ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/368

(2004/C 78 E/0388)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1418/03

by Maria Carrilho (PSE) to the Commission

(23 April 2003)

Subject: Revision of the Europe-Asia strategic framework

It is a well-known fact that the deepening of relations between the European Union and Asia is of major importance to both parties. These relations have been stepped up, especially since the mid-1990s, through structures and fora, such as ASEAN-EC/EU meetings (which began in 70s), ASEM, the EU's participation in the ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF), as well as the EU-China, EU-India, EU-Japan and, more recently, EU-Korea summits. To give European action more coherence, the Commission published a communication in 1994, entitled ‘Towards a new strategy for Asia’. This framework was reviewed in 2001, even before the events of 11 September, resulting in the Commission communication on ‘Europe and Asia: A strategic framework for enhanced partnerships’ (1). The European Parliament, for its part, adopted a resolution on 5 September 2002, endorsing much of the Commission communication, whose broad lines continued to be adequate.

However, following major events such as those of 11 September 2001 and the war in Iraq, with all their implications, would the Commission not consider it appropriate to bring the revision scheduled for 2004 forward to the second half of 2003?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(4 June 2003)

The Commission shares the view expressed by the Honourable Member on the importance of deepening relations between the Union and Asia. Accordingly, it has contributed to enhancing these relations through various exchanges and fora as stated by the Honourable Member.

The Commission likewise acknowledges the changes resulting from the events of 11 September 2001 that happened only a few days after the publication of the Communication ‘Europe and Asia: A Strategic Framework for Enhanced Partnerships’.

However, the six general principles set out in this Communication on the Asia Strategy which were endorsed in the Council Decision of 27 December 2001 (2), remain valid and have also covered the priority subsequently given by the Union to Afghanistan. Furthermore, the Resolution of Parliament of 5 September 2002 welcomed the Commission's Asia Strategy and the consistent emphasis it attached to the Union's relations with Asia. This is also reflected in the Commission's current work in co-operation with its delegations in the region in monitoring the results of the actions proposed in the strategy paper. First indications from this exercise suggest positive results.

In addition to this monitoring of the Asia Strategy of 2001, the Commission is now in the process of preparing a Communication on a Strategy for Southeast Asia, which will certainly take account of recent developments. The cross-fertilisation of the monitoring and the work on the new Southeast Asia Strategy will then greatly contribute to the review of the overall Asia Strategy and allow the Commission to maintain its calendar for a thorough preparation of its update in 2004.

(1) COM(2001)469.

(2) OJ L 344, 28.12.2001.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/843

(2004/C 78 E/0897)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3971/03

by Mario Borghezio (NI) to the Commission

(5 January 2004)

Subject: Failure by Germany to compensate former Italian military internees (IMIs)

The International Organisation for Migration (IOM), which was commissioned by the German foundation ‘Remembrance, Responsibility and Future’ to consider claims for compensation for slave labour and forced labour during the Second World War, has not only incorrectly excluded a large proportion of Italian applicants from the payment of compensation, but has also so far failed to pay the sums owing to those deemed eligible for compensation.

Applicants are entitled to appeal against these decisions to the IOM's appeals body in Geneva (IOM Appeals Body, P.O. Box 174, CH-1211, Geneva 19, Switzerland) although, according to the IOM's own communication to Italian applicants of 11 November 2002, this body is bound by the decision of the German Government and German foundation that Italian military internees had prisoner of war status during the Second World War, excluding them from compensation.

Does the Commission not see an urgent need to take action to ensure the payment of compensation, so far refused or delayed, for this serious violation of the human rights of these elderly and vulnerable survivors of the tragic experience of war?

Joint answer

to Written Questions E-3649/03 and E-3971/03

given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(11 February 2004)

The Commission is not aware of the legal and factual details regarding the implementation of the German forced labour compensation programme by the International Organisation for Migration (IOM) because it is a matter for the German Government, which has set out the details of this programme in a German Law. It is, therefore, for the German Government to decide the conditions for eligibility. Equally, it depends on the procedures foreseen by this Law as to how the persons concerned may appeal regarding the delays in payments.

In any case, Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the Council of 14 June 1971 (1) does not apply to schemes in favour of war victims. The Commission would, therefore, like to refer to its reply to Written Question E-2757/00 by Mr Alavanos (2) regarding the same compensation programme, and in particular to the fact that the Petitions Committee of the Parliament had, therefore, decided that it would address the Petitions Committee of the German Bundestag in order to try to improve the situation of these victims.

(1) OJ L 149, 5.7.1971; last consolidated version: Council Regulation (EC) No 118/97 of 2 December 1996 amending and updating Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community and Regulation (EEC) No 574/72 laying down the procedure for implementing Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71, OJ L 28, 30.1.1997.

(2) OJ C 136 E, 8.5.2001.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/124

(2004/C 84 E/0160)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3969/03

by Maurizio Turco (NI) to the Commission

(5 January 2004)

Subject: Judicial investigation by the Catania Public Prosecutor's office into an EUR 5 million fraud against the European Union

According to an article that appeared in the newspaper La Sicilia on 12 December 2003, entitled ‘Catania — EUR 5 million EU fraud’:

— members of the Guardia di Finanza's excise and revenue unit in Catania have uncovered a case of fraud committed by a Catanese company with a view to illicitly obtaining Community funds totalling EUR 5 million;

— the company had received a grant under Law No 488/92 to set up and develop a new firm for the production of medical surgical equipment in the Catania development area;

— however, the company had altered its corporate structure several times in recent years, despite remaining a non-operating company, and once the funding had been obtained its Italian members vanished from the scene and ownership passed to two companies with head offices in Liechtenstein and Luxembourg;

— around 90 % of the investment expenditure provided for in the plan had gone towards the purchase of a particular machine which, according to the proprietors, could only be supplied by a design office based in Liechtenstein after construction by a Spanish firm. Both these firms turned out to have connections to the companies that owned the share capital in the Catanese company;

— a subsequent detailed retracing of the movements of this machine showed that these were in fact quite different to what had been claimed, or in other words that the machine, the value of which was declared at around EUR 9 million, was in reality worth around EUR 1,5 million and had been purchased directly from production establishments in Modena and Varese;

— in order to conceal the its origins, the machine had been transported to the port of Barcelona from where, after briefly lying in store, it had been shipped to Catania. In this way, with the previous legs of its itinerary omitted, the machine seemed on paper to have been manufactured in Spain and imported from there;

— invoices to the value of around EUR 9,5 million had been issued for fictitious operations in support of the fictitious costs.

Is the Commission aware of these events, and what measures has it taken or will it take in this regard? Has OLAF been notified of this situation, and has it launched or will it launch an investigation?

Answer given by Ms Schreyer on behalf of the Commission

(10 February 2004)

The Commission would inform the Honourable Member that the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) is aware that the Italian authorities are conducting a judicial investigation into a company on charges of defrauding the Union.

As the judicial proceedings are already in progress at the Catania public prosecutor's office in Italy OLAF would be prepared to provide any assistance that the judicial authorities concerned might request.
2.

Management of contracts is the responsibility of the local contract managers within each Directorate General (DG). The decentralised organisation of the contract management has proved to be the most efficient approach as local managers have the information on requirements and conditions at govern the execution of individual contracts. As the Honourable Member may already be aware, the Prodi Commission decided to develop a central contracts and contractors database Interactive Contracts Network Database (ICON-DB). The work is progressing well. This will provide central statistics. Pursuant to action 74 of the Commission White Paper ‘Reforming the Commission’ (1), the database will also contain details of candidates and tenderers who are in one of the situations described in Articles 93 and 94 of the Financial Regulation. Centralised and consolidated statistics, broken down by Commission department, will thus be available in due course more rapidly. The Commission can however provide central statistics from an analysis of the accounts. The payments made to the five principal international consultancy firms for services (including, but not exclusively, management consultancy) supplied to the Commission amount to around EUR 31 million for 2002. Two tables showing the payments made for all the services provided by the five principal consultancy firms to the Commission are being sent direct to the Honourable Member and Parliament's Secretariat.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 88/24

(2004/C 88 E/0026)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1334/03

by Luigi Cocilovo (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(9 April 2003)

Subject: VAT on books

The Commission may know that bookshops selling Italian books abroad have to pay double VAT: Italian VAT (4 %), included in the cover price, and VAT in the country where the book is sold (for example 3 % in Luxembourg, or 6 % in Belgium).

Is this situation compatible with Community law, which regulation or directive regulates this specific field and can it be invoked in order to avoid VAT being paid twice?

Does the Commission not consider that all obstacles of whatever kind that discourage people from reading should be eliminated?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(15 May 2003)

In the case of intra-Community supply of goods, VAT must, in principle, be calculated and paid in the country of destination. However, if the distance sales regime applies and provided the EUR 35 000 or EUR 100 000 yearly threshold is not exceeded, VAT is calculated and paid in the country of origin. In any event, VAT must be calculated and paid only once.

On the basis of the question presented by the Honourable Member, it is not clear whether the VAT calculated on the price of Italian books before they are exported to other Member States is actually paid by the taxable persons to the Italian State.

Should the taxable persons pay the VAT to the Italian State, the goods in question would be subject to double taxation contrary to the Sixth VAT directive (1). The Italian State would then have to modify its legislation in order to provide that the goods leave the territory of the country exempted from Italian VAT.

Should the taxable persons not pay the Italian VAT to the State, although it is part of the export price of the goods, there would be no double taxation. In this case, the issue would have to be analysed from a non-fiscal perspective.

In this respect, should the Honourable Member dispose of complementary or new information that might prove that there is an infringement of Community law, the Commission would be most grateful to receive it.

(1) Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment, OJ L 145, 13.6.1977.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 88/111

(2004/C 88 E/0116)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2742/03

by Richard Corbett (PSE) to the Commission

(11 September 2003)

Subject: Slovakia

Is the Commission aware that Slovakia still refuses entry onto its territory of EU citizens who present only an identity card, even children accompanied by their parents presenting a passport?

Does the Commission agree that this reflects poorly on Slovakia's attitude, as a country scheduled to join the Union in a few months time, especially when other countries in the vicinity, whether or not they are about to join the EU (such as Hungary, Croatia, Bosnia and even Serbia-Montenegro) have no difficulty in accepting identity cards issued by EU Member States as a valid proof of identity?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(22 October 2003)

Union citizens may travel freely throughout the territory of the Union, simply by holding a valid passport or identity card. Until their accession to the Union, however, there is no obligation on Acceding Countries such as Slovakia or other non-Union states to allow entry onto their territory of Union citizens presenting only an identity card.

Equally, there is no reciprocal obligation on the part of current Member States to allow citizens of Acceding Countries entry onto their territory on simple presentation of an identity card.

The Honourable Member may be aware, for example, that the United Kingdom currently imposes a visa requirement on citizens from the Slovak Republic.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/866

(2004/C 78 E/0919)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3863/03

by Mario Borghezio (NI) to the Commission

(8 December 2003)

Subject: European Evidence Warrant — a proposal threatening individual freedom?

The Commission's recent proposal for a framework decision introducing a European evidence warrant for gathering evidence in other Member States (1) may constitute a further dangerous and illiberal move towards a European judicial area outside the control of national parliaments.

The decision contains the same terms as the arrest warrant and goes even farther, since the conviction of a suspect may be based solely on evidence obtained by the State obliged to comply with the terms of the warrant and the decision provides no minimum guarantees regarding the validity of such evidence in a court of law in the country requesting the warrant.

Since only a few Member States have so far adopted the legislation needed to implement the framework decision on the arrest warrant and in view of the various criticisms and doubts raised, does the Commission not consider the submission of this new proposal for a framework decision to be premature? Does it not consider it should even be withdrawn immediately?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(16 January 2004)

The Honourable Member's question concerns in particular the validity in the requesting country of evidence obtained from another country using a European Evidence Warrant. The Honourable Member raises the concern that the proposal provides no minimum guarantees regarding the validity of such evidence.

The Commission's proposal does not directly address the issue of the admissibility of evidence obtained using a European Evidence Warrant. The extent to which any objects, documents or data obtained by such warrant are admissible as evidence in criminal proceedings will therefore — like any other evidence — be controlled by each country's courts in accordance with the relevant national law. As a safeguard to help protect fundamental rights, the proposal provides that the judicial authority issuing the warrant must certify that the objects, documents or data sought by the warrant are (a) necessary and proportionate for the proceedings in questions, (b) could be obtained under the law of the issuing country in similar circumstances if they were available on the territory of the issuing country, and (c) are likely to be admissible in the proceedings for which they are sought. In addition, the judicial authority issuing the warrant can request — and in some circumstances require — that the warrant be executed in compliance with certain formalities. This should help ensure that the evidence is obtained in a way that does indeed meet the requirements of the law of the issuing country.

The Commission therefore does not agree that its proposal for a European Evidence Warrant constitutes a dangerous and illiberal move as suggested by the Honourable Member. Nor does the Commission agree with the suggestion that it should withdraw its proposal.

(1) COM(2003) 688 final.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 88/349

(2004/C 88 E/0355)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1310/03

by Bill Newton Dunn (ELDR) to the Commission

(7 April 2003)

Subject: The situation of the Nigerian national, Mr Abubakir, a practising Christian

The Commission may be aware of the situation of Mr Abubakir and his two daughters Rakiya and Dije from the village of Bilkawa in Kano state, Nigeria. There is evidence that the Muslim authorities in Nigeria have put pressure on the two girls to convert to Islam and to marry Muslim men. This is particularly important considering that the Nigerian authorities have signed up to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

Has the Commission:

1. made representations to the Nigerian Government about the situation of Mr Abubakir?

2. other plans, to try to ensure that the Nigerian authorities respect the human rights of the Christian minority in their country?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(6 May 2003)

The Commission has not been alerted as to the situation of Mr Abubakir and his family and has not made any representation to the Nigerian Authorities on this matter. The Commission has asked its Delegation in Abuja to make enquiries on this matter to Federal and State officials.
—

the Constitution of Turkmenistan upholds the right to privacy in one's home, which may be restricted only in exceptional circumstances and on a legal basis, neither of which was the case in the events which occurred on 27 May.
1.

The Commission is following closely the whole range of initiatives introduced by the United States of America since 11 September 2001, which aim at enhancing security. Among these is the Terrorism Information Awareness (TIA) project, raised by the Honourable Member. Since the beginning of 2003, various congressional actions have aimed at imposing a moratorium on the use, without congressional approval and appropriate civil liberties protections, of data mining technology by the Defence department and by the new Department of Homeland Security. In February 2003, Congress suspended funding for the Total Information Awareness programme and required the Defence Department to explain the project's privacy and civil liberties implications. It also restricted the implementation of the programme on American persons to specific authorisation by law from Congress. This text was signed into law by the President of the United States on 20 February 2003. On 20 May 2003, the Department of Defence Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) published that report. The name of the programme was changed from ‘Total’ to Terrorism Information Awareness project, as noted by the Honourable Member.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/76

(2004/C 84 E/0081)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3653/03

by Jean-Louis Bernié (EDD) to the Commission

(2 December 2003)

Subject: Interpretative guide to the Birds Directive

In the answer given by Mrs Wallström on 22 May 2003 to Written Question P-1495/03 (1), the Commission undertook to send me the French version of the interpretative guide to the Birds Directive.

When will that guide be sent to me?

When will the guide be submitted to the Committee on the Environment, the European Parliament and the European Parliament's Intergroup on hunting, fishing and the environment?

When and how will the guide be applicable, having regard to the most recent judgment of the European Court of Justice on derogations relating to hunting?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(6 January 2004)

The Commission is fully aware of the commitment made in relation to providing the guidance document to the Parliament as soon as it has been finalised. It has been delayed in this task by the need to incorporate the judgement of the Court of Justice in Case C-l82/02 (preliminary ruling concerning the interpretation of Article 9(1)(c) of Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds (2), referred to it by the French Conseil d'Etat).

The section of the guide concerning the provisions of Article 7 of Directive 79/409/CEE is already available in three languages on the following website: (http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/nature/sustain-able_hunting.htm)

Now that the judgement in this case has been delivered, the Commission is proceeding with the finalisation of the guide. This will entail completion of the technical and legal revisions of the text and its translation, initially into French and German. The Commission intends to make the guide available early in 2004 to the Parliament's Environment Committee, the Intergroup on ‘Fieldsports, Fishing & Conservation’ and individual Members of Parliament who have requested the document.

The objective of the guide is to assist Member States and other relevant interests in the implementation of the hunting provisions of the Directive. The guide will reflect all the relevant judgements of the Court of Justice on this subject, including the latest judgement in relation to the provisions of Article 9(1)(c) of the Directive.

(1) OJ C 58 E, 6.3.2004, p. 73.

(2) OJ L 103, 25.4.1979.