ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/288

(2004/C 78 E/0288)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3461/03

by Peder Wachtmeister (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(21 November 2003)

Subject: Corruption scandal within the Swedish retail monopoly undertaking Systembolaget AB

During the negotiations before Sweden's accession to the European Union, the Commission permitted Sweden to retain its State monopoly on the sale of alcohol, while stressing that all discrimination between national goods and goods imported from other EU Member States must be eliminated.

At present a corruption scandal is being exposed within the Swedish retail monopoly undertaking Systembolaget AB. 35 managers have been given notice that they are under suspicion of involvement in serious corruption. Three suppliers are the subject of a criminal investigation, one of them on suspicion of bribery. It is thought that over a long period certain suppliers have received preferential treatment in return for trips and gifts.

Will the Commission, in response to this, review Sweden's retail monopoly, and will the exclusive rights to the retail sale of alcohol in Sweden be questioned?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(8 January 2004)

When Sweden became a member of the Union, it agreed with the Commission that its competition authority (Konkurrensverket) would see to it that Systembolaget would operate its retail monopoly in a non-discriminatory way.

This monitoring arrangement remains valid today. However, the Commission will continue to keep close and constant liaison with the Swedish authority in order to satisfy itself that no discrimination in violation of the EC Treaty will occur.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/266

(2004/C 78 E/0266)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3339/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(12 November 2003)

Subject: Possibility of funding for the health authority of Fiumicino — Rome XIII

The area including the municipality of Fiumicino and Rome's municipal district XIII is an area at risk for two different kinds of reasons, firstly because of its environmental characteristics, and secondly because it is the location of places which could easily become terrorist targets.

It includes an area below sea level at risk of flooding, the largest pine forest in Europe, which was already severely damaged by a devastating fire in the summer of 2001, a coastline visited by almost one million tourists in summer; Leonardo da Vinci international airport; the military air base of Pratica di Mare; the summer residence of the President of the Republic and the Finance Police training college.

For all these reasons ASL RM D, the health authority responsible for the area, may devise measures to protect the population against natural hazards and possible terrorist acts, in order to prevent or effectively tackle potentially dangerous situations.

In view of this, can the Commission say:

1. whether there is any funding, under either the Structural Funds or other Community programmes, that the European Union might provide for these kinds of projects;

2. whether the health authority, as an entity in which the Lazio Region has a majority holding, is eligible for such forms of funding or at least some of them?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(23 December 2003)

Assistance from this Fund can be granted only in socio-economic conversion areas determined on the basis of the criteria in Article4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 of 21 June 1999 laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds (1). As a result of the Italian authorities' proposals, the areas to which the Honourable Member refers are not covered by this programme for the 2000-06 period and cannot therefore be part-financed from the European Regional Development Fund.

Natural-hazard prevention measures of the kind to which the Honourable Member refers are eligible under the European Regional Development Fund.

(1) OJ L 161, 26.6.1999.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/761

(2004/C 78 E/0809)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2878/03

by Jan Dhaene (PSE) to the Council

(29 September 2003)

Subject: Technical inspection of the systems for indirect vision used on commercial vehicles

According to press reports, only 1,02 % of commercial vehicles in Belgium fail their technical inspection test because of badly-positioned or inadequate systems for indirect vision. 4,64 % of such vehicles are driven away, despite a defect being registered, but they are not required to undergo a second test. In the Netherlands, police checks showed that 85 % of systems for indirect vision are not properly adjusted (Source: Goca).

In the interim, technological development has not been standing still. Major commercial vehicle manufacturers are developing technology whereby sensors warn drivers of such vehicles about the presence of persons or objects which cannot be observed by direct vision.

Can the Commission answer the following:

— will the procedures laid down in Directive 77/143/EEC (1) and those which will be laid down in legislation adopted on the basis of COM(1999)458 (98/0097(COD)) (2) also apply to systems for indirect vision which are to be installed in accordance with the requirements to be laid down when the Council approves amendments to Directive 70/156/EEC (3), as set out in COM(2001)811 (2001/0317(COD)) (4);

— do the procedures laid down in Directive 77/143/EEC and those which will be laid down in legislation adopted on the basis of COM(1999)458 (98/0097(COD)) also apply to systems for indirect vision already installed in accordance with the requirements laid down in national legislation adopted in advance of Council approval of amendments to Directive 70/156/EEC, as set out in COM(2001) 811 (2001/0317(COD));

— is the Council considering amendments to current legislation and to the proposals for legislation currently before the Council with a view to authorising sensor-based systems for indirect vision;

— has the Council any statistics relating to the positioning, quality of positioning and quality of installed systems for indirect vision?

Reply

(4 March 2004)

The Council would ask the Honourable Member to refer all of these questions directly to the Commission.

(1) OJ L 47, 8.2.1977, p. 47.

(2) OJ C 116 E, 26.4.2000, p. 7.

(3) OJ L 42, 23.2.1970, p. 1.

(4) OJ C 126 E, 28.5.2002, p. 225.
5.

In its White Paper on European Transport Policy for 2010: time to decide (1), the Commission formulated its aim to maintain the modal share of rail transport in 2010 at 1998 levels. In order to increase the competitiveness of the rail mode and to allow achievement of this aim, railway undertakings have to comply with the requirements of the amended Directive 91/440/EEC (2), which provides that railway undertakings be managed according to the principles which apply to commercial companies. This requirement also applies to services carried out by railway undertakings under public service contracts and obligations concluded between the railway undertaking and the authorities of a Member State. The loan was the Bank's first operation in the railway sector in Slovakia. The benefits of the project were to enable the rail company to increase its competitiveness with regard to road transport, in view of the sharp increase of the latter in CEECs, a Union objective, which the Bank supports throughout the Union of 25. Indeed EIB activity in support of rail projects over the last five years (EUR 16,4 billion) is higher than its support for projects in the road transport sector (EUR 13 billion). The benefits were also in line with Slovakia's Union Accession Partnership which specifically highlighted the need for upgrading, including TENs corridors and restructuring in the rail sector.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/85

(2004/C 84 E/0096)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3687/03

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 Pistoia

In its answer to question E-1113/03 (1), which asked whether the municipality of Pistoia 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.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/573

(2004/C 78 E/0607)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3522/03

by Elly Plooij-van Gorsel (ELDR) to the Commission

(19 November 2003)

Subject: Specific import tariffs on photographic products for the People's Republic of China

In March 2003 I put a written question to the Commission on the import tariffs that the People's Republic of China is imposing on photographic products (E-1289/03 (1)).

In its answer to these questions the Commission includes the comment that the application of specific duties on photographic products in China has in several cases led to higher duties than the consolidated ad valorem rate. In response to this finding the Commission has raised the problem both bilaterally with the Chinese authorities and in the context of the WTO Transitional Review Mechanism. As a result the Chinese authorities have undertaken to make the Commission request the subject of a thorough investigation.

1. Has the Commission yet received the results from the Chinese authorities?

2. If not, what further steps has the Commission taken in this regard over the past six months to obtain the results concerned?

3. What action is the Commission taking to enforce the application of the correct tariffs at the earliest possible time?

Answer given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(16 December 2003)

The Commission took the action to which the Honourable Member refers as a result of the matter being raised with the Commission by the European industry in 2002. However, it has not contacted the Commission again since January 2003 when China introduced new tariffs.

No reference was made to the issue by the Member States consulted for the purpose of identifying the EU's priorities in trade with China, in particular as regards China's implementation of its commitments to the World Trade Organisation.

In view of the above and the many priority trade issues facing European businesses in China, the Commission has not prioritised this question.

The Commission would be grateful for any further details which the Honourable Member can provide in order to raise the matter again with the Chinese authorities.

The Commission has been informed that this matter is in fact a priority for Japan, whose industry has apparently suffered more than the EU's from the system of specific duties introduced by China.

(1) See page 27.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/87

(2004/C 84 E/0101)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3706/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(10 December 2003)

Subject: Update concerning the funds for the Altener II programme for the municipality of Carrara

With reference to question E-0962/03 (1), in which the Commission was asked whether the municipality of Carrara (Italy) had submitted projects and obtained funds under the Altener II programme, the Commission replied to the effect that no proposal had been submitted.

Can the Commission provide information on any projects submitted since the date of its reply (25 April 2003)?

(1) OJ C 268 E, 7.11.2003, p. 169.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 88/393

(2004/C 88 E/0399)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2231/03

by Bill Newton Dunn (ELDR) to the Commission

(3 July 2003)

Subject: Human rights abuses in Burma

The Commission will be aware of the human rights abuses which continue in Burma, particularly the detention of Aung San Suu Kyi.

Has the Commission:

1. made representations to the Burmese Government?

2. any other plans to try to improve the dreadful situation?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(31 July 2003)

The Commission and Member States have repeatedly called for the immediate release of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and the arrested National League for Democracy (NLD) officials and supporters, the reopening of NLD offices throughout the country as well as the reopening of all universities in Burma/Myanmar.

On 16 June 2003 the EU also decided to implement without delay the strengthened sanctions, specifically targeted on the military leaders and their supporters, originally envisaged to enter into force on or before 29 October 2003 as agreed in the Common Position on Burma/Myanmar (2003/297/CFSP) of 28 April 2003 (1).

In addition, the EU has intensified discussions on the situation in Burma with its dialogue partners in Asia in order to encourage them to use their influence on the Burmese Government to release Aung San Suu Kyi and support progress on the issues of good governance, and economic reform. On 17 June 2003, the Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN) has launched an unprecedented call to Burma for ‘a peaceful transition to democracy’.

The Commission will continue to liase with all EU dialogue partners in order to ensure that the increased international pressure on the Burmese Government is maintained until the Burmese government releases Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and all her supporters and undertakes some firm steps towards national reconciliation and a return to democracy.

(1) OJ L 106, 29.4.2003.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 88/316

(2004/C 88 E/0321)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0131/03

by Joan Colom i Naval (PSE) to the Commission

(28 January 2003)

Subject: Implementation of budget heading B2-1411 (Support for regions bordering candidate countries)

Budget heading B2-1411 (Support for regions bordering candidate countries) was created under the 2002 budget procedure and was allocated EUR 30 million in commitment appropriations and EUR 14 million in payment appropriations.

According to the Commission report on the implementation of commitments and payments as at 31 December 2002, the implementation rate for the commitment appropriations was 100 % but for the payment appropriations only 14 %.

Will the Commission state the reasons for such a low rate of payment-appropriation implementation?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(4 March 2003)

The Honourable Member is requested to refer to the Commission's answer to Written Question E-3917/02 by Mr Naranjo Escobar (1).

(1) See page 310.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/132

(2004/C 84 E/0169)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-4021/03

by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(9 January 2004)

Subject: Support for research in Portugal

The Operational Plan for Science, Technology and Innovation is the main source of funding for R&D projects in Portugal, with 50 % of the relevant funds coming from the Community.

However, the Portuguese institutions and centres which depend on the regular receipt of funds for R&D projects approved by the Foundation for Science and Technology are currently experiencing severe problems, as the Community funds concerned have not been transferred. The situation is serious, in view of the very considerable needs of research projects in Portugal.

Can the Commission state:

1. what forms of support for R&D have been earmarked for Portugal under the third Community support framework and the existing Community programmes?

2. what delays have occurred in the transfer of funds, and why?

3. what measures are being considered to support research projects and the relevant investment in Portugal?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(2 March 2004)

In the context of the Third Community Support Framework (CSF), support for Research and Development (R&D) in Portugal is mainly provided by the Science, Technology, Innovation Operational Programme (POCTI) and, to a lesser extent, by the Information Society Operational Programme (POSI).

Following national and Community audits, which identified certain irregularities in the management of the POCTI programme, the Portuguese authorities have decided to suspend the certification of payments to be presented to the Commission under this programme until appropriate corrective action has been taken.

Given the importance of research in the context of regional development, the Portuguese authorities and the Commission are — in the framework of the mid-term review of the Portuguese Community Support Framework — currently discussing possible modifications aiming at strengthening the innovation aspects of the CSF.

Outside the context of the CSF, R&D can also be financed through the Research and Technological Development (RTD) Framework Programmes. The funds for the framework Programmes are not allocated by Member State and are subject to competitive tenders.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/681

(2004/C 78 E/0725)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-4001/03

by Stavros Xarchakos (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(7 January 2004)

Subject: Transfers of students

Thousands of EU citizens study at universities outside the countries of which they hold citizenship. These higher education institutions are State bodies, may be inside or outside the European Union and, naturally, are recognised by the authorities of the states in which they are established.

If statutory regulation were to be put forward in an EU Member State giving the opportunity to students studying in such universities to be transferred to universities in their country of origin (obviously under certain conditions, such as having obtained excellent marks in the two first years of their studies etc.), would this be incompatible with Community legislation?

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(2 February 2004)

The question raised by the Honourable Member touches on how the Member States organise their education systems. Under Article 149 of the EC Treaty, the Community fully respects the responsibility of the Member States for the content of teaching and the organisation of education systems. This matter is therefore outside the Community's sphere of competence.

The Bologna Process, designed to create a European Higher Education Area, introduced a series of reforms (two cycles, transparency instruments, promotion of quality) with the aim of making the higher education on offer more accessible and attractive.

The Bologna reforms enable the competent authorities (ministries, universities, etc.) to encourage transparency and the recognition of diplomas. The power to take decisions will remain with these authorities.
1.

When customs offices in the Member States release removal goods coming from a third country into free circulation in the Community free of Common Customs Tariff duties (CCT duties) and Value Added Tax (VAT), they apply legislation based on two different legal sources. Whereas the relief of CCT duties is based on Articles 2 to 10 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 918/83 (2), the relief of VAT is based on national tax legislation implementing Article 14 of Council Directive 77/388/EEC (3) and Articles 2 to 10 of Council Directive 83/181/EEC (4). In its reply to Written Question E-0243/02 by Mrs Peijs (5), the Commission set out principles concerning the customs clearance of these removal goods and implied that Article 128 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 918/83 does not apply to these imports. Article 128 only applies to goods which have to be put to a particular use by the recipient, i.e. the declarant, in order to benefit from a specific duty relief. The restrictions set out in Article 7(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 918/83 in respect of removal goods, however, only require that the declarant remains the unrestricted owner of the removal goods for a period of 12 months. Within that period, the declarant can use these goods for whatever private purpose he likes. He can, for example, use them for furnishing his new residence or store them at the premises of his removal company. Given these circumstances, the Commission considers that the restriction of Article 7(1) does not create an obligation to put the removal goods to a particular end use as required by Article 128. The Commission interprets this restriction as a prohibition to commercialise these goods, similar to the restrictions set out in Article 29 (consignments sent by one private individual to another) or Article 45 (goods contained in travellers' personal luggage) of Regulation (EEC) No 918/83. As the legal provisions of Articles 2 to 10 of Council Directive 83/181/EEC are almost identical to the text of the same Articles of Regulation (EEC) No 918/83, Member States' VAT legislation should be similar to the Community customs rules for removal goods. It remains to the discretion of the national customs and tax authorities in which way they want to ensure compliance of the declarant with the restrictions imposed by Article 7(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 918/83 and the similar provision in national VAT legislation. The method to control compliance should, however, not create additional costs at the expense of the declarant and should not deviate too much from the methods applied in the examples mentioned in the previous paragraph.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/842

(2004/C 78 E/0895)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3644/03

by Salvador Jové Peres (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(9 December 2003)

Subject: Reform of the COM in olive oil

Following the introduction of production aids for table olives, EU 15 production increased by around 70 %. Given that there are no surpluses and that it is unlikely that consumption would have increased on this scale, the most plausible explanation is that the introduction of production aids has substantially improved transparency in the table olives market.

In the light of the possible abolition of the link with production, to what extent does the Commission feel that there is a danger that transparency will be lost in the table olives and olive oil market? Against this background, how does it assess the risks as regards loss of quality in the olive oil market and the appearance of oils of doubtful origin?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(22 January 2004)

The Commission takes the view that an aid scheme cannot be justified on the sole ground that checks on granting it make it easier to tell production volumes and verify product quality.

We intend to continue fighting lack of market transparency and oil quality fraud using the arrangements already in place, namely the provisions drawn up by the Community on quality standards and testing for authenticity and quality that fall to be applied by the Member States (using their anti-fraud organisations where appropriate) through national programmes to be notified to the Commission. This approach allows oils to be tested from the production stage up to retail sale.

We are also proposing more intensive action programmes for the sector's professional organisations, which should be encouraged to set up traceability, guarantee and inspection schemes for both olive oils and table olives.