ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
TheCommissionisnotinformedoftheactivitiescarriedoutbyIberoekaandthereforeisnotinaposition
toprovideanyevaluationontheseactivities.However,theCommissionisawarethatanevaluationwascommissionedbyCYTEDtotheFundacionGeneraldelaUniversidadPolitècnicadeMadridandmaybeavailablethroughthem.
(2004/C58E/176) WRITTENQUESTIONE-2367/03
byJorgeHernándezMollar(PPE-DE)totheCommission
(17July2003)
Subject:CommunitysurveyofwatertreatmentontheCostadelSol
AgoodhalfofthemostpopularbeachesoftheCostadelSolarethisyear,onceagain,sufferingfromthe
absenceoftreatmentplantsorothersuitablefacilitiesforhandlingwastewater/dashinfrastructureswhichshouldhavebeenputinplacedecadesago.
Thetreatmentissueisstill‘unfinishedbusiness’insuchtourist-orientedmunicipalitiesasFuengirola,Mijas,
BenalmádenaandNerja,whosebeachesare,thissummer,yetagainvisiblypolluted.
CantheCommissionstatewhetheraCommunitysurveyexistsofthestateofwatertreatmentontheCosta
delSolinAndalusia,pursuanttothemandatoryandbindingCommunitylegislationonthematter?
AnswergivenbyMrsWallströmonbehalfoftheCommission
(10September2003)
IntermsofCommunitylaw,CouncilDirective91/271/EEC(
1)of21May1991concerningurbanwaste
water treatment requires Member States to ensure that all agglomerations with more than 2000population equivalents (e.g., the organic pollution measuring unit representing the average pollutionproducedperpersonperday)areprovidedwithurbanwastewatercollectionandtreatmentsystems.Smaller agglomerations shall be subject to appropriate treatment if the waste water is collected. Thedeadlinesforprovidingthosesystemsare31December1998(tertiarytreatment),31December2000and31December2005,dependinguponthesizeoftheagglomerationandthesensitivityoftherecipientwaters.
ACommunitysurveyofwastewatertreatmentexists,astheCommissionisverifyingtheimplementation
oftheUrbanWasteWaterTreatmentDirectiveveryclosely.TheCommissionfollowsthecompliancewiththedeadlinesandtheprovisionsoftheDirectiveinallMemberStates,thereforetheCostadelSolinAndalusiaiscoveredbythisprocessaswell.ViolationsoftheprovisionsoftheDirectivehavelegalactionsasaconsequence.
TheCommissionisawareoftheparticularunsatisfactorywastewatertreatmentsituationinSpainandhas
alreadylaunchedseveralinfringementproceduresagainstSpain.Twoofthemarealreadybeforecourt(A-2000/4044andC-2001/419onwhichacourtjudgementwaspronouncedinMay2003).
ConcerningFuengirolaandNerja,ahorizontalinfringementprocedureisinpreparation,whichwillcover,
besidesFuengirolaandNerja,allagglomerationswhichdonotrespecttheprovisionsoftheabovedeadlinehavingexpiredattheendof2000andconcerningagglomerationsabove15000e.g.,innonsensitiveareas.
AsregardsMijasandBenalmádena,theCommissionhasnoinformationaboutthewastewatertreatment
situationandnoindicationthatthesetwoagglomerationsfallunderoneoftheabove-mentioneddeadlines,whichhavealreadyexpired.Forthisreasontherearecurrentlynogroundstotakeanylegalaction.
(1) CouncilDirective91/271/EECconcerningurbanwastewatertreatment,OJL135,30.5.1991,p.40,asamendedby
CommissionDirective98/15/ECof27February1998,OJL67,3.7.1998,p.29.6.3.2004EN C58E/163 OfficialJournaloftheEuropeanUnion
Bearing in mind that somelocalauthorities, such asthe municipality ofSiena, urgently need touse
EuropeanfundstopromotethesafeuseoftheInternetandencourage,atEuropeanlevel,afavourableenvironmentforthedevelopmentoftherelevantsector,
cantheCommissionstate:
1. whetherthemunicipalityofSienahassubmittedprojectsfortheActionPlanonpromotingsaferuse
oftheInternet?
2. whetherthemunicipalityofSienahassecuredfundingfortheseprojects?
3. whetherthisfundinghasbeenused?
(2004/C58E/049) WRITTENQUESTIONE-1090/03
byRobertaAngelilli(UEN)totheCommission
(31March2003)
Subject:UseoffundsundertheActionPlanonpromotingsaferuseoftheInternetbythemunicipalityof
Terni
InSeptember2002,themonitoringcommitteeoftheItalianMinistryforEconomicAffairsissuedareport
onthespendingofEUfunds.
ThereportrevealsthealarmingslownessandinefficiencywithwhichEUfundsareallocatedtoprojectsby
someregionalauthorities.
ThegraveconcernsabouttheinadequateuseofEuropeanfundsbylocalauthoritieshavefrequentlybeen
echoedbytheCommission.
Bearing in mind that somelocalauthorities, such as the municipality ofTerni, urgently need touse
EuropeanfundstopromotethesafeuseoftheInternetandencourage,atEuropeanlevel,afavourableenvironmentforthedevelopmentoftherelevantsector,
cantheCommissionstate:
1. whetherthemunicipalityofTernihassubmittedprojectsfortheActionPlanonpromotingsaferuse
oftheInternet?
2. whetherthemunicipalityofTernihassecuredfundingfortheseprojects?3. whetherthisfundinghasbeenused?
Jointanswer
toWrittenQuestionsE-0861/03,E-0884/03,E-1078/03,E-1079/03,
E-1080/03,E-1081/03,E-1082/03,E-1083/03,E-1084/03,E-1085/03,
E-1086/03,E-1087/03,E-1088/903,E-1089/03andE-1090/03
givenbyMrLiikanenonbehalfoftheCommission
(15May2003)
RegardingthesubsidiestheUnionawardedtothetownssubjectofthewrittenquestionsintheAction
PlanonPromotingSaferUseoftheInternet,ithasbeenfoundthatnoneofthe15ItalianmunicipalitieshaspresentedaproposalforfundingundertheSaferInternetActionPlan1999-2002.Consequently,noneofthemunicipalitieshasreceivedanyfundingintheframeworkofthisactionplan.6.3.2004EN C58E/39 OfficialJournaloftheEuropeanUnion
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 70/254

(2004/C 70 E/274)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3312/03

by Enrico Ferri (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(3 November 2003)

Subject: Requirements for entry in the studbook, transposition of Community legislation

Does the European Commission not consider that Italy has transposed Community legislation on requirements for entry in the studbook (mandatory for Member States) in a way that hinders the free movement of goods and freedom to provide services and thus constitutes a barrier to intra-Community trade?

Italy (whose competent authority is the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry Policy) is the only Member State which, in addition to imposing specific requirements for entry in the studbook, has set up an ad hoc committee to assess equine morphology, whose opinion is final and not subject to appeal.

Does the Commission not consider that the existence of this committee is an obstacle to the use/trading in Italy of stallions that have not passed the committee's assessment but could be used in another Member State (for instance, in the UK, where no such committee exists) thereby preventing them from being traded in Italy?

Does the Commission not also consider that the fact that the committee's ruling is not subject to appeal is in breach of Community law and procedures?

In the light of the provisions of Directive 90/427/EC (1) of 26 June 1990 (on the zootechnical and genealogical conditions governing intra-Community trade in Equidae) and subsequent modifications, Commission Decision 92/353/EEC (2) of 11 June 1992 (criteria for the approval or recognition of organisations and associations which maintain or establish studbooks for registered equidae) and subsequent modifications and Commission Decision 96/78/EC (3) of 10 January 1996 (criteria for entry and registration of equidae in studbooks for breeding purposes) and subsequent modifications:

— will the European Commission verify whether Community legislation relating to this sector has been correctly transposed into national law in Italy?

— can the European Commission also challenge the legality of the existence of the assessment committee referred to above (which exists only in Italy and whose decisions are irrevocable, with no further level of appeal) which makes the equine trade more difficult in Italy compared to other Member States, thereby infringing the principles of free competition in the single market?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(21 November 2003)

The Commission was not aware of the facts set out by the Honourable Member.

The Commission will look at this question and, if need be, will take the necessary steps to ensure compliance.

(1) OJ L 224, 18.8.1990, p. 55.

(2) OJ L 192, 11.7.1992, p. 63.

(3) OJ L 19, 25.1.1996, p. 39.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 70/48

(2004/C 70 E/051)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1501/03

by Kathleen Van Brempt (PSE) to the Commission

(5 May 2003)

Subject: Cruise control in trucks

Trucks regularly collide at high speed with queues of stationary or slow-moving vehicles. In Belgium, during the proceedings of the States General for Road Safety the subject of cruise control in trucks was raised. Representatives of the police, municipal authorities and insurers, as well as politicians, agreed that the use of the automatic pilot in trucks needed to be restricted. Truckers' unions have also concluded that cruise control causes a loss of alertness. It is therefore advocated that cruise control be banned in Belgium, but because the use of cruise control is regulated at European level, a ban by Belgium alone would fail to achieve its aim.

What view does the Commission take of the possibility of banning the use of cruise control in trucks?

Does the Commission agree with the conclusion reached in Belgium that cruise control causes a loss of alertness in drivers and is therefore dangerous? What research findings does the Commission have concerning the use of cruise control?

Will the Commission take steps with regard to the use of cruise control in trucks? If so, what information can it provide on the subject?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(20 June 2003)

The Commission has been informed about the discussion which has taken place in Belgium on the safety of electronic automatic speed systems (cruise control) fitted to lorries.

However, it does not have any information to show that the benefits of cruise control in terms of convenience for drivers, safety and the environment are negated by a loss of alertness in drivers.

It does not consider it advisable to ban the fitting or use of cruise control devices. It would ask Member States which encounter any problems to let it know about their experience and, if necessary, to discuss the need for a Community-level solution in meetings of experts designated for this purpose.

In any event, cruise control should only be used when traffic is moving smoothly. If necessary, the Commission could encourage information campaigns to make sure that this technology is used properly.

The Commission is also closely monitoring the rapid development of technology for vehicle manufacturers to combine cruise control with other equipment, such as systems which automatically check the distance between a vehicle and the one in front.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 70/91

(2004/C 70 E/093)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2365/03

by Salvador Garriga Polledo (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(17 July 2003)

Subject: Delimitation of fisheries zones as between Portugal and Spain

The president of the Spanish Association of Skilled Nautical Personnel has called for a clear delimitation of the fishing limits between Spain and Portugal, with a view to avoiding any further arrests of Spanish fishermen and putting the required end to such disputes between countries which are friends and neighbours and are both EU Member States.

The same person considers it unacceptable that such problems should exist between EU Member States. It follows, in the view of Spain's fishermen, that the fisheries zones need to be delimited in order to prevent any further conflicts.

Does the Commission believe it to be its responsibility, under the EU's common fisheries policy, to act with a view to resolving the conflict over the delimitation of fisheries zones as between Spain and Portugal, thus putting an end to the present unacceptable climate of conflict and, especially, the practice of punishing Spanish fishermen's incursions into Portuguese waters with prison sentences?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(13 August 2003)

The new legal basis of the Common Fisheries Policy, Council Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002 (1), clearly enshrines the principle of free access to waters and resources by all Community vessels, subject to the relevant Community rules on fisheries management.

Re-introducing limitations to access in areas of national jurisdiction on the basis of nationality would be contrary to the above principle. The Commission must ensure that fisheries access and conservation and management measures are based on the principle of non-discrimination.

The Commission also believes that the existence of certain conflicts among fishermen would not justify a failure to apply and enforce Community principles. The Commission is actively contributing to find a solution to the problem of the access to Portuguese continental waters in the context of the proposal for an effort regime in western waters. But the Commission is convinced that any solution in this regard must be fully in conformity with the above-mentioned principles.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002 of 20 December 2002 on the conservation and sustainable exploitation of fisheries resources under the Common Fisheries Policy, OJ L 358, 31.12.2002.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 70/135

(2004/C 70 E/137)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2740/03

by Bernd Lange (PSE) to the Commission

(11 September 2003)

Subject: Recovery of small amounts under EU aid programmes

There have been many complaints recently that under EU aid programmes the calculations are so exact that, in some cases, even tiny amounts such as a few cents have to be recovered.

Quite apart from the huge amount of work it creates, this results in excessively high costs. In the case of comparable aid programmes at regional level, however, there is usually a certain discretionary margin, meaning that small amounts do not have to be recovered.

Is the Commission aware of this problem?

Is the Commission considering organising aid programmes so that in future a certain discretionary margin is allowed with regard to settling small amounts?

Answer given by Ms Schreyer on behalf of the Commission

(22 October 2003)

Under the system of direct management, the Commission applies the rules laid down in the Financial Regulation (1) and the implementing rules (2) in matters relating to the recovery of its entitlements.

Article 79 of the implementing rules states that ‘to establish an amount receivable the authorising officer responsible shall ensure that (…) g) the principle of sound financial management is complied with’. This means specifically that the authorising officer will consider the foreseeable cost of recovery in relation to the amount to be recovered and assess the impact a waiver might have on the Community's image (Article 87(1)(a) of the implementing rules).

This provision answers the concerns expressed by the Honourable Member, and the Commission's accounting officer regularly brings it to the attention of the authorising officers responsible for establishing entitlements in the sectors assigned to them.

1

Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the

general budget of the European Communities, OJ L 248, 16.9.2002.

(2) Commission Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2342/2002 of 23 December 2002 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002, OJ L 357, 31.12.2002.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 70/47

(2004/C 70 E/050)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1491/03

by Proinsias De Rossa (PSE) to the Commission

(2 May 2003)

Subject: Article 10 challenges

Specifying the individual complaints and the EU directives or regulations concerned, could the Commission indicate how many letters of formal notice and reasoned opinions have been issued against Ireland under Article 10 of the EC Treaty since 1 May 1999?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(16 June 2003)

Since 1 May 1999 and further to the Commission's reply to the Honourable Member's oral question H-0256/03 during question time at Parliament's May 2003 session (1), two letters of formal notice were sent on 15 May 2003 against Ireland under Article 226 of the EC Treaty.

The infringement procedures have been launched further to Commission investigations under its own initiative and not following individual complaints.

(1) Written reply, 13.5.2003.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 70/86

(2004/C 70 E/088)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2336/03

by Brian Simpson (PSE) to the Commission

(16 July 2003)

Subject: Project ACCESS: Advance Communication for Cumbria and Enabling Sustainable Services

Can the Commission give an indication of when it will be in a position to respond to the UK Government's submission in regard to the above project (under Article 86(3)) so that this excellent scheme can go ahead and enable the area of Cumbria to have access to broadband communications?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(14 August 2003)

By letter dated 26 June 2003 the United Kingdom authorities notified to the Commission in accordance with Article 88(3) of the EC Treaty the measures referred to by the Honourable Member. However, the notification was considered incomplete and the Commission requested additional information by letter dated 17 July 2003.

According to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999/EC (1), the Commission shall take a decision on notified aid within two months, beginning on the day following the receipt of a complete notification. Additional information submitted by the United Kingdom authorities was received on 22 July 2003 and is currently examined by the Commission services. Thus, a decision shall be taken by 23 September 2003, unless further information is considered necessary to enable the Commission to define its position on the proposed measures.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty, OJ L 83, 27.3.1999.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 70/143

(2004/C 70 E/147)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2831/03

by Camilo Nogueira Román (Verts/ALE) to the Council

(23 September 2003)

Subject: Statements by the Spanish Prime Minister criticising the Convention and announcing his opposition to basic aspects of the agreed Convention text

What is the Council's position on the European Parliament resolutions calling for the agreements reached within the Convention not to be called into question? In this connection, what is the Council's position on the statements made by the Spanish Prime Minister, José María Aznar, publicly calling into question the work done by the Convention, claiming that it failed to abide by the mandate assigned to it and stating that the Intergovernmental Conference should amend basic aspects of the draft Constitution submitted to it?

Reply

(8 December 2003)

The Council, at its meeting on 29 September 2003, took note of the opinion of the European Parliament which it had consulted in conformity with Article 48 of the Treaty on European Union.

The Council has not taken a view on any statements made by individual Member States, nor would it be appropriate for it to do so.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 70/194

(2004/C 70 E/207)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3265/03

by Maria Sanders-ten Holte (ELDR) to the Commission

(29 October 2003)

Subject: Info-Points and Carrefours

In its resolution of 13 March 2002 Parliament called on the European institutions to step up and improve support for the existing information networks, including the Info-Points and Carrefours. On 10 April 2003, in a follow-up resolution, Parliament drew attention to the need for extra efforts to be made in 2004 in the area of communication and information about European policies.

The Info-Points and Carrefours are the information centres which are closest to hand for the general public. In view of the elections, the enlargement and the adoption of the new European Constitution, all of which are set to take place in 2004, it is essential that these centres should be working flat out. However, the Commission has decided to abolish the operating subsidies for these centres as from 1 January 2004.

Can the Commission state why the annual operating subsidies for the Info-Points and Carrefours are being discontinued as from 1 January 2004?

Can the Commission give valid reasons for taking this step at such short notice?

Has the Commission made provision for transitional arrangements to help the Info-Points and Carrefours cope with 2004, which will be a difficult year?

When does the Commission plan to put forward practical proposals regarding support for the information centres in the future?
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 70/153

(2004/C 70 E/159)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2874/03

by Proinsias De Rossa (PSE) to the Commission

(26 September 2003)

Subject: Removal and retention of children's organs without parental consent

Further to its answer to my question E-l666/03 (1), could the Commission indicate which Member States have yet to sign and ratify the United Nations Protocol on the prevention, suppression and punishment of trafficking in persons, which supplements the UN Convention on Transnational Organised Crime?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(27 October 2003)

According to the information provided by the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) regarding the Protocol to prevent, suppress and punish trafficking in persons, especially women and children, supplementing the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organised Crime (2). All Member States signed the Protocol in December 2000, but only Spain and France have ratified it.

(1) OJ C 51 E, 26.2.2004, p. 122.

(2) http://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/crime_cicp_signatures_trafficking.html
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 70/262

(2004/C 70 E/283)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3394/03

by Astrid Thors (ELDR) to the Commission

(17 November 2003)

Subject: Cruelty to animals in applicant countries

The history of dancing bears is an old and savage one. In Bulgaria, several dozens bears have been poached or purchased on the black market and subjected to a harsh training regime. Dancing bears are still commonplace in Romania as well. The standard method of training involves forcing a thick iron ring through their nose, which causes considerable pain when yanked. The bears dance in an attempt to avoid the pain. Alternatively, music is played whilst the bears stands on hot plates, where it will dance to stop being burnt. It will then dance whenever it hears music. When not performing, the bears are chained up with little shelter, no exercise and limited food and water. Misguided tourists perpetuate the tradition by giving money.

In the accession negotiations, has the Commission paid any attention to the fact that Romania and Bulgaria allow this cruelty to animals and, in this way, breach what is current European Union legislation?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(8 December 2003)

The Commission deplores cruelty to animals in all its forms. However, the Commission is only able to act in animal welfare matters where it has the legal power to do so.

Under the relevant Protocol to the EC Treaty animal welfare considerations must be taken into account in relation to the Community agriculture, transport and internal market and research policies. The use of animals for entertainment purposes falls outside the scope of Community animal welfare law. The prevention of cruelty to such animals is a competence of individual Member States.

It has, therefore, not been possible to raise the issue mentioned by the Honourable Member during the accession negotiations.