ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/12

(2004/C 84 E/0012)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1941/03

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(13 June 2003)

Subject: Stamp duty exemption scheme

1. Will the Commission publish the letter dated 21 December 2001 from the UK authorities and registered by the Commission on 9 January 2002?

2. What submissions and evidence did the UK authorities put forward in response to the doubts expressed by the Commission and recorded in the Official Journal of 27 April 2002 about whether the list of ‘designated disadvantaged areas’ would in effect lead to a significant widening of the UK regional aid map? What allayed the Commission's doubts about whether the sale of non-residential property and the creation of new leases for such property constitutes in all circumstances ‘initial investment’ as defined in the guidelines? What allayed the Commission's doubts about whether the aid intensity of the scheme would exceed 4 % What allayed the Commission's doubts about the restrictions of aid in the deprived urban area guidelines to small companies only and solely to beneficiaries who carried on their principal economic activity in deprived urban areas and reserved at least 20 % of the new jobs created for persons resident in the deprived area?

Joint answer

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

given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(14 July 2003)

The Commission would like to inform the Honourable Member that its Decision on the aid scheme entitled: ‘Stamp duty exemption for non-residential properties in disadvantaged areas’ was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (1). The Commission Decision contains a detailed response to the two written questions mentioned above. The Commission would, therefore, like to refer to its Decision on the matter.

Concerning the notification of the scheme, which was sent by the British authorities on 21 December 2001, the Commission would like to inform the Honourable Member that Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 (now Article 88) of the EC Treaty (2) does not provide for the publication of notifications from the Member States in the Official Journal of the European Union. A description of the facts contained in the notification is to be found, in particular, in Section II (description of the aid) of Commission decision ‘Stamp duty exemption for non-residential properties in disadvantaged areas.’

(1) OJ L 149, 17.6.2003.

(2) OJ L 83, 27.3.1999.
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.
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;

— 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;

— 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;

— 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.
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.
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.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/372

(2004/C 78 E/0392)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1540/03

by Proinsias De Rossa (PSE) to the Commission

(7 May 2003)

Subject: Trade in equipment which could be used for torture or capital punishment

Could the Commission indicate which, if any, items covered by the proposal for a Regulation concerning trade in certain equipment which could be used for torture or capital punishment (1) are also covered by the (EC) Regulation adopted by the Council on 21 January 2003 suspending duties on weapons and military equipment (150/2003 (2))?

(1) COM(2002) 770.

(2) OJ L 25, 30.1.2003, p. 1.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/119

(2004/C 78 E/0120)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2495/03

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(25 July 2003)

Subject: Common agriculture policy

Will the Commission estimate, on the basis of a typical basket of food purchases in each Member State for a typical household, the additional cost paid by consumers as a result of farm support prices compared with a situation where all aid was untied to production and world market prices applied? Will the Commission also cite other estimates from other researchers for one or more Member States of a similar calculation?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(11 September 2003)

The Commission is not aware of any such specific calculation made either by single researchers or international organisations. This is mainly due to the fact that such estimates are too problematic to be considered enough reliable from an economic point of view. The Commission recognises that for a certain number of food products Union consumers pay a higher price than if they would buy them at world market price. However, keeping aside the question of the existence of a perfectly functioning and efficient world market — and then of a world price — it should be mentioned that this price gap is only slightly higher than for the whole Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) countries. It should also not be ignored that support prices for the main agricultural products in the Union have sharply fallen since 1992 (45 % for cereals and 35 % for beef) and that the current Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) reform is continuing in the same direction.

There are many reasons that explain a slightly higher consumer price in the Union for some food products:

— Requirements of Union consumers concerning diversity, freshness, quality and food safety are extremely high,

— Union food producers face higher wage, social and energy costs than most of their competitors,

— The prices paid by consumers also reflect the slightly higher prices of agricultural products paid to farmers in the Union, which are mainly linked to the specific economic, social, structural and environmental conditions faced by Union farmers.

However, all these considerations are based on the assumption that world prices would not substantially increase following a full liberalisation of agricultural trade, which is totally unrealistic. In addition, it should be stressed that the basic agricultural products only represent some 20 % of the value of the food products purchased by the consumers.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/859

(2004/C 78 E/0912)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3797/03

by Chris Davies (ELDR) to the Commission

(11 December 2003)

Subject: Sustainable fisheries

What use has the Commission made to date, or does it intend to make, of Maríne Stewardship Council certification as a means of developing a sustainable fisheries strategy?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(21 January 2004)

The Maríne Stewardship Council (MSC) certification scheme is a private initiative which rewards certain fishing practices with a distinctive label at the request of fishing operators so that consumers can direct their choices towards their products. While the Commission has no intention of promoting the use of any private certification scheme as a means of developing a sustainable fisheries strategy, it will continue to use its initiative powers to propose legislation and transmit guidelines to fishing, processing and marketing fish in a context of sustainability.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/219

(2004/C 84 E/0263)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3075/03

by Maurizio Turco (NI) to the Commission

(20 October 2003)

Subject: Freedom and pluralism in information

The Commission adopted the Green Paper on Services of General Interest (1) on 21 May 2003. Among other issues the Green Paper tackles the question whether the possibility of taking tangible measures to protect pluralism should be re-considered at Community level and what measures might be envisaged. All interested parties were invited to submit their comments by 15 September 2003.

Can the Commission say what comments it has received and what steps it intends to take as regards safeguarding pluralism?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(12 November 2003)

In the public consultation on the Green Paper the Commission has received up to now about 260 contributions. Comments were sent in particular by governments of Member States, a national Parliament, regional and local authorities, national regulatory authorities, providers of local services, providers of social services and health services, operators in network industries, organisations in the media sector, trade unions, consumer organisations and industry associations. Also political parties, academic institutions and individual citizens sent their comments.

The Commission is currently still analysing the contributions received. However, the comments for which an explicit authorisation to publish was given have already been made available on the Commission's Internet site (2).

The Commission intends to present its conclusions from the consultation on the Green Paper during the first semester of 2004.

(1) COM(2003) 270 final.

(2) http://europa.eu.int/comm/secretariat_general/services_general_interest/
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/757

(2004/C 78 E/0805)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2801/03

by Pedro Marset Campos (GUE/NGL) to the Council

(19 September 2003)

Subject: Special tolls in France and Germany for the transport of goods by road

The announcement that the French and German authorities will shortly impose special tolls for lorries travelling through those countries on the motorways is likely to cause justified alarm in the Murcia region (Spain), particularly in the farming industry, since it might have adverse effects on the transport of fruit and vegetables from Murcia to various EU countries.

1. Is the Council aware of this situation?

2. Does the Council not consider it appropriate to demand that this measure should not be implemented, given that the charges are discriminatory and damaging?

3. Does the Council take the view that these French and German measures may violate the free movement and transport of goods in the EU?

4. Does the Council not believe that, if they were to be implemented, these measures would be most damaging for the most outlying European regions, such as the Murcia region which remains an Objective 1 region? Does this measure not represent flagrant discrimination among regions?

5. Does the Council not believe that, at a time of economic recession in the euro zone, these measures would damage economic recovery in a key sector such as the transport of goods by road?

Reply

(4 March 2004)

The Council is aware of the fact that German authorities intend to impose in the near future tolls on heavy goods vehicles, levied per kilometre. The Council does not dispose of any information which might indicate that France, apart from the tolls it already applies on its highways, intends to impose additional tolls on all heavy goods vehicles travelling through France.

The Council recalls that any levying of tolls for heavy goods vehicles must respect the provisions of Directive 1999/62/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the charging of heavy goods vehicles for the use of certain infrastructures (1).

Provided that a Member State respects these provisions, it is free to impose tolls on heavy goods vehicles; it may be recalled that in some ‘transit countries’, such tolls — also levied on transport operators from other countries which make use of their infrastructure — constitute a contribution to the financing of the transeuropean networks concerned.

Furthermore, the Council informs the Honourable Parliamentarian that it is currently examining the Commission's proposal for a Directive on the charging of heavy goods vehicles for the use of certain infrastructure (2), which aims to ensure that a harmonised methodology will be used for the calculation of tolls and to render toll systems more transparent; in the context of this examination, the particular concerns of peripheral countries and regions will be duly taken into account.

(1) OJ L 187, 20.7.1999, p. 42.

(2) COM(2003)448 final (2003/0175 (COD)).
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/129

(2004/C 78 E/0131)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2569/03

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(6 August 2003)

Subject: Bioptic driving

Will the Commission state in which Member States bioptic driving is currently allowed?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(11 September 2003)

As the Commission indicated to the Honourable Member in its reply to his Written Question E-1231/03 (1), the Commission is not aware of any Member State allowing to drive with the use of bioptic lenses. Moreover, no experiments have been conducted at any larger scale in Europe. Therefore, it is not expected that bioptic lenses will be allowed to be used in the near future, as it should first be thoroughly investigated and discussed.

(1) OJ C 58 E, 6.3.2004, p. 52.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/83

(2004/C 84 E/0092)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3683/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(9 December 2003)

Subject: Update on use of funding from the Ecos-Ouverture II programme by the municipality of Carrara

In its answer to question E-1105/03 (1), which asked whether the municipality of Carrara had submitted projects and secured funding under the Ecos-Ouverture programme, the Commission stated that no funding had been granted by 1999.

Can the Commission say whether the municipality submitted any projects and obtained and used any funding in the subsequent budget years?

Has the Commission completed its examination of the final reports mentioned in its answers and, if so, can it supply any information on the outcome?

(1) OJ C 11 E, 15.1.2004, p. 139.