ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3410/02

by Friedrich-Wilhelm Graefe zu Baringdorf (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(25 November 2002)

Subject: European Union action plan to promote organic food and farming

In June 2001 the Göteborg European summit and the Agriculture Council instructed the Commission to draw up a European Union action plan to promote organic food and farming.

What stage has the Commission reached in its work on the European Union action plan to promote organic food and farming?

How will the European Parliament be involved in drafting the action plan?

In what form will the Commission present the action plan to the European Council?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(23 December 2002)

In June 2001 the Göteborg European Council agreed that the common agricultural policy and its future development should, among its objectives, contribute to achieving sustainable development by increasing its emphasis on encouraging healthy, high quality products, environmentally sustainable production methods, including organic production .

On 19 June 2001 the Agriculture Council in conclusions invited the Commission to analyse the possibility of a European Union action plan to promote organic food and farming and present appropriate proposals.

The Commission began its work in April 2002 and drew up a working document containing the outcome of the reflections of a group of experts and of an interdepartmental working group. The experts' group was widely representative of the stakeholders, both public and private, in the organic farming sector.

The working document is to be presented to the Agriculture Council. The Commission envisages its being followed by in-depth consultation of the Member States and the sector to devise a European action plan incorporating a working programme for the coming years and a commitment to launch specific proposals and determine priorities.

Working out of the plan will however be dependent on the outcome of the Council's discussion of the working document.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3010/02

by Chris Davies (ELDR) to the Commission

(23 October 2002)

Subject: Humanitarian crisis, Northern Uganda

In the Uganda-European Community Country Strategy Paper and National Indicative Programme for the period 2002-2007 Section 3.1: The Political Situation (p. 5), the Commission states that:

Apart from the North and South West areas affected by rebellions, there is a general sense of security and of not being exposed to exactions from State organs.

Is the Commission aware of the developing humanitarian crisis in large parts of northern Uganda as escalating conflict between the Ugandan Government and the Lords Resistance Army (LRA) has led to food production being stopped in some areas and that aid convoys have been terminated following attacks upon them, resulting in up to 120 000 people being threatened with starvation?

What representations has the Commission made to the Ugandan Government regarding the growing humanitarian crisis?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(18 November 2002)

The Commission has been following the deterioration of the humanitarian situation in Northern Uganda very closely and with increasing concern. An assessment mission undertaken by the Commission in early October 2002 has re-confirmed this concern.

The Commission is already providing humanitarian assistance to the region through United Nations (UN) agencies and a wide range of non-governmental organisations. This assistance comprises food aid, water and sanitation, medical and educational supplies and support to released abductees/former child soldiers. In particular, the Commission, through Humanitarian Aid Office (ECHO), has already more then doubled its allocation for Uganda in 2002 to over EUR 2 million for the people affected, notably an estimated 700 000 internally displaced persons affected by insecurity in that region. In addition, ECHO has made arrangements to allow ECHO Flight to respond rapidly to requests for emergency missions.

The UN agencies are currently assessing food shortages as well as harvests for the coming year and the Commission will most probably contribute to cover part of the needs.

The Commission, together with other donors supporting Uganda, is in discussion with the Government to ensure that the northern regions receive a fair share of the resources earmarked for development.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3777/02

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(23 December 2002)

Subject: Pirelli production

Is the Commission able to provide assurances that the decision by Pirelli to move fibre optic production from its plant in Hampshire to Italy is in full compliance with EU rules on state aid?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(5 February 2003)

On 2 October 2002 the Commission approved planned aid of EUR 74,5 million for the firm Fibre Ottiche Sud in respect of a EUR 167,4 million investment project at Battipaglia, Campania, an assisted region in southern Italy. The project should create 311 direct jobs and 108 indirect jobs. The Commission took its decision under the rules laid down in the multisectoral framework on regional aid for large investment projects(1).

The Commission's general objective in implementing the multisectoral framework is to limit aid for large-scale projects in such a way as to avoid as much as possible adverse effects on competition while at the same time maintaining the attraction of the assisted area. In the case under consideration, the maximum admissible aid intensity was 28 % net grant equivalent (corresponding to the investment's gross intensity (44,5 %), discounted and less taxes).

The Commission is not aware that Pirelli's investment constitutes a transfer of production from the United Kingdom to Italy. It should also be pointed out that the investment project involves the extension of an existing fibre optic plant.

(1) OJ C 107, 7.4.1998.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3910/02

by Eija-Riitta Korhola (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(14 January 2003)

Subject: Discriminatory nature of vehicle financing in Finland

The Finnish vehicle import regulations have recently been amended to prevent them impeding competition and discriminating against private and/or parallel importers. In practice, however, the individual consumer still has to fall back on traditional importers dealing in given makes only because financing agreements are at present impossible to obtain unless cars are purchased through such dealers. The biggest financial institutions operating in Finland are Nordea and OPR, and there are several smaller providers as well. However, in reality they all appear to be following the same line of conduct.

Is the Commission aware of the situation in Finland regarding the vehicle financing market and does it oversee the manner of giving effect to competition in this area? Does it consider the prevailing practice to be in accordance with EU competition laws and what action does it intend to take? Do other Member States have similar practices that might obstruct the implementation of Commission decisions to liberalise competition?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(25 February 2003)

The Commission has not been made aware of any difficulties regarding the market for financing of the purchase of new motor vehicles in Finland. The Commission is, therefore, not in a position to assess whether or not the practice described by the Honourable Member is compatible with Community competition rules.

Based on the information provided, it seems that the problem described by the Honourable Member relates to the behaviour of Finnish financial institutions. In such a case it is in the first place the task of the Finnish competition authority to take action based on Community competition rules or on Finnish competition law.

The Finnish competition authority has informed the Commission that, so far, it has not received any formal complaints in relation to this matter. However, it has assured the Commission that it will continue to monitor the situation closely, also in light of the forthcoming entering into force of the amended Finnish tax regulation, which should improve the situation for parallel importers.

The Commission is not aware of any similar practices in other Member States.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3395/02

by Philip Bushill-Matthews (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(22 November 2002)

Subject: Sudan

Following the peace treaty signed in Sudan in January, which hopefully will end the conflict which has claimed over a million lives, what action is the EU taking in order to promote the peace process? Specifically, has the EU considered suspending trade in Sudanese oil until the just, enduring peace deal is in place?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(18 December 2002)

The Union's position on relations with Sudan beyond the Machakos peace talks is based on normalisation of relations and resumption of co-operation tied to progress in the peace process.

In line with conclusions adopted by the Council in June 2002, the Union is following a phased approach in order to promote the peace process:

- until a peace agreement is concluded, the Union will continue its political dialogue on the basis of the commitments for 2002 entered into by the Government of the Sudan regarding human rights, democracy and rule of law with a particular focus on the conclusion of a peace agreement.

- in the event of a peace agreement, the Union will initiate the normalisation of relations. Such relations, in the context of the Cotonou Agreement, would be based on respect for human rights, democratic principles and the rule of law, and include support for peace building and conflict resolution.

As regards a possible Community trade ban on oil from the Sudan, the Commission as a general rule is convinced that a policy of engagement rather than of isolation is the best way to have its concerns heard and expectations met. Further sanctions backed by the United Nations as opposed to unilateral sanctions are preferable and more efficient as a foreign policy tool. In addition, in this case a unilateral measure would have limited economic impact as the Union is a very marginal market for Sudanese oil exports, the main markets being China (63 % of EUR 1,2 billion in 2000) and Japan (23 %).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3196/02

by Ria Oomen-Ruijten (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(8 November 2002)

Subject: Illegal parallel imports of cheaper pharmaceuticals from developing countries

As developing countries do not have sufficient financial resources and facilities for the safe and effective use of pharmaceuticals, they receive cheaper pharmaceuticals. At present, these cheaper pharmaceuticals are being sold at a higher price in the European Union by means of illegal parallel imports. This product differentiation reduces the scope for supplying cheaper medicines to developing countries. The health of the inhabitants of those countries suffers as a result.

1. What measures will the Commission take to prevent cheaper pharmaceuticals from being diverted from developing countries to countries where pharmaceuticals are more expensive?

2. At present EU patent law provides for the system of exhaustion of Community rights. For how long does the Commission expect that it will be possible to retain this system? Could this system be replaced so that EU countries can protect their markets against parallel imports of cheaper pharmaceuticals from developing countries?

Answer given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(23 December 2002)

In accordance with the Commission Communication to the Council and the Parliament on accelerated action targeted at major communicable diseases within the context of poverty reduction(1), measures to prevent trade diversion of tiered priced products should be reinforced. To this end, the Commission therefore, on 30 October 2002, adopted a proposal for a Council Regulation to avoid trade diversion into the Union of certain key medicines(2).

This initiative, once adopted by the Council, will enable the customs authorities to suspend the release of or detain tiered priced products at Union borders until the national competent authority has decided whether the products are tiered priced products or not. It is important that segmentation between developed country markets and developing country markets can be upheld in order to secure sustainable offers of low priced medicines to developing countries.

The proposed Regulation does not interfere with intellectual property rights. Both protected and non-protected products may be listed as tiered priced products provided the conditions set out in the draft Regulation are fulfilled. A right holder might indeed choose to exercise his intellectual property rights in the event protected tiered priced products have entered the Community market despite efforts to intercept them at the border.

While exhaustion of intellectual property rights does apply to products placed on the market by or with the consent of the right holder within the European single market, right holders are free to take civil action for infringement in the national courts against the unauthorised parallel importation or commercialisation of protected goods which have entered the Union from third counties. This position has been confirmed by the European Court of Justice. There are no plans within the Community to change this policy.

(1) COM(2001) 96 final.

(2) COM(2002) 592 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3541/02

by Glenys Kinnock (PSE) to the Commission

(11 December 2002)

Subject: Ombudsman for developing countries' trade

Will the Commission outline its opinion on the proposal that an EU Ombudsman on developing countries' exports should be established, in order to help remove accidental barriers to trade? Can the Commission explain how such a proposal would be funded?

Answer given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(16 January 2003)

The Commission is proposing to create a Help Desk with the purpose of supplying the information necessary to commercial operators in developing countries to export to the Union.

The Help Desk will take the form of a database containing tariff levels, relevant documentation and legislation and will also be in a position to supply advice on problem solving. It is hoped that this new service will be available to the developing world late 2003.
1.

The difficulties inherent in launching the operational programme (OP) for the environment stem from the time required to establish a managing authority, the time required to comply with the national administrative procedures in force and the complexity of the projects proposed for part-financing under this OP. At the meeting of the Monitoring Committee for this programme held in Athens in June 2002, the Greek authorities thought that most of these difficulties had been overcome so that implementation could go ahead as planned. Similar difficulties arose as regards implementation of the agri-environmental measure forming part of the programming document for rural development in 2000-2006 under Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 70/19

(2004/C 70 E/021)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3750/02

by Mario Mauro (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(20 December 2002)

Subject: Relations between the EU and the Republic of Surinam

In May 2000, presidential elections were held in Surinam which radically altered the state of political instability which had characterised the preceding years.

The return of Ronald Venetiaan has prompted fresh action: better control over public expenditure, a reduction in subsidies and an increase in tax revenue. Furthermore, the government has decided to base exchange rates on the market and to cease financing the public deficit by increasing the amount of money in circulation.

Nonetheless, the new government has inherited a country which is on the verge of financial collapse and further reforms are called for if bankruptcy is to be staved off.

Will the Commission say what role it is playing in the democratisation of the country and what strategy it is pursuing in order to foster Surinam's social and economic development?

In particular, does the Commission intend to establish bilateral agreements with Surinam?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(28 February 2003)

The Community contributed EUR 2 million to the electoral process leading to the general elections of May 2000, which were perceived as free and fair. Election observers from Member States participated.

The democratic process, which the country has gone through during the past years, is positively appreciated by the Commission and the international community. Its consolidation is now a priority and this is the subject of a continuous dialogue between Government, civil society and the international community. The Commission plays an active role in co-ordination with the Member States.

During the period 2001-2002, the government improved public finances. Due to global macro-economic setbacks and a 30 % increase in public sector wages in 2002, the situation is now deteriorating. Government has very recently concluded agreements in the mining sector which should help, but the effects can only be expected in the medium term.

With respect to agreements, Surinam has benefited from all the Lomé Conventions and has ratified the Cotonou Agreement. A Country Strategy Paper under the Cotonou Agreement was signed by the Commission and Surinam in July 2002. The Strategy (EUR 19,1 million) is concentrated on transport infrastructure including the improvement of its institutional and legal aspects, actions to create conditions for economic growth. Furthermore, Surinam benefits from the Special Framework of Assistance for Traditional Suppliers of Bananas (EUR 11 million allocated over the past four years) and the preferential treatment on imports of rice into the Union.
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.
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.