ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 33/251

(2004/C 33 E/258)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2316/03

by Armando Cossutta (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(14 July 2003)

Subject: Knowledge of languages in the Union

Following the widespread introduction of new multi-media technologies, for example DVD technology, Europeans can buy films and watch them in the various Union languages. However, increasingly often DVD's on the market offer films in two language versions at the most, and do not always provide subtitles for each language version.

1. Does the Commission not consider that the potential of technologies should be exploited to the full in order to spread knowledge of Community languages as much as possible, thereby implementing one of the principal commitments made at the Lisbon European Council?

2. What legislative steps and other measures will the Commission take to ensure that European citizens, using the technology mentioned, can learn the languages of other European peoples by watching films?

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(4 September 2003)

The Commission fully shares the Honourable Member's desire to improve the teaching and learning of languages in the Union.

The Honourable Member may be interested to know that the Commission has recently published a Communication to the other institutions (1)‘Promoting language learning and linguistic diversity: an Action Plan 2004-2006’.

The Communication specifically refers to the potential of new technologies for promoting language learning:

Every community in Europe can become more language-friendly by making better use of opportunities to hear and see other languages and cultures, thereby helping to improve language awareness and learning.

Research shows that the use of sub-titles in film and television can encourage and facilitate language learning. The power of the media — including new media such as DVDs — could be harnessed in the creation of a more language-friendly environment by regularly exposing citizens to other languages and cultures. The potential for the greater use of sub-titles to promote language learning could be exploited.

Furthermore, the Commission proposes to launch a study to analyse the potential for greater use of subtitles in film and television programmes to promote language learning and to examine ways and means of encouraging greater use of sub-titled audio-visual material for language learning purposes.

Regarding the second question, and more specifically about the legislative steps, one should stress that the Commission does not have the competence to take initiatives of a legislative nature in this field.

In conclusion, the Commission considers multilingual DVDs as one of several possible tools for creating an environment in Europe which is more ‘language-friendly’, and would encourage their use as such.

(1) COM(2003)449 final.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 33/244

(2004/C 33 E/250)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2271/03

by Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(7 July 2003)

Subject: Progress in the Zakynthos city drainage project

A drainage project in Zakynthos city has been financed by the Cohesion Fund. An amending decision set a date of 30 December 2000 for the completion of work. In view of the enormous delays, the Commission has stopped payments on the project. According to the information I have, the Ministry of Economic Affairs has announced an investigation into the matter.

Could the Commission say what proportion of the project has already been completed, what payments have been made, whether it has received the findings of the investigation by the Ministry of Economic Affairs and what further action it intends to take in relation to this project?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(31 July 2003)

On 30 October 2001 the paying authority sent the Commission an intermediate payment application for this project. Pending receipt of additional information it still awaits a decision.

On 19 December 2001 the Commission informed the Greek authorities that payments for the project would be blocked since it did not appear possible to terminate it within the time limit set under the amending decision (31 December 2001). By 31 October 2001 only 41 % of the work had been completed.

On 29 November 2002 the Commission asked the Greek authorities for detailed information on the state of advance of the project on two fronts: physical realisation and financial management.

On 23 December 2002 the Greek authorities informed the Commission that the paying authority had been asked to check the project on the spot and that on receiving the report they would transmit particulars of the state of advance and prospects for completion.

These have not yet been received.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 65/77

(2004/C 65 E/086)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1394/03

by Caroline Lucas (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(16 April 2003)

Subject: The European Commission's Food and Veterinary Office in Ireland

Would the Commission please indicate which companies were responsible for the design and the construction of the European Commission's Food and Veterinary Offices in Ireland?

Please could the Commission also provide:

1. A list of all hardwood species which were used in the European Commission's Food and Veterinary Offices in Ireland together with details of (a) what quantity of each was used (b) which country they were sourced from and (c) which companies supplied the timber?

2. Copies of all contractual references to the legality and sustainability of timber that was used in the building of the European Commission's Food and Veterinary Offices in Ireland?

3. Copies of evidence provided by the suppliers of all timber to the new European Commission's Food and Veterinary Offices in Ireland to ensure that all timber came from legal and sustainable sources?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(19 June 2003)

The European Commission's Food and Veterinary Office in Grange, Ireland was procured through the Office of Public Works (OPW) in Dublin. The building was designed by the Architectural Services Division of OPW and the contract for construction, following tender procedures, was awarded to Michael Mc Namara & Co.

1. Details of the hardwood species used in the development at Grange are as follows: Species Source Quantity (in m3) Oak USA and Europe 500 Beech Europe 8,83 Ash USA and Europe 28,45 White Deal Scandinavia/Canada 72,92 Cherry USA 9,62 All the above timbers were scheduled in the contract bill of quantities and supplied through ‘Smee’ of Liverpool. In addition to the above, a technical variation that arose during the contract required the use of a small amount of Iroko. This was acquired also through Smee from a sustainable source and amounted to 2,72 m3.

2. The development at Grange was executed in accordance with the contract specifications issued by the Architectural Services Division of OPW who have had a sustainable timber specification requirement since 1987. They also refer to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species for products that should not be specified.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 65/150

(2004/C 65 E/166)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2430/03

by Niels Busk (ELDR) to the Commission

(22 July 2003)

Subject: State aid to Italian farmers

Will the Commission challenge the Council's decision to approve Italian State aid to Italian milk producers in the Court of Justice?

If not, what are the ‘exceptional circumstances’ justifying the decision (see Article 88(2), third paragraph of the Treaty)?

If the same ‘exceptional circumstances’ exist in other Member States or new Member States, will the Commission approve corresponding State aid in those cases?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(12 September 2003)

The Commission does not intend to challenge the Council decision.

As to the exceptional circumstances recognised by the Council, the Commission would refer to the text of the Council Decision 2003/530/EC (1).

The Commission considers that the Council decision in question can not be invoked as a precedent for eventual future implementation problems of the milk quota levy in Italy or in other Member States.

(1) 2003/530/EC: Council Decision of 16 July 2003 on the compatibility with the Common market of an aid that the Italian Republic intends to grant to its milk producers, OJ L 184, 23.7.2003.
4.

Concerning the international market for accountancy services, the Commission has looked at this market most recently in the summer of 2002, when it analysed three transactions under the Community Merger Regulation involving the former accountancy firm ‘Andersen’. Only three transactions had Community dimension: the United Kingdom, Germany and France. These three mergers were cleared in first phase. The final decisions can be found on the Internet: — M.2810 Deloitte&Touche/Andersen UK, Article 6(l)(b) decision on 1 July 2002; — M.2824 Ernst & Young/Andersen Germany Article 6(l)(b) decision on 27 August 2002; — M.2816 Ernst & Young/Andersen France, Art. 6(l)(b) decision on 5 September 2002. http://europa.eu.int/comm/competition/mergers/cases/index/by_cy_a.html#an_ The Commission had already looked at this industry in 1998, when Price Waterhouse and Coopers & Lybrand merged. At the time, a five-month investigation had taken place to look at the possible risks of collective dominance between the large players but no such risk had been found. So, when confronted with another concentration, the Commission had a careful look at the structures of the industry. However, this time it was not a global merger, but a series of national mergers and the Commission paid particular attention to the specifics of each national market. The transactions were cleared mainly on the basis that, in any case, Andersen would not be able on its own to keep its large customers. Therefore, the mergers, on its own, would not impact the possible worsening of competition resulting from the loss of one of the Big Five auditors. The Commission has not found any anti-competitive behaviour in this market. It will, however, continue to pay attention to developments in this industry.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 65/68

(2004/C 65 E/077)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1221/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(2 April 2003)

Subject: Use of funds under the Framework for action on sustainable urban development in the European Union by the municipality of Siena

In September 2002, the monitoring committee of the Italian Ministry for Economic Affairs issued a report on the spending of EU funds.

The report reveals the alarming slowness and inefficiency with which EU funds are allocated to projects by some regional authorities.

The grave concerns about the inadequate use of European funds by local authorities have frequently been echoed by the Commission.

Bearing in mind that some local authorities, such as the municipality of Siena, urgently need to use European funds to promote sustainable urban development,

can the Commission state:

1. whether the municipality of Siena has submitted projects for the Framework for action on sustainable urban development in the European Union?

2. whether the municipality of Siena has secured funding for these projects?
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 65/252

(2004/C 65 E/267)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2977/03

by Stavros Xarchakos (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(6 October 2003)

Subject: High prices and inadequate veterinary inspections in Greece

According to Greek consumer organisations and the Greek Ministry of Development prices watchdog body, consumer prices have increased steeply over the past year, while wholesalers (particularly in the agricultural sector) are coming under growing criticism for purchasing products cheaply in situ and selling them at very high prices, doubling or tripling the final amounts paid by consumers in Greece.

According to the most recent Eurostat data, per capita income in Greece amounts to scarcely 67 % -69 % of the Community average while salaries and pensions there are among the lowest in the EU.

Added to this, the strike by veterinarians and related professions in the livestock sector has left enormous gaps in the Greek meat marketing sector, legal livestock slaughtering having come to a halt in Greece (without the necessary veterinary inspections) and large quantities of meat are being imported (mainly from third countries) regarding which it is impossible to establish whether adequate inspections were carried out in the countries of slaughter.

What immediate action can the Commission take to ensure that the Greek authorities introduce price inspections which are effective (and not purely nominal as has been the case until now) and to impose heavy fines for price speculation? Is the Commission aware of the situation regarding meat marketing in Greece in view of repeated observations by Commissioner Byrne to the effect that health standards in Greek slaughterhouses and meat markets fall far short of those in other EU Member States?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(4 November 2003)

The Commission is continuing to monitor the hygiene conditions in meat markets and slaughterhouses in Greece and refers the Honourable Member to replies already given this year to his Written Question E-1709/03 (1), and Written Questions E-691/03 by Mr Hatzidakis (2) and P-558/03 by Mr Papayannakis (3). The Commission has no special knowledge of the impact of the circumstances described in the Honourable Member's written question. It is writing to the Member State concerned to request information and will inform the Honourable Member of its findings.

Community consumer law does not provide for means to control prices for goods offered to consumers. It only stipulates by Directive 98/6/EC that the indication of the selling price and the price per unit of measurement offered by traders to consumers improves consumer information and facilitate the comparison of prices. Inflationary price increases however are not covered by Community consumer law.

(1) OJ C 11 E, 15.1.2004, p. 217.

(2) OJ C 222 E, 18.9.2003, p. 228.

(3) OJ C 161 E, 10.7.2003, p. 226.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 65/101

(2004/C 65 E/113)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1881/03

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(6 June 2003)

Subject: Intra-EU foreign direct investment

Will the Commission update the figures given in answer to E-0033/02 (1) to include the latest available year? It should provide figures on a comparable basis to those given for the European Union for intra-EU foreign direct investment (in graph 12) of the report from the Commission ‘Economic reform: report on the functioning of Community product and capital market’ (2). Is the Commission also able to provide a series including reinvested earnings? Will the Commission also give the figures for each individual EU Member State that is not yet in the euro?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(17 July 2003)

Tables 1 and 2 present data on the value in current prices of foreign direct investment (FDI) from different sources to various targets between 1996 and 2001. These are sent direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat. In particular, figures are provided for each Member State that is not yet part of the euro area. As in the previous year, the eurozone and the non-eurozone Member States are identified in order to arrive at statistics that are comparable to those presented in graph 12 of the report from the Commission ‘Economic reform: Report on the functioning of Community product and capital markets’.

Table 1 presents data on the value in current prices of foreign direct investment flows excluding reinvested earnings (the standard approach Eurostat uses in its annual reports and in the Cardiff Report).

Table 2 presents data on the value in current prices of foreign direct investment flows including reinvested earnings. Figures are missing for some individual countries over several years; this is due to the fact that confidenciality, methodological and timeliness issues prevent some individual Member States from providing detailed information, particularly concerning reinvested earnings. The future approval of a Regulation concerning the balance of payments provision of information from Member States should improve the availability of FDI data, as this Regulation will replace the present ‘gentlement agreement’ between the Member States and the Commission.

Among the investor sources listed in both tables, ‘Extra EU 15’ means the world beyond the 15 Member States.

In both tables, for consistency, almost all figures shown are outflows recorded from the source investor. The only exception is FDI flows from the rest of the world, where inflows are used as recorded by the target.

(1) OJ C 160 E, 4.7.2002, p. 171.

(2) COM(2001) 736 final.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 33/99

(2004/C 33 E/098)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1234/03

by Miquel Mayol i Raynal (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(2 April 2003)

Subject: Closure of Euskaldunon Egunkaria

On Thursday 20 February this year the Basque newspaper Euskaldunon Egunkaria was closed down as a precautionary measure by High Court Judge Juan del Olmo. In an unprecedented act since democracy came to Spain, this judge, the Public Prosecutor and the Interior Minister himself drew up a joint press statement supporting the closure of this periodical — the only entirely Basque-language newspaper — because of alleged links to the ETA terrorist movement, based on some documents that were seized by the national police in the 1990s. More than a month has passed since these events, and five of the ten people who were arrested by judicial decree are still in detention, although no decisive and irrefutable evidence has been provided of their links with the terrorist movement. Moreover, some of them have accused the Spanish police authorities of torture, a detail which certainly does not make the path of peace in the troubled Basque Country any easier. This action against one of the communications media has greatly damaged the Basque language and culture and the citizens of this region, who are perplexed to observe once again a kind of action more typical of the Franco era which still haunts people's memories. The Spanish Government should not overlook or underestimate the demonstrations of support and solidarity that those who worked for this newspaper have received from various political groups, all kinds of associations, trade unions, religious communities and many others in the whole Basque Country, Catalonia and the rest of Europe.

The closure of Euskaldunon Egunkaria is of enormous significance and clearly affects a constitutional right, the right of citizens to information, enshrined in Article 20 of the Spanish Constitution and Article 11 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

Does the Commission consider that the Spanish authorities have violated inalienable principles of the acquis communautaire?

Does the Commission consider that there has been a clear and repeated infringement of the presumption of innocence?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(5 May 2003)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to the answers to Written Questions E-0672/03 by Mr Borghezio and E-0641/03 by Mr Ebner (1).

(1) OJ C 280 E, 21.11.2003, p. 75.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 33/217

(2004/C 33 E/221)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2106/03

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(25 June 2003)

Subject: Food legislation

Can the Commission state whether there is any legislation that prevents some British food chain stores from donating food to charities that they would normally throw away?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(23 July 2003)

The general principles and requirements of food law are laid down in Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 of the Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2002 (1), which covers all stages of production, processing and distribution to the final consumer. In particular, article 14 establishes a general food safety obligation (2):

1. Food shall not be placed on the market if it is unsafe

2. Food shall be deemed to be unsafe if it is considered to be: (a) injurious to health; (b) unfit for human consumption.

Circumstances, which shall be taken into account in determining whether any food is unsafe, injurious to health or unfit for human consumption, are laid down in paragraphs 3 to 9 of the same article.

Article 3.8 of the said Regulation defines ‘placing on the market’ as the holding of food or feed for the purpose of sale, including offering for sale or any other form of transfer, whether free of charge or not, and the sale distribution and other forms of transfer themselves.

The donation of food by a food chain store to charities constitutes a form of free of charge transfer of food. Consequently, it must be considered as placing on the market and as such is subject to the requirements established in the aforementioned article 14.

It follows that, in the light of article 14 of Regulation (EC) No 178/2002, food business operators may not donate to charities food, which they would normally throw away because of non-compliance of the food in question with the food safety requirements.

However, it should be noted that article 14 of Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 does not prevent food business operators from donating to charities safe food, which they would normally throw away, because of its non-compliance with private quality standards voluntarily adopted by the operators in question.

(1) OJ L 31, 1.2.2002.

(2) Although, according to the Regulation, article 14 shall apply only from 1 January 2005, it should be considered to apply also at present, given that it does not create a new legal obligation for food business operators but it simply confirms an overriding principle of food legislation. In any case, until 1 January 2005, the general food safety requirement is covered by the equivalent provisions (article 3) of the general product safety Directive 92/59/EEC, which will be repealed the 15 January 2004 by Directive 2001/95/CE. The provisions of this Directive apply in so far as there are no specific Community rules governing the products concerned.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 33/120

(2004/C 33 E/120)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1453/03

by Hiltrud Breyer (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(28 April 2003)

Subject: European Parliament resolution of 28 January 1999 (A4-0005/1999) on the environment, security and foreign policy

With reference to paragraphs 26 to 29 of the European Parliament resolution of 28 January 1999 on the environment, security and foreign policy (A4-0005/1999 (1)):

1. With regard to paragraph 26, has the Commission examined whether there are environmental and public health implications for Arctic Europe arising from the HAARP programme, and will it be reporting to Parliament concerning its findings? If so, what implications have been identified?

2. With regard to paragraph 27, what steps has the Commission taken to establish and enforce an international convention introducing a global ban on all developments and deployments of weapons which might enable any form of manipulation of human beings?

3. With regard to paragraph 28, what steps has the Commission taken to conclude international treaties to protect the environment from unnecessary destruction in the event of war?

4. With regard to paragraph 29, what steps has the Commission taken with a view to the establishment of international standards for the environmental impact of peacetime military activities?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(3 July 2003)

The High frequency Active Auroral Research Programme (HAARP) for Arctic Europe is a military programme. The Commission has no competence, nor indeed the expertise, to carry out the examination requested by the Parliament in paragraph 26 of its Resolution.

With regard to the requests made in paragraphs 27 to 29, these deal with international treaties and standards which are predominantly concerned with military questions, e.g. on disarmament, and therefore fall within the competence of the Member States.

(1) OJ C 128, 7.5.1999, p. 92.