ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
2.

The Honourable Member's question refers to the conclusions adopted by the Council on 21 January 2003. The last subparagraph of point 6 states that ‘The Council assesses that sufficient reassurances have been obtained with regard to the application of the same measures applying the same procedures as the 12 Member States or as Austria, Belgium and Luxembourg, in all relevant dependent or associated territories (the Channel Islands, Isle of Man, and the dependent or associated territories in the Caribbean)’. Those territories must therefore either participate in the automatic exchange of information with the Member States or apply a withholding tax with revenue sharing in the same way as Belgium, Luxembourg and Austria. In the statements accompanying the adoption of the Directive on 3 June 2003 the Council asked the Netherlands and the United Kingdom, subject to their constitutional powers, to ensure that the dependent or associated territories in question applied the measures from the date of implementation of the Directive on 1 January 2005, ‘it being understood that, if and when Austria, Belgium and Luxembourg will implement automatic exchange of information, any territory applying the withholding tax will also implement automatic exchange of information from the same date as those Member States.’ While all the Member States are also members of the Organisation for Cooperation and Economic Development (OECD), the Commission cannot reply on behalf of the OECD to the Honourable Member. The Commission wishes only to note that: — the United States, a member of the OECD, is committed to the exchange of tax information as a means of combating fraud and tax evasion; — San Maríno gave undertakings to the OECD on 4 April 2000, in an ‘advance commitment letter’, so that it was not included in the OECD's list of uncooperative tax havens; — by contrast, the Principalities of Andorra, Liechtenstein and Monaco are still on the list, which also includes the Marshall Islands, Liberia and Nauru.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 65/166

(2004/C 65 E/182)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2511/03

by Mario Borghezio (NI) to the Commission

(29 July 2003)

Subject: Ventimiglia to Monaco railway line out of use: appeal to the Commission to approach the French authorities

The fact that the stretch of line between Ventimiglia and Monaco is out of use owing to the work being carried out in the Roquebrune tunnel is severely harming Ventimiglia's economy, bearing in mind also that the work is scheduled to continue until at least the end of 2003.

What representations will the Commission make to the French authorities to persuade them to speed up the work to repair the damage to the tunnel, thereby enabling the above-mentioned track section to be brought back into service as quickly as possible?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(12 September 2003)

The Ventimiglia-Moncao line was closed to traffic following a cave-in which occurred in mid-June 2003 in the tunnel which runs under Monaco. Even though the infrastructure manager concerned (Réseau Ferré de France) is having to carry out considerable repair work, service is due to resume gradually by the end of the year. Since this operation is akin to maintenance rather than construction of new infrastructure or upgrading of existing infrastructure, it would not have been possible, even if the French authorities had so requested, for the project to be co-financed from the trans-European transport network (TEN-T) budget.

For a Member State temporarily to obstruct an important route may constitute a restriction on the free movement of goods. The Court has already found that measures which delay the movement of goods between Member States have the effect of restricting the free movement of goods in a way which is incompatible with Article 28 of the EC Treaty (1).

However, like Advocate General Jacobs in the Schmidberger case (2), the Commission believes there can be no absolute obligation to ensure that goods can move unimpeded at all times and at any cost, failure to observe which would always be an infringement of Community law. For instance, delays caused when repair work has to be carried out are an inherent part of rail transport and the causes may be unavoidable, especially where user safety is at stake.

In view of the above and of the information supplied to it, the Commission does not believe that the interruption of the Ventimiglia-Monaco rail service by the work under way in the Roquebrune tunnel is liable to constitute a restriction on the free movement of goods such as is incompatible with Article 28 of the EC Treaty.

(1) Judgment of 26 September 2000 in Case C-23/99 Commission v France, ECR I-7653, paragraph 22.

(2) C-112/00, ECR 2003.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 65/158

(2004/C 65 E/173)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2459/03

by Concepció Ferrer (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(23 July 2003)

Subject: Southern European rail network

It emerges from recent studies state that the proportion of goods transported by rail in Europe fell from 21 % to 8,1 % over the period 1970-2000. The beneficiary has been the road haulage sector, which offers a number of advantages over rail, including greater convenience of delivery.

Under Articles 154 and 155 of the EC Treaty, it is incumbent on the Community to contribute to the establishment and development of trans-European transport networks.

As rail is by far the more environment-friendly transport means, the Commission has committed itself to revitalising the rail sector under the Union's common transport policy.

What measures are being taken to ensure the future of rail freight over the Pyrenees?

What measures are being taken to ensure that the Pyrenees rail freight service is competitive with other modes of transport, especially road haulage?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(12 September 2003)

Revitalising rail freight is a real necessity throughout the Union and is one of the key priorities of the Union's common transport policy. The Union is anxious to create an integrated railway area in which rail transport can once again become efficient and competitive, especially for freight. Its new initiatives and measures already being applied are serving to integrate the national rail systems. This integration hinges on developing the interoperability of the high-speed and conventional rail systems, a particularly important objective given the very different characteristics of the existing Spanish and French networks.

Accordingly, in a bid to make rail freight more attractive the Community is helping to finance projects which will increase the capacity of the lines linking the Iberian peninsula to the rest of Europe via the Pyrenees. In particular, the Community has provided support from the trans-European transport network (TEN-T) budget, equivalent to 10 % of the overall project cost, for building the Perpignan-Figueras section of the new standard European gauge line which will link Barcelona and its region to the French network. This new line, which will be open to use by both freight and passenger trains, should come into service in 2008-2009 and will allow significant time gains at the border by precluding the need to change axles there.

Priority project No 3 (TGV South), of which the Perpignan-Figueras section forms one part, also involves an upgrading of the line on French territory, between Perpignan, Montpellier and Nîmes, the studies for which are also being co-financed from the TEN-T budget. A new line is due to be built on this route by 2015, and this will free up major capacity — especially for freight trains — on the existing line.

The Commission would further point out that the priority TEN-T projects it has proposed also include the central rail crossing of the Pyrenees and the Iberian high-speed network. Parliament has already approved this proposal at first reading.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 65/37

(2004/C 65 E/037)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0616/03

by Lord Inglewood (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(25 February 2003)

Subject: Directive on Tobacco Sponsorship and Advertising

Will the Commission confirm that, in making the proposal for the Directive on Tobacco Sponsorship and Advertising, it was not its intention to prevent the continued use of brand names originally used for non-tobacco products, and still used in good faith for advertising or sponsoring non-tobacco products, provided it is in a manner distinct from that used for tobacco products of the same names?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(13 March 2003)

The Commission can confirm that in making the proposal for the Directive of the Parliament and of the Council on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States relating to the advertising and sponsorship of tobacco products (1), it was not its intention to prevent the continued use of brand names originally used for non-tobacco products, and still used in good faith for advertising and sponsoring non-tobacco products, provided it is in a manner distinct from that used for tobacco products of the same names.

(1) OJ C 270 E, 25.9.2001.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 65/182

(2004/C 65 E/198)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2603/03

by Olivier Dupuis (NI) to the Council

(20 August 2003)

Subject: Risk of deportation of leading Chechen from France to the Russian Federation

According to information gathered by the Chechnya Committee, Mr Rouslan Maigov, his wife and their four children have applied for asylum in France. Mr Rouslan Maigov is the brother of Aslambek Maigov, the Moscow representative of the Chechen President Asian Maskhadov. Mr Rouslan Maigov has been arrested and beaten up several times in Russia and Chechnya. When last arrested in December 2001, a ransom of RUB 160 000 was paid to secure his release. Mr Rouslan Maigov is under particular threat for carrying cassettes in which President Maskhadov conveyed his orders to Mr Maigov's brother. Nevertheless, OFPRA (the French Refugee Office) followed by the appeal committee have rejected the application by Mr Rouslan Maigov and his family for asylum in France on the grounds that if Mr Aslambek Maigov is in Moscow without, apparently, being under threat, his brother Rouslan and his family could live in Russia. The argument put forward by the competent French authorities obviously does not take account of the arrests and maltreatment to which the Russian authorities have subjected Mr Rouslan Maigov in the past or the obvious ‘interest’ which the Russian authorities have shown in Mr Rouslan Maigov, or the fact that it is unfortunately the current practice in Russia to subject the members of leading Chechens' families to threats, intimidation and violence by way of a warning. Finally, Mr Rouslan Maigov, his wife and four children will be expelled from the reception centre for asylum-seekers at Marseilles in the next few days and will be forced to leave the country.

Is the Council aware of the situation of Mr Rouslan Maigov and his family? Does the Council consider that the decision by the competent French authorities is consistent with the common rules on the right of asylum laid down in the Schengen agreements? In more general terms, given the serious threats to which Chechens in the Russian Federation are subjected, does the Council not consider that it should take emergency measures to block any decision to expel Chechens living in the countries which are signatories to the Schengen agreements?

Reply

(17 November 2003)

The Council cannot intervene in individual asylum applications in the Member States, or in other individual cases such as those referred to in the question
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 65/272

(2004/C 65 E/286)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3194/03

by Säid El Khadraoui (PSE) to the Commission

(22 October 2003)

Subject: Carcinogenic substance in baby food

Producers of baby food should replace the lids on their jars as quickly as possible. The lids contain low doses of semicarbazide (SEM), a substance that can cause cancer in mice, according to the European Food Safety Agency (EFSA). Research shows that a dose 40 000 times higher than a baby's daily intake can cause tumours in mice. According to the EFSA, the risk to babies is very small but, on the other hand, no research has ever been carried out on human beings. The problem also arises with some brands of fruit juice, jam, vegetables, mayonnaise and other foodstuffs packed in bottles and jars.

What is the Commission's view of the EFSA's research findings? How serious does it consider the risk to babies, children and adults to be?

What action does the Commission intend to take? Can the Commission say exactly what measures will be introduced and on what timescale?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(18 November 2003)

The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) is an independent authority with the task to provide the Community Institutions and Member States with scientific advice and technical support in the area food and feed safety. The risk assessment on semicarbazide (SEM) carried out by EFSA concludes that the risk to the consumer and babies in particular is very small but that it would be prudent to reduce exposure to SEM as swiftly as technological progress safely allows. The Commission is acting on this basis.

As soon as the Commission received the statements of EFSA concerning the safety assessment of foods and in particular baby foods in glass jars and bottles, it convened a meeting with the Member States within the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health, which took place on 14 October 2003.

At this meeting the phasing out of the use of the blowing agent azodicarbonamide as quickly as technically and legally possible was agreed. To this effect, the Commission will present a draft amendment of Directive 2002/72/EC (1) (the Plastics Directive) to the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health by the end of 2003.

At the request of the Commission, the Member States will continue to monitor the presence of SEM in packaged foods, in particular baby foods, and will report the results to the Commission for onward transmission to EFSA. On the basis of these results, a re-evaluation will be carried out if needed.

Furthermore, the Commission has asked EFSA to assess, with high priority, the risk of SEM levels currently reported in various food products and to complete the assessment of the risks posed by semicarbazide from various origins and in all types of food.

(1) Commission Directive 2002/72/EC of 6 August 2002 relating to plastic materials and articles intended to come into contact with foodstuffs, OJ L 220, 15.8.2002. Corrigendum, OJ L 39, 13.2.2003.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 65/52

(2004/C 65 E/051)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0888/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(21 March 2003)

Subject: Use of funds from the FIFG by the municipality of Fiumicino

In September 2002, the monitoring committee of the Italian Ministry for Economic Affairs issued a report on the spending of EU funds.

The report reveals the alarming slowness and inefficiency with which EU funds are allocated to projects by some regional authorities.

The grave concerns about the inadequate use of European funds by local authorities have frequently been echoed by the Commission.

Bearing in mind that some local authorities, such as the municipality of Fiumicino, urgently need to use European funds to support structural measures in the sector of fisheries, acquaculture and the processing and marketing of the relevant products, can the Commission state:

1. whether the municipality of Fiumicino has submitted projects for the FIFG?

2. whether the municipality of Fiumicino has secured funding for these projects?
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 33/272

(2004/C 33 E/282)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2570/03

by Maurizio Turco (NI) to the Commission

(6 August 2003)

Subject: Church tax compulsorily levied by the Federal Republic of Germany on unemployment benefit paid to unemployed people who do not belong to the Church

Knowing that:

— in Germany, significant sums are deducted in the form of church tax from unemployed people without any religious affiliation, who are thus obliged to provide financial support for an organisation to which they do not belong;

— this situation appears all the more incredible given that the German Constitution explicitly prohibits anyone being prejudiced or placed at a disadvantage because they do not belong to a religious community;

— the compulsory levying of church tax among unemployed people without any religious affiliation violates the following provisions of the German Constitution: (a) Article 3(1) and (3) of the Basic Law, which stipulate that no one may be ‘favoured or disfavoured’ because of his or her philosophical or religious opinions; (b) Article 4(1), which provides that ‘freedom of faith and of conscience, and freedom to profess a religious or philosophical creed, shall be inviolable’; (c) Article 33, which enshrines the fundamental obligation of State neutrality.

— the Federal Constitutional Court has ruled that unemployed people without any religious affiliation may indeed be required to pay this tax as long as a clear majority of employed people belong to the Church. However, it might be pointed out that, according to the judgment of the Bundessozialgericht (Federal Social Court) of 8 November 2001, 49 % of Germany's active population did not pay church tax in 1999.

Given that this arrangement runs counter:

— to the freedom of religion guaranteed by the Constitution,

— to the principle of equal treatment and the obligation of State neutrality and

the principle of the separation of Church and State,

can the Commission say whether it is aware of the above facts, whether it has taken any initiatives and, if so, what initiatives it has taken?

Does the Commission not take the view that the situation described contravenes the acquis communautaire?

What formal initiatives might the EU take vis-à-vis Germany if this situation cannot be resolved, in order to ensure that the principle of religious freedom is respected?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(15 September 2003)

The matter to which reference is made does not fall within the jurisdiction of the Community.
3 and 4.

According to the rule established by the Court of Justice in the Francovich case law (2), in the absence of Community legislation concerning reparation, it is for the internal legal order of each Member State to designate the competent courts and lay down the detailed procedural rules for legal proceedings intended fully to safeguard the rights which individuals derive from Community law. Three conditions have to be met: the result prescribed by the Directive should entail the grant of rights to individuals; it should be possible to identify the content of those rights on the basis of the provisions of the Directive; and there should be a casual link between the breach — which must be sufficiently serious (3) — of the State's obligation and the loss and damage suffered by the injured parties. The notion of a sufficiently serious breach is to be determined, together with all the other remaining conditions of the Francovich test, solely by the national court deciding on the issue of damages.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 33/265

(2004/C 33 E/275)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2479/03

by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(24 July 2003)

Subject: Canned tuna from Thailand, the Philippines and Indonesia

Since 1 July 2003 Thailand, the Philippines and Indonesia have benefited from a quota for exports of canned tuna to the EU at a reduced tariff of 12 % on the basis of Council Regulation (EC) No 975/2003 (1) of 5 June 2003 opening and providing for the administration of a tariff quota for imports of canned tuna covered by CN codes 1604 14 11, 1604 14 18 and 1604 20 70.

1. Can the Commission say which establishments are authorised to import this type of products into the Community, specifying in each case the country of origin of the canned products concerned?

2. Can the Commission say what type of checks are being or will be made on this canned tuna and on producers in order to guarantee food safety for Community consumers?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(29 August 2003)

Sanitary conditions for the imports of fishery products, including tuna, from Indonesia, the Philippines and Thailand are laid down in Commission Decision 94/324/EC (2), 95/190/EC (3) and 94/325/EC (4) respectively (as amended).

1. The list of establishments from which the imports of fishery products from Thailand, Philippines and Indonesia are authorised can be found in http://forum.europa.eu.int/Public/irc/sanco/vets/info/data/listes/ffp.html. The above cited Decisions provide that fishery products imported from the mentioned countries shall be marked with the indication of the name, in capital letters, of the exporting country and with the number or the code of the approved establishment.

2. The sanitary controls on all the fishery products (Community or imported) to be marketed in the Community are those provided by Council Directive 91/493/EEC (5).

(1) OJ L 141, 7.6.2003, p. 1.

(2) 94/324/EC: Commission Decision of 19 May 1994 laying down special conditions governing imports of fishery and aquaculture products originating in Indonesia, OJ L 145, 10.6.1994.

(3) 95/190/EC: Commission Decision of 17 May 1995 laying down special conditions governing the import of fishery and aquaculture products originating in the Philippines, OJ L 123, 3.6.1995.

(4) 94/325/EC: Commission Decision of 19 May 1994 laying down special conditions governing imports of fishery and aquaculture products originating in Thailand, OJ L 145, 10.6.1994.

(5) Council Directive 91/493/EEC of 22 July 1991 laying down the health conditions for the production and the placing on the market of fishery products, OJ L 268, 24.9.1991.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/628

(2004/C 84 E/0705)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0557/04

by Proinsias De Rossa (PSE) to the Commission

(26 February 2004)

Subject: Directive on social protection on new forms of employment

What action has the Commission taken in response to paragraph 7(f) of the European Parliament's resolution (P5_TA(2003)0369) of 3 September 2003 on implementing the social policy agenda which urged the Commission to draft a Directive on social protection for new forms of employment?