ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 88/129

(2004/C 88 E/0137)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3045/03

by Proinsias De Rossa (PSE) to the Commission

(17 October 2003)

Subject: Child labour

I welcome the commitment given by Commissioner Neilson, in his reply to my Oral Question H-0405/03 (1), to consider possible support for the ILO's International Programme on the Elimination of Child Labour, and the proposed inclusion of child labour in the tentative list of joint objectives/priorities between the Commission and the ILO in the framework of the proposed EC/ILO Strategic Partnership.

Could the Commission outline what progress has been made to date and indicate how it proposes to make sufficient funds available to allow for concrete follow-up activities in this area?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(21 November 2003)

The Commission is finalising for the end of 2003 a Strategic Partnership with the International Labour Organisation (ILO) in the field of development co-operation. A strategic approach to the elimination of child labour through the promotion of primary education has been identified as the first priority to be developed in the framework of the Partnership.

This strategy intends to address the issue of education in the context of the fight against child labour. This is particularly relevant with respect to the efforts made by the Commission within the Education for All agenda. The primary objective of Community policy on education and training, achieving education for all in line with the millennium development goals, cannot be accomplished without addressing the problems of school aged children who are working.

In this context it could be useful to identify the root causes of this phenomenon, that is to say the gap between children's rights in law and the reality in which they live on a daily basis. This could be addressed by timely targeted actions to help destitute families and support them through community networks at local level.

The strategy on child labour and education will address, in this pilot phase, specifically the African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) regional dimension, and the Commission envisages drawing on the European Development Fund allocation for Intra-ACP co-operation.

The operational partner will be the ILO International Programme for the Elimination of Child Labour (IPEC). This strategic action would be additional to the existing ILO/IPEC programme. The funding will focus on actions, which are not part of the regular base activities of ILO/IPEC. First, while IPEC interventions in broad terms are most advanced on Asia and Latin America, the Commission's funding will allow to reinforce targeted actions towards the ACP countries. Accumulated experience and best practices from Asia and Latin America will be used to promote targeted action in ACP countries to allow more children subject to forced labour to access and complete their primary schooling. Secondly, this funding will support targeted initiatives in education.

(1) Oral answer, 1.7.2003.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/24

(2004/C 78 E/0025)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0895/03

by Glenys Kinnock (PSE) to the Commission

(17 March 2003)

Subject: Agro-business Bank of Georgia

Does the Commission intend to re-open the tendering process for the Agro-business Bank in Georgia?

If, in the light of new circumstances, this is the case, when is the process likely to be resumed?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(21 May 2003)

The tendering process for the project ‘Strengthening the capacity of the Agro Business Bank of Georgia’ was completed in 2002. However, due to the kidnapping of a former project's Team Leader, Mr. Shaw, the Commission decided to keep this and other Georgian projects on hold. Once the situation was unblocked and following a careful analysis of the most appropriate options for the future of the Agro Business Bank, it was recently decided to sign the contract with the winner of last year's tender. The implementation of the project has just started.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/324

(2004/C 78 E/0339)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3806/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(11 December 2003)

Subject: Update on use of funding from the Culture 2000 programme by the municipality of Florence

In its answer to question E-0980/03 (1), which asked whether the municipality of Florence had submitted projects or secured funding under the Culture 2000 programme, the Commission stated, on 30 July 2003, that the municipality had not submitted any projects by 2002. Can the Commission say if this has been the case subsequently and up to the present?

(1) OJ C 242 E, 9.10.2003, p. 200.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/324

(2004/C 78 E/0341)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3808/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(11 December 2003)

Subject: Update on use of funding from the Culture 2000 programme by the municipality of Macerata

In its answer to question E-0982/03 (1), which asked whether the municipality of Macerata had submitted projects or secured funding under the Culture 2000 programme, the Commission stated, on 30 July has been the case subsequently and up to the present?

(1) OJ C 242 E, 9.10.2003, p. 200.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/325

(2004/C 78 E/0342)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3809/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(11 December 2003)

Subject: Update on use of funding from the Culture 2000 programme by the municipality of Massa

In its answer to question E-0983/03 (1), which asked whether the municipality of Massa had submitted projects or secured funding under the Culture 2000 programme, the Commission stated, on 30 July 2003, that the municipality had not submitted any projects by 2002. Can the Commission say if this has been the case subsequently and up to the present?

Joint answer

to Written Questions E-3798/03, E-3799/03, E-3800/03, E-3801/03, E-3802/03, E-3803/03, E-3804/03, E-3805/03, E-3806/03, E-3807/03, E-3808/03 and E-3809/03

given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(26 January 2004)

The Commission, as the Honourable Member correctly states, answered a previous question on this subject on 30 July 2003 (2).

The situation since July 2003 has been as follows: the call for proposals for projects taking place in 2004 under the Culture 2000 programme closed on 31 October 2003 (for annual projects) and 15 November 2003 (for multiannual projects).

Consequently, the projects submitted are still being examined and — at this stage — the Commission must abide by the rules of confidentiality which prohibit it from giving any information on projects submitted or the cultural operators that submitted them.

As already stated in its previous answer, all the information on the projects selected will be available on the Internet once the selection procedure has finished, at: (http://europa.eu.int/comm/culture/eac/index_fr.html).

(1) OJ C 242 E, 9.10.2003, p. 200.

(2) Written question E-0830/03, joined to the Honourable Member's Written Questions E-892/03 and E-0978/03 to E-0990/03, OJ C 242 E, 9.10.2003, p. 200.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/99

(2004/C 84 E/0132)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3785/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(11 December 2003)

Subject: Update on funding for the city of Perugia under the action programme to promote civil protection

In reply to my earlier question E-1097/03 (1) asking whether the city of Perugia had submitted projects and obtained funding under the action programme to promote civil protection, the Commission said on 22 April 2003 that the municipality had not submitted any application.

Can the Commission say whether, since that date, any projects have been submitted and what the outcome was?

(1) OJ C 268 E, 7.11.2003, p. 144.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/28

(2004/C 84 E/0030)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2498/03

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(25 July 2003)

Subject: Investment

Further to the Commission's very interesting answer to my question E-1350/03 (1) on 22 May 2003 concerning foreign direct investment into the eurozone countries and the non-eurozone EU Member States, is the Commission now in a position to update those figures given in its tables to include last year (2002)? If not, when will it be able to do so?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(3 September 2003)

Updated tables are sent direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat. The data for 2002 are preliminary estimates sent by Member States to Eurostat in June 2003 together with revised 2001 data. For Denmark and Spain, data exclude reinvested earnings. For Greece and Sweden, data exclude reinvested earnings in some cases. Aggregates include estimated reinvested earnings in all these cases. Preliminary data for 2002 and revised data for 2001 are not available for partner ‘Eurozone countries’.

(1) See page 8.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/98

(2004/C 84 E/0130)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3783/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(11 December 2003)

Subject: Update on funding for the municipality of Macerata under the action programme to promote civil protection

In reply to my earlier question E-1095/03 (1) asking whether the municipality of Macerata had submitted projects and obtained funding under the action programme to promote civil protection, the Commission said on 22 April 2003 that the municipality had not submitted any application.

Can the Commission say whether, since that date, any projects have been submitted and what the outcome was?

(1) OJ C 268 E, 7.11.2003, p. 144.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 88/654

(2004/C 88 E/0671)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3880/03

by Emmanouil Bakopoulos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(16 December 2003)

Subject: Pet passports

The Commission has set the date for the introduction of pet passports at July 2004. This passport will be valid as a health certificate for pets and enable the owner to take pets freely throughout the Union, with the exception of the United Kingdom, Ireland and Sweden. So far any person wishing to travel within the European Union has to obtain a valid rabies vaccination certificate which is recorded in the pet's health booklet in any case.

Will the Commission say how the transport of pets within the EU will be essentially changed by this measure?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(26 January 2004)

Regulation (EC) No 998/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 May 2003 on the animal health requirements applicable to the non-commercial movement of pet animals and amending Council Directive 92/65/EEC (1) is applicable as of 3 July 2003. The Commission Decision establishing a model passport, applying Article 17 (2) of this Regulation, therefore applies from the same date.

The conditions applying to movements of domestic carnivores are therefore laid down by Regulation (EC) No 998/2003. The general rule for movements between Member States other than Ireland, Sweden and the United Kingdom is a current valid vaccination against rabies.

The aim of the passport is to have a single standardised veterinary document at Union level to facilitate controls on cats, dogs and ferrets circulating within European territory. It is intended to replace the various existing documents in the Member States, which caused a range of linguistic difficulties and had various formats, which did not facilitate their use when moving through the Union.

It may be completed by veterinarians in accordance with the animal's movements. It is a European veterinary certificate which will accompany the animal throughout its life and on which all events relating to its health status can be entered.

Finally, the passport will also be of use for movements to Ireland, Sweden and the United Kingdom. The headings corresponding to the particular provisions applying to these three Member States for a period of five years will therefore need to be completed.

(1) OJ L 146, 13.6.2003.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/630

(2004/C 78 E/0666)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3697/03

by Luigi Vinci (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(3 December 2003)

Subject: Return to Turkey of refugees of Turkish origin

The government in Ankara and the UNHCR have reached an agreement on the repatriation to Turkey of around 9,500 refugees of Kurdish origin, who have been living in the camp at Mahmur in northern Iraq since 1998.

Is the Commission involved in this issue? If not, does it not consider that proper financial involvement is needed to guarantee that the refugees from Mahmur return voluntarily and to ensure that they are safe from any repressive action on the part of the Turkish security forces, who are known for their anti-Kurdish attitude?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(20 January 2004)

The Commission is aware of the ongoing discussions between the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), the Turkish government and the United States government regarding the return to Turkey of refugees of Kurdish origin, living in the camp at Mahmur in Northern Iraq.

The UNHCR has informed the Commission that the next round of high level discussions on a tripartite agreement is due to take place in Ankara on 21 January.

As far as financial involvement is concerned, the UNHCR has expressed its intention to establish a project to ensure the successful repatriation of these people and has suggested that one source of funding be the Union. This will be subject to consideration once the parties have reached an agreement.
1.

The Commission would like to inform the Honourable Member that the firm Gerry Weber received funding from the Community support framework (CSF II) (1994-1999), for the vocational training and employment programme (1), notably EUR 226 525,26 from the European Social Fund (ESF). The Commission would also like to point out that funding from the ESF is not subject to conditions linked to undertakings' continued existence but to compliance with the access and eligibility criteria laid down in the regulations in force at that time for the allocation of ESF assistance. The firm also received EUR 809 823,86 in cofinancing from the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) for two projects approved under the 1988 PNICIAP (2) programme (CSF I) and the 1994 programme for modernisation of the economic fabric (CSF II). The guidelines which require the assets financed to be maintained in the establishment for at least five years from the date of the investment for which aid was granted were not adopted by the Commission until after 10 March 1998.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/509

(2004/C 84 E/0587)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3852/03

by Roberto Bigliardo (UEN) to the Commission

(16 December 2003)

Subject: Appointments and transparency in the Commission

How many members of the Commissioners' private offices have been appointed to posts in Commission departments with functions and/or grades that are senior to those they previously held?

Can the Commission also show that the appointments were based on merit rather than the now traditional practice of finding important posts for the large number of staff employed in the private offices of the President and Commissioners at the end of each term of office?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(12 March 2004)

The Commission would inform the Honourable Member that, to date during its period of office, 25 officials have been assigned to more senior posts — in terms of duties and/or grade — in other departments after a period of secondment in a Commissioner's Cabinet.

Of these 25 officials:

— 4 were appointed Director-General or Deputy Director-General;

— 7 were appointed Director;

— 14 were appointed Head of Unit and, of these: — 6 were appointed Head of Unit at the same grade; — 3 were appointed Head of Unit at a higher grade (A3); — 5, who had already been Heads of Unit in the past, were given a higher grade (A3).

Summary table — Officials promoted after a period of secondment to a Member's private office

Initial grade Grade in new post Promotion in terms of duties Promotion in terms of grade A2 Al 4 4 A3 A2 7 7 A4 A3 3 (1) 8 A4 A4 4 0 A5 A5 2 0

These appointments complied with all the rules in force with regard to promotions. The same standard procedures for promotion which apply to all other members of staff were scrupulously followed.

(1) Three of whom were also given a promotion in terms of duties.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 33/147

(2004/C 33 E/145)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1625/03

by Caroline Jackson (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(13 May 2003)

Subject: Recognition of the egg sector vis-à-vis third country imports

Given that the EU egg industry is facing additional legislation in relation to food safety and animal welfare, does the Commission agree that the egg sector should be recognised as a sensitive sector vis-à-vis third country imports?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(27 June 2003)

Under Article 10 of Council Directive 1999/74/EC of 19 July 1999 laying down minimum standards for the protection of laying hens (1) an external study is to be carried out on the socio-economic implications where third countries are concerned of the Community legislation on laying hen welfare. Its findings will help determine the degree of sensitivity of the egg sector.

It is also to be noted that in the World Trade Organisation negotiations the Community has confirmed that it considers it important that trade liberalisation should not imperil the effort to improve animal welfare protection. Exclusion from the commitment reductions (‘green box’) is therefore proposed for compensation covering the additional costs involved in satisfying animal welfare standards, provided it can be shown that they are a direct result of adoption of more rigorous standards and therefore do not disturb trade or disturb it as little as possible.

(1) OJ L 203, 3.8.1999.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 33/252

(2004/C 33 E/259)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2324/03

by Bill Newton Dunn (ELDR) to the Commission

(14 July 2003)

Subject: Is the British Government justified in paying different pensions to different categories of persons working in the British National Health Service?

The British Government rewards workers who in their National Health Service have served a minimum of twenty years looking after patients suffering from mental illness by counting each of those years as double for purposes of calculating pensions.

My constituent served in the mental health field from 1994 to 1999 but then transferred into the field of general nursing — so under these rules her 1994-1999 years would not count double.

Is this discrimination unfair and illegal, possibly bearing in mind the court case Coloroll Pension Trustees Ltd versus Russell in which the statement was made that ‘trustees of an occupational pension fund are bound to do everything in their power to ensure compliance with the principles of equal treatment under Article 199 of the Treaty of Rome’?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(14 August 2003)

On the basis of the information provided, the Commission cannot establish whether there is an infringement of Community law in the area of equal treatment between women and men. It would ask the Honourable Member to provide more details concerning the case of the constituent in question.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 33/93

(2004/C 33 E/090)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0929/03

by Jorge Moreira Da Silva (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(24 March 2003)

Subject: Legionnaire's disease

There is a direct link between the poor maintenance of water heating and air conditioning systems in public buildings and the incidence of extremely serious cases of pneumonia caused by the Legionella bacterium.

1. Does the Commission believe that national legislation on the construction and maintenance of public buildings ensures that the public are protected against Legionnaire's disease? Which countries have legislation which does offer these guarantees?

2. Will the Commission prepare European legislative initiatives aimed at imposing common rules for the maintenance of public buildings which are designed to protect public health?

Supplementary answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(28 July 2003)

The construction and maintenance of buildings and their installations are issues under the responsibility of the Member States. Concerning the safety of drinking water supply systems, these issues are expected to be covered by the new European Acceptance Scheme (EAS) for regulated construction products in contact with drinking water. EAS cannot, however, cover heating and air conditioning systems in buildings.

A table providing the references for national guidance for control and prevention of Legionnaires' disease is sent direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat. Many countries have guidance but not all have legislation in place.

No common European framework exists. The Commission is in the process of building such a European framework, and harmonised product standards will enable water supply systems made from products complying with these European standards to provide water quality in accordance with the requirements of the Drinking Water Directive, Council Directive 98/83/EC of 3 November 1998 on the quality of water intended for human consumption (1).

(1) OJ L 330, 5.12.1998.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 33/143

(2004/C 33 E/141)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1609/03

by Claude Moraes (PSE) to the Commission

(7 May 2003)

Subject: Human Trafficking Experts Group

Can the Commission please give me details on the purpose and remit of its ‘Human Trafficking Experts Group’?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(3 June 2003)

On 25 March 2003, the Commission adopted Decision 2003/209/EC setting up a consultative group to be known as the ‘Experts Group on Trafficking in Human Beings’ (1).

The experts group shall be an important element for the implementation of the Brussels Declaration. This document was the final outcome of European Conference on Prevention and Combating Trafficking in Human Beings — Global Challenge for the 21st Century from 18 to 20 September 2002. It includes an annex of recommendations, standards and best practices. The experts group shall contribute substantively to the further development of the prevention of and the fight against trafficking in human beings. According to Article 2 of the Decision, the Commission may consult the experts group on any matter relating to trafficking in human beings. In particular, a report of the experts group based on the recommendations of the Brussels Declaration shall be submitted within a period of nine months following the setting up of the group in order to assist the Commission with a view to launching further concrete proposals at Union level, for example an action plan or a communication.

The group shall consist of 20 experts. The Commission shall appoint the group members from a list made up of all persons proposed by governments of Member States and Candidate Countries as well as by specific international, inter-governmental and non-governmental organisations. The Commission shall publish the list of members for information in the Official Journal of the European Union.

According to Article 5 of the Commission Decision, there shall be no remuneration for the tasks performed by the members of the experts group. Travel expenses will be reimbursed following the rules for consultative committees (A-07031). Four plenary meetings of the experts group as well as four working party meetings (possible according to Article 6 of the Commission Decision) per year might be necessary. However, the number of meetings may have to be reconsidered further to budgetary requirements as well as to the view of the group once established.

(1) OJ L 79, 26.3.2003.