ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 65/147

(2004/C 65 E/163)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2418/03

by Dominique Souchet (NI) to the Commission

(21 July 2003)

Subject: Sustainable use of pesticides and aerial spraying

Paragraph seven of the European Parliament's resolution on a thematic strategy on the sustainable use of pesticides (P5_TA-PROV(2003)0128) states that Parliament ‘fully supports the recommendation for a ban on aerial spraying and the possibility to designate pesticide free zones’. This resolution forms part of the Van Brempt Report, which was adopted by Parliament at its plenary sitting of 27 March 2003 in Brussels.

Helicopter spraying accounts for only 1 % of the plant health treatments employed in Europe. However, some pesticide products can only be applied from the air, for a variety of reasons: the location of the parasite or the scale of the crop (cercosporiosis in bananas, the pine processionary caterpillar, last generation European corn borer, the corn root beetle), the geographical relief of the crop area (sloping vineyards), the type of climatic aberration (vine or potato mildew) or problems of access to the crop (rice fields).

In this case, how does the Commission intend to reconcile the ban on aerial spraying with the need for a consistent approach to combating plant diseases that sometimes can also affect man?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(10 September 2003)

The Commission continues to be concerned about the specific risks linked to the application of pesticides via aerial spraying, in particular due to the exposure of bystanders and the environment incurred through spray-drift.

The Commission would like to recall that its proposals regarding a ban on aerial spraying in the Communication ‘Towards a Thematic Strategy on the Sustainable Use of Pesticides’ (1) foresaw the possiblity for derogation, when there are clear advantages and also environmental benefits compared to other spraying methods. The proposals have incited numerous comments from various stakeholders, which are widely diverging in their views. There are also existing or ongoing studies initiated by official bodies in Member States concerned. All information available is currently being examined further.

In the light of the results of this examination, the Commission will then propose the most appropriate measures regarding aerial spraying, taking into account a high level of protection for human health and the environment, technical feasibility, and the necessary crop protection.

(1) COM(2002) 349 final.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 33/169

(2004/C 33 E/169)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1782/03

by Claude Moraes (PSE) to the Commission

(28 May 2003)

Subject: The EQUAL funding programme progress report

What plans does the Commission have for a progress report on the EQUAL funding programme before the end of the current mandate in 2004?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(1 July 2003)

The first phase of EQUAL will run until 2005, and already the Development Partnerships (of which there are more than 1 500) have identified innovations in tackling discrimination and inequality experienced by those at work and those seeking work.

The Commission plans to prepare a Communication at the end of 2003 which will highlight these innovations whilst noting general progress in EQUAL, and which will serve as a preparation for the launch of the second phase of EQUAL both for the Member States and Candidate Countries who will participate fully in this second phase.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 33/197

(2004/C 33 E/200)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2008/03

by Marianne Thyssen (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(11 June 2003)

Subject: Fowl-pest crisis in Belgium — compensation for the damage caused to the poultry sector

In late May, the European Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health held a further meeting in order to discuss the fowl-pest situation in a number of European countries. The Committee decided, inter alia, to relax even further the measures taken to combat fowl pest in Belgium.

The Belgian Government decided to compensate the poultry farmers affected for (some of) the damage which they had suffered. However, it cannot be denied that the fowl-pest crisis is causing heavy losses for every section of the poultry sector. The crisis has resulted in heavy financial losses for the animal feed industry, hatcheries, poultry slaughterhouses, poultry-cutting plants, poultry wholesalers and the exporting firms in the sector. However, there is, unfortunately, no provision for them to receive any financial compensation.

Given the importance of the Belgian poultry sector for the Belgian economy and for employment, is the Commission considering paying compensation to operators in the sector other than poultry farmers? If so, for what amount? Would there be any objection to the Federal Government and/or Regional Governments in Belgium giving financial support to the operators in the sector other than poultry farmers who have suffered losses?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(7 July 2003)

Belgium may obtain a financial contribution from the Community up to 50 % of the expenditure for emergency measures as detailed in Article 3 (1) of Council Decision 90/424/EEC of 26 June 1990 (1), on expenditure in the veterinary field that are provisions to eradicate and control the epidemics.

The Community guidelines for State aid in the agriculture sector (2) apply to all State aids granted in connection with activities related to the production, processing and marketing of Annex I products. State aid measures relating to outbreaks of animal diseases are to be assessed under the provisions of section 11 of these guidelines.

While section 11 allows aids to compensate for damage to agricultural production or the means of agricultural production, it does not allow support to compensate processors. Where processors are in financial difficulties, however, rescue and restructuring aid may be possible provided that the relevant provisions of the Community guidelines on State aid for rescuing and restructuring firms in difficulty (3) are complied with.

Moreover, the Commission has already emphasised insurance policies as a mean to deal with indirect losses caused by large outbreaks of animal diseases.

(1) OJ L 224, 18.8.1990.

(2) OJ C 232, 12.8.2000.

(3) OJ C 288, 9.10.1999.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 65/59

(2004/C 65 E/061)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1038/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(28 March 2003)

Subject: Use of funds from the Leader+ 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 support innovative rural development measures aimed at enhancing the cultural and natural heritage, creating new jobs by strengthening the local economy and improving the organisational capacity of rural communities,

can the Commission state:

1. whether the municipality of Macerata has submitted projects for the Leader+ programme?

2. whether the municipality of Macerata has secured funding for these projects?
3.

Against the backdrop of global economic competition, the Commission is in favour of strengthening the employment law applicable to seafarers, regardless of their nationality. Over and above the acquis communautaire, the conventions of the International Labour Organisation (ILO) define the employment framework and are an important instrument for reconciling the interests of seafarers and their employers. As it is, 30 of the ILO's approximately 180 Conventions and 23 of its 192 Recommendations relating to the shipping sector have often not achieved a sufficient level of ratification, especially by third countries, and this is detrimental to their impact. The ILO is currently consolidating the conventions on the industrial relations and employment aspects of shipping law with a view to incorporating all the provisions of these texts into a single convention which any country that wanted its registered vessels to fly the national flag with dignity would have to ratify. The Commission strongly supports this initiative. Pending the adoption of this convention, the Commission is urging the Member States to continue and, where appropriate, speed up the process of ratifying the ILO's international conventions on shipping.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/867

(2004/C 84 E/0959)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0750/04

by José García-Margallo y Marfil (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(11 March 2004)

Subject: Possibility of registering rating agencies in Europe

In the framework of Parliament's vote on the Katiforis report on rating agencies (A5-0040/2004 — P5_TA-PROV(2004)0080), what kind(s) of European registration scheme is the Commission planning to investigate?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(13 April 2004)

With regard to the vote by Parliament on the report on rating agencies presented by Mr Katiforis, Mr Margallo would like to know what kind(s) of European registration schemes the Commission is planning to investigate.

The Commission would recall that, at the informal meeting of Economics and Finance Ministers in Oviedo in April 2002, it gave an undertaking to examine the role and methods of rating agencies as part of a raft of measures to be carried out in the wake of the Enron scandal.

At the same time, several initiatives were launched on the matter at international level. These include the work undertaken by the Financial Stability Forum (FSF), the International Organisation of Securities Commissions (IOSCO) and national regulators such as the US Securities and Exchange Commission.

Mr Katforis' report makes an important contribution to the matter. In October 2003 the Commission Directorate-General for the Internal Market set up four professional expert groups with a view to examining, among other things, the strategic priorities for the measures to be taken by the Commission in the coming years. One of these groups will focus in particular on the securities sector. The Commission will take into account the conclusions of these professional expert groups, which will be published by the end of April 2004, and open for public consultation from May to July 2004. A high-level conference will take place on 22/23 June 2004. Only after an analysis of the results of the public consultations and the conclusions of the high-level conference will the Commission adopt an official position on the subject of rating agencies in general and on the issue of their registration in Europe in particular.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/790

(2004/C 84 E/0887)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0447/04

by Michl Ebner (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(23 February 2004)

Subject: Exports of peat to Italy

Peat is one of the most common bulk materials used in horticulture. Countries rich in peat, such as Germany, the Scandinavian countries and the Netherlands, export a large amount of this material to countries such as Italy, which have little peat of their own. For many years now, a large number of Italian companies have been importing peat from those countries by sea. However, there are problems which hamper the import of this material by sea. Because of difficulties in Italian ports (e.g. labour problems, high costs and charges), such materials are now transported across Europe by road. Statistics show that 76 % of Italian peat imports from Germany, 79 % of peat imports from the Netherlands and an astounding 100 % of peat imports from France are transported by road, although transport by sea would be perfectly feasible, cheaper and less harmful to the environment.

What are the Commission's views on this situation?

Does the Commission actively encourage sea transport?

Is the Commission giving consideration to the drafting of a proposal for a Community Directive whereby sea transport would be given preference over cross-Europe road transport, which is expensive and harmful and pollutes the environment?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(5 April 2004)

The Commission believes that the exporters of German, French and Dutch peat to Italy choose the mode of transport which in their commercial assessment is the most appropriate one. The ultimate destination of peat in Italy is likely to be far away from ports and any assessment, therefore, has to take into consideration, ‘inter alia’, costs in ports, loading, unloading and transport to final destination.

The Commission has for a number of years pursued an active policy of promoting short sea shipping which is becoming more and more a viable alternative to road transport.

Furthermore, the recent Community guidelines to State aid to maritime transport (C(2004)43) include in their chapter 10 the possibility for the Commission to approve certain aid to short sea shipping.

Within the basic concept of users' free choice of the transport mode, the main emphasis on promoting the sea alternative is not put on direct legislative measures but on offering and encouraging sustainable and safe ways for those products that can be carried by various modes, such as peat in bulk.

The main objective of the Commission's policy is to maintain sustainability in the European transport system now and in the future. The policy has been outlined in the Commission Communication on the development of the Short Sea Shipping mode (1) and Programme for the promotion of this mode (2).

(1) COM(1999) 317 final.

(2) COM(2003) 155 final.
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.
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.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/880

(2004/C 84 E/0974)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0785/04

by Proinsias De Rossa (PSE) to the Commission

(11 March 2004)

Subject: Deportation of parents of Irish/EU citizens

Is the Commission aware that 11 000 parents of children born in Ireland are currently at risk of being forced to leave Ireland? This is despite the fact that the children concerned were born in Ireland and are therefore Irish/EU citizens. The policy of allowing the deportation of parents of Irish/EU child citizens may mean that these children could be forced to leave Ireland and accompany their parents to live in countries where their rights, set out in the European Convention on Human Rights, might not be protected.

Has the Commission been in contact with the Irish Government concerning the rights of Irish/EU citizens whose parents face deportation? Does the Commission agree that this policy discriminates against those child citizens whose parents are third-country nationals?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(7 April 2004)

The situation described by the Honourable Member involves children born in Ireland to parents who are nationals of non-Member States. Like anyone born in Ireland, these children have acquired Irish nationality by ius soli. On the question of the expulsion of nationals, Article 3(1) of Protocol No 4 to the European Convention on Human Rights states that ‘No one shall be expelled, by means either of an individual or of a collective measure, from the territory of the State of which he is a national’.

However, in so far as these children have not exercised the right to free movement by leaving Ireland to reside in another Member State, it is not possible to apply the principles of Community law in this case. Consequently, Irish law — even on expulsion — will apply to the situation of children born in Ireland to nationals of non-Member States, and the Commission is not in a position to answer the questions raised by the Honourable Member.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/774

(2004/C 84 E/0871)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0334/04

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(10 February 2004)

Subject: The unchanged human rights and democracy situation in China and Hong Kong, the threat to Taiwan and the need for the arms embargo

1. Does the Commission agree that the main change for the better in the People's Republic of China since 1989 has been its rapid and often uncontrolled economic growth, which gives rise to the hope that in future the people of China will no longer need to live in poverty?

2. Has the Commission been able to detect major improvements in the People's Republic of China since 1989 with regard to freedom of association, freedom of speech and freedom of the press?

3. Has the Commission been able to detect major improvements in the People's Republic of China since 1989 as regards refraining from arresting political dissidents, ending the monopoly on power of a single political party or abolishing the frequently used death penalty?

4. Has the Commission been able to detect major improvements since 1989 in the handling of the efforts of the inhabitants of the former British crown colony of Hong Kong, now part of China, towards a fully fledged parliamentary democracy based on the rule of law?

5. Has the Commission been able to detect major improvements since 1989 as regards setting aside plans to conquer the island of Taiwan, which belonged to China only between 1945 and 1949, and whose original population is now opting for lasting independence and neighbourly relations with China?

6. Is the Commission sure that tragic events involving the power of the State, comparable with the crackdown on the uprising in 1989, could now never happen again?

7. Is the Commission prepared to contribute to ensuring that the arms embargo against the People's Republic of China is maintained at the same level for as long as there is no constitutional democracy in that country, obstacles are placed in the path of democracy in Hong Kong and no non-aggression pact is concluded between China and Taiwan?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(26 March 2004)

Although acknowledging certain improvements in the situation of Human Rights in China over recent years, the EU remains concerned with the present state of play in many respects and, in particular, in the field of civil and political rights. Most issues mentioned by the Honourable Member have been addressed in the framework of the EU-China dialogue on Human Rights and it is the intention of the EU to proceed soon with an overall assessment of this dialogue. At the same time, the EU has been following — and will continue to follow — closely the situation in Hong Kong and Taiwan. These issues, be they related to the human rights situation in China or of a regional nature, will certainly have to be carefully considered in the discussions on eventually lifting the embargo on arms sales to China.