ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/22

(2004/C 78 E/0022)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0733/03

by Sebastiano Musumeci (UEN) to the Commission

(4 March 2003)

Subject: Air transport safety and use of passengers' mother tongue

The safety of air passengers partly depends on the crew's ability to provide information and communicate easily for preventive purposes and also in the event of an emergency.

On international flights the crew do not always speak the languages of the two countries between which they are flying.

Furthermore, a large percentage of passengers (especially the elderly and less prosperous or less educated people) on aircraft only speak their mother tongue.

This makes it impossible for them to communicate with the crew, increases their feelings of panic and isolation in the event of an emergency and makes it difficult, if not impossible, to comply with the safety instructions for the evacuation of the aircraft.

Can the Commission say:

1. whether it does not consider that this situation, caused by airlines, constitutes a serious violation of the most basic right of passengers, the right to safety;

2. what steps it intends to take to guarantee the assistance required by passengers who have the misfortune not to know the languages most often used by aircrew, i.e. English and French?

Answer given by Ms de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(31 March 2003)

Most airlines endeavour to employ cabin staff who speak the language of the majority of the passengers they transport. Furthermore, international rules require them to equip their aircraft with cards bearing safety instructions set out in the form of pictograms which allow passengers to understand the vital steps that must be taken in an emergency regardless of their language knowledge.

The Commission does not know of any cases where passengers' lives may have been endangered when an accident occurred because they did not understand a particular language.
1.

This written question refers to a project ‘Reform of Asylum’, financed from the CARDS 2001 programme for Croatia, which aims at strengthening the administrative capacity of the Croatian institutions, mainly within the Interior Ministry, responsible for asylum issues. It should lead to an improvement of the refugee status determination procedures and the quality of decisions reaching international standards. The first component of this project is a twinning programme for capacity and institutional building in the field of asylum. The second component of the project referred to, addresses Croatia's need for an accommodation centre for asylum seekers, which should facilitate the processing of asylum applications by providing suitable accommodation. The total budget for the refurbishment of the site identified for this purpose is EUR 700 000 (works). Another EUR 300 000 is foreseen for the procurement of training equipment and equipment for the documentation and resource centre (supply). The procurement of these parts of the project is under preparation. The 1st step of getting the complex ‘Trstenik’ into use, for the needs of an accommodation centre for asylum seekers, includes interventions at the following parts of the complex: — Fence of the complex, including the inner fence, which will separate the 1 st step from the future 2nd step; — outside lighting; — decoration of 4 buildings (from the total number of 8 buildings) for administrative, medical and accommodation usage, including the equipment; — restaurant and kitchen; — boiler house; — access road; — infrastructure decoration of the 1st step (outside water supply system, sewage system including the new bio regenerator, outside heating pipe, outside distribution of electricity including transformer station, outside telephone installation, etc.) with the preparation of installation connection for the 2nd step. For some period of time the complex has not been in function for usage. The total of the net surface of the buildings for adaptation in the 1st step of getting the complex ‘Trstenik’ into use for the needs of accommodation centre for asylum seekers is 2 500 square meters (m2). Location Trstenik' is situated beside the existing gravel pit between Otok Nartski and Novaki Nartski, 35 kilometers (km) from the centre of Zagreb in south-east direction. Only Community funds are involved and no co-financing of any kind is included. There is no link of the project to any bilateral initiatives from the United Kingdom. It might be of interest to note that the Croatian Parliament adopted the Asylum Law on 12 June 2003. The actual implementation of the law has been postponed until 1 July 2004, until the reception centre for asylum seekers is operational. However, there should be no link between the enforcement of the law and the functioning of the reception centre.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/257

(2004/C 78 E/0258)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3317/03

by Íñigo Méndez de Vigo (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(10 November 2003)

Subject: Cross-border payments

I have been informed that a Spanish citizen has been charged EUR 12 for transferring EUR 30 to Germany.

Does the Commission believe that this charge complies with Regulation (EC) 2560/2001 (1) on cross-border payments? Does the Commission believe that consumers' rights are adequately guaranteed? Are consumers properly informed about the fact that this Regulation has come into force?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(16 December 2003)

According to Regulation (EC) No 2560/2001 of the Parliament and of the Council of 19 December 2001 on cross-border payments in euro, charges levied by a financial institution for cross-border payments in euro shall be the same as the charges it levies in respect of corresponding national payments in euro. This rule applies to electronic payment transactions (payments by card and withdrawals at cash dispensers) in euro up to EUR 12 500 since 1 July 2002 and to credit transfers since 1 July 2003.

In Spain, charges for ‘standard’ credit transfers are well below EUR 12. However, ‘special credit transfers’ (i.e. transfers that are urgent or are made without indication of the IBAN (2) and BIC (3), etc.) can bear higher charges. Therefore, as long as, respectively, ‘standard’ and ‘special’ credit transfers in euro are subject to the same charges whether in Spain or cross-border, the principle established in Article 3 of the Regulation (equality of charges for ‘corresponding payments’) is in principle respected. In the case reported by the Honourable Member, it is unfortunately not clear whether the credit transfer is ‘special’ or ‘standard’. More detailed information would be needed to establish whether or not the charge of EUR 12 is in compliance with the Regulation.

As regards the enforcement of the Regulation, national authorities must guarantee that it is applied adequately and consistently. Article 7 of the Regulation provides that the compliance shall be guaranteed by effective, proportionate and deterrent sanctions. The Commission wrote to all Member States in September 2003 requesting the name of the competent national authority and the implementing measures taken by Member States.

As regards the level of information of citizens concerning the entry into force and content of the Regulation, financial institutions have to make available to their customers prior information on the charges levied for cross-border and national payments, and to communicate to each customer upon request his IBAN and BIC (Articles 4 and 5 of the Regulation). According to information available to the Commission, this information has been disseminated, despite a number of complaints by citizens regarding lack of clarity of the information provided by some banks. The Commission continues to closely monitoring the issue.

(1) OJ L 344, 28.12.2001, p. 13.

(2) International Bank Account Number.

(3) Bank Identifier Code.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 88/478

(2004/C 88 E/0491)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3977/03

by Paulo Casaca (PSE) to the Commission

(5 January 2004)

Subject: Mediation in Nepal

The civil war in Nepal has worsened considerably over the last few years, and a number of nongovernmental organisations, some of them based in Nepal and others based in Europe, recently visited the European Parliament and expressed their concerns.

One of their main concerns is the disastrous impact of the war on children and adolescents, who are forced to collaborate in guerrilla activities or, even when they have not been involved, are suspected of doing so and treated accordingly by the authorities.

Does the Commission not believe that the European Union could play a useful mediation role in this conflict?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(9 February 2004)

The Commission agrees with the Honourable Member that the violence in Nepal is a matter of great concern and that the interruption of the truce and peace talks by the Maoists on 27 August 2003 has generated a new wave of instability urban guerrilla warfare and a high number of victims.

The Commission, whose main cooperation objective is poverty reduction, has programmed resources to mitigate the impact of the conflict. The new Country Strategy Paper adopted by the Commission on 18 December 2003 gives special attention to poverty alleviation, good governance and consolidation of democracy, particularly in areas of the Mid-West, improving living conditions of local farmers and the reduction of Maoist influence. The Commission is also actively engaged in conflict mitigation activities with the media, civil society and local communities.

Another key priority of EU action in Nepal is human rights. The conflict is causing a worrying deterioration of the human rights situation. The Commission, through the European Initiative for Democracy and Human Rights, is committed to stepping up its support to projects aimed at promoting Human Rights, including the rights of children and adolescents in Nepal. In particular, the EIDHR supports the Human Rights Commission, and a micro-projects scheme was introduced in Nepal in 2003. The EU is also committed to observing elections if and when they take place.

The Commission believes that there cannot be a military solution to the conflict and that it is of the utmost importance that a new cease-fire be declared. However, there seems to be presently no room for external mediation. Though the country is faced with a constitutional crisis and a political stalemate, the Nepalese authorities have not asked for external mediation. The Commission's current focus is on helping confidence-building measures to re-establish the necessary level of trust among local political forces and to promote civil society participation in the peace process.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/41

(2004/C 84 E/0045)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2942/03

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

(8 October 2003)

Subject: Multiannual Guideline Programme (MGP): cutting the size of the Community fishing fleet

Each Community Member State has a multiannual guideline programme establishing the objectives to be met in cutting down its fishing fleet, so as to suit the fishing effort to existing resources. In December 1997, the fourth generation of MGPs was adopted, establishing the objectives for 1997-2001. This period was extended to the end of 2002. From 1 July 2002, subsidies for building fishing boats are no longer possible in those segments of MGP IV failing to respect their objectives by that date.

Now that the MGPs are no longer in force, can the Commission provide details of those Member States which have not yet met the objectives laid down in these programmes, in all fleet segments, specifying the extent to which each Member State has met the objectives?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(30 October 2003)

To monitor implementation of the provisions banning public aid for fleet segments not meeting their targets from 1 July 2002, the Commission delivered a report to the Council and the European Parliament on the intermediate results of the multi-annual guidance programmes for the fishing fleets at 30 June 2002 (1). This report identifies those segments that had not met their targets by that date.

Following completion of the fourth-generation guidance programmes (MAGP IV), the Commission also delivered an annual report to the Council and the European Parliament on the results of the multi-annual guidance programmes for the fishing fleets at the end of 2002 (2), which describes the results for each Member State as regards compliance with the objectives laid down by the programmes for all fleet segments.

Copies of these two reports will be sent to the Honourable Member.

(1) COM(2002) 483 final.

(2) COM(2003) 508 final.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/85

(2004/C 84 E/0097)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3688/03

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 Perugia

In its answer to question E-1110/03 (1), which asked whether the municipality of Perugia had submitted projects and secured funding under the Ecos-Ouverture programme, the Commission stated that the city had applied twice, in 1997 and 1999, but that it had not received funding in either case.

Can the Commission say why the projects were not considered suitable?

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 84/739

(2004/C 84 E/0834)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3748/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(10 December 2003)

Subject: Update on use of funding from the Life III programme by the municipality of Prato

In its answer to question E-1057/03 (1), which asked whether the municipality of Prato had submitted projects and secured funding under the Life III programme, the Commission stated that one proposal had been submitted but that the results of the assessment would be available in September 2003.

Can the Commission now say whether the project submitted was actually funded and, if not, why it was not considered suitable?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(20 January 2004)

The Commission informs the Honourable Member that the proposal submitted under the LIFE III Programme for 2003 by the municipality of Prato (LIFE03 ENV/IT/000360) was not co-financed. The reasons are given in the Commission's letter of 8 September 2003. The proposal failed criterion ‘Coherence and quality’.

(1) OJ C 280 E, 21.11.2003, p. 104.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 88/121

(2004/C 88 E/0128)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2922/03

by Claude Moraes (PSE) to the Commission

(2 October 2003)

Subject: Commercial sanctions against Burma

Following the arrest of Aung San Suu Kyi and some of her supporters earlier this year, the Burmese people have witnessed a vicious crackdown on its democratic movement. This has come at the hands of the Burmese military junta who continue to openly beat and kill democracy activists and supporters despite the EU's intervention in demanding the release of Aung San Suu Kyi. Military leaders are also reported to be frequently entering the EU disregarding visa sanctions imposed by the EU.

Given the Junta's continuing indifference to EU sanctions, does the Commission agree that the current EU sanctions policy towards Burma does not effectively send the message to the military leaders that such persecution will not be tolerated in a civilised world and that the imposition of commercial sanctions, as the US has done for the past five years, deserves further consideration? If not, why not?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(27 October 2003)

The Commission has on several occasions voiced its grave concern for the human rights situation in Burma and the continuing harassment of democratic forces in the country.

In response to the deteriorating political situation in Burma, the Union decided to reinforce its Common Position on Burma in April 2003 (1). Furthermore, it decided to bring forward the implementation of the additional sanctions targeted at the military leaders and their closest supporters after the attacks on Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and her supporters at the end of May 2003.

The Commission is currently undertaking a study assessing the impact of the present Union sanctions on the Burmese regime and looking at possibilities for additional measures should the situation not improve. When examining the scope for strengthened sanctions by the Union, the Commission will look carefully at the possible effects of specific sanctions, such as economic sanctions as imposed by the United States, on the Burmese population. Any decision on further sanctions will be taken by the Council, based on the support of all Member States and the Commission.

(1) OJ L 106, 29.4.2003.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/547

(2004/C 78 E/0581)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3433/03

by Mario Borghezio (NI) to the Commission

(18 November 2003)

Subject: Eurostat scandal — unanswered questions

The main tasks of Eurostat include assessing conformity with the Stability Pact and establishing the Member States' contribution to the EU budget. Does the Commission accept Eurostat's conclusions on the economic conditions of the Member States or does it obtain information elsewhere? To what extent has the quality or reliability of Eurostat's work been affected by the recent revelations? What quality controls have been introduced to check the reliability of the data produced by external agencies concerning such sensitive subjects?

Joint answer

to Written Questions E-3416/03, E-3417/03, E-3418/03, E-3419/03, E-3420/03, E-3421/03, E-3422/03, E-3423/03, E-3424/03, E-3425/03, E-3426/03, E-3427/03, E-3428/03, E-3429/03, E-3430/03, E-3431/03, E-3432/03 and E-3433/03

given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(12 January 2004)

The eighteen questions which the Honourable Member raises are connected with the follow-up to the Eurostat case and concern anti-fraud policy political responsibility individual responsibility the information available to the Commission on Eurostat-related matters, questions concerning cases of whistleblowing, Eurostat controls and the quality of Eurostat's work.

When addressing the Conference of Presidents and the Committee on Budgetary Control (Cocobu) on 25 September, and more recently on 18 November before the Committee on Budgetary Control and then the full House in Strasbourg, the President of the Commission set out the Commission's position on all these questions.

In addition, he also provided written answers to the 18 questions put to him after his appearance on 25 September 2003. These answers address in detail the Honourable Member's questions and will be sent direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/543

(2004/C 78 E/0565)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3417/03

by Mario Borghezio (NI) to the Commission

(18 November 2003)

Subject: Eurostat scandal — unanswered questions

Although it is feasible that a general reform process may take several years, is it possible that some cases of irregularity and even fraud may have continued beyond 1999 and even until 2002? Is the Commission responsible or not for the way in which it tackled the issue after 1999?
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/551

(2004/C 78 E/0586)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3453/03

by Philip Claeys (NI) to the Commission

(20 November 2003)

Subject: Political position adopted by EU officials' trade union TAO-AFI on night flights over outlying districts of Brussels

At the beginning of November the EU officials' trade union TAO-AFI adopted a public position on night flights from Zaventem airport. Controversy has been raging for months on the Belgian political scene as to which communes the flight paths in question should pass over. It might be possible to reach consensus by means of a distribution plan which shares the nuisance caused by night flights among various parts of the periphery of Brussels and the adjoining communes. Evidently the officials' trade union has a relatively large number of members living in the residential communes to the east of Brussels, and objects to the possibility that the area in question might also have to bear a share of the nuisance. The union argues, inter alia, that rents are high in these communes and that many people went to live there at a time when there was no suggestion that Zaventem airport might cause noise at night.

TAO-AFI's intervention has annoyed residents of the periphery of Brussels who consider that some solidarity should be displayed in sharing the inconvenience caused by the proximity of Zaventem airport. All this is doing nothing to promote the image of the European institutions in Brussels.

Is it normal and desirable that a trade union representing European officials should adopt such controversial positions in public?

Has the matter been discussed with TAO-AFI? If so, what were the conclusions?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(13 January 2004)

The decision of trade unions and staff associations in the Institutions to express views on matters of public interest and concern are solely the responsibility of the organisations. Obviously, therefore, those organisations do not speak on behalf of the Commission.

The Commission has not discussed the issue of night flights to and from Zaventem airport with the organisation referred to in the question or with any other staff union or association.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/749

(2004/C 84 E/0844)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-4068/03

by Mario Borghezio (NI) to the Commission

(14 January 2004)

Subject: Unlawful toll demanded for the Turin-Milan motorway

As a result of the work being carried out on a new high-speed rail link, around 100 kilometres of the 123-kilometre-long Turin to Milan motorway are subject to restrictions and diversions, squeezed between dangerous concrete lane separators and completely devoid of any emergency lanes. This clearly entails serious risks for the safety of its users.

In these circumstances, since it is evident that, in many respects, the Turin-Milan section no longer exhibits the characteristics of a motorway, does the Commission not view as unlawful the concessionary company's demand for payment of a toll and its refusal to at least make a reduction in that toll for Italian and European drivers?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(17 February 2004)

It is a matter of fact that motorways are sometimes temporarily affected by construction works restricting their use. However, in these cases, as well as in the one the Honourable Member mentions, the motorway does not cease to be a motorway in accordance with the provisions of the Directive 1999/62/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 1999 on the charging of heavy goods vehicles for the use of certain infrastructures (1). The Directive does not cover private cars. The decision to reduce tolls paid by private cars as suggested in the question is, therefore, a matter for concessionary motorways according to their own commercial policy and the national legal requirements.

(1) OJ L 187, 20.7.1999.