ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 88/125

(2004/C 88 E/0133)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2995/03

by Rodi Kratsa-Tsagaropoulou (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(14 October 2003)

Subject: Damage to valuable relics contained in the temple of St Sophia

Recently the new director of the St Sophia museum, Serazitin Sachin, informed the Turkish Directorate-General for Museums and the Cultural Heritage that 550 invaluable icons and relics (gospels and sacerdotal vestments) had been severely damaged by damp whilst in storage in the temple of St Sophia having been brought in from many orthodox churches in Turkey when they fall into disuse.

Since 1985 St Sophia has been classified as a World Heritage Site and the latest Turkish National Programme for the implementation of the ‘acquis’ indicates that cultural works belonging to the world as a whole are protected under law of 17 June 1987 so as to preserve them in perfect condition for future generations. In view of this, will the Commission adopt a firm position on this matter?

Do the Turkish pre-accession and MEDA programmes include funding earmarked for cultural purposes, in particular the preservation of cultural treasures such as those stored in St Sophia?

Does the Commission not consider that such a serious situation constitutes a backward step regarding compliance with the Community ‘acquis’. What action does it intend to take in response?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(12 November 2003)

As already mentioned in the Commission's recent reply to Written Question E-2962/03 by Mr Alavanos (1), the Community's financial assistance programme for Turkey does not allow provision of support for conserving and restoring religious or cultural works, such as those stored in the Hagia Sofia. The programme is designed primarily to support Turkey's alignment with Union standards in the political, economic and legislative areas. Project proposals are prepared by the Turkish Government and are subject to approval by the Commission, which is given only for projects that contribute to meeting the priorities of the Accession Partnership, as adopted by the Council of Ministers on 15 May 2003.

In addition, the Commission monitors very closely the progress achieved by Turkey in adopting the relevant ‘acquis’ in the area of culture.

(1) OJ C 78 E, 27.3.2004, p. 771.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/599

(2004/C 78 E/0632)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3584/03

by Ria Oomen-Ruijten (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(5 December 2003)

Subject: Receipt of supplementary reply

On 6 March, Mrs Reding replied on behalf of the Commission to written question E-3868/02 (1), and stated that the Commission would provide a supplementary reply.

Why has no supplementary reply so far been sent concerning equal treatment of children studying at secondary schools or secondary vocational education establishments in the Netherlands, who are eligible for a Dutch study grant, and of Dutch children studying at secondary schools or secondary vocational education establishments in Germany or Belgium, who do not receive study grants?

When can the supplementary reply be expected?

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(23 January 2004)

After giving the question close attention, the Commission decided to contact the Dutch authorities to verify whether the legislation relating to the awarding of study grants was in conformity with the provisions of Community law relating to freedom of movement, because although it is up to the Member States to set the conditions governing access to their national education systems and the conditions governing the awarding of study grants to students wishing to study in another Member State, the Member States must nevertheless observe Community law and in particular the principle of non-discrimination, as confirmed by the Judgment of the Court of Justice in the Meeusen case (C-337/97).

On the basis of the documentation obtained, the Commission has no evidence that grants are awarded for study in the Netherlands in contravention of the principles of freedom of movement.

In particular:

— Dutch students have the right, and make use of the right, to study in other countries of Europe;

— students who are nationals of other countries of the Union have the right to study in the Netherlands.

(1) OJ C 161 E, 10.7.2003, p. 157.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 33/205

(2004/C 33 E/208)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2035/03

by Richard Corbett (PSE) to the Commission

(18 June 2003)

Subject: Staff family members as trainees

Has the Commission adopted any rules which preclude relatives of EU employees from applying for traineeships? If not, why not?

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(31 July 2003)

The Commission's administrative traineeship programme (Blue Book) is open to all candidates who fulfil the admission requirements laid down in the rules governing in-service training periods with the European Commission (Commission Decision of 7 July 1997).

No special treatment — favourable or unfavourable — is shown to candidates who are relatives of EU employees.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 65/56

(2004/C 65 E/057)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0901/03

by James Fitzsimons (UEN) to the Commission

(17 March 2003)

Subject: Devices for filtering radon gas from groundwater sources

As the Commission is aware, naturally occurring radioactive gas can be found in groundwater. However, it is not clear how to filter out radon from the water. Is the Commission aware of this problem and does it know of ways or devices to filter out such gas?

Answer given by Mr Busquin on behalf of the Commission

(10 April 2003)

The Commission is aware of the problem of naturally occurring radon in groundwater sources, in particular when this water is used for drinking water. Commission Recommendation 2001/928/Euratom recommends that above a concentration of 100 Bq/l for public water supplies consideration be given to remedial action.

A research project, Tenawa, on this particular problem was executed under the Nuclear Fission Safety (Euratom) programme. The overall objective of this project, which ended in 1999, was to study various removal methods and commercially available equipment and study their ability to remove natural nuclides from drinking water. The project studied a number of techniques such as aeration, granular activated carbon, ion exchange, and membrane technology. Some of these techniques achieved an efficiency above 99 % for the removal of radon. Further details on this project may be found at the projects web site: (http://iwga-sig.boku.ac.at/project/tenawa/tenawa1_e.htm)

Under the Fifth Framework Programme, a currently running research project, Radwat, funded by the sub-programme Environment and Sustainable Development under the CRAFT scheme, is focused on developing an innovative radon measuring and monitoring system for use in groundwater. This two-year project will end in February 2004.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 65/97

(2004/C 65 E/110)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1876/03

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(6 June 2003)

Subject: Prospectus- denomination of issues

Will the Commission estimate the number of bond issues, and the total volume of issuance, in denominations of EUR 5 000 or less, EUR 1 000 or less, EUR 500 or less and EUR 100 or less?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(14 July 2003)

The Commission has not sought to estimate the number of bond issues nor the total volume of issuance, in denominations of EUR 5 000 or less, EUR 1 000 or less, EUR 500 or less, and EUR 100 or less, because it does not believe this number will allow it to draw conclusions on the usefulness of a given threshold on individual denomination.

First, as background, it is important to note that the concept of high individual denominations for securities was introduced with the aim of making a clear separation between securities aimed at wholesale investors and those aimed at the retail market.

The Commission has knowledge of figures related to existing bonds' individual denominations (from the International Primary Market Association (IPMA) and also used by the European Banking Federation).

However, the Commission believes there is no added value in such figures for two main reasons:

— Existing individual denominations are today defined at a low level for practical reasons. For example, it is common practice to have individual denominations of one euro because bonds are quoted in percentages.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 65/168

(2004/C 65 E/184)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2547/03

by Joan Vallvé (ELDR) to the Council

(31 July 2003)

Subject: Linguistic coexistence as reflected in Spanish passports

The resolution of 10 July 1995 (1) requires all Member States to adjust the format of their passports by replacing the term ‘European Communities’ with ‘European Union’.

In connection with this adjustment, a proposal has been tabled in the Spanish Congress of Deputies to recognise the coexistence of official languages in the passports issued to citizens living in an autonomous community where there is more than one official language. The Spanish Government, however, refuses to accept that proposal, citing the resolution of 23 June 1981 (2).

Given that Article I-3 of the draft Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe states that ‘The Union shall respect its rich cultural and linguistic diversity’ and Article II-22, moreover, stipulates that The Union shall respect cultural, religious and linguistic diversity', thus echoing the Charter of Fundamental Rights, and having regard to the conclusions arising from European Year of Languages, as laid down by decision of Parliament and the Council: will the Council amend the above resolution so as to enable all the official languages of a Member State to be incorporated in that state's passports?

Joint answer

to Written Questions E- 2520/03 and E-2547/03

(17 November 2003)

The Council draws the attention of the Honourable Members to the fact that the Treaty of the European Union does not provide for Community competence in this field.

(1) OJ C 200, 4.8.1995, p. 1.

(2) OJ C 241, 19.9.1981, p. 1.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 65/124

(2004/C 65 E/137)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2278/03

by Roger Helmer (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(9 July 2003)

Subject: National citizenship

Does the Commission recall the words of Our Lord, to the effect that no man can serve two masters, since either he will love one and hate the other, or vice versa?

By what right do the EU institutions imagine that they can foist a new and additional ‘citizenship’ upon the citizens of EU Member States, who for the most part have not wanted or requested or consented to such an additional citizenship?

What mechanism is available for citizens of Member States to reject and repudiate this so-called ‘citizenship’, and to affirm that their citizenship, their identity and their loyalty remain wholly and undividedly invested in their own country?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(18 September 2003)

The Treaty on the European Union (Maastricht Treaty) — drafted by a Conference of representatives of Member States' governments and ratified by all the Member States in accordance with their constitutional rules — introduced a provision into the EC Treaty which runs as follows:

1. Citizenship of the Union is hereby established. Every person holding the nationality of a Member State shall be a citizen of the Union.

2. Citizens of the Union shall enjoy the rights conferred by this Treaty and shall be subject to the duties imposed thereby (Article 17 of the EC Treaty).

The Amsterdam Treaty — drafted and ratified in the same manner — added the following sentence to the first paragraph:

Citizenship of the Union shall complement and not replace national citizenship.

This provision was incorporated without substantial changes into Article I-8 of the draft Constitution prepared by the European Convention, which was composed to a very large degree of representatives of national parliaments and national governments.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 65/81

(2004/C 65 E/091)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1448/03

by Chris Davies (ELDR) to the Commission

(28 April 2003)

Subject: Radioactive fuel and waste

What requirements does the Commission make to ensure the safety and security of shipments by sea in European waters of radioactive fuel and radioactive waste?

Has the Commission expressed any particular concerns with regard to the movement of MOX shipments to and from the Sellafield nuclear reprocessing facility in Cumbria, United Kingdom?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(26 May 2003)

The attention of the Honourable Member is drawn to previous answers made by the Commission on similar or related issues where additional information can be found (H-0398/01 by Mr Fitzsimons during question time at Parliament's May 2001 session (1), E-3277/01 by Mrs Breyer (2), H-0501/02 by Mr Fitzsimons during question time at Parliament's July 2002 session (3) and P-1904/02 by Mrs Doyle (4)).

International transport of radioactive material is governed by international legislation, such as the ‘International Maritime Organisation (IMO)’ rules in the case of transport by sea, Community legislation and by the legislation and procedures of the sender, receiver and transit countries concerned.

In addition, Council Directive 93/75 EEC of 13 September 1993, concerning minimum requirements for vessels bound for or leaving Community ports and carrying dangerous or polluting goods (5), imposes an obligation on the operator of such vessel to notify before departure the competent authority of the Member State about the destination, the intended route and the nature of the dangerous goods transported.

While in the United Kingdom, the mixed oxide (MOX) fuel will be subject to regulatory control under the safeguards regime. The Commission must ensure through Euratom Safeguards the implementation of the safeguards regime.

Safety and security arrangements for this type of shipment must respect international and national regulations concerning the transport of radioactive material. It is up to the National Authorities to ensure compliance with these regulations.

The Office of Civil Nuclear Security (OCNS) in the United Kingdom is responsible for the regulation by civil nuclear operators for the secure transport of ‘sensitive categories’ of nuclear material. In this context, the Office is the United Kingdom's designated national authority under the Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material, for shipments to and from overseas destinations.

The security arrangements for shipments of MOX between Japan and the United Kingdom were also reviewed by the United States and Japanese regulatory authorities. All the security authorities were satisfied that the security arrangements were ‘amply robust to deal with any potential threat’.

In the light of the above, it appears that adequate security and safety measures are in place or shipments of MOX fuel to and from the United Kingdom.

(1) Written reply of 15.5.2001.

(2) OJ C 172 E, 18.7.2002.

(3) Written reply of 2.7.2002.

(4) OJ C 277, 14.11.2002.

(5) OJ L 247, 5.10.1993.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 65/177

(2004/C 65 E/193)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2555/03

by Robert Evans (PSE) to the Commission

(4 August 2003)

Subject: Cross-channel ferry operators

The Commission has previously been questioned on the suggested cartel pricing practices of the cross-channel ferry companies and Eurotunnel (P-3419/00 (1)). In his response, Commissioner Monti expressed concern that there should be ‘effective competition between cross-channel operators’.

Several constituents have contacted me to suggest that there is effectively a cartel operating between the ferry companies and Eurotunnel. For example, although various prices are quoted, GBP 300 appears to be the cost of crossings for five-day returns for summer trips. They feel they are comparatively paying more for this particular route than other ferry crossings in the EU (offered by Greek and Italian ferry companies). More information can be found on a website that has been established by those unhappy with these companies, http://www.channelpirates.com

Could the Commission comment on the pricing practices of the ferry companies and Eurotunnel operators, and whether it believes the companies are operating in an anti-competitive way?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(22 September 2003)

The Honourable Member may know that the Commission has recently carried out simultaneous unannounced inspections at the premises of a number of operators of cross-Channel transport services (2). The purpose of these inspections was indeed to ascertain whether these companies are inter alia fixing prices and trade conditions for cross-Channel transport services, as suggested by the information referred to by the Honourable Member.

Such surprise inspections are a preliminary step in investigations into suspected cartels. As the Honourable Member will understand, the Commission can at this early stage of the investigation not make any further comments on the case.

(1) OJ C 151 E, 22.5.2001, p. 164.

(2) ΙΡ/03/168 of 3 September 2003; Spokeperson's Statement on inspections in cross-Channel transport services.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 65/181

(2004/C 65 E/197)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2592/03

by Gerhard Schmid (PSE) to the Commission

(14 August 2003)

Subject: Fine for absence of nationality sticker on vehicles in the Czech Republic

For journeys abroad in the Member States of the European Union, the normal European vehicle number plate incorporating the nationality symbol on a blue background is sufficient. However, for journeys in countries which are not members of the Union, an oval nationality sticker is also required, otherwise drivers are liable to be fined. The Czech Republic is among those countries which fine drivers if their vehicle does not display an oval nationality sticker.

Will the Commission open negotiations with the Czech Republic to ensure that the European number plate is already accepted as a nationality identifier in that country before 1 May 2004?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(18 September 2003)

Council Regulation (EC) No 2411/98 of 3 November 1998 on the recognition in intra-Community traffic of the distinguishing sign of the Member State in which motor vehicles and their trailers are registered (1) introduced the so-called ‘European sign’ that Member States must recognise as an alternative to the ‘elliptic sign’ introduced by the Vienna Convention of 1968 (2).

The Vienna Convention was ratified by the Czech Republic and the elliptic sign is still valid. Countries that do not belong to the Union are not bound by the Council Regulation which covers the intra-Community traffic only. Therefore, there is no legal basis for asking the Czech Republic to recognise the European sign before 1 May 2004. Afterwards this country will have to recognise it as a part of the acquis communautaire.

(1) OJ L 299, 10.11.1998.

(2) Vienna Convention on road traffic of 8 November 1968, concluded under the auspices of the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 33/105

(2004/C 33 E/106)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1333/03

by Cristiana Muscardini (UEN) to the Commission

(9 April 2003)

Subject: Unlawful charging of commission by banks

Despite the entry into force of the euro and Regulation (EC) No 2560/2001 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 December 2001 on cross-border payments in euro, banking institutions and banks in general continue to charge commission for both transfers and the depositing of cheques from the various European countries.

The Belgian Post Office still uses the phrase ‘from abroad’ when notifying bank transfers from other European countries.

This constitutes an extra burden and inconvenience for the general public, especially immigrants, who are often obliged to make trans-national payments and transfers. Can the Commission say:

— whether it can take steps to ensure that transfers between Member States of the euro zone are defined as ‘from the Union’ and ban the phrase ‘from abroad’;

— whether the charging of this kind of commission by banks is compatible with current European legislation;

— how it intends to tackle any infringement of the Regulation which may be ascertained;

— how it intends to regulate, for transfers and cheques from the Member States of the Union, the levying of charges equal to those levied for transfers and cheques within a country?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(4 June 2003)

Regulation (EC) No 2560/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 December 2001 on cross-border payments in euro establishes the principle of equal charges between strictly national payments and cross-border payments in euro within Community territory. For electronic payments, the Regulation entered into force on 1 July 2002. It will apply to transfers as of 1 July 2003. However, the principle of equal charges does not apply to cheques because the legislator took the view that cheques have no future as a method of cross-border payment.

During the first half of 2003 cross-border payments in euro will therefore continue to attract higher charges than national transfers. This will change in July. Nothing will change as regards cheques, however: the banking community is setting up a policy to deter cheque use which consists in either raising charges further or stopping issuing cheques altogether.

By end-2002 a number of cases of non-compliance had been brought to the Commission's attention. It immediately contacted the various national authorities responsible for implementing the Regulation as per Article 7, and the problems were quickly resolved. The banks in question did not dispute that mistakes had been made either in printing documents (uncorrected lists of charges) or in applying charges to certain type of payment.

The Commission will of course continue to monitor the correct implementation of Regulation (EC) No 2560/2001 in accordance with the powers conferred on it by the Treaty.

(1) OJ L 344, 28.12.2001, p. 13.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 33/98

(2004/C 33 E/097)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1226/03

by Freddy Blak (GUE/NGL) and Anne Jensen (ELDR) to the Commission

(2 April 2003)

Subject: Protection of drivers in the export trade against violent attack

At its meeting of 14 October 2001, the Ministers of Justice and Home Affairs of the Member States and the candidate countries in association with the Commission adopted a declaration calling for appropriate measures to protect drivers in the export trade against violent attack. What progress has the Commission made in implementing such appropriate measures?

What progress have the Member States and the Commission made overall in their work to protect drivers in the export trade against violent attack? Has the work so far resulted in any specific initiatives and/or projects, and when can the results of their work be expected?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(15 May 2003)

On 14 October 2002, the Ministers of Justice and Home Affairs of the Member States of the Union and the candidate countries in association with the Commission adopted a joint declaration on the protection of commercial drivers engaged in export trade from becoming victims of organised crime (1). Pursuant to the third paragraph of that joint declaration national or international surveys should be conducted in order to map the incidents of crime directed at commercial drivers engaged in export trade and investigate the nature and scale of the problem and the background to it in their respective countries. A joint declaration has, however, no binding force upon the Member States

(1) OJ C 24, 31.1.2003.