ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/454

(2004/C 84 E/0529)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1064/04

by André Brie (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(6 April 2004)

Subject: Inconsistencies relating to the reconstruction of the road S 282 A in the Free State of Saxony

I would like to draw the Commission's attention to problems relating to the reconstruction of the Land-administered road S 282 A in the Free State of Saxony. These problems have been the subject of a petition to the European Parliament (364/2000), which was registered on 25 May 2000 and last discussed by the Committee on Petitions on 20 February 2003. The Committee is still awaiting the information requested from the relevant authorities in Germany.

Over the four years since the petition was submitted and during which the road S 282 A was completed, an increasing number of conflicting pieces of information have come to light.

Firstly, contradictory statements have been made with regard to the cost.

In a letter of 23 May 2003 to Mr Nino Gemelli (Chairman of the Committee on Petitions), the German ambassador Dr Schönfelder (Permanent Representation of Germany to the EU) confirmed that the extension of the road S 282 A would cost EUR 50 million, referring to information from German authorities.

In a letter of 19 May 2003 to Mr Iltgen, President of Saxony's state parliament, the total cost of constructing the road was estimated by Saxony's State Minister of Economic Affairs and Labour at EUR 4,63 million. Just a few weeks later (on 4 July 2003), in reply to the same question, the Minister informed Mr Iltgen that the cost would be only EUR 4,3 million.

In addition, it is suspected that the reconstruction of the road S 282 A was intentionally declared to be an ‘extension’ although this was not the case, as only one year after the road was completed it was downgraded from the original ‘supraregional’ category (classification II) to the ‘regional’ category (classification III).

Can the Commission state whether and to what extent it is aware of these conflicting facts and, if it is not aware of them, whether it intends to carry out on-the-spot investigations?

Answer given by Mr Franz Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(20 April 2004)

The Commission is collecting the information it needs to answer the question. It will communicate its findings as soon as possible.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/168

(2004/C 84 E/0206)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0151/04

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(27 January 2004)

Subject: Shortage of intensive care units in Greece

There is a significant shortage of intensive care units in Greece. Under the Second Community Support Framework (CSF), measure 1.1 of the health section of the Health and Welfare Programme provides specific appropriations for the modernisation of intensive care units and the creation of new units.

1. How many intensive care units were planned when the Health and Welfare Programme was submitted under the Second CSF? How many were created and how many of those are now operational?

2. How many units planned under the Second CSF were not completed?

3. How many completed units are not operational and why?

Supplementary answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(5 March 2004)

The Commission can inform the honourable Member that no measure of the Health and Welfare Programme of the Second Community Support Framework (CSF) provided specific appropriations for the modernisation of intensive care units and the creation of new units.

Measure 1.1 of the said operational programme provided appropriations for:

— the creation of building infrastructure and the procurement of related equipment to meet the needs of postgraduate education and vocational training within hospitals,

— the procurement of hospital and other scientific equipment for hospitals of which the (new or upgraded) building infrastructure was funded under the regional operational programmes,

— the procurement of equipment for the psychiatric departments of new hospitals of which the building infrastructure was funded under the regional operational programmes and the psychiatric units developed in existing first degree health care centres.

According to information received from the Greek authorities, the most accurate information available regarding the number of intensive care units in Greece is as follows. By the end of 1993 the intensive care units of all hospitals in Greece had 789 beds. Today, the intensive care units of all hospitals in Greece have 1 360 beds. Apart from very few exceptions, all of these beds are in operation. By the end of June 2004, the intensive care units of all hospitals in Greece will have 1 466 beds.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 88/567

(2004/C 88 E/0578)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1080/04

by Proinsias De Rossa (PSE) to the Commission

(6 April 2004)

Subject: Human rights defenders

The development of guidelines on human rights defenders is one of the stated priorities of the Irish EU Presidency. While the EU has highlighted the importance of the protection of human rights defenders, there is an absence of a specific EU policy that would serve to strengthen the EU's support for human rights defenders throughout the world.

What formal proposals has the Commission received from the Council on this issue? Does the Commission agree that the introduction of such guidelines is necessary in order to enhance the effectiveness of EU human rights policy? Will the Commission address the issue of human rights defenders in its next communication on human rights and democratisation?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(30 April 2004)

The Commission welcomed and fully supports the initiative of the Irish Presidency to adopt EU Guidelines in support of human rights defenders.

Although the Member States and the EU institutions have repeatedly paid tribute to the crucial role played by human rights defenders, the EU Guidelines on Human Rights Defenders will provide a consistent and visible policy to support and protect human rights defenders in the framework of EU relations with third countries and through Community and Member States' assistance programmes.

The political prominence achieved by previous EU Guidelines aimed at the realisation of human rights (such as those on the death penalty, torture and children in armed conflict) underlines the added-value of adopting Guidelines at the EU level.

With regard to the question of the Honourable Member on whether the issue of human rights defenders will be addressed in the next Communication on Human Rights and Democratisation, the Commission is not at present considering a new Communication following its Communication of May 2001 on the ‘EU's role in promoting Human Rights and Democratisation in third countries’ (1).

(1) OJ C 227 E, 24.9.2002.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 88/718

(2004/C 88 E/0738)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0956/04

by Brian Crowley (UEN) to the Commission

(23 March 2004)

Subject: Decoupling, farm retirement and families

Will the Commission confirm that it has received an appeal from the West Cork group of retired farmers regarding the damaging consequences of decoupling on the return of leased land, and does it realise that the rights of these farmers – who entered the early retirement scheme in good faith – to hand over this land to their sons and daughters as their rightful inheritance to develop to its full potential has been seriously affected? What action does it intend to take to ensure that their sons and daughters can inherit farms which are capable of providing a proper livelihood?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(21 April 2004)

The Common Agricultural Policy reform is addressed to active farmers. No provisions are established to ensure payment entitlements for landowners who have retired during the reference period and consequently whose land has been leased. The payment entitlements will be given to the tenants who exercised an agricultural activity in the reference period on the land in question. As confirmed by the European Court of Justice in a settled case-law, farmers cannot have a legitimate expectation that an existing situation which is capable of being altered by the Community institutions in the exercise of their discretionary power will be maintained.

Farmers can produce without entitlements or, but they are not obliged to, buy entitlements on the market and, of course, they can continue to lease the land to farmers who have entitlements but not enough land.

Nevertheless, there is no intention to disqualify such farm families from future payment entitlements or to prevent that sons and daughters can inherit farms which are capable of providing a proper livelihood.

The Commission is aware of the fact that farmers that participated in early retirement schemes may have leased their farm temporarily with the idea that eventually a son or daughter would take over the farm.

In order to ensure that the transfer of the holding or part of it within a family can easily take place, the Commission, in close collaboration with the Irish authorities, has developed a solution to avoid a situation in which children would be prevented from taking over a family farm that was leased out during the reference period. Those persons will be considered to be in a special situation within the meaning of Article 42 (4) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 of 29 September 2003 establishing common rules for direct support schemes under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers (1). As a result, in the Commission's implementing Regulation in process of being adopted, provision is made for the allocation to persons in such a situation of payment entitlements out of the national reserve if they take over the farm.

(1) OJ L 270, 21.10.2003.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/710

(2004/C 84 E/0797)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0797/04

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

(11 March 2004)

Subject: Student grants and free movement of persons

From the age of 18, Netherlands students still attending an institution of pre-university or senior secondary vocational education in the Netherlands are no longer eligible for a child allowance and in its place receive a grant under the Student Grants Act. If such 18 year olds receive their education across the border, they get no funding. Is the Commission prepared, bearing in mind that this question is now being posed for the third time, to give a clear answer concerning the key issue. Does the Commission agree that this poses obstacles which impede the free movement of students?

Supplementary joint answer

to Written Questions E-3868/02 and E-0797/04

given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(26 April 2004)

The Honourable Member raises the question of the territorial aspect of national grants and other financial aids awarded to students, an issue that was also the subject of written questions E-3868/02 and E-3584/03 (1).

Member States can provide in their legislation for financial assistance for students, in accordance with criteria that vary from one Member State to another. Under certain countries' legislation, a grant can be transferred if a student decides to study in another Member State, allowing students to continue to enjoy the financial assistance awarded by their country of origin while they study in another Member State. However, Dutch law does not allow this.

The Commission shares the Honourable Member's view that limiting financial assistance to those students studying within the territory of the Member State concerned may constitute an obstacle to the free movement of students. Furthermore, the Commission Green Paper ‘Education, training, research: the obstacles to transnational mobility’ (2) mentions that the territorial nature of national grants may constitute a significant obstacle to mobility.

However, according to the information brought to the Commission's attention, the provisions in force in the Netherlands are not incompatible with the principles of free movement, and no breach of Community law has been identified. Students from the Netherlands have the right to go to other European countries to study, and exercise this right, and foreign students from other Member States are entitled to study in the Netherlands.

(1) The answer to question 3584/03 also applies as a supplementary answer to question 3868/02.

(2) COM(96) 462 final.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 88/685

(2004/C 88 E/0704)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0144/04

by José Ribeiro e Castro (UEN) to the Commission

(26 January 2004)

Subject: Cuba – Commission delegation

In reply to my question P-2303/03 (1), Commissioner Nielson said that the Cuban Government had agreed to the appointment of the Head of Commission Delegation in Cuba on 14 April 2003.

At that time, it had not been scheduled when his credentials were to be presented.

Can the Commission answer the following:

– has there been any further developments? Has the date for accreditation now been fixed;

– what steps have been taken to regularise this situation;

– have the Cuban authorities given any expiation of the delay;

– how does the Commission read the situation, and what comments does it have to make?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(20 February 2004)

No date has been fixed yet for the presentation of credentials, despite official indications that the ceremony was imminent three times. It is worth noting that the Head of the Commission's Santo Domingo Delegation already appears in the recently published 2004 ‘List of the diplomatic and consular corps accredited in Cuba’ as ‘designated’ non-resident Head of Delegation of the European Communities in Havana.

The Commission's Chargé d'affaires in Havana has repeatedly requested during the last months that the authorities indicate a date for the presentation of credentials. The last time this matter was officially brought to the attention of the authorities was on 24 November 2003 in a meeting with the Cuban Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Similar démarches have been undertaken to the Cuban Embassies in Santo Domingo and in Brussels.

So far no reply to the request to set a specific date has been received.

The Commission assumes that the Cuban authorities may not consider the current state of bilateral relations conducive for formalising the accreditation of the Commission's non-resident Head of Delegation in Havana. It needs to be remembered that a diplomatic freeze was imposed on all EU missions in Cuba which have invited dissidents and political opponents to their respective National Days. Cuban dissidents were invited to the Schuman Day reception on 9 May 2003 in Havana.

(1) See page 76.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/915

(2004/C 84 E/1012)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0926/04

by Claude Turmes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(26 March 2004)

Subject: Health and safety in the European institutions

In his reply to Written Question E-2641/99 (1), Mr Kinnock said that ‘national health and safety legislation does not apply to European institutions’ but that ‘European institutions respect Community law in this area’.

Would the Commission indicate if a formal decision was taken by the Commission to apply Community health and safety law to its staff and buildings?

Has the Commission had carried out an assessment of the risks to safety and health at work, as provided for by Article 9(1)(a) of Council Directive 89/391/EEC (2)? What were the principal findings of that risk assessment?

Has the Commission developed a coherent overall prevention policy, as provided for by Article 6(2)(g) of Council Directive 89/391/EEC? What is the principal thrust of that policy?

Does the Commission keep a register of occupational accidents which have resulted in a worker being unfit for work for more than three working days, as provided for by Article 9(1)(c) of Council Directive 89/391/EEC?

What are the occupational accident statistics for the last three years? Could the Commission also give separate statistics for Luxembourg and Brussels?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(30 April 2004)

As the Commission reported in its reply to written question E-2641/99 by Mrs Lynne, the European Institutions, as employers, respect the safety and health requirements as they are laid down in Directive 89/391/EEC (3) and in various subsequent Directives.

As a result of the administrative reforms undertaken by the Commission the new Staff Regulations, which enter into force on 1 May 2004, establish in Article 1(e) (2): ‘Officials in active employment shall be accorded working conditions complying with appropriate health and safety standards at least equivalent to the minimum requirements applicable under measures adopted in these areas pursuant to the Treaties.’

In line with, and consequent to, this explicit obligation the Commission is drawing up new internal health and safety arrangements to ensure protection from hazards at work as a basic element in an overall policy which includes clear emphasis on risk prevention.

An action plan will follow which will develop this policy that is based on evaluation and risk assessment of the work place. A pilot exercise was carried out in 2002 and analysis of results indicates the need to focus on ergonomic issues.

The Commission keeps a list of occupational accidents which result in a worker being unfit for work for more, as well as for less, than three working days. For the years 2001-2003 there were respectively 93, 142 and 144 recorded accidents at work in the Commission in Brussels and 22, 29 and 34 in Luxembourg.

(1) OJ C 330 E, 21.11.2000, p. 32.

(2) OJ L 183, 29.6.1989, p. 1.

(3) Council Directive 89/391/EEC of 12 June 1989 on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health of workers at work.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/172

(2004/C 84 E/0211)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0192/04

by Philip Bradbourn (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(22 January 2004)

Subject: Repayments under n+2 rule

Will the European Commission please supply its best estimate of what the United Kingdom, under the n+2 rule, will have to pay back by region for the financial year 2003?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(1 March 2004)

The application of Article 31(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 of 21 June 1999 laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds (1) requires that the Commission shall automatically decommit any part of a commitment which has not been settled by the payment on account or for which it has not received an acceptable payment application by the end of the second year following the year of commitment. There are certain exceptions in the case of judicial procedure and administrative appeals.

At the present time, the Commision has not completed the processing of payment declarations relating to 2001 and it is not therefore in a position to provide the information requested by the Honourable Member at this stage. The Commission has undertaken to inform the Member States by end-February 2004 on any possible automatic decommitments resulting from the application of the ‘n+2’ rule for the period ending on 31 December 2003.

(1) OJ L 161, 26.6.1999.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/760

(2004/C 84 E/0856)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0081/04

by Proinsias De Rossa (PSE) to the Commission

(20 January 2004)

Subject: Implementation of IPPC Directive in Ireland

What response if any, has the Commission received from the Irish Government in response to the final written warning sent to Ireland in July 2003 (as announced in IP/03/1049) concerning the Irish Government's failure to properly implement the Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control Directive (Council Directive 96/61/EC (1))? What action is the Commission taking or proposing to take in this regard?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(11 March 2004)

The Commission notified a Reasoned Opinion to Ireland on 11 July 2003 with regard to the incompleteness of national legislation to implement Council Directive 96/61/EC of 24 September 1996 concerning integrated pollution prevention and control (2). On 29 July 2003, Ireland sent new legislation, namely the Protection of the Environment Act, 2003, which, according to Ireland, correctly transposes the Directive. However, it appears that further secondary legislation is needed with regard to Article 6 of the Directive. In addition, requirements of the new Act need to be formally commenced with commencement orders. These outstanding elements are still awaited, and the Commission is considering the next appropriate steps to take.

(1) OJ L 257, 10.10.1996, p. 26.

(2) OJ L 257, 10.10.1996.
4.

Is the Commission aware that the Netherlands Junior Minister for the Environment believes that the Euro 4 standard, which will apply in the EU from 2005 onwards, is too lax and has been strongly influenced by motor vehicle manufacturers and oil companies, with the result that, above all, particulate matter emissions will remain excessively high and contribute to global warming and that he therefore feels that European emission standards should be reviewed and made much more stringent?
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/572

(2004/C 84 E/0649)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0323/04

by Werner Langen (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(3 February 2004)

Subject: Stage reached in examining the territorial monopoly of German chimney-sweeps

According to a review carried out by the Directorate-General for Competition the territorial monopoly enjoyed by German chimney-sweeps does not contravene European competition law. Nevertheless, the Directorate-General for the Internal Market has launched investigations in the context of proceedings for infringement of the Treaties. According to information received by the questioner the relevant hearings are now being scheduled.

Can the Commission say:

1. whether the monopoly enjoyed by chimney-sweeps in the Federal Republic of Germany is a breach of the freedom of establishment and freedom to provide services laid down in European law;

2. what stage has now been reached in the review procedure and/or Treaty infringement proceedings;

3. when a definitive decision can be expected and in what direction the deliberations of the Directorate-General for the Internal Market in this area are pointing?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(2 March 2004)

1. The Commission considers that, in particular, the district monopoly granted to master chimney-sweeps, together with various related provisions, infringes the right of establishment pursuant to Article 43 EC and the right to provide services pursuant to Article 49 EC, insofar as this arrangement makes it impossible for German citizens to avail themselves of the services of chimneys-sweeps established in other Member States and prevents chimney-sweeps or heating specialists in other Member States from offering their services in Germany.

2. Infringement proceedings were initiated by the transmission of a letter of formal notice to Germany in 2003. The German authorities immediately informed the Commission of their readiness to regularise the situation from the standpoint of EU law. According to the latest available information, the Federal Government and the Länder are discussing the revision of the legislation in question with a view to presenting specific proposals in early summer 2004.