ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/237

(2004/C 84 E/0280)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3414/03

by Marianne Eriksson (GUE/NGL) to the Council

(12 November 2003)

Subject: Estonia and directives on equal opportunities

It has come to my notice that Estonia has yet to transpose the EU directives on equal opportunities into national legislation. This would seem remarkable, particularly since the Commission publicly criticised the enlargement countries on 6 November for not meeting requirements ahead of EU accession. On that occasion, however, there was no mention of Estonia and the absence of legislation on equal opportunities.

Can the Council confirm that Estonia has not implemented the directives on equal opportunities?

Can the Council explain why it was not made a requirement for accession to the EU?

What action will the Council take?

Reply

(9 March 2004)

Although Estonia has reached a high level of alignment with the acquis in most policy areas, the Council can confirm that Estonia has not yet transposed legislation in the field of equal treatment of women and men. In this context, it should be noted that the Commission's comprehensive monitoring report of 5 November 2003 on Estonia's preparations for membership clearly identifies this issue as a matter of serious concern, where Estonia must take immediate and decisive action if it is to be ready by the date of accession. The Council shares the analysis of the Commission in this regard. It should also be noted that alignment with the acquis in the field of equal opportunities is indeed a requirement for accession (as is the EU acquis as a whole), and that Estonia will achieve this through the adoption of the Gender Equality and Equal Treatment Act and the Employment Contract Act. Estonia is now required to address urgently the substantial delays in the adoption of these two legal acts compared to the original legislative timetable.

In general terms, it should be recalled that the Council has underlined the importance of the process of monitoring the state of preparedness for EU membership of the ten acceding States. This process is an ongoing exercise, which will continue until the date of accession. In this regard, the Council, at its meeting on 17 November 2003, noted that the Commission, taking full advantage of the expertise of the Member States, will continue to follow the acceding States' progress closely using all the means at its disposal to ensure the proper implementation of the Union's rules and policies. Taking into account the Commission's role to safeguard the smooth functioning of all EU policies upon and after accession, the Council also noted the Commission's determination to take, wherever necessary, all appropriate measures for this purpose. Furthermore, the Council took note of the Commission's intention to keep the Council fully and regularly informed on any remaining concerns and on the appropriate measures that it will take in this regard.
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?

2. whether the municipality of Pistoia has secured funding for these projects?
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/413

(2004/C 78 E/0434)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2662/03

by Ian Hudghton (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(10 September 2003)

Subject: Ozone-depleting substances

With reference to your answer dated 22 March 2002 to written question P-0595/02 (1), when only two Member States had reported on the mechanisms they had in place for the recovery and destruction of ozone-depleting substances, and when the Commission committed itself to a comprehensive overview of the situation throughout the EU, can the Commission now provide an update of the situation in each of the Member States?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(21 October 2003)

To date all Member States except Ireland have responded.

Most Member States have reported on the following: safety and quality standards for equipment that contains ozone-depleting substances (ODS); inspection procedures for installations containing ODS, record keeping and reporting requirements; ODS recovery methods; mobile and fixed ODS destruction equipment; quantities of ODS recovered, recycled, reclaimed and destroyed during 1999, 2000 and 2001; the minimum qualification standards for technicians involved in ODS recovery, recycling, reclamation and destruction and efforts undertaken to make the public and industry aware of the requirements of the Regulation that include articles in the news media, workshops and information on official websites.

The Commission has undertaken evaluations and has, so far, identified four Member States that are not in compliance with Article 16(5) (2) and 16(6) (3) of Regulation (EC) No 2037/2000 of the Parliament and of the Council of 29 June 2000 on substances that deplete the ozone layer (4). Therefore, the Commission took a decision on 9 July 2003 to take Ireland to the Court of Justice for not reporting. In addition, three infringement procedures are under way against Greece, Spain and Portugal for insufficient reporting and implementation of the Regulation. For detailed overview of the state of play on recovery and destruction a table is sent direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat.

(1) OJ C 205 E, 29.8.2002, p. 168.

(2) Member States shall take steps to promote the recovery, recycling, reclamation and destruction of controlled substances and shall assign to users, refrigeration technicians or other appropriate bodies responsibility for ensuring compliance with the provisions of paragraph 1.

(3) Member States shall report to the Commission by 31 December 2001 on systems established to promote the recovery of used controlled substances, including the facilities available and the quantities of used controlled substances, recovered, recycled, reclaimed or destroyed.

(4) OJ L 244, 29.9.2000.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/243

(2004/C 78 E/0245)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3255/03

by Marie Isler Béguin (Verts/ALE) and Yves Piétrasanta (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(3 November 2003)

Subject: Respect for rights and justice following the Bhopal tragedy in India

The industrial disaster at the Union Carbide (UC) factory in Bhopal (India) in December 1984 led to the release of 40 tonnes of toxic substances into the air, causing 20 000 deaths and poisoning half a million people.

The management of UC pursued a policy of miserly restrictions on safety equipment, training and staffing. In addition, withholding of information by UC management on the nature and toxicity of the chemicals released into the atmosphere at the time of the explosion hampered decisions on evacuation and urgent medical intervention.

The lasting and unyielding legacy of this contamination of the environment has been serious illness for 120 000 people, and there are around 10 deaths every month.

The UC management's strategy of dodging legal action took a further turn in 2001 when the company merged with the industrial group Dow.

Does the martyred earth at Bhopal not encourage the Commission to mobilise as a matter of urgency all the means available to it and to Member States to put a stop to such environmental, health and medical disasters and to provide epidemiological care for the population forced to live in the area affected?

Will the scandalous denial of justice following this industrial tragedy encourage the Commission to commit itself, on the basis of its prerogatives and of those of Member States, to re-establishing victims' rights, compensating them and prosecuting those responsible for this disaster, making public the causes as well as Union Carbide's environmental track record and failings in terms of the environment in its activities throughout the world?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(5 December 2003)

The Commission is deeply concerned about the humanitarian, ecological and medical consequences of the Bhopal gas tragedy in India. The Commission is an active donor in India and plans to contribute to an India-wide programme for disaster preparedness and mitigation. While this programme will mainly focus on natural disasters, it will be targeting Community based emergency plans that should help the country to better face disasters as and when they occur.

The Commission is also supporting a large number of non-governmental organisations (NGOs), some of which are dealing with national human rights issues and public interest litigation.

It is also worth emphasising that, since Bhopal, the Government of India has put in place more stringent environmental legislation.

The Commission is engaged in a dialogue on environmental issues with the Government of India and a high-level working group with representatives from both sides meets on a regular basis to monitor progress.

The Commission can therefore assure the Honourable Members that it follows the Bhopal tragedy as well as other issues related to the regulatory framework and environmental concerns closely in its cooperation activities with India.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/858

(2004/C 78 E/0911)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3796/03

by Chris Davies (ELDR) to the Commission

(11 December 2003)

Subject: Maríne Stewardship Council

What support, financial or otherwise, does the Commission give to the Maríne Stewardship Council?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(23 January 2004)

The Maríne Stewardship Council (MSC) certification scheme is a private initiative which rewards certain fishing practices with a distinctive label at the request of fishing operators so consumers can direct their choices towards their products. The Commission has no legal instruments to give financial support to this type of private initiative, although it is recognised that they might contribute to sustainable fisheries in certain conditions. The Commission is currently in the process of drawing up a Communication which will propose the principles and conditions under which certification schemes and eco-labels should operate in the context of the Common Fisheries Policy.
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.
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’.
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.
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.
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.
1.

According to Article 12 of the Seveso II — Directive, Member States shall ensure that the objectives of preventing major accidents and limiting the consequences of such accidents are taken into account in their land-use policies. They shall pursue those objectives, amongst others, through controls on new developments such as transport links in the vicinity of existing establishments, where the siting or developments are such as to increase the risk or consequences of a major accident. The company Technical Polymers Ticona', situated at one end of the planned runway, is a Seveso top-tier establishment. Therefore, the Commission shares the view that the Seveso II -Directive, and in particular Article 12, must be respected in connection with the extension of Frankfurt Airport. Moreover, as Frankfurt Airport itself is a Seveso top-tier establishment, in addition to the requirements relating to land-use planning, possible ‘domino effects’ between Ticona and Frankfurt Airport have to be examined.