/0556)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0874/04

by Salvador Garriga Polledo (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(22 March 2004)

Subject:   Boycott of polio vaccinations by Nigerian fundamentalists

According to the President of Unicef, cases of polio have been recorded in as many as seven countries in the past year through the fault of the Islamic authorities in northern Nigeria.

The Islamic authorities have suspended vaccination campaigns because they claim the preparations have been found to contain oestrogen, a hormone that forms the basis of the contraceptive pill.

Can the Commission indicate whether, in line with the coercive measures at its disposal, it could try to persuade the Islamic authorities in question to end their boycott, thereby ensuring that no more children become paralysed owing to their vaccinations being deferred on the basis of unfounded rumours?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(30 April 2004)

With Nigeria continuing to have among the highest number of polio cases in the world, it is a priority country in terms of global polio eradication. The Community contributes to the Global Polio Eradication Initiative through various instruments as well as specifically allocating supplementary funds for polio immunisation activities in Nigeria. The Commission is in the process of further allocating funds to fight polio in that region.

The Commission, through its delegation in Nigeria, works in dialogue with the Nigerian authorities and will continue to support and improve polio eradication programmes in the region. The Commission is aware that the recent outbreak of polio in northern Nigeria that has spread to other African nations is causing a major setback for the international polio-eradication campaign co-ordinated by the global partnership to eradicate polio. It is to be noted that President Obasanjo is committed to eradicating the polio virus in Nigeria before the global target date of 2005. Despite this there is evidence of suspended vaccination campaigns in Northern Nigeria enabling the virus to spread. To the Commission's knowledge, this position occurs in Nigeria only and it would expect that successful implementation of vaccination programmes in the region as a whole will convince the authorities of the importance of resuming the programmes. In fact the Organisation of the Islamic Conference (OIC), at its last summit in October 2003 in Malaysia, adopted a resolution to eradicate polio from all its Member States. Currently, 52 of the OIC's 57 members are polio free.

The World Health Organisation and the global partnership to eradicate polio, as the implementing bodies, work with specific technical questions such as the possibility of presence of oestrogen in vaccines.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/547 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/547

---

(2004/C 88 E/0557)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0878/04

by Antonio Di Pietro (ELDR) to the Commission

(22 March 2004)

Subject:   The Acque Albule water company of Tivoli (Italy)

The Acque Albule water company administers thermal springs which have been known and highly regarded since antiquity. The Tivoli municipal authority — which has been the company's sole shareholder since December 2001 — has recently disposed of 40 % of the company's capital to a private group on the alleged grounds that it intends to recapitalise the company. That operation has been declared irregular and void by a court in Rome. Furthermore, the Italian national auditing body has identified serious irregularities in the company's accounts. Acque Albule's shares seem to have been greatly undervalued and the operation was carried out with a total lack of transparency — the valuation document was not even made public. Despite the contractual undertakings given by the new private company and despite the injection of considerable public funding, virtually all of the company's staff have been made redundant. It has recently been reported in the press that Acque Albule has considered issuing debenture bonds, to add to the benefit it derives from the public aid to which it is not entitled.

What action does the Commission intend to take in response to the fact that a sizeable amount of public property has been disposed of in a most untransparent fashion, to the fact that there has recently been a public issue of debenture bonds for which appropriate guarantees have not, apparently, been provided, and to the fact that the large amounts of public aid which were granted to the company for the purpose of compensating the workforce for any losses suffered have obviously not — in view of the fact that staff have been made redundant — been used in order to preserve jobs?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(29 April 2004)

The issue of whether the sale of public property below its value may contain an element of State aid in favour of the buyers is dealt with — as regards sales of land and buildings — in the Commission Communication on State aid elements in sales of land and buildings by public authorities, published in the Official Journal of the European Union (1).

In the Communication it is stated that:

| | A sale of land and buildings following a sufficiently well-publicised, open and unconditional bidding procedure, comparable to an auction, accepting the best or only bid is by definition at market value and consequently does not contain State aid. |
| --- | --- |

A sale of land and buildings following a sufficiently well-publicised, open and unconditional bidding procedure, comparable to an auction, accepting the best or only bid is by definition at market value and consequently does not contain State aid.

and

| | If public authorities intend not to use the procedure described ... [above], an independent evaluation should be carried out by one or more independent asset valuers prior to the sale negotiations in order to establish the market value on the basis of generally accepted market indicators and valuation standards. The market price thus established is the minimum purchase price that can be agreed without granting State aid. |
| --- | --- |

If public authorities intend not to use the procedure described ... [above], an independent evaluation should be carried out by one or more independent asset valuers prior to the sale negotiations in order to establish the market value on the basis of generally accepted market indicators and valuation standards. The market price thus established is the minimum purchase price that can be agreed without granting State aid.

The above principles might also be relevant in assessing sales of other types of public assets.

In view of the information provided, the Commission intends to address a letter to the Italian authorities requesting information, in order to gather further elements, both in relation to other aspects of the case, and to assess the possible presence of State aid.

---

(1)  OJ C 209, 10.7.1997.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/548 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/548

---

(2004/C 88 E/0558)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0889/04

by Nelly Maes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(22 March 2004)

Subject:   Elections in Iran

The recent elections in Iran were a travesty of democracy. Most of the independent candidates were disqualified by the religious council, demonstrating once again that it is all-powerful. Despite this intervention, the elections nonetheless went ahead. This shows that the so-called reformists in Iran have achieved nothing.

The European Commission has defended dialogue with Iran as a means of promoting human rights and democracy.

What conclusions does the Commission draw from recent events as far as dialogue with the Iranian authorities is concerned?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(28 April 2004)

In its February 2004 conclusions, the Council expressed its deep regret and disappointment that large numbers of candidates were discriminated against in their prevention from standing in the 20 February 2004 parliamentary elections in Iran. The Council expressed the hope that Iran would return to the path of reform and de]mocratisation.

The Commission shares the above sentiment and believes that the flawed elections had a negative impact on the overall climate in the EU's relations with Iran. Further reflection and analysis is needed to calibrate the precise approach towards Iran against the background of this setback in the democratic process. The Commission nevertheless continues to believe that a re-establishment of the Comprehensive Dialogue is in the EU's interest. It notes, inter alia, that the specific Human Rights dialogue launched in December 2002 has yielded some small yet tangible results and believes that — despite its difficulties — it should be given a further opportunity.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/549 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/549

---

(2004/C 88 E/0559)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0899/04

by Patricia McKenna (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(24 March 2004)

Subject:   Larger Member State representation on the ECB board

Will the Commission comment on recent allegations in the Financial Times (8 March 2004) which claim that Germany, Italy France and Spain are attempting to set a precedent for larger Member States to always have representation on the European Central Bank's six-member board? Could such a situation ever be allowed to occur? And if so, under what circumstances?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(23 April 2004)

The rules and the procedure for the appointment of the members of the Executive Board of the European Central Bank (ECB) are laid down in Article 112(2)(b) EC as well as in Article 11 (2) of the Statute of the European System of Central Banks and of the European Central Bank. The decision is taken by common accord (i.e. unanimity without abstention) of the governments of the Member States at the level of Heads of State or Government. The decision is based on a recommendation from the Council, while both the European Parliament and the Governing Council of the ECB are consulted. It should be noted that only the Member States belonging to the euro area are entitled to take part in the relevant decisions of the Council and the Governments according to Article 122(4) of the EC Treaty.

The EC Treaty imposes two requirements for the selection of the members of the Executive Board. Firstly, they shall be appointed from among persons of recognised standing and professional experience in monetary and banking matters. Secondly, they shall be nationals of participating Member States. The members of the Executive Board moreover act in a personal capacity as opposed to acting as representatives of their country of origin. Any notion of representation of Member States would therefore not be in line with the rules and principles governing the appointment of the members of the Executive Board.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/549 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/549

---

(2004/C 88 E/0560)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0918/04

by Proinsias De Rossa (PSE) to the Commission

(26 March 2004)

Subject:   Random motor insurance checks in Ireland on vehicles from other Member States

What reply, if any, did the Commission receive from Ireland in response to the reasoned opinion that it sent to Ireland in July 2001 (as announced in press release IP/01/1101) regarding Ireland's practice of making random insurance checks on vehicles from other Member States, thereby possibly infringing the First Motor Insurance Directive (72/166/EEC (1))? What subsequent action did the Commission take, or is still considering taking, with regard to this matter?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(30 April 2004)

Following the reasoned opinion sent by the Commission on 26 July 2001, Ireland has come into line with Community law by amending its legislation. In view of the Commission's concerns on the matter, Ireland agreed to replace the administrative arrangements providing for the implementation of Article 2(1) of the first Motor Insurance Directive (2) with regulations on a statutory basis. This provision abolished the checks on green cards for vehicles normally based in a Member State entering the territory of another Member State with a view to facilitating the free movement of vehicles and persons within the EU.

In particular, Section 4 of the Irish pieces of legislation called ‘European Communities (Road Traffic) (Compulsory Insurance) (Amendment) Regulations (S.I. No 463 of 2001)’ now provides such statutory cover with effect from 12 October 2001. According to the new provision, Section 69 of the Irish Road Traffic Act, 1961 (Law No 24 of 1961), which originally allowed random checks of vehicles from other EU countries, shall no longer apply to mechanically propelled vehicles which are normally based in EEA and EU countries other than Ireland.

Following the amendments of the Irish law bringing them into conformity with Community law, the Commission closed these infringement proceedings at its meeting held on 20th March 2002.

---

(1)  OJ L 103, 2.5.1972, p. 1.

(2)  Council Directive 72/166/EEC of 24 April 1972 on the approximation of the laws of Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles, and to the enforcement of the obligation to insure against such liability, OJ L 103, 2.5.1972.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/550 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/550

---

(2004/C 88 E/0561)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0919/04

by Proinsias De Rossa (PSE) to the Commission

(26 March 2004)

Subject:   Trafficking in human beings

Trafficking in human beings is a global problem which is on the increase. Women and children constitute the majority of those who are trafficked, very often for purposes of sexual exploitation.

The Commission has acknowledged that trafficking in human beings is a type of organised crime that needs to be tackled at European level and has taken steps to deal with this problem, for example by establishing the Expert Group on Trafficking in Human Beings.

Is the Commission cooperating with other international actors on a global level so as to develop measures to combat trafficking in human beings throughout the world? What courses of action have been proposed? What is the Commission doing to encourage EU Member States and all the signatories to the UN Convention against Transnational Organised Crime to ratify and implement the Convention and commit to its ‘Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in People, Especially Women and Children’?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(30 April 2004)

The Commission continuously maintains relations and cooperates with other international actors such as the United Nations (UN), the Organization on Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) and the Council of Europe (CoE) in order to prevent and combat trafficking in human beings. In particular, the Commission signed, on behalf of the Community, the Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in People, Especially Women and Children supplementing the UN Convention against Transnational Organised Crime. On several occasions, the Commission has called on Member States to ratify the Protocol as soon as possible. In order to promote and accelerate implementation of the Protocol at EU level, the Commission launched a proposal for a Council Framework Decision on combating trafficking in human beings (1), which was adopted on 19 July 2002. Member States shall have implemented the Framework Decision before August 2004. Furthermore, in October 2003 the Council adopted a resolution ‘Combating trafficking in human beings, in particular women’ with an aim to further accelerate ratification and implementation by Member States of all international instruments against trafficking in human beings and to intensify international cooperation in the fields of prevention, victim protection and assistance.

In February 2003, the Commission contributed to a Tri-Partite Plus meeting, which was organised by the UN in Geneva. The meeting brought together representatives from various inter-national and supranational organisations and institutions (OSCE, CoE, the International Organization for Migration (IOM), the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), and others) and aimed at a better coordination of their policies and measures against human trafficking. In May 2003, the Commission attended the 12th session of the UN Commission on Crime Prevention, which focused on trafficking in human beings, especially women and children.

Currently, the Commission is participating in the negotiations in the CoE concerning a European Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings. In particular, the Commission will as soon as possible submit to the Council a recommendation for a Council decision authorising the Commission to negotiate the draft convention and corresponding directives covering those Community competencies that are relevant for a number of articles of the draft Convention. Besides this, for the remaining third pillar issues, the Commission will submit a proposal for a common position.

The prevention of and the fight against trafficking in human beings is constantly an issue in relations between the EU and third countries in Eastern Europe and in the Western Balkans. In the context of the EU-Africa dialogue the Commission supported the elaboration of an action plan on trafficking in human beings, which is — for reasons not related to human trafficking — still awaiting formal adoption. Another example of the Commission's activities is the participation as an observer in the so-called ‘Bali Process’, which is a regional initiative including meetings at political and experts' level in Southeast-Asia further to the Bali Conference in February 2002 on People Smuggling, Trafficking in Persons and Related Transnational Crime.

---

(1)  OJ L 203, 1.8.2002.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/551 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/551

---

(2004/C 88 E/0562)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0922/04

by Proinsias De Rossa (PSE) to the Commission

(26 March 2004)

Subject:   VAT on postal services

When it presented its proposal to apply VAT to postal services (1) in May 2003, the Commission said that the fact that postal operators would be able to deduct their [VAT] costs ‘should mitigate price increases as far as private consumers are concerned’ (source — Commission press release IP/03/633).

How can this statement be reconciled with statements by An Post in Ireland that it has no plans to ‘pass on’ any savings in current VAT costs in the form of reduced tariffs if this Directive is approved, as suggested by the Commission? If An Post does not deduct these VAT costs, what is the Commission's estimate of the likely price increases in Ireland if this Directive is approved?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(30 April 2004)

In May 2003, when presenting its proposal amending the Sixth VAT Directive (2) as regards VAT on postal services, the Commission explained that once the proposal was adopted, public postal operators would, for the first time, obtain the right to deduct VAT on their costs. This should mitigate price increases as far as private consumers are concerned.

According to the Honourable Member, the Irish universal service provider, An Post has stated that it has no plans to ‘pass on’ any savings in current VAT costs in the form of reduced tariffs if this Directive is approved. Under the rules of the EC Treaty, particularly article 82, and under the provisions of Directive 97/67/EC (3), public postal operators cannot determine the prices they charge for their services, especially in the reserved area, without regard to their costs. Directive 97/67/EC states that Member States shall designate national regulatory authorities that shall have as a particular task to ensure compliance with the obligations arising from this Directive, especially the application of the principle that prices must be geared to costs. The obligations contained in Article 14 of the Directive as regards the transparency of accounts are intended to allow the regulators to enforce this principle. The Irish regulator Comreg thus has the tools it needs to ensure that An Post's prices reflect its costs and to ensure that when those costs go down as a result of An Post's ability to deduct VAT, the savings are in fact reflected in the operator's prices.

---

(1)  COM(2003)234.

(2)  Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonization 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.

(3)  Directive 97/67/EC of the European 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.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/552 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/552

---

(2004/C 88 E/0563)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0939/04

by Robert Evans (PSE) to the Commission

(26 March 2004)

Subject:   Ethiopia

It appears that the crisis continues in Ethiopia and shows little sign of improvement.

Would the Commission indicate the current EU contributions in food and development aid and whether it feels this is adequate?

Would the Commission also indicate whether its discussions with the Ethiopian Government on food security have made any progress?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(27 April 2004)

The Commission addresses issues such as long term food security and the threat of famine by means of all its funding and policy instruments. This provides a coherent package of assistance to Ethiopia.

2003 has been a particularly difficult year: indeed, it has triggered an unprecedented response on behalf of the Commission, essentially through the Food Aid Budget Line. Over 400 000 tonnes of cereals were allocated in 2003, (of which 360 000 were delivered), amounting to more than EUR 120 million to help alleviate the needs of approximately 13 million people living in conditions of severe food insecurity. Afterwards, the main harvest (Kremt) from September to November was exceptionally good in 2003, thus improving the availability of food in the country, at more affordable prices. Large marketable surpluses of cereals have been identified (estimated at around 1,1 million tonnes according to the SIDA/WFP/EC (1) Cereal Availability Survey). However, despite this, vulnerability remains high: over seven million people will require almost one million tonnes of food aid in 2004. In this year of surplus production, it will be important to import as little food aid as possible in order to avoid disincentive effects on local producers.

The Commission intends to cover approximately 20 % of the identified needs for 2004, and in order to avoid market distortions it will buy food products predominantly from local markets.

Furthermore, while the Commission's short-term response to the food crisis in 2003 has been very effective, it is increasingly concerned that a large section of the population in Ethiopia has become vulnerable and increasingly destitute. Although food aid saves lives, it does not save livelihoods, and every recurring crisis plunges increasing numbers of people into destitution and chronic food insecurity.

The Commission's dialogue with the Ethiopian Government, the Member States and other Donors has been under way since 1996 but has moved up a gear in the last couple of years. This dialogue has highlighted the need to address chronic food insecurity through different means, and to develop a long term Food Security strategy. The Commission has been financially supporting these efforts since 1998 with three programmes for a total of EUR 46 million.

Over the past year, the Government's strategic work has led to The new Coalition for Food Security in Ethiopia' initiative. A cornerstone of this new programme is creating safety nets for the structurally vulnerable/chronically food insecure share of the population, with the aim of progressively replacing emergency systems. It is relevant to point out in this regard that this strategy will require convincing all donors, including the United States and some non-governmental organisations (NGOs), to amend their food aid programme in favour of a more structural approach to food security.

The Commission has agreed to allocate EUR 120 million in support of a multi-annual Food Security strategy, in particular in support of safety nets EUR 60 million from the European Development Fund/National Indicative Programme (EDF/NIP) funds of the 9th EDF and EUR 60 million from the Food Security Budget Line). These funds are expected to be allocated during 2004 through a budget support programme.

Finally, with regards to the Humanitarian Aid Office's (ECHO) aid, EUR 4 million was allocated during 2003 in response to the drought crisis to complement the food aid response. This was largely for livestock support to pastoralists to maintain their staple diet of milk from their animals. In addition, therapeutic feeding was provided for the severely malnourished. In November 2003, EUR 2 million was allocated to the International Committee of the Red Cross to provide health and Geneva Convention protection assistance for one year to victims of inter-ethnic conflicts in Ethiopia. In March 2004 a further EUR 1 million was allocated to victims of drought in Ethiopia. ECHO continues to closely monitor the humanitarian situation, always ready to respond to non-food emergency needs.

---

(1)  Swedish International Development Authority/World Food Programme/European Commission.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/553 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/553

---

(2004/C 88 E/0564)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0946/04

by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(26 March 2004)

Subject:   School milk in Portugal

I have learned that in Portugal, a significant number of Portuguese schools are being supplied with milk provided by Spanish companies, although Portuguese production is adequate to the task and Portugal is in economic recession.

In view of the difficulties of Portuguese milk producers in selling their product, is it not possible for the ‘milk for schools’ programme to make preferential use of nationally produced milk, and thus participate in protecting small milk producers and family farms, since there is no question of the specific nature of Portuguese agriculture?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(30 April 2004)

The Commission, while emphasising the value of the scheme for children from disadvantaged backgrounds, considers that the actual operation of the EU School Milk Scheme should be consistent with horizontal internal market policies, notably competition policy.

Therefore, it is excluded to discriminate the suppliers of school milk on the basis of their nationality.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/554 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/554

---

(2004/C 88 E/0565)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0955/04

by Philip Claeys (NI) to the Commission

(29 March 2004)

Subject:   Statements by Commissioner Verheugen concerning Turkey's possible accession to the Union

According to the 24 February 2004 edition of the German newspaper ‘Die Welt’ Commissioner Günter Verheugen informed the German Chancellor, Gerhard Schröder, two weeks before that date that in the autumn the Commission will formally recommend to the Council that accession negotiations be opened with Turkey.

Is this information correct?

If so, has the Commission made sufficient progress with its report on the issue of accession negotiations with Turkey to be able to draw conclusions of this kind?

If not, has the Commission, or the Commissioner, formally denied the report in ‘Die Welt’? Why not (if applicable)?

Does the Commission regard it as desirable that its Members or government leaders from the current Member States should make public statements concerning the conclusions of a significant report which has not yet been drawn up, let alone published?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(30 April 2004)

There is frequent speculation in the press as to whether the Commission will recommend the opening of accession negotiations with Turkey later in 2004. The information mentioned in the article which the Honourable Member refers to is inaccurate.

The task of the Commission, as set by the Copenhagen European Council in December 2002, is very clear and has been stated on many occasions. In autumn 2004, it will prepare a Regular Report and a recommendation as to whether Turkey meets the Copenhagen political criteria. This report will be based on a fair and objective analysis.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/554 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/554

---

(2004/C 88 E/0566)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0986/04

by Richard Corbett (PSE) to the Commission

(30 March 2004)

Subject:   Blood diamonds

Does the DG Competition have access to the data held by the DG External Relations concerning the Kimberley Agreement on tracing the sources and stocks of diamonds (in order to avoid ‘blood diamonds’ coming on to the market)?

Does the Commission consider that the data held for this purpose might also shed light on the trading practices of companies in the diamond sector? Will it evaluate such data in the context of its consideration of the De Beers ‘Supplier of Choice’ restrictive practices?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(30 April 2004)

In reply to the Honourable Member's written question, it may be useful to clarify the objectives of the Kimberley Process and the role of the Commission within the Kimberley Process.

The Kimberley Process Certification Scheme (KPCS), a multilateral initiative put in place with the backing of the United Nations to stem the flow of ‘conflict diamonds’, has developed a number of internal instruments to promote the effective implementation of its requirements by all Participants in the Scheme, including, notably, the regular reporting of statistics on the trade in, and production of, rough diamonds, and a system of ‘peer review’ of Participants' implementation of the Scheme. The Commission, and specifically Directorate-General (DG) External Relations, representing the Community as a Participant in the KPCS, has access to the information which is made available in this context to all Participants with a view to ensuring and enhancing implementation of the Scheme. However, all the information in question is made available by Participants within the Kimberley Process with the exclusive purpose of ensuring implementation of the Scheme, and the Community, like all other Participants in the KPCS, is bound by strict confidentiality provisions concerning the data to which it has access as a Participant.

The Commission, therefore, wishes to emphasize that as DG Competition is in no way concerned with the implementation of the KPCS (the statistical and monitoring provisions of which concern only aggregated production data and trade flows between countries as well as implementation of the Scheme by Participants, and not actions of particular undertakings), the statistical and other data on implementation of the KPCS to which the Commission, representing the Community as a Participant in the KPCS, has access are not made available to DG Competition. The Commission is of the view that using data made available by Participants in the KPCS for any purpose other than enhancing implementation of the KPCS would be incompatible with the provisions of the Scheme and undermine the effectiveness of the KPCS as a crucial tool in the fight against conflict diamonds.

DG Competition is therefore not in a position to have access to or use the sensitive data gathered in this context for the purposes of considering De Beers' Supplier of Choice allegedly restrictive practices. However, should DG Competition consider that the information relating to trading practices of certain undertakings is necessary to its proper evaluation of the competitive situation in the diamond market, it certainly can make use of its investigatory powers in order to collect such information from the undertakings or organisations concerned.

As already referred to in the Commission's reply to the Honourable Member's previous Oral Question H-0637/03 during question time at Parliament's November 2003 session (1), DG Competition, after having authorised the implementation of the Supplier of Choice arrangements by De Beers in January 2003, committed to look at the diamond market closely, should legal or factual elements come to its attention, which would affect the view the Commission had taken of the Supplier of Choice arrangements.

Following allegations of a number of companies on the implementation of the Supplier of Choice arrangements by De Beers, DG Competition has sent a number of requests for information to a variety of market operators in order to be fully informed of the situation in the market and is in the process of collecting answers to these requests. Once the answers have been analysed, the Commission will have to consider the next steps, if any, to be taken.

---

(1)  Oral Reply, 18.11.2003.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/555 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/555

---

(2004/C 88 E/0567)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0990/04

by Jan Wiersma (PSE) to the Commission

(30 March 2004)

Subject:   The recent clashes between Syrian Kurds and the Syrian authorities (March 2004)

Has the Commission sought information about the recent clashes between Syrian Kurds and the Syrian army, and what is the Commission's response to them?

Can the Commission ascertain the causes of the unrest, which led to many deaths, and whether it is due to the poor relations between the Syrian authorities and the Syrian Kurds?

Will the Commission raise this issue in the margins of the talks on the association agreement between Syria and the EU?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(30 April 2004)

The Commission through its Delegation in Damascus and together with Member States Embassies has sought to obtain as clear and complete a picture as possible of the events in the week following 12 March 2004. The local EU Troika met with the Syrian Foreign Ministry on 18 March 2004 to seek information and to express its concern about the situation and underline the importance of respect for human rights. The Troika expressed the European Union's continued interest in the matter and requested to be kept informed about the evolution of the situation.

The Commission does not possess any information that allows it to ascertain the immediate causes that triggered the widespread violence, apart from the fact that it started with riots related to a football game in the town of Quamishli. This unrest quickly spread to other towns with a large Kurdish population, leading to violent reactions and deaths.

As mentioned above, the Commission has raised this matter together with Member States in Damascus as well as in the course of its contacts with Syrian authorities.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/556 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/556

---

(2004/C 88 E/0568)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0997/04

by Dominique Souchet (NI) to the Commission

(31 March 2004)

Subject:   Placing on the market of plant protection products

The Community system for the approval of plant protection products introduced by Directive 91/414/EEC (1) is chiefly based on a system for evaluating the active substances, with a reporting Member State being designated for each substance. This evaluation phase involves collecting studies carried out by plant protection firms themselves and forwarding them to the European Food Safety Authority.

Does the Commission consider that this one-way evaluation procedure makes it possible to ensure that the decision to approve a substance is taken in a sufficiently objective manner?

Furthermore, the protocols envisaged in the studies with a view to assessing the degree of toxicity of substances have not been updated in line with the appearance of new molecules on the market.

Should their specifications not be adjusted to take account of the performance and modes of action of these new substances, as otherwise it will not be possible to ascertain all the potential toxic effects of a new molecule?

The process for evaluating active substances is based on a four-stage system corresponding to four lists of substances.

Given that it is the undertakings concerned that choose which studies are to be carried out as a priority in each of the stages, does the Commission believe that this is the best system for guaranteeing compliance with health and environmental requirements?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(30 April 2004)

Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market is based on the principle that the burden of proof of compliance with the Directive's main requirements rests with the applicant. Hence it is usual for the applicant to prepare, collate and submit the requisite studies supporting the application. The rapporteur Member State is required to check whether the file is complete, and only after that is the assessment proper started. The next stage comprises sending the draft assessment report to the other Member States for peer review. The Commission takes the final decision, in accordance with the procedures described in the Directive and its implementing rules. The Commission is required to consult the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health and may also obtain scientific opinions from the European Food Safety Authority, which now carries out the tasks assigned in the past to a number of scientific committees, including the Scientific Committee for Pesticides and the Scientific Committee for Plants. Relevant comments from third parties may also be taken into account. In addition to Member States, the applicant is requested to answer technical questions. The discussions are clearly confined to scientific and technical matters relating directly to risk assessment.

In the light of the various aspects of the dossier (including, if necessary, the opinion of the European Food Safety Authority), the Commission refers it to the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health, which gives its opinion on measures to be taken. Those measures may comprise inclusion of the substance in Annex I to the Directive, accompanied by the requisite instructions to ensure correct use, or non-inclusion. In both cases, a formal instrument is adopted.

The Commission therefore considers that the current procedure ensures a sufficient degree of transparency and independence, while providing the requisite mechanisms for interested parties to express their views.

With regard to the second part of the question it is worth noting that, under Article 7 of Directive 91/414/EEC, the applicant must immediately notify the competent authority of all new information on a potential risk. The competent authority is to notify that information immediately to the other Member States and to the Commission, which is to refer it to the Committee.

This case is different from the question relating to the speed of scientific and technological progress and hence the obsolescence of studies supplied. The Commission is aware that, in the course of evaluation procedures taking several years, studies supplied may be overtaken even before evaluation has been completed. However, experience shows that these cases are exceptional. Although additional studies are sometimes required during the procedure, it seems reasonable not to subject the applicant to constantly renewed requirements and to confine retroactivity to cases where new facts have recently invalidated existing data.

In general, decisions of this type can be taken only on a case-by-case basis, having regard to the high level of protection which Community measures must reflect, the significance of the risk involved and the need to provide legal certainty for the applicant.

The Commission nevertheless stresses that the cases referred to above may arise while substances are being evaluated, but also after they have been authorised. That is why authorisations are valid for a limited period and their renewal is subject to a fresh evaluation. In addition, Member States always have the possibility of recourse to safeguard procedures for products which, for various reasons, do not or no longer meet the required safety standard.

Lastly, Annexes II and III to the Directive — which list the requirements for dossiers to be submitted — are currently being amended to reflect the latest scientific and technological developments.

With regard to the division of substance evaluation into four stages, it should be noted that the differentiation is based firstly on safety considerations (priority being given to substances which are widely used and/or whose toxic and ecotoxic characteristics call for particular care) and then on efficient deployment of resources.

The Commission stresses that, at whichever stage a given substance is classified, the dossier will have to contain the studies specified by Community legislation. Exemption from that rule, for example in cases where the regulatory requirements are considered irrelevant, is subject to express acceptance by the Commission.

In addition, unsubstantiated absence or inadequacy of data constitutes grounds for the Commission to decide automatically not to include the substances concerned.

The Commission therefore takes the view that the applicant's margins of manœuvre are well-defined with regard to the studies to be supplied.

---

(1)  OJ L 230, 19.8.1991, p. 1.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/558 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/558

---

(2004/C 88 E/0569)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1003/04

by Daniel Hannan (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(31 March 2004)

Subject:   Romanian motorway project

The EU has recently threatened to defer Romania's accession if it does not succeed in combating corruption. One might hope that the Romanian Government had taken note, but there is evidence to suggest that the problems continue and are worsening. One specific example is a planned Transylvanian motorway that will destroy one of Europe's last remaining medieval landscapes without offering benefits except to those well-connected individuals who have acquired the land on which the motorway would be constructed. Furthermore, an EU-backed plan already exists to build a motorway from the Hungarian border across Romania, through Brasov, Transylvania's main city, and Bucharest, to the Black Sea. Consequently, the new scheme for a second motorway heading north from Brasov and running parallel with this road, a mere fifty miles away, then petering out meaninglessly just inside the Hungarian border, is completely superfluous. This project was not put out to tender. No environmental assessment or estimate of traffic volume was sought before it was approved, and the American company, Bechtel, was awarded the contract under an emergency ‘ordinance’ — a procedure specifically designed to bypass parliamentary scrutiny. There is also evidence to suggest that the land needed for the motorway was unfairly expropriated. A study by the Romanian Academic Society has argued that the EUR 3 billion needed for the Bechtel motorway would be sufficient to fund the rehabilitation of the entire street structure of Romania's 3 000 municipalities or to complete modernisation work for more than 3 500 km of national roads.

What is the Commission's position on the Bechtel motorway project? Would the Commission agree that the Romanian Government appears to have done very little to solve problems associated with corruption? Would it also agree that it is no one's interest to see this incomparable landscape and heritage destroyed forever by inefficient, unnecessary and corrupt projects?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(30 April 2004)

The decision to derogate from Romania's public procurement rules, which are intended to implement the EU public procurement directives, and to award a contract for the construction of the Brasov-Cluj-Bors motorway without public tendering raises concerns about the Romanian government's commitment to competitive and transparent public procurement procedures. The Commission has asked Romania to provide further information so that it might fully assess the implications of this decision. Since there was no competitive and transparent tendering, the European Commission has already made it clear to the Romanian side that it will not provide any financial support for this project and that it will not support any International Financing Institution assistance for the construction of the motorway.

Regarding the fight against corruption, the Commission considers that open and transparent public procurement procedures are an important element thereof, as set out in its recent Communication on a comprehensive EU policy on corruption (1). The Commission therefore considers that the Romanian government's anti-corruption efforts should include a firm commitment to use open and transparent public procurement procedures and to abstain from introducing derogations in Romania's public procurement rules implementing the relevant EU directives.

More generally, international reports and surveys indicate that corruption in Romania remains a systemic problem that undermines the rule of law, restricts economic reform and development and plays a major role in deterring foreign direct investment. The Commission is aware of a number of measures taken by the Romanian administration during the last eighteen months in an attempt to address this situation: it adopted a revised National Action Plan against Corruption in December 2002; passed a package of anti-corruption legislation in April 2003 and in September 2002 created the National Anti-Corruption Prosecution Office (PNA). These measures mean that an adequate legal framework now exists and sufficient human and financial resources have been committed in theory to allow for an effective fight against corruption. Given this situation, the continued lack of success in investigating high-level corruption raises questions as to the level of political support given to tackle this issue seriously.

---

(1)  COM(2003) 317 final of 28.5.2003.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/559 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/559

---

(2004/C 88 E/0570)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1004/04

by Daniel Hannan (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(31 March 2004)

Subject:   Threat to peace and democracy in Adjara

The autonomous Georgian region of Adjara, which is self-governing in accordance with the Georgian Constitution, survived thirteen years of threats to its peace and stability from the ousted regime of Eduard Shevardnadze. Now, in 2004, Adjara, which fully acknowledges the overall authority of the central government in Tbilisi, faces renewed threats of destabilisation from the recently-elected government of President Mikhail Saakashvili. On Sunday, 14 March, armoured personnel carriers and heavily armed troops appeared at the administrative border of Adjara. It is feared that such attempts are being made with a view to undermining the due process of the forthcoming parliamentary elections (on 27 March 2004).

Would the Commission agree that regional issues should be resolved through peaceful dialogue without the threat of military force; that elections are best conducted in an atmosphere of stability and trust; and that the appearance of the Georgian National Guard on the streets of a hitherto peaceful and economically successful region, where the President's party has little support, would constitute an act of aggression against the citizens of Georgia by their own government?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(23 April 2004)

The Commission would draw the attention of the Honourable Member to the Declaration by the Presidency on behalf of the European Union concerning the situation in the Georgian Autonomous Republic of Adjara issued on 17 March 2004. In this statement, the parties were urged to refrain from any further escalation which could result in violence. It also urged the authorities of the Georgian Autonomous Republic of Ajara to respect human rights, democratic principles and the rule of law and to allow for the orderly preparations for free and fair parliamentary elections.

The Commission also draws the Honourable Member's attention to the Declaration issued by the Presidency on behalf of the EU concerning the Georgian parliamentary elections. His attention is particularly drawn to the reference to the preliminary conclusions of the International Election Observation Mission (IEOM) and the concern the IEOM had over the complete lack of commitment by the authorities of Adjara to guarantee sufficient conditions for the conduct of a meaningful democratic election in that region. In this Declaration, the Georgian authorities are also encouraged to work constructively with the Organisation on Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) and the Council of Europe, to further democratisation.

The Commission continues to urge the central government in Tbilisi and the authorities in Batumi to work towards finding a peaceful solution acceptable to all and in the interest of Georgia.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/560 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/560

---

(2004/C 88 E/0571)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1012/04

by Mario Borghezio (NI) to the Commission

(1 April 2004)

Subject:   Who is trying to block the investigations into fraud in Euroland?

The blitz by the Belgian police, who raided the offices of Hans Martin Tillack, the Brussels correspondent of the German weekly Stern and author of a series of investigative articles on the Eurostat scandal and other delicate issues connected with corruption in the European Union institutions, is a serious and unprecedented act, which constitutes a violation of the principle of press freedom.

Does the Commission consider that this police initiative, probably prompted by OLAF and targeting not those guilty of corruption but someone reporting on corruption, shows that there are people at the highest levels of the European institutions who fear light being shed by serious investigative journalists on confidential and ignominious aspects of fraud and corruption in Euroland?

Answer given by Ms Schreyer on behalf of the Commission

(30 April 2004)

On the basis of the information supplied by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF), the Commission can tell the Honourable Member that in February 2004 the Office sent the relevant judicial authorities a file relating to suspected criminal offences.

Article 10(1) and (2) of Regulation (EC) No 1073/1999 (1) provides for information about matters liable to result in criminal proceedings to be forwarded to the judicial authorities of the Member State concerned.

The national judicial authorities are then fully independent in their handling of the files sent.

---

(1)  Regulation (EC) No 1073/1999 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 May 1999 concerning investigations conducted by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF), OJ L 136, 31.5.1999.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/560 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/560

---

(2004/C 88 E/0572)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1021/04

by Paolo Bartolozzi (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(5 April 2004)

Subject:   Imported goods in transit held up by customs

| 1. | Is the Commission aware that goods imported from non-Community countries and in transit from one EU airport to another are held at customs (for controls) for as much as 30 days? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is the Commission aware that goods imported from non-Community countries and in transit from one EU airport to another are held at customs (for controls) for as much as 30 days?

| 2. | Is the customs office at one EU airport entitled to hold up goods in transit to another airport at the final destination, thereby pointlessly duplicating checks, with all the negative consequences this has for international trade and for the importer? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Is the customs office at one EU airport entitled to hold up goods in transit to another airport at the final destination, thereby pointlessly duplicating checks, with all the negative consequences this has for international trade and for the importer?

| 3. | Is there any Community legislation establishing a maximum number of days goods in transit may be held up, even when the merchandise is accompanied by all the necessary documentation (commercial invoice and packing list), including a declaration by the vendor that the products are genuine and not counterfeit? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Is there any Community legislation establishing a maximum number of days goods in transit may be held up, even when the merchandise is accompanied by all the necessary documentation (commercial invoice and packing list), including a declaration by the vendor that the products are genuine and not counterfeit?

| 4. | Is the importer, who has already paid the supplier for the goods, entitled to damages to compensate for loss of revenue due to the delay in supplying his own customers? |
| --- | --- |

4.

Is the importer, who has already paid the supplier for the goods, entitled to damages to compensate for loss of revenue due to the delay in supplying his own customers?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(30 April 2004)

The Commission is unaware of the problems to which the Honourable Member refers. In the absence of details which would allow this matter to be more thoroughly examined, a specific reply cannot be given on each of the questions raised. Nevertheless, whenever there are grounds for suspicion that goods are counterfeit, long intensive searches are justified.

The Community legislation does not lay down exact time-limits for the checks to be carried out by the customs authorities. Article 37 of the Community Customs Code (1) states that goods brought into the customs territory of the Community are subject, from the time of their entry, to customs supervision. They may be the subject of checks by the customs authorities in accordance with the provisions in force. The goods remain under such supervision for as long as necessary to determine their customs status, and in the case of non-Community goods, until their customs status is changed, they enter a free zone or free warehouse or they are re-exported or destroyed.

The goods brought into the customs territory of the Community must be presented to customs and assigned to a customs-approved treatment or use (e.g. entry for a customs procedure such as release for free circulation, transit or customs warehousing). They need to be covered by a customs declaration for this purpose.

To verify declarations in accordance with Article 68 of the Code, the customs authorities may:

| (a) | make documentary checks on the declaration and the documents accompanying it. The customs authorities may require the declarant to present other documents for the purpose of verifying the accuracy of the particulars contained in the declaration; |
| --- | --- |

(a)

make documentary checks on the declaration and the documents accompanying it. The customs authorities may require the declarant to present other documents for the purpose of verifying the accuracy of the particulars contained in the declaration;

| (b) | examine the goods and take samples for analysis or for detailed examination. |
| --- | --- |

(b)

examine the goods and take samples for analysis or for detailed examination.

Article 73 of the Code states that, where the conditions for placing the goods under the procedure in question are fulfilled, and provided the goods are not subject to any prohibitive or restrictive measures, the customs authorities must release the goods as soon as the particulars in the declaration have been verified or accepted without verification. The same applies where the verification cannot be completed within a reasonable period of time and the goods are no longer required to be present for verification purposes.

The Community customs legislation does not include any provisions on damages in the event of delayed release of the goods.

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ L 302, 19.10.1992), as last amended by the Act of Accession 2003.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/562 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/562

---

(2004/C 88 E/0573)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1054/04

by Franz Turchi (UEN) to the Commission

(5 April 2004)

Subject:   Increase in European School fees

The Board of Governors of the European Schools met in Brussels on 15 March this year. The topics discussed at the meeting included the increase in fees paid for each pupil each academic year.

It was decided by 12 votes in favour to increase the fees for the 2005/2006 academic year by 11 %, plus the average rate of inflation in Europe. Italy Greece, Spain, Portugal and the Netherlands voted against.

Parents are extremely worried, since such decisions do not encourage broad access to education.

At the meeting the parents' representative expressed his concern at the planned increases, since they would lead to the elimination of category III pupils, i.e. those not automatically entitled to attend a European School. What will the Commission do to ensure that access to the European Schools is not restricted in the near future?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(30 April 2004)

The Honourable Member is referred to the answer given by the Commission to the written question E-0237/04 by Mrs Miet Smet (1) concerning fees in European Schools and the reasons for the increases decided by the Board of Governors, the body of representatives from all Member States on which the Commission has one place and one vote.

The fees agreed by the Board of Governors on 15 March 2004 for all Category III pupils (that is, pupils whose parents are not employed by any EU Institution) for the 2005/2006 school year amount to EUR 2 400 for nursery school, EUR 3 300 for primary school and EUR 4 500 for secondary school. These fees are well below the real average cost of almost EUR 11 000 per pupil. A Working Group is being set up by the Board of Governors, at the Commission's suggestion, to examine the issues of fees, fee exonerations and access for Category III pupils in future years.

---

(1)  OJ C 84 E, 3.4.2004, p. 339.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/562 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/562

---

(2004/C 88 E/0574)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1065/04

by Anna Karamanou (PSE) to the Commission

(6 April 2004)

Subject:   ‘Legal’ operation of paedophile networks in Europe — new Dutroux?

A ‘paedophilia association’ is operating legally in Denmark with its own website on the Internet which coordinates and organises paedophile networks at European and international level. Denmark is not the only example; the same phenomenon can also be observed in other countries.

This issue, in conjunction with the Dutroux trial being held in Belgium, after a delay of 7 years, has turned the spotlight once again on the criminal activities of paedophile networks in connection with which the EU recently adopted a framework decision on combating the sexual exploitation of children and child pornography.

Will the Commission say whether the legislative measures and political initiatives taken hitherto have been effective, at European level, in combating this sordid business, which is a flagrant violation of human rights and human dignity? In particular, what will the Commission do to ensure Member States' compliance with the law and to prohibit the use by such organisations of the facilities provided by digital technology?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(30 April 2004)

The Commission fully shares the concerns expressed by the Honourable Member about the problem of child pornography distributed through the Internet. There is a need for continuous efforts to combat harmful and illegal content on the Internet based on international co-operation amongst governments, particularly law enforcement and judicial authorities, but also between governments and the Internet industry, dedicated hotlines and non-governmental organisations to effectively tackle this horrifying phenomenon.

Primary responsibility for dealing with illegal content (including child pornography) is with the appropriate law enforcement and judicial authorities of the Member States, which co-operate internationally in the fight against child pornography on the Internet through the existing channels of communications, such as Europol, Eurojust and Interpol. In that respect, the Commission would like to inform the Honourable Member that European law enforcement authorities have recently closed down several electronic discussion forums used by paedophiles.

The European Union has been a forerunner in the fight against illegal and harmful content since 1996, with an approach agreed unanimously by the Parliament and the Council. The Safer Internet Action Plan adopted by the Council and the Parliament in 1999 (1) is a major element in the Commission's activity in this field. It provides funding for a European network of hotlines allowing users to report illegal content, including child pornography.

The Honourable Member is aware that the EU strategy to combat child pornography also consists of legal instruments and practical measures against computer crime and child pornography. These include the Council Framework Decision on approximation of laws and sanctions in the field of sexual exploitation of children, with particular reference to child pornography on the Internet (2), and the Council Recommendation of September 1998 (3) on the protection of minors and human dignity and the Council Decision of May 2000 to combat child pornography on the Internet (4).

The Commission is currently supporting an effort made by several Member States, Europol and other third Countries under the AGIS programme for funding an implementation study to establish a sophisticated networked international child sexual exploitation image database, building on the fledgling system at Interpol. Such a database, being both technically and legally possible, would have to take into account the different national laws governing images of child sexual exploitation and protection of personal data.

The 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.

Combating the sexual exploitation of children and child pornography and ensuring the respect of fundamental human rights is a priority for the Commission. The Commission believes that the current legislative measures in these fields, together with the continuous efforts in promoting a safer use of the Internet and to combating illegal and harmful content on the Internet, are contributing substantially to reaching these objectives.

---

(1)  OJ L 33, 6.2.1999.

(2)  Council Framework Decision 2004/68/JHA of 22 December 2003 on combating the sexual exploitation of children and child pornography, OJ L 13, 20.1.2004.

(3)  OJ L 270, 7.10.1998.

(4)  OJ L 138, 9.6.2000.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/564 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/564

---

(2004/C 88 E/0575)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1069/04

by Nicole Thomas-Mauro (UEN) to the Commission

(6 April 2004)

Subject:   Inconsistency of the Commission's position on wine

In late March, the Commission approved a series of campaigns designed to provide information about, and to promote consumption of, agricultural products in third countries. The products concerned are wine, fruit, olive oil, cheese and organic produce.

The Member States submitted to the Commission, for consideration, six promotion and information programmes. The five programmes accepted are aimed at the United States, Canada, Japan, Switzerland, Russia, Brazil and China.

The contribution from the European Union budget is estimated at about EUR 3 million (50 % of the cost of the programmes).

However, the Commission is proposing to apply rules governing nutritional and health claims made on food in order to exclude any promotional campaigns for wine.

On the one hand, the Commission is using appropriations from the EU budget to encourage the promotion of wine, an agricultural product, in third countries (in order to boost the sector). On the other hand, however, in its proposal for a regulation (1), it precludes any promotion of a moderate consumption of wine on the territory of the European Union, although it has been scientifically proved that such consumption forms a beneficial part of the Mediterranean diet.

Can the Commission justify the inconsistency between its campaign to promote the consumption of wine outside the EU and its campaign to prohibit such consumption inside the EU?

Since the Commission has claimed for itself sole power to undertake ‘good’ promotion campaigns, could it not, within the established regulatory framework, of course, allow wine producers to promote their wares?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(30 April 2004)

| 1. | The Commission in its Proposal for a Regulation on the use of nutrition and health claims made on foods has not proposed a ban on all promotion of wine, nor of any other food or drink.
  However, the Commission is of the opinion that alcoholic beverages should not be promoted and advertised on the basis of any nutritional and health benefits they may have, as the over-consumption of these products leads to well-known serious health and social problems which the Commission is actually trying to fight. In the Council Conclusions of 5 June 2001 on a Community strategy to reduce alcohol related harm (2) it is emphasised that alcohol is one of the key health determinants in the Community and that scientific work has clearly shown that high consumption of alcohol in the population substantially increases the risk of alcohol-related morbidity and of all-cause mortality. Furthermore, there is concern about the way in which alcoholic beverages are designed and promoted to appeal in particular to children and adolescents.
  Therefore, the Commission deems it appropriate to envisage the prohibition of nutrition and health claims in the labelling, presentation and advertising of alcoholic beverages. The promotion of wine, and of any other alcoholic beverage, under any other aspect but that of its possible nutrition and health benefits is in no way banned or limited by the Proposal for a Regulation on the use of nutrition and health claims made on food. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The Commission in its Proposal for a Regulation on the use of nutrition and health claims made on foods has not proposed a ban on all promotion of wine, nor of any other food or drink.

However, the Commission is of the opinion that alcoholic beverages should not be promoted and advertised on the basis of any nutritional and health benefits they may have, as the over-consumption of these products leads to well-known serious health and social problems which the Commission is actually trying to fight. In the Council Conclusions of 5 June 2001 on a Community strategy to reduce alcohol related harm (2) it is emphasised that alcohol is one of the key health determinants in the Community and that scientific work has clearly shown that high consumption of alcohol in the population substantially increases the risk of alcohol-related morbidity and of all-cause mortality. Furthermore, there is concern about the way in which alcoholic beverages are designed and promoted to appeal in particular to children and adolescents.

Therefore, the Commission deems it appropriate to envisage the prohibition of nutrition and health claims in the labelling, presentation and advertising of alcoholic beverages. The promotion of wine, and of any other alcoholic beverage, under any other aspect but that of its possible nutrition and health benefits is in no way banned or limited by the Proposal for a Regulation on the use of nutrition and health claims made on food.

| 2. | In the framework of the EU regime on information and promotion actions for agricultural products and foodstuffs on both the internal market and in third countries, covered by Council Regulations (EC) No 2826/2000 of 19 December 2000 (3) and (EC) No 2702/1999 of 14 December 1999 (4) respectively, the EU currently co-finances several programmes set up by relevant professional or inter-professional organisations for certain wine categories, and not only in third countries but also on the internal EU market. In particular, for the internal market, the EU has co-financed, in the period 2001-2003, eight programmes in the wine sector for a total amount of EUR 5,2 million. |
| --- | --- |

2.

In the framework of the EU regime on information and promotion actions for agricultural products and foodstuffs on both the internal market and in third countries, covered by Council Regulations (EC) No 2826/2000 of 19 December 2000 (3) and (EC) No 2702/1999 of 14 December 1999 (4) respectively, the EU currently co-finances several programmes set up by relevant professional or inter-professional organisations for certain wine categories, and not only in third countries but also on the internal EU market. In particular, for the internal market, the EU has co-financed, in the period 2001-2003, eight programmes in the wine sector for a total amount of EUR 5,2 million.

---

(1)  COM(2003) 424 final.

(2)  OJ C 175, 20.6.2001.

(3)  OJ L 328, 23.12.2000.

(4)  OJ L 327, 21.12.1999.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/565 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/565

---

(2004/C 88 E/0576)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1073/04

by Proinsias De Rossa (PSE) to the Commission

(6 April 2004)

Subject:   Architectural quality in urban and rural environments

What follow-up has there been to the resolution agreed at the 23 November 2000 meeting of the Culture Council on ‘Architectural quality in urban and rural environments’? What initiatives has the Commission taken or is it considering on this issue since this resolution was agreed, specifically in relation to the call to it to seek ways and means of ensuring in the application of the Structural Funds a ‘wider consideration of architectural quality and the conservation of cultural heritage’?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(30 April 2004)

Projects in the field of culture, including those relating to the architectural quality of the built environment, have feature prominently in the regional development programmes supported by the European Union under the Structural Funds. In order to understand better the nature of interventions in this field the Commission undertook a specific study involving a wide ranging questionnaire which was sent to the Member States. The results of this investigation are available in the form of a working document of the Commission services, on the internet: (http://europa.eu.int/comm/culture/eac/sources_info/compolitics/ fond_structurel_en.html).

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/566 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/566

---

(2004/C 88 E/0577)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1074/04

by Proinsias De Rossa (PSE) to the Commission

(6 April 2004)

Subject:   Human rights and the Cotonou Agreement

The Cotonou Agreement, signed by the EU and 77 African, Caribbean and Pacific states in 2000, seeks to improve economic and development cooperation between the EU and the ACP countries.

This agreement also highlights the role of human rights in the Union's external relations policy by encompassing respect for human rights, democratic principles based on the rule of law, and transparent and accountable governance as key elements of the first pillar of the partnership agreement.

Since the signing of the agreement, how has the Commission been monitoring the operation of the political dimension of the Cotonou agreement? Has the Commission been examining human rights standards in partnership countries? Has the Commission taken, or does it intend to take, action against any countries to deal with violations of the human rights provisions of Cotonou? Will these issues be raised with ACP states during the 2005 review of the Cotonou Agreement?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(30 April 2004)

Respect for human rights, democratic principles and the rule of law constitute the essential elements of Cotonou and good governance is its fundamental element, as stated in article 9 of the Agreement. The Partnership supports the promotion of these issues, both through cooperation and development strategies, by providing support to political, institutional and legal reforms undertaken by partner countries, and through the permanent political dialogue between the Parties.

Regular dialogue is the main instrument to jointly and regularly assess the progress made and changes in respect of the essential and fundamental elements of the Agreement, taking into account each country's context. Dialogue improves mutual understanding and may prevent situations leading to the consultation procedures and to the adoption of the appropriate measures, including the suspension of co-operation, which are set out in Articles 96 and 97 of the Cotonou Agreement.

Article 96 foresees that in cases of violation of one of those essential elements one party can invite the other party to hold consultations. Consultations under article 96 aim at examining the situation with a view to finding a solution acceptable to both parties. If no solution is found, or in emergency cases, or if one party refuses the consultations, appropriate measures can be taken. Suspension of co-operation is in this context a measure of last resort. Appropriate measures, which should be proportional to the violation of an essential element, are intended to give a clear signal to the government regarding the respect of these elements.

Since the signing of the Cotonou Agreement in 2000, the EU has agreed to hold consultations involving nine African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) states (1). Appropriate measures have been applied in the six cases where consultations have been concluded (2).

As regards the revision of the Cotonou Agreement, the negotiations are due to start in May 2004. The EU and the ACP Group are currently establishing their respective negotiation mandates.

---

(1)  Haiti, Ivory Coast, Fiji, Liberia, Zimbabwe, Central Africa Republic, Togo, Guinea Bissau and the Republic of Guinea.

(2)  Haiti, Ivory Coast, Fiji, Liberia, Zimbabwe, Central Africa Republic.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/567 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/567

---

(2004/C 88 E/0578)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1080/04

by Proinsias De Rossa (PSE) to the Commission

(6 April 2004)

Subject:   Human rights defenders

The development of guidelines on human rights defenders is one of the stated priorities of the Irish EU Presidency. While the EU has highlighted the importance of the protection of human rights defenders, there is an absence of a specific EU policy that would serve to strengthen the EU's support for human rights defenders throughout the world.

What formal proposals has the Commission received from the Council on this issue? Does the Commission agree that the introduction of such guidelines is necessary in order to enhance the effectiveness of EU human rights policy? Will the Commission address the issue of human rights defenders in its next communication on human rights and democratisation?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(30 April 2004)

The Commission welcomed and fully supports the initiative of the Irish Presidency to adopt EU Guidelines in support of human rights defenders.

Although the Member States and the EU institutions have repeatedly paid tribute to the crucial role played by human rights defenders, the EU Guidelines on Human Rights Defenders will provide a consistent and visible policy to support and protect human rights defenders in the framework of EU relations with third countries and through Community and Member States' assistance programmes.

The political prominence achieved by previous EU Guidelines aimed at the realisation of human rights (such as those on the death penalty, torture and children in armed conflict) underlines the added-value of adopting Guidelines at the EU level.

With regard to the question of the Honourable Member on whether the issue of human rights defenders will be addressed in the next Communication on Human Rights and Democratisation, the Commission is not at present considering a new Communication following its Communication of May 2001 on the ‘EU's role in promoting Human Rights and Democratisation in third countries’ (1).

---

(1)  OJ C 227 E, 24.9.2002.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/567 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/567

---

(2004/C 88 E/0579)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1092/04

by Jean Lambert (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(5 April 2004)

Subject:   Caste discrimination

Caste based discrimination affects more than 260 million people worldwide. Caste communities live in physical and social segregation, face gross injustice before the law and have limited access to land, employment, education and health care. The UN Special Rapporteur on Racism stated in his follow-up to the World Conference against Racism that this issue ‘should be given priority in the follow-up to the Durban Conference, in the fight against all forms of discrimination and the promotion of human rights worldwide.’

Recommendations for action to counter caste discrimination have been made at EU level mainly through the European Parliament's resolutions on human rights in the world and its recommendations to the UN Commission on Human Rights sessions. In contrast, it seems that no action has been taken by the Commission or the Council to enhance the political and human rights dialogue with caste afflicted countries on the issue of the continued practice of caste discrimination. Analyses of caste based discrimination are yet to be included in the Council's annual human rights report. Effectiveness of the EU's human rights policy in terms of addressing caste discrimination still remains to be assessed.

Given this continued gross violation of human rights:

| — | what actions and measures have the Commission set in place to respond to the continued dehumanising practice of caste discrimination; |
| --- | --- |

—

what actions and measures have the Commission set in place to respond to the continued dehumanising practice of caste discrimination;

| — | what steps have been taken to promote the appointment of a Special Rapporteur on caste discrimination; |
| --- | --- |

—

what steps have been taken to promote the appointment of a Special Rapporteur on caste discrimination;

| — | what steps can be taken by the Commission to ensure that references to this enormous human rights problem together with suggestions for remedial measures are made in all relevant EU statements, including its own Country Strategy Reports; |
| --- | --- |

—

what steps can be taken by the Commission to ensure that references to this enormous human rights problem together with suggestions for remedial measures are made in all relevant EU statements, including its own Country Strategy Reports;

| — | will caste discrimination be included as an agenda item at forthcoming EU-India summits? |
| --- | --- |

—

will caste discrimination be included as an agenda item at forthcoming EU-India summits?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(26 April 2004)

The Commission is aware of the world-wide problem of caste discrimination in South Asia, and also in Africa. The Commission takes this issue very seriously and has shown a consistent and active commitment to tackling this problem.

Projects fighting discrimination against Dalits are eligible for assistance under the European Initiative for Democracy and Human Rights. A Call for Proposals, which was launched on 27 April 2002 under this initiative, specifically addressed the issue of caste discrimination. One of the eligibility criteria was: ‘Discrimination based on caste (i.e. membership by birth of a social group considered inferior to higher social groups, even without ethnic differences, and historically subject to forms of social and labour segregation and discrimination)’.

The Commission expects in the case of India that through its co-operation in the social sectors, especially in elementary education, an important contribution can be made to the progressive elimination of caste-and gender-based discrimination. The Commission firmly believes that by assisting India to reach its Millennium Development Goal of achieving universal elementary education, with a special focus on the ‘hard to reach’ such as children from Dalit and tribal backgrounds, these children will ultimately have better chances of finding positions at all levels of Indian society. All Community co-operation agreements since 1995 include human rights clauses and form the basis for a positive dialogue on human rights concerns. In the EU-India political dialogue, human rights issues are a regular topic in all Senior Officials and Ministerial Meetings.

The Commission takes careful note of the Honourable Member's suggestion concerning a Special Rapporteur on caste discrimination. However, the establishment of such a mandate would require the approval of the UN Commission on Human Rights (UNCHR).

The Commission continues to make efforts in the CHR and elsewhere, underlining the importance of the fight against racism, xenophobia and related intolerance. For instance, the EU delivers a statement on these issues at the annual sessions of the UNCHR and the UN General Assembly Third Committee.

The Joint EU-India Statement released at the 4th Summit in New Delhi in November 2003 reiterated that democracy provided the best safeguard for the protection and promotion of human rights, and reaffirmed the willingness of both sides to discuss human rights in a comprehensive manner (1). It is expected that this issue will be taken up in the Declaration of the 5th Summit to take place in the second half of 2004. The EU and India have furthermore agreed that democracy and human rights issues be discussed in Senior Officials and Ministerial Meetings.

---

(1)  ‘We affirmed that democracy provides a crucial safeguard for protection and promotion of Human Rights. All Human Rights including the right to personal, economic, social and cultural development are universal, indivisible, interdependent and inter-related. We believe in the equal importance of civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights and are committed to their full realization. International co-operation needs to be harnessed for the protection and promotion of human rights through dialogue and mutual understanding in a comprehensive global framework. We affirmed our willingness to discuss Human Rights in a comprehensive manner.’

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/569 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/569

---

(2004/C 88 E/0580)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1097/04

by Adriana Poli Bortone (UEN) to the Commission

(13 April 2004)

Subject:   Regulation (EC) No 2331/2003

With the entry into force of Regulation (EC) No 2331/2003 (1) of 23 December 2003 a number of countries, including Argentina and India, once again became beneficiaries under the Community scheme of generalised tariff preferences for the period 2002-2004, and from 1 January 2005 will benefit from reductions in the European Union's import duty for certain kinds of finished leather.

Bearing in mind that:

| — | by virtue of well-established dumping practices these countries enjoy great competitive advantages at the expense of the Italian tanning industry; |
| --- | --- |

—

by virtue of well-established dumping practices these countries enjoy great competitive advantages at the expense of the Italian tanning industry;

| — | there are no reciprocal and equivalent market conditions as regards commercial policy measures, since both India and Argentina set up substantial tariff and non-tariff barriers to their own exports of raw materials and imports of finished products; |
| --- | --- |

—

there are no reciprocal and equivalent market conditions as regards commercial policy measures, since both India and Argentina set up substantial tariff and non-tariff barriers to their own exports of raw materials and imports of finished products;

| — | Italian businesses find themselves in difficulty as a result of the fall in demand for finished products and the unfavourable euro-dollar exchange rate, |
| --- | --- |

—

Italian businesses find themselves in difficulty as a result of the fall in demand for finished products and the unfavourable euro-dollar exchange rate,

can the Commission say whether it does not consider that Regulation No 2331/2003 should be revised?

Answer given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(30 April 2004)

Commission Regulation (EC) No 2331/2003 of 23 December 2003 was adopted under Article 12 of Council Regulation (EC) No 2501/2001 applying a scheme of generalised tariff preferences for developing countries (GSP). It was thus adopted by the Commission under an obligation within a legal framework set by the Council.

The GSP, which is a multiannual system, provides that the scope of preferences has to be adjusted each year by the Commission. Regulation No 2331/2003 does so for 2005. Since the GSP is a limited trade concession, it has to be continued to countries and products which have a real need. Article 12 has introduced a system of graduation/degraduation allowing the GSP to be withdrawn from countries/products which are competitive on the international market or to reintroduce countries/products which had been excluded from the GSP in the past for this reason but which are no longer competitive.

This is a non-political and purely economic mechanism. The objective criteria which apply are those set out in Article 12 (as amended by Article 1 of Council Regulation (EC) No 2211/2003 of 15 December 2003) (2). It was on the basis of these criteria that it was decided to reintroduce preferences in 2005 for India and Argentina for the products in question.

Trade defence mechanisms can combat dumping if the necessary conditions are satisfied. Tariff and non-tariff obstacles to exports are one of the Community's priorities in the Doha Development Agenda and bilateral negotiations.

A new GSP system will be adopted on 1 January 2006 after consultation of all the parties concerned. We would invite the Honourable Member to encourage industrial associations to play an active part in these consultations.

---

(1)  OJ L 346, 31.12.2003, p. 3.

(2)  OJ L 332, 19.12.2003.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/570 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/570

---

(2004/C 88 E/0581)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1104/04

by Francesco Speroni (NI) to the Commission

(5 April 2004)

Subject:   Fig bananas

What were the reasons for excluding fig bananas from the scope of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2257/94 (1) of 16 September 1994 at that time and are these reasons still valid?

Should other varieties of bananas, such as red bananas, also be excluded?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(30 April 2004)

We have already pointed out in the answer to Written Question P-3283/03 (2) that the only varieties covered by the quality standards in Annex I to Commission Regulation (EC) No 2257/94 of 16 September 1994 laying down quality standards for bananas are those of the Musa (AAA) spp subgroups Cavendish and Gros Michel.

Thus no banana variety not in these subgroups is subject to these quality standards. This rules out fig bananas, and also red bananas, which belong to the Figue Rose subgroup of group AAA.

When the quality standards were drawn up these products were excluded because of their highly specific characteristics and the way in which they are marketed, which differs from that for bananas of the Cavendish and Gros Michel subgroups.

Bananas of these varieties still of course have to meet the general foodstuff marketing requirements (plant and public health standards, labelling rules etc.).

---

(1)  OJ L 245, 20.9.1994, p. 6.

(2)  OJ C 78 E, 27.3.2004, p. 255.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/571 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/571

---

(2004/C 88 E/0582)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1123/04

by Roy Perry (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(5 April 2004)

Subject:   Recourse to civil courts

The Fédération Internationale de Football Association's (FIFA) current Statutes (Regulations Governing the Application of the Statutes; Standing Orders of the Congress) prevent professional football clubs throughout the EU from having recourse to normal legal channels. Article 61 of FIFA's Statutes states that:

| | Recourse to ordinary courts of law is prohibited unless specifically provided for in the FIFA regulations. |
| --- | --- |

Recourse to ordinary courts of law is prohibited unless specifically provided for in the FIFA regulations.

| | To ensure the foregoing, the Associations shall insert a clause in their statutes stipulating that their clubs and members are prohibited from taking a dispute to ordinary courts of law and are required to submit any disagreement to the jurisdiction of the Association, the appropriate Confederation or FIFA. |
| --- | --- |

To ensure the foregoing, the Associations shall insert a clause in their statutes stipulating that their clubs and members are prohibited from taking a dispute to ordinary courts of law and are required to submit any disagreement to the jurisdiction of the Association, the appropriate Confederation or FIFA.

According to the Statutes, should the clubs have a dispute with FIFA or other stakeholders involved in football, they must address their complaint to a special Court of Arbitration for Sports in Switzerland. Article 59 of FIFA's Statutes states:

| | FIFA shall create an option for recourse to the Court of Arbitration for Sport, an independent arbitration tribunal with headquarters in Lausanne (Switzerland), to resolve any disputes between FIFA, the Confederations, Members, Leagues, Cubs, Players, Officials and licensed match agents and players' agents. |
| --- | --- |

FIFA shall create an option for recourse to the Court of Arbitration for Sport, an independent arbitration tribunal with headquarters in Lausanne (Switzerland), to resolve any disputes between FIFA, the Confederations, Members, Leagues, Cubs, Players, Officials and licensed match agents and players' agents.

Could the Commission clarify whether FIFA's Articles 59 and 61 are compatible with EU internal market principles and with EU law (for example, Article 81 of the Treaty establishing the European Community)?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(30 April 2004)

The Commission would point out first of all that the considerations below concerning Articles 59 and 61 of the Fédération Internationale de Football Association's (FIFA) Statutes apply also to the Statutes of the Union des Associations européennes de Football (UEFA), which contain similar provisions and which, in Article 5, limit membership to ‘national football associations situated in the continent of Europe’.

In the Commission's opinion, a rule such as that in Articles 59 and 61 of the FIFA Statutes which prohibits recourse to national courts and imposes compulsory arbitration prima facie infringes the principle of freedom of access to employment. This principle constitutes a fundamental right which, as the Court of Justice has acknowledged (1), the EC Treaty confers individually on each worker in the Community. The existence of a right of appeal to the courts from a decision of a national authority denying an individual free access to employment is essential if this fundamental right is to be effectively protected. This requirement constitutes a general principle of Community law which stems from the Member States' common constitutional traditions and is enshrined in Articles 6 and 13 of the European Convention on Human Rights (see also Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights).

As regards the possible infringement of Articles 81 and 82, a rule such as the one in question is prima facie contrary to the EC Treaty inasmuch as the denial of access to the courts may facilitate anticompetitive agreements or conduct.

When it examines cases brought before it, the Commission accordingly takes care to ensure that these principles of freedom of access to employment and freedom of competition are complied with. For example, as a result of its action, Article 42 of the FIFA Regulations for the Status and Transfer of Players henceforth makes it possible to derogate from Articles 59 and 61 of the FIFA Statutes by permitting recourse to the courts.

The Commission would also draw the Honourable Member's attention to the fact that decisions of the Switzerland-based Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) may be challenged before the ordinary courts under certain conditions and on certain (limited) grounds.

---

(1)  Case C-222/86 Heylens [1987] ECR 4097.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/572 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/572

---

(2004/C 88 E/0583)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1124/04

by Professor Sir Neil MacCormick (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(6 April 2004)

Subject:   Tax concessions for stud farms

Will the Commission please state its view concerning the practice whereby Ireland grants tax exemption to stud farms in respect of ‘nomination fees’ payable when a stallion impregnates a mare?

Is this practice not an illegitimate form of state aid to stud farms in Ireland?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(30 April 2004)

The Commission has received a formal complaint about the practice of Ireland granting tax exemption to stud farms. As the Commission has concerns about the compatibility with State aid rules, this practice is being examined under Article 88 of the EC Treaty (State aid No NN 32/04).

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/572 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/572

---

(2004/C 88 E/0584)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1126/04

by Véronique De Keyser (PSE) to the Commission

(6 April 2004)

Subject:   Use of structural funds

It would appear that some of the structural funds earmarked for Latvia are to go towards restoring castles and other property being reacquired by former aristocrats who are still in exile or who have recently returned to the country. These funds are therefore being used for the restoration of private property reacquired at reduced prices and not for the restoration of heritage sites open to the public. Some repossessions even involve the expropriation of schools. I am stunned at such a use of structural funds and would like to verify the accuracy of this information, which appeared in a television programme called ‘Des racines et des hommes’ (‘Roots and men’), broadcast by France 3 on 30 March 2004.

Is the use of structural funds in the Baltic States monitored in detail, and is there any information that could be published with which to confirm or deny these claims?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(30 April 2004)

Assistance from the European Union to Latvia under the Structural Funds will be delivered under the Objective 1 Single Programming Document, negotiated with the Latvian authorities which has yet to be formally approved in advance of accession on 1 May (1).

Accordingly, no payments have been made under this programme. The Latvian authorities are currently engaged in the preparatory work necessary to set up selection criteria as the basis for the identification of projects in a transparent and competitive manner for support under the programme.

The SPD may be consulted on (http://www.esfondi.lv).

---

(1)  The SPD may be consulted on (http://www.esfondi.lv).

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/573 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/573

---

(2004/C 88 E/0585)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1141/04

by Göran Färm (PSE) to the Commission

(6 April 2004)

Subject:   European patent rights in the USA

Some years ago I drew the Commission's attention to the systematic protectionism practised in the American legal system, which unfortunately still persists. Several cases brought by European researchers and inventors before US courts in defence of their patent rights have been obstructed, more or less openly, by those courts. This may be a breach of the TRIPS agreement, to which the USA is a signatory and which guarantees foreign patent holders the right to bring proceedings before the signatories' courts. The case which the Swedish inventor, Dr Håkan Lans, is still forced to pursue in the US courts after several years is a clear example of the US protectionism referred to above. Is the Commission prepared to take up Dr Lan's case with the US Administration as a warning and a clear indication that the EU will not tolerate such discrimination?

Answer given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(27 April 2004)

The Commission makes extensive efforts to closely monitor the conduct of its trading partners to ensure their compliance with the stipulations of the TRIPS Agreement.

Regarding the unfortunate circumstances faced by the Swedish inventor Dr Håkan Lans, the Commission has undertaken a thorough evaluation of the issues involved in the case in conjunction with Dr Lans himself. Unfortunately, the conclusion that has been reached is that there are no viable legal avenues that could be pursued in the area of trade policy in this instance.

Obviously, the Commission will thoroughly investigate any other cases brought to its attention which would call into question the way that the United States' legal system treats European researchers' and inventors' patent rights pursuant to the TRIPS Agreement.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/573 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/573

---

(2004/C 88 E/0586)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1145/04

by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(15 April 2004)

Subject:   Establishment of a Community inspection body

In view of the fact that the Commission is insisting upon establishing a Community inspection body to come into operation in 2006, and since the legislation relating to the Community financial support to be granted to the Member States for the purpose of implementing monitoring structures expired at the end of 2003, would the Commission answer the following questions:

| 1. | How does the Commission intend to support Portugal, which has the largest EEZ and the largest number of vessels to monitor, given that Portugal is clearly under-equipped for the purpose, is known to be in economic recession and is facing severe financial problems? |
| --- | --- |

1.

How does the Commission intend to support Portugal, which has the largest EEZ and the largest number of vessels to monitor, given that Portugal is clearly under-equipped for the purpose, is known to be in economic recession and is facing severe financial problems?

| 2. | What action is the Commission intending to take in order to support Portugal in financing the acquisition and modernisation of ships and vessels used for monitoring purposes, as it has done in the case of other countries, in particular Ireland? |
| --- | --- |

2.

What action is the Commission intending to take in order to support Portugal in financing the acquisition and modernisation of ships and vessels used for monitoring purposes, as it has done in the case of other countries, in particular Ireland?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(30 April 2004)

Last November the Commission proposed that the Community financial aid scheme for the Member States' fishery policing programmes be extended to 31 December 2005 (1). This extension is specifically geared to the creation of a fishery policing agency expected to start operating in 2006.

Article 4(l)(h) of the proposal for a Council Decision provides for assistance towards the cost of buying and modernising vessels and aircraft for use in inspection and surveillance of fishing activities. The Council should be adopting the text shortly.

Applications for the funding of programmes for 2004 are to be submitted by 1 June.

---

(1)  COM(2003) 706 final, 20.11.2003.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/574 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/574

---

(2004/C 88 E/0587)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1154/04

by Brice Hortefeux (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(6 April 2004)

Subject:   Fight against terrorism

The Madrid attacks have once again proved the rule that Europe requires crises, or even tragedies, in order to make progress. After months of futile procrastination, it has finally been recognised that Europe needs a constitution in order to provide the EU with the means of protecting itself against those who threaten it, and in order to create the common area of freedom and security for which the citizens have long called.

Priority should however not be given to expanding existing bodies or increasing bureaucracy, as some have suggested, but to the question of whether governments are determined to make use of European structures to develop police and judicial cooperation. Although Europol and Eurojust have already been set up for this purpose, they are used infrequently and inefficiently. More seriously, the report by the Council Secretariat on the plan of action to combat terrorism shows that the main obstacle to efficient cooperation is of a political nature, namely mistrust. It is unacceptable that terrorists should be able to operate without borders while this is impossible for the police, judicial and intelligence services, even within the European Union.

What is the Commission's position with regard to this ‘culture of secrecy’?

Have measures been taken to correct the shortcomings exposed in the above-mentioned report by the Council Secretariat and, if so, what measures have been taken?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(30 April 2004)

The Commission shares the view of the Honourable Member on the fact that the difficulty to share information between many intelligence and law enforcement services amongst the Member States is one of the main obstacles to international police co-operation. This practice has a direct negative impact on the efforts to counter terrorism.

Gathering and processing information is essential to prevent, detect and investigate terrorism. The success of prevention, investigation and the subsequent prosecution of crimes depends on the quality of the information gathered, on its analysis, and especially on protecting it from leakage to unauthorised persons or organisations. This explains the natural difficulty to share information.

Council Decision 2003/48/JHA of 19 December 2002 on the implementation of specific measures for police and judicial cooperation to combat terrorism in accordance with Art 4 of Common Position 2001/931/CFSP is a major step forward for the improvement of exchange of information.

Such difficulties are not only evident in international contacts, but also between different police forces within countries (and sometimes even within one same force). The level of exchange of information grows over time as a result of continuing and deepening co-operation within the formal bodies established by the Union, such as Council working groups, Europol, Eurojust or the Task Force of Police Chiefs. This natural process is very slow in developing, however. It is therefore necessary to find ways to achieve progress more rapidly.

Effective ways to build up a culture of trust and co-operation are the training activities of the European Police College (CEPOL) and the Europol awareness program, as well as incorporating intelligence/security services in the activities carried out by Europol.

The Commission has recently presented concrete measures that may help to correct the situation mentioned, such as a Communication (1) on measures to be taken to combat terrorism and other forms of serious crime, in particular to improve exchange of information. The Commission has also presented a proposal for Council Decision on the exchange of information and cooperation concerning terrorist offences (1).

---

(1)  COM(2004) 221 final.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/575 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/575

---

(2004/C 88 E/0588)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1155/04

by Marco Formentini (ELDR) to the Commission

(7 April 2004)

Subject:   Request for the Commission to intervene in the dispute between the company Invesmart bv and the Czech Republic regarding the bankrupt Union Banka

Under the conditions for entry into the European Union the accession countries were supposed to bring their national legal systems and administrative procedures, and the behaviour of public administration into line with the legal principles observed within the Union. The aim of this question is to highlight a series of abuses and instances of wrongful treatment suffered since December 2002 by the Dutch firm Invesmart bv and its majority shareholder Prof. Paolo Catalfamo, an Italian national, as a result of their investing in Union Banka, which at the time was the fourth largest bank in the Czech Republic.

The investment, as well as the broad restructuring plan accompanying it, were agreed by the investors with the Czech Central Bank and the Minister of Finance. After the investors had spent a year and a half fulfilling various difficult obligations the Czech authorities suddenly (and improvidently) declared the bank bankrupt, which seriously damaged investors. These events were widely publicised both in the Czech Republic itself and in the international economic press.

Can the Commission obtain information directly from the Czech authorities — who, when proceedings were brought for damages of around EUR 300 million, stated that the Czech government was willing to settle the dispute amicably — as to what their intentions actually are and ask them to settle the dispute in a correct and fair manner?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(30 April 2004)

The banking sector in the Czech Republic has gone through a difficult restructuring process. In order to protect the common market, the Commission has to make sure that a level playing field is maintained by preventing State aid from being granted contrary to EU competition rules.

Bankruptcy proceedings are a judicial process in the Czech Republic and the Commission cannot comment on proceedings under way. It is for the Czech judicial system to produce a decision in this case.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/576 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/576

---

(2004/C 88 E/0589)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1201/04

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(14 April 2004)

Subject:   Municipality of Rome — failure to comply with Commission Decision 2000/628/EC in relation to State aid granted to ACCL

From the answer of 30 March 2004 to question E-0470/04 (1), it emerges that the documents in the Commission's possession do not indicate that it was notified of the deadlines and procedures for recovering the amounts concerned within two months of the above decision, as required by the relevant rules. Furthermore, is not clear how the Commission, when examining the alleged irregularities in State aid granted to ACCL, subsequently found to be justified, failed to take account of the earlier opinion from the advisers J P Morgan charged with drafting a business plan. In 1996 J P Morgan had in fact drawn attention to an incompatibility with Community regulations on State aid involving public funds, in breach of Articles 87, 88 and 89 of the EC Treaty, on pages 36 and 37 and pages 198 and 199 of the report annexed to the deliberations of the Rome Municipal Council No 145 of 28 July 1997.

Consequently, the Municipality of Rome was aware since 1996 that the procedure for privatising ACCL was incompatible with the common market and that it could never have repaid the amounts after privatisation.

Can the Commission answer the following questions:

| 1. | How was it that the Commission failed to take account of J P Morgan's considered opinion when it examined the actual reliability of the valuation of the company's assets to be transferred by the Municipality of Rome? |
| --- | --- |

1.

How was it that the Commission failed to take account of J P Morgan's considered opinion when it examined the actual reliability of the valuation of the company's assets to be transferred by the Municipality of Rome?

| 2. | How was it that the Commission, being aware of the J P Morgan opinion, did not consider that it should have imposed penalties in respect of the privatisation arrangements that were based on a deliberate breach of Community rules designed to achieve a fictitious balance in ACCL's accounts for the purposes of selling off this branch of the business? |
| --- | --- |

2.

How was it that the Commission, being aware of the J P Morgan opinion, did not consider that it should have imposed penalties in respect of the privatisation arrangements that were based on a deliberate breach of Community rules designed to achieve a fictitious balance in ACCL's accounts for the purposes of selling off this branch of the business?

| 3. | What were the reasons for failure to meet the deadlines for the recovery of amounts set out in Articles 14 and 15 of Regulation EC No 659/1999 (2)? |
| --- | --- |

3.

What were the reasons for failure to meet the deadlines for the recovery of amounts set out in Articles 14 and 15 of Regulation EC No 659/1999 (2)?

| 4. | Why has the Commission still not referred the matter to the Court of Justice, pursuant to Article 88(2) of the EC Treaty, given that four years have elapsed since the Decision was published in the Official Journal? |
| --- | --- |

4.

Why has the Commission still not referred the matter to the Court of Justice, pursuant to Article 88(2) of the EC Treaty, given that four years have elapsed since the Decision was published in the Official Journal?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(30 April 2004)

On 11 April 2000 we adopted a decision on the aid granted by Italy to the Azienda Comunale Centrale del Latte di Roma (3).

| 1. and 2. | Before taking the decision we examined and assessed all the documents and explanations provided by the Italian authorities in the course of the procedure. |
| --- | --- |

1. and 2.

Before taking the decision we examined and assessed all the documents and explanations provided by the Italian authorities in the course of the procedure.

| 3. and 4. | Under Article 14 of Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty (4), following notification to the Member State of the Commission decision to recover aid granted unlawfully, it is the Member State that is responsible for recovering the aid without delay using the procedures in force under national legislation. By a letter of 26 January 2004 we requested the Italian authorities to inform us by 25 February 2004 of the action taken to comply with the decision. We are now examining the reply sent by the City of Rome. Under Article 12 of Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 we can refer the matter to the Court of Justice after examining the substance of it on the basis of the information available, if it transpires that Italy has failed to comply with the decision adopted under Article 88(2) of the EC Treaty. |
| --- | --- |

3. and 4.

Under Article 14 of Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty (4), following notification to the Member State of the Commission decision to recover aid granted unlawfully, it is the Member State that is responsible for recovering the aid without delay using the procedures in force under national legislation. By a letter of 26 January 2004 we requested the Italian authorities to inform us by 25 February 2004 of the action taken to comply with the decision. We are now examining the reply sent by the City of Rome. Under Article 12 of Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 we can refer the matter to the Court of Justice after examining the substance of it on the basis of the information available, if it transpires that Italy has failed to comply with the decision adopted under Article 88(2) of the EC Treaty.

---

(1)  OJ C 84 E, 3.4.2004, p. 592.

(2)  OJ L 83, 27.3.1999, p. 1.

(3)  Commission Decision of 11 April 2000 on the aid granted by Italy to Centrale del Latte di Roma, OJ L 265, 19.10.2000.

(4)  OJ L 83, 27.3.1999.

---

WRITTEN QUESTIONS WITH ANSWER (Part 3)

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/578 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/578

---

(2004/C 88 E/0590)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3077/01

by Luis Berenguer Fuster (PSE) to the Commission

(9 November 2001)

Subject:   The case concerning State aid for the ‘Terra Mítica’ theme park (Alicante)

The Parque Temático de Alicante SA (SPTA), a public company owned by the Valencian regional government, has signed a number of agreements with two subsidiaries of the US multi-national Viacom, called Paramount Parks and Paramount Pictures. Under the agreement signed with the first of these companies, Paramount Parks undertakes to run the ‘Terra Mítica’ theme park for four years. At the same time, Paramount Pictures signed a contract for collaboration on the ‘Ciudad de la Luz’ theme park in Alicante. The Valencian regional government has granted a bank guarantee of up to USD 6 million to the SPTA for this contract.

Despite the pretence that the State guarantee is not for ‘Terra Mitica’, there is the following evidence that it is:

| — | the contracts were signed on the same day, 2 October 2001, as can be seen from the photograph showing the managers of Terra Mitica, the SPTA, Paramount Parks and Paramount Pictures congratulating one another on the agreements; |
| --- | --- |

—

the contracts were signed on the same day, 2 October 2001, as can be seen from the photograph showing the managers of Terra Mitica, the SPTA, Paramount Parks and Paramount Pictures congratulating one another on the agreements;

| — | it is evident that the contract between the SPTA and Paramount Pictures was signed on 5 September, although it was not announced until 2 October. The contract was given a guarantee by the Valencian government on 5 September but, strangely enough, notification was not published in its Official Journal until 5 October; |
| --- | --- |

—

it is evident that the contract between the SPTA and Paramount Pictures was signed on 5 September, although it was not announced until 2 October. The contract was given a guarantee by the Valencian government on 5 September but, strangely enough, notification was not published in its Official Journal until 5 October;

| — | nobody can understand what obligations Paramount Pictures has with regard to the Ciudad de la Luz, which is still in the early stages and is unlikely to need the sum guaranteed at present, all the more so since the guarantee expires on 31 December 2002; |
| --- | --- |

—

nobody can understand what obligations Paramount Pictures has with regard to the Ciudad de la Luz, which is still in the early stages and is unlikely to need the sum guaranteed at present, all the more so since the guarantee expires on 31 December 2002;

| — | Paramount Parks has asked the Regional Government for an additional bank guarantee of USD 13 million to run Terra Mitica' (according to the Valencian press on 18 October 2001), which has been interpreted as being linked to the loan from the Regional Government. |
| --- | --- |

—

Paramount Parks has asked the Regional Government for an additional bank guarantee of USD 13 million to run Terra Mitica' (according to the Valencian press on 18 October 2001), which has been interpreted as being linked to the loan from the Regional Government.

In view of all this, can the Commission say:

| 1. | whether it considers that the guarantee given to the SPTA is designed to evade Commission scrutiny in connection with State aid to ‘Terra Mitica’, but in actual fact will benefit that park; |
| --- | --- |

1.

whether it considers that the guarantee given to the SPTA is designed to evade Commission scrutiny in connection with State aid to ‘Terra Mitica’, but in actual fact will benefit that park;

| 2. | whether it considers that there is evidence to justify investigating whether the guarantee granted to SPTA by the Valencian government is being exploited and that the ultimate purpose is to help ‘Terra Mítica’; |
| --- | --- |

2.

whether it considers that there is evidence to justify investigating whether the guarantee granted to SPTA by the Valencian government is being exploited and that the ultimate purpose is to help ‘Terra Mítica’;

| 3. | whether these facts have a bearing on the case brought in connection with State aid to ‘Terra Mítica’? |
| --- | --- |

3.

whether these facts have a bearing on the case brought in connection with State aid to ‘Terra Mítica’?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(10 January 2002)

The Commission thanks the Honourable Member for the information he has provided. It will approach the Spanish authorities for more details in order to view the facts in the light of the rules on State aid, in particular with regard to the Terra Mitica file (1). It will make its findings known.

---

(1)  OJ C 300, 26.10.2001.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/579 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/579

---

(2004/C 88 E/0591)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2951/02

by Rosa Miguélez Ramos (PSE) to the Commission

(14 October 2002)

Subject:   Allocation of structural funds

Would the Commission please give details of the allocation by each local authority in Galicia (Spain) of the monies invested by the structural funds over the 1994-1999 programming period?

Supplementary answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(29 April 2004)

The Commission is informed by the responsible authorities in Spain that the information requested for the region of Galicia is available at the detailed geographical level of the municipalities in incomplete form only. They have given us the following breakdown by province for the 1994-1999 programming period:

| (pesetas) |
| --- |
| PROVINCE | ERDF | EAGGF | FIFG |
| Lugo | 159 842 770 248 | 1 700 299 862 | 6 836 285 588 |
| La Coruña | 198 227392318 | 885 147 058 | 23 936 009 296 |
| Orense | 41 344 303 188 | 1 416 242 020 | — |
| Pontevedra | 106 497 819 506 | 526 301 303 | 45 759031802 |
| Total | 505 912 285 260 | 4 527 990 243 | 76 531326 686 |

(pesetas)

PROVINCE

ERDF

EAGGF

FIFG

Lugo

159 842 770 248

1 700 299 862

6 836 285 588

La Coruña

198 227392318

885 147 058

23 936 009 296

Orense

41 344 303 188

1 416 242 020

—

Pontevedra

106 497 819 506

526 301 303

45 759031802

Total

505 912 285 260

4 527 990 243

76 531326 686

They state that owing to the nature of the action financed by the ESF, the large number of Operational Programmes (multiregional and one regional) involved and the large number of managing bodies acting in Galicia, the breakdown asked for is very difficult to make. For Galicia as a whole the ESF contribution for 1994-1999 is EUR 576,13 million. This covers both the regional programme and the national level ones.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/579 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/579

---

(2004/C 88 E/0592)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3207/02

by Kathleen Van Brempt (PSE) to the Commission

(12 November 2002)

Subject:   Nicotine sweets

A number of tobacco manufacturers, including British American Tobacco, have announced that they will shortly be marketing a peppermint containing as much nicotine as a cigarette. The manufacturers have developed the cigalett as a way of providing smokers, who face a growing number of smoking bans, with nicotine that they can use at any time and in any place.

What is the Commission's reaction to this new product?

Will the Commission ban the cigalett?

If not, will Commission warn the public about the addictive effects of this sweet?

What is the position with regard to the labelling of the cigalett?

Supplementary answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(10 March 2003)

The Commission is very concerned about all types of new products whose purpose could be to lead consumers into nicotine addiction. As far as the product, namely ‘cigalett’, referred to by the Honourable Member is concerned, although the Commission does not have definite evidence on the exact composition of this product, the information available appears to indicate that this product contains tobacco. This would mean that it falls in the category of tobacco products as defined in Directive 2001/37/EC of the Parliament and of the Council on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning the manufacture, presentation and sale of tobacco products (1) (hereafter, ‘the Directive’) and would not fall under food legislation.

According to the Directive, ‘tobacco products’ means ‘products for the purpose of smoking, sniffing, sucking or chewing, inasmuch as they are, even partly, made of tobacco, whether genetically modified or not’. The same Directive defines ‘tobacco for oral use’ as ‘all products for oral use, except those intended to be smoked or chewed, made wholly or partly of tobacco, in powder or in particulate form or in any combination of those forms, particularly those presented in sachet portions or porous sachets, or in a form resembling a food product.’ The product in question appears to fall into this category, because according to the information available to the Commission, it is made of compressed, powdered tobacco designed to dissolve in the mouth. The Directive requires that Member States shall prohibit the placing on the market of tobacco for oral use; however, Sweden has been granted a derogation from this prohibition.

If the product is confirmed to contain tobacco, and if it is intended to be dissolved in the mouth rather than to be chewed, its placing on the market is prohibited in all Member States but Sweden.

As far as labelling is concerned, according to Article 4 of the Directive, tobacco products for oral use — where their marketing is permitted — have to carry the following health warning: This tobacco product can damage your health and is addictive'.

The Honourable Member can be assured that the Commission will follow developments in this area with great attention, and take any action within its powers that is required from a public health point of view.

---

(1)  OJ L 194, 18.7.2001.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/580 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/580

---

(2004/C 88 E/0593)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3445/02

by Wolfgang Ilgenfritz (NI) to the Commission

(27 November 2002)

Subject:   Vehicle leasing abroad — transfer of the place where the service is supplied to the home Member State — amendment of the VAT Directive

Advocate-General Geelhoed delivered his opinion in Case C-155/01 concerning tax on own consumption resulting from vehicles leased in another Member State on 10 October 2002. In his conclusions, the Advocate-General endorses the complainant's view that the tax levied on own consumption (section 1(1)2 of the Austrian VAT law) in relation to leasing in another Member State contravenes the provisions of the Sixth VAT Directive. He bases his opinion on Article 9(1) of the Directive, which lays down that, with regard to the hiring of motor vehicles in the form of leasing, the place where the service is supplied is the place where the supplier is established.

According to information from the Austrian Finance Ministry, the VAT Directive is to be amended as follows: the place where the service is supplied is to be transferred from the place where the leasing firm is established to the place where the firm using the vehicle is established.

Is the Commission in favour of amending the Sixth VAT Directive so as to transfer the place where the service is supplied from the place where the leasing firm is established to the place where the firm using the vehicle is established?

If so, when will the Directive be amended?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(7 January 2003)

The Commission has submitted in June 1998 a proposal for a Directive (1) aiming to replace the Eighth VAT Directive (2) refund procedure by a system of cross-border deduction of the VAT paid in another Member State. According to this proposal, taxable persons could recover VAT directly on the VAT return they submit in their Member State of establishment following the rules for the right of deduction in that Member State. The Commission believes that adoption of this proposal would solve the problems Austria faces with leasing of motor vehicles.

Despite the large support of the Parliament and the Economic and Social Committee, the Council has not yet adopted by unanimity this proposal.

At the Ecofin Council meeting on 4 June 2002, the Council noted the Presidency's intention to reopen discussion on the cross-border deduction of VAT and harmonisation of the right to deduct VAT in the case of passenger vehicles, as well as the Commission's intention to prioritise work on the revision of Article 9 of the Sixth VAT Directive (3), which deals with the place of supply of services.

Following an initial consultation of Member States, the Commission has concluded that it should focus its work in the near future on modernising the rules for the place of the supply of business to business services, including cross-border leasing of means of transport. One of the options that will be discussed with the Member States is an amendment of the Sixth VAT Directive as the Honourable Member suggested.

The Commission hopes to be in a position to bring forth proposals for amending Article 9 of the Sixth VAT Directive in the course of 2003.

---

(1)  OJ C 219, 15.7.1998.

(2)  Eighth Council Directive 79/1072/EEC of 6 December 1979 on the harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Arrangements for the refund of value added tax to taxable persons not established in the territory of the country, OJ L 331, 27.12.1979.

(3)  Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonization 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.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/581 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/581

---

(2004/C 88 E/0594)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3512/02

by Herman Vermeer (ELDR) to the Commission

(10 December 2002)

Subject:   Problem of mutual recognition in the port of Antwerp involving a visa issued by a Schengen state

As of 1 October 2002 the Vision list has been distributed in the port of Antwerp. The nationalities included on the Vision list must register using a so-called STVZ form and may not travel on to another Schengen Member State. They may leave Belgium in order to return to their country of origin or they may be deported to non-Schengen countries such as the United Kingdom or Switzerland. The rule also applies in reverse. Seamen holding one of the nationalities on the Vision list and seeking to enter Belgium via Amsterdam (Schiphol) Frankfurt or Paris are being turned away at the Belgian border, preventing them from checking whether their ship is docked in a Belgian port. They are thus being forced to enter Belgium either directly or via a non-Schengen country, such as Switzerland or the United Kingdom. The result of this requirement to register is that the Belgian border police no longer recognises a visa issued by a Schengen partner. To my mind, this runs counter to the agreements concluded between and by the Schengen countries.

Will the Commission, as guardian of the Schengen Convention, examine this matter more closely and clarify it? To what extent has the Vision list been drawn up by the Belgian authorities in keeping with the terms of the Schengen Convention? What criteria have the Belgian authorities employed when placing countries on that list? Why may nationalities on the list enter Belgium directly or via non-Schengen countries? Does this Vision list in fact constitute a hidden support measure for the national airport in Brussels? Can the Commission clarify this matter?

Supplementary answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(2 July 2004)

Having analysed the information received from the competent authorities, the Commission can provide the Honourable Member with the following further information:

| — | first, the Commission can confirm the information provided in its initial answer, namely that the Vision list' referred to by Honourable Member concerns the exchange of information between the States applying the Schengen ‘acquis’ on third countries subject to prior consultation under Annex 5B to the Common Consular Instructions; |
| --- | --- |

—

first, the Commission can confirm the information provided in its initial answer, namely that the Vision list' referred to by Honourable Member concerns the exchange of information between the States applying the Schengen ‘acquis’ on third countries subject to prior consultation under Annex 5B to the Common Consular Instructions;

| — | seamen subject to the visa requirement who are classed as aliens and cannot be granted a visa without prior consultation may, exceptionally, be issued at the border a visa limited to the territory of the issuing State. This possibility, which results from the two Executive Committee decisions referred to in the initial answer, is retained under the current arrangements established by Council Regulation (EC) No 415/2003 of 27 February 2003 on the issue of visas at the border, including the issue of such visas to seamen in transit (1), which repeals those two decisions; |
| --- | --- |

—

seamen subject to the visa requirement who are classed as aliens and cannot be granted a visa without prior consultation may, exceptionally, be issued at the border a visa limited to the territory of the issuing State. This possibility, which results from the two Executive Committee decisions referred to in the initial answer, is retained under the current arrangements established by Council Regulation (EC) No 415/2003 of 27 February 2003 on the issue of visas at the border, including the issue of such visas to seamen in transit (1), which repeals those two decisions;

| — | as such, the circumstances referred to by the Honourable Member do not indicate therefore a problem with the recognition of visas issued by another Schengen State but are fully in line with the existing rules. The only way these seamen can enter the territory of a given Schengen State (Belgium in this instance) is by entering Belgian territory direct from a third country on being issued with a limited visa for the territory of that State, in so far as they meet the requisite conditions; |
| --- | --- |

—

as such, the circumstances referred to by the Honourable Member do not indicate therefore a problem with the recognition of visas issued by another Schengen State but are fully in line with the existing rules. The only way these seamen can enter the territory of a given Schengen State (Belgium in this instance) is by entering Belgian territory direct from a third country on being issued with a limited visa for the territory of that State, in so far as they meet the requisite conditions;

| — | according to information provided by the Belgian authorities, the STZV form is a working document which is filled in by the shipowners' representatives, is required for all seamen and is intended for the border control authorities. It provides certain information on the seaman, namely his identity, the travel documents in his possession, his vessel and so on. This information is a prerequisite for a visa to be issued. It is also required by the aforementioned Council Regulation (EC) No 415/2003 (see the form in Annex II to the Regulation). |
| --- | --- |

—

according to information provided by the Belgian authorities, the STZV form is a working document which is filled in by the shipowners' representatives, is required for all seamen and is intended for the border control authorities. It provides certain information on the seaman, namely his identity, the travel documents in his possession, his vessel and so on. This information is a prerequisite for a visa to be issued. It is also required by the aforementioned Council Regulation (EC) No 415/2003 (see the form in Annex II to the Regulation).

---

(1)  OJ L 64, 7.3.2003.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/582 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/582

---

(2004/C 88 E/0595)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3753/02

by Kathleen Van Brempt (PSE) to the Commission

(20 December 2002)

Subject:   Kerosene tax

For some years now, the Commission has received questions from MEPs about the introduction of a kerosene tax. Each time, the Commission says that it supports the introduction of such a tax but that no agreement can be reached at international level. And so, here we are, some years down the line, and still waiting for a proposal.

| 1. | When will the Commission submit a proposal for the introduction of a kerosene tax? |
| --- | --- |

1.

When will the Commission submit a proposal for the introduction of a kerosene tax?

| 2. | If the Commission is unable to submit a proposal in the near future, can it indicate why and what are the obstacles thereto? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If the Commission is unable to submit a proposal in the near future, can it indicate why and what are the obstacles thereto?

| 3. | Can the Commission indicate which Member States are in favour of a kerosene tax and which are against? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Can the Commission indicate which Member States are in favour of a kerosene tax and which are against?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(5 February 2003)

With regard to the existing compulsory exemption from the harmonised excise duty on mineral oils used as fuels for the purpose of air navigation, other than for private pleasure crafts, the Commission can inform the Honourable Member of the following:

| 1. | The Commission has taken a position in favour of abolishing this exemption since 1996 (1). The Commission presented a proposal restructuring the taxation of energy products in March 1997 (2), which includes provisions, under its Article 13, allowing Member States to extend the application of the harmonised excise duty on aviation fuel for domestic flights or, via bilateral agreements, on intra-Community flights carried out by Community carriers.
  Concerning taxation of kerosene used by international aviation the Commission presented a Communication on aircraft fuel taxation, in March 2000 (3), suggesting, inter alia, to intensify the work within the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) framework for the introduction of taxation of aircraft fuel, or other measures with similar effects. Following the Community's request, taxation of aircraft fuels appeared on the agenda of the ICAO 33rd Assembly, held in Montreal between 25 September 2001 and 5 October 2001. However, it proved impossible to obtain support from the other ICAO Members, particularly in view of the very unfavourable conditions for aviation following the events of 11 September 2001. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The Commission has taken a position in favour of abolishing this exemption since 1996 (1). The Commission presented a proposal restructuring the taxation of energy products in March 1997 (2), which includes provisions, under its Article 13, allowing Member States to extend the application of the harmonised excise duty on aviation fuel for domestic flights or, via bilateral agreements, on intra-Community flights carried out by Community carriers.

Concerning taxation of kerosene used by international aviation the Commission presented a Communication on aircraft fuel taxation, in March 2000 (3), suggesting, inter alia, to intensify the work within the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) framework for the introduction of taxation of aircraft fuel, or other measures with similar effects. Following the Community's request, taxation of aircraft fuels appeared on the agenda of the ICAO 33rd Assembly, held in Montreal between 25 September 2001 and 5 October 2001. However, it proved impossible to obtain support from the other ICAO Members, particularly in view of the very unfavourable conditions for aviation following the events of 11 September 2001.

| 2. | The Commission does not intend to submit an additional proposal on taxation of aircraft fuel, as in its opinion this issue is sufficiently covered by its 1997 proposal on taxation of energy products. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The Commission does not intend to submit an additional proposal on taxation of aircraft fuel, as in its opinion this issue is sufficiently covered by its 1997 proposal on taxation of energy products.

| 3. | Discussions on the proposal on taxation of energy products have been intensified in the Council during recent months, and it is hoped that it may be adopted in due course. During the discussions on a potential political agreement, presented by the Danish Presidency in December 2002, it appeared that all but one Member State, could agree that, as a matter of principle, commercial aircraft fuel should be taxed on the same basis as any other fuel. However, it is necessary to take into account the question of competition with third countries, and the avoidance of any distortion of competition with consequent socio-economic implications. Therefore, it is appropriate to pursue the discussion on this matter within the ICAO, and take the decision on whether to tax kerosene used by international aviation if its taxation is allowed at international level.
  However, the Council could approve the provisions, included in the Commission proposal, providing for the optional application by Member States of a lower level of taxation on kerosene to be used for domestic or intra-Community flights. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Discussions on the proposal on taxation of energy products have been intensified in the Council during recent months, and it is hoped that it may be adopted in due course. During the discussions on a potential political agreement, presented by the Danish Presidency in December 2002, it appeared that all but one Member State, could agree that, as a matter of principle, commercial aircraft fuel should be taxed on the same basis as any other fuel. However, it is necessary to take into account the question of competition with third countries, and the avoidance of any distortion of competition with consequent socio-economic implications. Therefore, it is appropriate to pursue the discussion on this matter within the ICAO, and take the decision on whether to tax kerosene used by international aviation if its taxation is allowed at international level.

However, the Council could approve the provisions, included in the Commission proposal, providing for the optional application by Member States of a lower level of taxation on kerosene to be used for domestic or intra-Community flights.

---

(1)  OJ C 382, 18.12.1996.

(2)  OJ C 139, 6.5.1997.

(3)  COM(2000) 110 final.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/583 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/583

---

(2004/C 88 E/0596)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3801/02

by Jules Maaten (ELDR) to the Commission

(7 January 2003)

Subject:   Tobacco excise on medicinal herbal cigarettes

With reference to the Commission's answers of 23 April 2002 (E-0721/02 (1)) to questions by Jules Maaten, I should like to put some supplementary questions:

| 1. | Is the Commission aware that in some European countries (e.g. Belgium, France, Britain, Ireland and Italy), medicinal herbal cigarettes have for years been sold free of tobacco excise even though these countries have not, like Denmark, exempted these products from excise? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is the Commission aware that in some European countries (e.g. Belgium, France, Britain, Ireland and Italy), medicinal herbal cigarettes have for years been sold free of tobacco excise even though these countries have not, like Denmark, exempted these products from excise?

| 2. | Is it right that it should be left to the discretion of national authorities to decide whether to place products on lists of pharmaceutical products which serve exclusively medical purposes, in the knowledge that this could result in national authorities arriving at different points of view, so that different rates of excise are levied on the same product in different Member States? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Is it right that it should be left to the discretion of national authorities to decide whether to place products on lists of pharmaceutical products which serve exclusively medical purposes, in the knowledge that this could result in national authorities arriving at different points of view, so that different rates of excise are levied on the same product in different Member States?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(24 February 2003)

| 1. | Article 4 of Council Directive 95/59/EC of 27 November 1995 on taxes other than turnover taxes which affect the consumption of manufactured tobacco provides a definition of ‘cigarettes’. According to Article 7(2) of this Directive products consisting in whole or in part of substances other than tobacco but otherwise conforming to the definition of cigarettes, shall be treated as cigarettes as well.
  On the other hand, products containing no tobacco and used exclusively for medical purposes shall not be treated as manufactured tobacco. Since they are not to be regarded as tobacco products Member States are not permitted to levy harmonised excise duty on them.
  The reply of the Commission to written question E-0721/02 was based on its interpretation of the information provided by the Member States a number of years ago. On the basis of the information provided by the Honourable Member in his present question, the Commission intends to investigate the current application of the above mentioned rules by the Member States again and to clarify possible doubts on the occasion of the next meeting of the excise committee (beginning of April). The Commission will send this information directly to the Honourable Member. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 4 of Council Directive 95/59/EC of 27 November 1995 on taxes other than turnover taxes which affect the consumption of manufactured tobacco provides a definition of ‘cigarettes’. According to Article 7(2) of this Directive products consisting in whole or in part of substances other than tobacco but otherwise conforming to the definition of cigarettes, shall be treated as cigarettes as well.

On the other hand, products containing no tobacco and used exclusively for medical purposes shall not be treated as manufactured tobacco. Since they are not to be regarded as tobacco products Member States are not permitted to levy harmonised excise duty on them.

The reply of the Commission to written question E-0721/02 was based on its interpretation of the information provided by the Member States a number of years ago. On the basis of the information provided by the Honourable Member in his present question, the Commission intends to investigate the current application of the above mentioned rules by the Member States again and to clarify possible doubts on the occasion of the next meeting of the excise committee (beginning of April). The Commission will send this information directly to the Honourable Member.

| 2. | When the Council agreed on the product definitions in Directive 79/32/EEC (replaced by Directive 95/59/EC), it did not define explicitly the exact meaning of ‘used exclusively for medical purposes’.
  The decision whether a certain product is used exclusively for medical purposes — which is not a question of taxation — has to be made by national health authorities or equivalent official bodies in the Member States.
  Such decision, however, must respect the aims of Article 7(2), second subparagraph, of Directive 95/59/EC, which is to leave goods outside the scope of harmonised excise duty, provided they contain no tobacco and are used exclusively for medical purposes. |
| --- | --- |

2.

When the Council agreed on the product definitions in Directive 79/32/EEC (replaced by Directive 95/59/EC), it did not define explicitly the exact meaning of ‘used exclusively for medical purposes’.

The decision whether a certain product is used exclusively for medical purposes — which is not a question of taxation — has to be made by national health authorities or equivalent official bodies in the Member States.

Such decision, however, must respect the aims of Article 7(2), second subparagraph, of Directive 95/59/EC, which is to leave goods outside the scope of harmonised excise duty, provided they contain no tobacco and are used exclusively for medical purposes.

---

(1)  OJ C 277 E, 14.11.2002, p. 81.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/584 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/584

---

(2004/C 88 E/0597)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3926/02

by Niels Busk (ELDR) to the Commission

(9 January 2003)

Subject:   Production levy in France

Further to my question No. P-2720/01 (1), will the Commission provide details of the measures taken on this matter and the grounds on which they were taken?

Can the Commission also say when a solution may be expected?

Supplementary answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(29 August 2003)

Further to its first answer, the Commission is now able to provide the following information. Following an initial examination of the case, the Commission decided on 9 July 2003 to initiate a formal examination procedure within the meaning of Article 88(3) of the EC Treaty with regard to France's contributions to the national intertrade association for livestock and meat.

The Honourable Member is requested to take note of the details of that procedure when they are published shortly in the Official Journal of the European Union. The Commission will endeavour to take a decision within 18 months of the start of the procedure, and will inform the Honourable Member of the final outcome of its examination.

---

(1)  OJ C 93 E, 18.4.2002, p. 179.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/585 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/585

---

(2004/C 88 E/0598)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0020/03

by Claude Moraes (PSE) to the Commission

(10 January 2003)

Subject:   Caste-based discrimination in India

Dalits, formerly called untouchables, suffer from every conceivable form of discrimination. They are classed as below the lowest group of the social caste system in India and are not allowed to live with, marry or even drink the same water as those born into high-caste families. On 10 October 2002 at the third EU-India Summit, the EU issued a declaration with India, affirming a mutual commitment to strengthening human rights and to maintaining continual bilateral dialogue on the issue. Just days after this declaration, five Dalits were beaten to death by upper-caste locals for skinning dead cows (something which they do to earn a living) due to a rumour that they had illegally slaughtered the animals. This incident exemplifies the caste tensions and continuing caste discrimination that characterise life in rural India.

What specific measures does the EU envisage taking in bringing pressure to bear on the Indian authorities to stop the widespread discrimination and repression suffered by India's repressed castes?

Does the Commission agree that discussion in the EU should be more strongly promoted in order to sufficiently address the issue of caste-based and related forms of discrimination, and what steps are likely to be taken towards this?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(30 January 2003)

The Commission is aware of the many cases of caste discrimination that, regrettably, still persist in modern India. Nevertheless, important progress has been made. For example, India's most populous state (Uttar Pradesh) has a female Dalit as Chief Minister, something that would have been inconceivable not too long ago.

As the Honourable Member rightly points out, the joint Press Statement at the 2002 Union-India Summit in Copenhagen reiterates the firm commitment by both partners to maintain a dialogue on human rights. This endeavour is already followed up in all high level meetings between the Union and India.

It should, however, be remembered that India is a democracy governed under the rule of law and that the press is free and active. The internal debate is the most important vehicle for change in this area. Furthermore, India has the world's largest and oldest affirmative action programme. Not only are jobs in government or places at university reserved for the people on the basis of their caste, but also 85 out of 535 seats in parliament are reserved for Dalits.

From a more pragmatic perspective, the Commission funds numerous projects in India under the European Initiative for Human Rights and Democracy, with several of them targeting Dalit and other disenfranchised communities.

Furthermore, the Commission contributes to India's education system with a major grant of EUR 200 million. The Commission firmly believes that by assisting India to reach its Millennium Development Goal of achieving universal elementary education, with a special focus on the ‘hard to reach’ such as children from Dalit and tribal backgrounds, Dalits will ultimately have better chances to fulfil positions in Indian society at all levels.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/586 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/586

---

(2004/C 88 E/0599)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0079/03

by Margot Keßler (PSE) to the Commission

(23 January 2003)

Subject:   The situation of people with mental disabilities in applicant countries

According to the European Association of Societies of Persons with Intellectual Disability and their Families, known as Inclusion Europe for short, the situation of people with mental disabilities in many of the future EU Member States is a cause for concern. Whereas the situation of children with mental disabilities has in some areas improved since 1989, this is unfortunately not the case for adults. Amnesty International's report of October 2002, ‘Bulgaria: Far from the eyes of society. Systematic discrimination against people with mental disabilities’, outlines the situation in Bulgaria as an example. The lives of people with mental disabilities remain in many cases characterised by isolation, denial of any privacy, and inadequate care.

The Commission:

| 1. | How does it intend to react to the violations of human rights that continue to be suffered by people with mental disabilities in applicant countries? |
| --- | --- |

1.

How does it intend to react to the violations of human rights that continue to be suffered by people with mental disabilities in applicant countries?

| 2. | Does it see a particular need to act to improve the situation of people with mental disabilities in the future Member States? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Does it see a particular need to act to improve the situation of people with mental disabilities in the future Member States?

| 3. | If so, what form does it think such an improvement would take? |
| --- | --- |

3.

If so, what form does it think such an improvement would take?

| 4. | How does it intend to raise awareness of the problem, not just among the public, but also among the governments of the future Member States? |
| --- | --- |

4.

How does it intend to raise awareness of the problem, not just among the public, but also among the governments of the future Member States?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(28 February 2003)

The rights of the people with intellectual disabilities are human rights which the Commission takes very seriously. Therefore the Commission monitored the situation with regard to people with disabilities in the Candidate Countries through the annual Regular Reports on the progress of each Candidate Country towards accession.

More specifically the situation with regard to people with disabilities was assessed in the 2002 Regular Reports adopted by the Commission on 9 October 2002 (1) for Bulgaria, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia and Turkey. In most of the cases, the need for further substantial progress has been underlined.

In its recently adopted Communication on ‘Towards a United Nations legally-binding instrument to promote and protect the rights and dignity of persons with disabilities’ (2), the Commission sets out its full support for the elaboration of such instrument and states that ‘even if there is no doubt that general human rights standards apply to people with disabilities, there is widespread evidence that they face lack of equal effective enjoyment of their rights’. It notes that while this situation has been highlighted in the international context, it is also mirrored in European countries.

Furthermore, non-discrimination and improvement of the situation of people with disabilities is also consonant with the principles recognised by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (Articles 21 and 26 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union).

The Commission will launch a study of the situation in institutions in both present and future Member States. Final results are expected in mid 2005.

On the basis of Article 13 of the EC Treaty, the Council adopted Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation (3), which prohibits discrimination, be it direct or indirect, against a person with a disability. In addition, this Directive obliges employers to take appropriate measures to enable people with disabilities to participate in employment, unless this would constitute a disproportionate burden on the employer. This Directive forms part of the ‘acquis communautaire’, which will have to be transposed by the Candidate Countries by the date of accession.

The Commission considers that the European Year 2003 for People with Disabilities should help to raise awareness and Candidate Countries are encouraged to prepare adequate national actions. Indeed, several Candidate Countries are planning national events within that context.

The necessary steps have also been made to allow the participation of the Candidate Countries in the Community programme against discrimination, which provides for the promotion of measures to combat discrimination based inter alia on disability. There is also a specific assistance programme in this field funded under PHARE.

The improvement of the situation of people with intellectual disability would require the development of co-ordinated and integrated policies and strategies. It would entail in particular the improvement of the social welfare infrastructure, the mainstreaming of a disability perspective into all relevant sectors of policy formulation, the enacting of comprehensive anti-discrimination legislation and an awareness-raising of the public.

The Commission will continue to support preparations for accession in the area of non-discrimination. Moreover, in view of the proper implementation of the relevant Commission Directives on nondiscrimination, the Commission has launched a study to examine the situation in the Candidate Countries concerning the legal provisions at national level further regarding discrimination on grounds of, inter alia, disability. The final results are expected in June 2003.

---

(1)  COM(2002) 700 final.

(2)  COM(2003) 16 final.

(3)  OJ L 303, 2.12.2000.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/587 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/587

---

(2004/C 88 E/0600)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0113/03

by Mogens Camre (UEN) to the Commission

(28 January 2003)

Subject:   Migrant workers from the new Member States

In connection with the forthcoming accession of ten new Member States to the EU, a number of European research institutes have tried to assess how many migrant workers the current EU countries can expect from the new Member States. The Commission has drawn up a summary of the most comprehensive studies in its information note of 6 March 2001 entitled ‘The Free Movement of Workers in the Context of Enlargement’. It concludes that the majority of migrant workers will be concentrated in mainly Germany and Austria.

These studies, however, are very incomplete, since they overlook the fact that a seven-year transitional arrangement will be in place for Germany and Austria. The earlier studies also fail to take account of the fact that the EC/EU has never before been enlarged to include so many less-prosperous countries. They generally point out that in the course of the 1980s the Community accepted Spain, Portugal and Greece as new members, and that these countries were not quite as well off as the other Member States. However, they ignore the fact that the then EC countries in practice introduced transitional regulations for the free movement of workers from the new Member States.

On 9 December 2002 the Danish weekly ‘Ugebrevet A4’ published a Gallup poll showing that some 150 000 Poles and 70 000 Estonians are planning to look for work in Denmark as soon as their countries join the EU. This was the first study published in Denmark which took account of the fact that Germany and Austria will be introducing 7-year transitional regulations on the free movement of workers. These figures diverge considerably from earlier studies which did not take account of the situation in Germany and Austria.

Will the Commission therefore provide an assessment of the consequences, in terms of the number of migrant workers from the new Member States, of the announcement by German and Austria that they intend to make use of the right to introduce 7-year transitional arrangements, so that workers from the 10 new Member States will not be able to seek work in these two countries for the first 7 years of their countries' membership? In its reply, can the Commission also assess whether the workers who would have sought employment in these two countries will look for it in other existing Member States instead?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(28 February 2003)

The Commission has carefully studied all available scientific information regarding potential migration flows from candidate countries following accession and has also commissioned a study that has been carried out by a group of independent research Institutes. Furthermore the Commission prepared the information note referred to by the Honourable Member (‘The free movement of workers in the context of enlargement’). The purpose of this information note was to provide factual information as well as options for an orientation debate on this issue in the context of the Accession Negotiations. The note took fully into account the precedents of the accessions of Spain and Portugal. As a result of all information available the Commission concluded that migration flows can hardly be predicted with scientific methods and that comparable historical evidence was rare. While past experience shows that the removal of barriers to free movement in the case of accession of southern countries had only a moderate impact, the Commission explicitly took into account the large income difference between the present Member States and the Candidate Countries as well as the fact that the income differential is in the case of Eastern Enlargement larger than in any other enlargement round and that Germany and Austria seem to be the most affected. As a result the Commission advised the Council to follow a prudent, but flexible approach in the Enlargement Negotiations and presented a transitional arrangement for all central and Eastern candidate countries, which was accepted and which forms now part of the Accession Treaty. This transitional arrangement allows all current Member States 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. As a result, no current Member State is put in a position where it is unable to fully respond to its own needs. The only provision which is specific to Germany and Austria indicates that these two countries have the right to apply national flanking measures to address serious disturbances or the threat thereof, in specific sensitive services 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 posting of workers.

For the moment the Commission has not received any official information from current Member States how they intend to apply the transitional arrangement after accession. However, a declaration to the Accession Treaty will state that current Member States shall endeavour to grant increased labour market access under national law, with a view to speeding up the approximation to the ‘acquis’ and even an encouragement to improve access before accession.

Since each Member State has the opportunity to choose to which extent it wishes to liberalise free movement of workers vis-à-vis new Member States the Commission is not yet in a position to assess the effects of the Member States' choices on other Member States' labour markets. Moreover, even if the migration policies of individual Member States during the transitional periods is known, comparable data on migration stocks and flows would not exist for all Member States or only for short periods of time, which seriously hinders the estimation of econometric models at the level of the EU-15. Finally the impact of enlargement itself cannot be estimated at this stage. Enlargement will strengthen further growth and employment opportunities in the future Member States and past experiences suggest that people either not migrate or may even return to their country of origin after the accession of their country to the Union.

The Commission does not consider opinion polls as a suitable instrument for a quantitative assessment of the migration potential. Answers are usually subjective and indicate intentions, not choices. This is one of the lessons of the German Socio-Economic-Panel (GSOEP), where every year the population in Eastern Germany is asked whether they intend to move to Western Germany. The results show that only around five per cent of those who announced their intention to move to Western Germany in the early 1990s did indeed move there five years later.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/589 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/589

---

(2004/C 88 E/0601)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0130/03

by Margrietus van den Berg (PSE) to the Commission

(28 January 2003)

Subject:   Implementing paragraph 6 of the Doha Declaration on TRIPS and public health

Paragraph 4 of the Doha declaration states that ‘ ... the TRIPs Agreement does not and should not prevent members from taking measures to protect public health’ and that ‘the [TRIPs] Agreement can and should be interpreted and implemented in a manner supportive of WTO members' right to protect public health and, in particular, to promote access to medicines for all’.

Furthermore, paragraph 5(b) of the Declaration reaffirms the right to grant compulsory licences and the freedom of each WTO Member to determine the grounds upon which such licences are granted.

Does the Commission recognise that neither the Doha Declaration nor the TRIPs Agreement restricts the application of these principle to certain types of public health problem, to the exclusion of others; nor do they limit eligibility to certain types of country?

Does the Commission recognise the intention of paragraph 6 of the Doha Declaration to ensure that WTO members without adequate manufacturing capacity benefit in full from the provisions of that declaration, on the same terms as WTO members who do have such capacity?

Does the Commission therefore recognise that to impose additional or new constraints as part of the solution to the paragraph 6 problem would violate the spirit of the Doha Declaration, and be justifiably seen by developing countries as evidence of bad faith?'

Answer given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(25 February 2003)

The Doha Declaration on the Trade Related Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPs) Agreement and Public Health confirmed and clarified the existing flexibilities under the TRIPs Agreement, especially compulsory licences and parallel import, and re-affirmed the importance of Articles 7 and 8 of the TRIPs Agreement in its interpretation. It has an important legal value as it gives guidance to the interpretation of the TRIPs Agreement.

Paragraph 6 of the Declaration deals with an issue that could not be resolved in Doha, and for which the TRIPs Agreement does not provide a tailor-made solution. So, strictly speaking, paragraph 6 is not about implementing the Doha Declaration. The Doha Declaration in itself can be implemented by all members without need for further international legal instruments. Paragraph 6 is about adding an additional layer of flexibility to the TRIPs Agreement and to the Doha Declaration. It purports to creating new possibilities under the TRIPs Agreement in order to resolve the problems of countries without manufacturing capacities in the pharmaceutical sector, by allowing them to have effective recourse to compulsory licensing.

The major difference with compulsory licensing as already provided for under the TRIPs Agreement is that production takes place in one country, and that the entirety of the production is then exported to another country (under the current rules of TRIPs, production and consumption of a predominant part of the production must take place in the same country). Therefore, the conditions attached to the use of such licences must be adapted to this reality. So this is not a question of imposing additional and burdensome constraints, but to adapt conditions to different circumstances. This is what has been done in the draft decision of 16 December 2002 (1), which contains minimal safeguards against trade diversion and which, moreover, specifies (as proposed by the Union) that such measures should be proportionate to the administrative capacities of the countries concerned. This arrangement, which has been endorsed by all World Trade Organisation (WTO) Members (minus one), and which would effectively allow countries without manufacturing capacities to benefit from compulsory licences, fully respects the spirit of the Doha Declaration.

As the Honourable Member knows, the Union fully endorsed the 16 December 2002 text, including its disease scope by reference to paragraph 1 of the Doha Declaration. The Commission regrets that the United States did not join the consensus and the Union will continue its efforts in order to secure a multilateral solution as soon as possible. It cannot accept that these negotiations end in failure. WTO Members have taken the commitment in Doha to find a multilateral solution, so this commitment must be upheld. To this effect, the Union has recently taken the initiative to propose recourse to the World Health Organisation in order to guarantee flexibility in applying the system, in line with the scope of the Doha Declaration.

---

(1)  Draft Decision of the President of the TRIPs Council of the WTO (Reference: JOB (02) 217).

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/590 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/590

---

(2004/C 88 E/0602)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0170/03

by Bob van den Bos (ELDR) to the Commission

(29 January 2003)

Subject:   Bangladesh

On 21 November 2002 the European Parliament adopted an urgent resolution on Bangladesh following reports of alleged violations of human rights committed under the Bangladesh military's ‘Operation Clean Heart’ and an apparently deteriorating human rights situation in that country.

In the European Parliament resolution, we call on the Commission to ‘engage with the Government of Bangladesh under the EU-Bangladesh Cooperation Agreement to ensure that violations stop (and) human rights are protected’. Can the Commission inform us what action it has taken so far in that respect?

What (other) initiatives is it planning to take in order to encourage the Government of Bangladesh to protect human rights in its country?

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/590 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/590

---

(2004/C 88 E/0603)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0242/03

by Nirj Deva (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(4 February 2003)

Subject:   Human rights in Bangladesh

Is it correct that the Government of Bangladesh since the 2001 elections has instigated a regime of terror? It is alleged by Amnesty International amongst others that assassinations have become common, freedom of the press has been curtailed and the army has been given indemnity from prosecution for its actions during Operation Clean Heart (16 October 2002 to 9 January 2003).

What does the Commission propose to do to ensure that this indemnity is stopped and that those who are accused of gross human rights violations are brought to justice?

Joint answer

to Written Questions E-0170/03 and E-0242/03

given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(25 February 2003)

In the session of the Parliament of 21 November 2002, the Commission expressed the Union's grave concern about the human rights situation in Bangladesh, the deterioration of law and order in the country and the continued reports about torture and deaths in custody, following the launch of the Operation Clean Heart. Only recently, the Member of the Commission responsible for External Relations has conveyed to the Minister of Finance of the Government of Bangladesh his regret about the Government's decision to grant immunity to the joint law enforcement agencies for acts committed during the operation. He urged the Government of Bangladesh to launch a fully transparent investigation into the custodial deaths, as previously promised by Prime Minister Khaleda Zia, and to ensure that legal action is taken against any law enforcement personnel found responsible for breaches of human rights.

Article 1 of the Cooperation Agreement between the Community and the People's Republic of Bangladesh on partnership and development (1), states that respect for human rights and democratic principles as laid down in the Universal Declaration on Human Rights underpins the domestic and international policies of the Union and Bangladesh. It constitutes an essential element of the Agreement. On this basis, the Union offers the Government of Bangladesh and Bangladesh civil society a constructive and comprehensive dialogue on human rights, democracy, and governance issues. One element in this process of engaging with the Government of Bangladesh is the upcoming first meeting of the Joint Commission's Specialized Sub-group on Human Rights and Governance.

Furthermore, the National Indicative Programme 2003-2005 for Bangladesh, which the Government of Bangladesh has subscribed to, foresees an amount of EUR 9 million for the promotion of democracy and human rights.

Finally, the Commission would like to point out that it actively participates in the Local Consultation Group in Dhaka, as well as in the Bangladesh Development Forum, both of which are platforms for conveying Community concerns on Human Rights and Democracy to the Government of Bangladesh and for engaging with it on these issues.

---

(1)  OJ L 118, 27.4.2001.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/591 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/591

---

(2004/C 88 E/0604)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0176/03

by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(24 January 2003)

Subject:   Consequences of the liberalisation of agriculture worldwide

The 6 November 2002 issue of ‘Agence Europe’ refers to a study drawn up by the Commission on the consequences a complete liberalisation of agricultural trade worldwide would have for farming in the EU countries.

The article points out that Commissioner Pascal Lamy said that liberalisation would mean the disappearance of around 85 % of farms in the European Union, in particular small and medium-sized family farms. This would obviously mean the end of farming in the EU countries and the end of their food sovereignty and regional equilibrium.

It should also be pointed out how paradoxical it is that at a time when the United States has decided to step up aid to its own farmers, the European Union is deciding to take steps to reduce aid to farmers in its member countries.

Can the Commission say on what data it based the conclusions of its study?

Answer given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(27 February 2003)

The 6 November 2002 article of Agence Europe does not refer to a specific study of the Commission as suggested by the Honourable Member. Given the special nature of agriculture in the provision of food and other benefits, a sudden and complete liberalisation of world agricultural trade as demanded in some quarters could not be envisaged. Such a complete liberalisation would certainly have serious implications for the sustainability of European agriculture in social, economic and environmental terms. The numbers cited in the article are an illustration.

Having said that, the EU is committed to the objectives reflected in the Doha Declaration, which foresees negotiations aimed at, inter alia ‘substantial improvements in market access’. The EU will negotiate on that basis.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/592 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/592

---

(2004/C 88 E/0605)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0207/03

by Daniel Hannan (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(27 January 2003)

Subject:   Maltese referendum

Would the Commission say how much EU money from information or from other funds is going to Malta before the referendum? How much money has the Commission allocated for referendums in the applicant countries in general?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(14 February 2003)

The total amount of pre-accession funds allocated by the Community to Malta from 2000 to 2004 is EUR 38 million, in accordance with Council Regulation (EC) No 555/2000 of 13 March 2000 on the implementation of operations in the framework of the pre-accession strategy for the Republic of Cyprus and the Republic of Malta (1). However EUR 2 million, which were earmarked for 2004, will not be committed because of Malta's foreseen accession in 2004. Therefore, Malta will effectively have received EUR 36 million of pre-accession aid. From this amount, EUR 0,7 million has been allocated for activities related to information.

With regard to referenda in other Candidate Countries, Article 49 of the Treaty on the European Union states that the Accession Treaty ‘shall be submitted for ratification to all the contracting States in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements’. The responsibility for organising a referendum is that of the relevant authorities in each country concerned. The Commission does not fund, nor is it otherwise involved with, the organisation of the referenda or the campaigns associated with them in any Candidate Country. The Commission operates a Communication Strategy for enlargement in all Member States and Candidate Countries. The strategy is largely decentralised. In the Central European Candidates, it is financed by the PHARE budget and implemented by the Delegation of the Commission. Details of the precise funding for the overall and individual programmes, and the actual implementation of the Communication Strategy can be found in the regular updates that are available on the web site of the Commission at http://europa.eu.int/comm/enlargement/communication/index.htm.

---

(1)  OJ L 68, 16.3.2000.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/593 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/593

---

(2004/C 88 E/0606)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0208/03

by Patricia McKenna (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(3 February 2003)

Subject:   General Agreement on Trade in Services

What steps has the Commission taken to assess the implication of the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) on public services in Member States?

If the Commission has not commissioned an independent assessment of the implications of GATS on public services in Member States, does it have any plans to do so?

Answer given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(6 March 2003)

Given the scope of the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) and the flexibility the agreement leaves World Trade Organisation (WTO) Members to design their commitments the GATS poses no threat to public services in the Community or elsewhere. The Commission has, therefore, not felt the need to commission an independent assessment as suggested by the Honourable Member.

In that connection it should be recalled that there are a variety of ways in which the public and the private sectors today interact to provide public services. How much the public versus the private sector is involved depends on the national traditions and legal conditions prevailing in the countries concerned. Public services are today, for example, provided by public providers directly (through traditional public institutions) or indirectly (through public undertakings on a commercial basis). In some cases Members entrust the provision of public services to a private supplier operating under special or exclusive rights. In other cases Members rely entirely on private markets. Furthermore, experience has shown that in some sectors involved with the provision of public services there are ways to open such sectors to competition while still safeguarding and in many cases improving the availability, quality and affordability of such services. For example, long-distance fixed-telephony prices have fallen by 49 % following liberalisation of the telecommunications sector in the Community without endangering the availability and quality of the service. In fact availability of mobile phones have increased from 22 % to 73 % and internet penetration has increased from 8 % to 36 % since the sector was opened to competition. The new telecommunications regulatory framework aims at enhancing the level of competition whilst ensuring the provision of a minimum set of services to all end-users at an affordable price through the Universal Service Directive (1).

The GATS take full account of the diversity of arrangements Members rely on to provide such services and leaves it entirely to Members to decide on which model to pursue.

First, public services that are neither provided on a commercial basis nor in competition with one or more service suppliers are not subject to the agreement by virtue of Article I:3 (c) in the GATS.

Second, even for public services that are covered by the GATS several policy options are open to WTO Members under the Agreement such as:

| — | Excluding from its commitments those sectors where it believes an opening to competition could threaten the availability, quality and affordability of such services. Thus Members can maintain the service as a monopoly, public or private. |
| --- | --- |

—

Excluding from its commitments those sectors where it believes an opening to competition could threaten the availability, quality and affordability of such services. Thus Members can maintain the service as a monopoly, public or private.

| — | Opening the service to competing suppliers, but to restrict access to national companies. |
| --- | --- |

—

Opening the service to competing suppliers, but to restrict access to national companies.

| — | Opening the service to national and foreign suppliers, but make no GATS commitments on it. |
| --- | --- |

—

Opening the service to national and foreign suppliers, but make no GATS commitments on it.

| — | Making GATS commitments covering the right of foreign companies to supply the service, in addition to national suppliers. Members are free to tailor the sector coverage and substantive content of such commitments in a way that is consistent with other legitimate policy objectives. They can exclude from commitments any activity where foreign competition is unwanted and can schedule limitations on the level of market access and national treatment committed. |
| --- | --- |

—

Making GATS commitments covering the right of foreign companies to supply the service, in addition to national suppliers. Members are free to tailor the sector coverage and substantive content of such commitments in a way that is consistent with other legitimate policy objectives. They can exclude from commitments any activity where foreign competition is unwanted and can schedule limitations on the level of market access and national treatment committed.

| — | Enacting domestic regulations, legislation and other measures to safeguard the public interest. For example, Members can while opening a sector to competition design and implement policies aimed at ensuring the availability, quality and affordability of essential public services, such as universal service obligations. |
| --- | --- |

—

Enacting domestic regulations, legislation and other measures to safeguard the public interest. For example, Members can while opening a sector to competition design and implement policies aimed at ensuring the availability, quality and affordability of essential public services, such as universal service obligations.

The Community and other Members have, whenever deemed necessary, used the flexibility described above to safeguard their public services and there is no evidence that the GATS has affected public services within the Community.

---

(1)  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.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/594 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/594

---

(2004/C 88 E/0607)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0247/03

by Charles Tannock (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(5 February 2003)

Subject:   Potential abuse of the EU Association Agreement

The new EU Association Agreement with Chile, to which the Parliament is soon likely to give its assent, is a wide-ranging and in many ways groundbreaking agreement with a non-candidate state which will be widely welcomed on both sides of the Atlantic.

The Commission has also indicated that in the opinion of the Commission, the agreement is fully compliant with World Trade Organisation (WTO) obligations.

Could the Commission indicate, however, what control mechanisms exist to ensure that tariff-free access is not abused by companies based in countries which are not parties to the agreement using the European Union as a conduit for tariff-free exports to Chile or using Chile as a conduit for tariff-free exports to the European Union?

Answer given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(21 February 2003)

The trade pillar of the Union-Chile Association Agreement is indeed one of the most innovative and ambitious agreement ever negotiated by the Community with a non-candidate country. The trade part of the agreement entered into force (on a provisional basis) on 1 February 2003.

As indicated by the Honourable Member, the Commission considers that such an agreement is compatible with the requirements of the WTO, in particular Article XXIV of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) and Article V of the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS).

As in all agreements containing a free trade area in goods, in order to benefit from tariff preferences, a product when exported must be considered as originating either in the Community or in Chile. For this purpose, it must comply with the rules of origin established in a specific annex to the Agreement (Annex III and its appendices). In this respect, when the product exported is not ‘wholly obtained’ in one of the two Parties, goods imported from third countries must undergo sufficient working or processing in compliance with the specific origin rule set out for the final product to be exported (in practical terms this means that it is not possible to export a product from e.g. Brazil to Chile and re-export the same product to the Union under preferential treatment granted under the Union/Chile Agreement).

When goods are deemed to be originating, they must be accompanied at importation by ‘proofs of origin’ clearly defined in the Agreement. Additionally, the above-mentioned Annex III contains provisions on ‘administrative co-operation’, which provide for verification procedures of the originating status of the goods to be carried out in collaboration between the authorities of the two Parties (1).

Furthermore, possible disputes on verification procedures may be referred in the first place to a specific Committee (Special Committee on Customs Co-operation and Rules of Origin).

Ultimately, the Association Agreement includes a general dispute settlement mechanism in case of infringements of the obligations under the agreement by either party. This system, which is comparable to the WTO dispute settlement mechanism, foresees the recourse to independent arbitrators, whose ruling is compulsory and backed up by trade sanctions.

It is also worth mentioning that the Association Agreement includes a clause (Article 82) on the enforcement of preferential treatment, which addresses the cases of fraud and/or the systematic lack of administrative cooperation related to, inter alia, origin. Under certain conditions and circumstances this may lead to temporary withdrawal of preferential benefits.

---

(1)  Annex III, Article 31 paragraph 1: ‘Subsequent verifications of proofs of origin shall be carried out at random or whenever the customs authorities of the importing country have reasonable doubts as to the authenticity of such documents, the originating status of the products concerned or the fulfillment of the other requirements of this Annex’.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/595 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/595

---

(2004/C 88 E/0608)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0264/03

by Joachim Wuermeling (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(30 January 2003)

Subject:   Discrimination against EU investors in the Czech Republic

Since the borders were opened, EU citizens have been attempting to set up small and medium-sized businesses in the Czech Republic. With a view to the scheduled EU enlargement in May 2004, the Czech Republic has undertaken to adapt to EU legal standards and establish a functioning administrative and judicial system in order to meet the Copenhagen criteria.

Is the Commission aware of cases of discrimination against EU citizens by comparison with citizens of the Czech Republic as regards setting up businesses and service companies?

Is it correct that the Czech legal system makes no provision for complaints against action taken by the authorities?

Is it true that the payment of bribes can speed up the entry of firms in the commercial register by up to a year?

Is the Commission aware of the case in Bozi Dar involving Mr Engert, who is experiencing a number of problems owing to the fact that he runs a ski school?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(28 February 2003)

The Commission informs the Honourable Member that a small number of complaints have been presented to the Commission by Union citizens or companies in connection with establishing businesses/providing services in the Czech Republic. However, claims of discrimination are rare, most issues raised are general problems linked to the legal business environment.

Considering that in recent years the Czech Republic has been the largest recipient of the foreign direct investment per capita amongst the Candidate Countries, the number of complaints — on any basis — is remarkably small.

Any complaints, whatever their grounds, are treated seriously and are dealt with on a case-by-case basis. The Commission is aware of imperfections in the Czech legal framework for business and highlighted them in its Regular Reports. The current legislative framework is being further amended with new legislation on the Act on Trades (Business Act), public procurement and bankruptcy, which is currently under preparation and closely monitored by the Commission with a view to ensuring full alignment with Community legislation.

It is not correct to say that the Czech legal system makes no provision for complaints against action taken by the authorities. All decisions and other acts of administrative bodies (central or local government and other entities if exercising public authority) which affect subjective rights and obligations of natural or legal persons are in principle, subject to full judicial review, unless otherwise provided for by law. The exceptions to this general rule, in Act 150/2002 Coll. on Administrative Courts Procedure Code, are relatively few, and mostly concern classified information and State security matters (e.g. decisions on security screening — which are important for individuals to qualify for a number of posts in civil service).

Civil Courts are competent to review decisions by administrative bodies addressing civil law, family law, labour law and commercial law relationships (cf. Articles 7 and 244ss. of the Civil Procedure Code), whereas courts (in principle special panels of Regional Courts) acting as administrative courts (under the Administrative Courts Procedure Code) have jurisdiction for all other litigation challenging decisions, illegal infringements not constituting decisions and inaction by any public or private entity acting as an administrative body (cf. Articles 2-4 and 65ss of Act 150/2002 Coll.).

Judicial review of administrative decisions is still a relatively new concept in the current Czech legal environment and therefore whilst basic texts are reasonably clear, implementation in practice can be uneven. The Supreme Administrative Court, which should unify the case law of Regional Courts acting in their administrative judiciary capacity is now becoming operational.

The Czech Republic also has a well-established Ombudsman's office, to which complaints about administrative affairs can be submitted.

As regards the Honourable Member's reference to bribes, the Commission does not posses any material proof of such allegations.

Several initiatives have been taken to improve the operation of the Commercial Register, but they have been unsuccessful for the time being. A Member of Parliament's draft Act to privatise the Commercial Register (to make it independent and accountable) was rejected by the Chamber of Deputies in December 2001.

Issues relating to the Commercial Register have been regularly raised by the business community (both Czech and Community) and the Chambers of Commerce in the Czech Republic. The question of the efficient functioning of the Commercial Registers was highlighted in the 2002 Regular Report and the Commission continues to monitor the situation.

Finally, the Commission is not aware of the case in Bozi Dar referred to by the Honourable Member and would be happy to consider any substantiated complaint from Mr Engert.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/596 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/596

---

(2004/C 88 E/0609)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0277/03

by Brian Simpson (PSE) to the Commission

(7 February 2003)

Subject:   Soda ash imports

Will the Commission investigate the dumping of soda ash by the USA into the EU market? Further, will the Commission support the retention of the import tariffs on this product during the future WTO round but ensure that if tariffs do have to be removed, it is done in a phased and controlled way?

Answer given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(10 March 2003)

As regards the dumping of soda ash by the United States into the European market, the Commission wants to inform the Honourable Member that anti-dumping proceedings are conducted on the basis of Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 of 22 December 1995 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the Community (1), which states that a Community industry has to file a complaint with the Commission. This complaint should contain sufficient evidence as regards injury and dumping. So far, no such complaint has been received. In the event that such information is brought to the attention of the Commission, the evidence will of course be examined expeditiously.

As regards the current multilateral negotiations under the Doha Development Agenda, the Community proposes that all World Trade Organisation (WTO) Members agree to reduce all tariff duties considerably by compressing them into a flatter range of tariffs to eliminate tariff peaks and high tariffs. Given that the main goal of this round is sustainable development, and since exceptions and further sheltering of sectors can only result in distortions and costs that developing and least developed countries can ill afford, the mechanism shall apply without sheltering of any sector. This does not prevent the Community, though, from proposing implementation timetables that are in keeping with our economic sensitivities.

---

(1)  OJ L 56, 6.3.1996.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/597 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/597

---

(2004/C 88 E/0610)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0306/03

by Hanja Maij-Weggen (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(4 February 2003)

Subject:   Human rights situation in Zimbabwe

Is the Commission aware that the Amani Trust, a human rights organisation which works with victims of torture, has received threats to fire-bomb its offices and that the organisation has had to suspend its activities as a result?

Is the Commission also aware of the fate of Job Sikhala, MDC MP, Gabriel Shumba, a legal officer with the Zimbabwe Human Rights NGO Forum, Charles Mutama, Bishop Shumba and T. Magaya? Medical evidence has indicated that the five men were tortured with electricity.

Is the Commission prepared to arrange an inquiry into the cases of these individuals and the current position of the Armani Trust and publish the findings through an answer to this question?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(7 March 2003)

The Commission is aware of the facts raised by the Honourable Member, which can be seen as concrete examples of the current decline in the human rights state of affairs in Zimbabwe. Reports received from the Commission's Delegation in Harare confirm the increased incidents of politically motivated violence, some of which are raised by the Honourable Member.

The Union reacted by issuing, on 20 February 2003, a declaration expressing its concern over the recent arbitrary arrests, inhuman treatment and torture of members of the opposition and civil society organisations. The Union calls 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 overcoming the current overwhelming problems facing Zimbabwe on the humanitarian, social and economic fronts.

The respect of human rights, which form part of the essential elements of Cotonou, is one of the conditions under constant review in the framework of the 18 February 2002 Council Decision concluding consultations under Article 96 of the Cotonou Agreement. Therefore, the Commission follows the human rights situation closely and has taken and will continue to take appropriate measures in response to the deteriorating situation in this country. However, the Commission is not in a position to conduct inquiries and report on individual cases.

The Commission deplores the harassment to which the Amani Trust was subject and which obliged it to cease operations. It was an independent and reputable organisation offering assistance to victims of all forms of organised violence, whose work in difficult circumstances in Zimbabwe was always appreciated.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/598 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/598

---

(2004/C 88 E/0611)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0401/03

by Roy Perry (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(17 February 2003)

Subject:   Transparency in the application of broadcasting legislation in the Czech Republic

In its latest Regular Report on the Czech Republic (1), the European Commission criticised that country's ‘continued lack of transparency and stability in relation to questions of ownership and control of commercial TV stations’. It noted that ‘a second such dispute has now arisen that may also have to be solved in international arbitration courts’. The Commission furthermore notes that the Czech Council for Radio and Television Broadcasting ‘should ensure the timely, objective and effective application of broadcasting legislation’ and that ‘it remains particularly important to establish and supervise effectively a transparent and predictable regulatory framework’.

How will the Commission continue to monitor the handling by the Czech authorities of the problems of the past, such as the TV3 case which is mentioned by the Regular Report (‘the second such dispute’), whereby EC investors were discriminated against in a licence transfer decision of the Czech Council for Radio and Television Broadcasting? Are any specific actions planned by the Commission?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(13 March 2003)

The concerns expressed by the Commission in its 2002 Regular Report (2) reflect the two ongoing disputes concerning foreign investment in Czech commercial television stations and the additional mid-2002 disagreements (now apparently solved) within the Czech Republic about control of the largest commercial channel. That these three issues were able to develop suggests that measures should be taken by the Czech authorities to improve matters in the sector via the amendment of relevant legislation, the modification of regulatory practice, or a combination of the two.

The 2002 Report also sought to highlight the central role that the regulator plays in such an environment, particularly at a time when (following recent adoption of new legislation) precedents are set and its authority must be established.

The audio-visual ‘acquis’ does not detail specific requirements about broadcasting sector regulation, nor about the licensing processes which have been at the centre of the TV3 dispute. The Television Without Frontiers Directive (3) requires that Member States be in a position to effectively implement the ‘acquis’, which gives the Commission grounds to express concerns with the general state of regulation in the sector, and call for improvements — but not to require exact models of regulation or licensing.

There have been numerous contacts between Commission officials and parties interested in the TV3 dispute and the Commission continues to follow developments very closely. Allegations of discrimination are taken very seriously by the Commission, as are the duties attached to the monitoring of Candidate Countries. The Commission will reflect developments in this sector as appropriate when presenting its 2003 Monitoring Report.

However, the Commission's scope for ‘specific actions’ in commercial disputes such as this is limited, in particular when such disputes are sub judice. The foreign investor filed a lawsuit in the Czech Republic immediately after the regulator made its disputed decision — the lawsuit was rejected by the Prague Municipal Court, and the Czech Constitutional Court is considering the appeal. The foreign investor is also now about to file a claim based on the Belgium/Luxembourg — Czech Republic Bilateral Investment Treaty. Legal proceedings must take their course. The Commission will continue to emphasise to the Czech authorities the importance of effective supervision of a transparent and predictable regulatory framework.

---

(1)  SEC(2002) 1402, Chapter 20, pages 99-101, of 9 October 2002.

(2)  COM(2002) 700 final.

(3)  Council Directive 89/552/EEC of 3 October 1989 on the coordination of certain provisions laid down by Law, Regulation or Administrative Action in Member States concerning the pursuit of television broadcasting activities, OJ L 298, 17.10.1989.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/599 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/599

---

(2004/C 88 E/0612)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0796/03

by Concepció Ferrer (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(14 March 2003)

Subject:   Bureaucracy and the EDF

Several charities and non-governmental organisations have recently criticised the freezing by the EDF of EUR 11,2 billion earmarked for projects aimed at fighting AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria as a result of administrative problems.

Can the Commission confirm this circumstance and the figures cited?

Can the Commission explain what has been or is being done, both to resolve this situation and to ensure that it is not repeated?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(28 April 2003)

This question is a welcome opportunity for the Commission to clarify something that appeared in the press and that can be qualified as a major misunderstanding of the modus operandi of the European Development Funds (EDF).

European Development Funds are put into place by the Community for the benefit of African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP)-countries through five-year financial protocols. Under the 6th, 7th and 8th EDF, which were still operational until the entry into force of the 9th EDF on first April 2003, a total amount of EUR 32,4 billion have been allocated to ACP countries (1). As of end February 2003, of this amount EUR 29,7 billion (92 %) were committed and EUR 21,3 billion (66 %) disbursed. This means that EUR 2,7 billion were still available for commitments (which are foreseen essentially in the course of 2003) and EUR 11,1 billion for disbursements.

Contrary to the information referred by the Honourable Member, these funds were not earmarked for projects aimed at fighting Acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS), tuberculosis and malaria. Funds from the 6th, 7th and 8th EDF were allocated to national programmes, various horizontal instruments (structural adjustment support, debt reduction, emergency assistance etc.) and to regional co-operation and integration.

A small part of the funds allocated to regional co-operation was earmarked in 2002 for a contribution of EUR 60 million from the EDF to the Global Fund to Fight Aids, Tuberculosis and Malaria. This amount has indeed not yet been disbursed, because the contribution agreement is being negotiated between the Global Fund and the Commission. In accordance with the provisions of the Cotonou agreement, the contribution agreement with the Global Fund must guarantee that the contribution from the EDF will be used for the benefit of ACP countries. We expect this contribution agreement to be concluded shortly.

A contribution of EUR 60 million to the Global Fund was also committed under the Community Budget.

---

(1)  The total amount available under the 6th, 7th and 8th EDF, which cover also co-operation with Overseas Countries and Territories, is EUR 32,8 billion.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/600 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/600

---

(2004/C 88 E/0613)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0830/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(18 March 2003)

Subject:   Use of funds from the Culture 2000 programme by the City of Frosinone

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 City of Frosinone, urgently need to use European funds to enhance the common cultural area in all its diversity and respecting all its traditions, nurturing professional mobility, and promoting access to and dissemination of art and culture, can the Commission state:

| 1. | whether the City of Frosinone has submitted projects for the Culture 2000 programme? |
| --- | --- |

1.

whether the City of Frosinone has submitted projects for the Culture 2000 programme?

| 2. | whether the City of Frosinone has secured funding for these projects? |
| --- | --- |

2.

whether the City of Frosinone has secured funding for these projects?

| 3. | whether this funding has been used? |
| --- | --- |

3.

whether this funding has been used?

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/600 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/600

---

(2004/C 88 E/0614)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0892/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(21 March 2003)

Subject:   Use of funds from the Culture 2000 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 to enhance the common cultural area in all its diversity and respecting all its traditions, nurturing creativity and professional mobility, and promoting access to and dissemination of art and culture, can the Commission state:

| 1. | whether the municipality of Fiumicino has submitted projects for the Culture 2000 programme? |
| --- | --- |

1.

whether the municipality of Fiumicino has submitted projects for the Culture 2000 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?

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/601 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/601

---

(2004/C 88 E/0615)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0978/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(27 March 2003)

Subject:   Use of funds from the Culture 2000 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 to enhance the common cultural area in all its diversity and respecting all its traditions, nurturing creativity and professional mobility, and promoting access to and dissemination of art and culture,

can the Commission state:

| 1. | whether the municipality of Ancona has submitted projects for the Culture 2000 programme? |
| --- | --- |

1.

whether the municipality of Ancona has submitted projects for the Culture 2000 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?

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/601 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/601

---

(2004/C 88 E/0616)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0979/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(27 March 2003)

Subject:   Use of funds from the Culture 2000 programme by the municipality of Carrara

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 Carrara, urgently need to use European funds to enhance the common cultural area in all its diversity and respecting all its traditions, nurturing creativity and professional mobility, and promoting access to and dissemination of art and culture,

can the Commission state:

| 1. | whether the municipality of Carrara has submitted projects for the Culture 2000 programme? |
| --- | --- |

1.

whether the municipality of Carrara has submitted projects for the Culture 2000 programme?

| 2. | whether the municipality of Carrara has secured funding for these projects? |
| --- | --- |

2.

whether the municipality of Carrara has secured funding for these projects?

| 3. | whether this funding has been used? |
| --- | --- |

3.

whether this funding has been used?

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/602 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/602

---

(2004/C 88 E/0617)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0980/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(27 March 2003)

Subject:   Use of funds from the Culture 2000 programme by the municipality of Firenze

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 Firenze, urgently need to use European funds to enhance the common cultural area in all its diversity and respecting all its traditions, nurturing creativity and professional mobility, and promoting access to and dissemination of art and culture,

can the Commission state:

| 1. | whether the municipality of Firenze has submitted projects for the Culture 2000 programme? |
| --- | --- |

1.

whether the municipality of Firenze has submitted projects for the Culture 2000 programme?

| 2. | whether the municipality of Firenze has secured funding for these projects? |
| --- | --- |

2.

whether the municipality of Firenze has secured funding for these projects?

| 3. | whether this funding has been used? |
| --- | --- |

3.

whether this funding has been used?

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/602 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/602

---

(2004/C 88 E/0618)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0981/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(27 March 2003)

Subject:   Use of funds from the Culture 2000 programme by the municipality of Livorno

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 Livorno, urgently need to use European funds to enhance the common cultural area in all its diversity and respecting all its traditions, nurturing creativity and professional mobility, and promoting access to and dissemination of art and culture,

can the Commission state:

| 1. | whether the municipality of Livorno has submitted projects for the Culture 2000 programme? |
| --- | --- |

1.

whether the municipality of Livorno has submitted projects for the Culture 2000 programme?

| 2. | whether the municipality of Livorno has secured funding for these projects? |
| --- | --- |

2.

whether the municipality of Livorno has secured funding for these projects?

| 3. | whether this funding has been used? |
| --- | --- |

3.

whether this funding has been used?

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/603 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/603

---

(2004/C 88 E/0619)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0982/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(27 March 2003)

Subject:   Use of funds from the Culture 2000 programme by the municipality of Macerata

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 Macerata, urgently need to use European funds to enhance the common cultural area in all its diversity and respecting all its traditions, nurturing creativity and professional mobility, and promoting access to and dissemination of art and culture,

can the Commission state:

| 1. | whether the municipality of Macerata has submitted projects for the Culture 2000 programme? |
| --- | --- |

1.

whether the municipality of Macerata has submitted projects for the Culture 2000 programme?

| 2. | whether the municipality of Macerata has secured funding for these projects? |
| --- | --- |

2.

whether the municipality of Macerata has secured funding for these projects?

| 3. | whether this funding has been used? |
| --- | --- |

3.

whether this funding has been used?

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/603 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/603

---

(2004/C 88 E/0620)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0983/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(27 March 2003)

Subject:   Use of funds from the Culture 2000 programme by the municipality of Massa

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 Massa, urgently need to use European funds to enhance the common cultural area in all its diversity and respecting all its traditions, nurturing creativity and professional mobility, and promoting access to and dissemination of art and culture,

can the Commission state:

| 1. | whether the municipality of Massa has submitted projects for the Culture 2000 programme? |
| --- | --- |

1.

whether the municipality of Massa has submitted projects for the Culture 2000 programme?

| 2. | whether the municipality of Massa has secured funding for these projects? |
| --- | --- |

2.

whether the municipality of Massa has secured funding for these projects?

| 3. | whether this funding has been used? |
| --- | --- |

3.

whether this funding has been used?

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/604 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/604

---

(2004/C 88 E/0621)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0984/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(27 March 2003)

Subject:   Use of funds from the Culture 2000 programme by the municipality of Perugia

In September 2002, the monitoring committee of the Italian Ministry for Economic Affairs issued a report on the spending of EU funds.

The report reveals the alarming slowness and inefficiency with which EU funds are allocated to projects by some regional authorities.

The grave concerns about the inadequate use of European funds by local authorities have frequently been echoed by the Commission.

Bearing in mind that some local authorities, such as the municipality of Perugia, urgently need to use European funds to enhance the common cultural area in all its diversity and respecting all its traditions, nurturing creativity and professional mobility, and promoting access to and dissemination of art and culture,

can the Commission state:

| 1. | whether the municipality of Perugia has submitted projects for the Culture 2000 programme? |
| --- | --- |

1.

whether the municipality of Perugia has submitted projects for the Culture 2000 programme?

| 2. | whether the municipality of Perugia has secured funding for these projects? |
| --- | --- |

2.

whether the municipality of Perugia has secured funding for these projects?

| 3. | whether this funding has been used? |
| --- | --- |

3.

whether this funding has been used?

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/604 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/604

---

(2004/C 88 E/0622)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0985/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(27 March 2003)

Subject:   Use of funds from the Culture 2000 programme by the municipality of Pesaro

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 Pesaro, urgently need to use European funds to enhance the common cultural area in all its diversity and respecting all its traditions, nurturing creativity and professional mobility, and promoting access to and dissemination of art and culture,

can the Commission state:

| 1. | whether the municipality of Pesaro has submitted projects for the Culture 2000 programme? |
| --- | --- |

1.

whether the municipality of Pesaro has submitted projects for the Culture 2000 programme?

| 2. | whether the municipality of Pesaro has secured funding for these projects? |
| --- | --- |

2.

whether the municipality of Pesaro has secured funding for these projects?

| 3. | whether this funding has been used? |
| --- | --- |

3.

whether this funding has been used?

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/605 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/605

---

(2004/C 88 E/0623)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0986/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(27 March 2003)

Subject:   Use of funds from the Culture 2000 programme by the municipality of Pisa

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 Pisa, urgently need to use European funds to enhance the common cultural area in all its diversity and respecting all its traditions, nurturing creativity and professional mobility, and promoting access to and dissemination of art and culture,

can the Commission state:

| 1. | whether the municipality of Pisa has submitted projects for the Culture 2000 programme? |
| --- | --- |

1.

whether the municipality of Pisa has submitted projects for the Culture 2000 programme?

| 2. | whether the municipality of Pisa has secured funding for these projects? |
| --- | --- |

2.

whether the municipality of Pisa has secured funding for these projects?

| 3. | whether this funding has been used? |
| --- | --- |

3.

whether this funding has been used?

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/605 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/605

---

(2004/C 88 E/0624)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0987/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(27 March 2003)

Subject:   Use of funds from the Culture 2000 programme by the municipality of Pistoia

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 Pistoia, urgently need to use European funds to enhance the common cultural area in all its diversity and respecting all its traditions, nurturing creativity and professional mobility, and promoting access to and dissemination of art and culture,

can the Commission state:

| 1. | whether the municipality of Pistoia has submitted projects for the Culture 2000 programme? |
| --- | --- |

1.

whether the municipality of Pistoia has submitted projects for the Culture 2000 programme?

| 2. | whether the municipality of Pistoia has secured funding for these projects? |
| --- | --- |

2.

whether the municipality of Pistoia has secured funding for these projects?

| 3. | whether this funding has been used? |
| --- | --- |

3.

whether this funding has been used?

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/606 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/606

---

(2004/C 88 E/0625)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0988/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(27 March 2003)

Subject:   Use of funds from the Culture 2000 programme by the municipality of Prato

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 Prato, urgently need to use European funds to enhance the common cultural area in all its diversity and respecting all its traditions, nurturing creativity and professional mobility, and promoting access to and dissemination of art and culture,

can the Commission state:

| 1. | whether the municipality of Prato has submitted projects for the Culture 2000 programme? |
| --- | --- |

1.

whether the municipality of Prato has submitted projects for the Culture 2000 programme?

| 2. | whether the municipality of Prato has secured funding for these projects? |
| --- | --- |

2.

whether the municipality of Prato has secured funding for these projects?

| 3. | whether this funding has been used? |
| --- | --- |

3.

whether this funding has been used?

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/606 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/606

---

(2004/C 88 E/0626)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0989/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(27 March 2003)

Subject:   Use of funds from the Culture 2000 programme by the municipality of Siena

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 Siena, urgently need to use European funds to enhance the common cultural area in all its diversity and respecting all its traditions, nurturing creativity and professional mobility, and promoting access to and dissemination of art and culture,

can the Commission state:

| 1. | whether the municipality of Siena has submitted projects for the Culture 2000 programme? |
| --- | --- |

1.

whether the municipality of Siena has submitted projects for the Culture 2000 programme?

| 2. | whether the municipality of Siena has secured funding for these projects? |
| --- | --- |

2.

whether the municipality of Siena has secured funding for these projects?

| 3. | whether this funding has been used? |
| --- | --- |

3.

whether this funding has been used?

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/607 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/607

---

(2004/C 88 E/0627)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0990/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(27 March 2003)

Subject:   Use of funds from the Culture 2000 programme by the municipality of Terni

In September 2002, the monitoring committee of the Italian Ministry for Economic Affairs issued a report on the spending of EU funds.

The report reveals the alarming slowness and inefficiency with which EU funds are allocated to projects by some regional authorities.

The grave concerns about the inadequate use of European funds by local authorities have frequently been echoed by the Commission.

Bearing in mind that some local authorities, such as the municipality of Terni, urgently need to use European funds to enhance the common cultural area in all its diversity and respecting all its traditions, nurturing creativity and professional mobility, and promoting access to and dissemination of art and culture,

can the Commission state:

| 1. | whether the municipality of Terni has submitted projects for the Culture 2000 programme? |
| --- | --- |

1.

whether the municipality of Terni has submitted projects for the Culture 2000 programme?

| 2. | whether the municipality of Terni has secured funding for these projects? |
| --- | --- |

2.

whether the municipality of Terni has secured funding for these projects?

| 3. | whether this funding has been used? |
| --- | --- |

3.

whether this funding has been used?

Supplementary joint answer

to Written Questions E-0830/03, E-0892/03, E-0978/03, E-0979/03, E-0980/03, E-0981/03, E-0982/03, E-0983/03, E-0984/03, E-0985/03, E-0986/03, E-0987/03, E-0988/03, E-0989/03 and E-0990/03 given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(30 July 2003)

The Commission would draw the Honourable Member's attention to the fact that the Culture 2000 programme is a Community programme based on a Decision of the European Parliament and the Council and implemented directly by the Commission. It is not a financing instrument under the Structural Funds. It is therefore important to remember that the funds provided under the Culture 2000 programme are not managed by local or regional authorities but are granted directly by the Commission in accordance with the rules and criteria set out in the Decision establishing the programme.

The Culture 2000 programme is designed to support projects which are jointly run and financed by at least three operators from at least three countries taking part in the programme. The conditions and criteria governing participation in the Culture 2000 programme are set out in the calls for proposals which are published each year and to which the operators respond by submitting projects directly to the Commission.

In this context, the awarding of grants is directly and strictly linked to the smooth running of the projects (by the cultural operators responsible for the projects selected) which are monitored by the operational unit in charge of the Culture 2000 project

The Commission would also draw the Honourable Member's attention to the fact that all the information relating to the projects which receive funding under the Culture 2000 project is available to the public on the following website: (http://europa.eu.int/comm/culture/c2000).

Finally, of the municipalities mentioned by the Honourable Member in her question, the only one which submitted a project in 2002 as project leader under the Culture 2000 programme was the municipality of Pesaro. This project was selected and received a grant of EUR 82 987.

The Honourable Member could also contact the local authorities for further information.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/608 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/608

---

(2004/C 88 E/0628)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0915/03

by Claude Moraes (PSE) to the Commission

(24 March 2003)

Subject:   EU/UN World Food Programme figures

What are the figures for EU cash given to the UN World Food Programme for emergency relief in southern Africa (Malawi, Zambia, Mozambique, Zimbabwe and Lesotho) for the years 2001 and 2002?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(29 April 2003)

Direct cash allocations to World Food Programme (WFP) from the Food Security Budget Line (FSBL) (B7-20) for local and regional purchases of food aid to Southern Africa have been made since April 2002 for Zimbabwe and Zambia on 2001 and 2002 budget for a total amount of EUR 72,5 million worth 157 900 tonnes of food aid and detailed as follows:

| Country/Budget year | 2001 Budget (from FSBL B7-20) | 2002 Budget (from FSBL B7-20) | Total (from FSBL Β 7-20) |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| (EUR) | (million tonnes) | (EUR) | (million tonnes) | (EUR) | (million tonnes) |
| Zimbabwe | 10 500 000 | 19 300 | 42 000 000 | 93 500 | 52 500 000 | 112 800 |
| Zambia | | | 20 000 000 | 45 100 | 20 000 000 | 45 100 |
| Total 2002 southern Africa | 10 500 000 | 19 300 | 62 000 000 | 138 600 | 72 500 000 | 157 900 |

Country/Budget year

2001 Budget (from FSBL B7-20)

2002 Budget (from FSBL B7-20)

Total (from FSBL Β 7-20)

(EUR)

(million tonnes)

(EUR)

(million tonnes)

(EUR)

(million tonnes)

Zimbabwe

10 500 000

19 300

42 000 000

93 500

52 500 000

112 800

Zambia

20 000 000

45 100

20 000 000

45 100

Total 2002 southern Africa

10 500 000

19 300

62 000 000

138 600

72 500 000

157 900

In Malawi, the Community food aid is allocated to the Government (direct aid) which is using WFP for distribution operations; in 2002, around EUR 6,0 million have been contracted locally to WFP by the Government of Malawi from Community contributions.

From the budget line B7-210 of the general budget of the Community an amount of EUR 10,4 million was provided to the World Food Programme in 2002 as humanitarian assistance. No humanitarian assistance was provided to WFP in 2001 to the five countries in question.

The 2002 humanitarian assistance can be detailed as follows:

| — | Malawi: EUR 320 000 was provided to WFP for the purpose of fortifying 1 000 MT of maize and distributing this to therapeutic feeding centers; |
| --- | --- |

—

Malawi: EUR 320 000 was provided to WFP for the purpose of fortifying 1 000 MT of maize and distributing this to therapeutic feeding centers;

| — | Zambia: EUR 5 000 000 was provided to WFP for the purpose of supplying 12 000 MT of food assistance to 114 000 refugees in six refugee camps in Zambia; |
| --- | --- |

—

Zambia: EUR 5 000 000 was provided to WFP for the purpose of supplying 12 000 MT of food assistance to 114 000 refugees in six refugee camps in Zambia;

| — | Zimbabwe:EUR 5 112 090 was provided to WFP for the purpose of strengthening the capacity of WFP and partners to distribute food, in particular the strengthening of targeting of beneficiaries, registration of beneficiaries, monitoring and post-distribution monitoring. |
| --- | --- |

—

Zimbabwe:EUR 5 112 090 was provided to WFP for the purpose of strengthening the capacity of WFP and partners to distribute food, in particular the strengthening of targeting of beneficiaries, registration of beneficiaries, monitoring and post-distribution monitoring.

In addition, there have been cash contributions from Members States through WFP.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/609 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/609

---

(2004/C 88 E/0629)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1117/03

by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(1 April 2003)

Subject:   Labelling of foodstuffs after enlargement

The enlargement of the EU will be taking place in the very near future. After enlargement the EU will have 19 official languages and a variety of alphabets. This may lead to significant problems with the labelling of foodstuffs. Product labels will become over-crowded with information and hard to read, and there will be a clear lack of uniformity of data on such labels.

It therefore seems appropriate to complement the indications already compulsory under European regulations with a set of clearly recognisable symbols (pictograms) to indicate product qualities such as: suitable for diabetics, vegetarian, organic, low-fat, produce of the craft trade, local speciality, genetically modified, not tested on animals, etc.

Can the Commission state whether it proposes to draw up this type of extensive list of pictograms and to make its use compulsory in the labelling of products? If not, how does it plan to deal with the problem of the potential over-crowding of information on product labels?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(8 May 2003)

First of all, the Commission would like to stress that multilingual labelling is usually the result of food manufacturers' decisions rather than the applicable legislation, Directive 2000/13/EC (1), which states essentially that the labelling information must appear in a language easily understood by the consumer, and that, within its own territory, the Member State in which the product is marketed may stipulate that those labelling particulars shall be given in one or more languages which it shall determine from among the official languages of the Community. In most Member States, just one language is stipulated.

These provisions do not preclude the particulars from being indicated in several languages, as long as they are easy to understand and marked in a conspicuous place in such a way as to be easily visible, clearly legible and indelible, as set out in the Directive.

These principles will of course continue to apply after the forthcoming enlargement.

However, the Commission shares the Honourable Member's view that excessive multilingual labelling could affect the clarity and legibility of the information on the label, especially in the case of small packaging. Certain questionable practices unrelated to the forthcoming enlargement can already be observed.

More generally, the Commission takes the view that the Community legislation on labelling food products should be adapted, inter alia to ensure the clarity and legibility of information. In view of this, an evaluation of the legislation has recently begun, in order to identify the elements that should be adapted, and to serve as a basis for the preparation of proposals. This evaluation will be finished by the end of 2003.

In this context, the idea of symbols or pictograms could be considered.

---

(1)  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.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/610 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/610

---

(2004/C 88 E/0630)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1297/03

by José Ribeiro e Castro (UEN) to the Commission

(7 April 2003)

Subject:   Massacres in Kashmir

Various reports in the media indicate that fighting has broken out again in the part of Kashmir under Indian administration.

On 24 March 2003, in Nadi Marg, south of Srinagar, 24 Hindus, including 11 women and 2 children, were murdered.

It appears that this massacre was in retaliation for the previous day's murder of Abdul Majid Dar, the former leader of the Hizbul Mujahedin, one of the main anti-Indian guerrilla movements.

These recent crimes have given rise to fears that the conflict between India and Pakistan may be reignited, given that the world's attention is almost exclusively focused on the Iraq issue.

The Commission:

| — | what information does it have about the events in question; |
| --- | --- |

—

what information does it have about the events in question;

| — | given that it will have been permanently monitoring Indo-Pakistani relations, what medium to long-term developments does it anticipate; |
| --- | --- |

—

given that it will have been permanently monitoring Indo-Pakistani relations, what medium to long-term developments does it anticipate;

| — | what measures has it taken or does it intend to take to bring about the reconciliation of the two sides; |
| --- | --- |

—

what measures has it taken or does it intend to take to bring about the reconciliation of the two sides;

| — | what role does it believe the European Union could play in resolving this conflict? |
| --- | --- |

—

what role does it believe the European Union could play in resolving this conflict?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(12 May 2003)

The Commission shares the views expressed by the Honourable Member that the Indo-Pakistan tensions remain a very serious matter of concern. The Commission is also well aware of the events of Nandimarg and it has condemned, in the clearest terms, this act of violence and terrorism, which has led to such tragic loss of innocent lifes.

The Member of the Commission in charge of external relations expressed his outrage and solidarity in a letter that he wrote to his Indian counterpart, Minister of External Affairs Yashwant Sinha, and the Presidency did the same on behalf of the Union.

The Commission is of the view that a peaceful settlement is the only way forward in the conflict between India and Pakistan. This has been the EU's long-standing and consistent policy. The Commission regularly points out India and Pakistan's respective responsibilities and it will continue to press for an end to cross-border terrorism and for the resumption of a dialogue between both governments.

The EU acknowledges the critical importance of relations between India and Pakistan for world peace and security, and gives the issue its constant and dedicated attention, irrespective of events elsewhere in the world. The Commission has also given its full support to the efforts of the international community to engage both parties in a rapid de-escalation of tension in the short term, and to progress towards a peaceful solution in the longer term. A peaceful settlement can only be reached by the parties to the conflict themselves and the role of the international community is to encourage both sides to make the necessary move in this direction.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/611 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/611

---

(2004/C 88 E/0631)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1342/03

by Benedetto Della Vedova (NI) to the Commission

(9 April 2003)

Subject:   The right to religious freedom in India

On 26 March the Assembly of the north-western Indian State of Gujarat approved a government bill on forcible religious conversion, the ‘Freedom of Religion Bill’.

The missionary press agency MISNA announced some of the provisions of this law in advance:

| (a) | anyone considered responsible for forcible religious conversions risks up to three years' imprisonment and a fine of 50 thousand rupees (more than EUR 1 000); |
| --- | --- |

(a)

anyone considered responsible for forcible religious conversions risks up to three years' imprisonment and a fine of 50 thousand rupees (more than EUR 1 000);

| (b) | conversion is to be considered legitimate and not subject to prosecution only if recognised by the authorities and officially authorised by the district magistrate; |
| --- | --- |

(b)

conversion is to be considered legitimate and not subject to prosecution only if recognised by the authorities and officially authorised by the district magistrate;

| (c) | conversion deemed to be genuine and voluntary, but lacking the necessary authorisation by the competent magistrate, can incur up to one year's imprisonment and a fine of 1 000 rupees (about EUR 20). |
| --- | --- |

(c)

conversion deemed to be genuine and voluntary, but lacking the necessary authorisation by the competent magistrate, can incur up to one year's imprisonment and a fine of 1 000 rupees (about EUR 20).

Furthermore, this law is being adopted at a time when an unusual form of census is being carried out by the police authorities, who are gathering information on the presence of Christians in the period between 1998 and 2003, including their numbers and their reasons for coming to the area, how many conversions there were, how many children were born in this period and marriages between Christians and people belonging to other religions.

Since this provision — following those already in force in other Indian states such as Tamil Nadu, Madhya Pradesh and Orissa — is being introduced in a climate of serious threats and tension vis-à-vis Christian and Muslim minorities, with which the decisions of the Bharatiya Janata Party, the party currently governing India, are not totally unconnected, can the Commission say:

| — | what information it has regarding what is happening in India, in particular in the above-mentioned states; |
| --- | --- |

—

what information it has regarding what is happening in India, in particular in the above-mentioned states;

| — | whether it intends to urge the Indian federal government to force the Gujarat authorities to suspend immediately activities which contravene Indian legislation, such as the registration of specific communities or religious groups; |
| --- | --- |

—

whether it intends to urge the Indian federal government to force the Gujarat authorities to suspend immediately activities which contravene Indian legislation, such as the registration of specific communities or religious groups;

| — | what kind of diplomatic pressure it intends to exert to ensure that Indian citizens may exercise fully the right to religious freedom recognised by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which also presupposes the right to conversion? |
| --- | --- |

—

what kind of diplomatic pressure it intends to exert to ensure that Indian citizens may exercise fully the right to religious freedom recognised by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which also presupposes the right to conversion?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(16 May 2003)

The Commission is aware of Gujarat Assembly's intention to pass a ‘Freedom of Religion Bill’, as raised by the Honourable Member and that this bill might adversely affect religious minorities. As the Honourable Member has pointed out, this is not an issue limited to Gujarat, with similar provisions existing in other states such as Tamil Nadu, Madhya Pradesh and Orissa, creating the impression that such legislation on a state level might proliferate. At present, the precise text of the proposed bill is not yet fully available, but the Commission will of course keep itself closely informed of all developments.

The Commission shares the Honourable Member's concern that this type of state legislation could have the potential to restrict the Indian people from exercising their right to religious freedom.

The Commission shall deal with this matter in the same way that it deals with all other questions concerning democracy and human rights in India, namely through its agreed policy of regular, on-going constructive dialogue with the Indian Government.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/612 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/612

---

(2004/C 88 E/0632)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1507/03

by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(5 May 2003)

Subject:   Bankruptcy of Grundig AG and how to safeguard jobs in Portugal

The media have reported that Grundig AG filed for bankruptcy at the district court of Nuremberg, Germany on 14 April 2003.

Grundig currently controls the ‘Car InterMedia System’ (CIS) in Braga, Portugal, which employs around 700 workers, produces car radios and accounts for about 30 % of the production of Fehst Componentes Lda, which has more than 300 employees. All this demonstrates the viability and self-sufficiency of CIS.

Grundig has a substantial impact on employment and regional development in the Braga area, hence our concern at the decisions taken in Germany. It should be borne in mind that there are no alternative jobs and that the relocation of other multinationals in the north of the country has helped to aggravate the unemployment situation.

In view of the above, can the Commission say:

| 1. | what Community support the Grundig Group has received, in particular the Car InterMedia System, and what the terms of this support are; |
| --- | --- |

1.

what Community support the Grundig Group has received, in particular the Car InterMedia System, and what the terms of this support are;

| 2. | what steps will be taken to safeguard the activity of CIS in Braga and the jobs it provides directly or indirectly, bearing in mind that Portugal currently has the highest rate of unemployment in the European Union? |
| --- | --- |

2.

what steps will be taken to safeguard the activity of CIS in Braga and the jobs it provides directly or indirectly, bearing in mind that Portugal currently has the highest rate of unemployment in the European Union?

Supplementary answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(2 December 2003)

The Commission hereby informs the Honourable Member that the Grundig Group has received the following assistance:

| — | From the European Social Fund (ESF)
  Community Support Framework I (CSF I)
  A table is being sent directly to the Honourable Member and to the Secretariat of the Parliament.
  Community Support Framework II (CSF II)
  The last procedure registered for the two projects submitted by the Grundig Group for Measure 1 (‘Estimular a modernização empresarial do PRIME’) was the approval by the Ministry of Economic Affairs in accordance with the ESF dates and amounts set out in the following table:











  (euros) |
| --- | --- |
| NIF | Name of Promoter | Project No | Decision Date | FSE Investment | Eligible FSE Investment | FSE Subsidy |
| 502302178 | Grundig — Sist. de Electronica, Lda. | 00/06144 | 12.12.2002 | 300 249,29 | 165 717,70 | 99 430,62 |
| 503263834 | Grundig — Sist. de Electronica, Lda. | 00/13274 | 18.08.2003 | 363 272,99 | 333 711,15 | 197 413,84 |

—

From the European Social Fund (ESF)

Community Support Framework I (CSF I)

A table is being sent directly to the Honourable Member and to the Secretariat of the Parliament.

Community Support Framework II (CSF II)

The last procedure registered for the two projects submitted by the Grundig Group for Measure 1 (‘Estimular a modernização empresarial do PRIME’) was the approval by the Ministry of Economic Affairs in accordance with the ESF dates and amounts set out in the following table:

(euros)

NIF

Name of Promoter

Project No

Decision Date

FSE Investment

Eligible FSE Investment

FSE Subsidy

502302178

Grundig — Sist. de Electronica, Lda.

00/06144

12.12.2002

300 249,29

165 717,70

99 430,62

503263834

Grundig — Sist. de Electronica, Lda.

00/13274

18.08.2003

363 272,99

333 711,15

197 413,84

| — | None of the projects mentioned has received payments under the ‘Programa de Incentivos à Modernização Económica (PRIME)’.
  Community Support Framework III (CSF III) |
| --- | --- |

—

None of the projects mentioned has received payments under the ‘Programa de Incentivos à Modernização Económica (PRIME)’.

Community Support Framework III (CSF III)

| — | Project No 42/4655 under measure 3.3 ‘Inovação e Internacionalização de Estruturas Empresariais’ was presented as part of the ‘Programa Estratégico de Dinamização e Modernização da Indústria Portuguesa (PEDIP II)’. The closure of the ESF component for this project was approved on 16 August 2001 with the final amount of assistance coming to PTE 92 480 187 (EUR 461 289,23).
  All the payments which were due have been made. |
| --- | --- |

—

Project No 42/4655 under measure 3.3 ‘Inovação e Internacionalização de Estruturas Empresariais’ was presented as part of the ‘Programa Estratégico de Dinamização e Modernização da Indústria Portuguesa (PEDIP II)’. The closure of the ESF component for this project was approved on 16 August 2001 with the final amount of assistance coming to PTE 92 480 187 (EUR 461 289,23).

All the payments which were due have been made.

| — | From the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF)
  ERDF co-financing of EUR 1 473 867,72 has been awarded to the company ‘Car InterMedia System’ (CIS) and is to be distributed as follows:






  — | a sum of approximately EUR 84 285,26 for a project approved on 31 December 1992 under the Community's ‘Stride’ programme (CCA I), |
| --- | --- | --- |

—

From the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF)

ERDF co-financing of EUR 1 473 867,72 has been awarded to the company ‘Car InterMedia System’ (CIS) and is to be distributed as follows:

—

a sum of approximately EUR 84 285,26 for a project approved on 31 December 1992 under the Community's ‘Stride’ programme (CCA I),

| — | a total of EUR 1 389 582,46, under the programme to promote economic modernisation (CSF II). This last amount concerns financial assistance for the following projects:






  — | ‘Calibração de instrumentos’, approved on 31 December 1999 |
| --- | --- | --- |

—

a total of EUR 1 389 582,46, under the programme to promote economic modernisation (CSF II). This last amount concerns financial assistance for the following projects:

—

‘Calibração de instrumentos’, approved on 31 December 1999

| — | ‘Modernização tecnológica’, approved on 17 April 1998 |
| --- | --- |

—

‘Modernização tecnológica’, approved on 17 April 1998

| — | ‘Diagnóstico e análise estratégica’, approved on 29 December 1995. |
| --- | --- |

—

‘Diagnóstico e análise estratégica’, approved on 29 December 1995.

Assistance from the ERDF was awarded by the Member State under an aid scheme approved by the Commission. The Member State must ensure that Community rules are complied with.

If, within five years of the decision of the competent authorities on the contribution of the Structural Funds, a substantial modification occurs in a co-financed operation due to a cessation or change of location of a co-financed productive activity, the Member States are obliged to inform the Commission. Article 30(4) of the Council Regulation laying down general provisions on Structural Funds (applicable to the 2000-2006 programming period) provides that where such a modification occurs, Article 39 on financial corrections shall apply.

Moreover, in order to prevent delocalistion problems, the guidelines on national regional aid which were adopted by the Commission on 10 March 1998 stipulate that the assets eligible for funding and the employment created must be maintained for at least five years from the date on which the investment for which funding has been granted is made.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/613 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/613

---

(2004/C 88 E/0633)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1555/03

by Eija-Riitta Korhola (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(2 May 2003)

Subject:   Averting alcohol-related harm in Finland

I wish to thank Commissioner Frits Bolkestein for the answer which he gave on 14 April 2003, on behalf of the Commission, to question P-0870/03 (1).

However, the Commissioner did not answer the part of my question concerning the possible use of Articles 30 and 95 of the EC Treaty.

I should therefore like to repeat the last part of my question:

| — | if a Member State can show that complete freedom as regards private imports (of alcoholic beverages) — that is, complete freedom from import restrictions — causes serious problems from the point of view of public morality, public policy, public security, or health, as referred to in Article 30 of the EC Treaty, or specific public health problems within the meaning of Article 95, can it act to put matters right; |
| --- | --- |

—

if a Member State can show that complete freedom as regards private imports (of alcoholic beverages) — that is, complete freedom from import restrictions — causes serious problems from the point of view of public morality, public policy, public security, or health, as referred to in Article 30 of the EC Treaty, or specific public health problems within the meaning of Article 95, can it act to put matters right;

| — | what kind of measures are possible in such a situation? |
| --- | --- |

—

what kind of measures are possible in such a situation?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(16 June 2003)

Article 26 of 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 (2) authorised Denmark, Finland and Sweden to apply restrictions on the quantity of excise products that can be brought into their territory from other Member States by travellers for their own use, without further excise duty payment. These derogations expire at the end of 2003. This Directive is based on Article 99 (now Article 93) of the EC Treaty. Any extension of the derogations authorised by Article 26 of this Directive would require a modification of this provision on the basis of the same Treaty provision and could not be based upon Articles 30 or 95 of the EC Treaty.

Outside the area of taxation, any non fiscal measure adopted in non-harmonised areas by a Member State on public health grounds which could result in restricting imports of alcoholic beverages would have to be assessed on a case-by-case basis in order to decide whether it complies with the conditions set in Article 30 of the EC Treaty, or in Article 95 if the relevant area is already subject to harmonisation measures at Community level.

---

(1)  OJ C 33 E, 6.2.2004, p. 85.

(2)  OJ L 76, 23.3.1992.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/614 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/614

---

(2004/C 88 E/0634)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1690/03

by Anders Wijkman (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(21 May 2003)

Subject:   Bushmeat

The Commission is developing an environment manual for development and cooperation projects, called ‘Integrating environment concerns into development and economic cooperation’. The EU has committed itself to integrating the Environment into other areas of policy, an extremely important process.

Currently bushmeat is not included in the manual, even though bushmeat is integral to forest and poverty issues. Development and cooperation projects may have highly significant impacts on poaching and conduits for the illegal trade.

Is the Commission willing fully to integrate bushmeat into the manual?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(25 July 2003)

Bushmeat is a very important issue. There are estimates that as many as 150 million poor people (one-eighth of the world's poorest) perceive wildlife to be an important livelihood asset (increasingly through tourism development). Where wildlife is declining, poor people adapt, but often at a cost to their livelihoods in terms of reduced income, fewer diversification opportunities and increased vulnerability.

Poverty alleviation being the overarching principle of the Commission development cooperation policy, the Commission will improve the way it integrates bushmeat issues.

Three directions are proposed:

| — | The environment manual for development and cooperation projects, called ‘Integrating environment concerns into development and economic cooperation’, will be reviewed at the end of 2003 — beginning of 2004, and bushmeat issues will be integrated in this manual. |
| --- | --- |

—

The environment manual for development and cooperation projects, called ‘Integrating environment concerns into development and economic cooperation’, will be reviewed at the end of 2003 — beginning of 2004, and bushmeat issues will be integrated in this manual.

| — | Environmental Impact Assessments (EIA), and Strategic Environmental Assessments (SEA) that are properly carried out should identify risks and possible mitigation measures in this respect. Strategic Environmental Assessments, which are to be carried out at sectoral level, would be the ideal instruments. The revised manual will ensure that proper attention is given to bushmeat issues in SEA. |
| --- | --- |

—

Environmental Impact Assessments (EIA), and Strategic Environmental Assessments (SEA) that are properly carried out should identify risks and possible mitigation measures in this respect. Strategic Environmental Assessments, which are to be carried out at sectoral level, would be the ideal instruments. The revised manual will ensure that proper attention is given to bushmeat issues in SEA.

| — | Several projects or programmes financed by Community funds deal with bushmeat issues. Ecofac (Ecosystèmes forestiers d'Afrique centrale), financed under European Development Fund (EDF) regional funds, MIKE (Monitoring illegal killing of elephants) financed by the budget line Β7-6200 and ‘Développement d'un mode de gestion faune dans les grands massifs forestiers d'Afrique Centrale — Projet pilote au nord-est du Gabon’ a new project financed under the Budget line B7-6200 are among those, and results of these projects could serve as case studies and promotion of good practices. |
| --- | --- |

—

Several projects or programmes financed by Community funds deal with bushmeat issues. Ecofac (Ecosystèmes forestiers d'Afrique centrale), financed under European Development Fund (EDF) regional funds, MIKE (Monitoring illegal killing of elephants) financed by the budget line Β7-6200 and ‘Développement d'un mode de gestion faune dans les grands massifs forestiers d'Afrique Centrale — Projet pilote au nord-est du Gabon’ a new project financed under the Budget line B7-6200 are among those, and results of these projects could serve as case studies and promotion of good practices.

Efforts are also being directed at limiting the trade in illegal bush meat to the Union. For example, a Commission Decision (1) 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 European Union to ensure that all travellers are made aware of the new rules.

---

(1)  Commission Decision 2002/995/EC of 9 December 2002 laying down interim safeguard measures with regard to imports of products of animal origin for personal consumption, OJ L 353, 30.12.2002.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/615 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/615

---

(2004/C 88 E/0635)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1706/03

by Gabriele Stauner (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(22 May 2003)

Subject:   Medstat and Medstat II programmes

Since 1996 the Commission has made an amount of EUR 50 million available from the Community budget for the Medstat and Medstat II programmes.

This money was to be used to support and promote the statistical systems of partner countries in the Mediterranean area.

Can the Commission provide a detailed list of the beneficiaries of these funds, showing how much was paid in each individual case?

Can the Commission say who takes the decisions on the allocation of funds under this programme and on the basis of what criteria and procedures the beneficiaries are selected?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(15 July 2003)

Medstat — Euro-Mediterranean Statistical cooperation — Phase 1: EUR 20 million

Medstat — Euro-Mediterranean Statistical cooperation — Phase 2: EUR 30 million

Medstat Phase 1

The Medstat programme does not concern direct support but provision of technical assistance, transfer of know how, harmonization and exchange of data, etc.

The beneficiaries under the Medstat programme are the National Statistical Institutes (NSIs) of the 12 Mediterranean partner countries. Other beneficiaries are all the Mediterranean institutions which are involved in collecting, compiling and disseminating final statistics and meta data, and which thus comprise — together with the NSIs — what are generally known as the Mediterranean National Statistical Systems (NSSs). The programme is also useful for the main users of statistical data, including governments in connection with the formulation of economic, social and sectoral policies.

The indicative breakdown earmarked in the financing proposal approved by the Commission in July 1996, for direct assistance to the Statistical Systems (first of all the statistical offices) of the Mediterranean partner countries was as follows:

| (euros) |
| --- |
| Regional projects and Tasks forces | 6 305 000 |
| Study visits and consultancies | 4 320 000 |
| Informatics and infrastructure | 3 000 000 |
| Training | 2 466 000 |
| Seminars and Working groups | 806 000 |
| Management and Steering Committees | 622 200 |
| Programme Management | 1 800 000 |
| Data bases and diffusion | 680 800 |
| Total | 20 000 000 |

(euros)

Regional projects and Tasks forces

6 305 000

Study visits and consultancies

4 320 000

Informatics and infrastructure

3 000 000

Training

2 466 000

Seminars and Working groups

806 000

Management and Steering Committees

622 200

Programme Management

1 800 000

Data bases and diffusion

680 800

Total

20 000 000

A detailed table showing the list of projects, the names of the consultants, and the foreseen amounts and disbursements up to now, as well as the remaining balance (Annex 1) is sent direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat.

Medstat Phase 2

As for Medstat 2, it provides for the continuation of the actions undertaken as part of Medstat 1, and the project document prepared in 2001, shows indicatively, the following breakdown:

| (euros) |
| --- |
| Med — Training | 3 000 000 |
| MED IS (Information System) | 2 700 000 |
| MED-Comext (External Trade) | 3 000 000 |
| MED-NA (National Accounts) | 3 000 000 |
| MED-ENV (Environment) | 2 000 000 |
| MED-MIGR (Migration) | 2 000 000 |
| MED-TOUR (Tourism) | 1 800 000 |
| MED-TRANS (Transport) | 1 500 000 |
| MED-AGRI (Agriculture) | 2 500 000 |
| MED-SOC (Social statistics) | 2 500 000 |
| Provision for potential additional projects | 2 000 000 |
| Final evaluation | 500 000 |
| Management of the programme | 1 000 000 |
| Contingencies | 2 500 000 |
| Total | 30 000 000 |

(euros)

Med — Training

3 000 000

MED IS (Information System)

2 700 000

MED-Comext (External Trade)

3 000 000

MED-NA (National Accounts)

3 000 000

MED-ENV (Environment)

2 000 000

MED-MIGR (Migration)

2 000 000

MED-TOUR (Tourism)

1 800 000

MED-TRANS (Transport)

1 500 000

MED-AGRI (Agriculture)

2 500 000

MED-SOC (Social statistics)

2 500 000

Provision for potential additional projects

2 000 000

Final evaluation

500 000

Management of the programme

1 000 000

Contingencies

2 500 000

Total

30 000 000

The Directors' Committee brings together at least once a year the Presidents and Directors-General of the statistical services of the Euro-Mediterranean partner countries, including European Free Trade Association (EFTA) countries, the Directorates General (DG) of External Relations, EuropeAid and Eurostat. Its discussion focuses on the decisions and strategic guidelines to be adopted. Its work also involves a critical report on activities since the previous meeting and guidelines for work in the short and medium term. The so-defined priorities and guidelines provide the input for the management of the programme, and give indications on the necessary means to be allotted. On the basis of this information, the Commission decides on the financing of these actions.

Medstat Phase 1. The financing proposal approved by the Commission in July 1996 stipulated in its Article V, ‘Implementation procedures’, that ‘The regional programme of statistical cooperation will be coordinated by the Commission (Eurostat and DG EuropeAid) in cooperation with national statistical offices of EU Member States. The programme will be implemented by the’ Centre Européen de Statistiques et de Développement (CESD) network.

Medstat Phase 2. For the second phase of the programme, it was decided to see whether, for such a special assignment, competitive bidding can yield results. Consequently, a restricted call for tender has been launched in the second half of 2002. The tender procedure is stiil under process.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/617 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/617

---

(2004/C 88 E/0636)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1716/03

by Mogens Camre (UEN) to the Commission

(23 May 2003)

Subject:   Poul Nielsen's statements on the USA's presence in Iraq

On Friday 9 May 2003, the EU Commissioner for Development made a number of remarks which sowed doubts about the USA's intentions in Iraq, including: ‘I believe that the USA is on its way to becoming a member of OPEC like this. They are appropriating the oil. It is very difficult to make sense of it otherwise’.

These remarks are totally unacceptable. The USA's presence in Iraq is to ensure that the country does not collapse and that the revenue from Iraqi oil is used to transform Iraq into a modern, democratic society free of Islamic fundamentalism. The world cannot live with dictatorships that perpetrate terrorism internally and externally. Anyone with a modicum of insight realises that it would be a disaster for the Iraqis if the coalition left the country now and allowed the warring factions to wreck the country's future.

Since the Commission is a collegiate body which does not allow Commissioners to hold diverging views on political issues, will the Commission say whether Poul Nielsen's remarks reflect the Commission's official position on the presence of the international coalition in Iraq?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(4 August 2003)

What the Member of the Commission responsible for Development actually said, and the underlying reasoning behind the statement, is the following: Without the United Nations being given a decisive role in the reconstruction phase, it is very difficult for the United States to avoid slipping into the role of the power-bearer and the controller of the oil. The core issue to get across is that the only way to avoid that problem is to whole-heartedly promote multilateralism and legitimacy. This can only be assured if it is not the occupying power that governs. If the occupying power does not take a step back when it comes to the establishment of the system and the allocation of considerable oil resources (which only the United Nations's involvement can legitimise), there is a risk that those Iraqis appointed by the United States are not perceived as the right choice by other Iraqis, and broad support among the Iraqi population is key to stability and normalisation for the future Iraq.

His statement corresponds well with the description of the role of the occupying power (‘the Authority’) in the United Nations Security Council (UNSCR) of 22 May 2003.

Of course the statement of the Member of the Commission was an expression of his own analysis of the situation, — and as such neither very original nor controversial. Mr Camre could also have drawn guidance from the thorough and constructive debate on Iraq in the Parliament's plenary session in Strasbourg on 14 May 2003 where the Commissioner represented the Commission.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/618 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/618

---

(2004/C 88 E/0637)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1768/03

by John Cushnahan (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(28 May 2003)

Subject:   Rehabilitation of torture victims

Would the Commission agree that in post-war Iraq, one of the main priorities must be to address the needs of the Iraqi people, particularly those who have suffered from the torture and inhumane treatment which was so widespread under Saddam Hussein's regime? There are many rehabilitation centres outside Iraq that have provided treatment for Iraqi survivors of torture, and would the Commission agree that is essential that they continue to carry out this important work? However, there has been a shift in policy priority in the EU from the rehabilitation of torture victims to prevention, which has resulted in a dramatic reduction in EU funding allocated to rehabilitation, from EUR 14,5 million to EUR 8,2 million between 2001 and 2002, a reduction of 45 %. Will the Commission acknowledge that it is important that the EU funds policies both to prevent torture and to rehabilitate torture victims? Will the Commission reconsider the reduction in funding for the rehabilitation of torture victims to ensure that this vital work can still be carried out?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(2 July 2003)

The Commission shares the Honourable Member's view about the fact that the needs of Iraqi people, particularly those who have suffered from the torture and inhumane treatment under Saddam Hussein's regime, should be specifically targeted under a possible humanitarian intervention. The Commission is currently examining which activities could be supported in the short and medium term in Iraq, once the appropriate political framework will be established for the Commission's contribution to the post-war reconstruction of Iraq. Human rights, including rehabilitation of torture victims, are considered as one of the possible priority areas.

The Commission decided to adopt a more strategic approach to funding channelled through the European Initiative for Democracy and Human Rights (EIDHR). The Commission's Communication on Human Rights and Democratisation of May 2001 (1) identified four thematic priorities for future EIDHR support, including the fight against torture. In line with the need to focus limited funds more effectively, the Communication also underlined that the Union should seek to focus as much as possible on the prevention of torture, as opposed to support for rehabilitation centres. The subsequent programming document for the European Initiative for Democracy and Human Rights (EIDHR) in 2002-2004 noted that funding would be re-oriented in the direction of prevention of torture in the longer term.

The reduction in funds for rehabilitation centres has been accompanied by measures designed to reduce existing dependency on Community funding in a progressive fashion, with the aim of enabling centres to look for funds from other sources. For example, the 2001 call reduced the maximum percentage support for rehabilitation projects to 60 % for centres inside the Union and 80 % for projects outside the Union. These percentages were further reduced in the 2002 call to 50 % and 75 % respectively. In this aspect, the degree of importance accorded to sustainability questions during the assessment process is a determining factor for funding decisions by the Commission. Moreover, ‘institutional strengthening’, which includes the development of fund-raising capabilities, was explicitly eligible for funding in 2001 and 2002.

The 2002 Call for Proposals was designed to continue this process. The Call, for EUR 25 million, covered the funding of torture prevention projects and rehabilitation centres, with a plan to allocate one third and two thirds of the funds available to those two fields of activities respectively. All projects submitted were evaluated by two experts, one of whom was experienced in project management and the other in the psychiatric/psychological field. The projects were ranked according to score and were selected with a view to ensuring a balance in the geographical distribution of the proposed activities.

The quality of the projects submitted by the rehabilitation centres for activities based within the Union (budget line B5-813) did, in fact, produce a result which respected the planned balance. However, the projects submitted by centres based outside the Union scored rather badly (sometimes below the minimum required), which did not allow for the selection of sufficient rehabilitation projects to respect the envisaged two thirds — one third balance. Around EUR 4,5 million was allocated to centres outside the Union (for the period 2002-2003), with around EUR 8 million being provided for torture prevention projects. Approximately EUR 4 million was allocated for rehabilitation centres inside the Union, with an additional EUR 2 million for projects including aspects in support of victims of torture.

As regards the likelihood of centres closing as a result of failure to secure Community support, this must be considered in light of the expressed policy to move away from rehabilitation and towards prevention and the measures outlined above which have accompanied that change in policy. Support to centres can only be given in accordance with competitive rules designed to ensure that the Union taxpayer gets value for money by only funding the best proposals, which meet minimum quality requirements.

It is not possible to reallocate funds from the 2003 budget to rehabilitation centres. This would result in other important human rights' priorities under the EIDHR facing cuts, would fail to respect EIDHR programming and could not be executed within the rules set down by the revised Financial Regulation (2). A further call for EUR 5,5 million for centres inside the Union is, however, planned for 2003.

---

(1)  COM(2001) 252 final.

(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.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/619 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/619

---

(2004/C 88 E/0638)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1891/03

by Margrietus van den Berg (PSE) and Jan Wiersma (PSE) to the Commission

(6 June 2003)

Subject:   Iran's nuclear activities

The European Union is currently negotiating on a trade treaty with Iran. Iran has nuclear activities that are not entirely transparent to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). In February 2003 IAEA officials visited Iran. They are still not convinced and have asked Iran to provide a written answer to their questions.

Does the Commission agree that total transparency on nuclear activities is a precondition for a trade treaty?

What steps will the Commission take if total transparency is not provided?

Is the Commission prepared to stop the negotiations in the absence of total transparency?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(17 July 2003)

The Union has repeatedly stated that the issue of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) constitutes one of the major areas of concern in its relations with Iran. While recognising Iran's right as a party to the Non- Proliferation Treaty (NPT) to develop nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, the Commission strongly supports the view of the Union that Iran must be fully transparent in compliance with this Treaty. In this context the Commission welcomes the report of the International Atomic Energy Center (IAEA) but notes with concern that Iran reportedly has failed to fulfil certain of its obligations under the NPT safeguards agreement. It trusts that Iran will address these shortcomings without delay and hopes that Iran will take steps to adhere to relevant international instruments to ensure additional transparency.

The Union will keep Iran's progress in this area under continuous review. Positive measures taken by Iran in the near future on the question of its nuclear activities, including full transparency, would undoubtedly help the Trade and Corporation Agreement (TCA) negotiations. The reverse is also true.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/620 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/620

---

(2004/C 88 E/0639)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1902/03

by Lord Inglewood (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(11 June 2003)

Subject:   VAT and the European art market

Does the Commission agree with the conclusions of the study ‘VAT and the European Art Market’ published by the European Fine Art Foundation in 2003? If not, why not? In particular, will it submit a proposal for a single registration system, as proposed in that study?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(14 July 2003)

The greater part of the study ‘VAT and the European Art market’ is taken up by a detailed guide for art traders explaining the VAT obligations imposed by Member States. The Commission commends the European Fine Arts Federation for taking the initiative to collate and publish this information.

Following the adoption of the Directive on the VAT treatment of e-services (1) which is referred to in the European Fine Art Federation's study, the Commission is fully committed to the concept of the ‘one stop shop’ whereby traders would be able to fulfil their tax obligations in the Member State in which they are established. In this regard, the Commission has commissioned a major study into the obligations faced by taxable persons who wish to trade in their own and in other Member States. The conclusions of this study are currently the subject of a public consultation on the ‘Your voice in Europe’ (2) website. The Commission will take comments received on this consultation into account when drafting a proposal regarding the simplification of obligations, including registration obligations, which it intends to make in 2004.

---

(1)  Council Directive 2002/38/EC of 7 May 2002 amending and amending temporarily Directive 77/388/EEC as regards the value added tax arrangements applicable to radio and television broadcasting services and certain electronically supplied services, OJ L 128, 15.5.2002.

(2)  http://europa.eu.int/yourvoice/consultations/index_en.htm

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/620 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/620

---

(2004/C 88 E/0640)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2041/03

by Maurizio Turco (NI) to the Commission

(19 June 2003)

Subject:   Violation of religious freedom in Russia through exclusive cooperation agreements with the Russian Orthodox Church

Considering that:

| — | the 1993 Constitution proclaims that Russia is a secular state in which there is no state religion and religious organisations are separate from the state and equal before the law; |
| --- | --- |

—

the 1993 Constitution proclaims that Russia is a secular state in which there is no state religion and religious organisations are separate from the state and equal before the law;

| — | the 1997 federal law on religion establishes that religious organisations may not exercise the functions of state institutions and may not accompany the proceedings of government bodies with religious ceremonies. |
| --- | --- |

—

the 1997 federal law on religion establishes that religious organisations may not exercise the functions of state institutions and may not accompany the proceedings of government bodies with religious ceremonies.

In view of the cooperation agreements concluded by the Russian Orthodox Church:

| — | with the Ministry of Defence in 1997 with a view to ‘working together to revive Orthodox traditions in the Russian army and navy’, |
| --- | --- |

—

with the Ministry of Defence in 1997 with a view to ‘working together to revive Orthodox traditions in the Russian army and navy’,

| — | with the Ministry of Education in August 1999 with a view to ‘educating the young generations in the spirit of old moral values’ (including, in particular, numerous attempts by the Russian Orthodox Church to bolster its influence within the Russian education system), |
| --- | --- |

—

with the Ministry of Education in August 1999 with a view to ‘educating the young generations in the spirit of old moral values’ (including, in particular, numerous attempts by the Russian Orthodox Church to bolster its influence within the Russian education system),

| — | with the Ministry of Health and the Foreign Ministry on 5 and 6 March 2003 respectively, |
| --- | --- |

—

with the Ministry of Health and the Foreign Ministry on 5 and 6 March 2003 respectively,

| — | with many Russian local authorities, |
| --- | --- |

—

with many Russian local authorities,

and given that the constant increase in concordat agreements between the Russian Orthodox Church and various state bodies, both at federal and at local levels, has conferred on this Church special powers, thereby discriminating against other religious faiths, and given it special and exclusive access to prisons, the army, schools and hospitals,

will the Commission state:

| — | whether it is aware of the above cooperation agreements between the Russian Orthodox Church and the Russian State, discriminating against other religious faiths? |
| --- | --- |

—

whether it is aware of the above cooperation agreements between the Russian Orthodox Church and the Russian State, discriminating against other religious faiths?

| — | what measures it intends to take to ensure that religious freedom is restored in Russia, as required by the Russian Constitution and the federal law on religion? |
| --- | --- |

—

what measures it intends to take to ensure that religious freedom is restored in Russia, as required by the Russian Constitution and the federal law on religion?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(16 July 2003)

The Commission is aware of the difficult situation facing religious group in Russia.

The EU/Russia partnership is based on fundamental core values, among which is full respect of human rights. The Commission frequently raises its concerns about the need for Russia to guarantee the full respect of human rights in the context of our political dialogue.

The Commission will continue to impress upon the Russian authorities that the major international and European Human Rights conventions that Russia has ratified, which include reference to freedom of religion or belief, must be complied with. It appears that certain measures grant privileges to the Russian Orthodox Church as compared with other religions and may therefore be incompatible with the principle of State neutrality towards religious institutions. In addition to this, it should be recalled that Russia is a focus country under the European Initiative for Democracy and Human Rights programme, a Commission programme which aims, inter alia, to promote Human Rights.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/621 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/621

---

(2004/C 88 E/0641)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2224/03

by Paulo Casaca (PSE) to the Commission

(2 July 2003)

Subject:   Additional Protocol for Nuclear Material Safeguards

In reply to my question H-0867/02 (1) the Commission stated that ‘the Union continues to encourage Iran to join the International Atomic Energy Agency Additional Protocol for Nuclear Material Safeguards. It appears that Iran in general has been complying, including accepting inspections of its nuclear sites’.

In fact, on 17 June 2003 the International Atomic Energy Agency confirmed the allegations made by the democratic opposition to the theocratic regime in Teheran, the National Council of Resistance of Iran, which I referred to and which were widely known at the time of the Commission's reply, thus demonstrating that the situation as it appeared to the Commission did not and does not correspond to the actual situation.

How does the Commission explain the fact that, only a few months ago, it confined itself to repeating the propaganda issued by the dictatorial regime in Iran, and that it did not consider it appropriate to take account of reports, which have now been confirmed, of the war-mongering intentions of the repressive Iranian regime?

Does the Commission not consider it necessary to pay closer attention in future to objective information on the real situation in Iran, rather than contenting itself with uncritical acceptance of propaganda from the regime?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(6 August 2003)

The EU has repeatedly stated that the issue of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) constitutes one of the major areas of concern in its relations with Iran. While recognising Iran's right as a party to the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) to develop nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, the Commission strongly supports the view of the EU that Iran must be fully transparent and in compliance with this Treaty. The Commission welcomed the June 2003 report of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) but noted with concern that Iran had failed to fulfil certain of its obligations under the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) safeguards agreement. It trusts that Iran will address these shortcomings without delay and hopes that Iran, will take steps to adhere to relevant international instruments — such as the IAEA Additional Protocol — to ensure adequate transparency.

It goes without saying that the Commission does not, as the Honourable Member implies, confine itself to ‘repeating the propaganda’ from a ‘dictatorial regime’ with ‘war mongering intentions’. The Commission along with the EU Member States has made every attempt to base itself on objective information. In this context, the Commission would hesitate to refer to the National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI) as ‘the democratic opposition’ to the regime in Teheran.

---

(1)  Written answer of 14.1.2003.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/622 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/622

---

(2004/C 88 E/0642)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2266/03

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(9 July 2003)

Subject:   Financing of, and agreements with the EU concerning, construction in future EU Member States of camps to accommodate refugees seeking admission to the present Member States

| 1. | Who is paying for the connection to electricity and water supplies and to drains of 13 huts on the former army base in the village of Trstenik near the town of Dugo Selo, 50 km from the Croatian capital, Zagreb? Is the money coming from the European Union, the United Kingdom or both jointly? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Who is paying for the connection to electricity and water supplies and to drains of 13 huts on the former army base in the village of Trstenik near the town of Dugo Selo, 50 km from the Croatian capital, Zagreb? Is the money coming from the European Union, the United Kingdom or both jointly?

| 2. | Was EU funding made available for such projects even before 20 June 2003 or will it be made available after the Commission report on financial and legislative consequences in 2004? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Was EU funding made available for such projects even before 20 June 2003 or will it be made available after the Commission report on financial and legislative consequences in 2004?

| 3. | Will the intended use of the camp in Trstenik remain confined to temporarily housing 800 asylum-seekers who wish to settle in Britain, and will all of them be people from the Balkan States who are transported there after making themselves known to the authorities at ports or airports in the United Kingdom? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Will the intended use of the camp in Trstenik remain confined to temporarily housing 800 asylum-seekers who wish to settle in Britain, and will all of them be people from the Balkan States who are transported there after making themselves known to the authorities at ports or airports in the United Kingdom?

| 4. | Who reached agreement with the Croatian Government concerning this use of the site and on bringing in refugees? Was this done on behalf of the United Kingdom or on behalf of any of the European Union institutions? When was this agreement reached? |
| --- | --- |

4.

Who reached agreement with the Croatian Government concerning this use of the site and on bringing in refugees? Was this done on behalf of the United Kingdom or on behalf of any of the European Union institutions? When was this agreement reached?

| 5. | Do similar agreements also exist between the EU or its individual Member States concerning the construction of similar refugee camps in Russia, Belarus, Romania, Bulgaria, Ukraine and Albania? |
| --- | --- |

5.

Do similar agreements also exist between the EU or its individual Member States concerning the construction of similar refugee camps in Russia, Belarus, Romania, Bulgaria, Ukraine and Albania?

| 6. | What will happen to such camps and their residents when Romania, Bulgaria and Croatia accede to the EU? Will they then be removed from EU territory? |
| --- | --- |

6.

What will happen to such camps and their residents when Romania, Bulgaria and Croatia accede to the EU? Will they then be removed from EU territory?

| 7. | Why were such agreements not made public before 20 June 2003? |
| --- | --- |

7.

Why were such agreements not made public before 20 June 2003?

| 8. | In order to implement these agreements, do the Council of Europe's European Human Rights Convention and the 1951 Convention on the Status of Refugees need to be amended? |
| --- | --- |

8.

In order to implement these agreements, do the Council of Europe's European Human Rights Convention and the 1951 Convention on the Status of Refugees need to be amended?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(22 September 2003)

| 1. | This written question refers to a project ‘Reform of Asylum’, financed from the CARDS 2001 programme for Croatia, which aims at strengthening the administrative capacity of the Croatian institutions, mainly within the Interior Ministry, responsible for asylum issues. It should lead to an improvement of the refugee status determination procedures and the quality of decisions reaching international standards. The first component of this project is a twinning programme for capacity and institutional building in the field of asylum.
  The second component of the project referred to, addresses Croatia's need for an accommodation centre for asylum seekers, which should facilitate the processing of asylum applications by providing suitable accommodation. The total budget for the refurbishment of the site identified for this purpose is EUR 700 000 (works). Another EUR 300 000 is foreseen for the procurement of training equipment and equipment for the documentation and resource centre (supply). The procurement of these parts of the project is under preparation.
  The 1st step of getting the complex ‘Trstenik’ into use, for the needs of an accommodation centre for asylum seekers, includes interventions at the following parts of the complex:






  — | Fence of the complex, including the inner fence, which will separate the 1 st step from the future 2nd step; |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

This written question refers to a project ‘Reform of Asylum’, financed from the CARDS 2001 programme for Croatia, which aims at strengthening the administrative capacity of the Croatian institutions, mainly within the Interior Ministry, responsible for asylum issues. It should lead to an improvement of the refugee status determination procedures and the quality of decisions reaching international standards. The first component of this project is a twinning programme for capacity and institutional building in the field of asylum.

The second component of the project referred to, addresses Croatia's need for an accommodation centre for asylum seekers, which should facilitate the processing of asylum applications by providing suitable accommodation. The total budget for the refurbishment of the site identified for this purpose is EUR 700 000 (works). Another EUR 300 000 is foreseen for the procurement of training equipment and equipment for the documentation and resource centre (supply). The procurement of these parts of the project is under preparation.

The 1st step of getting the complex ‘Trstenik’ into use, for the needs of an accommodation centre for asylum seekers, includes interventions at the following parts of the complex:

—

Fence of the complex, including the inner fence, which will separate the 1 st step from the future 2nd step;

| — | outside lighting; |
| --- | --- |

—

outside lighting;

| — | decoration of 4 buildings (from the total number of 8 buildings) for administrative, medical and accommodation usage, including the equipment; |
| --- | --- |

—

decoration of 4 buildings (from the total number of 8 buildings) for administrative, medical and accommodation usage, including the equipment;

| — | restaurant and kitchen; |
| --- | --- |

—

restaurant and kitchen;

| — | boiler house; |
| --- | --- |

—

boiler house;

| — | access road; |
| --- | --- |

—

access road;

| — | infrastructure decoration of the 1st step (outside water supply system, sewage system including the new bio regenerator, outside heating pipe, outside distribution of electricity including transformer station, outside telephone installation, etc.) with the preparation of installation connection for the 2nd step. For some period of time the complex has not been in function for usage. |
| --- | --- |

—

infrastructure decoration of the 1st step (outside water supply system, sewage system including the new bio regenerator, outside heating pipe, outside distribution of electricity including transformer station, outside telephone installation, etc.) with the preparation of installation connection for the 2nd step. For some period of time the complex has not been in function for usage.

The total of the net surface of the buildings for adaptation in the 1st step of getting the complex ‘Trstenik’ into use for the needs of accommodation centre for asylum seekers is 2 500 square meters (m2).

Location Trstenik' is situated beside the existing gravel pit between Otok Nartski and Novaki Nartski, 35 kilometers (km) from the centre of Zagreb in south-east direction.

Only Community funds are involved and no co-financing of any kind is included. There is no link of the project to any bilateral initiatives from the United Kingdom.

It might be of interest to note that the Croatian Parliament adopted the Asylum Law on 12 June 2003. The actual implementation of the law has been postponed until 1 July 2004, until the reception centre for asylum seekers is operational. However, there should be no link between the enforcement of the law and the functioning of the reception centre.

| 2. | The Community funding is covered by CARDS programme 2001. No follow-up to this works project is foreseen but there shall be further support to the implementation to the newly adopted Asylum Law. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The Community funding is covered by CARDS programme 2001. No follow-up to this works project is foreseen but there shall be further support to the implementation to the newly adopted Asylum Law.

| 3. | The programme aims exclusively at improving the refugee status determination procedures and accommodation of people seeking asylum upon entering Croatian Territory as country of first entry.
  The works will allow this centre to host at the beginning a maximum of 200 persons-asylum seekers and during the second phase of the project an additional 300 persons-asylum seekers. Therefore the maximum capacity will be, at the end of the works, 500 persons. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The programme aims exclusively at improving the refugee status determination procedures and accommodation of people seeking asylum upon entering Croatian Territory as country of first entry.

The works will allow this centre to host at the beginning a maximum of 200 persons-asylum seekers and during the second phase of the project an additional 300 persons-asylum seekers. Therefore the maximum capacity will be, at the end of the works, 500 persons.

| 4. | The decision on the location of the Centre was made by the Croatian Government on 30 January 2002. The Trstenik Dugo Selo location was given to the Ministry of Interior for the purpose of establishing an asylum centre. Previously other locations were envisaged, however, many were too far from Zagreb or were the property of Zagreb municipality or would have been too costly. In April 2003 Ministry of Interior ordered a feasibility study that confirmed Trstenik as an acceptable location. The Commission will ensure the proper design for establishing an Asylum home in Trstenik-Dugo Selo through a service contract. Then the tendering of works and supply contracts will be launched. |
| --- | --- |

4.

The decision on the location of the Centre was made by the Croatian Government on 30 January 2002. The Trstenik Dugo Selo location was given to the Ministry of Interior for the purpose of establishing an asylum centre. Previously other locations were envisaged, however, many were too far from Zagreb or were the property of Zagreb municipality or would have been too costly. In April 2003 Ministry of Interior ordered a feasibility study that confirmed Trstenik as an acceptable location. The Commission will ensure the proper design for establishing an Asylum home in Trstenik-Dugo Selo through a service contract. Then the tendering of works and supply contracts will be launched.

| 5. | The Commission helps these countries to bring their asylum systems in line with international standards and best practice.
  Concerning Russia, Belarus and Ukraine the Tacis Regional Indicative Programmes 2002-2003 and 2004-2006, as well as the Tacis National Indicative Programmes 2004-2006 for Russia and Ukraine refer to cooperation on migration, asylum and refugee in order to improve the standards in these countries in line with international norms and best practices. The Commission cooperates closely with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) on this issue. If appropriate, as in the case of Croatia, assistance could also be provided for the establishment of refugee/asylum seeker accommodation centres in these countries.
  Concerning Albania, the Cards programme is assisting this country with EUR 3million on asylum and migration related projects between the period of 2001-2004. The main items being training, refurbishment and renovation of reception centres.
  It is also worth mentioning that at present the Commission is negotiating a readmission agreement with Albania. Albania has already bilateral readmission agreements with several countries. The above assistance is particularly important to help Albania to comply with the obligations that the future Union/Albania readmission agreement will imply.
  As regards Romania and Bulgaria, the Commission supports those countries through PHARE assistance based upon annual programming. Implementing the ‘acquis’ in the field of asylum is one of the subjects of this assistance. |
| --- | --- |

5.

The Commission helps these countries to bring their asylum systems in line with international standards and best practice.

Concerning Russia, Belarus and Ukraine the Tacis Regional Indicative Programmes 2002-2003 and 2004-2006, as well as the Tacis National Indicative Programmes 2004-2006 for Russia and Ukraine refer to cooperation on migration, asylum and refugee in order to improve the standards in these countries in line with international norms and best practices. The Commission cooperates closely with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) on this issue. If appropriate, as in the case of Croatia, assistance could also be provided for the establishment of refugee/asylum seeker accommodation centres in these countries.

Concerning Albania, the Cards programme is assisting this country with EUR 3million on asylum and migration related projects between the period of 2001-2004. The main items being training, refurbishment and renovation of reception centres.

It is also worth mentioning that at present the Commission is negotiating a readmission agreement with Albania. Albania has already bilateral readmission agreements with several countries. The above assistance is particularly important to help Albania to comply with the obligations that the future Union/Albania readmission agreement will imply.

As regards Romania and Bulgaria, the Commission supports those countries through PHARE assistance based upon annual programming. Implementing the ‘acquis’ in the field of asylum is one of the subjects of this assistance.

| 6. | The enlargement process implies the adoption of the Union ‘acquis’ including in the field of asylum. The Directive on reception conditions for asylum seekers adopted in January 2003 (1) is part of this ‘acquis’. Accommodation centres are one of the possible means for Member States to accommodate asylum seekers according to this Directive. This mean is used by many current Member States. Assistance is given to Acceding Countries to develop or reform their asylum systems to ensure their compliance with the Geneva Convention. As the reception centre in Croatia will host people seeking asylum in Croatia, a future accession of Croatia or other States to the Union will not affect in principle the location of accommodation centres. |
| --- | --- |

6.

The enlargement process implies the adoption of the Union ‘acquis’ including in the field of asylum. The Directive on reception conditions for asylum seekers adopted in January 2003 (1) is part of this ‘acquis’. Accommodation centres are one of the possible means for Member States to accommodate asylum seekers according to this Directive. This mean is used by many current Member States. Assistance is given to Acceding Countries to develop or reform their asylum systems to ensure their compliance with the Geneva Convention. As the reception centre in Croatia will host people seeking asylum in Croatia, a future accession of Croatia or other States to the Union will not affect in principle the location of accommodation centres.

| 7. | The CARDS annual programmes have been approved by the Member States and are available on the Commission's Europa website (http://europa.eu.int/comm/europeaid/projects/cards/publications_en.htm#4). A works contract forecast for the asylum centre in Trstenik has been available on the website of the Commission Delegation in Zagreb since January 2003.
  The Tacis indicative programmes referred above are also public and can be consulted on Europa website (http://europa.eu.int/comm/external_relations/ceeca/rsp/progs.htm). |
| --- | --- |

7.

The CARDS annual programmes have been approved by the Member States and are available on the Commission's Europa website (http://europa.eu.int/comm/europeaid/projects/cards/publications_en.htm#4). A works contract forecast for the asylum centre in Trstenik has been available on the website of the Commission Delegation in Zagreb since January 2003.

The Tacis indicative programmes referred above are also public and can be consulted on Europa website (http://europa.eu.int/comm/external_relations/ceeca/rsp/progs.htm).

| 8. | The reform of their asylum system should allow those countries to comply with the Geneva Convention and relevant international Human Rights instruments including the European Convention on Human Rights for countries which are party to this Convention. The Community cooperation programmes on asylum aim at ensuring the full compliance with the Geneva Convention. Concerning the Candidate Countries, the aim is to ensure compliance with both the 1951 Geneva Convention and the European Convention of Human Rights.
  The Honourable Member will also be aware of the ten conditions proposed by the Commission in its Communication of June 2003 (2), which need to be fulfilled in designing new Union approaches to asylum systems and in particular the need for full respect for international human rights standards.
  A complementary background document is sent direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat. |
| --- | --- |

8.

The reform of their asylum system should allow those countries to comply with the Geneva Convention and relevant international Human Rights instruments including the European Convention on Human Rights for countries which are party to this Convention. The Community cooperation programmes on asylum aim at ensuring the full compliance with the Geneva Convention. Concerning the Candidate Countries, the aim is to ensure compliance with both the 1951 Geneva Convention and the European Convention of Human Rights.

The Honourable Member will also be aware of the ten conditions proposed by the Commission in its Communication of June 2003 (2), which need to be fulfilled in designing new Union approaches to asylum systems and in particular the need for full respect for international human rights standards.

A complementary background document is sent direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat.

---

(1)  Council Directive 2003/9 EC of 27 January 2003 laying down minimum standards for the reception of asylum seekers, OJ L 31, 6.2.2003.

(2)  COM(2003) 315 final.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/625 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/625

---

(2004/C 88 E/0643)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2527/03

by Glenys Kinnock (PSE) to the Commission

(29 July 2003)

Subject:   Rum

The EU has recognised the importance of the rum sector for the economic and social development of some ACP countries. Special provisions for rum are contained in the EU-US Agreement on White Spirits to back up this recognition. The terms of the Special Memorandum on rum attached to this zero for zero agreement establishes a residual tariff that provides both ACP and EU rum producers in the French DOM a small measure of continuing preference in the European market until such time as traditional suppliers might move from the production of commodity rums to value-added branded products able to compete with large and often subsidised producers in third countries.

Would the Commission, therefore, outline what measures it intends to take during the upcoming GSP review to ensure its commitments to ACP rum producers are kept? Would the Commission confirm that rum is excluded from the GSP review?

Answer given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(22 August 2003)

The Joint Declaration on Rum (Declaration XXV) of the African, Caribbean and Pacific Countries (ACP) — Union Partnership Agreement recognises the importance of the rum sector for the economic and social development of several ACP countries and regions and the challenges it faces, inter alia, from the liberalisation of the European rum market.

In the aim of honouring the declaration and providing support to enable ACP rum exporters to increase competitiveness and notably to assist the ACP rum industry to move out of bulk commodity production into higher-value branded rum products, the Union has approved a EUR 70 million programme. This programme is now fully operational, the regional association of Caribbean rum producers, Wirspa, having been strengthened in order to take care of the management of the different programme activities.

Rum is not included in the general arrangements of the Union's current General system of preferences (GSP) scheme which ends on 31 December 2004 although it is included in the GSP's scheme for the least developed countries for which imports of all products except arms and ammunition are duty-free (under the so-called Everything but arms (EBA) scheme). The Commission does not foresee a change to the situation with regards to rum even after the review of the current GSP.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/626 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/626

---

(2004/C 88 E/0644)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2622/03

by Philip Claeys (NI) to the Commission

(28 August 2003)

Subject:   Relations with Libya

Earlier this month the Libyan leader, Colonel Gadaffi, accepted responsibility for the bombing of PanAm Flight 103 over Lockerbie in 1988. That act of terrorism claimed 207 lives. Libya is now prepared to pay compensation to the next of kin, its intention in so doing being to have international sanctions lifted.

On 18 August 2003, Commission President Prodi had a telephone conversation with Colonel Gadaffi; they spoke about the normalisation of Libya-EU relations. Libya is being invited to take part in the Euro-Mediterranean Process.

Problems in connection with Libyan terrorist attacks in the past have not yet been completely resolved, however. France opposes the lifting of sanctions against Libya until compensation has been paid to the next of kin of the victims of the attack on a UTA aircraft over Niger in 1989. That attack claimed 170 lives. Is the Commission planning to normalise relations with Libya before this French request has been complied with?

Libya has a dirty past with regard to conducting and backing international terrorism. Is normalisation of relations with the EU tied to conditions and guarantees in this respect? What formal agreements are being sought in this connection?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(19 September 2003)

United Nations (UN) sanctions have been imposed to Libya in 1992 and 1993 in relation to the Lockerbie bombing. In 1999, against the background of Libyan co-operation with the Lockerbie investigation, the UN suspended those sanctions. As a result of an agreement reached on Lockerbie between the United States, the United Kingdom and Libya, a draft UN Security Council Resolution has been introduced by United Kingdom/Bulgaria on 18 August 2003 to lift the UN sanctions.

It is in this context that Colonel Kadhafi called President Prodi. The President encouraged Libya to solve Lockerbie and all other issues, on the basis of requests from the international community. Should the UN sanctions be lifted as a result of a positive UN vote, yet to take place, this will constitute an important step towards the reintegration of Libya into the international community. At present, Libya is an observer to the Barcelona Process, and is invited to become a full member under the strict condition that it accepts the Barcelona ‘acquis’ without any conditions (and also the lifting of the UN sanctions). Libya is also included in the new neighbourhood policy of the Union, in the context of a relationship based on the respect of shared values.

The UTA issue, which had been judged by the French judiciary, is being rediscussed as a result of the Lockerbie deal (delaying the sanctions). If the UN sanctions are lifted, then those discussions between France and Libya should conclude satisfactorily.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/627 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/627

---

(2004/C 88 E/0645)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2660/03

by Elisabeth Jeggle (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(10 September 2003)

Subject:   Checks on invalid MOT (road worthiness inspection) disks in EU Member States

It has come to light that many Greek-owned private cars in Greece are still being run on German registration plates with expired MOT disks.

This state of affairs prompts the following questions:

| — | What rules and provisions must be taken into account when a car is sold within the EU? |
| --- | --- |

—

What rules and provisions must be taken into account when a car is sold within the EU?

| — | For how long may Greek nationals continue to run German-registered cars? |
| --- | --- |

—

For how long may Greek nationals continue to run German-registered cars?

| — | What implications does it have if a German-registered car with an expired MOT disk is being driven on the roads in Greece? |
| --- | --- |

—

What implications does it have if a German-registered car with an expired MOT disk is being driven on the roads in Greece?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(5. November 2003)

Concerning the rules and the provisions which apply when a used passenger car, with a certificate of conformity corresponding to a vehicle type for which EC type-approval has been granted, registered in that Member State, is transferred for use in another Member State it is important to note that the carrying out of checks on registration by the authorities of the Member State of destination is no longer justified. The passenger car should be registered on the basis of EC type-approval, which is valid in all Member States.

If the vehicle has been granted a certificate of conformity on the basis of national type-approval, Member States may not object to the type-approval and registration of that vehicle, for reasons relating to technical characteristics, unless there are reasons regarding the protection of human health and life or of the environment, in which case they must state them in detail and substantiate them. The fact that a vehicle type-approved and registered in another Member State does not correspond to a type approved in the Member State of destination or that its technical characteristics differ from those laid down in the law of that State does not of itself constitute adequate grounds for refusing the type-approval and registration of the vehicle concerned.

Roadworthiness tests on the physical condition of the vehicle are permissible provided that they are necessary and non-discriminatory, that is, they are based on the same conditions and procedures as are applied to vehicles previously registered in the Member State of destination.

A new or a used passenger car moved permanently to Greece has to be registered there if the private individual who is the owner of the car has his normal residence in Greece. Under Community legislation (1) normal residence means the place where a person usually lives, for at least 185 days in each calendar year, because of personal and occupational ties. The Member State concerned (in this case, Greece) will fix the period needed for such registration to take place (normally, it will have to be done within a short period). This also applies when a car registered in Germany is permanently transferred into Greece following the transfer of the normal residence of its owner to that Member State.

A passenger car with German plates can be moved temporarily to Greece for the private use of a private individual who has his normal residence in a Member State different from Greece. In this case, the Community provisions in force (2) provide for a number of conditions to be fulfilled which include the respect of the temporary character of the move which, generally, should not exceed six months in any 12 months.

Directive 1996/96/EC (3) on roadworthiness tests introduces a number of minimum rules, including a first compulsory roadworthiness test once the vehicle is four years old and at least every two years thereafter. Member States have the option, however, of laying down stricter standards than these minimum rules. Greece and Germany apply the Directive's minimum requirement of a test every two years. Checks on the validity of certificates and penalties for offenders are covered by the subsidiarity principle.

---

(1)  Council Directive 83/183/EEC of 28 March 1983 on tax exemptions applicable to permanent imports from a Member State of the personal property of individuals, as amended and now valid, OJ L 105, 23.4.1983.

(2)  Council Directive 83/182/EEC of 28 March 1983 on tax exemptions within the Community for certain means of transport temporarily imported into one Member State from another, as amended and now valid, OJ L 105, 23.4.1983.

(3)  Council Directive 96/96/EC of 20 December 1996 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to roadworthiness tests for motor vehicles and their trailers, OJ L 46, 17.2.1997.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/628 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/628

---

(2004/C 88 E/0646)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2697/03

by Francesco Fiori (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(2 September 2003)

Subject:   Anomalies in the customs treatment of, and health requirements applied to, imported chicken and turkey

The Commission has been informed on several occasions of anomalies in the customs and health requirements for imported chicken and turkey, in that lightly salted or processed meat avoids the imposition of Community tariff 0207, which is supposed to be applied to all frozen poultry meat.

This continuing ambiguous situation is causing substantial damage to Italian (and European) producers, who are being adversely affected by unfair trading practices, and considerable risks for consumers, who are not adequately protected against livestock rearing and health practices which fall short of European standards.

This being so,

| 1. | Would the Commission publish the results of the sanitary inspections carried out on consignments of poultry meat imported from Thailand and Brazil for the purpose of checking that it did not contain nitrofuran and that no animal flours that failed to meet Community standards had been used in those countries in the production of livestock for export to Europe? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Would the Commission publish the results of the sanitary inspections carried out on consignments of poultry meat imported from Thailand and Brazil for the purpose of checking that it did not contain nitrofuran and that no animal flours that failed to meet Community standards had been used in those countries in the production of livestock for export to Europe?

| 2. | Would the Commission inform Parliament of any measures taken to prevent possible abuses in connection with livestock production in those countries, or unfair trading practices by importers taking advantage of the anomalous tariffs imposed by certain European customs authorities? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Would the Commission inform Parliament of any measures taken to prevent possible abuses in connection with livestock production in those countries, or unfair trading practices by importers taking advantage of the anomalous tariffs imposed by certain European customs authorities?

| 3. | What urgent measures does the Commission intend to take to ensure the correct and uniform application throughout the Union of the correct consolidated tariff applicable to all frozen meat imported into Europe, which is already applied in Germany? |
| --- | --- |

3.

What urgent measures does the Commission intend to take to ensure the correct and uniform application throughout the Union of the correct consolidated tariff applicable to all frozen meat imported into Europe, which is already applied in Germany?

Any delay in the application of such measures would cause further unjustifiable damage to European producers, some of whom have already suffered irreparable damage.

Answer given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(16 October 2003)

| 1. | As regards publication of the results of the sanitary inspections carried out on importation, it should be noted that import controls fall entirely within the competence of the Member States. In general terms, Member States are not required to take samples of every import consignment for laboratory analyses, nor are they required to publish the results or inform the Commission of them. Only when a risk is identified during these controls are Member States obliged to inform the other Member States and the Commission via the Union's rapid alert system (RASFF). The Commission then informs the country of origin. In the case of nitrofuran contamination of poultry meat imported from Thailand and Brazil, specific Commission Decisions applied, under which Member States were required to check each consignment of poultry meat imported from these countries for the presence of nitrofurans and to notify the Commission of the results via the RASFF. The Decision remains fully in force in relation to Brazil while the level of testing in relation to imports from Thailand is now 20 %. These Commission Decisions are safeguard measures and therefore, by definition, temporary. A summary of RASFF notifications is published each week on the web-site of the Directorate General (DG) for Health and Consumer Protection.
  The reference in the question to checking the possible use of meat and bone meal in animal production in third countries is not appropriate in this context. Community legislation concerning the import of poultry products does not impose a feed ban on third countries comparable with the feed ban that is in place in the EU. The existence of an effective feed ban in a third country is an important element in the geographical BSE risk (GBR) assessment, which in turn can have an impact on the import conditions for animal products from ruminants from that third country. Community legislation does not forbid the use of meat and bone meal (MBM) for poultry in third countries wishing to export poultry meat to the Community. There is no scientific evidence to demonstrate a link between the feeding of MBM to poultry and the risk of BSE transmission to humans. In any case, the Brazilian authorities have assured the Commission that MBM is not used in Brazilian poultry production, as it is not cost competitive with vegetable proteins such as soya. |
| --- | --- |

1.

As regards publication of the results of the sanitary inspections carried out on importation, it should be noted that import controls fall entirely within the competence of the Member States. In general terms, Member States are not required to take samples of every import consignment for laboratory analyses, nor are they required to publish the results or inform the Commission of them. Only when a risk is identified during these controls are Member States obliged to inform the other Member States and the Commission via the Union's rapid alert system (RASFF). The Commission then informs the country of origin. In the case of nitrofuran contamination of poultry meat imported from Thailand and Brazil, specific Commission Decisions applied, under which Member States were required to check each consignment of poultry meat imported from these countries for the presence of nitrofurans and to notify the Commission of the results via the RASFF. The Decision remains fully in force in relation to Brazil while the level of testing in relation to imports from Thailand is now 20 %. These Commission Decisions are safeguard measures and therefore, by definition, temporary. A summary of RASFF notifications is published each week on the web-site of the Directorate General (DG) for Health and Consumer Protection.

The reference in the question to checking the possible use of meat and bone meal in animal production in third countries is not appropriate in this context. Community legislation concerning the import of poultry products does not impose a feed ban on third countries comparable with the feed ban that is in place in the EU. The existence of an effective feed ban in a third country is an important element in the geographical BSE risk (GBR) assessment, which in turn can have an impact on the import conditions for animal products from ruminants from that third country. Community legislation does not forbid the use of meat and bone meal (MBM) for poultry in third countries wishing to export poultry meat to the Community. There is no scientific evidence to demonstrate a link between the feeding of MBM to poultry and the risk of BSE transmission to humans. In any case, the Brazilian authorities have assured the Commission that MBM is not used in Brazilian poultry production, as it is not cost competitive with vegetable proteins such as soya.

| 2. and 3. | The Commission is aware that the customs authorities in some Member States have classified large quantities of chicken meat imported into the Community as salted meat under tariff heading 0210 when the meat in question was in fact frozen chicken meat with salt added in quantities too small to preserve it. This meat properly belongs under heading 0207 (frozen poultry meat) since it can be kept for a long time only because it is frozen.
  The very different rates of customs duty attached to these two these headings, and the fact that, in some third countries, production costs are much lower than in Europe, mean that the practice has indeed had a serious effect on European poultry producers.
  The Commission responded to the differing interpretations given to the classification rules by adopting appropriate legislative measures in July 2002, i.e. Regulation (EC) No 1223/2002 (1) requiring that the meat be classified as frozen poultry meat under heading 0207 and Commission Decision 2003/97/EC of 31 January 2003 (2) calling on the German customs administration to withdraw a number of binding tariff information notices classifying the products in question as salted meat under heading 0210.
  The Commission assures the Honourable Member that the relevant Commission departments are constantly monitoring this matter and that, by adopting new regulations or amending notes, the Commission would take whatever action was necessary if it became apparent that the measures already adopted were not effective in ensuring that tariff classifications were correctly and uniformly applied. |
| --- | --- |

2. and 3.

The Commission is aware that the customs authorities in some Member States have classified large quantities of chicken meat imported into the Community as salted meat under tariff heading 0210 when the meat in question was in fact frozen chicken meat with salt added in quantities too small to preserve it. This meat properly belongs under heading 0207 (frozen poultry meat) since it can be kept for a long time only because it is frozen.

The very different rates of customs duty attached to these two these headings, and the fact that, in some third countries, production costs are much lower than in Europe, mean that the practice has indeed had a serious effect on European poultry producers.

The Commission responded to the differing interpretations given to the classification rules by adopting appropriate legislative measures in July 2002, i.e. Regulation (EC) No 1223/2002 (1) requiring that the meat be classified as frozen poultry meat under heading 0207 and Commission Decision 2003/97/EC of 31 January 2003 (2) calling on the German customs administration to withdraw a number of binding tariff information notices classifying the products in question as salted meat under heading 0210.

The Commission assures the Honourable Member that the relevant Commission departments are constantly monitoring this matter and that, by adopting new regulations or amending notes, the Commission would take whatever action was necessary if it became apparent that the measures already adopted were not effective in ensuring that tariff classifications were correctly and uniformly applied.

---

(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)  OJ L 36, 12.2.2003.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/629 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/629

---

(2004/C 88 E/0647)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2910/03

by Joan Vallvé (ELDR) to the Commission

(2 October 2003)

Subject:   Difficulties at the German-Polish border

On Friday, 19 September the Association of European Border Regions (AEBR) travelled to the Spree Forest town of Burg, Germany, for the rotating meeting of the Executive Committee, where I was informed of the following problem.

For reasons of cost, and in anticipation of Poland's entry into the EU, the customs administration announced the termination of the lease for the pre-border waiting area on the site of the former Preschen air base (Spree-Neisse administrative district) on the A15 at the border crossing point Forst-Olszyna with effect from 1 October 2003. Under its current management, the waiting area provides parking spaces for 700 lorries, with extra room for ADR and abnormal loads, empty vehicles and container carriages, and also sanitary facilities and sleeping places for drivers, enabling them to observe the rest requirements. The hours of waiting are made more bearable by the availability of proper waste disposal facilities, a canteen and snacks.

If no agreement is reached by 1 October 2003 and the termination of the lease is finalised, this will inevitably lead to mile-long truck tailbacks on the motorway with all the familiar consequences.

Alongside the continuing problems at the border crossing point Guben-Schlagsdorf, where lorries queue as far back as the town of Guben on an almost daily basis, the closure of the pre-border waiting area at Preschen would certainly result in traffic chaos.

As an MEP and President of the AEBR, I would like to know whether the Commission intends to take new measures to prevent this problem at the German-Polish border.

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(6 November 2003)

The Commission has taken note of the remarks of the Honourable Member concerning the possible future problem at the German-Polish border at the border crossing point Forst-Olszyna. However, as far as the facilities available for customs controls are concerned, on the basis of the available information, it is not clear to what extent these are directly affected by the expiry of the lease in question. Moreover, the administrative and organisational aspects of the customs services do not fall within the Commission's competence and are fully within the national competence of the Member States. Consequently, even if the Member States have to respect certain Community principles, the provision of such facilities and infrastructure is purely a matter of national competence. Finally, the Commission has no power to intervene with regard to local contractual arrangements on which such facilities may depend.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/630 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/630

---

(2004/C 88 E/0648)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2957/03

by Mogens Camre (UEN) to the Commission

(8 October 2003)

Subject:   Commission's proposed amendment of Directive 94/35/EC

A report in the scientific journal ‘Headache’ (May 2003, p.555) indicates that people with a predisposition to migraine may suffer an attack if they take a substance known as sucralose.

This substance is being considered for possible inclusion on the EU's list of approved additives. The Commission has accordingly submitted, in a document of 16 May 2003, a revised amendment to Directive 94/35/EC (1) of 30 June 1994 on sweeteners for use in foodstuffs. The amendment proposes that the active substance ‘Splenda’ (sucralose) be approved in the EU as E955.

The amendment also relates to substance E962 (aspartame-acesulphame salt). Aspartame is a well-known migraine-inducing substance, but there are no studies on aspartame-acesulphame salt.

Will the Commission take the initiative of having both these substances (together with other food additives) thoroughly investigated for possible migraine-inducing effect before they are included on the list of approved additives?

Supplementary answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(11 November 2003)

The Commission wishes to reassure the Honourable Member that all food additives including sweeteners were examined for their safety by the Scientific Committee on Food prior to their authorisation. This task is now carried out by the European Food Safety Authority.

Indeed, two new sweeteners are proposed for authorisation in the current amendment of Directive 94/35/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 30 June 1994 on sweeteners for use in foodstuffs (2): sucralose and the salt of aspartame and acesulfame. Both substances were examined for their safety by the Scientific Committee on Food before they were proposed for authorisation by the Commission.

The opinion on sucralose was adopted by the Scientific Committee on Food in September 2000. The Committee concluded that sucralose is acceptable as a sweetener for general food use and established an Acceptable Daily Intake of 0-15 milligramme per kilogramme (mg/kg) bodyweight.

The salt of aspartame and acesulfame was examined by the Scientific Committee on Food in March 2000. The Committee concluded that the salt does not raise additional safety considerations since it only represents an alternative source of aspartame and acesulfame. Aspartame and acesulfame are both already authorised as sweeteners under Directive 94/35/EC.

At the request of the Commission, aspartame has been re-evaluated by the Scientific Committee on Food in collaboration with the British and French Food Safety Agencies. To this end, the scientists have reviewed all the scientific literature published since the last opinion on aspartame amounting to around 150 articles. The resulting opinion, adopted in December 2002, fully reconfirmed the safety of aspartame and that the intake of this sweetener, also in consumers with a high intake, including adults, children and diabetics of all ages, remains well below the Acceptable Daily Intake. The data on headaches examined by the Committee varied in quality, but the one well controlled double-blind, cross-over trial showed that aspartame was no more likely than placebo to be associated with headaches.

Moreover, during the 2nd reading of the amendment of Directive 94/35/EC, the Commission has committed to present within two years of entry into force of this amendment a progress report about the re-evaluation of food additives, in particular concerning the two newly authorised sweeteners.

For the reasons outlined above, the Commission does not consider it necessary to proceed with further re-evaluations of these sweeteners.

---

(1)  OJ L 237, 10.9.1994, p. 3.

(2)  OJ L 237, 10.9.1994, p. 3.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/631 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/631

---

(2004/C 88 E/0649)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2992/03

by Rodi Kratsa-Tsagaropoulou (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(6 October 2003)

Subject:   Drugs production in Afghanistan

The UN committee responsible has officially reported record drugs production figures in Afghanistan over the past year, double the production figures under the Taliban regime, since the new administration has been unable to secure favourable conditions for wheat and maize growers or guarantee a market for their produce.

In answer to my previous question on the same subject (E-3357/01 (1)), Commissioner Nielson indicated that under Article B7-302 (2) the Commission was giving priority to financing alternative crops and sources of income in the provinces most affected by the ban on opium production, the amount earmarked for this purpose being around EUR 90 million.

Has the Commission kept a record of funding provided to date (period 2001-2004) and what the effect has been for farmers? To what does it attribute their lack of success? Will it continue to provide funding and, if so, what basic guidelines will apply? What additional measures will it take to remedy the disastrous situation caused by drugs production and marketing?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(4 November 2003)

Context

In 1999, Afghanistan was the largest producer of opium poppy in the world, with an estimated production of 4 600 tons of opium accounting for 70 % of the world total. Following the Taliban imposed poppy ban (main objective of this ban was to keep prices high rather than to limit the opium production), production fell dramatically in 2001. However, in 2002 production again reached the high levels seen in 1999.

A bumper harvest is expected for 2003 coinciding with very high farm gate prices for raw opium (according to informal sources from USD 100 to 300 a kilogramme (kg) for an average harvest of about 35 to 40 kg of raw opium per hectare). This makes opium-poppy production extremely profitable to farmers and farm workers (non-governmental organisations (NGOs) report that up to USD 9 are paid per day to farm workers in poppy production where as USD 1 to 2 are normal farm labour wages). The very high prices together with the expected bumper harvest indicate increasing demand for opium outside Afghanistan.

Under these circumstances it is almost impossible to identify crops or to develop off-farm activities which could be competitive to opium-poppy production in the short run. The fact that the Afghan Transitional Authority (ATA) has only limited control over the country hampers effective law enforcement, which constitutes another reason why no progress in the fight against opium poppy cultivation was achieved so far.

Regulatory interference like price subsidies or purchasing programmes of the Afghan Transitional Authority (ATA) to secure markets for grain farmers would not be an alternative. First of all, poppy is grown mostly on very small plots whereas the grain, which faces marketing problems is produced mainly on large-scale farms. Second, regulatory interference would contradict the declared objective of the ATA to ensure a private and liberal economy. Besides this, regulatory interference requires important infrastructure and purchasing capacity, which are currently not available with the ATA.

Actions of the Commission and other donors

The Commission, the entire donor community and the ATA consider the increase in opium poppy cultivation as a major risk to the socio-economic and political reconstruction process of Afghanistan since it constitutes a major source of income to forces not supporting the ATA (local commanders and Al Qaida mainly). Meanwhile it became obvious that alternative livelihoods (very difficult to introduce under the current situation) constitute only one element in the fight of illegal opium-poppy production. Law enforcement but also education of the population to make them aware that opium-poppy production is illegal and that opium consumption has very negative health and social consequences are of equal importance.

In response to the complex nature of the fight against illegal opium poppy production the ATA elaborated the Afghan National Drug Control Strategy (developed with technical support provided by the United Kingdom — lead donor in the drug control sector — and the Commission). Within the frame of this strategy, which is based on the elements mentioned above, the Commission is providing support to the reconstruction of rural production systems, which have been destroyed by the civil war and the recent drought. For this purpose about EUR 140 million will be provided in 2002/2003. Details of actions are provided in the table which is sent direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat.

But this support would be pointless if the Law enforcement side of the strategy would not be addressed too. Therefore the Commission has decided to contribute more than EUR 70 million (funded by the budget line B7-300 and B7-305 in 2002 and 2003) to the re-enforcement of law and order ensuring payment of salaries, equipment and training to the national police. This complements directly the involvement of Germany which is the lead donor for re-establishing the national police force.

Impact so far and future action of the Commission

Eradication of opium-poppy production requires a fairly long period of time (in Pakistan and Thailand for example it took 15 year to achieve satisfactory results). The prevailing insecurity and the fact that the ATA has only limited control over the country set up a conducive environment for illegal crop cultivation. In addition, the growing demand for opium in neighbouring countries which do have weak governments, makes eradication in Afghanistan even more difficult. These, together with the tremendous rural poverty and the widespread unawareness of the population regarding the illegal production and danger of consumption are the main reasons that the programme supported by the Commission and the international community has had little impact so far. However, the Community and other partners (especially the United Kingdom and Germany) will continue their support to government in this area, as it is only through a sustained commitment that the Afghan Government will be able to realize the goals set out in the Afghan National Drug Control Strategy which will remain the basic guidelines for all interventions.

Since more understanding of the socio-economic determinants of drug production is required, the Commission is currently preparing a project to assess these issues and to incorporate the findings into projects.

Further to this, the Commission intends to continue its commitment to fight against rural poverty, which is considered as a main reason for opium-poppy cultivation. Rehabilitation of irrigation infrastructure and support to horticulture production (Afghanistan was a very important exporter of fruits and nuts before the civil war) are key elements to re-establish efficiency of other farming systems providing more attractive alternatives to farmers. The Community is identified as lead agency for this aspect of alternative livelihoods with the Afghan National Drug Control Strategy. The Commission together with other donors (World Bank and the United States) is supporting delivery of health services to the rural population as a complementary action.

A further key condition for the anti-drugs strategy is that the ATA gains more control over the country and that security is re-established quickly to end the anarchy prevailing in some regions. In this regard, support is provided by Germany (training and re-establishing the national police) and the Community via the Law and Order Trust Fund for Afghanistan (LOTFA) ensuring payment of salaries and equipment to the police and on helping to strengthen border police capacity to tackle drug smuggling. The extension of ISAF to the provinces and the creation of Provincial Reconstruction Teams recently decided by the United Nations Security Council together with the rebuilding of the National Army supported by France and the United States may also improve the security situation in future.

A copy of the table providing overview of Commission programmes to Afghanistan is being forwarded direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat.

---

(1)  OJ C 277 E, 14.11.2002, p. 2.

(2)  B7-302: ‘Aid to uprooted peoples in the developing countries of Asia and Latin America’. Around EUR 90 million earmarked for activities in Afghanistan over the period 2001-2004.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/633 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/633

---

(2004/C 88 E/0650)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3021/03

by Anna Karamanou (PSE) to the Commission

(14 October 2003)

Subject:   Child trafficking in Afghanistan

On the basis of Unicef reports, much publicity was recently given to the problem of child trafficking in Afghanistan, which is taking on ever greater dimensions. The Afghan police intercepted a group of around 50 children, some of them only four years old, who had come from the north-eastern province of Badakhshan and were being taken by road to an unknown destination through the neighbouring province of Takhar. The authorities suspect that the boys were destined either to attend religious schools in Pakistan and Iran, or to be sold and taken to a foreign country for purposes of illegal work or sexual exploitation. A Unicef representative stated that there were also unconfirmed reports of missing children in the south of the country.

Furthermore, according to a senior figure in the Afghan police, there is evidence of Pakistani citizens entering Afghanistan, travelling to remote areas and giving money to poor villagers in exchange for their children. They promise them that their children will receive a good religious education and ‘divine enlightenment’. It is feared that the children are then taken to religious schools where they are brainwashed in order that they might swell the ranks of Pakistan's secret service and religious parties. In some cases, they are sold as labourers or become the victims of sexual exploitation.

What action will the Commission take and what programmes will it finance in order to support the central government of Afghanistan and improve policing throughout the country, so as to put an end to the exploitation of the population, and in particular to child trafficking?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(6 November 2003)

The Commission is also concerned by recent reports from Afghanistan about abductions of young children, and very much welcomes the United Nations International Children's Emergency Fund's (Unicef) decision to send a child rights professional to Northern Afghanistan.

The Commission, and Member States are strongly engaged in building a strong judicial system and police force to ensure there is effective law enforcement across Afghanistan.

Germany is the lead donor on police reform. By December 2003 a total of 5 000 new and existing police will have received training, and Germany will be rolling out police training to the Provinces. To support this, in 2002, the Commission contributed EUR 10 million to the Law and Order Trust Fund (which pays for police salaries and training), and a further EUR 15,5 million in 2003. In addition, it has earmarked a further EUR 60 million for the Law and Order Trust Fund for Afghanistan (LOTFA) in 2003-2004.

Italy is the lead donor for Judicial reform. To date, USD 20 million has been spent on reforming the judicial system, including refurbishing buildings in Kabul and training 120 legal professionals. For 2003, the Commission and Italy are co-financing EUR 6 million for the refurbishment of district level judicial centres and training of local staff.

The new Constitution will also be critical. The statement at the 21 September 2003 Dubai Afghanistan conference stressed the importance of enshrining Human Rights for all, including women and children. It noted ‘the EU is aware that Afghanistan recognises its obligations under International Law, especially concerning Human Rights, and looks forward to seeing these obligations respected fully in the new Constitution.’ The 19/20 October 2003 Troika to Afghanistan underlined the importance of meeting these obligations.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/634 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/634

---

(2004/C 88 E/0651)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3031/03

by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(17 October 2003)

Subject:   Community subsidies in the cultural sphere

Associations play a central role in any country's social development, not only in terms of active involvement and self-organisation on the part of citizens, but also of the services which associations provide, particularly in culture and sport. Recreational associations are often the main channels for publicising and preserving the cultural heritage of many regions, thus contributing to cultural wealth and diversity within the European Union. Associations are responsible for amateur drama, folk clubs, brass bands, music schools and a whole range of exhibition spaces for art. Resources, particularly funds, are generally in short supply to cover the working requirements of these associations in the tasks they perform for the community, above all in providing leisure time activities. I personally encounter this hard fact with some frequency, and likewise the lack of available information as to sources of support, particularly at Community level.

Can the Commission answer the following:

| — | what Community resources exist to support culture, particularly for recreational associations; |
| --- | --- |

—

what Community resources exist to support culture, particularly for recreational associations;

| — | in the specific case of wind band associations, what Community aids exist for buying instruments and support material for music schools, and doing up auditoria and halls to perform in; |
| --- | --- |

—

in the specific case of wind band associations, what Community aids exist for buying instruments and support material for music schools, and doing up auditoria and halls to perform in;

| — | what are the global Community budget totals authorised and actually paid out for culture, and how have these totals varied between 1994 and 2003? What is the breakdown of this total by Member State and number of projects funded? |
| --- | --- |

—

what are the global Community budget totals authorised and actually paid out for culture, and how have these totals varied between 1994 and 2003? What is the breakdown of this total by Member State and number of projects funded?

Supplementary answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(23 January 2004)

The Commission would draw the Honourable Member's attention to the fact that it is difficult to gain an overview of the many EU activities and programmes in the field of culture. Besides the Culture 2000 Programme, which is specifically for cultural cooperation and supports projects that are jointly run and financed by at least 3 operators, there is a cultural dimension to many European programmes in various fields of activity: supporting cultural industries, technological research, education and training in the arts, regional development, cooperation with third countries etc.

These Programmes are managed by different Commission Directorates-General and departments and have their own operating and eligibility rules. In March 2002 the Commission launched an internet site for Europe and Culture in order to promote the networking of cultural information so as to enable all citizens to access European cultural content. This site is intended to guide citizens, cultural operators and local, regional or national institutions through the areas of EU activity that are related to culture in one way or another (1).

Given the European dimension and the necessarily transnational nature of the projects financed by the programmes based on Article 151 of the EC Treaty (formerly the Raphaël, Ariane and Kaleidoscope Programmes and, since the year 2000, Culture 2000), it is impossible to give a precise breakdown by Member State of the sums allocated in the form of grants. However, the mid term evaluation of the Culture 2000 Programme (available on the internet (2)) and the evaluation of the Raphaël, Ariane and Kaleidoscope Programmes (the results of which are shortly to be published on the internet) make it possible to assess their impact and advantages.

As far as the cultural aspect of the Structural Funds is concerned, it is important to bear in mind that culture in itself is not one of the Structural Funds' objectives. Action taken within the field of culture can benefit from Structural Fund co-financing in so far as it contributes, directly or indirectly (particularly through the creation of jobs) to economic and social cohesion. It must be emphasised that it is generally very difficult to quantify the Structural Fund allocations within the field of culture since this definition covers a relatively broad sector. The Commission is currently preparing a staff working paper on the use of the Structural Funds in the field of culture during the period 1994-1999. This paper will be based on the information provided by the Member States regarding the Structural Funds allocated to culture between 1994 and 1998.

---

(1)  http://europa.eu.int/comm/culture/

(2)  http://europa.eu.int/comm/culture/eac/sources_info/studies_evaluation/studies_fr.html

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/636 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/636

---

(2004/C 88 E/0652)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3091/03

by Glenys Kinnock (PSE) to the Commission

(14 October 2003)

Subject:   Peter Shaw/Georgia

Would the Commission confirm that the Georgian authorities, including the Prosecutor-General, are actively considering the need to investigate the circumstances surrounding the kidnap of Peter Shaw?

Is it the case that two individuals connected with kidnapping have been released, allegedly for lack of evidence? In a previous answer (E-2700/03 (1)) on the Peter Shaw case, the Commission indicated that the Georgian authorities would provide a written report on their investigations. Is this the case, and has this detailed report been forwarded to the Commission?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(7 November 2003)

The Commission continues to use every opportunity to stress to the Georgian authorities the importance it attaches to the identification and bringing to justice of the perpetrators of Peter Shaw's kidnapping. The Commission expects the Georgian authorities to maintain their commitment to the investigation into his kidnapping.

The Commission has no information concerning the Honourable Member's question as to whether two individuals connected with the kidnapping have been released.

The Commission confirms that it has requested a detailed written report on the state of the investigations into the kidnapping from the Georgian authorities. The Georgian authorities have indicated that they will respond to this request once they have sufficient information to bring a case to court. The Commission will continue to press for such a request.

The Member of the Commission responsible for External Relations continues to pay very close attention to this matter and has personally raised it, including the need for a written report, with the Georgian Minister of Foreign Affairs, Mr Irakli Menagarashvili when he attended the recent Union-Georgia Cooperation Council.

---

(1)  See page 433.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/636 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/636

---

(2004/C 88 E/0653)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3117/03

by Maurizio Turco (NI) to the Commission

(22 October 2003)

Subject:   Illegal imports of textile products from China

Knowing that:

| — | on 10 October 2003 the textile workers' union of Barletta (BA) organised a protest against the illegality of Chinese textile imports and called on the European Union to take practical steps to combat such imports. |
| --- | --- |

—

on 10 October 2003 the textile workers' union of Barletta (BA) organised a protest against the illegality of Chinese textile imports and called on the European Union to take practical steps to combat such imports.

Can the Commission say:

| — | what information it has concerning controls at borders and in Community territory on all forms of illegality (circumvention of the law, tax evasion and counterfeiting of trademarks), compliance with international agreements on imports from non-Community countries, in particular from the Far East, and the payment of customs duty, and what steps it will take to step up these controls; |
| --- | --- |

—

what information it has concerning controls at borders and in Community territory on all forms of illegality (circumvention of the law, tax evasion and counterfeiting of trademarks), compliance with international agreements on imports from non-Community countries, in particular from the Far East, and the payment of customs duty, and what steps it will take to step up these controls;

| — | what measures it will promote for the introduction into Far Eastern countries of checks on respect for international conventions on human rights, including those dealing with pay conditions for workers? |
| --- | --- |

—

what measures it will promote for the introduction into Far Eastern countries of checks on respect for international conventions on human rights, including those dealing with pay conditions for workers?

Answer given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(8 December 2003)

The Commission is aware of allegations such as the non-respect of core labour rights, false declarations of origin and circumvention of quotas, non-respect of intellectual property rights on the part of some exporting countries in disregard of the obligations of commitments under bilateral textiles agreements concluded with the Community.

Regarding the quantitative limits to exports of textiles and clothing in force under the bilateral agreements, this is done under a double checking system according to which import licences are only granted by Community authorities upon presentation of export valid licences issued and under the condition that the corresponding quantity is available within the quota. Further, certificates of origin are requested to avoid circumvention of quotas which is to the detriment of both the Community and the partner country. In cases of suspected circumvention of quotas, investigations may be launched by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF). If circumvention is proved, adjustment of quotas is sought to redress the situation.

By Council Regulation (EC) No 1383/2003 of 22 July 2003 (1), the Community enhanced its customs actions in the field of goods suspected of infringing certain intellectual property rights and the measures to be taken against goods found to have infringed such rights.

The issue of external border controls is extremely important for the Commission and has led to the recent Communication on The role of customs in the integrated management of external borders' (2). This outlines the strategy and approach taken and includes various recommendations to improve customs controls by Member States. In relation to the specific issue of counterfeit products, a number of activities have been undertaken. A new customs law (Regulation (EC) No 1383/2003 of 22 July 2003) will lead to strengthened customs controls, in particular in the field of the intellectual property rights. Through the ‘Customs 2007’ programme, an enhanced co-operation with both new Member States and enterprises concerned by counterfeiting and piracy is set up.

In trade policy, the Community is opposed to any sanctions-based approaches and initiatives to use labour rights for protectionist purposes. Accordingly, the Community promotes the effective application of core labour standards through positive instruments and an incentive-based approach. Examples of this are the Community's Generalised System of Preferences (GSP) that allows beneficiary countries to receive additional preferences if they adhere to the International Labour Organisation (ILO) standards and the Cotonou Agreement between the Community, its Member States and the African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) states, which includes a specific provision on trade and labour standards.

---

(1)  OJ L 196, 2.8.2003.

(2)  COM(2003) 452 final.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/637 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/637

---

(2004/C 88 E/0654)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3220/03

by Christopher Heaton-Harris (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(31 October 2003)

Subject:   Financial Regulations and DG Enlargement

Under the new Commission Financial Regulations there is a time limit on payments of 45 days ‘from the date when an admissible payment request is registered’.

Could the Commission give details of when this requirement has not been met by DG Enlargement? Has any audit been carried out in this DG since the new Financial Regulations came into force on 1 January 2003? If so, would the Commission give details of the reports with regard to the time scale of payments made? What are the procedures in place in DG Enlargement to ensure that payments are made within the limit of 45 days?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(18 December 2003)

The Honourable Member raises the issue of the application of the new Financial Regulation with regard to the provisions on time limits of payments and on audit within different Commission services. The Honourable Member will of course be aware that the rules on payment deadlines apply only to legal commitments of the Commission signed after 1 January 2003. Under the old Financial Regulation, applicable until then, there were no specific provisions regarding the time limit within which to make payments.

Currently, the rules on payment deadlines are laid down in Article 106 of the Implementing Rules of the Financial Regulation (1). The general rule is 45 days from the date on which an admissible payment request is registered, or 30 days in respect of payments relating to service or supply contracts.

Further rules are laid down in Article 106 (3) for payments related to a contract or a grant agreement under which the Commission has first to approve a report before it can make a payment. The deadline for payment in such cases does not begin to run until the report has been approved. For technical services contracts which are particularly complex, up to 60 days may be allowed for approving the report.

In accordance with Article 106(4) of the Implementing Rules, a decision to suspend the deadline for payment can be taken when the supporting documents which are produced do not justify the payment request or when the Commission has doubts about the eligibility of the payment request. In such cases the clock does not start ticking again until the properly formulated payment request is registered. The Commission believes that this provision is essential to ensure that ineligible payments are avoided and to guarantee sound financial management.

The Commission's Directorate General Enlargement does its utmost to make payments within the shortest possible time period and in accordance with the obligations of the new Financial Regulation, within the constraints arising from human resource allocation. Clear guidelines have been issued to officials at every level emphasising the importance of paying promptly and in any case within the deadlines established by the Financial Regulation. Management attention has been focussed on this issue and there is an enhanced follow-up procedure in place to ensure that payments are made as quickly as possible without prejudice to sound financial management. The figures on time limits relating to payments made by the Directorate General Enlargement will be sent to the Honourable Member directly.

---

(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.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/638 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/638

---

(2004/C 88 E/0655)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3221/03

by Christopher Heaton-Harris (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(31 October 2003)

Subject:   Financial Regulations and DG Development and Humanitarian Aid

Under the new Commission Financial Regulations there is a time limit on payments of 45 days ‘from the date when an admissible payment request is registered’.

Could the Commission give details of when this requirement has not been met by DG Development and Humanitarian Aid? Has any audit been carried out in this DG since the new Financial Regulations came into force on 1 January 2003? If so, would the Commission give details of the reports with regard to the time scale of payments made? What are the procedures in place in DG Development and Humanitarian Aid to ensure that payments are made within the limit of 45 days?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(17 February 2004)

Currently, the rules on payment deadlines are laid down in Article 106 of the Implementing Rules of the Financial Regulation (1). The general rule is 45 days from the date on which an admissible payment request is registered; or 30 days for payments relating to service or supply contracts, except where the contract provides otherwise.

In accordance with Article 106 (4) of the Implementing Rules, a decision to suspend the deadline for payment can be taken when the supporting documents which are produced do not justify the payment request or when the Commission has doubts about the eligibility of the payment request. In those situations, the payment period will begin to run again when a properly formulated payment request is registered. The Commission believes that this provision is essential to ensure that ineligible payments are avoided and to guarantee sound financial management.

Directorate General (DG) Development (DEV) makes every effort to process payments, following the rules established in the new Financial Regulation, within the shortest possible time period. Guidelines, establishing a timetable of maximum delays at each level of the internal financial circuit, have been sent to all operational units concerning the respect of payment delays. A financial indicator for payments, taking data from the Commission accounting system, has been used to monitor payment delays. The average payment delay for DG DEV (delay between the date of registry of the invoice and the bank value date) for the year 2003 is 44 days for the A budget lines (administrative expenditure) and 22 days for the Β budget lines (operational expenditure). Taking into account both types of budget lines, the average payment delay for DG DEV for the year 2003 is 32,13 days. Payments made by DG Administration and Personnel (ADMIN) for two A lines (missions; meetings with experts) are not included.

The only report produced by DG DEV concerning the time scale of payments made in 2003 is the ‘Reporting on financial indicators’ produced for Management information purposes. The report on financial indicators provides an important feedback on financial performance to Management, to the Authorising Officers by Sub-Delegation (AOSDs) and to the Financial Cell of the DG.

---

(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.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/639 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/639

---

(2004/C 88 E/0656)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3257/03

by Margrietus van den Berg (PSE) to the Commission

(3 November 2003)

Subject:   VAT — recycling firms

One of the main tasks of recycling firms is to identify recycling possibilities and put them into practice. They do this by collecting, selecting, repairing and remarketing end-of-life products. In Belgium the recycling industry is allowed some leeway with the 6 % VAT rate on the basis of social arguments. Repeated attempts have been made to enable the recycling industry in the Netherlands to apply a VAT rate of less than 6 % on the basis of social and environmental arguments, but so far without success. In the meantime the Commission has presented communication (1) on integrated product policy to Parliament and the Council. This makes many references to granting tax concessions to environmentally friendly projects. However, the recycling industry is not specifically mentioned.

| 1. | Is the Commission in dialogue with the European organisation representing recycling firms (RREUSE) on this subject? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is the Commission in dialogue with the European organisation representing recycling firms (RREUSE) on this subject?

| 2. | If so, what is the outcome of the dialogue in concrete terms? If not, why is such a dialogue not taking place? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If so, what is the outcome of the dialogue in concrete terms? If not, why is such a dialogue not taking place?

| 3. | Does the Commission not share the view that the recycling industry makes a valuable contribution to a sustainable society? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Does the Commission not share the view that the recycling industry makes a valuable contribution to a sustainable society?

| 4. | How does the Commission intend to involve the recycling industry in integrated product policy? |
| --- | --- |

4.

How does the Commission intend to involve the recycling industry in integrated product policy?

| 5. | Does the Commission not share the view that the recycling industry has a claim, on the basis of social and environmental arguments, to tax advantages, i.e. to a VAT rate of less than 6 %? |
| --- | --- |

5.

Does the Commission not share the view that the recycling industry has a claim, on the basis of social and environmental arguments, to tax advantages, i.e. to a VAT rate of less than 6 %?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(19 December 2003)

The Commission is currently concluding its stakeholder consultation regarding the Thematic Strategy on the Prevention and Recycling of Waste. In this context it has established contacts with, among many other stakeholders, Rreuse, mainly on the issues of repair and reuse of products and equipment.

The consultation period on the Thematic Strategy on the Prevention and Recycling of Waste (2) has just ended, on 30 November 2003. Economic instruments are among the topics addressed in the Communication. However, no concrete conclusions on the contributions of individual stakeholders have been reached yet.

As stated in its Communication, the Commission appreciates the valuable contribution which the recycling industry makes to sustainable development. In fact the Communication addresses a large number of recycling issues which potentially play key roles in the overall concept for the sustainable management of resources.

Integrated Product Policy (IPP) addresses the environmental performance of products over their entire life cycle. Recycling and reuse are therefore genuine concerns of IPP. Technologies and procedures used in recycling operations can help to avoid a negative environmental impact at the end of a product's life, save energy and resources, and may contribute to a more ecologically friendly product design.

As announced in its Communication on VAT strategy adopted in 2000 (3), on 23 July 2003 the Commission adopted a proposal for a directive on reviewing and rationalising the rules and derogations applying to reduced rates of VAT (4). Its main objective was to improve the internal market, in particular by simplifying VAT and applying it in a more uniform manner.

The proposal does not include any specific provision relating to the recycling industry: there are already measures favourable to this sector in the sixth VAT Directive (5).

Firstly, the recycling industry is in most cases covered by the special arrangements applicable to second-hand goods, works of art, collectors' items and antiques introduced by Article 26a of the sixth Directive. This means that sales of second-hand goods by recyclers, who are classified as taxable dealers, are taxed only on the profit margin made. The profit margin is equal to the difference between the selling price charged by the taxable dealer for the goods and the purchase price.

Secondly, under Annex H, category 14, of the sixth Directive, Member States may apply a reduced rate of VAT (minimum 5 % ) to the ‘supply of goods and services by organisations recognised as charities by Member States and engaged in welfare or social security work, insofar as these supplies are not exempt under Article 13’. This means, for example, that a Member State could apply a reduced rate of VAT to the resale of recovered goods by organisations recognised as charities.

The general rule in relation to rates of VAT, however, is that the standard rate applies. Member States have the option of applying a reduced rate which may explain why some have a reduced rate in this respect and others do not.

To conclude, there appears to be no need for further special measures to reduce the rate of VAT in this sector.

---

(1)  COM(2003) 302.

(2)  COM(2003) 301 final.

(3)  COM(2000) 348 final.

(4)  COM(2003) 397 final.

(5)  Sixth Council Directive 77/388/CEE of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes, OJ L 145, 13.6.1977.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/641 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/641

---

(2004/C 88 E/0657)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3305/03

by Claude Moraes (PSE) to the Commission

(10 November 2003)

Subject:   Human rights in Tunisia

Article 2 of an Association Agreement with Tunisia states that ‘Relations between parties, as well the Agreement itself, shall be based on respect for human rights and democratic principles which guide their domestic and international policies and constitute an essential element of the Agreement.’ Yet despite this, and President Zine El Ben Ali's commitment to improve their human rights record, these rights are continually abused.

Could the Commission please explain what measures, if any, are in place to ensure that such pledges to respect human rights are actually being enforced by authorities in Tunisia?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(12 December 2003)

The Union-Tunisia Association agreement contains an article outlining what the parties consider as the essential values and principles underpinning their association.

The Association agreement provide for the necessary structures to discuss all aspects of the agreement, namely the Association Council (ministerial), the Association Committee (senior officials) and, since September 2003, a series of sector specific sub-committees (experts). All of these fora are competent to deal with issues concerning human rights and democracy in the appropriate way.

In addition, the recent Association Council held on 30 September 2003 agreed that ‘should the parties so decide ... these issues may also be discussed by a specific working party or sub-committee of the Association Committee’. Human rights issues were also discussed during the political dialogue that took place with Tunisia on 29 September 2003 in the margins of the Association Council.

In this context the Union recalled the ‘importance it attaches to pursuing and deepening discussions on human rights and democratisation with Tunisia in a structured way and in view of reaching points of common understanding on these issues’ (Union Declaration at the 4th Association Council). Such specific sub-committees are already being established with Morocco and Jordan. Such consultations are in addition to the traditional diplomatic instruments such as demarches and declarations made by the Union with the aim of promoting human rights objectives.

The actual impact of these consultations obviously depends on the strength with which they are delivered (the Commission always acts on these issues in tight coordination with the Member States) and the way in which they are received by the Partner country. It is believed that both the Commission's initiatives on a Wider Europe neighbourhood policy and its Communication on reinforcing human rights in the Mediterranean (1) will be useful incentives for our partners to more action behind their formal commitments.

In addition, the Commission is setting up co-operation programmes funded by MEDA in support of the Tunisian Media (training of journalists) and modernisation of the judiciary. Non-governmental organisations working to advance human rights in Tunisia have access to funding under the European Initiative for Democracy and Human Rights 2002-2004, which has Tunisia as one of its ‘focus countries’ for this period.

---

(1)  COM(2003) 294 final.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/642 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/642

---

(2004/C 88 E/0658)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3310/03

by Philip Claeys (NI) to the Commission

(10 November 2003)

Subject:   Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan oil pipeline; violations of the ‘acquis communautaire’ by Turkey

In connection with the construction of an oil pipeline between Baku (Azerbaijan) via Tbilisi (Georgia) to Ceyhan (Turkey), Turkey has allegedly violated a number of provisions concerning the environment and human rights which it would have had to comply with if European law applied to Turkey. There have not been any serious environmental impact assessments, property has been expropriated unlawfully, etc. Various NGOs have already protested about this.

The State of Turkey is one of the main partners in the consortium which intends to construct the pipeline. However, as it is also an applicant country, it may reasonably be expected to abide by the Copenhagen criteria, including therefore the ‘acquis communautaire’. The above-mentioned project makes it clear that it is no means doing so.

To what extent is the Commission monitoring developments with regard to the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline? Has it contacted the Turkish authorities on the subject? If so, what was the outcome of the discussions?

Turkey receives pre-accession aid from the European Union. Will the Commission consider freezing this aid (or perhaps only part of it) if Turkey continues to disregard the Copenhagen criteria? Is there a specific timetable for this?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(5 December 2003)

In its regular report on Turkey's progress towards accession published on 5 November 2003, the Commission sets out its assessment of developments over the last year and the overall situation with regard to human rights and the protection of minorities.

As regards the specific questions raised by the Honourable Member concerning the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan oil pipeline project, any potential violations as regards human rights arising from the implementation of the pipeline project would have to be considered in the context of the Copenhagen political criteria.

Turkey is at this stage not bound by the environmental ‘acquis’, but the Commission is aware that environmental impact assessments have been carried out for this project, for example, to meet the conditions of international lending organisations.

The Commission continues to observe the developments with regard to this project.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/642 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/642

---

(2004/C 88 E/0659)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3331/03

by Anne Van Lancker (PSE) to the Commission

(5 November 2003)

Subject:   Defunding HIV/AIDS prevention programmes for refugees

On 27 August 2003, the US State Department announced that it would withhold funding for an HIV/AIDS prevention programme for refugees run by the RHR Consortium. (The members of the Consortium are the following: American Refugee Committee (ARC), CARE, Columbia University Heilbrunn Center for Population and Family Health, International Rescue Committee (IRC), JSI Research and Training Institute (JSI R&T), Marie Stopes International (MSI) and Women's Commission for Refugee Women and Children (WCRWC).

Subsequently, on 29 August 2003, President Bush issued a Memorandum extending the ‘Mexico City Policy’, which had previously only applied to programmes administered by the US Agency for International Development (USAID), to all voluntary population planning funds administered by the State Department. The State Department is still assessing which other programmes and organisations could be affected by this expansion of the US policy.

In view of this latest development, would the Commission be prepared once again to make funds available to minimise the damage caused to HIV prevention programmes for refugees?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(11 December 2003)

The Commission is concerned about decisions taken by the American administration to implement the so-called Mexico City Policy. This policy seriously undermines efforts by various organisations to address effectively the threat posed by the human immunodeficiency virus/Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (HIV/AIDS) to the health and life of people living in developing countries and to development overall. The Commission is very active in supporting prevention of HIV/AIDS in accordance with the framework of its Programme for Action on communicable diseases, targeting HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria, including, inter alia, substantial donations to the Global Fund (GFATM).

To help to address the lack of funding for certain key organisations, due to decisions taken by the United States, the Commission has decided to support the United Nations Fund for Population Activities (UNFPA) through additional funding. No specific funds have been allocated to address in particular HIV/AIDS among refugees. However, within the health programmes in refugee camps, the Commission funds a variety of activities. The activities funded in a specific country take into account the host country context, the dialogue with the national authorities, and the situation of the refugees vis à vis the local population to avoid discrepancies between the living conditions of the two groups.

The Commission's Humanitarian Office (ECHO), has in that perspective funded HIV/AIDS awareness raising activities including ‘theatre plays’ about HIV/AIDS issues, and standardised training material for training of local staff in refugee camps, transfer centres and for refugees going back to their country of origin. Also, the Commission has supported measures to ensure safe blood transfusion and application of universal precautions, condom distribution and tracing of sexually transmitted infections (STI). Ill refugees visiting the health centres in the camps are offered testing and counselling, but for care and treatment they are referred to national hospitals.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/643 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/643

---

(2004/C 88 E/0660)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3357/03

by Stavros Xarchakos (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(13 November 2003)

Subject:   Affront to the church of Ayia Sofia in Istanbul

The church of Ayia Sofia in Istanbul (which forms part of the world cultural heritage and stands as the ultimate symbol of Christianity, regardless of creed) is yet again the target of the Turkish authorities' destructive and invidious policies. In the last few days, the international press has reported that an utterly tasteless, plastic ‘greenhouse’ has been set up inside the church(!) exhibiting ‘works of art’ made of ... lettuce(!) by some Asiatic artist or other. This entire ‘creation’ is set off by the addition of television monitors placed at various points within the church which broadcast Muslim religious services at high volume. The contempt shown by the Turkish authorities towards a church whose history goes back several centuries and which stands as the symbol of a great Christian empire, the Byzantine, which flourished for more than 1000 years, is yet another indication of how Turkey (a candidate for accession to the EU) interprets respect for the symbols of other religions.

What action can the Commission take as a matter of urgency to place this symbolic Christian church under the protection of a European organisation (with the possible participation of the Commission's Directorate-General for Education and Culture) to guard it against the kind of desecration and damage described above?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(22 December 2003)

In its reply to written questions E-2962/03 by Mr Alavanos (1) and E-2995/03 by Ms Kratsa-Tsagaropouiou (2), the Commission has commented on concerns similar to those expressed by the Honourable Member. The Commission monitors the progress achieved by Turkey in adopting the relevant ‘acquis’ in the area of culture, as part of Turkey's preparations for membership. Safeguarding the national heritage is not part of Community competence.

As regards any possible action, 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.

---

(1)  OJ C 78 E, 27.3.2004, p. 771.

(2)  See page 125.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/644 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/644

---

(2004/C 88 E/0661)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3366/03

by Avril Doyle (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(14 November 2003)

Subject:   Human rights situation in Chechnya

Can the Commission outline what action has been taken by the European Union to highlight the human rights violations and the breaches of international humanitarian law in Chechnya, with particular reference to the cases of Said-Khusein Imakaev and his father Said Khusein.

Can the Commission also indicate whether these issues will be discussed at the imminent EU-Russian Summit to be held in Rome on 6 November and give a brief report on the outcome of this meeting, with particular reference to Chechnya.

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(18 December 2003)

The Commission is closely following 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 is aware of, and concerned about, disturbing reports of human rights violations in Chechnya. The Commission is also aware of the case to which reference is made, which has been presented to the European Court of Human Rights. Regrettably, it is not isolated: a total of 2 343 people have disappeared since August 1999, according to data from the office of Mr Sultygov, the Presidential Representative for Human Rights in Chechnya. Human Rights organisations report that several hundred people have gone missing in Chechnya (many of them in forced disappearances) in 2003.

The Commission used the occasion of the European Council on 6 November 2003 in Rome to express its concern at reports of ongoing human rights abuses. The Commission continues to stress the need to end the culture of impunity for perpetrators of human rights abuses on all sides of the conflict.

The Commission also expressed its concern at the closure of camps for internally displaced persons in Ingushetia. The Commission considers it of the utmost importance that internally displaced persons are not left with no option but to return to Chechnya. This is particularly so, in view of the fact that the security situation in Chechnya has, if anything, deteriorated since the constitutional referendum and Presidential elections, and in view of the poor humanitarian situation. On this latter point, the Commission regrets that Russia has not yet taken concrete measures to facilitate the provision of humanitarian aid — by providing non-governmental organisations (NGOs) with access to United Nations Very High Frequency (UNVHF) communications, by ensuring security for aid workers (the case of kidnapped humanitarian aid worker Arjan Erkel was specifically raised) and by allowing the Humanitarian Aid Office (ECHO) to open an office in Nazran, Ingushetia — despite repeated requests to do so.

The Commission will continue to use relevant Union/Russia political dialogue meetings to call on the Russian authorities to improve the situation in the north Caucasus.

The Commission provides support to NGOs in the region via the European Initiative for Democracy and Human Rights, with the aim of supporting the development of a functioning civil society. A number of training programmes have also been implemented in cooperation with the Council of Europe.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/645 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/645

---

(2004/C 88 E/0662)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3377/03

by Elisabeth Schroedter (Verts/ALE) and Inger Schörling (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(14 November 2003)

Subject:   Oil extraction by Russia in the Baltic Sea, near the Curonian Spit (D6 oil deposit)

The Russian oil company LUKoil will begin oil extraction from the D6 oil deposit before the end of 2003. D6 is located only 22 km from the Russian coast and 6 km from the Lithuanian border. Oil spills would endanger the Curonian Spit in Russia and Lithuania, and possibly the Finnish and Swedish coast as well. The Curonian Spit is a World Heritage site, a national park and will be part of Natura 2000 after Lithuanian accession. It is already receiving LIFE funding. The area is known for its sensitive environment. Tourism, dependent on clean beaches, represents a major economic factor in the area. A transparent, international EIA has not been conducted by the Russian authorities. The second Northern Dimension Action Plan approved in mid-October calls for cooperation with Russia in order to comply with the Espoo Convention and implement cross-border cooperation on environmental issues.

| 1. | Does the Commission believe the project to be environmentally safe?






  (a) | If so, how can the Commission explain the fact that an international EIA, involving Lithuania, has not been conducted and that the national EIA has been highly secretive? |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

Does the Commission believe the project to be environmentally safe?

(a)

If so, how can the Commission explain the fact that an international EIA, involving Lithuania, has not been conducted and that the national EIA has been highly secretive?

| (b) | If not, will the Commission assume its responsibility for an appropriate impact assessment for a project affecting a Natura 2000 area by supporting the Unesco World Heritage Committee in insisting on an international, transparent EIA with international experts, as prescribed by the Espoo and Helsinki Conventions? |
| --- | --- |

(b)

If not, will the Commission assume its responsibility for an appropriate impact assessment for a project affecting a Natura 2000 area by supporting the Unesco World Heritage Committee in insisting on an international, transparent EIA with international experts, as prescribed by the Espoo and Helsinki Conventions?

| 2. | Is the Commission using all available channels to make this demand, such as Helcom and the CBSS as well as the different fora for cooperation with Russia established under the PCA, e.g. the Sub-Committee on Energy, Environment and Nuclear Safety? How will the Commission take the outstanding opportunity that the D6 project provides to activate the second Northern Dimension Action Plan? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Is the Commission using all available channels to make this demand, such as Helcom and the CBSS as well as the different fora for cooperation with Russia established under the PCA, e.g. the Sub-Committee on Energy, Environment and Nuclear Safety? How will the Commission take the outstanding opportunity that the D6 project provides to activate the second Northern Dimension Action Plan?

| 3. | Is the Commission aware that a loan granted to LUKoil by the EBRD in 2000 has been used to resume the D6 project without any conditions regarding the application of the Espoo and Helsinki Conventions requiring an international EIA? What action has the Commission taken to stop funding of LUKoil until international law is applied? Is the Commission aware that the EU could stop this funding using its majority on the Board of Directors of the EBRD? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Is the Commission aware that a loan granted to LUKoil by the EBRD in 2000 has been used to resume the D6 project without any conditions regarding the application of the Espoo and Helsinki Conventions requiring an international EIA? What action has the Commission taken to stop funding of LUKoil until international law is applied? Is the Commission aware that the EU could stop this funding using its majority on the Board of Directors of the EBRD?

| 4. | Is the EU planning to import oil produced from the D6 oil platform? |
| --- | --- |

4.

Is the EU planning to import oil produced from the D6 oil platform?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(19 December 2003)

| 1. | The Commission shares the Honourable Members' concerns about Russia's plan to start prospecting for oil in the sensitive Baltic Sea environment of the Curonian Spit without having conducted an Environmental Impact Assesment (EIA) that meets high international standards. The Commission is of the opinion that only an EIA could provide adequate detailed data concerning the possible impact on current and future Member States and environmental safety. Therefore, the Commission will combine its efforts with current and future Member States in attempting to convince the Russian Federation that, for the sake of the safety of all Baltic Sea States including Russia, a transparent EIA meeting high international standards should be conducted and all relevant precautionary emergency measures should be taken.
  Moreover, in a report to both Lithuanian and Russian specialists on 5 November 2003, experts from the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (Unesco) World Heritage Center recommended that, before Russia starts drilling and pumping oil on the Curonian spit, it should implement the following prerequisite steps: an environmental impact and operational risks study, a bipartite emergency liquidation plan and a monitoring system.
  The Commission also notes that Russia is not yet a Party to the United Nations/Economic Commission for Europe (UN/ECE) Espoo Convention concerning trans-boundary impacts on environment. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The Commission shares the Honourable Members' concerns about Russia's plan to start prospecting for oil in the sensitive Baltic Sea environment of the Curonian Spit without having conducted an Environmental Impact Assesment (EIA) that meets high international standards. The Commission is of the opinion that only an EIA could provide adequate detailed data concerning the possible impact on current and future Member States and environmental safety. Therefore, the Commission will combine its efforts with current and future Member States in attempting to convince the Russian Federation that, for the sake of the safety of all Baltic Sea States including Russia, a transparent EIA meeting high international standards should be conducted and all relevant precautionary emergency measures should be taken.

Moreover, in a report to both Lithuanian and Russian specialists on 5 November 2003, experts from the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (Unesco) World Heritage Center recommended that, before Russia starts drilling and pumping oil on the Curonian spit, it should implement the following prerequisite steps: an environmental impact and operational risks study, a bipartite emergency liquidation plan and a monitoring system.

The Commission also notes that Russia is not yet a Party to the United Nations/Economic Commission for Europe (UN/ECE) Espoo Convention concerning trans-boundary impacts on environment.

| 2. | The issue has been discussed within the framework of the Helsinki Commission (Helcom). All Baltic Sea States and the Community, represented by the Commission, are Contracting Parties to the Helsinki Convention (1). Steps have been taken to ensure an appropriate exchange of information, and the delegation of the Russian Federation has submitted details of their plans that were circulated to all Helcom Heads of Delegation in July 2003. In addition, there are ongoing contacts within a joint Russian-Lithuanian Commission.
  The Commission will press for an early meeting of the sub-committee on environment under the Union-Russia Partnership and Co-operation Agreement in order, inter alia, to discuss this matter further.
  The Northern Dimension Action Plan provides an operational framework setting out strategic objectives. One of the priority objectives is to work on the full respect of international conventions on environment. The Action Plan states that all partners should enhance their commitment to the implementation of the Helcom Copenhagen Declaration on maritime safety. However, since the Northern Dimension is, from a legal standpoint, a non-binding initiative its success depends on the active and willing participation of all actors involved. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The issue has been discussed within the framework of the Helsinki Commission (Helcom). All Baltic Sea States and the Community, represented by the Commission, are Contracting Parties to the Helsinki Convention (1). Steps have been taken to ensure an appropriate exchange of information, and the delegation of the Russian Federation has submitted details of their plans that were circulated to all Helcom Heads of Delegation in July 2003. In addition, there are ongoing contacts within a joint Russian-Lithuanian Commission.

The Commission will press for an early meeting of the sub-committee on environment under the Union-Russia Partnership and Co-operation Agreement in order, inter alia, to discuss this matter further.

The Northern Dimension Action Plan provides an operational framework setting out strategic objectives. One of the priority objectives is to work on the full respect of international conventions on environment. The Action Plan states that all partners should enhance their commitment to the implementation of the Helcom Copenhagen Declaration on maritime safety. However, since the Northern Dimension is, from a legal standpoint, a non-binding initiative its success depends on the active and willing participation of all actors involved.

| 3. | The European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) loan to LUKoil in 2000 was for medium-term working capital and, as far as the Commission knows, there is no connection between this and the D6/Curonian spit project (a project which requires a different type of long-term financing). Moreover, the EBRD reports that the 2000 loan represented a minimal part of LUKOil's total indebtedness at that time. The 2000 loan is now in the repayment phase: USD 62,5 million has been repaid on time, and the whole facility is to be fully repaid by mid/end of 2004. There are no firm new LUKoil projects in the Bank's pipeline and more specifically, no projects involving oil field developments.
  The Commission remains committed to the application by the EBRD of the highest environmental standards for its investment projects. In this context, it is important to note that EBRD involvement has in the past improved the environmental practices of the companies benefiting from the Bank's financing, including LUKoil. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) loan to LUKoil in 2000 was for medium-term working capital and, as far as the Commission knows, there is no connection between this and the D6/Curonian spit project (a project which requires a different type of long-term financing). Moreover, the EBRD reports that the 2000 loan represented a minimal part of LUKOil's total indebtedness at that time. The 2000 loan is now in the repayment phase: USD 62,5 million has been repaid on time, and the whole facility is to be fully repaid by mid/end of 2004. There are no firm new LUKoil projects in the Bank's pipeline and more specifically, no projects involving oil field developments.

The Commission remains committed to the application by the EBRD of the highest environmental standards for its investment projects. In this context, it is important to note that EBRD involvement has in the past improved the environmental practices of the companies benefiting from the Bank's financing, including LUKoil.

| 4. | In the Union, the choice of crude supply sources is made autonomously and independently by each refining or purchasing company. |
| --- | --- |

4.

In the Union, the choice of crude supply sources is made autonomously and independently by each refining or purchasing company.

---

(1)  Relevant Helcom Recommendations in this respect are in particular Recommendation 18/2 (of 12 March 1997) on offshore activities and Recommendation 19/17 (of 24 March 1998) on Measures in order to combat pollution from offshore units. Following a request made by the delegation of Lithuania, a recent meeting of Helcom Heads of Delegation (Helsinki, 27/28 October 2003) agreed to review these recommendations in cooperation with relevant experts from the OSPAR Commission and the International Association of Oil and Gas Producers (OGP).

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/647 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/647

---

(2004/C 88 E/0663)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3380/03

by Christos Zacharakis (PPE-DE) and Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(14 November 2003)

Subject:   Representations to the Egyptian authorities to implement the principles of democracy and the protection of human rights

In 1989 the Egyptian Government arrested in Suez and sentenced to death three Greek seamen from the ‘Thanassis’ on charges of smuggling, even though their guilt was never proven. After pressure from prominent European personalities, these sentences were later commuted to life imprisonment.

This affair received widespread media coverage, and many Greek radio and television programmes were broadcast on the subject. A book was also published describing the unwarranted sentences handed down on them and the wretched conditions of detention in Egyptian prisons. Two of the three seamen have already died in Egyptian prisons, while the third, Konstantinos Kastanias, is seriously ill and is slowly dying in al-Qanatir prison.

The European Parliament has repeatedly expressed the need to strengthen democracy in Egypt (Resolutions P5_TA(2002)0378, P5_TA(2002)0410) and has referred to the specific case of the wretched conditions of detention of Konstantinos Kastanias, calling on the Egyptian authorities to permit him to be transferred to Greece on humanitarian grounds (Resolution P5_TA-PROV(2003)0192, 10.4.2003). It will also be recalled that Article 2 of the Cooperation Agreement between Egypt and the European Union calls for respect for human rights and the principles of democracy and that Commissioner Chris Patten made a statement before the plenary of the European Parliament on 5 September 2002 urging Egypt to adopt the highest judicial and democratic standards if is to achieve its developmental and political ambitions. Particularly in view of its cooperation with Egypt and the above statement, will the Commission say what immediate measures it intends to take to prevail upon Egypt to heed the European Parliament's request and allow Konstantinos Kastanias who is dying to be transferred to Greece, in accordance with the above European Parliament Resolution P5_TA-prov(2003)0192 of 10.4.2003?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(11 December 2003)

The Commission is aware of the detention of Mr Konstantinos Kastanias in an Egyptian prison for drug trafficking and his sentence to death (subsequently commuted to life imprisonment). The Commission is aware that on humanitarian grounds, the Egyptian authorities in 1996 repatriated Mr Nikos Zagelidis, one of two other persons charged with the same sentence.

The Commission is following this case and has been in contact with the Greek and the Egyptian authorities.

The Commission is prepared to support any further diplomatic effort by Greece or by the Union Presidency for the transfer on humanitarian grounds of Mr Kastanias to Greece by virtue of the existing bilateral agreement on the exchange of detainees.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/648 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/648

---

(2004/C 88 E/0664)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3391/03

by Luigi Vinci (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(10 November 2003)

Subject:   Negotiations between Turkey and the Commission on the case against Leyla Zana

A recent article by the Brussels correspondent of the Turkish daily newspaper Hurriyet mentions negotiations between Turkey and the European Commission based on the Turkish proposal for a favourable judgment in the case against Leyla Zana in exchange for the inclusion of KADEK on Europe's list of terrorist organisations.

Can the Commission either confirm this report or officially deny it?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(5 December 2003)

The Commission would like to inform the Honourable Member that the article referred to has no basis in fact. There are no negotiations between the Commission and the Turkish Government on the subjects mentioned in the question.

The Commission provided its assessment of the ongoing re-trial in the Sadak, Zana, Dicle and Dogan case in its 2003 Regular Report, which was published on 5 November 2003 (1), and will continue to monitor this closely.

---

(1)  COM(2003) 676 final.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/648 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/648

---

(2004/C 88 E/0665)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3396/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(17 November 2003)

Subject:   Failure to pay compensation to Italian exiles in former Yugoslavia

The cultural association ‘Movimento nazionale Istria Fiume Dalmazia’ has for many years now been campaigning for recognition of the rights of the 350 000 Italian exiles who were obliged to leave Yugoslavia for historical reasons that are sufficiently well known.

Two agreements were concluded, at Osimo in 1975 and Rome in 1983, recognising the right to fair compensation of the Italian exiles who had been obliged to abandon their entire property. However, with the break-up of Yugoslavia, the successor states, Slovenia and Croatia, have failed to pay the agreed instalments. According to a recent study by the technical commission set up by Trieste province in cooperation with Rome province and the Trieste city council, the 1983 agreements need to be revised in order to put an end to the exclusion of foreign citizens under the ‘denationalisation’ laws and remove the bureaucratic obstacles to the purchase of property in Slovenia.

Can the Commission state:

| 1. | whether it believes the above-mentioned agreements to be contrary to Articles 44(2)(e), 49 and 56 of the EC Treaty; |
| --- | --- |

1.

whether it believes the above-mentioned agreements to be contrary to Articles 44(2)(e), 49 and 56 of the EC Treaty;

| 2. | whether it believes those agreements to be contrary to Article 6 of the Treaty on European Union, which expressly refers to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, and, in particular, to Article 14 of that Convention; |
| --- | --- |

2.

whether it believes those agreements to be contrary to Article 6 of the Treaty on European Union, which expressly refers to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, and, in particular, to Article 14 of that Convention;

| 3. | whether it believes those agreements to be contrary to Articles 17 and 19 of the European Charter of Fundamental Rights. |
| --- | --- |

3.

whether it believes those agreements to be contrary to Articles 17 and 19 of the European Charter of Fundamental Rights.

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(9 January 2004)

The agreements concluded between Italy and Yugoslavia in 1975 and 1983 are bilateral agreements between two sovereign states concerning property ownership issues. Slovenia has informed the Commission that — as one of the successor states of Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (SFRY) — it has taken over obligations as concerns compensations to be paid under the agreement.

The EC Treaty and the Treaty on the European Union do not prejudice systems of property ownership in the Member States — hence property ownership issues are a matter of national legislation. Hence the principles of the Treaties cannot be applied to property ownership matters.

As concerns the provisions of the European Charter of Fundamental Rights, the Charter concerns Union institutions and Member States only when they implement Union legislation. As property ownership regimes are not regulated by Union law, the Charter is not applicable in this area.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/649 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/649

---

(2004/C 88 E/0666)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3401/03

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(11 November 2003)

Subject:   The Loizidou case

The length of time which has elapsed since the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) passed judgment in the above case, during which Turkey has failed to comply with the Court's ruling, is an affront to the authority of the Court.

Turkey has now set two main conditions for implementing the ruling, viz.

| — | that the Loizidou case does not set a precedent for other cases already pending in the ECHR and that those cases should first go before the Compensation Committee recently set up by the illegal Denktash regime, and |
| --- | --- |

—

that the Loizidou case does not set a precedent for other cases already pending in the ECHR and that those cases should first go before the Compensation Committee recently set up by the illegal Denktash regime, and

| — | that the part of the judgment ruling that Turkey allow Ms Loizidou to enjoy her property in peace should not be implemented and that only compensation should be paid. |
| --- | --- |

—

that the part of the judgment ruling that Turkey allow Ms Loizidou to enjoy her property in peace should not be implemented and that only compensation should be paid.

In view of the fact that provision is made under the terms of the enhanced political dialogue between the EU and Turkey for respect for the judgments of the ECHR and that implementation of the Court's judgment in the Loizidou case has in effect been pending since 1996, what steps will the Commission take to persuade Turkey to implement the ECHR's judgment without repercussion or unacceptable compromise?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(5 December 2003)

The Commission has been closely following the case of Loizidou against Turkey to which the Honourable Member refers. As the Commission highlighted in its 2003 Regular Report (1), despite Turkey's undertaking in June 2003 to pay by October 2003 the just satisfaction awarded to Mrs Loizidou by the European Court of Human Rights, no payment has yet been made.

Resolution of this matter is clearly a priority of the Council of Europe Minister's Deputies, who have been considering this case frequently in the course of their recent weekly meetings. The Council of Europe has continued to strongly urge Turkey to pay, without condition, the just satisfaction awarded by the Court.

One of the priorities outlined in the Accession Partnership for Turkey is respect for the judgements of the European Court of Human Rights. As such, the Commission will continue to closely monitor those judgements that have not been executed by Turkey, including this case.

---

(1)  COM(2003) 676 final.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/650 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/650

---

(2004/C 88 E/0667)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3467/03

by John Bowis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(21 November 2003)

Subject:   Chad-Cameroon pipeline

Will the Commission give an update on the Chad-Cameroon pipeline project, including benefits that have come to local communities and protection that has been assured for the affected environment? What is the expected programme for oil revenues? What are the health and social impacts on the two countries of increased economic activity associated with the pipeline?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(19 December 2003)

Oil production in Chad began in June 2003 and oil started flowing through the new pipeline in July 2003. On 9 October 2003 the country's president, Idriss Deby formally inaugurated the 1 000 km. long Chad-Cameroon pipeline, in the presence of four other heads of state of the region.

The total cost of extracting the oil from Chad and piping it to Cameroon is estimated at USD 3,7 billion, one of the largest private sector investments in Africa. The European Investment Bank (EIB) participates in the financing with a sum of EUR 144 million, of which EUR 35,7 million for the Government of Cameroon and EUR 20,3 million for Chad from European Development Fund (EDF) risk capital. The project is expected to produce 225 000 barrels of oil a day, and project revenue as a whole will be USD 12 billion. Expected government revenues are USD 1,7 billion for Chad and USD 505 million for Cameroon over the 28-year operating period.

The development rationale for this project is that the project will generate revenue that will allow the governments to invest more in poverty reducing programmes, such as health, education and rural development.

According to the Revenue Management Law, 8 5 % of the revenues over the first ten years of production will be invested in priority social sectors, education, health, social services, and agriculture. These will not substitute the expenditure of the state in these areas, but represent additional resources.

What makes this project an entirely new kind of extractive industry project is in the detail and care with which the revenue management programme is formulated and set up. In fact, the World Bank involvement has supported the development of a sound revenue management programme, triggered the application of the group's strict environmental and social policies, and ensured broad consultations in the two countries and around the world.

As a result, the project will have a minor net effect on the natural and human environments. The pipeline was buried for most of the route, it follows existing infrastructure and complies with World Bank safeguard policies, including those on environmental assessments, natural habitats, indigenous peoples, cultural property, resettlement, and forests. Only a small area of tropical forest has been lost as a result of construction. To compensate for this, two large new national parks have been created in Cameroon. A general plan has been prepared by the oil consortium to deal with possible oil spills. The plan is consistent with international good practice.

An action plan for an intensified IEC (information, education and communication) campaign for local people in the oilfield area has been implemented. Moreover the two governments are implementing complementary programmes to strengthen the capacity of decentralised health services, which include acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS)-related interventions. Qualified non-governmental organisations (NGOs) have been contracted to assist communities along the pipeline route to prepare, submit, and implement community projects in the health and education sector.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/651 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/651

---

(2004/C 88 E/0668)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3676/03

by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(9 December 2003)

Subject:   Petition by CNASTI (Portugal)

At the World Education Forum held in Dakar, the international community agreed on the basic objectives of ensuring that all the world's children have access by 2015 to proper basic education free of charge and eliminating gender inequality in access to education by 2005. During the same year, the same targets were included in the UN's Millennium Development Goals.

In the context of the campaign ‘From exploitation to education’ launched in Portugal by CNASTI (the National Confederation for Action on Child Labour), as the national coordinating organisation for the Global March Against Child Labour, a petition was submitted calling on the Commission, inter alia: to ensure the provision of significantly increased funding for education in the field of international development and cooperation; to give its full support to the Fast Track Initiative for education and expand the programme to all countries offering sound educational programmes; and to exclude education explicitly from the sectors subject to liberalisation under the GATS (General Agreement on Trade in Services) agreement within the WTO.

Can the Commission state what practical action it has already taken on the above demands?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(20 February 2004)

The objectives set in Dakar to achieve ‘Education for All’ (EFA) and the United Nations (UN) Millennium Development Goals in the field of education form the basis of the Community's development policy in the field of education, as laid down in the Commission's Communication of March 2002 (1) on ‘Education and training in the context of the fight against poverty in developing countries’. The Communication also stresses that Community funding for education, in particular primary education, should be increased.

Overall, the Commission has programmed an estimated EUR 1,3 billion to education in developing countries over five years. This figure does not represent the total effort as it does not take into account some EUR 1,7 billion of financing that will go to African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) countries under the 9th European Development Fund (EDF) in the form of macro-economic support linked to social outcomes, in particular education and health.

Since the Community's development cooperation is based on a multi-annual programming, there is only limited leeway for increasing funding for education until the next phase of programming. However, some flexibility exists in ACP States through the recommitment exercise of unspent funds from previous EDFs and through the 2004 Mid-Term Review. Of course, in line with the principle of ownership, recipient countries ultimately decide upon the use of the funds allocated to them.

Against this background, the Commission welcomed the EFA Fast Track Initiative (FTI) as an opportunity to increase support for primary education. The FTI will also be taken into account in the next phase of programming of non-ACP States benefiting from the FTI. Moreover, the Commission has played a successful role in the second pillar on the FTI harmonisation of procedures with the other donors particularly the EU Member States.

Regarding the specific issue of education services and the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS), the Community and its Member States have already taken some commitments within the GATS Uruguay Round regarding privately funded education services. These commitments cover the possibility for foreign providers to have access to a certain extent within the territory of the Union, but they have not impaired in any way the right of the Member States to decide on the most appropriate organisation for the provision of education services. This is in line with the provisions of the GATS which exclude from its scope only those services which are provided under governmental authority, while allowing World Trade Organisation (WTO) Members to retain the necessary flexibility and the right, in the areas falling within its scope, to decide on the most appropriate structure for the organisation of each sector.

---

(1)  COM(2002) 116 final.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/652 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/652

---

(2004/C 88 E/0669)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3857/03

by Raffaele Costa (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(16 December 2003)

Subject:   Development aid programme for India

A series of projects have been financed under the development aid programme for India, which amounted to EUR 84 million in 2001. Would the Commission state the exact number of projects funded and whether, in the case of each project, it checked the successful implementation of the costs involved and the initiatives launched?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(2 February 2004)

The amount referred to by the Honourable Member consists of the total disbursements (EUR 84 million) for India during the year 2001. In comparison, disbursements amounted to over EUR 103 million in 2002 and about the same amount in 2003.

In 2001, the portfolio of the main Community development co-operation activities under implementation in India can be divided into three broad categories:

| — | twelve agricultural and rural development projects implemented by government agencies; |
| --- | --- |

—

twelve agricultural and rural development projects implemented by government agencies;

| — | two sector support programmes (one for education and one for health and family welfare); |
| --- | --- |

—

two sector support programmes (one for education and one for health and family welfare);

| — | four projects implemented by large non-governmental organisations (NGOs) (three on rural development and one on education). |
| --- | --- |

—

four projects implemented by large non-governmental organisations (NGOs) (three on rural development and one on education).

In its most recent report (Special Report No 10/2003 on the ‘Effectiveness of the Commission's management of development assistance to India in targeting the poor and ensuring sustainable benefit’), the Court of Auditors concluded that the Commission's management has been successful in targeting the poor and in addressing sustainability. Moreover, the Commission ensures that all its main projects (over EUR 1 million) are subject to an external monitoring at least once a year.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/653 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/653

---

(2004/C 88 E/0670)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3868/03

by Piia-Noora Kauppi (PPE-DE), Riitta Myller (PSE), Samuli Pohjamo (ELDR) and Ari Vatanen (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(16 December 2003)

Subject:   Taxation temperature of fuel

In Finland, during recent years we have witnessed a continuous debate about the correct interpretation of EU Council Directive 92/81/EEC (1) on the harmonisation of the structures of excise duties on mineral oils. In the prior legislation on fuel taxes, the starting point was taxation based on volume in litres. This meant that fuel was taxed on the basis of the temperature of fuel at the time of loading it into a tank lorry at the terminal. On average, the temperature was + 8 °C.

The new Directive, on the other hand, is based on so-called taxation on normal litres (+ 15 °C). Article 3 (1) of Directive 92/81/EEC of the Council of the EU, translated into Finnish, provides for each Member State to levy a special excise duty on mineral oils, to be calculated per 1,000 litres for the product at 15°C.

According to section 5 of the act on excise duties on liquid fuels (29 December 1994/1472) enacted on the basis of the Directive and currently in force in Finland, excise duty and precautionary stock fee shall be levied on the product at 15 °C. Finland's mean temperature is + 8 °C, not + 15 °C as it is in central and southern Europe. For tax purposes, the difference in temperature is 7 degrees.

Different Nordic countries, i.e. Sweden, Denmark, and Norway, have a different approach in interpreting the said Directive. Denmark was already a member of the EU when taxation was changed so that the tax on fuel was to be levied on the basis of normal litres (+15°). Denmark has construed the new tax directive so that the Danish tax legislation meets the minimum tax level required by the EU Directive. Denmark continues to levy taxes based on volume in litres. On the other hand, Sweden and Finland joined the EU at the same time in 1995. Sweden was aware of how Denmark operated. According to the interpretation complied with in Sweden, a tax can be levied on petrol also based on volume in litres, in other words, based on the true temperature. Norway also levies taxes based on volume in litres.

With reference to what is stated above, we respectfully ask the Commission the following: on the basis of the Directive, can Finland interpret section 5 of the act on excise duties on liquid fuels (29 December 1994/1472) so that the tax on fuel can be levied in Finland based on a temperature of + 8 °C?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(15 January 2004)

The Commission would like to refer to its answer to the written question P-2439/01 (2) by Mr Vatanen.

In its reply the Commission clarified that Article 3 (1) of Council Directive 92/81/EEC of 19 October 1992, on the harmonisation of the structures of excise duties on mineral oils (3), provides for a specific excise duty calculated per 1 000 litres of product at a temperature of 15°C. Directive 92/81/EEC has been repealed as from 1 January 2004 by Council Directive 2003/96/EC of 27 October 2003 restructuring the Community framework for the taxation of energy products and electricity (4), but again Article 12, paragraph 2 of this new Directive provides that for those energy products the level of taxation of which is based on volumes, the volume shall be measured at a temperature of 15 °C.

During the discussions prior to the adoption of Directive 2003/96/EC, the Council entered a statement in the Council's minutes (5) stating that: ‘In calculating the tax level Member States need not adjust the quantity according to the temperature of each transaction, but may adopt simplified national procedures to take account of variations in temperature. Adjustments for standard temperature shall be calculated on the basis of the tables published by the International Organisation for Standardisation under the references ISO 91/1 — 1982 or any subsequent revision.’

In accordance with Article 6 of 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 (6), excise duty payable on excisable goods shall become chargeable at the time of release for consumption, i.e. at the time of departure of the mineral oils from a tax warehouse, or at the time of their importation. The Commission fully agrees that it is important to ensure that at the time of release for consumption the calculation for taxation purposes of the volume of mineral oils is not altered by temperature effects whatever the season and irrespective of the location from which the release for consumption takes place. During the regular contacts the Commission has with all Member States, either on a bilateral basis or within the context of the Excise Committee, no Member State raised any difficulties so far regarding the application of this provision.

In practice, a common denominator is applied Community wide, which converts the volume of each specific mass of mineral oils, measured under any ambient temperature, to the volume which corresponds to the standard temperature of 15°C. Directives 92/81/EEC and 2003/96/EC do not contain any methodology or guidance to national administrations concerning this conversion, because existing international standards (7), established by specialised international organisations, cover this conversion in a sufficient manner. In fact, these organisations have established detailed scientific tables, containing corrective volume coefficients for each temperature and mineral oil specific mass.

It appears that there is no valid reason for changing the standard temperature from 15 °C to 8 °C, as Member States can easily convert any volume of mineral oils measured under any ambient temperature to the volume which corresponds to the standard temperature of 15 °C. Therefore, the Commission is of the opinion that section 5 of the Finnish act on excise duties on liquid fuels (29 December 1994/1472), which lays down the principle of taxation at 15 °C, is, in principle, compliant with the above-mentioned Directives.

---

(1)  OJ L 316, 31.10.1992, p. 12.

(2)  OJ C 160, 4.7.2002.

(3)  OJ L 316, 31.10.1992.

(4)  OJ L 283, 31.10.2003.

(5)  Council document 14140/03, PV/CONS 60 Add 1, of 24.11.2003.

(6)  OJ L 76, 23.3.1992.

(7)  In particular American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) tables or International Organisation for Standardisation (ISO) 91/1/1982.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/654 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/654

---

(2004/C 88 E/0671)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3880/03

by Emmanouil Bakopoulos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(16 December 2003)

Subject:   Pet passports

The Commission has set the date for the introduction of pet passports at July 2004. This passport will be valid as a health certificate for pets and enable the owner to take pets freely throughout the Union, with the exception of the United Kingdom, Ireland and Sweden. So far any person wishing to travel within the European Union has to obtain a valid rabies vaccination certificate which is recorded in the pet's health booklet in any case.

Will the Commission say how the transport of pets within the EU will be essentially changed by this measure?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(26 January 2004)

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 and amending Council Directive 92/65/EEC (1) is applicable as of 3 July 2003. The Commission Decision establishing a model passport, applying Article 17 (2) of this Regulation, therefore applies from the same date.

The conditions applying to movements of domestic carnivores are therefore laid down by Regulation (EC) No 998/2003. The general rule for movements between Member States other than Ireland, Sweden and the United Kingdom is a current valid vaccination against rabies.

The aim of the passport is to have a single standardised veterinary document at Union level to facilitate controls on cats, dogs and ferrets circulating within European territory. It is intended to replace the various existing documents in the Member States, which caused a range of linguistic difficulties and had various formats, which did not facilitate their use when moving through the Union.

It may be completed by veterinarians in accordance with the animal's movements. It is a European veterinary certificate which will accompany the animal throughout its life and on which all events relating to its health status can be entered.

Finally, the passport will also be of use for movements to Ireland, Sweden and the United Kingdom. The headings corresponding to the particular provisions applying to these three Member States for a period of five years will therefore need to be completed.

---

(1)  OJ L 146, 13.6.2003.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/655 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/655

---

(2004/C 88 E/0672)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3920/03

by Graham Watson (ELDR) to the Commission

(17 December 2003)

Subject:   ECHO

In the light of representations from journalists, will the Commission consider changing its policy so that it would allow journalists to fly on ECHO flights to Mogadishu, Somalia?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(30 January 2004)

The Commission is aware of the arguments put forward by Mr Alberizzi, a correspondent of Corrierre della Sera, who requested that ECHO Flight should be made available to provide transport to journalists wishing to travel to Somalia.

As already expressed in its reply to Mr Alberizzi's open letter (1), the Commission is not in a position to revise its policy on the use of ECHO Flight. ECHO Flight is a humanitarian service supporting humanitarian and rehabilitation projects in Somalia, Northern Kenya and the Democratic Republic of Congo by transporting staff and cargo required for the implementation of these projects. Given its humanitarian character, and in order to maintain access to conflict zones, it is of outmost importance that ECHO Flight demonstrates at all times neutrality and impartiality. Any association with political messages the missions of politicians, political officials and also journalists may produce, risks putting these basic principles in jeopardy.

For these reasons, a restrictive policy on the use of ECHO Flight needs to be adhered to.

---

(1)  http://europa.eu.int/comm/echo/pdf_files/letter_echo_flight.pdf

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/656 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/656

---

(2004/C 88 E/0673)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3936/03

by Christopher Heaton-Harris (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(16 December 2003)

Subject:   Italtrend

Following recent reports in the press regarding the Italian public procurement company Italtrend:

| — | What is the total value of Italtrend's work with the Commission since 1999? |
| --- | --- |

—

What is the total value of Italtrend's work with the Commission since 1999?

| — | How many contracts have been awarded by the Commission to Italtrend since 1999? |
| --- | --- |

—

How many contracts have been awarded by the Commission to Italtrend since 1999?

| — | How were each of these contracts awarded? Please give a detailed breakdown. |
| --- | --- |

—

How were each of these contracts awarded? Please give a detailed breakdown.

| — | Were any of the contracts awarded through a restrictive tendering procedure? |
| --- | --- |

—

Were any of the contracts awarded through a restrictive tendering procedure?

| — | Were any of the contracts awarded through direct agreement with the company? |
| --- | --- |

—

Were any of the contracts awarded through direct agreement with the company?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(18 February 2004)

In relation to the replies the Commission has already given on this issue to European Voice as well as to written question E-3586/03 by Mr Borghezio (1), should be noted that, on 31st December 2003, the total value of Italtrend's work with the Commission since the 1st September 1999 in the area of external aid is EUR 7,97 million, corresponding to the value of contracts signed with Italtrend in this area since the above-mentioned date. The number of contracts signed over this same period is 49.

From these 49 contracts a total of 43 are service contracts below EUR 200 000 awarded within the so-called framework contract. The framework contract was subject to tendering published in the Official Journal of the European Union. Further to this procedure open to competition, 58 companies were short-listed for subsequent consultation for award of short term service contracts below EUR 200 000.

From the other six contracts, one was awarded through call for proposals, two were awarded by restricted tender further to publication of procurement notice in the Official Journal of the European Union, one through negotiated procedure and two through direct agreement.

---

(1)  OJ C 84 E, 3.4.2004, p. 508.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/656 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/656

---

(2004/C 88 E/0674)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3959/03

by José Ribeiro e Castro (UEN) to the Commission

(5 January 2004)

Subject:   Africa — food shortage and security of food supply

The UN's Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) has issued a warning in respect of the food shortage (due to poor harvests and the existence of conflicts) which is threatening 23 African countries, including Angola, Cape Verde, Côte d'Ivoire, Kenya and Somalia.

The FAO's report makes the point that, in certain regions, drought is having a particularly serious effect and that Somalia is concerned at the ‘serious humanitarian crisis’ which has arisen on the Sool plateau: it is estimated that, in that country alone, 93 000 people are in need of emergency humanitarian and food aid, whilst in Eritrea, 1,4 million people may require food aid.

In West Africa the FAO believes Guinea-Bissau and Mauritania to be at risk of a food shortage.

The situation is identical in Côte d'Ivoire, whereas in Liberia and Sierra Leone the food situation is improving on account of the return of refugees, who are injecting fresh impetus into the agriculture practise in those countries.

Burundi and the Democratic Republic of Congo may be described as problem countries in which insecurity continues to prevail.

FAO data reveal Zimbabwe to be one of the countries most at risk of a food shortage.

The Agriculture and Food Organisation forecasts that, in Angola, food aid sufficient for 1,4 million people will be required.

According to the above organisation's report, the AIDS epidemic in Africa is having a devastating effect on the security of the food supply in sub-Saharan Africa.

In view of the above, would the Commission answer the following questions:

| — | What information does the Commission hold regarding the shortages reported by the FAO? |
| --- | --- |

—

What information does the Commission hold regarding the shortages reported by the FAO?

| — | Has the European Union taken (or is it intending to take) any additional or complementary action designed to remedy the humanitarian emergency to which the FAO's warning relates? |
| --- | --- |

—

Has the European Union taken (or is it intending to take) any additional or complementary action designed to remedy the humanitarian emergency to which the FAO's warning relates?

| — | What does the Commission consider to be the main contribution which the EU could make in response to this emergency? |
| --- | --- |

—

What does the Commission consider to be the main contribution which the EU could make in response to this emergency?

| — | In what way is the Commission in contact with local governments with a view to ensuring that any aid made available to the people in need is put to good use? |
| --- | --- |

—

In what way is the Commission in contact with local governments with a view to ensuring that any aid made available to the people in need is put to good use?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(23 February 2004)

| 1. | The Commission is aware of the assessment presented in the Food Supply Situation in Sub-Sahara Africa report of the United Nations' (UN) Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) published in December 2003. Indeed, since 1999, the Commission has contributed up to EUR 5 million annually to the FAO's activities in food security assessment in developing countries, and especially to the Food Insecurity and Vulnerability Mapping System and to the Early Warning and Food Security Information System. Therefore, the FAO is an important part of the information used by the Commission to ascertain the situation in each country and prepare a response.
  Since 1996 the Commission has recruited Food Security experts to assist its Delegations in most of the emergency prone countries of the Southern and Horn of Africa regions. These experts are responsible for monitoring the food security situation in their country of residence.
  Since the FAO/World Food Programme (WFP) joint needs assessment in crisis-prone countries represents the starting point for Community Food Aid programming, the Commission pays great attention to the content and the quality of the assessment report. Since last year, the Commission has been developing a strategic dialogue with the WFP and FAO on Crop and Food Supply Assessment Missions (CFSAM) and Emergency Needs Assessments (ENA) in order to increase the assessment reliability when a crisis occurs
  Since 2003, the European Food Security experts have participated as ‘observers’ in the WFP/FAO assessment team missions. Their reports are discussed in the country and at headquarters and feeds into the Commission/FAO-WFP strategic dialogue with additional information and analysis. In addition, data on the food security situation are also collected and analysed locally by its Delegations and its experts in the field.
  The humanitarian needs of the countries are also routinely being assessed by the European Humanitarian Aid Office (ECHO) staff visiting the countries mentioned in the FAO report. These experts' inputs provide complementary views to help the Commission. This exercise aims at improving the programming of the Commission interventions. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The Commission is aware of the assessment presented in the Food Supply Situation in Sub-Sahara Africa report of the United Nations' (UN) Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) published in December 2003. Indeed, since 1999, the Commission has contributed up to EUR 5 million annually to the FAO's activities in food security assessment in developing countries, and especially to the Food Insecurity and Vulnerability Mapping System and to the Early Warning and Food Security Information System. Therefore, the FAO is an important part of the information used by the Commission to ascertain the situation in each country and prepare a response.

Since 1996 the Commission has recruited Food Security experts to assist its Delegations in most of the emergency prone countries of the Southern and Horn of Africa regions. These experts are responsible for monitoring the food security situation in their country of residence.

Since the FAO/World Food Programme (WFP) joint needs assessment in crisis-prone countries represents the starting point for Community Food Aid programming, the Commission pays great attention to the content and the quality of the assessment report. Since last year, the Commission has been developing a strategic dialogue with the WFP and FAO on Crop and Food Supply Assessment Missions (CFSAM) and Emergency Needs Assessments (ENA) in order to increase the assessment reliability when a crisis occurs

Since 2003, the European Food Security experts have participated as ‘observers’ in the WFP/FAO assessment team missions. Their reports are discussed in the country and at headquarters and feeds into the Commission/FAO-WFP strategic dialogue with additional information and analysis. In addition, data on the food security situation are also collected and analysed locally by its Delegations and its experts in the field.

The humanitarian needs of the countries are also routinely being assessed by the European Humanitarian Aid Office (ECHO) staff visiting the countries mentioned in the FAO report. These experts' inputs provide complementary views to help the Commission. This exercise aims at improving the programming of the Commission interventions.

| 2. | The Commission establishes annually a list of countries which have priority in the programming of emergency food security assistance. In establishing such a list the FAO assessments are taken duly into consideration. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The Commission establishes annually a list of countries which have priority in the programming of emergency food security assistance. In establishing such a list the FAO assessments are taken duly into consideration.

| 3. | The Commission seeks the best way for people subject to food shortage to return as quickly as possible to a normal food situation. Responses to such emergency situations are twofold:






  — | first, when food deficits are demonstrated and cannot be filled through market mechanisms, food-aid may be provided; |
| --- | --- | --- |

3.

The Commission seeks the best way for people subject to food shortage to return as quickly as possible to a normal food situation. Responses to such emergency situations are twofold:

—

first, when food deficits are demonstrated and cannot be filled through market mechanisms, food-aid may be provided;

| — | second, structural interventions will be prepared in order to address the root causes of food insecurity. Such interventions might be in the field of rural development, health, markets development, social safety nets, etc ... |
| --- | --- |

—

second, structural interventions will be prepared in order to address the root causes of food insecurity. Such interventions might be in the field of rural development, health, markets development, social safety nets, etc ...

Decisions on resource allocation are taken on a case by case basis.

As an illustration, the Honourable Member may find below some recent country examples:

| — | Somalia: there is a crisis on the Sool Plateau. In spite of some rains in December 2003 and January 2004, the food security situation remains very difficult, lack of water being at least as critical as lack of food. The Commission made an allocation of EUR 4 million in December 2003 to respond to these needs. The programme will be implemented by the FAO. In parallel, a number of non-governmental organisations (NGO) actions in the field of food security are ongoing. |
| --- | --- |

—

Somalia: there is a crisis on the Sool Plateau. In spite of some rains in December 2003 and January 2004, the food security situation remains very difficult, lack of water being at least as critical as lack of food. The Commission made an allocation of EUR 4 million in December 2003 to respond to these needs. The programme will be implemented by the FAO. In parallel, a number of non-governmental organisations (NGO) actions in the field of food security are ongoing.

| — | Zimbabwe: The Commission globally agrees with the 2003 FAO/WFP Crop and Needs Assessments. The Commission has responded substantially in 2003 to the food crisis: EUR32 million have been allocated to WFP, representing about 86 000 tonnes of maize and EUR 8 million have been allocated to a consortium of NGOs (Euronaid) for the distribution food and non food items. A further support of EUR 20 million through WFP is currently being prepared, bringing the total contribution from the Commission to EUR 60 million. Additionally, ECHO has made available a EUR 25 million in non-food humanitarian assistance, bringing the total Commission humanitarian assistance to EUR 85 million. Further assistance will be required in 2004 in conjunction with other donors as the situation remains critical.
  The Commission actively engages with other donors and supports the work of the Humanitarian Coordinator to ensure full transparency of the humanitarian assistance operations. |
| --- | --- |

—

Zimbabwe: The Commission globally agrees with the 2003 FAO/WFP Crop and Needs Assessments. The Commission has responded substantially in 2003 to the food crisis: EUR32 million have been allocated to WFP, representing about 86 000 tonnes of maize and EUR 8 million have been allocated to a consortium of NGOs (Euronaid) for the distribution food and non food items. A further support of EUR 20 million through WFP is currently being prepared, bringing the total contribution from the Commission to EUR 60 million. Additionally, ECHO has made available a EUR 25 million in non-food humanitarian assistance, bringing the total Commission humanitarian assistance to EUR 85 million. Further assistance will be required in 2004 in conjunction with other donors as the situation remains critical.

The Commission actively engages with other donors and supports the work of the Humanitarian Coordinator to ensure full transparency of the humanitarian assistance operations.

| — | Mauritania: the country has a structural food deficit: 80 % of the food needs are imported. The 2003 season has been very bad and the government has launched an emergency plan to which the Commission has contributed up to 15 000 t of cereals. The Commission has been supporting a structural food security plan since 1998 by contributing to a food reserve (EUR 19 million), financing of micro-projects and improving the functioning of the administration's food security body. |
| --- | --- |

—

Mauritania: the country has a structural food deficit: 80 % of the food needs are imported. The 2003 season has been very bad and the government has launched an emergency plan to which the Commission has contributed up to 15 000 t of cereals. The Commission has been supporting a structural food security plan since 1998 by contributing to a food reserve (EUR 19 million), financing of micro-projects and improving the functioning of the administration's food security body.

| — | Côte d'Ivoire: in the current situation, it is difficult to assess the level of country needs. Through WFP the Commission provides support targeted towards vulnerable populations (internally displaced persons, refugees, women with young babies, school canteens). EUR 6 million are planned for 2003-2004. Furthermore, in 2003 the Commission provided non-food humanitarian assistance worth EUR 5,74 million via ECHO. The same level of assistance is envisaged in 2004. ECHO assistance includes aid to the resettlement of displaced persons as well as projects to improve the nutritional status of the population. |
| --- | --- |

—

Côte d'Ivoire: in the current situation, it is difficult to assess the level of country needs. Through WFP the Commission provides support targeted towards vulnerable populations (internally displaced persons, refugees, women with young babies, school canteens). EUR 6 million are planned for 2003-2004. Furthermore, in 2003 the Commission provided non-food humanitarian assistance worth EUR 5,74 million via ECHO. The same level of assistance is envisaged in 2004. ECHO assistance includes aid to the resettlement of displaced persons as well as projects to improve the nutritional status of the population.

| 4. | Food aid and food security actions supported by the Commission are carried out by NGOs and international organisations in close collaboration with national governments. The monitoring and follow-up of these actions are ensured by these organisations, which also have to provide reports to the donors. The results and impact on the beneficiary populations is monitored by the EC experts in the Commission Delegations. The Commission considers that, although there may occasionally be difficulties in implementation, the populations targeted are reached in a satisfactory manner.
  The Commission fully agrees that the scope of the HIV/AIDS pandemic, in particular in Southern Africa, will have profound consequences for agricultural production, life expectancy, levels of malnutrition and mortality. Opportunistic infections usually associated with AIDS will mean that the health systems of the countries, already under strain, will be faced with even more daunting challenges. In this respect the Commission has approved in 2000 an ambitious Action Plan on AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis which fosters an holistic approach to fight the pandemics which includes specific actions across all sectors of society including agriculture. Governments are increasing reflecting this approach in their sector policies and strategies. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Food aid and food security actions supported by the Commission are carried out by NGOs and international organisations in close collaboration with national governments. The monitoring and follow-up of these actions are ensured by these organisations, which also have to provide reports to the donors. The results and impact on the beneficiary populations is monitored by the EC experts in the Commission Delegations. The Commission considers that, although there may occasionally be difficulties in implementation, the populations targeted are reached in a satisfactory manner.

The Commission fully agrees that the scope of the HIV/AIDS pandemic, in particular in Southern Africa, will have profound consequences for agricultural production, life expectancy, levels of malnutrition and mortality. Opportunistic infections usually associated with AIDS will mean that the health systems of the countries, already under strain, will be faced with even more daunting challenges. In this respect the Commission has approved in 2000 an ambitious Action Plan on AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis which fosters an holistic approach to fight the pandemics which includes specific actions across all sectors of society including agriculture. Governments are increasing reflecting this approach in their sector policies and strategies.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/659 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/659

---

(2004/C 88 E/0675)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3972/03

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(5 January 2004)

Subject:   Campaign in Bulgaria against distribution and management of funds for civil society development by the EU delegation in Sofia and ways of assuaging the associated annoyance

| 1. | Is the Commission aware that concern is growing in Bulgaria about the distribution and management of EU funds for civil society development, which is reflected in a campaign by members of Parliament entitled ‘Clean hands for the non-profit sector’, the drafting of a law on transparency and involvement of NGOs in the distribution of EU funds, publicity in Bulgarian newspapers, an e-mail bombardment under the title ‘Isabel must go’, plans for legal action against the official concerned and proposed wider campaigns in January 2004? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is the Commission aware that concern is growing in Bulgaria about the distribution and management of EU funds for civil society development, which is reflected in a campaign by members of Parliament entitled ‘Clean hands for the non-profit sector’, the drafting of a law on transparency and involvement of NGOs in the distribution of EU funds, publicity in Bulgarian newspapers, an e-mail bombardment under the title ‘Isabel must go’, plans for legal action against the official concerned and proposed wider campaigns in January 2004?

| 2. | Is the Commission aware that the concern referred to above and the consequent campaigns are particularly directed against the conduct of the civil society adviser at the EU delegation in Sofia, who is accused of interfering unnecessarily with the internal decision-making of Bulgarian NGOs, basing her decisions on the allocation of funds primarily on her own preferences, excluding critics of her policy from the allocation of funds a priori and behaving in an arrogant and intimidating manner towards everyone who disagrees with her? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Is the Commission aware that the concern referred to above and the consequent campaigns are particularly directed against the conduct of the civil society adviser at the EU delegation in Sofia, who is accused of interfering unnecessarily with the internal decision-making of Bulgarian NGOs, basing her decisions on the allocation of funds primarily on her own preferences, excluding critics of her policy from the allocation of funds a priori and behaving in an arrogant and intimidating manner towards everyone who disagrees with her?

| 3. | Does the Commission agree that, while this adviser's behaviour may be said to have a positive aspect, namely that she has succeeded in uniting Bulgarians, Turks and Roma in such a way that they are of one opinion, it would be preferable for this to be achieved in some other manner than by inspiring unanimous indignation at the conduct of one or more officials representing the EU? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Does the Commission agree that, while this adviser's behaviour may be said to have a positive aspect, namely that she has succeeded in uniting Bulgarians, Turks and Roma in such a way that they are of one opinion, it would be preferable for this to be achieved in some other manner than by inspiring unanimous indignation at the conduct of one or more officials representing the EU?

| 4. | What will the Commission do, in so far as possible and at the earliest opportunity, to assuage the growing annoyance about the approach to the EU's involvement in Bulgaria? |
| --- | --- |

4.

What will the Commission do, in so far as possible and at the earliest opportunity, to assuage the growing annoyance about the approach to the EU's involvement in Bulgaria?

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/659 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/659

---

(2004/C 88 E/0676)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3973/03

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(5 January 2004)

Subject:   National Council for Ethnic and Demographic Issues (NCEDI) ignored when allocating EU funds for social participation in Bulgaria

| 1. | Is the Commission aware of the controversy surrounding Social Participation Programme BG 0102.06, whose purpose is to support the social and economic integration of the Roma, other ethnic minorities and people with disabilities in Bulgaria, in which connection, without consulting either the National Council for Ethnic and Demographic Issues (NCEDI) or the Ministry of Culture, as stipulated, the EU delegation in Sofia unilaterally took a final decision on the allocation of EUR 7 million, namely that EUR 2 500 000 should be spent on civil society development and EUR 4 500 000 on integration of the Roma and people with disabilities? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is the Commission aware of the controversy surrounding Social Participation Programme BG 0102.06, whose purpose is to support the social and economic integration of the Roma, other ethnic minorities and people with disabilities in Bulgaria, in which connection, without consulting either the National Council for Ethnic and Demographic Issues (NCEDI) or the Ministry of Culture, as stipulated, the EU delegation in Sofia unilaterally took a final decision on the allocation of EUR 7 million, namely that EUR 2 500 000 should be spent on civil society development and EUR 4 500 000 on integration of the Roma and people with disabilities?

| 2. | Why was it that, as a result of the above decision, out of the 20 proposed projects those selected did not include the improvement of the 12 best Roma cultural and information centres but a centre in Sofia, a centre in Sliven and two centres in the coastal settlement of Varna, in which connection the assessment of the urgency of the last of these projects caused particular astonishment and serious disappointment, especially in the country's second city, Plovdiv, which has a large Roma population? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Why was it that, as a result of the above decision, out of the 20 proposed projects those selected did not include the improvement of the 12 best Roma cultural and information centres but a centre in Sofia, a centre in Sliven and two centres in the coastal settlement of Varna, in which connection the assessment of the urgency of the last of these projects caused particular astonishment and serious disappointment, especially in the country's second city, Plovdiv, which has a large Roma population?

| 3. | In consequence, must the Bulgarian Ministry of Social Affairs, as from 1 December 2003, make payments to projects which other observers regard as subsidies to the mafia? |
| --- | --- |

3.

In consequence, must the Bulgarian Ministry of Social Affairs, as from 1 December 2003, make payments to projects which other observers regard as subsidies to the mafia?

| 4. | Is it still possible to reverse this extremely controversial decision or to compensate in some other way the projects which were placed at a disadvantage by it? What will the Commission do to limit the damage? |
| --- | --- |

4.

Is it still possible to reverse this extremely controversial decision or to compensate in some other way the projects which were placed at a disadvantage by it? What will the Commission do to limit the damage?

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/660 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/660

---

(2004/C 88 E/0677)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-4011/03

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(9 January 2004)

Subject:   Implementation of PHARE project BG 0102.06 in Bulgaria: major disparities between the proposals drafted and the actual allocation of funding

| 1. | Can the Commission confirm that in preparation for the implementation of the social participation programme BG 0102.06 in 2001 the EU's delegation in Sofia received 20- or 30-page proposals (project sheet) on the basis of which PHARE appropriations totalling EUR 966 000 would be paid out to assist 12 existing Roma cultural and information centres and to provide teaching in reading, writing and arithmetic for 4 500 Roma? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Can the Commission confirm that in preparation for the implementation of the social participation programme BG 0102.06 in 2001 the EU's delegation in Sofia received 20- or 30-page proposals (project sheet) on the basis of which PHARE appropriations totalling EUR 966 000 would be paid out to assist 12 existing Roma cultural and information centres and to provide teaching in reading, writing and arithmetic for 4 500 Roma?

| 2. | Why did one of the bodies included in the proposals, the Napredak Foundation in Pazardžik, where, according to official statistics which are in all probability much too low, 24 000 Roma live, receive nothing, whereas large sums were reportedly allocated to Varna, where only 13 000 Roma are registered? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Why did one of the bodies included in the proposals, the Napredak Foundation in Pazardžik, where, according to official statistics which are in all probability much too low, 24 000 Roma live, receive nothing, whereas large sums were reportedly allocated to Varna, where only 13 000 Roma are registered?

| 3. | Why were the proposals concerning the centres in Plovdiv (26 000 Roma according to official statistics) and other, smaller towns where many poor Roma live likewise rejected? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Why were the proposals concerning the centres in Plovdiv (26 000 Roma according to official statistics) and other, smaller towns where many poor Roma live likewise rejected?

| 4. | Why were the National Council for Ethnic and Demographic Issues (according to its chief expert, Lalo Kamenov) and the Ministry of Culture completely taken aback by this decision, even though up to now they have played an important role in project-related decision-making? |
| --- | --- |

4.

Why were the National Council for Ethnic and Demographic Issues (according to its chief expert, Lalo Kamenov) and the Ministry of Culture completely taken aback by this decision, even though up to now they have played an important role in project-related decision-making?

| 5. | Is the role of the National Council referred to in question 4 restricted to the drafting of criteria to govern the allocation of funding, with all decisions on the basis of those criteria being taken elsewhere? Who scrutinises such decisions? |
| --- | --- |

5.

Is the role of the National Council referred to in question 4 restricted to the drafting of criteria to govern the allocation of funding, with all decisions on the basis of those criteria being taken elsewhere? Who scrutinises such decisions?

| 6. | What improvements in the situation outlined above does the Commission regard as possible and desirable? |
| --- | --- |

6.

What improvements in the situation outlined above does the Commission regard as possible and desirable?

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/660 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/660

---

(2004/C 88 E/0678)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-4012/03

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(9 January 2004)

Subject:   Implementation of PHARE project BG 0102.06 in Bulgaria: late announcement of decisions and controversial payment arrangements

| 1. | Why was the start of the projects approved under the social participation programme BG 0102.06 postponed from November 2002 to December 2003, and were organisations whose projects had been approved on the morning of 1 December 2003 given only until 17.00 the same day to sign contracts? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Why was the start of the projects approved under the social participation programme BG 0102.06 postponed from November 2002 to December 2003, and were organisations whose projects had been approved on the morning of 1 December 2003 given only until 17.00 the same day to sign contracts?

| 2. | Was the Roma youth organisation in Sliven, which is situated 300 km from Sofia, informed only at 14.00 on 1 December 2003 that it had been granted a subsidy, with the result that a proportion of the funding available ended up in the hands of individuals outside that organisation's control? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Was the Roma youth organisation in Sliven, which is situated 300 km from Sofia, informed only at 14.00 on 1 December 2003 that it had been granted a subsidy, with the result that a proportion of the funding available ended up in the hands of individuals outside that organisation's control?

| 3. | Is funding for job-creation schemes being allocated to persons who are known for their expansive, nouveau-riche lifestyle, but not for their ability to create normal forms of productive employment? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Is funding for job-creation schemes being allocated to persons who are known for their expansive, nouveau-riche lifestyle, but not for their ability to create normal forms of productive employment?

| 4. | Have there been cases of Roma organisations which have enquired about the possibilities for EU co-financing being asked first of all to repair cars for or supply cheap cars to private individuals, creating the impression that they must first bribe the officials responsible, and even then not receiving the funding in question? |
| --- | --- |

4.

Have there been cases of Roma organisations which have enquired about the possibilities for EU co-financing being asked first of all to repair cars for or supply cheap cars to private individuals, creating the impression that they must first bribe the officials responsible, and even then not receiving the funding in question?

| 5. | In its answer to Written Question £-1647/03 (1) the Commission wrote that the appropriate involvement of the Roma and the organisations which represent them in the work of identifying needs and preparing and implementing projects is fundamental to the success of such projects. Does the Commission still stand by this view? |
| --- | --- |

5.

In its answer to Written Question £-1647/03 (1) the Commission wrote that the appropriate involvement of the Roma and the organisations which represent them in the work of identifying needs and preparing and implementing projects is fundamental to the success of such projects. Does the Commission still stand by this view?

| 6. | What improvements in the situation outlined above does the Commission regard as possible and desirable? |
| --- | --- |

6.

What improvements in the situation outlined above does the Commission regard as possible and desirable?

---

(1)  OJ C 78 E, 27.3.2004, p. 378.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/661 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/661

---

(2004/C 88 E/0679)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-4013/03

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(9 January 2004)

Subject:   Implementation of PHARE project BG 0102.06 in Bulgaria: lack of information as to who is responsible for management, decision-making and assessment

| 1. | Why, as of 14 December 2003, did neither the website of the National Council for Ethnic and Demographic Issues (NCEDI), which was opened on 1 October 2003, nor other websites referred to by the Commission in its answer of 16 June 2003 to Written Question E-1647/03 (1), nor the project website (www.cscbg.com) still not give the names of the members of the national Projects Steering Committee, which comprises representatives of the NCEDI and 3 5 Roma-related NGOs? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Why, as of 14 December 2003, did neither the website of the National Council for Ethnic and Demographic Issues (NCEDI), which was opened on 1 October 2003, nor other websites referred to by the Commission in its answer of 16 June 2003 to Written Question E-1647/03 (1), nor the project website (www.cscbg.com) still not give the names of the members of the national Projects Steering Committee, which comprises representatives of the NCEDI and 3 5 Roma-related NGOs?

| 2. | Why is it impossible to find out which three persons make up the assessment committee, even though everyone suspects that a person involved in the projects, Teodor Vladov, is the chairman of that committee? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Why is it impossible to find out which three persons make up the assessment committee, even though everyone suspects that a person involved in the projects, Teodor Vladov, is the chairman of that committee?

| 3. | In addition to lists of the organisations which receive subsidies and their projects, have lists been drawn up of the sums allocated to each project and the persons responsible for them? Are these lists available to the public? Where can interested parties obtain them? |
| --- | --- |

3.

In addition to lists of the organisations which receive subsidies and their projects, have lists been drawn up of the sums allocated to each project and the persons responsible for them? Are these lists available to the public? Where can interested parties obtain them?

| 4. | What improvements in the situation outlined above does the Commission regard as possible and desirable? |
| --- | --- |

4.

What improvements in the situation outlined above does the Commission regard as possible and desirable?

---

(1)  OJ C 78 E, 27.3.2004, p. 378.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/661 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/661

---

(2004/C 88 E/0680)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-4014/03

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(9 January 2004)

Subject:   Implementation of PHARE project BG 0102.06 in Bulgaria: delays in implementation and uncertainty regarding the disbursement of the resulting outstanding appropriations

| 1. | Why did the national Projects Steering Committee, on which a member of the EU's delegation in Sofia must sit, not start work at the agreed juncture (December 2001 or January 2002)? Why did this Steering Committee only meet for the first time in September 2003 and was the deadline for submitting proposals postponed from June 2002 to 6 November 2003? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Why did the national Projects Steering Committee, on which a member of the EU's delegation in Sofia must sit, not start work at the agreed juncture (December 2001 or January 2002)? Why did this Steering Committee only meet for the first time in September 2003 and was the deadline for submitting proposals postponed from June 2002 to 6 November 2003?

| 2. | Why, in March 2003, did the official responsible in the EU's delegation ignore the call from the relevant specialist committee of the Bulgarian Parliament to give reasons for that postponement? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Why, in March 2003, did the official responsible in the EU's delegation ignore the call from the relevant specialist committee of the Bulgarian Parliament to give reasons for that postponement?

| 3. | Is it true that between 2001 and 2003 only 33 % of the appropriations thus far approved for the project were disbursed because the number of proposals approved accounted for only one third of the funding available? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Is it true that between 2001 and 2003 only 33 % of the appropriations thus far approved for the project were disbursed because the number of proposals approved accounted for only one third of the funding available?

| 4. | Are the unspent appropriations returned to the EU budget or can they then be disbursed as the EU's delegation in Sofia sees fit? |
| --- | --- |

4.

Are the unspent appropriations returned to the EU budget or can they then be disbursed as the EU's delegation in Sofia sees fit?

| 5. | Irrespective of the Commission's answer to question 4, following the conclusion of the contract period on 30 November 2003 can the unspent appropriations still be used, prior to the repayment deadline on 30 November 2004, for their original purposes, on the basis that the Bulgarian authorities were consulted at an earlier date? |
| --- | --- |

5.

Irrespective of the Commission's answer to question 4, following the conclusion of the contract period on 30 November 2003 can the unspent appropriations still be used, prior to the repayment deadline on 30 November 2004, for their original purposes, on the basis that the Bulgarian authorities were consulted at an earlier date?

| 6. | What improvements in the situation outlined above does the Commission regard as possible and desirable? |
| --- | --- |

6.

What improvements in the situation outlined above does the Commission regard as possible and desirable?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-3972/03, E-3973/02, E-4011/03, E-4012/03, E-4013/03 and E-4014/03 given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(25 February 2004)

The Honourable Member has tabled six questions, on 30 issues all related to PHARE tendering procedures for two projects in Bulgaria.

The Commission would like to recall that in line with the rules for decentralised management of pre-accession aid, the PHARE programme in Bulgaria is managed by the Bulgarian authorities under the decentralised implementation system (DIS).

The procedural rules for all PHARE projects are set out in the Practical Guide to PHARE, ISPA and Sapard contract procedures (PRAG). In the two cases referred to by the Honourable Member, these have, as usual, been strictly followed by the responsible Bulgarian authorities. The projects selected at the end of this process were submitted to the Commission Delegation to Bulgaria, in Sofia, for approval. The Delegation then endorsed those recommendations made by the Contracting Authorities.

The projects referred to by the Honourable Member are ‘Social Inclusion’ (BG 0102.06 for an overall amount of EUR4 863 000 including national co-financing) as well as the separate project ‘Civil Society Development’ (BG 0104.03 for an overall amount of EUR 2 500 000). The responsible Contracting Authority is the Ministry of Regional Development for the Social Inclusion project and the Ministry of Finance for the Civil Society Development project. They initiated open calls for proposals, selected the projects and oversaw the implementation of the projects.

For both call for proposals, a large number of offers were received. However, only those projects which met the required quality standards in line with the Practical Guide to PHARE, ISPA and Sapard contract procedures (PRAG) were selected for funding, irrespective of their geographical location. This leads to a certain in-balance in the number of grants received by the different regions. The Commission has received no complaint regarding any misappropriation and can therefore not comment on the particular case mentioned.

More specifically, and with regard to the PHARE project Social Inclusion (BG 0102.06 PHARE), the Commission confirms that appropriations totalling EUR 966 000 (including Bulgarian national co-financing) (1) were available to assist up to 12 existing Roma cultural and information centres and to provide literacy and numeracy training to 4 500 Roma. However, only a relatively small number of the proposals were selected.

After approval of the grants by the Commission, it is the responsibility of the Bulgarian Contracting Authority to notify and/or to proceed with the contract signatures. The Commission is aware of the short deadline given and has repeatedly discussed with the Bulgarian authorities the need to accelerate the procedures.

The results of the selection procedure were published on the websites of the relevant institutions, namely the Ministry of Regional Development (2) as a Contracting Authority and the Ministry of Labour and Social Policy as a Project Implementation Unit.

As foreseen in the project description of the Social Inclusion project (BG0102.06), a Project Steering Committee has been set up by the Contracting Authority for the overall co-ordination of the project. It is the Contracting Authority which has the exclusive responsibility to convene this Committee. The Steering Committee composition is stipulated in the Project Fiche that is published on all relevant websites (3). It includes relevant ministries and agencies as well as the Bulgarian Industrial Association, the Bulgarian Chamber of Commerce, the Confederation of the Trade Unions in Bulgaria, the ‘Podkrepa’ Trade Union, the Union of People with Disabilities in Bulgaria, the National Council on Ethnic and Demographic Issues and the Commission Delegation, Sofia.

The names of the members of the Evaluation Committee, including assessors, are not made public. The Commission is not in a position to confirm that any particular member of the Evaluation Committees was at the same time involved in some of the individual projects funded under BG0102.06.

As is general practice for PHARE projects which assist the Roma minority, it is ensured that these are implemented in close co-operation with Roma representatives. The Commission maintains the position it gave in its reply to the Honourable Member's written question E-1647/03 (4), namely that 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 such projects.

The Commission has not been approached by the National Council for Ethnic and Demographic Issues nor by the Ministry of Culture concerning any decisions as referred to in written question E-4011/03.

The contracting period under the project Social Inclusion has expired. Any remaining commitment appropriations can therefore not be utilised. Any unspent payment appropriations will need to be returned to the Community budget. However, the Commission will continue to support social inclusion in Bulgaria under pre-accession aid and organisations not successful this time will, of course, be able to apply for any future projects of a similar nature. Each project will be judged on its own merits.

The Commission regrets that it is not in a position to verify or review general allegations as reported by the Honourable Member since these relate to tender procedures carried out by the Bulgarian authorities. The Commission is, however, determined to ensure transparent and correct allocation of funds and to assure that any substantiated and documented information of fraudulent or corrupt practices would be duly followed up, wherever these occur.

The Civil society development project (BG 0104.03) on which the Honourable Member also poses questions has no link to the Social Inclusion Project. It is a programme targeting development of nongovernmental organisations (NGOs) and is managed by the Ministry of Finance and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (neither the National Council on Ethnic and Demographic Issues nor the Ministry of Culture are involved in this project). The Commission has received no evidence of any wrongdoing by any member of the Delegation staff. The Commission can assure the Honourable Member that the co-operation between the Commission's Delegation and the Parliamentary committee on civil society at the Bulgarian National Assembly is very close and productive.

---

(1)  See also http://europa.eu.int/comm/enlargement/fiche_projet/document/bg0102-06-social_inclusion.pdf

(2)  http://www.mrrb.government.bg/pdocs/doc_618.htm

(3)  For instance http://europa.eu.int/comm/enlargement/fiche_projet/index.cfm?page=399702&c=BULGARIA&a=2001

(4)  OJ C 78 E, 27.3.2004, p. 378.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/663 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/663

---

(2004/C 88 E/0681)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3974/03

by Paulo Casaca (PSE) to the Commission

(5 January 2004)

Subject:   Reform of the support system for ACP banana producers

It became clear during the debate held at Parliament's part-session in September 2003 on the report on the special framework of assistance for traditional ACP suppliers of bananas (A5-0164/2003) that the current support system for banana producers in the ACP countries fails to meet the most basic requirements as regards transparency and objectivity, and that banana producers in Côte d'Ivoire are unacceptably placed at a disadvantage.

When will the Commission propose the necessary amendments to the rules in force?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(23 February 2004)

The individual amounts being allocated annually to each traditional African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) banana supplier are calculated in accordance with the criteria set out in Commission Regulation (EC) No 1609/1999 (1). In particular, the cost, insurance, freight (CIF) price as shown in the Eurostat statistics is used as a benchmark to measure the competitiveness gap between ACP and third countries suppliers, whereas the importance of the banana sector in the economy of the countries concerned is reflected by fixed calculation factors listed in the Commission Regulation. This calculation basis is uniform for all beneficiaries and thereby ensures transparency and objectivity.

Recently representatives of the banana growers on the Ivory Coast have approached the Commission and expressed their concern about the method used when establishing the relevant data on import into the Community. The Commission is looking further into the matter and will also be discussing the issue with the Member States' customs administrations in the near future.

This has been communicated to the banana growers organisation on the Ivory Coast (OCAB) in recent correspondence.

---

(1)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 1609/1999 of 22 July 1999 laying down the detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 856/1999 establishing a special framework of assistance to traditional ACP suppliers of bananas, OJ L 190, 23.7.1999.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/664 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/664

---

(2004/C 88 E/0682)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3992/03

by Giles Chichester (PPE-DE) and Geoffrey Van Orden (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(7 January 2004)

Subject:   Presentation of the peer review on the Kozloduy nuclear power plant

Referring to the letter from the President of Bulgaria, Mr Parvanov, to the Council and the Commission dated 24 October 2002 requesting a safety peer review of the Kozloduy nuclear power plant's units 3 and 4, and bearing in mind that the Terms of Reference (TOR) for that review were issued to the Commission on 28 January 2003, recalling that the peer review then took place on 16 and 17 November 2003, can the Commission now confirm that no more time will be wasted in conveying the expected positive results of the review to both Council and the Bulgarian Government with a recommendation that the closure demand for the said units, now having no technical or economic justification, be withdrawn and that no pre-condition of plant closure should exist with regard to the accession of Bulgaria to the European Union?

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/664 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/664

---

(2004/C 88 E/0683)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3993/03

by Giles Chichester (PPE-DE) and Geoffrey Van Orden (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(7 January 2004)

Subject:   Review of the closure dates for the Kozloduy nuclear power plant units

Given that the agreement dated 29 November 1999 between the Council and the Bulgarian Government (brought about by the Commission) to close four units of the Kozloduy nuclear power plant as a condition of Bulgaria's accession to the EU was based on 10-year-old criteria, and given that, in 2002, the IAEA declared that these units ‘now correspond to the level of improvements seen at plants of similar vintage elsewhere’ and that we are awaiting the result of the Council's peer review of November 2003, will the Commission agree that a positive outcome of that review should lead to their advising the Bulgarian Government and the Council to review the closure agreement dates on the grounds that they no longer have a technical basis?.

Joint answer

to Written Questions E-3992/03 and E-3993/03

given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(11 February 2004)

Bulgaria committed itself, in the framework of the accession negotiations, to close Units 1 and 2 of the Kozloduy Nuclear Power Plant before the year 2003. Bulgaria furthermore committed itself to close Units 3 and 4 of the plant in 2006. Regarding the so-called ‘peer review’ mechanism under the auspices of the Council, the Union mandated the dispatch of an expert mission to Bulgaria, as agreed in the accession negotiations.

Honouring its commitments regarding the closure of Units 1 and 2, Bulgaria closed down these two Units (VVER-440/320 type-reactors) for decommissioning at the end of 2002.

The expert mission, conducted under the auspices of the Council of the Union during the period 16-19 November 2003, was composed of representatives from Member States. The Commission participated as an observer. The scope of the mission, as defined by the Council, was essentially to monitor and verify in situ the status of the implementation of the relevant recommendations contained in the 2001 Report on Nuclear Safety in the context of Enlargement and the subsequent 2002 Peer Review Status Report, both reports produced by the Atomic Question Group (AQG) within the Council of the Union. Therefore, the expert mission was not only limited to monitoring the implementation of the recommendations for Units 3 and 4 of Kozloduy Nuclear Power Plant, but also included inter alia issues related to the Bulgarian Nuclear Safety Authority.

The work of the expert mission is part of the peer review mechanism established for Bulgaria, and has to be considered as a continuation of the previous work conducted within the Council through the Group dealing with Atomic Questions and its ad hoc formation, the Working Party on Nuclear Safety. The peer review mechanism is a continuous process based on exchange of information between Candidate Countries and the Union. Consequently, the technical exercise conducted under the expert mission does not constitute a complete new evaluation of the situation of nuclear safety in Bulgaria.

The Commission recalls that the evaluation of nuclear safety in Candidate Countries, as reflected in the above AQG reports, has been conducted with a view to defining the Union's position on a ‘high level of nuclear safety’, and it has been the result of a considerable collective effort under several Union presidencies. A high degree of convergence on the substance of technical and organisational requirements and good practices has been achieved in the Union. In several areas, these requirements go further than those contained in international instruments. This common Union perspective has been reflected in the evaluation with regard to nuclear power plants.

Units 3 and 4 of Kozloduy Nuclear Power Plant (VVER-440/230 type-reactors), as is the case with the remaining nuclear installations in Candidate Countries, have been evaluated in a consistent and harmonised manner, and for these Units the AQG Reports have stressed the importance of their definitive closure in 2006. The safety improvement programmes defined for these units should be accordingly regarded within the context of this closure date. Therefore the peer review mechanism, which involves the carrying out of expert missions, is by no means intended to reassess the feasibility of the operation of Units 3 and 4 beyond 2006.

Bulgaria should continue with the implementation of all the recommendations contained in the AQG Reports with regard to the priorities assigned, including the full implementation of the safety improvement programmes in place. Taking into consideration the results of the expert mission, the Council Group dealing with Atomic Questions will prepare a complete report in line with the mandate and the scope of the peer review exercise. This report is expected to be finalised by end of April 2004 and will constitute an updated version of the 2002 AQG Report.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/666 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/666

---

(2004/C 88 E/0684)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-4019/03

by Margrietus van den Berg (PSE) to the Commission

(9 January 2004)

Subject:   Burma Forum

On 15 December 2003 a meeting arranged by the government of Thailand on the road map for Burma took place in Bangkok. The EU (and critics such as the Netherlands, United Kingdom and Scandinavian countries) were not invited to attend. Only a few EU Member States were invited because in practice they have always obstructed more stringent measures against the Burmese regime (Germany, France, Italy and Austria).

Significantly, those EU countries that attended the meeting followed the line taken in the EU's common position on Burma. The EU should also ask to be involved in the follow-up. It is very important to make it clear to all Asian countries that there can be no solution to the problems in Burma without the active involvement of both the democratic opposition (NLD) and the ethnic minorities. The EU must not allow itself to be divided as a result of some countries being played off against others.

| 1. | What measures is the Commission taking to promote such an approach? |
| --- | --- |

1.

What measures is the Commission taking to promote such an approach?

| 2. | Can the Commission give details of the outcome of the recent review of the EU's common position on Burma in the light of the impact of the current sanctions? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Can the Commission give details of the outcome of the recent review of the EU's common position on Burma in the light of the impact of the current sanctions?

| 3. | Will the Commission encourage the EU delegations in China and India in particular to facilitate discussions between those two governments and relevant Burmese democratic and opposition forces in some way, possibly maintaining a low profile? As the Chinese and Indian governments now have contacts with the junta, will the EU take greater advantage of its links with them and specifically ask them to use those contacts or bring pressure to bear on the Burmese regime? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Will the Commission encourage the EU delegations in China and India in particular to facilitate discussions between those two governments and relevant Burmese democratic and opposition forces in some way, possibly maintaining a low profile? As the Chinese and Indian governments now have contacts with the junta, will the EU take greater advantage of its links with them and specifically ask them to use those contacts or bring pressure to bear on the Burmese regime?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(11 February 2004)

The Commission, and all Member States, continue to call on the Government of Burma/Myanmar to enter in to substantive dialogue with Aung San Suu Kyi, the National League for Democracy and ethnic minority groups. This was also the line followed by those Member States who participated in the Bangkok meeting on 15 December 2003.

The Common Position is up for renewal before 29 April 2004. As discussions are on-going in relevant Council working groups, the Honourable Member will understand that the Commission is currently not in a position to comment, or anticipate the outcome of these discussions.

The European Union has on several occasions raised its concerns regarding the situation in Burma/Myanmar with neighbouring Asian countries, including India and China, encouraging them to use their influence to encourage the Burmese regime to undertake some firm steps towards national reconciliation and a return to democracy.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/666 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/666

---

(2004/C 88 E/0685)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-4038/03

by Herbert Bösch (PSE) to the Commission

(12 January 2004)

Subject:   Processing of radioactive waste in Ukraine

On 10 November 2003, the Commissioner for External Relations, Chris Patten, attended a conference in Kiev on the Wider Europe – New Neighbourhood' initiative. He also visited the Chernobyl nuclear power plant and laid the foundation stone of an industrial centre for radioactive waste treatment.

| 1. | Can the Commission state the overall cost of the project? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Can the Commission state the overall cost of the project?

| 2. | Can the Commission provide details of the project's funding and the amounts contributed by individual financial backers? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Can the Commission provide details of the project's funding and the amounts contributed by individual financial backers?

| 3. | Through which projects and how substantially is the European Union committed to financing the processing of nuclear waste in third countries? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Through which projects and how substantially is the European Union committed to financing the processing of nuclear waste in third countries?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(24 February 2004)

| 1. | The Member of the Commission responsible for External Relations laid the foundation stone of the Industrial Complex for Solid Radioactive Waste Management (ICSRM). The ICSRM is a part of the complex which is being built in Chernobyl to address the important issue of radioactive waste. The overall budget for the ICSRM is EUR 44 million. Other installations, funded by the Nuclear Safety Account, managed by EBRD, are the Liquid Radwaste Treatment Plant (LRTP – EUR 25,7 million) and the plant to handle and store the spent fuel (ISF – EUR 95,3 million). |
| --- | --- |

1.

The Member of the Commission responsible for External Relations laid the foundation stone of the Industrial Complex for Solid Radioactive Waste Management (ICSRM). The ICSRM is a part of the complex which is being built in Chernobyl to address the important issue of radioactive waste. The overall budget for the ICSRM is EUR 44 million. Other installations, funded by the Nuclear Safety Account, managed by EBRD, are the Liquid Radwaste Treatment Plant (LRTP – EUR 25,7 million) and the plant to handle and store the spent fuel (ISF – EUR 95,3 million).

| 2. | The budget of the ICSRM is provided by the EU TACIS Nuclear Safety Programme (EUR41,3 million) and Ukrainian Government (EUR 2,7 million). Additionally an on-site coordination unit is being financed to pursue project management, with an amount of EUR 4,25 million until July 2004 and a likely extension (EUR 3,5 million) up to the completion of the ICSRM. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The budget of the ICSRM is provided by the EU TACIS Nuclear Safety Programme (EUR41,3 million) and Ukrainian Government (EUR 2,7 million). Additionally an on-site coordination unit is being financed to pursue project management, with an amount of EUR 4,25 million until July 2004 and a likely extension (EUR 3,5 million) up to the completion of the ICSRM.

| 3. | The Commission follows the strategy laid out in the TACIS Regulation 99/2000, which states, as one of the priorities, the improvement of nuclear safety by ‘supporting the development and implementation of spent fuel, and decommissioning and nuclear waste management strategies, including in North West Russia in the context of wider international co-operation’.
  Besides the projects mentioned under point 1 for Chernobyl, the TACIS Program is funding projects to tackle the issue of nuclear waste in North West Russia.
  For instance, the Commission is:






  — | taking part in the Northern Dimension Environmental Fund (NDEP), managed by the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD), to which the TACIS programme contributes with EUR 40 million and, |
| --- | --- | --- |

3.

The Commission follows the strategy laid out in the TACIS Regulation 99/2000, which states, as one of the priorities, the improvement of nuclear safety by ‘supporting the development and implementation of spent fuel, and decommissioning and nuclear waste management strategies, including in North West Russia in the context of wider international co-operation’.

Besides the projects mentioned under point 1 for Chernobyl, the TACIS Program is funding projects to tackle the issue of nuclear waste in North West Russia.

For instance, the Commission is:

—

taking part in the Northern Dimension Environmental Fund (NDEP), managed by the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD), to which the TACIS programme contributes with EUR 40 million and,

| — | funding projects like the ‘Lepse’ Project to take care of spent nuclear fuel from ice-breakers, which is stored aboard this ship. Some preliminary works (about EUR 2 million) were carried out in 1998-1999. Further support is foreseen for the completion of the works regarding defuelling. |
| --- | --- |

—

funding projects like the ‘Lepse’ Project to take care of spent nuclear fuel from ice-breakers, which is stored aboard this ship. Some preliminary works (about EUR 2 million) were carried out in 1998-1999. Further support is foreseen for the completion of the works regarding defuelling.

In Kazakhstan, the TACIS Program is to carry out a project in two steps to remedy the nuclear waste problems of the Semipalatinsk nuclear test site, resulting from more than 460 nuclear weapons tests that took place during the period 1949-1989. For this project, EUR 1 million is allocated in the Annual Programme 2003. Furthermore, up to EUR 4 million are foreseen in the 2004-2006 Multiannual Indicative Programme.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/667 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/667

---

(2004/C 88 E/0686)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-4051/03

by Hiltrud Breyer (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(12 January 2004)

Subject:   Export of nuclear facilities to the People's Republic of China

The plutonium contained in fuel rods used in civilian nuclear reactors in China cannot be used for MOX production because no reprocessing plant is available. Military stocks of plutonium are not sufficient to run the MOX factory economically. It is also doubtful whether existing nuclear reactors can operate with MOX fuel rods. Leading experts consider it possible that the plant can be converted to process weapons-grade plutonium.

The IAEA takes the view that it has no legal power to guarantee the effective monitoring of imported nuclear facilities, and that it does not have the necessary resources in terms of staff and funds.

| 1. | What information does the Commission have on the purpose for which the Hanau nuclear fuel rod factory, the SNR-300 and its reactor core are to be used in China? |
| --- | --- |

1.

What information does the Commission have on the purpose for which the Hanau nuclear fuel rod factory, the SNR-300 and its reactor core are to be used in China?

| 2. | Does the Commission consider it possible that the plant, components and nuclear fuel to be supplied as part of this deal could be used for military purposes, directly or indirectly? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Does the Commission consider it possible that the plant, components and nuclear fuel to be supplied as part of this deal could be used for military purposes, directly or indirectly?

| 3. | How does the Commission currently assess the compatibility of the export plans with Council Regulation (EC) No 1334/2000 (1), the EU arms embargo still in force against China and other international commitments on preventing the proliferation of goods which can be used for military purposes? |
| --- | --- |

3.

How does the Commission currently assess the compatibility of the export plans with Council Regulation (EC) No 1334/2000 (1), the EU arms embargo still in force against China and other international commitments on preventing the proliferation of goods which can be used for military purposes?

| 4. | Does the Commission share the IAEA's view that it is not possible to monitor military use of the plant effectively, and what conclusions does it draw for the application of the arms embargo against China? |
| --- | --- |

4.

Does the Commission share the IAEA's view that it is not possible to monitor military use of the plant effectively, and what conclusions does it draw for the application of the arms embargo against China?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(24 February 2004)

The Commission is aware of the possible export by Germany of a Mox Fuel Fabrication Plant to China. It is also aware that China expressed a wish to acquire SNR 300 fuel elements. However, the Commission has no official information as to why China is interested in this material and equipment. In fact, the MOX fabrication process is not designed to contribute to the production of a nuclear weapon but rather represents an important step to reduce Plutonium via its consumption in nuclear Light Water Reactors.

The export in question is covered by Council Regulation (EC) No1334/2000 of 22 June 2000 setting up a Community regime for the control of exports of Dual-Use items and technology, hereafter ‘Dual-Use Regulation’, and is therefore subject to a license requirement. The item is listed in Annex I (0B005). The relevant provisions here are Articles 3 and 8 of the Dual-Use Regulation.

Under Article 3(1) of the Dual-Use Regulation, an authorisation is required for all goods listed in Annex I. The Commission believes that the MOX plant mentioned in the question technically corresponds to the item listed under 0B005 of Annex I of the Dual-Use Regulation. Consequently, an authorisation would be required under Article 3(1).

According to the information available to the Commission, the German licensing authority received an inquiry from the German company Siemens, as to whether a license for an export of the factory to China would be granted. To the best of the Commission's knowledge, a decision has not yet been issued. However, the decision to grant or refuse such a license is a sovereign one. The Regulation only lists in its Article 8, in a non comprehensive manner, certain issues that must be considered by the Member States in making the decision. The Commission has no authority to intervene. Only once the decision has been taken, could other Member States eventually question such a decision but the conditions for such action are strictly defined by the Regulation.

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) is the responsible authority to monitor nuclear facilities and the Commission has not been informed of the IAEA declaration. However, China is one of the five nuclear weapon States defined by the Non Proliferation Treaty. The IAEA can therefore only perform checks on a two-sided voluntary basis. In addition, the cost/benefit effectiveness of such checks would have to be evaluated. Furthermore, the Commission would like to point out that China is a member of the Zangger Committee, which is a Committee to control the export of nuclear material.

Regarding the EU arms embargo on China, the European Council of 12 December 2003 invited the General Affairs Council to re-examine the question. A first discussion took place at the January 2004 General Affairs Council. Work in the relevant Council groups is ongoing and a decision is not expected before March 2004.

---

(1)  OJ L 159, 30.6.2000, p. 1.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/669 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/669

---

(2004/C 88 E/0687)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-4058/03

by Elspeth Attwooll (ELDR) to the Commission

(13 January 2004)

Subject:   Gun laws in Turkey

In the first five months of 2003, 1094 people were killed and 10 513 were injured by guns in Turkey. On 7 July 2003, two-and-a-half-year-old Alistair Grimason was shot by a stray bullet while sleeping in a pushchair in a café. The Turkish Government has since made moves to tighten its laws on firearms crime.

Is the Commission aware of these statistics, and can it confirm whether it will consider matters such as the prevalence of firearms and the legislation on firearm possession and gun crimes, when considering the application of countries for EU membership?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(20 February 2004)

The Commission is aware of the disturbing facts mentioned by the Honourable Member and shares her concern regarding the number of gun-related deaths and injuries in Turkey.

The question of firearms control is not covered specifically by the Copenhagen political criteria. All Candidate Countries are required to accede to the 2000 United Nations (UN) Convention against Transnational Organised Crime (the Palermo Convention) and its Protocols. Turkey has acceded to the Convention and signed on 28 June 2002 the Protocol against the Illicit Manufacturing of and Trafficking in Firearms, their Parts and Components and Ammunition. Turkey has not yet ratified this Protocol. The Commission will continue to monitor progress on this issue.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/669 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/669

---

(2004/C 88 E/0688)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-4077/03

by Chris Davies (ELDR) to the Commission

(14 January 2004)

Subject:   NGOs

What requirements does the Commission insist upon in order for an organisation to be recognised as an NGO of sufficient legitimacy for it to be granted EU funding to assist with humanitarian relief in particular circumstances?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(3 March 2004)

Funding to non-governmental organisations (NGOs) called upon to provide relief assistance in natural or man-made humanitarian crises is granted by the Commission through its Humanitarian Aid Office (ECHO).

To be entitled to ECHO funding, humanitarian NGOs must undergo a selection procedure which may lead to the signature of a Framework Partnership Agreement with ECHO. Such an agreement, which sets the principles of collaboration between ECHO and humanitarian organisations, defines the respective roles, rights and obligations and contains the legal provisions applicable to the humanitarian operations financed by ECHO, also sets out the requirements NGOs must fulfil in order to become and remain ECHO-partners, as well as the selection procedure applied by the Office in respect to NGOs.

The selection of partner-NGOs is based on well-defined eligibility and suitability criteria, some of which stem from the regulatory framework of the Commission and others arise from the need for introducing quality and accountability standards, as a result of the debate developed over the years within the civil society and between ECHO and its partners.

Concerning the legal eligibility and suitability requirements, the selection criteria are guided by three regulations: the Council Regulation on humanitarian aid (1), the Council Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (2) and its Implementing Rules (3).

In particular, the eligibility criteria take into account the NGO's country of registration (Article 7(1) of the Council Regulation (EC) No 1257/96), the moral integrity of the organisation (Article 93 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1605/2002) and the obligation to present financial statements audited by an external professional body (Article 173(4) of Commission Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2342/2002). Proof of adhesion to a code of conduct stating the principles of neutrality, impartiality and independence in the delivery of the aid is also requested. The suitability criteria take into account the NGO's administrative, operational and financial capacity (Article 7(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1257/96), and in particular its experience and specialisation in the humanitarian field. Amongst others, the budget percentage devoted by the NGO to humanitarian aid activities and the use of minimum quality standards at different levels are examined.

Before a partnership agreement is concluded with an NGO, ECHO verifies that it fulfils the eligibility and suitability criteria through a range of means, which include information and documentation provided by the organisation, consultation with the relevant national authorities, as well as verification audits carried out by ECHO staff on the organisation's premises. Once admitted to partnership, NGOs are checked on an annual basis in order to verify that they keep complying with the eligibility requirements. Once admitted to funding, partner NGOs and individual ECHO-funded projects are audited by ECHO'S representatives on a regular basis, both at headquarters and in the field, usually no less than once a year.

All the details of the selection procedure applied by ECHO to NGOs are published on the Office's website (4). The text of the Framework Partnership Agreement is also available on the web; the requirements to be fulfilled by NGOs are referred to in Title II, articles 6-14 of the Provisions.

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1257/96 of 20 June 1996 concerning humanitarian aid, OJ L 163, 2.7.1996.

(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.

(3)  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.

(4)  http://europa.eu.int/comm/dgs/humanitarian_aid/index_en.htm

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/670 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/670

---

(2004/C 88 E/0689)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-4081/03

by Chris Davies (ELDR) to the Commission

(14 January 2004)

Subject:   Tuberculosis

The Global Drug Facility (GDF) has been successful in providing a reliable and cheap supply of high quality TB drugs, serving nearly two million patients in 46 countries over the past two years.

However, the GDF is in urgent need of additional funding if its work is to continue.

Does the Commission recognise the role of the GDF in combating TB and does it intend to provide the organisation with funding to enable it to continue its work?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(20 February 2004)

The Commission recognises the important role the Global Tuberculosis (TB) Drug Facility (GDF) plays within the Stop TB partnership to expand access to, and availability of, high-quality TB drugs to facilitate global Directly Observed Treatment Short-regime (DOTS) expansion to control TB worldwide.

The Commission already provides support for the fight against TB as part of the Programme for Action: accelerated action on Human Immunodeficiency Virus/Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome (HIV/AIDS), malaria and tuberculosis in the context of poverty reduction, which established a broad and coherent Community response for 2001-2006. Community programmed support through the various financial instruments to confront HIV/AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis, will total close to EUR 1,2 billion for the period 2003-2006. This figure includes support to the Global Fund to fight HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria. The Commission has disbursed EUR 120 million to the fund for 2002 and has programmed support of EUR 340 million for years 2003-2006, out of which 170 million have already been paid. 17 % of the funds allocated in the initial rounds went to TB control programmes. It is estimated that these projects will provide Directly Observed Treatment Short-Regime (DOTS) coverage for 2,8 million patients as compared with a coverage of 830,000 in 2000. Furthermore, 46 % of the funds for all diseases are allocated to providing drugs and commodities. Given this, the Commission does not intend to provide direct support to the GDF.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/671 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/671

---

(2004/C 88 E/0690)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-4083/03

by Bob van den Bos (ELDR) and Johanna Boogerd-Quaak (ELDR) to the Commission

(14 January 2004)

Subject:   Burma The human rights situation in Burma is still appalling.

| 1. | The US Administration has now passed a law prohibiting new investment in Burma. The EU has taken no economic measures to date. While European firms are discouraged from investing in Burma, European firms continue to operate there (for example the French multinational TotalFinaElf). Their activities provide a source of income for the junta. Is the Commission prepared to impose a ban on joint ventures with Burmese state concerns and to deny access to the EU market for products resulting from such cooperation between European firms and Burmese state concerns? If so, when and how does it intend to do so? If not, why not? |
| --- | --- |

1.

The US Administration has now passed a law prohibiting new investment in Burma. The EU has taken no economic measures to date. While European firms are discouraged from investing in Burma, European firms continue to operate there (for example the French multinational TotalFinaElf). Their activities provide a source of income for the junta. Is the Commission prepared to impose a ban on joint ventures with Burmese state concerns and to deny access to the EU market for products resulting from such cooperation between European firms and Burmese state concerns? If so, when and how does it intend to do so? If not, why not?

| 2. | Arms are being supplied to Burma on a large scale. It would appear that these arms come from ten or so countries, including Russia, India, China, Israel and Ukraine. Given that the EU has in the recent past been able to prevent the supply of arms to Bosnia, is the Commission prepared to attempt to do the same regarding arms supplies from the above countries? If so, how does it intend to do so? If not, why not? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Arms are being supplied to Burma on a large scale. It would appear that these arms come from ten or so countries, including Russia, India, China, Israel and Ukraine. Given that the EU has in the recent past been able to prevent the supply of arms to Bosnia, is the Commission prepared to attempt to do the same regarding arms supplies from the above countries? If so, how does it intend to do so? If not, why not?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(17 February 2004)

| 1. | The Commission and Member States continue to follow closely the developments in Burma/Myanmar and have noted the introduction of additional trade and investment sanctions by the United States Administration.
  In view of the forthcoming decision about a renewal of Common Position 2003/297/CFSP before 29 April 2004, the Commission and Member States are reviewing the situation in Burma/Myanmar and may decide to introduce further measures by unanimous decision. The Honourable Members will understand that the Commission is not currently in a position to comment, or to anticipate the outcome of these discussions. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The Commission and Member States continue to follow closely the developments in Burma/Myanmar and have noted the introduction of additional trade and investment sanctions by the United States Administration.

In view of the forthcoming decision about a renewal of Common Position 2003/297/CFSP before 29 April 2004, the Commission and Member States are reviewing the situation in Burma/Myanmar and may decide to introduce further measures by unanimous decision. The Honourable Members will understand that the Commission is not currently in a position to comment, or to anticipate the outcome of these discussions.

| 2. | The EU has a robust Common Position on Burma/Myanmar, which was first adopted in 1996 and has been strengthened on a number of occasions since. The Common Position includes an EU visa ban and a freezing of funds held in EU countries for the members and families of the government, senior military and security officers and other persons or entities benefiting from government policies. All bilateral aid, other than strictly humanitarian assistance, is suspended. Separately, EU preferential trade concessions were withdrawn in 1997 because of forced labour.
  The Common Position also includes an arms embargo imposed in 1990 and the suspension of defence co-operation since 1991. The arms embargo was further strengthened in 2003 to include the prohibition of technical training or assistance related to arms and military equipment. In addition, the Commission and Member States have committed themselves to using their best endeavours to encourage other arms exporting States to subscribe to the restrictive principles of the EU Code of conduct on arms export of May 1998. In accordance with this, the Commission has urged a number of third countries to avoid taking any initiative which may reinforce military control in Rangoon. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The EU has a robust Common Position on Burma/Myanmar, which was first adopted in 1996 and has been strengthened on a number of occasions since. The Common Position includes an EU visa ban and a freezing of funds held in EU countries for the members and families of the government, senior military and security officers and other persons or entities benefiting from government policies. All bilateral aid, other than strictly humanitarian assistance, is suspended. Separately, EU preferential trade concessions were withdrawn in 1997 because of forced labour.

The Common Position also includes an arms embargo imposed in 1990 and the suspension of defence co-operation since 1991. The arms embargo was further strengthened in 2003 to include the prohibition of technical training or assistance related to arms and military equipment. In addition, the Commission and Member States have committed themselves to using their best endeavours to encourage other arms exporting States to subscribe to the restrictive principles of the EU Code of conduct on arms export of May 1998. In accordance with this, the Commission has urged a number of third countries to avoid taking any initiative which may reinforce military control in Rangoon.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/672 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/672

---

(2004/C 88 E/0691)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-4084/03

by Miet Smet (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(14 January 2004)

Subject:   Suspension of cooperation agreements and postponement in signing cooperation agreements

In answer to my Written Question E-0520/03 (1) of 24 February 2003 on respect for women's rights in Pakistan, the Council informed me that, to date, no agreement with a third country containing a human rights ‘essential element’ clause had been suspended.

In a number of cases where the essential elements of an agreement had been violated, the EU had suspended certain provisions of the agreement. This was the case for the financial provisions under the Cotonou Agreement with regard to Zimbabwe (2002), Comoros (2000), Côte d'Ivoire (2000), Fiji (2000), Haiti (2000) and Liberia (2001). In my Written Question E-2903/03 (2) to the Commission of 1 October 2003, I asked what infringements of essential elements of the agreement had taken place to bring about these suspensions. The Commission's reply of 25 November 2003 is unsatisfactory as it does not answer my specific question.

The same is true of the question about Croatia (1995), Pakistan (1999), Algeria (1998) and Russia (1995), where the signature of the cooperation agreements was postponed because of concern about human rights. What specific infringements of human rights were involved? Were these infringements instances of violence against women? What were they?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(19 February 2004)

The Commission refers to its responses to written questions E-2903/03 by Mrs Smet and E-3343/03 by Mr Camre (3), and to the response of the Council to written question E-0520/03 by Mrs Smet.

The Commission Communication on the inclusion of respect for Democratic Principles and Human Rights in Agreements between the Community and Third Countries (4) of 1995 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’ (5).

The EU has never fully suspended a cooperation agreement. The decision to invoke the ‘essential elements’ clause is taken by the Council of the European Union. It should also be noted that the ‘essential elements’ clause has never been invoked specifically because of violence against women but rather as a result of a more general deterioration in the human rights situation in a given country.

In response to the specific queries of the Honourable Member on the partial suspension or postponement of signature of cooperation agreements, the Commission is in a position to provide the following information:

| — | Zimbabwe:
  Prior to undertaking Consultations pursuant to Article 96 of the Cotonou Agreement, the Council Common Position noted its ‘serious concern’ about the situation in Zimbabwe ‘in particular the recent escalation of violence and intimidation of political opponents and the harassment of independent press’ and also ‘about recent legislation in Zimbabwe which if enforced would seriously infringe on the right to freedom of speech, assembly and association (6)’. |
| --- | --- |

—

Zimbabwe:

Prior to undertaking Consultations pursuant to Article 96 of the Cotonou Agreement, the Council Common Position noted its ‘serious concern’ about the situation in Zimbabwe ‘in particular the recent escalation of violence and intimidation of political opponents and the harassment of independent press’ and also ‘about recent legislation in Zimbabwe which if enforced would seriously infringe on the right to freedom of speech, assembly and association (6)’.

| — | Ivory Coast:
  The Council Decision noted that consultations were to be concluded due to ‘the lack of openness of the presidential and legislative elections held respectively in October and December 2000, and by acts of violence carried out against civilians throughout the period of democratic transition. In addition, the Ivorian authorities have failed to fulfil the undertakings they gave as part of the consultations, held under Article 366a of the Lomé Convention' (7). |
| --- | --- |

—

Ivory Coast:

The Council Decision noted that consultations were to be concluded due to ‘the lack of openness of the presidential and legislative elections held respectively in October and December 2000, and by acts of violence carried out against civilians throughout the period of democratic transition. In addition, the Ivorian authorities have failed to fulfil the undertakings they gave as part of the consultations, held under Article 366a of the Lomé Convention' (7).

| — | Fiji:
  Following a coup d'état in May 2000, the EU suspended all investment projects under the European Development Fund (EDF) programmes until free and fair elections were held and a legitimate government had assumed office. The Council decision noted that “Democratic government has yet to be fully restored in Fiji” (8). |
| --- | --- |

—

Fiji:

Following a coup d'état in May 2000, the EU suspended all investment projects under the European Development Fund (EDF) programmes until free and fair elections were held and a legitimate government had assumed office. The Council decision noted that “Democratic government has yet to be fully restored in Fiji” (8).

| — | Haiti:
  The EU suspended its development cooperation in Haiti in 2001 due to various irregularities and instances of fraud arising during the general elections of 2000. The Council decision noted that “Democratic principles are still not upheld in Haiti”. |
| --- | --- |

—

Haiti:

The EU suspended its development cooperation in Haiti in 2001 due to various irregularities and instances of fraud arising during the general elections of 2000. The Council decision noted that “Democratic principles are still not upheld in Haiti”.

| — | Liberia:
  The basis of EU action taken is to be found in the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) Resolution 1343(2001) concerning the involvement of Liberia in the conflict in Sierra Leone. The UNSC Resolution proposed that a number of sanctions would be imposed on Liberia if it continued its support to the Revolutionary United Front (RUF) in Sierra Leone and other armed rebel groups in the region. The EU weapons embargo was necessary to follow up the UNSC Resolution on the prohibition of the provision of services in respect of arms and other military equipment and military activities. |
| --- | --- |

—

Liberia:

The basis of EU action taken is to be found in the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) Resolution 1343(2001) concerning the involvement of Liberia in the conflict in Sierra Leone. The UNSC Resolution proposed that a number of sanctions would be imposed on Liberia if it continued its support to the Revolutionary United Front (RUF) in Sierra Leone and other armed rebel groups in the region. The EU weapons embargo was necessary to follow up the UNSC Resolution on the prohibition of the provision of services in respect of arms and other military equipment and military activities.

| — | Comoros:
  Further to the condemnation of the coup of 30 April 1999 in the Islamic Republic of the Comoros, the EU decided to hold consultations pursuant to Article 366a of the Lomé Convention with the Comorian military Government. |
| --- | --- |

—

Comoros:

Further to the condemnation of the coup of 30 April 1999 in the Islamic Republic of the Comoros, the EU decided to hold consultations pursuant to Article 366a of the Lomé Convention with the Comorian military Government.

| — | Russia:
  The process of the Partnership and Cooperation Agreement (PCA) ratification was complicated by a number of circumstances, even temporarily suspended by the EU due to Russian forces’ military hostilities in Chechnya. With the start of peaceful negotiations in the Chechen Republic, the ratification process resumed. The Agreement came into force on 1 December 1997. Following the launch of the second Chechnya conflict in 1999 and the decision taken by the European Council in December 1999, the Commission suspended the normal Tacis programme of technical assistance, instead putting in place a specific programme in 2000 to support civil society, democracy and the respect of human rights. |
| --- | --- |

—

Russia:

The process of the Partnership and Cooperation Agreement (PCA) ratification was complicated by a number of circumstances, even temporarily suspended by the EU due to Russian forces’ military hostilities in Chechnya. With the start of peaceful negotiations in the Chechen Republic, the ratification process resumed. The Agreement came into force on 1 December 1997. Following the launch of the second Chechnya conflict in 1999 and the decision taken by the European Council in December 1999, the Commission suspended the normal Tacis programme of technical assistance, instead putting in place a specific programme in 2000 to support civil society, democracy and the respect of human rights.

| — | Croatia:
  The Community recognised Croatia in January 1992. However, recognition did not immediately lead to economic aid or the establishment of contractual relations because of the war and the country's failure to meet the requirements of democracy. Thus the decision to start negotiations on a Cooperation Agreement and to extend the PHARE programme was suspended until Croatia demonstrated a commitment to respect for democratic principles and human rights. Only in the year 2000, when the new Government clearly committed itself to these principles, did the EU decide to start negotiations on a Stabilisation and Association Agreement, and to provide Community assistance. |
| --- | --- |

—

Croatia:

The Community recognised Croatia in January 1992. However, recognition did not immediately lead to economic aid or the establishment of contractual relations because of the war and the country's failure to meet the requirements of democracy. Thus the decision to start negotiations on a Cooperation Agreement and to extend the PHARE programme was suspended until Croatia demonstrated a commitment to respect for democratic principles and human rights. Only in the year 2000, when the new Government clearly committed itself to these principles, did the EU decide to start negotiations on a Stabilisation and Association Agreement, and to provide Community assistance.

| — | Pakistan:
  Signature of the ‘Cooperation Agreement between the Community and Pakistan on Partnership and Development’ was postponed on four occasions, namely:






  — | The May 1998 nuclear tests; |
| --- | --- | --- |

—

Pakistan:

Signature of the ‘Cooperation Agreement between the Community and Pakistan on Partnership and Development’ was postponed on four occasions, namely:

—

The May 1998 nuclear tests;

| — | Human Rights concerns (particularly the arrest of the Pakistani journalist and editor of the Friday Times Najam Sethi, under the Nawaz Sharif government in 1999); |
| --- | --- |

—

Human Rights concerns (particularly the arrest of the Pakistani journalist and editor of the Friday Times Najam Sethi, under the Nawaz Sharif government in 1999);

| — | The Kargil conflict in spring/summer 1999; |
| --- | --- |

—

The Kargil conflict in spring/summer 1999;

| — | The military takeover on 12 October 1999. |
| --- | --- |

—

The military takeover on 12 October 1999.

Signature eventually took place in Islamabad on 24 November 2001 and was accompanied by a Joint Statement wherein Pakistan reiterated its firm commitment to return to democratic government in accordance with the roadmap announced by President Musharraf on 14 August 2001.

| — | Algeria:
  In 1998 the EU closely followed political developments in Algeria, and conveyed its concern about the situation in the country on several occasions. In particular, the EU condemned all acts of terrorism, and expressed support for the Government's efforts to consolidate democracy and protect its citizens from terrorism, while respecting national law and human rights. The signature of the Association Agreement between the EU and Algeria was not officially postponed at that time, however, events within Algeria slowed down the process leading to the conclusion of negotiations and signature of the Agreement in 2002. |
| --- | --- |

—

Algeria:

In 1998 the EU closely followed political developments in Algeria, and conveyed its concern about the situation in the country on several occasions. In particular, the EU condemned all acts of terrorism, and expressed support for the Government's efforts to consolidate democracy and protect its citizens from terrorism, while respecting national law and human rights. The signature of the Association Agreement between the EU and Algeria was not officially postponed at that time, however, events within Algeria slowed down the process leading to the conclusion of negotiations and signature of the Agreement in 2002.

---

(1)  OJ C 280 E, 21.11.2003, p. 62.

(2)  OJ C 78 E, 27.3.2004, p. 441.

(3)  OJ C 78 E, 27.3.2004, p. 526.

(4)  COM(95) 216 final.

(5)  See annex 2 of the above-mentioned Communication for a list of measures that may be taken in the event of a serious human rights violations.

(6)  OJ L 46, 20.2.2003.

(7)  OJ L 183, 6.7.2001.

(8)  OJ L 120, 28.4.2001.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/675 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/675

---

(2004/C 88 E/0692)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-4088/03

by Dana Scallon (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(8 January 2004)

Subject:   Reproductive health definition

On 16 December 2003, the EU Council stated that the term ‘reproductive health’ did not include the following: support, aid, facilitation, encouragement, promotion, sponsoring or provision of incentives for abortion (‘die Förderung von Abtreibung’).

How will the Commission take into account this definition when selecting EU partner organisations in charge of implementing EU policies in the field of reproductive health and rights?

Can the Commission confirm that applicant organisations which do not provide abortion or conduct abortion-related activities can be successful in applying for EU money in the field of reproductive health and rights?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(1 March 2004)

At the Parliament session on 16 December 2003 the Council representative, in his response to the question put by the Honourable Member, referred to recital 16 of 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) which clearly states that no support is given under that Regulation to incentives to encourage abortions.

The Commission supports in full the International Conference on Population and Development (ICPD) policy and the ICPD Programme of Action with respect to sexual and reproductive health. The selection of partner organisations is governed by the Regulation referred to above.

The Commission considers that it is indeed possible that an organisation which does not provide abortion or conduct abortion-related activities may submit a successful proposal in one of the open calls issued by the Commission with respect to sexual and reproductive health and rights.

---

(1)  OJ L 224, 6.9.2003.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/675 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/675

---

(2004/C 88 E/0693)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0002/04

by Bernd Posselt (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(9 January 2004)

Subject:   Definition of sexual and reproductive health

On 16 December 2003 the Italian Presidency of the Council told me that ‘sexual and reproductive health’ did not cover the possibility of financing abortions. Is this also the Commission's understanding?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(23 February 2004)

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), recital No 16 states that: ‘No support is to be given under this Regulation to incentives to encourage sterilisation or abortion ...’. This line is in keeping with the Programme of Action adopted at the International Conference on Population and Development in Cairo 1994, on which Community policy is based.

---

(1)  OJ L 224, 6.9.2003.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/676 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/676

---

(2004/C 88 E/0694)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0007/04

by Philip Claeys (NI) to the Commission

(16 January 2004)

Subject:   Accession of Cyprus, official languages

Cyprus has two official languages, Greek and Turkish. The Constitution also says that one of the two Vice-Presidents must be a Turkish Cypriot. Because of the Turkish occupation of the northern part of the island, however, these constitutional provisions are not in force. In the current circumstances, recognition of Turkish as an official language in the European Union could be interpreted as implicit recognition of the Turkish occupation of the northern part of Cyprus.

Might the accession of Cyprus on 1 May 2004 – if there is no change in the institutional and political situation – nonetheless mean that the Turkish will become an official language of the European Union? If so, on the basis of what arguments does the Commission arrive at this view?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(1 March 2004)

According to the Treaty of Accession 2003 Turkish is not an official language of the European Union, since no such request had been made.

Following a political settlement of the Cyprus problem and a re-unification of the island, the United Cyprus Republic is entitled to request that Turkish is recognised as an official Community language. The Council would then have to amend Regulations no. 1/1958/EEC and 1/1958/Euratom determining the languages to be used by the two Communities (1). The legal base for this adaptation and the modalities related to it would be Article 4 of Protocol No 10 of the Act of Accession, which stipulates that the Council shall decide, in the event of a settlement, on the adaptations to the terms concerning the accession of Cyprus with regard to the Turkish Cypriot Community.

It should be noted that the Commission decided in 1999 to dedicate EUR 3 million for the translation of the ‘acquis’ into Turkish in order to prepare and facilitate the process of bringing the northern part of Cyprus closer to the European Union.

---

(1)  OJ B 17, 6.10.1958.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/676 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/676

---

(2004/C 88 E/0695)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0032/04

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(20 January 2004)

Subject:   Long-term stateless-person status of one category of permanent residents of the three future EU Member States that were internal states of the Soviet Union until 1991

| 1. | Can the Commission confirm that when Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania came into being as independent states in 1991, not all of their permanently domiciled residents were enabled in good time to exchange the nationality of the then defunct Soviet Union for that of their new state, so that such persons became stateless? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Can the Commission confirm that when Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania came into being as independent states in 1991, not all of their permanently domiciled residents were enabled in good time to exchange the nationality of the then defunct Soviet Union for that of their new state, so that such persons became stateless?

| 2. | Can the Commission confirm that in those three former internal states of the Soviet Union only descendants of Russian colonists going back to the period of the Tsarist Empire ending in 1917 are accepted as citizens, but not those who immigrated during the Soviet period between 1939 and 1991 and their descendants, because they are seen as foreign occupiers and held responsible for government policy of that period? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Can the Commission confirm that in those three former internal states of the Soviet Union only descendants of Russian colonists going back to the period of the Tsarist Empire ending in 1917 are accepted as citizens, but not those who immigrated during the Soviet period between 1939 and 1991 and their descendants, because they are seen as foreign occupiers and held responsible for government policy of that period?

| 3. | Is the option for the excluded group still to apply for the nationality of their country of residence on the basis of their knowledge of the present official state language being unnecessarily restricted by subjecting them to tests that, in particular, select on the basis of knowledge of technical and legal terms that are not generally known and form no part of everyday language use? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Is the option for the excluded group still to apply for the nationality of their country of residence on the basis of their knowledge of the present official state language being unnecessarily restricted by subjecting them to tests that, in particular, select on the basis of knowledge of technical and legal terms that are not generally known and form no part of everyday language use?

| 4. | Can the Commission indicate the percentages of the populations of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania who were stateless persons in 1993 and 2003 respectively? What are its projections for the immediate future? Does it expect those percentages to remain higher in the long term than in other EU Member States? |
| --- | --- |

4.

Can the Commission indicate the percentages of the populations of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania who were stateless persons in 1993 and 2003 respectively? What are its projections for the immediate future? Does it expect those percentages to remain higher in the long term than in other EU Member States?

| 5. | What future prospects does the Commission hold out for such stateless persons? Does it assume that all residents have a right to nationality as a matter of principle? Or must they chose between emigrating from their country of residence and resting content with long-term exclusion from such rights as participation in political activity and freedom to travel? |
| --- | --- |

5.

What future prospects does the Commission hold out for such stateless persons? Does it assume that all residents have a right to nationality as a matter of principle? Or must they chose between emigrating from their country of residence and resting content with long-term exclusion from such rights as participation in political activity and freedom to travel?

| 6. | How will the Commission seek to ensure that the percentage of stateless persons in those countries, which will accede to the European Union on 1 May 2004, will cease within the next few years to be higher than the average in other EU Member States? |
| --- | --- |

6.

How will the Commission seek to ensure that the percentage of stateless persons in those countries, which will accede to the European Union on 1 May 2004, will cease within the next few years to be higher than the average in other EU Member States?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(1 March 2004)

By the time Estonia and Latvia regained their independence in 1991, around a quarter of their populations were made up of immigrants from other Soviet Republics, following a deliberate policy of population change under the Soviet regime. As this was not the case to the same extent in Lithuania, the question of citizenship has not been an issue in that country.

Residents and their descendants who had the nationality of these states in 1940 were regarded as citizens of the countries when they regained their independence in 1991. The other people residing permanently in the territories of these countries – this concerns mainly, if not exclusively, citizens originating from other Soviet Union Republics – were, and still are given the possibility to apply for citizenship. The conditions for obtaining citizenship in Estonia and Latvia have been adjusted following advice from international bodies with competence in these matters such as the High Commissioner on National Minorities of the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe. As stated in its Regular Reports on the progress in EU accession preparation in these countries, the Commission is satisfied that the human rights in these matters are respected.

According to information available to the Commission, today around 12 % of the population residing in Estonia have no Estonian citizenship, nor one of another country. In Latvia, this figure would be around 21 %. These people hold residence permits and are able to work, study, benefit from social schemes, and travel abroad. In order to allow for travelling abroad, special passports are issued, which are internationally accepted. However, the Commission encourages the countries to continue to make every effort to integrate these people into their societies and to facilitate the process of obtaining nationality. The Commission is of the opinion that efforts are required from all involved. Financial support towards achieving this is being provided. It is expected that the share of ‘non-citizens’ will further decrease after accession and at a faster rate than in the past. Indeed, more people will apply for citizenship when they realise that it is in their interest to integrate into the countries and into the EU, while maintaining their cultural identity.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/678 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/678

---

(2004/C 88 E/0696)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0034/04

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(20 January 2004)

Subject:   Duty-free cigarettes sold over the Internet at half price in Romania and sent by private individuals

| 1. | Is the Commission aware that the possibility appears to exist in EU Member States to order from Romania up to 160 cigarettes of various Western brands over the Internet, which are then bought by private individuals in Romania and sent in small consignments as goods of a non-commercial character, which, under Community rules on reliefs from duty, are exempt from VAT and import duty, allowing the cigarettes to be sold at around half the price that the same number of cigarettes would cost in the country of the recipient? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is the Commission aware that the possibility appears to exist in EU Member States to order from Romania up to 160 cigarettes of various Western brands over the Internet, which are then bought by private individuals in Romania and sent in small consignments as goods of a non-commercial character, which, under Community rules on reliefs from duty, are exempt from VAT and import duty, allowing the cigarettes to be sold at around half the price that the same number of cigarettes would cost in the country of the recipient?

| 2. | Is the Commission also aware that mediation between buyers and sellers is carried out by the company Cigarom.com on EU territory by Spanish intermediaries and that there are plans to set up ‘administrative centres’ in EU Member States to promote this kind of sale in such a way that these centres could not, in a legal sense, be viewed as shops? Is it currently impossible to confiscate these cigarettes as contraband? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Is the Commission also aware that mediation between buyers and sellers is carried out by the company Cigarom.com on EU territory by Spanish intermediaries and that there are plans to set up ‘administrative centres’ in EU Member States to promote this kind of sale in such a way that these centres could not, in a legal sense, be viewed as shops? Is it currently impossible to confiscate these cigarettes as contraband?

| 3. | How will the rules governing trade of this kind change when Romania becomes a Member State of the EU? |
| --- | --- |

3.

How will the rules governing trade of this kind change when Romania becomes a Member State of the EU?

| 4. | Does the Commission consider trade of this kind, is acceptable where the combination of profit making and low prices is made possible only by tax evasion, or does it feel that it constitutes a criminal offence that goes unpunished as a result of loopholes in current rules or a lack of customs controls? |
| --- | --- |

4.

Does the Commission consider trade of this kind, is acceptable where the combination of profit making and low prices is made possible only by tax evasion, or does it feel that it constitutes a criminal offence that goes unpunished as a result of loopholes in current rules or a lack of customs controls?

| 5. | In what way can these loopholes in the legislation and/or lack of customs controls be rectified? |
| --- | --- |

5.

In what way can these loopholes in the legislation and/or lack of customs controls be rectified?

| 6. | What measures is the Commission preparing to prevent trade of this kind that originates in non-member states of the EU? |
| --- | --- |

6.

What measures is the Commission preparing to prevent trade of this kind that originates in non-member states of the EU?

Source: TV Nederland 3, ‘Nova’, 30 December 2003.

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(16 February 2004)

| 1. | The Commission is not aware of the specific situation described in the Honourable Member's question. It is however the Commission's view that cigarettes imported in this way by private persons into the EU cannot be considered to be small consignments of goods of a non-commercial character, as there is always a commercial transaction underlying the shipment. Consequently, these consignments cannot benefit from the exemption for imports of small consignments of goods of a non-commercial character as they do not meet the requirements provided for in EU legislation in Articles 29 to 31 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 918/83 (1), as far as customs duty is concerned, and in Council Directive 78/1035/EEC (2), as far as VAT and excise duty are concerned. In any case, for cigarettes, these exemptions are limited to 50 pieces per consignment. Furthermore, Member States may reduce this quantity or even abolish the VAT and excise exemption for tobacco products altogether. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The Commission is not aware of the specific situation described in the Honourable Member's question. It is however the Commission's view that cigarettes imported in this way by private persons into the EU cannot be considered to be small consignments of goods of a non-commercial character, as there is always a commercial transaction underlying the shipment. Consequently, these consignments cannot benefit from the exemption for imports of small consignments of goods of a non-commercial character as they do not meet the requirements provided for in EU legislation in Articles 29 to 31 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 918/83 (1), as far as customs duty is concerned, and in Council Directive 78/1035/EEC (2), as far as VAT and excise duty are concerned. In any case, for cigarettes, these exemptions are limited to 50 pieces per consignment. Furthermore, Member States may reduce this quantity or even abolish the VAT and excise exemption for tobacco products altogether.

| 2. | The Commission has so far not received any information concerning the setting up of such operations in the EU. However, as pointed out above, it considers these consignments as being of a commercial nature and, as a consequence, subject to customs duty, VAT and excise duty upon importation into the EU. Member States can therefore take appropriate legal measures under their domestic laws if the goods are not properly declared upon importation. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The Commission has so far not received any information concerning the setting up of such operations in the EU. However, as pointed out above, it considers these consignments as being of a commercial nature and, as a consequence, subject to customs duty, VAT and excise duty upon importation into the EU. Member States can therefore take appropriate legal measures under their domestic laws if the goods are not properly declared upon importation.

| 3. | After accession of Romania to the EU, these consignments will have to be treated as distance sales, for which excise duty is chargeable in the Member State of destination. More detailed information on the excise duty regime applicable to distance sales can be found in the reply of the Commission to written question E-3449/03 (3). |
| --- | --- |

3.

After accession of Romania to the EU, these consignments will have to be treated as distance sales, for which excise duty is chargeable in the Member State of destination. More detailed information on the excise duty regime applicable to distance sales can be found in the reply of the Commission to written question E-3449/03 (3).

| 4. 5. & 6. | The Commission is of the opinion that there are no loopholes in EU legislation but recognises that there is a problem of control and enforcement of payment of duties and taxes on tobacco products offered to final consumers via the internet and sent directly to them in postal consignments from third countries or from another Member State. This problem is being actively investigated by the Commission's European Anti-Fraud Office and by the appropriate authorities in the Member States, with a view to developing measures to combat this type of fraud. |
| --- | --- |

4. 5. & 6.

The Commission is of the opinion that there are no loopholes in EU legislation but recognises that there is a problem of control and enforcement of payment of duties and taxes on tobacco products offered to final consumers via the internet and sent directly to them in postal consignments from third countries or from another Member State. This problem is being actively investigated by the Commission's European Anti-Fraud Office and by the appropriate authorities in the Member States, with a view to developing measures to combat this type of fraud.

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 918/83 of 28 March 1983 setting up a Community system of reliefs from customs duty, OJ L 105, 23.4.1983. Regulation as last amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 355/94 of 14 February 1994, OJ L 46, 18.2.1994.

(2)  Council Directive 78/1035/EEC of 19 December 1978 on the exemption from taxes of imports of small consignments of goods of a non-commercial character from third countries, OJ L 366, 28.12.1978. Directive as last amended by Council Directive 85/576/EEC of 20 December 1985, OJ L 372, 31.12.1985.

(3)  See page 146.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/679 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/679

---

(2004/C 88 E/0697)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0085/04

by Matti Wuori (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(20 January 2004)

Subject:   Missing NGO legal framework in Malta

Malta, which will become a member of the EU on 1 May next, has no legal framework for the regulation of non-governmental organisations. This is hindering established NGOs, including non-governmental development organisations with an excellent track record, from developing their full capacities. Such a framework would enable them to participate meaningfully in partnerships with other European NGOs.

Should not the Commission put pressure on the Maltese government to set up the necessary legal framework without further delay? This would be a step in the right direction in recognising the expertise and mandate of all established NGOs, including NGDOs working in the international development field, and offering all the necessary support for NGOs and NGDOs to continue and further their global solidarity work.

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(25 February 2004)

Community legislation does not oblige Member States to set up a legal framework for Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs). This is left to the discretion of Member States. This is, therefore, not an issue where the Commission is entitled to ‘put pressure on the Maltese Government’.

The Commission has, throughout the pre-accession period, and whenever relevant and possible insisted that Community-funded projects include participation from non-governmental organisations (NGOs). In the framework of its support for NGOs, the Commission is prepared to consider specific projects related to the implementation of Community legislation and policies in Malta.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/679 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/679

---

(2004/C 88 E/0698)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0096/04

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(21 January 2004)

Subject:   Israeli arms for Turkey in exchange for water

According to reports published on Monday, 5 January 2003, the Israeli Prime Minister, Ariel Sharon, and the Turkish Energy Minister, Zeki Cakan, met in Jerusalem to finalise agreements between the two countries whereby Turkey will be supplied with a large quantity of state-of-the-art Israeli tanks and ultra-modern technology for its airforce. In exchange, Israel will receive 50 million cubic metres of water for a period of twenty years from the River Manavgat in Anatolia, which will be transported by a fleet of gigantic tankers currently being built in Israel, which is encountering serious problems with salinisation of its water resources.

Since Turkey is a candidate for accession to the European Union, will the Commission say what it knows about the content of the abovementioned agreements? Will it inform the European Parliament thereof?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(25 February 2004)

The Commission does not have any specific knowledge nor has it been officially informed about the contents of the agreements mentioned by the Honourable Member.

As the 1993 Copenhagen European Council stated, ‘membership requires that a candidate country has achieved stability of institutions guaranteeing democracy, the rule of law, human rights, and the respect of and protection of minorities’. It is in particular against these criteria that the Commission will assess Turkey's progress towards accession in its next Regular Report.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/680 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/680

---

(2004/C 88 E/0699)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0104/04

by José Ribeiro e Castro (UEN) to the Commission

(22 January 2004)

Subject:   Namibia – Farms threatened with occupation

Following the deadlock in negotiations between the Namibian Farmworkers Union (NAFU) and the Namibia Agricultural Union (NAU), which comprises most of the country's farm-owners, NAFU has announced that it intends to occupy certain farms, giving rise to fears of a re-run, although without official support, of what has been happening in Zimbabwe. This situation has been reported in The Namibian newspaper and some international media.

Tension continues to rise, with NAFU announcing that these actions could begin this month.

Since independence, Namibia has sought to establish a certain degree of equity with regard to land ownership, by adopting the ‘willing seller, willing buyer’ programme, with the right of preference reserved to those cases where the owner is seeking to sell, without taking or advocating any kind of violent or forced expropriation measures.

With the next presidential election campaign drawing near, to appoint Sam Nujoma's successor after 14 years in power, there are forecasts that this issue may be used as a way of stirring up the population, and fears that people and property could, as a result, suffer greatly.

The Commission:

| — | does it have any reliable information on this issue, and how does it see future developments; |
| --- | --- |

—

does it have any reliable information on this issue, and how does it see future developments;

| — | has it established contacts, or will it do so, with the authorities, or the trade union headquarters or the bosses' unions in Namibia in this connection? What measures has it taken or will it take to try to prevent the confrontation from worsening and dragging in other applicant countries; |
| --- | --- |

—

has it established contacts, or will it do so, with the authorities, or the trade union headquarters or the bosses' unions in Namibia in this connection? What measures has it taken or will it take to try to prevent the confrontation from worsening and dragging in other applicant countries;

| — | does it believe that European interests are in any way threatened in Namibia? Has it obtained safety guarantees from the Namibian Government? Will it do so; |
| --- | --- |

—

does it believe that European interests are in any way threatened in Namibia? Has it obtained safety guarantees from the Namibian Government? Will it do so;

| — | would it be prepared to collaborate with the Namibian Government, should this be requested? Does it believe the European Union could have a role in this issue as a potential means of reconciliation between the parties at dispute? |
| --- | --- |

—

would it be prepared to collaborate with the Namibian Government, should this be requested? Does it believe the European Union could have a role in this issue as a potential means of reconciliation between the parties at dispute?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(4 March 2004)

The Commission is aware of the general problem with regard to ownership of commercial farm land in Namibia as well as of some individual cases of labour disputes in this context which are widely reported in the local media.

With regard to future developments on this issue, the Commission trusts that the Government will continue to respect the law and prevent unlawful actions. The prudent but firm statements made by the Government on individual cases show that it fully supports the application of the agreed ‘willing buyer, willing seller’ principle (which excludes any unlawful actions).

The Commission, through its Delegation in Namibia, has well established contacts with the responsible Government authorities, in particular with the Minister of Land Reform and the Minister of Agriculture, as well as with the Commercial Farmers Union (NAU) and the Namibian National Farmers Union (NNFU). From the ongoing dialogue with these institutions, the Commission concludes that the Government continues to ensure that any dispute is settled peacefully and in accordance with existing laws, and that it will do its utmost to avoid any confrontation. Any negative impact on neighbouring countries (or any risk that Namibia might follow the ‘Zimbabwean way’) appears thus excluded.

Namibia has signed with a number of Member States ‘Investment Protection Agreements’ during the recent past. These will provide additional legal security for property and investments.

Within the framework of the Cotonou Partnership Agreement and the related Namibia-Commission Country Strategy Paper it has been agreed that ‘Rural Development’ will be the main focal area for future development co-operation in this country, including the issue of land reform. The Commission has indeed acknowledged the great importance of this issue in the development of Namibia, and recognised that a successful land reform programme can be an effective way to consolidate the reconciliation and democratic process in this country. Preparations for providing such assistance are under way. Ignoring the need for land reform – including the promotion of a more equitable distribution of land – would be a mistake and would weaken the fight against poverty. This is true not only for the Commissions role as a partner in Namibia but indeed throughout the region.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/681 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/681

---

(2004/C 88 E/0700)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0116/04

by Dana Scallon (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(26 January 2004)

Subject:   Leader II projects – Blue Dragon case

| 1. | Regarding Leader II projects, can the Commission confirm that the Kingdom of Spain is receiving 30 % of the European subsidies?. Is the Commission aware that in the Blue Dragon 2000 case, the accounts of the GAL Salines-Bassegoda were certified by the Spanish Government? Is the Commission aware that a sum of EUR 43 000 was transferred in France? Is the Commission aware that the Regional Minister Josep Grau, in charge of the local control, recognised the Blue Dragon 2000 people as victims, but that no complaint was ever lodged to any penal court? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Regarding Leader II projects, can the Commission confirm that the Kingdom of Spain is receiving 30 % of the European subsidies?. Is the Commission aware that in the Blue Dragon 2000 case, the accounts of the GAL Salines-Bassegoda were certified by the Spanish Government? Is the Commission aware that a sum of EUR 43 000 was transferred in France? Is the Commission aware that the Regional Minister Josep Grau, in charge of the local control, recognised the Blue Dragon 2000 people as victims, but that no complaint was ever lodged to any penal court?

| 2. | Knowing that the people of Blue Dragon supported OLAF with material evidence leading to a penal treatment of the case from September 2000 to November 2001, is the Commission aware that, although acknowledging irregularities, OLAF adhered to the Spanish conclusions? Can the Commission explain why no investigation on both Spanish and French territories was opened? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Knowing that the people of Blue Dragon supported OLAF with material evidence leading to a penal treatment of the case from September 2000 to November 2001, is the Commission aware that, although acknowledging irregularities, OLAF adhered to the Spanish conclusions? Can the Commission explain why no investigation on both Spanish and French territories was opened?

| 3. | Knowing that an official complaint was placed against the Kingdom of Spain on 9 March 2002 by the people of Blue Dragon, how would the Commission interpret that the validity of this complaint seems still under scrutiny? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Knowing that an official complaint was placed against the Kingdom of Spain on 9 March 2002 by the people of Blue Dragon, how would the Commission interpret that the validity of this complaint seems still under scrutiny?

| 4. | The owners of Blue Dragon 2000 have experienced extreme difficulties and damages in the last five years, which they described as extreme prejudice due to important deficiencies of the shared management process. How would the Commission advise these owners, European citizens that were willing to trust the European system, to act in order to try to repair the moral and financial damage caused? |
| --- | --- |

4.

The owners of Blue Dragon 2000 have experienced extreme difficulties and damages in the last five years, which they described as extreme prejudice due to important deficiencies of the shared management process. How would the Commission advise these owners, European citizens that were willing to trust the European system, to act in order to try to repair the moral and financial damage caused?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(2 April 2004)

The Leader II Programme that ran from 1994 to 1999 is at present in the closure stage and thus it is not yet possible to state the exact amounts paid to each Member State.

The initial allocation to Spain was however EUR 1,162 billion, i.e. 30 % of the total budget.

OLAF has stated that its investigation was opened on 1 February 2001 and closed on 12 December 2002.

From opening onwards the Commission and OLAF shared their information on the case despite suspension of the investigation given that national-level checks were already being made.

Following these the Spanish authorities issued an order for recovery of EUR 46 874,42 from the LAG on account of irregularities found in management of the Blue Dragon project.

Our information is that in neither France nor Spain has judicial scrutiny led to criminal investigation. The French authorities considered that on geographical grounds they were not competent to investigate. The Spanish authorities did not act on the complaint owing to lack of support from the civil parties.

The Committee on Budgetary Control will very soon be receiving detailed information from OLAF on this dossier.

The other points raised in the Honourable Member's question, particularly in paragraphs 3 and 4, reflect grievances raised by Blue Dragon in a complaint addressed to the Commission that we are at present investigating. We have sent a detailed request for information to the Spanish authorities. A reply is expected in the near future and we think it more appropriate to examine it before passing on further information.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/682 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/682

---

(2004/C 88 E/0701)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0118/04

by Monica Frassoni (Verts/ALE) and Daniel Cohn-Bendit (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(26 January 2004)

Subject:   Elimination of voters from Maltese electoral lists

Until last year, the two major political parties in Malta used to go on a voter elimination exercise twice a year, when thousands of rival party voters would be eliminated from the electoral register on the basis of interpretation of residence, mental sanity, etc.

On 21 March 2003, the Constitutional Court of Malta, at the request of an injured party, gave a definition of ‘residence’ (the Cassola Case, Judge Tonio Mallia, Case: Harry Vassallo vs the Electoral Commission and John Mary Magro, No. 6/2003/1). The definition given by the Malta Constitutional court says: ‘the word'residence'does not mean physical presence in the country’.

Moreover, the new law for European elections in Malta, (Act No. XVI of 2003, published in the Malta Government Gazette of 26 November 2003), explicitly states that all Maltese citizens living in the 25 EU countries have a right to vote and stand for elections in Malta.

Is the Commission aware of the fact that, despite the constitutional definition and the existing legislation on European elections, the Malta Labour Party has again applied to have 1684 Maltese citizens struck off the electoral register? These court cases will start being heard by the Maltese courts in the last week of January, and Maltese employees with the EU institutions are amongst those being targeted.

What does the Commission intend to do against the illegal attempt of MLP to prevent Maltese citizens taking part in the upcoming European Elections in Malta?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(26 February 2004)

Malta's constitution recognises all fundamental human and civil rights. The right of Maltese citizens to vote at general elections is subject to citizenship, age and residence requirements. The Commission is aware that, following a recent complaint by a Maltese citizen whose right of vote was challenged by a Party, the Constitutional Court of Malta ruled that the word ‘residence’ does not mean physical presence in the country but includes and allows periodic absences from the country.

Therefore, any challenge by a political party of a citizen's voting right must be handled by a competent Maltese Court, taking into account the interpretations of the Constitutional Court of Malta. It is not for the Commission to interfere in the functioning of the Maltese justice or to comment on the attitude of a specific political party in that regard. Indeed the Commission is of the opinion that the Maltese judicial system can ensure that the voting rights of citizens, as specified in the Maltese legislation, are fully respected. The Commission notes that in the past, Maltese courts have reversed illegal attempts to deny Maltese citizens their voting rights.

The Commission also notes that the newly adopted law for European elections in Malta stipulates that all Maltese citizens living in the 25 Member States have a right to vote and stand for elections of Members of the European Parliament in Malta. This was possible because the Maltese constitution covers the general elections but not the European elections. The Commission notes with interest this development, which seems coherent with Malta's greater international involvement.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/683 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/683

---

(2004/C 88 E/0702)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0120/04

by Adriana Poli Bortone (UEN) to the Commission

(26 January 2004)

Subject:   Death of 20 Albanian nationals

In recent days yet another dinghy that had set out from Albania has sunk, causing the death of 20 Albanian nationals.

According to reports in the Italian press there is evidence of collusion between the Albanian authorities and the traffickers. If this was indeed the case, the episode would call into doubt the good relations which Italy, in particular, intends to further develop as part of the process of achieving genuine democracy in Albania.

Can the Commission indicate whether and how it will shed light on this tragic episode which, at best, has revealed shortcomings in surveillance in Albania and along its shoreline?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(25 February 2004)

The Commission deplores the accident on 9 January 2004 in which over 20 Albanian citizens died in the Ionian Sea trying to reach Italy illegally. Despite previous assurances by the Albanian Government of a substantial reduction in the number of speedboats and dinghies crossing over towards Italy this event has demonstrated that increased attention by the Albanian authorities is an absolute necessity. This message was clearly conveyed by the President of the Commission to Prime Minister Nano during their meeting of 20 January 2004 in Brussels.

Preliminary investigations showed that members of the Albanian police were directly involved in facilitating this traffic. The reaction of the Albanian authorities was, on this occasion, immediate; arrests and other actions against the organisers and participants in the operation were promptly taken. However, the Albanian authorities still need to demonstrate that they are able to carry out more extensive investigations, and to ensure proper prosecution of all the persons involved. They also need to demonstrate that the reactions in the aftermath of this tragedy represent the start of a serious and determined action against organised crime and smuggling of human beings.

The Commission accords the utmost importance to monitoring progress by Albania in Justice and Home Affairs-related areas. In this context, it will continue to follow up closely events regarding this particular case, as well as the general situation in Albania, with a view to exerting, as appropriate, the necessary political pressure to help Albania to address these serious problems.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/684 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/684

---

(2004/C 88 E/0703)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0137/04

by Jillian Evans (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(26 January 2004)

Subject:   The case of Mrs Siham Qandah, Jordan

Is the Commission aware of the case of Mrs Siham Qandah, a Jordanian citizen? Mrs Qandah, who is a Christian, has been facing the loss of custody of her two children, as they are not being brought up as Muslims.

Mrs Qandah was widowed in 1994 and subsequently told that she was ineligible for her army-serving husband's pension as he had, unbeknown to her and on apparently forged documentation, converted to Islam in 1991. The Jordanian courts appear to have threatened Mrs Qandah with a prison sentence, and have been attempting to have custody of the children transferred to Mrs Qandah's estranged brother, who has converted to Islam.

What is the Commission policy on such cases of apparently state-permitted involvement, which is in breach of the International Treaty of Human Rights (Article 18)?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(23 February 2004)

The Commission is closely monitoring the individual case of Mrs Siham Qandah. Mrs Qandah's situation is related to the wider problem of compatibility of the application of the Shari'ah law and the international human rights conventions that Jordan has signed but not fully transposed into national law. The Commission shares the Honourable Member's concern that the application of Shari'ah law in Jordan can provoke great distress in families whose members are of mixed Christian and Muslim faith and lead to results which are incompatible with these conventions.

As the Honourable Member knows Jordan is a signatory of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The Commission has raised the need for Jordan to implement effectively its commitments to international human rights agreements, including those protecting the rights of women and children. The question of the defence of human rights and in particular of those of women and children is considered of prime importance by the Commission. The Commission will continue to stress their importance in its future contacts with Jordanian authorities

In the framework of the EU-Jordan Association Agreement, the Union and Jordan is establishing a continuous political dialogue at the highest level aimed inter alia at improving the human rights situation in Jordan. This includes cooperation on particular issues relating to human rights as well as working to improve the application of international conventions.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/685 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/685

---

(2004/C 88 E/0704)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0144/04

by José Ribeiro e Castro (UEN) to the Commission

(26 January 2004)

Subject:   Cuba – Commission delegation

In reply to my question P-2303/03 (1), Commissioner Nielson said that the Cuban Government had agreed to the appointment of the Head of Commission Delegation in Cuba on 14 April 2003.

At that time, it had not been scheduled when his credentials were to be presented.

Can the Commission answer the following:

– has there been any further developments? Has the date for accreditation now been fixed;

– what steps have been taken to regularise this situation;

– have the Cuban authorities given any expiation of the delay;

– how does the Commission read the situation, and what comments does it have to make?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(20 February 2004)

No date has been fixed yet for the presentation of credentials, despite official indications that the ceremony was imminent three times. It is worth noting that the Head of the Commission's Santo Domingo Delegation already appears in the recently published 2004 ‘List of the diplomatic and consular corps accredited in Cuba’ as ‘designated’ non-resident Head of Delegation of the European Communities in Havana.

The Commission's Chargé d'affaires in Havana has repeatedly requested during the last months that the authorities indicate a date for the presentation of credentials. The last time this matter was officially brought to the attention of the authorities was on 24 November 2003 in a meeting with the Cuban Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Similar démarches have been undertaken to the Cuban Embassies in Santo Domingo and in Brussels.

So far no reply to the request to set a specific date has been received.

The Commission assumes that the Cuban authorities may not consider the current state of bilateral relations conducive for formalising the accreditation of the Commission's non-resident Head of Delegation in Havana. It needs to be remembered that a diplomatic freeze was imposed on all EU missions in Cuba which have invited dissidents and political opponents to their respective National Days. Cuban dissidents were invited to the Schuman Day reception on 9 May 2003 in Havana.

---

(1)  See page 76.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/686 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/686

---

(2004/C 88 E/0705)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0146/04

by José Ribeiro e Castro (UEN) to the Commission

(26 January 2004)

Subject:   Venezuela referendum

The Venezuelan constitution provides for the possibility of calling a referendum to remove Heads of State from power after completion of half their appointed mandate, the condition for calling such a referendum being the signatures of at least 20 % of the 11 million strong Venezuelan electorate, i.e. 2,6 million individuals.

With precisely this end in view, the Venezuelan opposition handed over the total of 121 boxes, containing some three million signatures, to the National Electoral Council (NEC), in order to bring about a referendum which could bring about the destitution of President Hugo Chávez.

The media report that the authorities only recently announced that they had begun verifying the signatures, in what looks like yet another blatant delaying tactic to undermine the full-scale democratisation of the country.

This situation has led the opposition to question the fitness of the NEC, in the wake of its continual postponing of the verification procedure, and protests are already taking place outside the NEC headquarters.

The Commission:

| — | what information does it have in this connection; |
| --- | --- |

—

what information does it have in this connection;

| — | has it sought any guarantee form the Venezuelan authorities that the verification of the signatures will be carried out freely and fairly; |
| --- | --- |

—

has it sought any guarantee form the Venezuelan authorities that the verification of the signatures will be carried out freely and fairly;

| — | over and above the Electoral Observers' Mission which it has already said it would send, is the Commission prepared to monitor and assess the fairness of the preliminary process of verifying the signatures, should this be proposed or suggested? Could this be a task for the likewise already announced Exploratory Mission? Or does the Commission believe that lumping this together with the task of assessing whether EU observers are advisable, useful and possible could in fact prejudice their involvement; |
| --- | --- |

—

over and above the Electoral Observers' Mission which it has already said it would send, is the Commission prepared to monitor and assess the fairness of the preliminary process of verifying the signatures, should this be proposed or suggested? Could this be a task for the likewise already announced Exploratory Mission? Or does the Commission believe that lumping this together with the task of assessing whether EU observers are advisable, useful and possible could in fact prejudice their involvement;

| — | what is it's assessment of Venezuelan political life in the last few months? |
| --- | --- |

—

what is it's assessment of Venezuelan political life in the last few months?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(2 March 2004)

The Venezuelan constitution foresees the possibility of referenda to recall public elected authorities who have reached the half term of their mandate. This was reiterated in the Agreement signed between the government and the opposition on 29 May 2003. With this aim, the opposition has been involved in collecting signatures to request referenda to recall President Chávez and 27 pro-government Members of the National Assembly and the government's supporters have also collected signatures for referenda against 37 pro-opposition members of the National Assembly.

The National Electoral Council (NEC) is currently verifying the signatures presented on 19 December 2003 by the opposition and those presented earlier by government supporters and should have completed this task on 13 February 2004, but it has been delayed until the end of February or beginning of March 2004. If there are sufficient signatures (more than 2,4 million to recall the President) the NEC must organise (a) referendum/a within 97 days (end of May 2004). Therefore, the validation of signatures is of key importance. The NEC is carrying out the verification under considerable pressure, but has received strong international support, including that of the EU. The process is progressing with minor difficulties, though the opposition has accused some members of the NEC of intentional delays in their work.

The OAS (Organisation for American States) and the CC (Carter Centre), invited by the government, are observing the verification of the signatures, in order to guarantee the transparency of the process and demonstrate that it is been undertaken in a fair way. The OAS and CC were initially just invited to be present at two of the six steps of the verification process but, following an OAS request, the invitation has been extended to all stages.

The Commission is financially supporting the OAS in the implementation of the 29 May 2003 Agreement, with an amount of EUR 600 000. Nevertheless, the Commission is not playing any other role within the process, because it has not been invited either to observe the collection of signatures or to support the verification.

The Commission supports the NEC efforts to comply with its constitutional role of verifying the signatures and has no reasons to believe the NEC will fail in its obligations. It is very important that both the government's supporters and opposition publicly commit themselves to accept any decision which is consistent with the constitution and democratic principles. The EU (Declaration of 22 December 2003) has publicly urged both parties to act in this sense. President Chávez and some parts of the opposition have done so and this contributes to decreasing possible political tension.

If the NEC's decision is that a Presidential referendum should take place, and provided that Venezuelan authorities issue an invitation to the European Union to observe, the Commission will deploy an Electoral Observation Exploratory Mission to Venezuela to make recommendations as to whether the deployment of a full EU observation mission would be advisable, useful and feasible, in accordance with the practice laid down in the Commission's Communication on Election Assistance and Observation (1).

The Commission is pleased by the fact that the processes of signature collection took place in an atmosphere of tolerance and restraint and hopes that the same spirit of tolerance will prevail during the verification process and when the NEC announces the results.

---

(1)  COM(2000) 191 final.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/687 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/687

---

(2004/C 88 E/0706)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0148/04

by Cees Bremmer (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(26 January 2004)

Subject:   Human rights in Burma

Is the Commission aware of the very serious human rights abuses in Burma committed by the military junta since the most recent democratic elections in 1990? These abuses have involved the oppression of various ethnic groups, which have led to, among other things, the problem of Burmese refugees in north-east India (Christians from the Chin ethnic group), who fled the terror inflicted by the Burmese army, and to the problem of the Burmese Rohingya Muslim refugees in Bangladesh?

Does the Commission share the view that Burma has failed significantly to meet its obligations as a member of the UN and that it is the task of the international community, and of the European Community in particular, to bring this to Burma's attention?

Does the Commission share the view that the issue of human rights in Burma can be resolved only through a process of democratisation based on dialogue between the military junta, the democratic opposition and ethnic groups?

With regard to the above point, is the Commission prepared to contribute to the reinforcement of Burma's nascent civil society in, for example, the areas of healthcare, education and the environment, where needs are greatest due to a lack of funds and of organised initiatives?

Is the Commission also prepared to contribute to resolving the refugee question by calling on the Indian authorities not to put any more pressure on Burmese displaced persons in north-east India, and by facilitating the provision of humanitarian aid? Is the Commission further prepared to apply pressure on the Bangladeshi authorities and the UNHCR to ensure that Burmese Rohingya Muslim refugees in the recognised official refugee camps in southern Bangladesh are not forced to return and that unrecognised Rohingya Muslim refugees receive some kind of humanitarian aid?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(25 February 2004)

The Commission is well aware of reports of alleged persecutions of ethnic minority groups by the military in Burma/Myanmar and has on numerous occasions expressed its grave concern for the human rights situation in the country, particularly in ethnic minority areas, to the Burmese Government.

The Commission has always stated that it is convinced that a lasting solution to the political situation, which is a necessity for the improvement of the human rights situation in Burma, must be based on agreement between the State Peace and Development Council (SPDC), the democratically elected ‘opposition’ and the ethnic minorities.

According to the EU Common Position on Burma/Myanmar, non-humanitarian aid or development assistance to Burma remains suspended. However, exceptions may be made for programmes defined in consultation with democratic groups and run with their involvement in areas such as basic education, health and poverty alleviation. Initiatives in support of human rights and democracy can also be supported.

At present, Commission humanitarian support to Burma/Myanmar, totalling approximately EUR 10 million per year, is mainly targeted at refugees, returnees and internally displaced persons. Activities include food aid, basic health and Human Immunodeficiency Virus/Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome (HIV/AIDS), water and sanitation. All humanitarian programmes are implemented by non-governmental organisations (NGOs) or International Organisations.

As regards the situation of Burmese refugees in Bangladesh and India, the Commission has discussed its concerns with Indian and Bangladeshi authorities on several occasions.

The Commission is also providing substantial financial assistance to the Rohingya population, both in Bangladesh and in the Rakhine State in Burma. This assistance is provided in full co-operation with the United Nations High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR). The Commission will continue to monitor the situation of the Rohyinga refugees closely in order to ensure that no forced repatriation takes place and it remains ready to take further action if needed.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/688 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/688

---

(2004/C 88 E/0707)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0188/04

by Marco Cappato (NI) to the Commission

(29 January 2004)

Subject:   Abduction of two Ivorians

On 4 December 2003, while inside their vehicle, a grey Peugeot 405 with the registration number 2532CE01, Gbane Aboubacar and his brother Soule Ouattara were abducted by an armed commando near the Treichville cultural centre in Côte d'Ivoire.

Since then, attempts by their family in Koumassi to find them have been in vain. Searches at police stations and gendarmes' barracks in the administrative capital, Abidjan, have so far proved fruitless. Relatives of the victims and their political family, the Democratic Party of Côte d'Ivoire (PDCI-RDA), are shocked by this new episode of violence in the country.

Does the Commission have any information about this abduction that took place in mysterious circumstances?

Can the Commission intervene with the Ivorian authorities so that this kidnapping can be solved as quickly as possible?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(26 February 2004)

The Commission is aware of the case of Mr Gbane Aboubacar and his brother Mr Soule Ouattara. Their abduction was mentioned in various newspapers, including ‘le Nouveau Réveil’ and ‘le Libéral’.

The party of which Mr Aboubacar is a member, the PDCI-RDA, undertook inquiries in police stations in the neighbourhood, and in the central jailhouse, the ‘Maison d'Arrêt et de Correction’, in Abidjan, but found no information.

The International Red Cross Committee was neither informed by the family nor by PDCI and was not aware of this case.

The ‘Ligue Ivoirienne des Droits de l'Homme’ (LIDHO) was informed of the case through newspapers. Their board discussed the issue on 26 January 2004, but decided not to make further inquiries because neither the family nor PDCI requested any help from them.

The ‘Mouvement Ivoirien des Droits Humains’ (MIDH) sought further information from members of the family, but they did not want to give any details and suggested to ask PDCI. In the meantime, the family moved to an unknown address.

The Delegation of the Commission in Côte d'Ivoire will raise this matter with the Government.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/689 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/689

---

(2004/C 88 E/0708)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0213/04

by Sir Robert Atkins (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(30 January 2004)

Subject:   The Pharmaceutical Tariff Elimination Agreement (Zero for Zero)

The Pharmaceutical Tariff Elimination Agreement was agreed by 22 countries (1) during the Uruguay Trade Round and entered into force on 1 January 1995. It has meant the elimination of tariffs on thousands of pharmaceutical entities and includes a commitment not to replace tariff barriers with non-tariff barriers and even extends to cover products imported from states not signatory to the Agreement. All finished pharmaceutical products (2) are automatically covered by the Agreement, however, active ingredients and intermediates (used in the manufacture of finished pharmaceuticals) do not automatically qualify for zero tariffs and must be formally added to the list of eligible products.

During Uruguay, signatories to this Agreement undertook to update the list of products covered by the Agreement at least once every three years in order to include new active ingredients and intermediates that have been developed since the Agreement was signed. The second update entered into force in July 1999 (3), meaning that the third update (Update III), should have been completed 18 months ago. Since the 1999 update, thousands of new products have been developed which are waiting to be recognised as eligible for zero tariffs.

In parallel, WTO negotiators could consider simplifying the methodology to ensure that future updates are no longer necessary and to encourage more WTO member states to join the Agreement. Such an initiative would fall under the new trade round and, while welcome, should not prevent or further delay the speedy conclusion of the already long overdue update committed to during the Uruguay Round.

Could you explain what stage the EC has reached with the third update to the Pharmaceutical Tariff Elimination Agreement, due to be completed 18 months ago under the timetable agreed during the Uruguay Round? Could you detail when the update process is due to be completed?

Answer given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(10 March 2004)

The ‘Pharmaceutical Tariff Elimination Agreement’ is a non-binding arrangement between the most important pharmaceutical producing countries to reduce their World Trade Organisation (WTO) bindings of duties on certain pharmaceutical products, including active ingredients and intermediate products, to zero. Because new pharmaceutical products are constantly being developed, the arrangement envisages periodic reviews of these products. Any of the participants could have launched the process for the third update (Update III) which was due to be completed in 2002, even if it was indeed the EU that proposed and took forward the previous two updates. Given the interest of the EU Pharmaceutical industry, the Commission is actually considering launching Update III.

As regards the simplification of the updating procedures as well as the extension of the Agreement to other WTO Members, the Commission shall certainly consider such options if they were to be in the wider interests of the EU within the Doha Development Agenda.

---

(1)  Australia, Canada, Czech Republic, European Communities, Japan, Norway, Slovak Republic, Sweden, Switzerland, United States.

(2)  The Agreement refers to items classified in Chapter 30 of the Harmonised Tariff System (which includes all finished pharmaceutical products).

(3)  With the exception of Japan where it entered into force in June 2000.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/690 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/690

---

(2004/C 88 E/0709)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0216/04

by Marco Pannella (NI) to the Commission

(30 January 2004)

Subject:   Violation of religious freedom in Vietnam

According to the International Religious Freedom Report 2003 produced by the U.S. Department of State, significant restrictions have been imposed in Vietnam on the activities of religious groups not recognised by the government.

The Communist Party has imposed severe restrictions on the hierarchies and clergy of religious groups.

In this respect, the Vietnamese Government has:

| 1. | used judicial methods to control the religious hierarchies and organised religious activities; |
| --- | --- |

1.

used judicial methods to control the religious hierarchies and organised religious activities;

| 2. | repressed the religious organisation ‘Assemblies of God’ and forced its members into unemployment, forbidding their children to attend school and confiscating their property; |
| --- | --- |

2.

repressed the religious organisation ‘Assemblies of God’ and forced its members into unemployment, forbidding their children to attend school and confiscating their property;

| 3. | continued to isolate certain religious figures, restricting their movement and exerting pressure on their followers and relatives, as in the case of Thich Huyen Quang, the Supreme Patriarch of the Unified Buddhist Church of Vietnam, who lived under conditions resembling house arrest between 1982 and March 2003; |
| --- | --- |

3.

continued to isolate certain religious figures, restricting their movement and exerting pressure on their followers and relatives, as in the case of Thich Huyen Quang, the Supreme Patriarch of the Unified Buddhist Church of Vietnam, who lived under conditions resembling house arrest between 1982 and March 2003;

| 4. | used a noxious gas to disperse a gathering of Hmong Protestants in Lau Chau province in late December 2002, as a result of which one pregnant woman miscarried and other people required medical attention. |
| --- | --- |

4.

used a noxious gas to disperse a gathering of Hmong Protestants in Lau Chau province in late December 2002, as a result of which one pregnant woman miscarried and other people required medical attention.

Similarly, the Hmong Protestants Mua Bua Senh and Vang Seo Giao were beaten to death by local officials in July 2002.

Moreover, cases have been recorded of people being convicted under Article 258 of the Penal Code (to up to 3 years in prison) for ‘practising religion illegally’. Some of the judicial measures employed to convict religious prisoners violate international instruments such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

The Religious Affairs Office is violating religious freedom via the actions of government officials and the security forces, who have persecuted and arbitrarily detained people who practise religion.

US embassy officials have informed the government that the lack of progress on religious matters and human rights is an obstacle to the full normalisation of bilateral relations.

The European Commission has urged the Vietnamese Government to show greater respect for political and religious freedom, but has taken no further action against it. Its position on this issue, which is simply to ‘monitor the situation’, therefore differs from the stance adopted by the United States.

In view of the above:

| — | Has the Commission taken any active measures in relation to respect for political and religious freedom, or in relation to prospective economic and social freedom, since the Joint Statement by the Commission and Member States at the Consultative Group meeting in Hanoi in December 2002? |
| --- | --- |

—

Has the Commission taken any active measures in relation to respect for political and religious freedom, or in relation to prospective economic and social freedom, since the Joint Statement by the Commission and Member States at the Consultative Group meeting in Hanoi in December 2002?

| — | Has it given thought to and attempted to stop the abuses and restrictions on the religious freedom of individuals such as Thich Huyen Quang, Thich Quang Do and Father Nguyen Van Ly? |
| --- | --- |

—

Has it given thought to and attempted to stop the abuses and restrictions on the religious freedom of individuals such as Thich Huyen Quang, Thich Quang Do and Father Nguyen Van Ly?

| — | Has it reflected on the US stance of designating Vietnam a Country of Particular Concern under the International Religious Freedom Act should the government fail to improve conditions? |
| --- | --- |

—

Has it reflected on the US stance of designating Vietnam a Country of Particular Concern under the International Religious Freedom Act should the government fail to improve conditions?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(25 February 2004)

In the context of its human rights dialogue with the Vietnamese authorities, as well as in other settings, including the EU Troika missions to the Central Highlands – the latest in December 2003 –, the EU has consistently raised the severe restrictions on religious freedom in Vietnam. Specifically, the EU has expressed its serious concerns about the situation of the Protestant communities in the Central Highlands and the measures taken against the Unified Buddhist Church of Vietnam (UBCV). It has asked for the release of Protestant pastors and followers, and UBCV religious leaders and monks placed in detention, and urged the government to re-launch the dialogue with the UBCV.

The EU has also called for the release of other prisoners and detainees of concern held for the peaceful expression of their personal opinion, in contravention of international legal instruments to which Vietnam is a party. It has voiced its concern on the vagueness and discretionary application of some Vietnamese laws, and called for their revision: these include a number of provisions in the Criminal Code, such as the one that the Honourable Member refers to, as well as decree no. CP/31 which allows citizens to be put under house arrest for up to two years without the intervention of a judge. In the latter context, the EU has suggested that experts from the United Nations (UN) Working Group on Arbitrary Detention be invited to Vietnam.

The EU has pressed the government for increased transparency in relation to human rights-related issues, referring to the damage that the present lack of openness is causing to Vietnam's international image. In this respect, the EU has called for unrestricted access by independent monitoring missions by UN human rights rapporteurs, notably the UN Special Rapporteur on Religious Freedom, as well as the High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) and reputable human rights non-governmental organisations (NGOs) to the country, including to the Central Highlands. It has also requested the government to allow diplomats of EU Member States to visit prisoners of concern, and to monitor the trials of dissidents.

The EU will continue to call for improvements of Vietnam's human rights record on all occasions including the Consultative Group meetings, and to offer support through cooperation programmes to contribute to concrete changes on the ground.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/692 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/692

---

(2004/C 88 E/0710)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0218/04

by Eija-Riitta Korhola (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(30 January 2004)

Subject:   Practical measures under the EU's policy on Chechnya

The European Union has with laudable consistency drawn attention to the issue of Chechnya in its dialogue with Russia, but its criticisms of human rights violations have been confined to the context of such discussions.

The human rights organisation Memorial, to cite but one source, has reported on inadequacies in the investigation of serious human rights violations. Memorial knows of at least 2800 ‘disappearances’, of which only 47 are known to have resulted in legal proceedings. The organisation knows of only three or four cases in which soldiers have received long sentences.

How can the European Union do more to persuade the Russian leadership to permit freedom of action to Members of the Duma and organs of the mass media that criticise the policy it has hitherto pursued on Chechnya?

Does the Community's dependence on energy imports from Russia restrict the EU's freedom, in the field of foreign policy, to exceed the bounds of the customary courtesy required by diplomacy?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(5 March 2004)

Regrettably, the current conflict in Chechnya does not show signs of ‘normalisation’. Indeed, there are disturbing reports of ongoing human rights violations and the security situation has if anything deteriorated, spreading beyond the north Caucasus, since the constitutional referendum in March 2003.

The view of the Commission is that it is fundamental that the rule of law and full respect for human rights (including media freedom) be restored in Chechnya, if a lasting solution to the conflict is to be found. Amongst the specific issues which the Commission has raised with the Russian authorities is that of access rights to Chechnya. It has done so in particular for non-governmental organisations (NGOs) involved in the provision of humanitarian aid, but the Commission is also concerned that it has become increasingly difficult, if not impossible, for journalists to travel to the republic to report on the situation.

The Commission is acutely aware of the lack of reporting within Russia on the situation in Chechnya. In addition to increased restrictions on the activities of Russian media outlets, including the closure of TVS, the last remaining nationwide private television channel in 2003, many Russian journalists have observed that the Russian media deliberately tones down criticism of Russian policy in Chechnya, for fear of harassment by the authorities.

In these circumstances, the Commission considers that it is essential to hold an open and frank dialogue, in order to underline the need for Russia to respect the values to which it is committed as a member of the Organisation of Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) and Council of Europe, including respect for human rights and media freedom. As set out in its recent Communication to the Council and to the Parliament on relations with Russia, the Commission is of the view that the EU can influence developments in Russia if it is ready to take up difficult issues with the Russian authorities in a clear and forthright manner. It is suggested that the EU as a whole confirm that shared European values remain the basis for deepening relations and that the EU and its Member States raise vigorously and coherently their concerns over the non-respect of human rights.

The Commission's firm position on Russia's human rights record is not in any way ‘restricted’ by its economy or energy relationship with Russia.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/693 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/693

---

(2004/C 88 E/0711)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0221/04

by Maurizio Turco (NI) to the Commission

(30 January 2004)

Subject:   Investigations by the Milan public prosecutor into the auditors Grant Thornton and Deloitte in connection with the Parmalat scandal

The Milan public prosecutor is investing auditors Grant Thornton and Deloitte in connection with the Parmalat affair. The charge relates to a breach of law 231 on legal persons, which is based on a European Community directive. On 31 December 2003 two Grant Thornton auditors were arrested and the investigations subsequently focused on two Deloitte and Touche auditors who were charged with market rigging, false auditing, false company statements and aggravated fraud.

Is the Commission aware of this situation?

If it has any connections with Grant Thornton and/or Deloitte, does it intend to contact the Milan judicial authorities to ascertain the reasons for the investigations and the nature of any breaches of law and the involvement of the companies, not least in order to protect the Community institutions against damage from possible illegalities?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(11 March 2004)

The Commission is closely following the developments in relation with the Parmalat corporate failure. However, it is too early to draw any final conclusions from this very complex case as judicial enquiries are on going.

As far as audit work that needs to be performed by Grant Thornton and Deloitte in relation with specific projects funded by the Commission, the Commission will continue to monitor such work so as to ensure that it is carried out to the highest standards.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/693 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/693

---

(2004/C 88 E/0712)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0248/04

by Glenys Kinnock (PSE) to the Commission

(3 February 2004)

Subject:   Roma children in Bulgaria

Is the Commission aware that a very large number of children leaving Bulgaria for countries abroad are healthy infants with at least one traceable parent and that 90 % of the total number are from ethnic minorities? Furthermore, 65 % of children in institutional care are of Roma origin.

The 2003 EU Accession Partnership Agreement states that Bulgaria must ‘ensure the childcare system is reformed so as to systematically reduce the number of children in institutional care and in particular through developing alternative social services aimed at children and families’.

Could the Commission be specific about how Bulgaria's accession process is helping to ensure support will be given, in particular to Roma children and their families, and what steps the Commission proposes if demonstrable improvements in the situation are not seen in the lead-up to accession in 2007?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(1 March 2004)

The Commission is aware of the information the Honourable Member provides on the high proportion of Roma children in a number of institutional care facilities. The Commission is also aware of the situation regarding international adoption in Bulgaria.

In the 2003 Regular Report on Bulgaria's progress towards accession, the Commission has described the situation and issues concerning child welfare and the Roma minority. The Commission is closely monitoring progress in these areas and holds regular consultations with relevant Bulgarian authorities in this respect. The Bulgarian authorities have launched efforts to reduce the high number of children in institutional care. Reforms to the legal framework for child protection and anti-discrimination policy have been adopted; the challenge now is to ensure full enforcement of this new legislation and the recently adopted de-institutionalisation action plan. Furthermore, a new Action Plan for the implementation of the ‘Framework Programme for Equal Integration of Roma into Bulgarian Society’ provides specific budgetary support for measures such as improved access to, and quality of, education of Roma children as well as social protection of Roma families. The Commission has emphasised that determined and sustained efforts are needed to fight the widespread social disadvantage affecting the Roma community.

The Commission has raised the need for better regulation of the rules concerning adoption, including international adoption. In 2003, amendments to the Law on Family provided for a clearer system. However, further efforts are necessary to ensure that inter-country adoption should remain a measure of last resort, used only when in the best interests of the child.

The Commission has supported Bulgaria's efforts in these areas through pre-accession funding under the PHARE programme. On child welfare, assistance has been provided to improve policies and the provision of care for socially marginalised children – including a significant number of Roma children. It provided support and training to the national State Agency for Child Protection, the new Bulgarian body charged with overseeing child welfare reform, and local Child Protection Departments. It also aimed to support the Bulgarian Government in the design of alternative forms of child care and in the reform of management and care of children in a number of selected homes. Other projects are being implemented to improve social services for the disabled, to increase school attendance by Roma children and social integration of vulnerable groups.

Further relevant pre-accession assistance to Roma children and their families is envisaged in the framework of multi-annual programming for the 2004-2006 period currently under discussion with the Bulgarian authorities.

The Commission will continue to closely monitor Bulgaria's respect for human rights and freedoms, including in relation to the Roma community and child welfare.

Assessment of Bulgaria's progress towards accession and the accession negotiations will continue on the same basis and principles that applied to the ten Acceding States.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/694 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/694

---

(2004/C 88 E/0713)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0312/04

by Elspeth Attwooll (ELDR) to the Commission

(2 February 2004)

Subject:   Development aid

What is the EU budget's total contribution for overseas aid, both as an amount and as a percentage of Gross National Income (GNI)? Can the Commission provide an equivalent figure for the United States?

When the individual national budgets of the Member States of the EU are taken into account in addition to the contribution of the EU budget, what is the total contribution by the EU for overseas development aid, as an amount and as a percentage of the EU's GNI?

As a percentage of GNI, how does the UK's national budget for overseas development aid compare to that of the other 14 Member States and of the 10 accession states?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(10 March 2004)

In 2002, the EU total contribution for official development aid was USD 29 949 million, equal to 0,365 % of Gross National Income (GNI). The USA total contribution for official aid was USD 13 290 million, equal to 0,13 % of GNI. Those two ratios are respectively above and below the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development/Development Cooperation Directorate (OECD/DAC) average which is at 0,23 % of GNI (with an exchange rate EUR/USD of 1,28).

The budget managed by the European Community accounted for EUR 6 962 million in 2002 and was included by the Member States in their statistics on the basis of their contribution keys for the budget and the European Development Fund.

The ranking of the Member States in % of GNI for 2002 was:

| 1. | Denmark 0,96 %; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Denmark 0,96 %;

| 2. | Sweden 0,83 %; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Sweden 0,83 %;

| 3. | Netherlands 0,81 %; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Netherlands 0,81 %;

| 4. | Luxemburg 0,77 %; |
| --- | --- |

4.

Luxemburg 0,77 %;

| 5. | Belgium 0,43 %; |
| --- | --- |

5.

Belgium 0,43 %;

| 6. | Ireland 0,40 %; |
| --- | --- |

6.

Ireland 0,40 %;

| 7. | France 0,38 %; |
| --- | --- |

7.

France 0,38 %;

| 8. | Finland 0,35 %; |
| --- | --- |

8.

Finland 0,35 %;

| 9. | United Kingdom 0,31 %; |
| --- | --- |

9.

United Kingdom 0,31 %;

| 10. | Germany 0,27 %; 10. Portugal 0,27 %; 12. Austria 0,26 %; 12. Spain 0,26 %; |
| --- | --- |

10.

Germany 0,27 %; 10. Portugal 0,27 %; 12. Austria 0,26 %; 12. Spain 0,26 %;

| 14. | Greece 0,21 %; |
| --- | --- |

14.

Greece 0,21 %;

| 15. | Italy 0,20 %. |
| --- | --- |

15.

Italy 0,20 %.

The ten Acceding countries have collectively an average ratio of official development assistance (ODA)/GNI at about 0,03 % of their GNI.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/695 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/695

---

(2004/C 88 E/0714)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0401/04

by Concepció Ferrer (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(16 February 2004)

Subject:   River Ebro water transfer

In view of the recent news that Brussels confirms that Spain has not correctly applied the Directive demanding that the environmental impact of specific projects be assessed before they are approved, by guaranteeing prior consultation, and given that the Commission has brought the relevant charges before the EU Court of Justice in connection with this incorrect application, in the case of a regulation implemented in processing the Ebro water transfer as part of the Spanish National Hydrological Plan, will the Commission tell me to what extent the Spanish Government's failure to meet the requirements could affect the implementation of the National Hydrological Plan, since Spanish Environment Ministry sources have stated that ‘even if the court were to say that we have to change this aspect of the law, this would not invalidate the decisions taken’?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(23 March 2004)

As the Honourable Member rightly states, the Commission recently decided to bring an action against Spain before the Court of Justice of the European Communities, in accordance with Article 226 of the EC Treaty, for incorrect transposition into Spanish law of certain 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 (1), amended by Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997 (2).

However, it should be noted that this decision was taken within the context of infringement proceedings initiated by the Commission to examine the conformity of Spanish legislation transposing Directive 97/11/EC. These are general proceedings unrelated to any specific case, such as the one mentioned by the Honourable Member. The decision stems from complaints that the transitional arrangements provided for in Directive 97/11/CE and the obligations arising from Articles 3 and 9 were not being met and had not been clearly incorporated into Spanish law.

The infringement proceedings do not necessarily mean that the Directive on environmental impact assessment is still being applied incorrectly in Spain. Any consequences for specific projects would have to be determined through a case-by-case examination of the procedure followed.

---

(1)  OJ L 175, 5.7.1985.

(2)  OJ L 73, 14.3.1997.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/696 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/696

---

(2004/C 88 E/0715)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0409/04

by Carlos Coelho (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(6 February 2004)

Subject:   Rights inherent in European citizenship

The Treaty of Amsterdam further rounded out the definition of European citizenship, by adding that it did not replace but supplement national citizenship; at the same time, the Treaty consolidated the rights arising form European citizenship.

Consequently, with the Charter of Fundamental Rights promulgated in Nice in 2000, a single text brought together all the personal, civic and political rights, as well as the economic and social rights, which European citizens are guaranteed to enjoy.

Amongst these is the right to vote or stand in elections to the EP, or in local elections in one's country of residence within the EU.

I was therefore extremely surprised to learn, from a letter sent by the International Secretary of the Maltese Nationalist Party, Dr Jason Azzopardi, of the worrying fact that hundreds of Maltese citizens are having their rights infringed, by being refused the right of voting in the forthcoming June elections to the European Parliament, because they are temporarily residing outside their own country, for purposes of work, training or study.

Is the Commission aware of this situation? And how does it view behaviour of this kind, which seems to be a clear violation of a guaranteed right of all European citizens?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(15 March 2004)

I would refer the Honourable Member to the Commission's answer to written question E-0118/04 from Ms Frassoni and Mr Cohn-Bendit (1).

---

(1)  See page 682.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/697 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/697

---

(2004/C 88 E/0716)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0427/04

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(17 February 2004)

Subject:   Residence of nationals in another Member State

Will the Commission please state the number of nationals of each Member State resident in each of the other Member States for each year for the last ten years for which figures are available?

Will it also state the number of non-EU nationals in each Member State in each year for ten years, indicating, if possible, the number of US nationals?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(16 March 2004)

The tables which are sent direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat indicate the number of non-national citizens resident in the Member States for the years 1994 to 2003. Where possible, the number of non-nationals is disaggregated by the citizenships of the individual Member States, by the total number of non-EU citizens and by the number of American citizens. To maximise the data series, the table for 1994 includes figures for Austria, Finland and Sweden although these countries were not then members of the EU.

The figures in these tables are based on the data currently available to Eurostat. The data are supplied to Eurostat by the National Statistical Institutes in response to an annual data request relating to migration flows and migrant stocks.

For the reasons explained below, only a partial response is possible to these questions. Statistics on non-national population are not available for all Member States and for all years. Where figures are available, some caution is required in their interpretation. Different data sources and definitions of residence are used across Europe, and this can affect the comparability of statistics for different Member States.

The table for 2001 is the most complete. The 2001 round of population censuses provides additional data that can be used to verify figures from other data sources or to provide information where no other data are available. Statistics on non-national populations in Luxembourg and Austria are based on the census and so are only available for 2001. Similarly, the statistics for France are only available for 1999, the year of the last census in France.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/698 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/698

---

(2004/C 88 E/0717)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0496/04

by María Sornosa Martínez (PSE) and María Valenciano Martínez-Orozco (PSE) to the Commission

(23 February 2004)

Subject:   Research into Spanish Labour Ministry bursaries

The Commission's reply to our Question E-2188/03 (1) as to possible discrimination against pregnant women by the Spanish Labour Ministry when granting working bursaries acknowledge that there was a possible infringement of Community law on equality of treatment for men and women, and stated that the Commission would investigate.

What stage has this investigation reached, and if the Spanish authorities have responded, in what terms have they done so?

Supplementary answer given by Mr Dimas on behalf of the Commission

(29 June 2004)

In written questions E-2188/03 and E-0496/04, the Honourable Members asked if the Commission considered that the regulations governing the award of grants by the Institute for Women complies with Directive 92/85/EEC (2).

As previously indicated, the Commission has been in contact with the Spanish authorities in relation to this issue. The Spanish authorities have indicated that Article 12 of Ministerial Order No 939/2003 on the procedure for awarding grants for training in the Institute for Women for the year 2003 provides for the possibility of suspending, and subsequently reinstating, the grant in the event of maternity, adoption or permanent fostering of a child. By virtue of Law No 39/1999 of 5 November on reconciling family and working life, this right is also extended to fathers who are grant-holders. A grant-holder who avails of the possibility of suspending the grant in accordance with this provision can subsequently return to training and complete the entire training course after the period during which the grant is suspended.

The Spanish authorities point out that the grant-holders are not employed persons who come under the Workers' Statute or any other labour legislation, since the grant cannot be classified as pay and the relationship between the grant-holder and the awarding body cannot be classified as that of an employer/worker. In this regard, Article 7.2 of the Ministerial Order provides that, pursuant to the principle of law, the award and holding of grants does not establish any employment or statutory relationship between the holders and the Institute for Women.

Directive 92/85/EEC provides for minimum protection, including a right to 14 consecutive weeks maternity leave, for three categories of female worker, namely pregnant workers, workers who have recently given birth and workers who are breastfeeding. However, as the recipients of the training grants from the Spanish Institute for Women are trainees rather than workers they do not come within the scope of Directive 92/85/EEC.

In addition, there is no discrimination on grounds of sex as the option of suspending the grant is available to both women and men.

---

(1)  OJ C 33 E, 6.2.2004, p. 232.

(2)  Council Directive 92/85/EEC of 19 October 1992 on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health at work of pregnant workers and workers who have recently given birth or are breastfeeding (tenth individual Directive within the meaning of Article 16 (1) of Directive 89/391/EEC), OJ L 348, 28.11.1992.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/699 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/699

---

(2004/C 88 E/0718)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0526/04

by Matti Wuori (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(24 February 2004)

Subject:   Enlargement of Arinaga port (Gran Canaria, Spain)

The Las Palmas de Gran Canaria Port Authority has made public (Canaries Official Journal of 14 November 2003) the Basic Arinaga Port Extension Scheme which affects the towns of Agüimes and Santa Lucía. The future quay occupying 2,2 km of coastline, is intended for loading and unloading passengers and goods such as gas and oil. The damage which the building work to enlarge Puerto de Aringa will cause is far greater than the questionable socio-economic benefits it may provide, quite apart from its impact on the fabric of business life in Puerto de La Luz and Las Palmas, as a result of diverting part of container traffic and shipping to Puerto de Arinaga. The scheme will have grave effects on the most productive of the coastal marine ecosystems and the sebadales, shrinking the breeding and growing area for the species which are of interest to the fishermen of Agüimes (19 284 inhabitants) and Santa Lucía (40 011 inhabitants). Moreover, it will affect the prospects for developing ‘green’ tourism in the area. The scheme's environmental impact study has not been drawn up with the requisite methodological seriousness and expertise, since many of its claims are quite unjustified from a scientific point of view (e.g.: existing alternatives to this new port, absence of impact on the coastal sedimentation patterns and therefore on Playa del Inglés and Playa de Maspalomas; the absence of effects on the natural wave and wind patterns at Pozo Izquierdo, Europe's most important windsurfing site; the absence of effects on the Playa del Cabrón site of Community interest (SCI) and on the sebadales of Arinaga Bay; the failure to quantify the populations of protected species affected, or the interest of the area in the island context; the real value of the scheme to the population of the surrounding towns; the loss of leisure opportunities and of exploitable marine resources).

Can the Commission demand that alternative schemes be investigated, which would not have a negative impact on the SCI and important bird areas affected by this scheme, nor prejudice the development prospects for sustainable activities in the area, such as water sports, fishing, shellfishing, bathing and leisure?

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/699 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/699

---

(2004/C 88 E/0719)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0527/04

by Matti Wuori (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(24 February 2004)

Subject:   Enlargement of Arinaga port (Gran Canaria, Spain)

The Las Palmas de Gran Canaria Port Authority published (Canaries Official Journal of 14 November 2003) the Arinaga Port Basic Extension Scheme which, affects the towns of Agüimes and Santa Lucía. The Environmental Impact Study is riddled with all sorts of inexcusable omissions. These include: the possible negative repercussions on the tourist beaches of the south of the island, following the declassification of part of the La Isleta Protected Nature Reserve, and the extension of Puerto de Las Palmas (there is no justification for creating a further port and commercial area, and moreover, a port on this scale is not necessary for off-loading gas); the extent of the sebadales which will be affected is greater than that of the sebadales included in the Site of Community Interest (SCI) aforementioned; the conditions established in the impact statement of the first stage have not been met; the serious damage done during the construction of the first phase to the marine SCI's sebadales, where dredging and other activities have been carried out without an impact statement, or the requisite administrative authorisation to affect listed species; the existence of other ports or alternative areas where there would be less environmental impact, and therefore a lower price to be paid in environmental terms. The consequences of the building scheme will be the destruction of a large part of Important Bird Area (IBA) 531, of major importance for the conservation of various species, which was already broken up some years ago by the building of a power station. The negative impact of the building of the first phase of the scheme on SCI ES 7010053 will be worsened still further. Windsurfing and surfing in this area, which is visited by some ten thousand windsurfers per year, will be seriously affected, and will no longer be possible in Punta de La Gaviota and subject to restrictions in Pozo Izquierdo, which site is famed for its ideal windsurfing conditions, as indicated by the various world championships which have been held there for the last 13 years.

Can the Commission verify whether the environmental impact study has taken account of all the consequences of extending the port, and the establishment of a system for compensating for the effects on part of an SCI, part of an IBA, the loss of a saline system and of a major leisure and sporting area?

Joint answer

to Written Questions E-0526/04 and E-0527/04

given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(21 April 2004)

The Commission is not aware of the alleged facts referred to by the Honourable Member.

Article 6 of the Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (1) states 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. In light of the conclusions of the assessment of the implications for the site and subject to the provisions of paragraph 4, the competent national authorities shall agree to the plan or project only after having ascertained that it will not adversely affect the integrity of the site concerned and, if appropriate, after having obtained the opinion of the general public.

Similarly, port installations require environmental impact assessment (EIA) under the terms of Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 (2) 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 (3).

According to the available information, the Commission is not in a position to identify a breach of the applicable Community environmental law.

---

(1)  OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.

(2)  OJ L 175, 5.7.1985.

(3)  OJ L 73, 14.3.1997.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/700 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/700

---

(2004/C 88 E/0720)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0569/04

by Herbert Bösch (PSE) to the Commission

(26 February 2004)

Subject:   Leonardo da Vinci programme

The Commission's Leonardo da Vinci programme is intended to help implement EU vocational training policy. The European Union needs to ensure its citizens are better prepared for entry into the job market and, in doing so, reduce the number of unemployed. The economy is also in need of a skilled workforce in order to keep up with the rapid scientific and technological developments. Against this backdrop, the Leonardo da Vinci programme serves as a laboratory of innovation in the field of lifelong learning.

Can the Commission provide a list of the projects that have been approved under the Leonardo programme over the last three years, including details of the promoters and the level of funding, stating how much has been paid out and how much is outstanding?

Are there any noticeable differences in outlook between the countries and the project managers with regard to various criteria, such as budget, share of funding and the actual results?

How does the Commission ensure that an audit of the funded projects is carried out quickly and efficiently, and how much time elapses on average between a project's completion and the audit?

In which countries do difficulties frequently arise when it comes to the audit?

Supplementary answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(11 June 2004)

The Commission shares the Honourable Member's concerns regarding the quality of the results of innovative Leonardo da Vinci projects and the need for effective management procedures.

Between 2000 and 2003, almost 1 100 innovative projects were selected by the Commission, with a total budget of around EUR 350 million. Lists of the projects selected, including, in particular, each project's budget and the name of the project promoter, were sent to Parliament at the time of their selection, in accordance with the comitology rules.

After selection by the Commission, projects are managed (signature of contracts with the promoters, project monitoring, analysis of reports, payments), in more than 90 % of cases, by a network of national agencies appointed by the national authorities of the participating countries. Only a small minority of projects are managed directly by the Commission.

The first projects started in December 2000. They usually last for 36 months, with the promoter's final report due two months after the project ends.

In order to ensure the proper management of Community funds, the final payments are evaluated on the basis of an audit of the expenditure and the results obtained. The Commission or the national agencies must be provided with supporting documents for each item of expenditure.

When the final reports are submitted, the results are analysed by the Commission or national agencies and an independent expert.

The national agencies are currently processing the final reports on the projects selected in 2000 and, for the first time, will submit their own report to the Commission in the summer of 2004. It should be noted that the Commission has already transferred sufficient funds to the national agencies for them to pay the balance of the contracts to the promoters as soon as they have completed the evaluation and accepted the final reports.

It is still too early to say whether there will be more problematic cases in certain countries than in others or more evaluation differences between the agencies and the promoters.

The Commission has already received around thirty final reports for the projects it is managing directly. The final payment has already been made for half of them. The remaining dossiers are still being analysed or are about to be paid. The final report and the results of each project are analysed in parallel by a person working at the Commission and by an external expert recruited for this purpose, with logistical support from a Technical Assistance Office.

Promoters often fail to include certain documents with their final reports, leading to additional requests and slowing down the process.

The Commission will use the lessons learnt in analysing these initial dossiers to cut the time taken to evaluate the final reports and to make the payments, thanks to better follow-up and simplification of the evaluation procedures.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/702 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/702

---

(2004/C 88 E/0721)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0661/04

by Alexander de Roo (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(9 March 2004)

Subject:   Public procurement for the Júcar-Vinalopó water transfer

The Spanish Government has been setting up so-called ‘state water companies’ since 1997, just as it has done in the past in other administrative areas. These companies include Aguas del Júcar SA (AJUSA), established by the Spanish Government to acquire, construct and operate all kinds of water works. It is a single-member company, with the Spanish State as its sole shareholder. One of the projects entrusted to AJUSA is the transfer of water from the Júcar to the Vinalopó river. The completion of the project requires a budget of EUR 240m, of which EUR 54m is expected to come from Community funds. Since April 2001, AJUSA has issued several calls for tender in relation to the Júcar-Vinalopó water transfer. In January 2003, it announced an open invitation to tender for technical assistance in carrying out the compulsory purchase procedure necessary to complete the Júcar-Vinalopó diversion project, which was published in edition 20 of the Spanish Official Journal (BOE) on 23 January 2003, with an overall budget of EUR 417 600. However, in spite of the value of the tender, it did not appear in the Official Journal of the European Union. Nor was it published in Tenders Electronic Daily, the supplement to the Official Journal. The award of the contract for carrying out the compulsory purchase procedure was published in BOE No 87 of 11 April 2003 (Annex I). The contract for carrying out the compulsory purchase procedure for the water transfer from the Júcar to the Vinalopó river is a ‘public services contract’, which is subject to the Community rules set out under Article 2 of Council Directive 92/50/EEC (1) of 18 June 1992 relating to the coordination of procedures for the award of public service contracts.

How does the Commission intend to respond to this failure to comply with Community law?

Has the Commission already taken any action on this matter?

Does the Commission not think that compliance with Community rules on public procurement should be a precondition for any cofinancing by the Community of the Júcar-Vinalopó water transfer?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(22 April 2004)

The Commission has received a complaint regarding the award of a service contract concerning the procedure for compulsory purchase of the land to build the infrastructure for the transfer of the river Júcar to the river Vinalopó. Although the tender budget was above the thresholds set forth in Council Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992 relating to the coordination of procedures for the award of public service contracts, it appears that no tender notice was published in the Official Journal of the European Union. However, in accordance with Article 9 of the Directive, services that fall within one of the categories listed in Annex IB to the Directive are not subject to a number of the obligations set forth therein, among others the obligation of prior publication of the tender notice in the Official Journal. Annex IB includes the category of ‘legal services’ and a residual category of ‘other services’. The latter category of ‘other services’ has to be interpreted restrictively, and it is only possible to classify a service in this category if it cannot plausibly fall within one of the other categories in Annexes IA or IB to Directive 92/50/EEC.

The Commission does not yet have enough information on the contract and cannot therefore exclude that the type of service that was the subject-matter of the tender falls within one of the categories listed in Annex IB, in which case the lack of publication of a tender notice in the Official Journal would not be inconsistent with Directive 92/50/EEC. On the other hand, if it appears that the specific service does not fulfil any of the categories listed in Annex IB, the lack of publication of the tender notice in the Official Journal would be an infringement of Directive 92/50/EEC. In this regard, the Commission considers that AJUSA is a ‘body governed by public law’ and a ‘contracting authority’ as defined in that Directive.

The Commission has contacted the Spanish authorities in order to obtain further information on the type of service involved and the circumstances of the tender.

As the Honourable Member points out, and as is clear from the current EU regulatory framework, compliance with EU public procurement rules is an essential requirement for any project financed with Community funds.

---

(1)  OJ L 209, 24.7.1992, p. 1.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/703 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/703

---

(2004/C 88 E/0722)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0669/04

by Proinsias De Rossa (PSE) to the Commission

(9 March 2004)

Subject:   Professional qualifications

What reply if any has the Commission received from the Irish Government in response to the reasoned opinion sent to Ireland, as announced in IP/03/1406, regarding Ireland's failure to implement by the 1 January 2003 deadline Directive 2001/19/EC (1)?

What action has the Commission taken or is it proposing to take in this matter?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(16 April 2004)

In the meantime, Ireland has notified measures for all the professions covered by Directive 2001/19/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 14 May 2001 amending Council Directives 89/48/EEC and 92/51/EEC on the general system for the recognition of professional qualifications and Council Directives 77/452/EEC, 77/453/EEC, 78/686/EEC, 78/687/EEC, 78/1026/EEC, 78/1027/EEC, 80/154/EEC, 80/155/EEC, 85/384/EEC, 85/432/EEC, 85/433/EEC and 93/16/EEC concerning the professions of nurse responsible for general care, dental practitioner, veterinary surgeon, midwife, architect, pharmacist and doctor.

The competent Commission services will therefore soon propose the College to close the infringement procedure for non communication of national implementation measures.

---

(1)  OJ L 206, 31.7.2001, p. 1.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/703 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/703

---

(2004/C 88 E/0723)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0676/04

by Proinsias De Rossa (PSE) to the Commission

(9 March 2004)

Subject:   Bushmeat – resource allocation

Following the European Parliament's support for the De Rossa report on Petition 461/2000, what funding has been released or is planned to be made available to improve wildlife management? And what resources are planned to support the incorporation of wildlife/bushmeat criteria into poverty assessments?

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/704 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/704

---

(2004/C 88 E/0724)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0677/04

by Proinsias De Rossa (PSE) to the Commission

(9 March 2004)

Subject:   Bushmeat: timber concession wildlife management

Following the European Parliament's support for the De Rossa report on Petition 461/2000, will the Commission support measures to introduce timber concession wildlife management in Central and West Africa by the industry and conservation NGOs? Does the Commission propose to take any specific steps to promote sustainable wildlife management by logging companies?

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/704 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/704

---

(2004/C 88 E/0725)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0678/04

by Proinsias De Rossa (PSE) to the Commission

(9 March 2004)

Subject:   Bushmeat – Biodiversity Action Plan

Following the European Parliament's support for the De Rossa report on Petition 461/2000 and the 2000 Biodiversity Action Plan, what investments have been made to support improved management of wildlife to achieve Biodiversity Action Plan targets?

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/704 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/704

---

(2004/C 88 E/0726)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0681/04

by Proinsias De Rossa (PSE) to the Commission

(9 March 2004)

Subject:   Bushmeat – poverty assessments

Following the European Parliament's support for the De Rossa report on Petition 461/2000, will the Commission fund research into the importance of bushmeat/wildlife in poor people's livelihoods, particularly in West and Central Africa?

What action has been taken by the Commission to integrate criteria into its poverty assessments and country strategy papers that take account of the importance that wildlife/bushmeat has in the livelihoods of the poor in West and Central African countries? Will the Commission publish these criteria? And will measures be taken to integrate these considerations into existing strategies and assessments?

Joint answer

to Written Questions E-0676/04, E-0677/04, E-0678/04 and E-0681/04

given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(27 April 2004)

With respect to Country Strategy Papers, the Mid Term Review currently being conducted requires, for African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) countries, a Country Environmental Profile (CEP) as an annex to the review documents. This CEP should identify important environmental issues, including those of biodiversity and bushmeat and thus be a basis for further dialogue with the partner country in order to address the problems. Specific criteria remain to be decided.

The Commission does not carry out its own poverty assessments, but uses those carried out by other donors or national governments.

It is important to note that the programming of resources, in particular for the European Development Fund (EDF), had already been largely completed when Parliament adopted the De Rossa report, and accordingly the margins for action were rather limited. In the 9th EDF, limited amounts were allocated specifically to the environment. The policy for resource allocation is focused on budgetary support and support for sectoral programmes. Specific research projects on the problems quoted in the written question would need to be examined from this perspective. Furthermore, within the EU's 6th Framework Programme on Research and Technological Development (FP6) one of the work programmes specifically concerns biodiversity, and could therefore be used for research on bushmeat issues. Details of this policy, and of eligibility for participation, are available on (http://europa.eu.int/comm/research/iscp/index_en.html).

There are, however, some responses to the issues raised within the framework of actions ongoing or starting soon: in particular, the programmes for alternatives to poaching (the Congo, Cameroon, Gabon), financing of specific market and setting surveys and establishing an observatory, Ecopas (Benin, Niger, Burkina Faso) and Ecofac (six central Africa countries). Concerning the latter, the preparation of the 4th phase is in hand and will take some of these aspects specifically into account.

Furthermore, the recent call for proposals under the environment budgetline invited in particular proposals that are relevant to actions in the biodiversity action plan for economic and development cooperation.

The Commission agrees that timber concession wildlife management must form a key part of the response to the bushmeat crisis. For this reason the Commission is supporting the World Wide Fund for Nature with a EUR 1,4 million grant to work in Gabon with private forest concessionaires to find ways of controlling hunting and poaching in private forest concessions. In addition, the Forest ecosystems in Central Africa (Ecofac) programme has begun to define protocols for collaboration with the private sector to address the unsustainable hunting of bushmeat in industrial forest concessions.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/705 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/705

---

(2004/C 88 E/0727)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0682/04

by Proinsias De Rossa (PSE) to the Commission

(9 March 2004)

Subject:   Bushmeat: Development Strategies

Following the European Commission's support for the African Forest Law Enforcement and Governance Ministerial Declaration, what discussions has the Commission held with the governments of Cameroon and Ghana, concerning the implementation of the indicative actions relating to bushmeat? And what support does the Commission plan to provide to help these countries implement the indicative actions relating to bushmeat and integrate them into their development strategies?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(27 April 2004)

Indicative actions relating to bushmeat form part of the declaration adopted at the launch of the Africa Ministerial Process for Forest Law Enforcement and Governance (AFLEG) in Yaoundé in 2003. The main objective of this declaration is to build commitment to strengthen forest sector governance and combat illegal logging. As yet, the Commission has not held discussions with the governments of Ghana and Cameroon regarding the specific implementation of indicative actions relating to bushmeat set out in the declaration. No specific provision of support outside existing co-operation is foreseen to help countries implement indicative actions relating to bushmeat and integrate these into their development strategies.

However, the Commission is working to ensure strong follow-up to the AFLEG ministerial process, including through the provision of financial support and in dialogue with partner countries. Dialogue with partner countries has focused on the attainment of the overall objective of the declaration, which is to strengthen forest sector governance in Africa. Strengthened forest sector governance will in turn support improvements in many aspects of forest management in Africa, including matters relating to bushmeat.

Follow-up to the AFLEG ministerial conference must reflect commitment from African governments, African civil society and the private sector. Follow-up activities will be subject to a loose form of central co-ordination, but the emphasis is firmly on governments and organisations contributing in the best ways they see fit. The Commission is providing technical, political and financial support for these activities.

In Cameroon an ‘Environment and Forests Cell’ is funded from the European Development Fund. This provides support to assist the government to address challenges which arise in relation to forests and the environment, including bushmeat.

In numerous other African countries, the Commission provides support to governments, civil society and local people to facilitate the sustainable management of protected areas, forest concessions and the wildlife resources found therein. This support will continue to be made available.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/706 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/706

---

(2004/C 88 E/0728)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0687/04

by Marcelino Oreja Arburúa (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(3 March 2004)

Subject:   Infringement of the principle of the freedom of movement of goods

Various dairy businesses in various Member States produce yoghurt which meets national legislation, either post-fermentation pasteurised, heat-treated or long-life, all of these companies export their yoghurts to Portugal and others could do so in future. The result is that the pasteurised yoghurts of the various Member States need to adapt to Portuguese legislation, which demands that the term ‘yoghurt’ be replaced by ‘dairy dessert’, which is completely foreign to the nature of the foodstuff in question. Calling the same product one thing in the exporting country, and another in the importing country gives rise, in this case, to various forms of indirect taxation which impede its movement: in the case of Spain, 5 % for the yoghurt product in Spain, and 19 % for the Portuguese ‘dairy dessert’, which thus constitutes a measure having equivalent effect. Furthermore, and taking due account of the constant and vast jurisprudence of the Court of Justice: Cassis de Dijon (CJ 120/78 of 20.02.1979), Smanor (CJ 298/87 of 14.07.1988), Deserbais (CJ 286/86 of 22.09.1988), Procureur du Roi v Dassonville (CJ 8/74 of 11.07.1974), REWE (CJ 120/76 of 20.02.1979), Rau (CJ 261/81 of 10.11.1982), or Commission v Germany (the beer case) (CJ 178/84 of 12.03.1987), I believe that the principle of mutual recognition of legislation of the country of manufacture is being straightforwardly violated, since it means that the marketing of the imported yoghurt product is more difficult and costly due to the extra expenditure on labelling and packaging, and that the consumer is also burdened by the fact that he may be confused by so generic a name as ‘dairy dessert’, and by a multilingual label in which different names to indicate the nature of the product are used in different languages.

Does the Commission therefore believe that Portugal is failing to meet one of the obligations laid down in the Treaty, violating the principle of the freedom of movement of goods and Article 5 and preliminary recitals 2, 6, 8 and 14 of Directive 2000/13/EC (1) on food labelling? If so, what is it going to do?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(21 April 2004)

According to the jurisprudence of the European Court, the compatibility of the Portuguese labelling requirements with article 28 of the EC Treaty will depend on the extent to which:

| — | the characteristics of the pasteurised yoghurts mentioned are not substantially different, particularly as regards the quantity of bacteria, from those of the fresh product; and |
| --- | --- |

—

the characteristics of the pasteurised yoghurts mentioned are not substantially different, particularly as regards the quantity of bacteria, from those of the fresh product; and

| — | appropriate labelling is sufficient to inform consumers. |
| --- | --- |

—

appropriate labelling is sufficient to inform consumers.

The Commission is examining the need to establish legislation on yoghurt and yoghurt-like products which includes the aspects mentioned by the Honourable Member.

Following that examination, which should be completed in the near future, where it is considered appropriate and necessary to establish additional legislation, the Commission will forward a proposal to the Parliament and to the Council.

---

(1)  OJ L 109, 6.5.2000, p. 29.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/707 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/707

---

(2004/C 88 E/0729)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0708/04

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(10 March 2004)

Subject:   Disappearance of last-remaining sources of income for Roma population in eastern Slovakia and resultant looting, violent clashes and migration

| 1. | Is the Commission aware that the Roma population in the east of Slovakia, which accounts for the majority of the population in many localities and has been increasingly hard hit by unemployment in the last fifteen years, is now being totally deprived of any source of income as a result of cuts in social security payments? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is the Commission aware that the Roma population in the east of Slovakia, which accounts for the majority of the population in many localities and has been increasingly hard hit by unemployment in the last fifteen years, is now being totally deprived of any source of income as a result of cuts in social security payments?

| 2. | Is the Commission also aware that the despair caused by loss of income is meanwhile leading to clashes between the population and the massive police presence in the region, and to the looting of shops and petrol stations? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Is the Commission also aware that the despair caused by loss of income is meanwhile leading to clashes between the population and the massive police presence in the region, and to the looting of shops and petrol stations?

| 3. | Are the cuts against which popular anger is being directed a consequence of the requirements with which the Slovakian government is expected to comply in order to ensure its country's membership of the European Union from 1 May 2004, or is the Slovakian government free to increase public expenditure to a level that would enable the underlying causes of social unrest quickly to be removed? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Are the cuts against which popular anger is being directed a consequence of the requirements with which the Slovakian government is expected to comply in order to ensure its country's membership of the European Union from 1 May 2004, or is the Slovakian government free to increase public expenditure to a level that would enable the underlying causes of social unrest quickly to be removed?

| 4. | Does the Commission expect the present situation to step up the pressure on the Roma people in Slovakia to leave their homeland, temporarily or for the long term, in order to earn money in Western Europe? What will be the impact of any such development now that most of the present EU Member States are seeking to restrict worker migration in the first few years after the new Member States accede? |
| --- | --- |

4.

Does the Commission expect the present situation to step up the pressure on the Roma people in Slovakia to leave their homeland, temporarily or for the long term, in order to earn money in Western Europe? What will be the impact of any such development now that most of the present EU Member States are seeking to restrict worker migration in the first few years after the new Member States accede?

| 5. | Does the Commission agree that in the extremely difficult circumstances of the Roma people at this time it would be a mistake to seek to explain the disturbances solely by the presence of criminal gangs, and that other measures are needed to solve the current problems than locking up individuals caught breaking the law? |
| --- | --- |

5.

Does the Commission agree that in the extremely difficult circumstances of the Roma people at this time it would be a mistake to seek to explain the disturbances solely by the presence of criminal gangs, and that other measures are needed to solve the current problems than locking up individuals caught breaking the law?

| 6. | What can EU policy contribute to putting the Slovakian Roma people in the position of shortly being able to earn a sufficient income in their present homeland to enable them to continue to live there without having to resort to looting or come into violent conflict with the authorities in order to secure a livelihood? |
| --- | --- |

6.

What can EU policy contribute to putting the Slovakian Roma people in the position of shortly being able to earn a sufficient income in their present homeland to enable them to continue to live there without having to resort to looting or come into violent conflict with the authorities in order to secure a livelihood?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(29 April 2004)

The Commission has noted the introduction of a new social benefit system in Slovakia, that has led to a significant reduction of the social benefit payments as from the beginning of March 2004 and has been concerned about the Roma unrest and looting in Eastern Slovakia. The Commission is closely following the situation on the ground.

In general, the Commission obviously rejects the use of any kind of violence as a way of making social or any other claims. It continues to support the process of extensive economic reforms undertaken by the Slovak Government, which in the medium-term should increase productivity growth and the employment rate in the country.

However, the Commission has been in close contact with the Slovak authorities on this issue and has expressed its hope that the Slovak Government will urgently use all the means at its disposal to reach a reasonable and measured outcome to this sensitive issue. The Commission has pointed out that particular attention should be given to ease the hardship of the poorest sectors of the population which are likely to suffer most from the reduction of social benefits. Job opportunities should be enhanced in the poorest parts of the country and in Eastern Slovakia in particular. In this context, the Commission welcomes a 14-point paper presented recently by the Slovak Government on ways to improve the situation of the most disadvantaged citizens, particularly the Roma. The Slovak authorities have also reassured the Commission that they will closely monitor police behaviour in the east of the country.

As regards the possible migration of Roma from Slovakia, there is, of course, the possibility, as the Honourable Member points out, that Roma people in Slovakia might leave their home country, temporarily or long-term, in order to earn their living elsewhere. In this context, however, it should be noted that for the first two years after accession, the current Member States will admit workers from the future Member States under national rules rather than under Community rules and that for the most part restrictive arrangements will remain in place.

The Commission is committed to supporting the Slovak authorities as far as it can to solve this issue as soon as possible. While there is no short-term solution to the employment problem of the Roma population in Eastern Slovakia, the Structural Funds, through a mainstreaming approach, will certainly improve their economic and social situation and help create additional jobs which should benefit the Roma communities.

The Community Support Framework for Slovakia in particular addresses the question of Roma and will tackle the marginalisation of Roma through a strategy of integration. Selective settlement development involving improvement of education, health, water, waste water, and road infrastructure will be implemented. Certain measures will be funded at 80 % by the EU (the normal limit is 75 % for co-financing of public expenditure). The aim will be to begin a process of improvement of living and working conditions, in particular an integrated approach to education, advice, and training, to assist in opening up opportunities, particularly for young people. The Commission is working with the Slovak authorities to set up a sub-committee to the Community Support Framework (CSF) Monitoring Committee for Roma issues, which would provide advice on funding in this area within Slovakia.

In addition, the European Social Fund supports schemes which provide pathways into employment for disadvantaged groups, many of them being part of the Roma minority, which should eventually lead to stable employment, but which through granting an ‘activation benefit’ immediately improve the income situation of the participants. Moreover, the government is preparing a scholarship scheme for pupils from disadvantaged groups, which should not only foster the participation of Roma children in secondary education but will also provide additional financial resources for the families of the pupils. This scheme which is likely to start in May 2004 will be co-funded by the European Social Fund.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/709 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/709

---

(2004/C 88 E/0730)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0721/04

by Daniela Raschhofer (NI) to the Commission

(4 March 2004)

Subject:   Benes Decree No 33/1945: the case of Hugo Salm

Prior to the adoption of the decision on the Czech Republic's accession to the European Union, there was widespread public discussion on the legal validity of the ‘Benes Decrees’, which are incompatible with the body of EU law due to their discriminatory nature.

In a resolution adopted in April 2002 on the Benes Decrees, the Czech National Council stated that no new legal relations could now be established on their basis. Not least for this reason, the Commission also declared that the Benes Decrees would not stand in the way of the Czech Republic's accession to the European Union.

The case in question concerns the heirs of Prince Hugo Salm.

In November 2003, the Supreme Administrative Court of the Czech Republic upheld a decision which Stanislav Gross, the Czech Home Affairs Minister, had taken in the previous year on the basis of Benes Decree No 33/1945.

Under Decree No 33 of 2 August 1945, all Czechoslovak citizens of German or Hungarian nationality were deprived of their citizenship, with the exception of those who could prove that they had remained loyal to the Czechoslovak Republic.

The judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court confirms that the Decrees continue to serve as a basis for new legal relations.

Can the Commission therefore answer the following questions:

| 1. | How does the Commission view the fact that a decision has been taken on the basis of Benes Decree No 33, although this Decree was explicitly repealed? |
| --- | --- |

1.

How does the Commission view the fact that a decision has been taken on the basis of Benes Decree No 33, although this Decree was explicitly repealed?

| 2. | In the light of the Czech Republic's accession to the EU, does the Commission believe that this decision by the Czech Home Affairs Minister is compatible with the ‘acquis’ communautaire, given that the Czech National Council had declared that no new legal relations would be established on the basis of the Benes Decrees, and that the Commission made reference to this in its decision? |
| --- | --- |

2.

In the light of the Czech Republic's accession to the EU, does the Commission believe that this decision by the Czech Home Affairs Minister is compatible with the ‘acquis’ communautaire, given that the Czech National Council had declared that no new legal relations would be established on the basis of the Benes Decrees, and that the Commission made reference to this in its decision?

| 3. | What action does the Commission plan to take? |
| --- | --- |

3.

What action does the Commission plan to take?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(7 April 2004)

The Commission has recently received the relevant decision of the Supreme Administrative Court of the Czech Republic of 27 November 2003, referred to by the Honourable Member. The Commission has not yet conducted a thorough legal examination of this decision. In respecting Parliament's right to a swift answer, and on the basis of a preliminary examination, and of an as yet unauthorised translation the Commission is in a position to state the following.

On 14 October 2002, the Commission presented the ‘Summary Findings’ of a thorough investigation of relevant Czechoslovak presidential decrees of 1945 and 1946, and related restitution legislation. The result was clear: new expropriations cannot take place under the decrees today. The decision of the Czech Supreme Administrative Court of 27 November 2003 does not contradict these findings, but confirms their validity.

The decision of the Czech Supreme Administrative Court does not constitute a new application of the decree in question, nor does it create new legal relations. It is essential to recognise that the Court did not rule on the question whether the applicant (the late Count Hugo Salm) was a Czechoslovak citizen, which is beyond doubt. The Court simply examined the question of whether the applicant had retained his Czechoslovak citizenship in 1945 in accordance with the law applicable at the time, i.e. Decree 33/1945 which was invoked by the complainants in their favour. Apart from a number of other legal and procedural considerations, the Court had to establish certain historical facts; it did not order a new withdrawal of citizenship, let alone a new expropriation.

The Court referred to the findings of the Constitutional Court in another case (Case 114/96), which ordered the authorities to complete an administrative procedure under the decree (claiming that the person concerned had not been deprived of citizenship) that had been started after the war, and was never closed under the Communist regime. This is possible because the procedure for determining whether a person held citizenship at a given moment in time is governed by the rules applicable at the time that person acquired or lost citizenship. That does not at all mean that the same rules are applicable today and can be applied to withdraw citizenship. On the contrary: it is only for the benefit of the victims of the decrees that such an historical examination can be conducted and, if the conclusion is that the decree in question was not applied at the time in accordance with the provisions of that same decree, an historical administrative act can be declared null and void. Thus, citizenship can be retroactively confirmed, and hence property given back, but citizenship cannot be withdrawn by a new legal act based on the Decree. Indeed, the Court considered that although Decree No 33/1945 was repealed in 1949, its provisions ruling retention of citizenship, i.e. those favouring citizens, were still applicable and could be invoked by victims of misapplication of the Presidential Decrees.

On the basis of a preliminary examination, the Commission considers that the decision in question would not appear to be in contradiction with the ‘acquis’, nor with the principles of the rule of law because serious fact-finding seems to have taken place.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/710 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/710

---

(2004/C 88 E/0731)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0756/04

by José García-Margallo y Marfil (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(11 March 2004)

Subject:   Repercussions of European financial market integration at national and regional level

Has the Commission carried out studies to assess the repercussions on national and regional financial markets of the structural changes introduced by new European legislation on financial services and, in particular, the possible weakening of regional financial markets vis-à-vis their national counterparts?

Is there not a risk that financial transactions will ultimately be concentrated in a limited number, i.e. three or four, markets in Europe?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(23 April 2004)

Even though the Commission has not systematically launched studies to provide an answer to the precise question of the repercussions on the national and regional financial markets of the changes introduced by new legislation on financial services, studies have accompanied certain legislative proposals (e.g. studies on supplementary pensions, which are publicly available on the web site of Directorate-General (DG) Internal Market; impact assessments of the forthcoming Reinsurance Directive and Capital Adequacy Directive (CAD 3), which will become public at the time of the Commission proposal, etc.) or assessed the situation of a specific market segment on a pan-EU basis (e.g. study ‘Creating an internal market for the Banking industry: an estimate on the structural changes induced by the deregulation and the single currency’).

In addition to these specific studies and impact assessments carried out, it is a general policy in proposing legislation in financial services to organise wide-ranging consultations with stakeholders before these legislative proposals are finalised. This procedure can help to determine whether or not a specific legislative measure might impact negatively on one particular regional or national market segment. Furthermore, it is the intention of the Commission to devote more importance to the impact assessment of legislative proposals on specific markets segments and/or regions in the future.

A study, commissioned by DG Economic and Financial Affairs (1), concludes that the benefits of further integrating EU financial markets would be shared, even though not equally distributed, by the Member States. Whereas in some Member States the industrial sectors would stand to gain more from access to non-domestic financial markets, the financial sector would gain in relative terms in other Member States following an increased demand.

In spring 2004, the Commission will produce a first annual report on the state of integration of the EU financial system. From this report, it is clear that, as integration proceeds, natural regional clusters (also cross-border) emerge, whereas other markets may be reduced in importance. The occurrence of a higher market concentration in the advance towards integration cannot a priori be excluded but eventually, regional and national markets are expected to reorganise to reap the benefits from increasingly integrated and liquid markets.

---

(1)  ‘Financial Market Integration, Corporate Financing and Economic Growth’ by Mariassunta Giannetti, Luigi Guiso, Tullio Jappelli, Mario Padula and Marco Pagano (2002).

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/711 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/711

---

(2004/C 88 E/0732)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0811/04

by Enrique Monsonís Domingo (ELDR) and Joan Vallvé (ELDR) to the Commission

(15 March 2004)

Subject:   Pests affecting citrus fruit

The European Union's borders are exposed to the entry of citrus products from third countries, owing to lax inspections and a shortage of inspectors specialising in citrus pests.

In summer last year (2003) quarantine pests originating in citrus fruit from Brazil and Argentina were detected in Spain only. During the last citrus marketing year around 190 000 tonnes of citrus fruit were imported from third countries, including 59 000 tonnes from Argentina and 25 000 tonnes from Brazil. During inspections three kinds of quarantine diseases which do not occur in European-produced citrus fruit were detected: Xanthomonas axonopodis pv. Citri, which causes citrus canker, Guignardia citricarpa, which causes citrus ‘black spot’ on the skin of citrus fruit and, finally, the Elsinoe fungus.

A total of 993 tonnes of citrus fruits from Argentina and 2 226 tonnes from Brazil were refused entry. The inspections resulted in 83 consignments from these countries being rejected in Spain. Finally, the Spanish Ministry for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food banned citrus imports from both these countries by means of Order APA/315/2003 of 12 November. A petition has been submitted to the European Committee on Plant Health calling for this ban to be extended to the rest of the European Union. Apparently the Committee will take a decision on 22 or 23 March.

Can the Commission say whether there are plans to suspend citrus imports from Argentina and Brazil in the European Union in time for the forthcoming citrus harvest in the Southern hemisphere? Or, if they are not banned, will a specific import protocol be introduced? If such a protocol is introduced, will checks be carried out at origin in the presence of European inspectors and will a tracing system be set up? What measures are envisaged to prevent the entry of quarantine pests and diseases of citrus fruit into the European Union? Do they make provision for specific European entry points for fruit and vegetables from third countries where inspectors specialising in these pests/diseases will operate?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(23 April 2004)

The Commission would like to inform the Honourable Member that it has no intention at the moment of suspending citrus fruit imports into the EU from Argentina and Brazil for the next marketing year.

At the meeting of the Standing Committee on Plant Health in March 2004, the Commission presented to the Member States a draft decision on temporary emergency measures in respect of certain citrus fruits originating in Argentina or Brazil. This draft decision corresponds to the ‘specific import protocol’ to which the Honourable Member refers.

The main aspects of this draft decision, which was approved by the meeting of the Standing Committee and now has to be adopted by the Commission, can be summarised as follows: The fruits of Citrus L, Fortunella Swingle, Poncirus Raf. and their hybrids (hereinafter referred to as ‘citrus fruits’) originating in Argentina or Brazil may be imported into the Community territory only if they comply with certain specific requirements, which take the form of two options:

| — | either they originate in an area recognised as being free from Xanthomonas campestris and Guignardia citricarpa, which must be mentioned on the plant health certificate, |
| --- | --- |

—

either they originate in an area recognised as being free from Xanthomonas campestris and Guignardia citricarpa, which must be mentioned on the plant health certificate,

| — | or, as evidenced by an official inspection, no symptoms of either disease have been observed in the place of production since the beginning of the last cycle of vegetation, and the place of production, packing facilities, exporters and any other operator involved in the handling of the fruits are officially registered for this purpose. In addition to these two conditions, an additional requirement applies in the case of Xanthomonas campestris, namely that fruits harvested in the place of production are free from this harmful organism, as evidenced by an official inspection and examination including appropriate tests, and the fruits must have been subjected to appropriate treatment, which must be mentioned on the plant health certificate. |
| --- | --- |

—

or, as evidenced by an official inspection, no symptoms of either disease have been observed in the place of production since the beginning of the last cycle of vegetation, and the place of production, packing facilities, exporters and any other operator involved in the handling of the fruits are officially registered for this purpose. In addition to these two conditions, an additional requirement applies in the case of Xanthomonas campestris, namely that fruits harvested in the place of production are free from this harmful organism, as evidenced by an official inspection and examination including appropriate tests, and the fruits must have been subjected to appropriate treatment, which must be mentioned on the plant health certificate.

Furthermore, the citrus fruits concerned may be imported into the Community only if they originate from a production system which ensures their traceability from the place of production to the point of export to the Community. Information on this system must be made available to the Commission.

Finally, each Member State importing citrus fruits originating in Argentina or Brazil must provide the Commission and the other Member States with a detailed technical report on the results of plant health checks carried out on those fruits. The Commission will continually follow the development of the situation throughout the 2004 export season. If these emergency measures are not sufficient to prevent the entry of the diseases concerned into the Community, or if they have not been complied with, the Commission might introduce more stringent or alternative measures in accordance with the plant health legislation in force (Article 16, paragraph 3, of Directive 2000/29/EC (1)).

The Commission feels that the proposed measures are suitable with regard to limiting, as far as possible, the entry of quarantine pests and diseases of citrus fruit into the European Union.

There are, however, no plans for Food and Veterinary Office inspectors to carry out checks at origin. However, the FVO might consider organising an inspection mission to the two countries concerned in the near future in order to check on the conditions under which the citrus fruits in question are produced and exported to the Community and on how the new scheme established by the above-mentioned draft decision is applied.

Finally, there are no plans to designate specific European ports for specialised inspections of fruits and vegetables from third countries.

---

(1)  Council Directive 2000/29/EC of 8 May 2000 on protective measures against the introduction into the Community of organisms harmful to plants or plant products and against their spread within the Community, OJ L 169, 10.7.2000, as most recently amended by Commission Directive 2003/116/EC, OJ L 321, 6.12.2003.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/712 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/712

---

(2004/C 88 E/0733)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0841/04

by Cristiana Muscardini (UEN) to the Commission

(9 March 2004)

Subject:   Female sexual mutilation

More than a hundred million women in the world have suffered severe sexual mutilation, and every year two and a half million fall victim to various barbaric acts that kill huge numbers of teenage girls. In the European Union mutilation of this kind, which seriously disables women both physically and mentally, is spreading at an increasingly alarming rate. This situation is totally contrary to the rules on human rights and dignity of the individual and to every law governing protection and inviolability of the human person.

Why has 8 March not been dedicated to the fight to eradicate female sexual mutilation?

Furthermore, why has no directive yet been issued to lay down rules prohibiting female sexual mutilation and providing for proper education on the subject, especially for immigrants from countries where such customs are still permitted?

Lastly, why has no provision been made for trade and cooperation agreements to include a binding clause obliging the governments of the countries concerned to combat the spread of female sexual mutilation on their territory?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(22 April 2004)

The Commission and the international community have recognised female genital mutilation (FGM) as a profound violation of the human rights of women. (Beijing Platform of Action and Convention against all Forms of Discrimination against Women).

However, only in three European countries – Sweden, the United Kingdom and Norway- are there specific laws prohibiting all or some forms of the practice of female genital mutilation. Sweden introduced its relevant legislation as far back as 1982. The United Kingdom outlawed the practice in 1985 by passing the Prohibition of Female Circumcision Act. Norway followed the example of these countries in 1998. In the rest of the Member States, there are only general laws prohibiting serious bodily injury without making specific reference to female genital mutilation.

Pursuing and defending the values of the Union which are built around justice, equality between women and men and human rights is an essential task of the Commission. Therefore, it cannot tolerate, within the Union's borders or elsewhere in the world, practices such as female genital mutilation, which do not belong in modern society and which, in particular, subjugate women.

The Commission holds the view that female genital mutilation will only disappear if people, including women, become convinced that they can give up the practice without giving up the related aspects of their culture. To this end, the Commission considers that multifaceted strategies are needed, including actions directed at the education of health and social workers. The dissemination of appropriate information emphasising the dangerous health consequences is another important tool.

The Commission's Daphne programme to combat violence against children, young people and women (2000-2003) made FGM a priority in its annual programme (and call for proposals) for two consecutive years in 2001 and 2002. This resulted in the funding of ten projects on this specific subject, of which six are for a two-year duration, which means that these actions will tackle the subject in depth. These actions represent European funding of more than EUR 1,6 million.

Using the Daphne programme to combat this phenomenon assists grassroots level organisations to collaborate with each other, but also with the academic world and the authorities, to tackle this problem in the field and, most of the time, with the direct involvement of the victims. The Daphne II programme (2004-2008) will be approved soon and will pursue this combat.

The overall international theme for 8 March (International Women's Day) is chosen by the United Nations. The Commission also chooses a specific theme for 8 March each year: in 2003 this was female genital mutilation, but there are no plans to repeat the same theme each year.

On a global basis the vast majority of genital mutilations are performed in developing countries and not in Europe. The Commission recognises this and in Part III of the Cotonou Agreement, which deals with Cooperation Strategies, requires that special attention is paid to: integrating population issues into development strategies in order to improve reproductive health, primary health care, family planning; and prevention of female genital mutilation (Article 25.1.c). In our negotiations with African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) countries we raise priorities related to sexual and reproductive health and rights, including FGM, and will continue to do so. Many countries are already taking steps to outlaw the practice of FGM – including putting appropriate legislation in place, and setting up appropriate educational programmes. The Commission believes that an approach based on dialogue and cooperation is the appropriate approach, and does not think that a binding clause in trade and cooperation agreements obliging countries to take action would be helpful.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/714 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/714

---

(2004/C 88 E/0734)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0853/04

by Terence Wynn (PSE) to the Commission

(19 March 2004)

Subject:   New Regulation on sugar export and dispatch from outermost regions

I am led to understand that the Commission put to the consideration of the Management Committee for Exchanges on 20 January a proposal for amending Commission regulation (EC) No 20/2002 (1) concerning export and dispatch authorisations from the outermost regions of products included in the POSEI regimes (regimes for the development of local farm products and some food supply).

In this a large number of products are considered in the case of Madeira, although Madeira does not have an indigenous sugar production or refinery.

However, the Azores, which have an active sugar production and refinery industry, will be forbidden from exporting to the US and Canada (their traditional markets) or dispatching to European ones their local and artisan products using local sugar, like liqueurs, dairy products and marmalades.

Would you agree with the previous public declarations of a Member of the European Parliament, who represents the Azores, that there is a continuing attitude by the Commission of bias against the Azorean sugar facilities?

Could you confirm if Madeira is normally supplied through branches or associates of British Sugar?

Could you confirm that a subsidiary of British Sugar attempted and failed to acquire a controlling interest in the sole sugar producer and refiner of the Azores?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(30 April 2004)

On 16 March we adopted Regulation (EC) No 489/2004 (2) amending Regulation (EC) No 20/2002 laying down detailed rules for implementing the specific supply arrangements for the outermost regions introduced by Council Regulations (EC) No 1452/2001, (EC) No 1453/2001 and (EC) No 1454/2001.

This Regulation completes our review of the 2001 POSEI arrangements. It specifies the terms on which products that have undergone processing in the French and Portuguese outermost regions can be exported in the regional trade context.

We can inform the Honourable Member that:

| 1. | The rules that we set have to be limited in their scope to implementation of the relevant Treaty and Council Regulation provisions.
  In response to the claim of discrimination in favour of Madeira against the Azores, we wish to make it clear that:






  (a) | on several occasions, the first at the beginning of 2002, we asked the Permanent Representatives of the Member States concerned (France and Portugal) what goods they envisaged exporting in the regional trade context and to what countries. The product lists in Annexes II and III to Regulation (EC) No 489/2004 take over their wishes unmodified; |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

The rules that we set have to be limited in their scope to implementation of the relevant Treaty and Council Regulation provisions.

In response to the claim of discrimination in favour of Madeira against the Azores, we wish to make it clear that:

(a)

on several occasions, the first at the beginning of 2002, we asked the Permanent Representatives of the Member States concerned (France and Portugal) what goods they envisaged exporting in the regional trade context and to what countries. The product lists in Annexes II and III to Regulation (EC) No 489/2004 take over their wishes unmodified;

| (b) | the Regulation (EC) No 489/2004 amendments in no way prohibit exportation to the United States and Canada of goods using locally obtained sugar, milk products and other agricultural products. Exportation of such goods to any destination has always been and continues to be totally free. |
| --- | --- |

(b)

the Regulation (EC) No 489/2004 amendments in no way prohibit exportation to the United States and Canada of goods using locally obtained sugar, milk products and other agricultural products. Exportation of such goods to any destination has always been and continues to be totally free.

| 2. | We do not know the identity of the enterprises that supply the outermost regions under the specific supply arrangements. The data the Member States send us for monitoring purposes consists of aggregated figures and enterprise names are not given. |
| --- | --- |

2.

We do not know the identity of the enterprises that supply the outermost regions under the specific supply arrangements. The data the Member States send us for monitoring purposes consists of aggregated figures and enterprise names are not given.

| 3. | We do not follow the progress of any negotiations on transfer of holdings in agri-food companies in the outermost regions that may occur. Tracking such negotiations is not a responsibility assigned to us under the Treaty or the secondary legislation. |
| --- | --- |

3.

We do not follow the progress of any negotiations on transfer of holdings in agri-food companies in the outermost regions that may occur. Tracking such negotiations is not a responsibility assigned to us under the Treaty or the secondary legislation.

---

(1)  OJ L 8, 11.1.2002, p. 1.

(2)  OJ L 79, 17.3.2004.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/715 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/715

---

(2004/C 88 E/0735)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0877/04

by Patricia McKenna (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(22 March 2004)

Subject:   Conflict resolution in Sudan

The war in Sudan has cost millions of lives and displaced millions of people. There is now hope for an end to the conflict. The existence of an ‘honest broker’ at the peace talks would greatly contribute to their success. A peaceful settlement to the conflict in Sudan must engage all the peoples of Sudan, particularly those tribes that are remote from decision-making and the centres of power.

Would the Commission consider acting as an ‘honest broker’ at the peace talks? Would it agree to commit resources so as to achieve a successful and sustainable peace in the region?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(27 April 2004)

Peace talks between the Government of the Sudan and the SPLM/A (1) have been conducted intermittently under the auspices of the Inter-governmental Authority on Development (IGAD) since 1993. Initially, observation was limited to representation from the Members of this regional organisation of the Horn of Africa, but since mid-2002, the group of observers was extended to the ‘Sudan Troika’ (Norway, United Kingdom, United States) and subsequently to the ‘extended Troika’, composed of Italy, Norway, United Kingdom, United States, the United Nations and the African Union. It is only under this format, which combines the immediate neighbours of the Sudan with some of the most important international players, that substantial progress has been made: During the last two years, a series of documents have been negotiated and they can be considered as ‘building blocks’ for a comprehensive agreement, notably the Machakos Protocol (20 July 2002), an agreement on security arrangements (25 September 2003), and an agreement on wealth sharing (7 January 2004). A Memorandum of Understanding on cessation of hostilities was signed on 18 November 2002, and since then, fighting has ended in Southern Sudan, with the exception of occasional skirmishes, mainly between pro-Government militia (SSDF) and the SPLM/A.

Experience in other conflicts has shown that it is often not a single ‘honest broker’, but the joint and coordinated involvement of the most important external stake-holders which makes a difference. The present format of the Sudan peace talks under IGAD auspices corresponds to this concept of comprehensive stake-holder involvement, and it has yielded significant results. The present structure of the peace process also foresees two phases, the first involving the two main belligerents and concluding with a global agreement, and the second involving all relevant political and social actors of the Sudan in a process of constitutional review and gradual democratisation. The second phase would take place during the six and a half year transition period.

No external involvement can be a substitute for the genuine willingness of the parties to achieve a peaceful settlement. The frequent stalemates in the Sudan peace process sometimes raise doubts about the existence of the necessary commitment to peace of the two main belligerents, the Government of the Sudan and the SPLM/A. The interested external actors will have to work with patience and apply sustained and measured pressure in order to move the negotiations forward.

The Commission is financially and politically supporting the IGAD peace process as well as the Verification and Monitoring Team, i.e. the mechanism established to monitor the cessation of hostilities (EUR 1,5 million from the Rapid Reaction Mechanism (RRM)). It is also considering supporting, through the RRM, the organisation of cease-fire talks among the belligerents of Darfur, Western Sudan, where a major armed conflict broke out early in 2003, initially in the shadow of the long-standing conflict in Southern Sudan, but recently escalating to the point where it has become the second most serious humanitarian crisis in the Horn and East Africa.

Development cooperation with the Sudan has been suspended since 1990, following the ‘coup d'Etat’ and the deterioration of the political and human rights situation. The resumption of cooperation is foreseen if and when a peace agreement is signed between the Government of the Sudan and the SPLM/A. However, preparatory activities are ongoing financed from various budget lines and in the framework of the ‘Humanitarian Plus’ Programme (EUR 18 million). Furthermore, two programme documents have been finalised, one for Rehabilitation and Capacity Building (EUR 52 million, 6th European Development Fund (EDF)) and another one financed from Stabex (EUR 191 million) with a focus on food security. These programmes, together with the 9th EDF allocation (EUR 135 million A envelope, EUR 20 million Β envelope), represent the ‘peace dividend’ that will be made available to the Sudan when a comprehensive peace agreement is signed and implemented.

---

(1)  Sudan Peoples' Liberation Movement and Sudan Peoples' Liberation Army.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/716 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/716

---

(2004/C 88 E/0736)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0901/04

by Graham Watson (ELDR) to the Commission

(24 March 2004)

Subject:   The treatment of animals in livestock markets

Could the Commission please advise what infringement proceedings under Article 226 of the Treaty have been initiated against Member States with regard to inadequate implementation of EU legal provisions on animal welfare?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(22 April 2004)

The treatment of animals in livestock markets is only governed by Community Law currently in force to the extent that it falls within Council Directive 91/628/EEC of 19 November 1991 on the protection of animals during transport (1) as amended by Directive 95/29/EC (2).

Transport of the animals to, and unloading them at, the market would be covered if the journey to the market was more than 50 kilometres but once the animals pass out of the control of the transporter the Directive does not deal with their situation until loading for the journey from the market commences.

The Commission's proposal for a new Regulation on the protection of transported animals aims, in particular, to extend the protection afforded by Community Law to animals at markets. Personnel handling animals at markets would have to receive the necessary training. Livestock market operators would be responsible for ensuring that the welfare of the animals was respected during their stay at the market including during loading and unloading. Market operators would also be responsible for the introduction and monitoring of the appropriate procedures to ensure respect of the relevant rules on their premises.

Infringement proceedings were opened against Belgium in the year 2000 in connection (inter alia) with serious animal welfare deficiencies in relation to loading and unloading of animals at a livestock market.

Following further incidents, Belgium modified its legislation and adopted strict enforcement procedures including prosecution of those alleged to be responsible for some of the incidents. Following reports of the Commission's Food and Veterinary Office (FVO), which indicated an improved situation, the Commission subsequently decided not to proceed further with the infringement action.

Other incidents concerning alleged mistreatment of animals in markets in some other Member States have also been brought to the attention of the Commission in recent years but following the intervention of the Commission's services, action was in most cases taken to improve the situation. It was not considered necessary to open infringement proceedings in relation to these incidents.

In relation to the Commission's general position on initiation of infringement proceedings in relation to breaches of Community animal welfare legislation, the Honourable Member is referred to the answer given to written question E-2884/02 of Mr Erik Meijer on 20 November 2002 (3).

---

(1)  OJ L 340, 11.12.1991.

(2)  OJ L 148, 30.6.1995.

(3)  OJ C 155 E, 3.7.2003.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/717 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/717

---

(2004/C 88 E/0737)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0921/04

by Proinsias De Rossa (PSE) to the Commission

(26 March 2004)

Subject:   Israeli nuclear arms

Can the Commission outline its position on Israel's failure to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and the lack of scrutiny by the United Nations nuclear watchdog, IAEA, of Israel's nuclear programme?

What steps are the Commission and Member States taking to create a nuclear-free zone in the Middle East?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(29 April 2004)

Signature of the Non-Proliferation Treaty is on a voluntary basis.

The EU Strategy against the proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction, adopted in December 2003, reflects the very high priority the Union puts on multilateral non-proliferation and disarmament Treaties and Conventions. One specific action of the Strategy refers to a diplomatic démarche to foster adherence, compliance and universalisation of Treaties and Conventions. The EU and the Commission use every opportunity to recall to Israel the importance of confidence building at regional level.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/718 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/718

---

(2004/C 88 E/0738)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0956/04

by Brian Crowley (UEN) to the Commission

(23 March 2004)

Subject:   Decoupling, farm retirement and families

Will the Commission confirm that it has received an appeal from the West Cork group of retired farmers regarding the damaging consequences of decoupling on the return of leased land, and does it realise that the rights of these farmers – who entered the early retirement scheme in good faith – to hand over this land to their sons and daughters as their rightful inheritance to develop to its full potential has been seriously affected? What action does it intend to take to ensure that their sons and daughters can inherit farms which are capable of providing a proper livelihood?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(21 April 2004)

The Common Agricultural Policy reform is addressed to active farmers. No provisions are established to ensure payment entitlements for landowners who have retired during the reference period and consequently whose land has been leased. The payment entitlements will be given to the tenants who exercised an agricultural activity in the reference period on the land in question. As confirmed by the European Court of Justice in a settled case-law, farmers cannot have a legitimate expectation that an existing situation which is capable of being altered by the Community institutions in the exercise of their discretionary power will be maintained.

Farmers can produce without entitlements or, but they are not obliged to, buy entitlements on the market and, of course, they can continue to lease the land to farmers who have entitlements but not enough land.

Nevertheless, there is no intention to disqualify such farm families from future payment entitlements or to prevent that sons and daughters can inherit farms which are capable of providing a proper livelihood.

The Commission is aware of the fact that farmers that participated in early retirement schemes may have leased their farm temporarily with the idea that eventually a son or daughter would take over the farm.

In order to ensure that the transfer of the holding or part of it within a family can easily take place, the Commission, in close collaboration with the Irish authorities, has developed a solution to avoid a situation in which children would be prevented from taking over a family farm that was leased out during the reference period. Those persons will be considered to be in a special situation within the meaning of Article 42 (4) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 of 29 September 2003 establishing common rules for direct support schemes under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers (1). As a result, in the Commission's implementing Regulation in process of being adopted, provision is made for the allocation to persons in such a situation of payment entitlements out of the national reserve if they take over the farm.

---

(1)  OJ L 270, 21.10.2003.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/718 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/718

---

(2004/C 88 E/0739)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0985/04

by Antonio Di Pietro (ELDR) to the Commission

(24 March 2004)

Subject:   Disappearance of children in Mozambique

Since July 2003 there have been alarming reports of street children disappearing in Mozambique (particularly in the Nampula area), to be sold and murdered, in some cases so that their organs may be used in the illegal transplant organ trade.

Attention was first drawn to this situation in February by missionary nuns in the Nampula diocese, the Sisters Servants of Mary, who wrote to Bishop Tomé and gave the local authorities a detailed account of the horrific events, backed up by statements from family members and teachers of the children who had disappeared.

A Brazilian consecrated layperson, Elida Dos Santos, who lives in the monastery at Nampula, was able to take video footage and photographs showing that these terrible events are very real and not merely the subject of serious allegations. The pictures show the mutilated bodies of children with missing organs, while some bodies have been found in sacks buried in remote spots.

What is more, as a result of the action taken by male and female missionaries in Mozambique against this horrific ring of inhuman traffickers, on 24 February 2004 a Brazilian Lutheran missionary, Doraci Edinger, who had come to the assistance of children in Nampula, was found dead in her flat. She had been battered to death with a hammer.

Pope John Paul II has also officially intervened in this matter, bringing his full moral authority to bear by calling during the Ash Wednesday homily for action to be taken in Mozambique to put a stop to the ‘obscene trafficking in organs and human beings’.

In the face of these alarming reports and the indifference shown by international organisations, can the Commission make urgent representations to the relevant authorities in Mozambique with a view to ensuring that the necessary action is taken to guarantee the safety of children and male and female missionaries in Nampula?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(29 April 2004)

The Commission shares the concerns of the Honourable Member about these alleged abominable crimes relating to the disappearance and trafficking of organs of orphans in Mozambique.

The Commission has contacted the Republic's General Prosecutor through its Delegation in Maputo in respect of these crimes. The Prosecutor has confirmed that a full investigation with a multi-institutional team including the Attorney General's office, the investigative police and the Nampula branch of the Human Rights League is underway not only in this region but also in other regions of the country. The investigation is ongoing and will go deeper into the allegations of trafficking. From the alleged cases no evidence could be established that human organs are subject to illegal trafficking. Furthermore, there is the political will in Mozambique to bring before the court any persons responsible for such crimes. This serious issue was lengthily debated in the Mozambican Parliament and the Government was requested to increase its efforts to find the truth and bring to justice any person involved in such crimes.

This issue will be raised within the framework of the EU-Mozambique political dialogue.

The Commission is aware of the concern regarding the nuns' safety and although this matter falls outside the Commission's competences and can be best addressed through interventions from the respective EU Embassies, the Commission will examine within the framework of the EU co-ordination and EU-Mozambique political dialogue the most appropriate way to raise this issue with the Government.

Mozambique has been benefiting from assistance to the judiciary system (Strategic Planning, access to justice, human rights, prison reforms, legal training, Maputo Civil Court, Police of Mozambique) by the EU (Denmark, Spain, Ireland, Italy, the Netherlands and Portugal), Norway, United Nations Development Program (UNDP) and United States Agency for International Development (USAID).

The Honourable Member can be assured that the Commission, within its competence, will continue supporting the Government of Mozambique to reinforce its investigating capacity so that justice prevails in this country.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/720 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/720

---

(2004/C 88 E/0740)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1000/04

by Michiel van Hulten (PSE) to the Commission

(24 March 2004)

Subject:   Publication by Commissioner Bolkestein of a book entitled ‘De grenzen van Europa’

On Wednesday 10 March 2004, Commissioner Bolkestein published a book entitled ‘De grenzen van Europa’ (‘The Frontiers of Europe’). On 7 March 2004, Commissioner Bolkestein told the Dutch TV Programme ‘Buitenhof’ that the drafting and finalisation [of his text] had been extremely time-consuming and that, if he had not been able to call on the services of various secretaries speaking various languages in his Private Office and on those of the Commission's Translation Service, he would never have managed it.

| 1. | Did Commissioner Bolkestein inform the President of the European Commission in advance that he was about to publish a book, as required by the Code of Conduct for European Commissioners? If so, when? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Did Commissioner Bolkestein inform the President of the European Commission in advance that he was about to publish a book, as required by the Code of Conduct for European Commissioners? If so, when?

| 2. | Did he indicate the charity to which any profits from sales of his book were to go, as required by the Code of Conduct? If so, when, and which charity was nominated? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Did he indicate the charity to which any profits from sales of his book were to go, as required by the Code of Conduct? If so, when, and which charity was nominated?

| 3. | Did Commissioner Bolkestein really use the services of the European Commission for the drafting and translation of (parts of) his book? If so, what was the precise nature of the support given, and what was the cost thereof? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Did Commissioner Bolkestein really use the services of the European Commission for the drafting and translation of (parts of) his book? If so, what was the precise nature of the support given, and what was the cost thereof?

| 4. | Has the Commission ensured that the cost of the work undertaken by Commission officials in Commissioner Bolkestein's Private Office and in the Translation Service is deducted from the amount to be devoted to charity, or, should the book not make a profit, charged directly to Commissioner Bolkestein? |
| --- | --- |

4.

Has the Commission ensured that the cost of the work undertaken by Commission officials in Commissioner Bolkestein's Private Office and in the Translation Service is deducted from the amount to be devoted to charity, or, should the book not make a profit, charged directly to Commissioner Bolkestein?

| 5. | In general, does the Commission feel that Commissioners are entitled to use the Commission's services when writing books or undertaking other activities which are not directly connected with their portfolios? |
| --- | --- |

5.

In general, does the Commission feel that Commissioners are entitled to use the Commission's services when writing books or undertaking other activities which are not directly connected with their portfolios?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(27 April 2004)

The book ‘The Frontiers of Europe’ was prepared and published in accordance with the code of conduct for the Members of the Commission. Mr Bolkestein, Member of the Commission informed the President of his intention to publish it on 3 February 2004. Royalties from this book drafted as part of the exercise of his duties will be paid to a charitable organisation of his choice. Discretion, Mr Bolkestein feels, dictates that it is not appropriate to disclose the name of the beneficiary organisation.

The book is an integral part of his work as a Member of the Commission and is intended to stimulate debate on European themes, such as European integration and the future of Europe. In addition, the aim of the book is to draw the attention of European citizens to the elections to the European Parliament, thereby boosting the turnout. It should be emphasised that the preparation of the book never interfered with other tasks linked to his duties as a Member of the Commission.

Technical support given by Commission departments to Mr Bolkstein to draft his book was a routine task in assisting a Commissioner carry out his duties. Moreover, the services provided never hindered the departments in question in the other duties incumbent on them.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/721 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/721

---

(2004/C 88 E/0741)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1007/04

by Manuel Medina Ortega (PSE) to the Commission

(25 March 2004)

Subject:   Breakdown of the POSEI item in the 2004 Budget

Until 2004, the Community's annual budget allocated, under the EAGGF-Guarantee framework, a budgetary line to each POSEI, establishing two sub-items within each: one on ‘Supply’ and another on ‘Other measures’, i.e. support for local production. I am speaking about Item B1-320 Poseidom (B1-3200 Supply and B1-3201 Other measures), B1-321 Poseima (B1-3210 Supply and B1-3211 Other measures) and B1-322 Poseican (B1-3220 Supply and B1-3221 Other measures).

As a result of the changes to the structure of the 2004 Budget, the POSEIs budgetary items have been globalised and unified within the framework of Title 05 on agricultural and rural development, in Item 05 02 11 04, which also contains the amounts for the Aegean Islands and other amounts, e.g. subsidies for rice supplies to Reunión, which were formerly separate. This system entails the loss of the previous clarity and transparency, since the quantities assigned to each POSEI can no longer be distinguished, and within each of the latter, the amounts assigned to each of the aforementioned sub-items. Given that implementation for 2002 also appears in globalised form, it is likewise impossible to work out what was implemented within each POSEI.

What is the amount assigned to Poseican for budgetary year 2004?

Of this amount, how much is earmarked for the Specific Supply Arrangements and how much to Support measures for local production?

What was the total of the amounts actually paid out in 2002 and 2003 for the Specific Supply Arrangements on the one hand, and for other Poseican measures on the other?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(21 April 2004)

The 2004 appropriation for the Poseican programme is EUR 137 million: EUR 103 million for the special supply arrangements and EUR 34 million for support for local production.

Actual expenditure in 2002 and 2003 was:

| — | Special supply arrangements:






  — | 2002: EUR 88,8 million; |
| --- | --- | --- |

—

Special supply arrangements:

—

2002: EUR 88,8 million;

| — | 2003: EUR 84,7 million. |
| --- | --- |

—

2003: EUR 84,7 million.

| — | Other measures:






  — | 2002: EUR 19,5 million; |
| --- | --- | --- |

—

Other measures:

—

2002: EUR 19,5 million;

| — | 2003: EUR 26,8 million. |
| --- | --- |

—

2003: EUR 26,8 million.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/721 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/721

---

(2004/C 88 E/0742)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1064/04

by André Brie (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(6 April 2004)

Subject:   Inconsistencies relating to the reconstruction of the road S 282 A in the Free State of Saxony

I would like to draw the Commission's attention to problems relating to the reconstruction of the Land-administered road S 282 A in the Free State of Saxony. These problems have been the subject of a petition to the European Parliament (364/2000), which was registered on 25 May 2000 and last discussed by the Committee on Petitions on 20 February 2003. The Committee is still awaiting the information requested from the relevant authorities in Germany.

Over the four years since the petition was submitted and during which the road S 282 A was completed, an increasing number of conflicting pieces of information have come to light.

Firstly, contradictory statements have been made with regard to the cost.

In a letter of 23 May 2003 to Mr Nino Gemelli (Chairman of the Committee on Petitions), the German ambassador Dr Schönfelder (Permanent Representation of Germany to the EU) confirmed that the extension of the road S 282 A would cost EUR 50 million, referring to information from German authorities.

In a letter of 19 May 2003 to Mr Iltgen, President of Saxony's state parliament, the total cost of constructing the road was estimated by Saxony's State Minister of Economic Affairs and Labour at EUR 4,63 million. Just a few weeks later (on 4 July 2003), in reply to the same question, the Minister informed Mr Iltgen that the cost would be only EUR 4,3 million.

In addition, it is suspected that the reconstruction of the road S 282 A was intentionally declared to be an ‘extension’ although this was not the case, as only one year after the road was completed it was downgraded from the original ‘supraregional’ category (classification II) to the ‘regional’ category (classification III).

Can the Commission state whether and to what extent it is aware of these conflicting facts and, if it is not aware of them, whether it intends to carry out on-the-spot investigations?

Supplementary answer given by Mr Barrot on behalf of the Commission

(28 June 2004)

According to the information which the Commission received from the management authority on 16 April 2004 in Saxony, the situation of European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) investments in the project quoted by the Honourable Member is as follows.

The street, Staatsstraße 282 A, has been reconstructed with support from the ERDF. The planning envisaged a total cost of EUR 9,081 million. Up to now EUR 5,3 million has been spent with some EUR 0,705 million to follow. The ERDF is contributing 75 % of the total cost.

The Commission is informed that inconsistencies might have arisen in the presentation of the figures regarding this project because they were given at different points in time and relate therefore to the situation at different stages of implementation.

As regards the change in grade of the street, the programme management authority has informed the Commission that the street in question was upgraded from local level in 1997 to state level. It has not been downgraded.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/722 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/722

---

(2004/C 88 E/0743)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1081/04

by Maria Sanders-ten Holte (ELDR) to the Commission

(6 April 2004)

Subject:   The smaller European Schools

In its resolution of 17 December 2002, the European Parliament stated that the European Schools foster a sense of European identity and European integration. Yet various smaller European Schools are threatened with closure. The European Parliament also took the view that ways of cooperating (inter alia financially) with local, regional or national authorities should be explored, in which connection linguistic diversity should remain a priority.

In May 2003, the Board of Governors of the European Schools set up working parties to examine the viability of each of the small schools.

| 1. | Have the working parties completed their examination and drawn up final reports? If not, why is the Commission now already proposing that the European subsidy to the schools be reduced? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Have the working parties completed their examination and drawn up final reports? If not, why is the Commission now already proposing that the European subsidy to the schools be reduced?

| 2. | What is the Commission's view of the possibility of making the European Baccalaureate available to far more pupils by means of cooperation with local, regional or national schools and by admitting more outside pupils to the European School? |
| --- | --- |

2.

What is the Commission's view of the possibility of making the European Baccalaureate available to far more pupils by means of cooperation with local, regional or national schools and by admitting more outside pupils to the European School?

| 3. | The forthcoming enlargement of the EU will put a lot of pressure on the principle of teaching in pupils' mother tongue at the European Schools (which, it should not be forgotten, is one of the distinguishing features of these schools), because at the small schools in particular there would be too few pupils to permit a separate language section to be set up or because the infrastructure does not allow it. How will the Commission guarantee mother-tongue teaching in future? |
| --- | --- |

3.

The forthcoming enlargement of the EU will put a lot of pressure on the principle of teaching in pupils' mother tongue at the European Schools (which, it should not be forgotten, is one of the distinguishing features of these schools), because at the small schools in particular there would be too few pupils to permit a separate language section to be set up or because the infrastructure does not allow it. How will the Commission guarantee mother-tongue teaching in future?

| 4. | Will the Commission encourage the Member States to second a mother tongue language teacher for those languages for which no separate language section has been or is to be set up? |
| --- | --- |

4.

Will the Commission encourage the Member States to second a mother tongue language teacher for those languages for which no separate language section has been or is to be set up?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(30 April 2004)

The budgetary process to which the Honourable Member refers is the same irrespective of the size of a European School. During the meeting of the Administrative and Financial Committee of the Board of Governors held at the end of March 2004, the draft budgets for 2005 for each European School were unanimously agreed upon, with the agreement of the Director of each European School. The amount of subsidy requested from the EU budget was communicated to the Commission, and this amount will be submitted by the Commission to the budgetary authority.

The reports of the Working Groups concerning the long-term viability of the small European Schools were not connected to the 2005 draft budget, but were presented as a distinct issue to the Board of Governors meeting at the end of January 2004. Given the apparent lack of innovative and workable alternatives, in particular in relation to cooperation with local, regional or national schools, the Working Groups were given a last opportunity to further enrich their report, and to present a revised version at the meeting of the Board of Governors to be held at the end of April 2004.

On the subject of the wider availability of the European Baccalaureate in schools other than European Schools, the Commission is actively participating in a Working Group of the Board of Governors examining the feasibility and modalities of this proposal. However, the Commission does not consider that admitting more outside pupils to the highly subsidised European Schools is an appropriate means of opening up the European Baccalaureate. The Honourable Member will also realise that, since national education systems remain within the competence of Member States, the Commission has no effective power of initiative in this area.

The Commission agrees with the Honourable Member that the linguistic diversity of the forthcoming enlargement will put pressure on mother tongue teaching in the European Schools. The criteria established by the Board of Governors in October 2002 relating to numbers of pupils necessary to open a new language section justify the opening of Polish, Hungarian and Czech sections in Brussels and Luxembourg as of September 2004. However, the European Schools are recruiting both full-time and part-time teachers to provide mother tongue teaching to children of EU staff of other nationalities who are without a language section.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/724 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/724

---

(2004/C 88 E/0744)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1125/04

by Daniela Raschhofer (NI) to the Commission

(6 April 2004)

Subject:   EU programmes with Turkey – potential consequences of full membership

Before the European Council takes a decision in December 2004 on the opening of accession negotiations with Turkey the following questions need to be answered:

| — | Under what programmes have EU funds already been made available to Turkey? |
| --- | --- |

—

Under what programmes have EU funds already been made available to Turkey?

| — | What level of funding has been made available? |
| --- | --- |

—

What level of funding has been made available?

| — | What financial consequences and/or obligations would the EU face in the event of Turkey becoming a full EU Member State? |
| --- | --- |

—

What financial consequences and/or obligations would the EU face in the event of Turkey becoming a full EU Member State?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(29 April 2004)

Until 2002, Turkey had received support under the MEDA programme and through two regulations to support the customs union (1) and economic and social development (2). The Council adopted on 17 December 2001 a regulation concerning pre-accession financial assistance for Turkey. This came into effect in January 2002 and continues to provide the legal base for our financial cooperation with Turkey.

Over the period 2000-2003 annual financial assistance to Turkey averaged EUR 177 million. In April 2003 agreement was reached between the Parliament, Council and Commission to include Turkey in the pre-accession heading of the financial perspectives and to provide substantially increased financial assistance for the period 2004-2006, amounting to EUR 1050 million over the three years (EUR 250 million in 2004, EUR 300 million in 2005 and EUR 500 million in 2006).

It should be recalled that the decision to be taken by the European Council in December 2004 will be based on an assessment of whether Turkey fulfils the Copenhagen political criteria. It is clear that the accession of a country with the size and population of Turkey would have a major impact on the EU, its policies and institutions. The concrete financial consequences and/or obligations for the EU would depend on the outcome of the negotiations.

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 764/2000 of 10 April 2000 regarding the implementation of measures to intensify the EC-Turkey customs union, OJ L 94, 14.4.2000.

(2)  Regulation (EC) No 257/2001 of the Parliament and of the Council of 22 January 2001 regarding the implementation of measures to promote economic and social development in Turkey, OJ L 39, 9.2.2001.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/724 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/724

---

(2004/C 88 E/0745)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1190/04

by Joan Vallvé (ELDR) to the Commission

(14 April 2004)

Subject:   Forum of Cultures 2004

In its answer of 21 October 2003 to my question on the Forum of Cultures (H-0539/03 (1)), which will formally open in Barcelona on 9 May 2004, the Commission stated that it was keeping track of the preparations for the Forum and implementing a series of initiatives aimed at fostering intercultural dialogue.

Since the opening of the Forum is approaching, I would like to know what initiatives the Commission intends to implement. I should also like to know whether the intercultural dialogue referred to will take into account the specific cultural characteristics of Catalonia, and more particularly the Catalan language, which is an official Forum language.

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(30 April 2004)

The Commission recently presented the outline of the future new-generation programme on culture, in its Communication on citizenship in action. It proposes to focus on promoting the dialogue between cultures in this future programme, as the contribution to this dialogue is one of the main benefits offered by cultural action at Community level.

With regard to the Forum to be held in Barcelona from May to September 2004, the Commission can only reiterate that it will follow the event closely, as it is not the organiser. As regards any official languages for the event, therefore, the Commission would suggest contacting the organisers, namely Unesco, the Spanish State, the Generalitat de Catalunya and the Ajuntament de Barcelona. In any event, the event's website (http://www.barcelona2004.org) exists in three languages: English, Catalan and Spanish.

---

(1)  Written answer of 21.10.2003.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/725 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/725

---

(2004/C 88 E/0746)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1200/04

by Charles Tannock (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(14 April 2004)

Subject:   The progress in Ukraine being recognised by the EU as having Market Economy Status (MES)

The progress in the assessment of the compatibility of the economy of Ukraine with the criteria required by EU antidumping legislation seems to have arrested. This process was started in September 2000 when Ukraine was granted special MES and negotiations commenced in October 2000 in order to obtain full MES. The European Commission has examined as required under customary practice the compliance of Ukraine under a number of Market Economy Status headings, in particular; non-interference by the State in company decision making procedures and asset allocation, clear corporate accounting and independent audit procedures, continuing market distortions carried over from the command economy period during the Soviet Union times, legal certainty to title and bankruptcy procedures in accord with international norms, and the possesion of a floating market driven currency exchange mechanism.

In September 2002 Mr. Prodi met President Leonid Kuchma of Ukraine and assured him that the EC would announce its decision within six months following the provision of extensive answers by the Government of Ukraine on the market status nature of Ukraine's economy. Despite further questioning during the course of the 4th and 6th EU-Ukraine Co-operation Committee and further assurances by External Trade Commissioner Lamy as to the readiness of Ukraine in October 2003, Ukraine still has not had an answer on whether it will be granted full MES. Futhermore, the Ukrainian economy has made further improvements over the last three years. For instance, its GDP has increased by 8,5 % between 2002 and 2003, there is now no state interference into companies' decision making process, equal rights exist for the activity of enterprises regardless of the form of ownership, price regulation is settled almost entirely by free market mechanisms rather than the state and over 90 % share of the market is private, whilst less than 10 % of market is state owned.

Mindful of these objective facts and with the geo-politically driven decision to grant Russia full MES is the Commission deliberately stalling on this decision for political reasons rather than the strict economic criteria required?

Answer given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(30 April 2004)

The assessment of whether a country should be granted Market Economy Status for trade defence investigations is a technical analysis, with very precise practical parameters aimed at ensuring that the costs and prices of companies can be relied on for the purpose of trade defence investigations.

It should be noted that the Commission assesses each application for Market Economy Status on its own merits, rather than by comparison with other countries which have applied for it.

Ukraine's official request to the Commission to grant it Market Economy Status in trade defence investigations was received in May 2002. The Commission's preliminary assessment was issued in March 2003. It identified five areas where additional information or further progress was required. Ukraine sent the information requested in three stages, in June 2003, December 2003 and January 2004.

The Member of the Commission in charge of Trade has not given any assurances as to the readiness of Ukraine for Market Economy Status. In fact, the Commission's Trade Defence Services have undertaken to finalise their assessment of progress in the five problematic areas identified in March 2003 during the month of April 2004. This document will then be made available to Member States and to the Ukrainian authorities soon thereafter.

The full Market Economy Status assessment will therefore be completed shortly. In this context, the Commission welcomes the progress achieved by Ukraine in economic reform, which represents a step towards fulfilment of the Market Economy Status criteria. The Commission remains committed, as has always been the case, to grant Market Economy Status to Ukraine as soon as sufficient progress has been made on the issues identified and the technical conditions for this are in place.

It should also be borne in mind that individual Ukrainian companies can apply to receive Market Economy treatment.

---

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/726 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/726

---

(2004/C 88 E/0747)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1203/04

by Gianfranco Dell'Alba (NI) to the Commission

(14 April 2004)

Subject:   Suspected irregularities in the management of European Development Fund (EDF) resources for Project 8.ACP.PNG.003

| 1. | With regard to the contract award procedure used to select the undertaking to replace the original consultant (Studio Bichara Srl (‘SB’)) in the services contract in question, can the Commission indicate why:






  (a) | no international restricted invitation to tender was launched, despite the contract being of a value in excess of EUR 200 000, and a local invitation to tender was opted for instead (see the Common Service for External Relations manual of procedures – paragraph 10 and Annex – applicable at the time of the events in question); |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

With regard to the contract award procedure used to select the undertaking to replace the original consultant (Studio Bichara Srl (‘SB’)) in the services contract in question, can the Commission indicate why:

(a)

no international restricted invitation to tender was launched, despite the contract being of a value in excess of EUR 200 000, and a local invitation to tender was opted for instead (see the Common Service for External Relations manual of procedures – paragraph 10 and Annex – applicable at the time of the events in question);

| (b) | no suspicion was aroused by the fact that the participants in the tender procedure (which differed enormously in terms of size and financial capacity) submitted tenders in excess of the maximum available budget when some of them had also participated in the original 1999 procedure and submitted tenders below the level of available resources; |
| --- | --- |

(b)

no suspicion was aroused by the fact that the participants in the tender procedure (which differed enormously in terms of size and financial capacity) submitted tenders in excess of the maximum available budget when some of them had also participated in the original 1999 procedure and submitted tenders below the level of available resources;

| (c) | the contract was subsequently awarded (by direct agreement) to the companies PAC and ETS, contrary to Article 12(2) of the General Conditions for services contracts financed by the EDF, when PAC/ETS had, moreover, been declared ineligible in respect of another EU project in the Republic of Vanuatu? |
| --- | --- |

(c)

the contract was subsequently awarded (by direct agreement) to the companies PAC and ETS, contrary to Article 12(2) of the General Conditions for services contracts financed by the EDF, when PAC/ETS had, moreover, been declared ineligible in respect of another EU project in the Republic of Vanuatu?

| 2. | Concerning the contracts awarded after the cancellation of the contract with SB why, following the criticisms levelled by PAC/ETS itself at the Unitech plans drawn up by SB, was management of the works originally envisaged by SB awarded to PAC/ETS for an amount of around EUR 772 000, as opposed to the EUR 660 000 originally agreed with SB for the same services, on top of around EUR 100 000 for supplementary services and a rider amounting to around EUR 420 000 relating solely to the new plans for the Unitech institute (as opposed to the EUR 600 000 agreed with SB for the plans for all 9 of the institutes covered by the project)? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Concerning the contracts awarded after the cancellation of the contract with SB why, following the criticisms levelled by PAC/ETS itself at the Unitech plans drawn up by SB, was management of the works originally envisaged by SB awarded to PAC/ETS for an amount of around EUR 772 000, as opposed to the EUR 660 000 originally agreed with SB for the same services, on top of around EUR 100 000 for supplementary services and a rider amounting to around EUR 420 000 relating solely to the new plans for the Unitech institute (as opposed to the EUR 600 000 agreed with SB for the plans for all 9 of the institutes covered by the project)?

Supplementary answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(8 July 2004)

Further to the additional documentation received from the Delegation in Papua New Guinea, the Commission is now in a position to formulate a reply to point 2) of the above-mentioned written question.

The two contracts mentioned cannot be completely compared in terms of scope of service since the second one, which was then awarded to PAC/ETS included additional design review which was not foreseen in the original contract. This explains the higher amount of the second contract.

Supplementary services were then requested in order to carry out additional geo-technical studies in some of the buildings.

At a later stage the Contracting Authority requested a new re-design for the Unitech building after some deficiencies were identified in the original design work. This is the reason for the rider mentioned in the written question.

The Commission has, however, launched more detailed enquiries to check that the amounts provided for in the contract are fully justified.

---

Corrigenda

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/728 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/728

---

(2004/C 88 E/0748)

CORRIGENDA

Corrigendum to the answer to Written Question P-2323/03 by Mrs Schreyer on behalf of the Commission

(
  ‘Official Journal of the European Union’ C 65 E of 13 March 2004
  )

On page 131, point 2. (b) should read as follows:

| 2. (b) | What positions have they held since?
  One of the two management level officials was appointed Head of Unit in DG PRESS. The other, after spending a short period of time in DG ADMIN as Adviser, was appointed Head of Unit in DG ADMIN. |
| --- | --- |

2. (b)

What positions have they held since?

One of the two management level officials was appointed Head of Unit in DG PRESS. The other, after spending a short period of time in DG ADMIN as Adviser, was appointed Head of Unit in DG ADMIN.

---