ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 70/221

(2004/C 70 E/238)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3111/03

by Regina Bastos (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(17 October 2003)

Subject: Possible state or Community subsidies to the German Rieker holding

The German Rieker holding recently merged with SCHUH-UNION. Rieker recently relocated its shoe production to Romania, under the name ‘Rieker Romania Ltd.’ and also relocated production units to Poland and Turkey.

It is possible that this company is making use of subsidies from within the European Union to set up in one country, and then move out to other regions or countries so as to obtain fresh subsidies.

Were pre-accession subsidies granted to the candidate countries, specifically Poland as a country awaiting accession and possibly Romania as a candidate for accession, with the purpose of modernising the economic fabric?

Did Rieker benefit from such aid, specifically from the allocation of Community or state aid from the above countries, where it set up production units?

If so, on what dates were these allocations made, and what was their total value?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(14 November 2003)

In order to help the candidate countries carry out the necessary reforms, the Union channels financial assistance to various fields: through PHARE for institutional matters, through ISPA for investments in transport and the environment, and through Sapard for rural and agricultural development. The full list of assistance granted by the Union can be found on the Internet site of the Directorate-General for Enlargement.

By way of exemption from the prohibition of state aid laid down in Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty, state aid for investment can be approved on the basis of the guidelines on national regional aid (1) or Regulation (EC) No 70/2001 on the application of Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty to state aid to small and medium-sized enterprises (2). In order to reduce the potential negative impact of relocation, The aid is granted on condition that the investment is maintained for a minimum of five years in the less-favoured region.

Romania is a candidate for accession to the Union and, on that basis, is currently transposing the Community ‘acquis’ into domestic legislation and policies. The Community acquis, including the ‘acquis’ relating to state aid rules, is already applicable in Poland, which signed the Accession Treaty on 16 April 2003. The Commission is not aware of any individual aid having been granted to the company referred to by the Honourable Member. Aid could have been granted under an aid scheme that had been submitted to it. The Commission is going to consult the competent authorities in the countries in question in order to find out if aid has been granted to Rieker and under what conditions. It will inform the Honourable Member of the outcome of the consultations.

(1) OJ C 74, 10.3.1998 and amendments in OJ C 285, 9.9.2000.

(2) Regulation (EC) No 70/2001 of 12 January 2001 on the application of Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty to state aid to small and medium-sized enterprises, OJ L 10, 13.1.2001.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 70/223

(2004/C 70 E/240)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3119/03

by Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(22 October 2003)

Subject: Breach of Directive 1999/70/EC

According to complaints brought by the association of contract workers at the Telecommunications Organisation of Greece (OTE), the organisation's management has announced 800 job vacancies in the telephone service sector, setting an age limit of 30 and subsequently 26 years, thereby excluding the contract workers currently employed in this sector who have been covering the OTE's on-going needs for many years, and who could have been made permanent staff.

Can the Commission say whether this practice contravenes Directive 1999/70/EC (1) and if so, what steps it will take to ensure that Community law is complied with?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(20 November 2003)

According to Council Directive 1999/70/EC (2) on fixed-term work, employers shall inform fixed-term workers about vacancies, which become available to ensure that they have the same opportunity to secure permanent positions as other workers. Such information can be provided by way of a general announcement at a suitable place in the undertaking or establishment (clause 6.1). The Directive also lays down a principle of non-discrimination as regards employment conditions and states that period-of-service qualifications relating to particular conditions of employment shall be the same for fixed-term workers as for permanent workers except where different length-of service qualifications are justified on objective grounds (clause 4.1 and 4). The Directive does not state, however, that fixed-term workers should have priority to job vacancies.

The fact that fixed-term workers did not have priority to these posts is therefore not a breach of the Directive. The rules on information about vacancies and period-of-service qualifications have been transposed in Greece. Whether the job announcement as such was made according to these rules is therefore something the competent Greek authorities should assess.

(1) OJ L 175, 10.7.1999, p. 43.

(2) Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by the European Trade Union Confederation (ETUC), the Union of Industrial and Employers' Confederations of Europe (UNICE) and the Centre of Enterprises with Public Participation (CEEP).
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 70/43

(2004/C 70 E/047)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1479/03

by Maurizio Turco (NI) to the Commission

(2 May 2003)

Subject: Exports of fresh and frozen beef from Member States to the Vatican City State and management of the meat counters in the Vatican shop

In an interview published in March 2001 in the trade journal ‘Eurocarni’, Ruggero Guidoni, the head of Guidoncarni, which is based in Torrevecchia (Rome), stated that in 2000 ‘Unicarni of Reggio Emilia … was awarded the contract to supply meat to the supermarket run by the Vatican Governorate, where around ten thousand consumers from that community, including purchasers for several religious houses, can buy goods on production of the appropriate pass. Ildo Cigarini, the chairman of Unicarni, asked us to manage the meat counters in the Vatican shop … and we took up a 30 % stake in the company Roma Carni 2000, which was set up for that purpose. CIR Surgelati also took up a stake. The estimated turnover was 15-20 billion per annum. It could be even higher. Unfortunately the crisis upset these forecasts.’

In the period 1998/2000 the Vatican imported 22 529,27 quintals of meat from EU Member States and received the export refunds provided for. These exports came from Belgium (579,84 q), Ireland (2 226,01 q), Italy (8 044,47 q) and the Netherlands (11 678,94 q).

In the light of the above, could the Commission indicate:

— what instruments the European Union has, or in other words what measures Italy has adopted, to ensure that the Vatican does not — directly or indirectly — remarket in the European Union products for which export refunds are granted;

— whether the company that was awarded this meat management contract, or rather its constituent companies, export meat to the Vatican directly or through an intermediary;
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 70/114

(2004/C 70 E/116)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2589/03

by Philip Claeys (NI) to the Council

(8 August 2003)

Subject: Possible follow-up to the ‘defence summit’ held in Brussels in April 2003

In late April 2003 in Brussels, at the invitation of the Belgian Government, something akin to a defence policy summit was held involving only France, Germany, Luxembourg and Belgium itself. According to the participants, the talks were being held with the ultimate aim of strengthening the European pillar of NATO. A core set of collective capabilities was to be developed and by 2004 at the latest strategic headquarters were to be set up at the Panquin Barracks in Tervuren.

What is the precise status of these decisions?

Have the proposals drawn up by the above-mentioned Member States since been discussed further in the presence of the other Member States? If so, what was the outcome of those talks?

Does the Council have a timetable for possible talks on the development of a core set of collective military capabilities?

Has the Council taken steps to ensure the availability of the Panquin Barracks? Have practical arrangements been made with a view to financing the process of making this facility operational?

Reply

(5 December 2003)

As the meeting referred to by the Honourable Member was not held within the legal framework of the European Union, it is not for the Council to comment on the status of any decisions taken at that meeting. Likewise, the Council does not have a timetable for talks on developing a ‘core set of military capabilities’.

However, the proposals made at that meeting were presented to the Council in May 2003 by the participants.

The issue of military capabilities is regularly on the Council agenda.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 70/180

(2004/C 70 E/188)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2967/03

by Marie-Thérèse Hermange (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(8 October 2003)

Subject: European Ombudsman for children

The European Network of Ombudsmen for Children (ENOC) was created in 1997 by Unicef at Trondheim (Norway) in order to provide a link between children's ombudsmen in Europe. The network currently includes several EU Member States: Austria, Belgium, Denmark, France, Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom.

Each country or region which has an independent children's ombudsman may join the network, the main purpose of which is to ensure that children's rights are upheld to a greater extent in Europe by seeing that the Convention on Children's Rights is implemented, by supporting individual and collective action in the area and by encouraging the Member States to introduce relevant policies.

The network also acts as a forum for the exchange of information, experience and ideas between European countries, in particular by means of comparative studies.

Could the Commission not appoint an Ombudsman for children in order to increase the transparency and raise the profile of child-protection initiatives organised within Europe? Appointment of a European Ombudsman for children would enable the European network to be better coordinated and children's needs and interests to be better served.

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(19 November 2003)

As the Treaties stand, the Commission has no legal basis for coordinating the action of the Member States' Ombudsmen along the lines suggested by the Honourable Member.

Moreover, at the close of their meeting in Lucca (IT), on 25/26 September 2003, the Ministers responsible for children's rights in the 15 Member States made no reference to the possibility of appointing a European ombudsman in their conclusions.

In April 2003, ENOC asked the Commission for financial support for the establishment of a permanent secretariat.

In its reply to ENOC, the Commission gave a detailed account of how funding by grants operated and drew its attention to the fact that funding must be accepted by the budgetary authority, i.e. Parliament and the Council.

If ENOC wishes to receive funds from the European institutions, it must submit a dossier to that end. ENOC has not yet taken the decision to do so.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 70/162

(2004/C 70 E/171)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2914/03

by Mario Borghezio (NI) to the Commission

(29 September 2003)

Subject: Prodi goes beyond his powers in statements on Arafat

Why has Mr Prodi, going beyond his powers, stated in his capacity as President of the Commission that the terrorist Arafat must be the EU's interlocutor?

Are such statements not at odds with the provisions of Article 13 of the TEU, which clearly place responsibility for foreign policy in the Council's hands alone?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(6 November 2003)

As the Honourable Member will no doubt be aware, the President of the Commission was publicly stating the position taken by the Laeken Summit in December 2001, which was reiterated by the Council (Foreign Affairs) on 28 January 2002 in the following words: ‘Israel needs the Palestinian Authority and its elected President, Yasser Arafat, as a partner to negotiate with, both in order to eradicate terrorism and to work towards peace’.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 70/240

(2004/C 70 E/259)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3225/03

by Richard Corbett (PSE) to the Commission

(31 October 2003)

Subject: Live transmission of bullfights

Does the Commission consider that Spain is correctly applying Council Directive 89/552/EEC (1) which requires in Article 22 that ‘Member States shall take appropriate measures to ensure that television broadcasts by broadcasters under their jurisdiction do not include any programmes which might seriously impair physical, mental or moral development of minors, in particular programmes that involve pornography or gratuitous violence’?

Is the Commission aware that Spanish television broadcasts bullfights at a time of day at which children are likely to be watching television?

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(28 November 2003)

The Commission is aware of the situation described by the Honourable Member and is currently determining whether the broadcasting of these programmes is compatible with the provisions of Council Directive 89/552/EEC of 3 October 1989 on the coordination of certain provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in Member States concerning the pursuit of television broadcasting activities.

(1) OJ L 298, 17.10.1989, p. 23.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 70/216

(2004/C 70 E/232)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3095/03

by Koldo Gorostiaga Atxalandabaso (NI) to the Commission

(20 October 2003)

Subject: Basque Country's recognition through repression

In my written question E-0645/03 (1) dated 24 February 2003, I referred to the 634 politically motivated people who were arrested during 2002 in the Basque Country.

On 8 October, early in the morning, 34 people were arrested by the Spanish and French police on both sides of the border that divides our country and constitutes an internal iron curtain. Let me recall that Germany was able to commemorate last week the 13th anniversary of its reunification, while the Basque Country remains torn to pieces: It is not recognised at all in the Northern part, under French rule, and it is under two separate administrations as part of the Kingdom of Spain.

As those detainees all over the country indicate, can the Basque Country achieve recognition only through repression?

Could the Commission present a proposal for a Community action plan to guarantee the Basque people the right to exist?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(20 November 2003)

The Commission takes the view that the facts to which the Honourable Member refers do not fall within the powers conferred on it by the European Union and Community Treaties.

(1) OJ C 11 E, 15.1.2004, p. 102.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 70/92

(2004/C 70 E/095)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2377/03

by James Nicholson (PPE-DE) to the Council

(18 July 2003)

Subject: Insignia for European Union military forces

Recent press reports suggest that military forces to be sent to Congo will wear identification insignia based upon a map of the European Union.

Reports state that this insignia does not include representation of any part of Ireland.

Would the Council indicate if such reports are accurate and if so indicate the reasons for this omission?

Reply

(5 December 2003)

The Council hereby informs the Honourable Member that the only official insignia worn by personnel engaged in the Artemis operation is an armband in the European colours (yellow stars on a blue ground) bearing the name of the operation (Artemis); the armband does not feature the map of Europe.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 70/158

(2004/C 70 E/165)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2894/03

by Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(29 September 2003)

Subject: Work experience programme (STAGE) in Greece

The data processing and communications work experience programme for unemployed graduates (STAGE), introduced in 2002 in the ‘information society’ operational programme of the third Community Support Framework in Greece, was presented by the Greek Government as a particularly successful venture, reportedly providing full financial support for as many as 4 100 jobless for the duration of the programme (nine months). However, there have been complaints that the programme, which has been in operation for a number of years does not entitle participants to employment stamps and is not recognised by the Higher National Council for the Selection of Public Service Personnel (ASEP) as previous work experience or employment. Furthermore, it does not entitle those who successfully complete the programme to an OAED (Manpower Employment Organisation) professional training certificate, despite the fact that this is the body responsible for organising the programme.

Does the Commission not consider that the trainees in question are being treated unfairly and that it reflects badly on the programme itself? Will it make representations to the Greek authorities accordingly?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(5 November 2003)

The Honourable Member's question relates to an action under measure 3.5 of the ‘Information Society’ Operational Programme of the 3rd Community Support Framework (CSF) for Greece. The aim of this action, which is cofinanced by the European Social Fund (ESF), is to give young unemployed graduates the possibility to have a training period of nine months in the field of Information Society.

According to the Managing Authority of this Operational Programme:

— during the training period, the participants are covered by medical insurance only;

— their participation is not recognised as work experience by the public administration. However, the Greek Ministry of Interior and Public Administration is acting to pass a legislative amendment through the Greek Parliament so that these training periods are recognised as work experience;

— a certificate of attendance is granted by the Greek Employment Organisation (OAED) to all participants completing the training period.

The Commission is in contact with the Greek Authorities to discuss ways to improve the direct or indirect effects of this action.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/680

(2004/C 78 E/0724)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3998/03

by Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(19 December 2003)

Subject: Use of CSF funds to finance an advertising campaign in Greece

In Greece the government is unfortunately continuing to use Community Support Framework funds to promote its position through television and press advertising. The main purpose of this publicity is supposed to be to promote the CSF operational programmes, but in fact it forms part of the governing party's advertising campaign.

The advertisements by the Ministry of Health are a case in point: under the slogan ‘A New Era for Health’, the Ministry publicises the construction of new hospitals and the upgrading of certain services in the health sector. However, it presents these as government achievements, hardly mentioning the EU's contribution. At the end of the TV spot a tiny flag of the European Union appears next to the Greek flag for a fraction of a second, but no other reference or allusion is made to this. It should be pointed out that no mention is made either of the Operational Programme ‘Health and Welfare’ with whose funds these projects have been realised, or even of the CSF. Of course, this whole publicity campaign is being financed with CSF information campaign funds.

1. How does the Commission intend to intervene with the Greek authorities to prevail upon them to change the configuration of this and other similar advertising campaigns (for Public Works, Employment, etc.) which blatantly violate the spirit of the structural fund regulation and do nothing to promote the CSF?

2. Given that Greece has de facto entered the pre-election period, when does the Commission intend to intervene with the Greek authorities — as has occurred in the past — to suspend this type of publicity campaign which may serve to promote the government party in view of the forthcoming elections?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(30 January 2004)

The Commission is attentive to the issues raised by the Honourable Member:

(a) As concerns publicity regarding the constructing of new hospitals, this was discussed in the margin of the Monitoring Committee meeting of the Greek Community Support Framework (CSF) III on the 17 December 2003. It was agreed that although the publicity campaign in question is funded exclusively through national sources, the Greek authorities will change the TV spot in order to mention the contribution of the EU to the construction of new hospitals.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/756

(2004/C 78 E/0803)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2767/03

by Dana Scallon (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(11 September 2003)

Subject: NGO funding

Can the EU Commission fund organisations which support or participate in the management of a programme of coercive abortion?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(15 October 2003)

The Commission's policy on abortion is based on a set of principles adopted through a series of major development conferences over recent years, including the 1994 Cairo International Conference on Population and Development (ICPD) and ICPD plus five. All 15 Member States of the Union have endorsed the ICPD Programme of Action.

Accordingly the Commission supports the right of men and women to make a free and informed choice about the number and spacing of their children, to have access to good family planning and sexual health services, and to have access to skilled care during birth.

The Commission regards national legislation as paramount when it comes to the question of abortion being performed within the formal health care system. It does not support abortion policies as a means to limit population growth in developing countries and it is strongly opposed to forced abortion.

The Union has recently adopted a Regulation (EC) No 1567/2003 of the Parliament and of the Council of 15 July 2003, on aid for policies and actions on reproductive and sexual health and rights in developing countries (1). This regulation provides the basis for financing projects in developing countries. In selecting the beneficiaries for Community funding open tendering procedures are applied. The Commission considers the activity for which the funds were authorised, not the whole range of activities carried out by the beneficiary organisation.

(1) OJ L 224, 6.9.2003.