ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 65/91

(2004/C 65 E/103)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1792/03

by Claude Moraes (PSE) to the Commission

(28 May 2003)

Subject: The Convention and the principle of non-discrimination

What is the view of the Commission on the inclusion of the principle of non-discrimination in the future constitution of the EU in the framework of the work of the Convention?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(18 July 2003)

The Commission feels that, in general terms, the principle of non-discrimination has been satisfactorily incorporated in the draft EU constitution drawn up by the Convention.

It would draw the Honourable Member's attention to the following points in particular:

— Article I-2 (Union's values) includes equality as one of the Union's fundamental values;

— Article I-3 (Union's objectives), which states that the Union's aim is to promote its values, combat social exclusion and discrimination, promote social justice and protection, equality between women and men, and solidarity between generations;

— Article I-4 (Fundamental freedoms and non-discrimination), which prohibits any discrimination on grounds of nationality;

— The inclusion of the Charter of Fundamental Rights in the draft constitution, which contains a title on equality;

— Articles III-1, III-4 and III-5, which reproduce Articles 3(2), 12 and 13 of the EC Treaty;

— Article III-1a, which provides that, in defining and implementing its policies, the Union shall aim to combat all forms of discrimination.

However, the Commission regrets that the Convention did not subject Article III-5 in its entirety to qualified-majority voting. Maintaining the unanimity requirement in paragraph 1 of this article will create a significant obstacle in future to the adoption of the measures needed to combat discrimination based on sex, racial or ethnic origin, religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation.

Moreover, the Commission is disappointed that racism and xenophobia are not included in the areas of crime listed in Article III-167 of Section 4 on judicial cooperation in criminal matters (Part III) of the draft constitution. It is a pity that this vital aspect of Union activity is becoming less visible and suffers from having no clear legal basis when these deplorable phenomena are still rife in both the present and the future Member States.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 65/235

(2004/C 65 E/250)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2869/03

by Margrietus van den Berg (PSE) to the Commission

(26 September 2003)

Subject: European and Developing Countries Trials Programme (EDCTP)

The EDCTP will support the implementation of clinical trials and strengthen collaboration between European and developing country scientists. How will intellectual property rights for products that emerge out of such collaborative research be managed/shared?

Answer given by Mr Busquin on behalf of the Commission

(24 October 2003)

During the discussions in the Parliament and in the Council, leading to the adoption of Decision 1209/2003/EC (1) of 16 June 2003 on Community participation on the EDCTP programme, a balance was sought between on the one hand encouraging the involvement of industry by providing adequate protection of intellectual property rights and on the other hand seeking an easy and affordable access to the results of the research activities for the population of developing countries. Article 2(g) reflects this compromise:

The Community contribution shall be conditional upon: formulation of the provisions relating to intellectual property rights in such a way that they also aim at ensuring that the people of developing countries have an easy and affordable access to the research results produced by activities under the EDCTP Programme and to the products directly deriving from its results.

This provision is taken up by the new structure (a European Economic Interest Grouping — EEIG) created on 27 June 2003 in the Netherlands, which will implement the EDCTP programme.

The statutes of the EEIG already include dispositions reflecting Article 2(g) and the contract between the Commission and the EEIG will impose the same requirements. It is the responsibility of the EEIG to make sure this provision is implemented on a case by case basis for each of the clinical trials that it will be funding.

The Commission will closely monitor the implementation of Article 2(g) by the EEIG.

(1) Decision 1209/2003/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 16 June 2003 on Community participation in a research and development programme aimed at developing new clinical interventions to combat HIV/AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis through a long term partnership between Europe and developing countries, undertaken by several Member States, OJ L 169, 8.7.2003.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 65/125

(2004/C 65 E/138)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2279/03

by Koenraad Dillen (NI) to the Council

(9 July 2003)

Subject: Sentencing of two journalists in Laos

Today, 30 June 2003, the media were shocked to learn that the independent Belgian journalist Thierry Falise, his French photographer, Vincent Reynaud, and their American interpreter, all three of whom were arrested in Laos on 4 June 2003, have been sentenced to 15 years' imprisonment for ‘illegal possession of arms’ and ‘obstruction of a public official’ after a show trial in which no legal principle was guaranteed.

Thierry Falise was preparing a report on the Hmong minority, who are resisting the totalitarian communist regime in Laos.

Has the Council condemned this?

Has the Council taken any diplomatic steps vis-à-vis the authorities in Vientiane? With what results? What pressure can the Council bring to bear to have this sentence lifted as quickly as possible?

Would it not be desirable to bring pressure to bear on the regime in Vientiane via the authorities in Beijing, bearing in mind that Laos particularly looks to China for support?

Reply

(17 November 2003)

1. The Council has been as worried as the Honourable MEP over the arrest and the subsequent sentencing to 15 years of imprisonment of the Belgian journalist Thierry Falise, the French photographer Vincent Reynaud and their American interpreter. The Council has, however, not taken official diplomatic action towards the Laotian government in order not to interfere in the then ongoing bilateral efforts of the French and Belgian governments, which were seeking the release of the journalists.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 33/41

(2004/C 33 E/038)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0399/03

by Karl von Wogau (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(17 February 2003)

Subject: Compulsory registration for visitors to health spas

The spa tax regulations of a German community stipulate that persons from outside the community who are accommodated free of charge not only have to register their presence on the next working day after arrival, and register their departure at the latest on the last day of their stay but that they also have to pay spa taxes for the period of their stay.

These measures also apply to visitors from other Member States of the European Union.

This requirement means that people who stay overnight in the community while visiting friends or relatives for example, have to pay spa taxes.

Does the Commission take the view that these regulations are compatible with European Union provisions on the free movement of persons?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(1 April 2003)

In the absence of harmonised fiscal legislation at Community level, the Member States and their local authorities are free to design their taxes according to their political preferences. In doing so, however, they must respect the general freedoms and principles enshrined in the EC Treaty. Neither the local tax, described by the Honourable Member, nor the corollary registration obligation, discriminate against nationals of other Member States, since all visitors, irrespective of their nationality or place of residence, are subject to it. Therefore, the Commission does not consider that these taxes interfere with the principle of free movement of persons.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 33/98

(2004/C 33 E/096)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1175/03

by Graham Watson (ELDR) to the Commission

(1 April 2003)

Subject: Digitalisation of historical databases

The e-learning framework needs to be compatible between countries and available online. Will the Commission therefore extend to accession countries the assistance available to Member States to create digital records of historical databases?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(4 June 2003)

The eLearning Initiative and its eLearning Action Plan do not offer assistance to Member States to create digital records of databases.

The Commission does not currently fund specifically the creation of digital records of historical databases as this is considered to be a matter for initiatives at the national level. Under the Fifth and Sixth Framework Programmes for Research and Technological Development, the Information Society Technologies (IST) programme has, however, provided incentives for coordination of digitisation work and the development of digitisation systems and services. Indeed, the IST Minerva project managed under the Cultural Heritage component of programme, provides a framework for the European cultural ministries to coordinate digitisation results and, as such, is a useful source of evolving information in the area. It provides assistance for the exchange of best practice between the 15 Member States and acts as a forum for reviewing progress in the area and planning future activities. Under the Sixth Framework Programme's strategic objective ‘Technology Enhanced Learning and Access to Cultural Heritage’, the activity could be extended to include the Accession Countries in accordance with the relevant procedures.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 33/69

(2004/C 33 E/065)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0677/03

by Marco Cappato (NI) to the Commission

(7 March 2003)

Subject: Fumigation in certain coffee-growing areas of Colombia

Whilst I was visiting Colombia last week together with the Secretary of the International Anti-Prohibitionist League, Marco Perduca, a number of reports were received about a plan for the imminent fumigation of the coffee-growing areas of Colombia, in the context of a disastrous and indiscriminate campaign of chemical fumigation, from a very high altitude, of vast areas of the country, designed to eradicate coca leaf production and to be carried out in agreement with the US Administration.

In view of the devastating impact of this practice on human health, the environment and socio-economic equilibrium, and the fact that the Commission is carrying out alternative development programmes in some of these areas, has it taken steps to inform the Colombian authorities of its disapproval and the need to suspend immediately the alternative development programmes in those areas as soon as the operation is launched?

How does the Commission intend to try and ensure that the fumigation is not carried out and officially request that the operation be suspended all over Colombia?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(7 April 2003)

The Commission does not support the aerial spraying of illegal crops in Colombia.

The Commission has obtained a political commitment from the Colombian Government that the areas covered by its alternative development projects (that foresee voluntary manual eradication) be exempt from fumigation. The Commission also discusses this issue with the United States' Government, and follows closely developments on the ground.

This position derives in particular from the Commission's view on aerial spraying in the Union, which is that in the future it should be restricted as far as possible, if not banned completely. In its Communication ‘Towards a Thematic Strategy on the Sustainable Use of Pesticides’ (1), the Commission proposes a general ban on aerial spraying, with specific derogation to be authorised by Member States if aerial spraying presents clear advantages and also environmental benefits compared to other spraying methods. This is due to the impact that spray-drift from aerial spraying of pesticides may have on human health and the environment, as well as its possible socio-economic impact, notably on non-targeted areas, inhabited areas, and water (2).

(1) COM(2002) 349 final.

(2) For details please refer to the following web page: http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/ppps/home.htm.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 33/79

(2004/C 33 E/075)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0771/03

by Marco Cappato (NI) to the Commission

(6 March 2003)

Subject: Right to religious freedom in Cambodia

Last Friday the Ministry for Religious Affairs of Cambodia adopted a directive forbidding all public proselytising activities. The provision is clearly aimed at preventing possible religious tensions and protecting the privacy of the Cambodian people. The government's initiative appears to have been prompted by the practice followed by some religious communities, such as the evangelical churches, of campaigning from door to door. The Under-Secretary of State for Religious Affairs, Dok Narin, has said that: ‘some Christian groups are not good. They are forcing people to convert’.

Is the Commission aware of this provision? What will it do to avert the risk of this directive being used to discriminate against religious groups disliked by the government? What pressures will it bring to bear to ensure that Cambodians fully enjoy the right to religious freedom, which, as established by Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, includes the freedom to change religion or belief and the freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest one's religion or belief in teaching practice, worship and observance?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(26 March 2003)

The Commission is well aware of the Directive of the Ministry of Cults and Religious Affairs issued on 14 January 2003, which aims at preventing inter-religious conflicts by enforcing instructions issued on 21 August 1999.

While it is true that according to the Directive, some Christian proselytising activities are forbidden, such as door-to-door visits ‘since these actions disturb the daily life of the people and create situations of insecurity that affect social peace’, the Directive also states that it is compulsory to respect religions other than yours own and it is forbidden to criticise or smear them. This is also valid for Buddhism, the State religion in Cambodia. Any activity leading to inciting religious hatred or conflict is also prohibited.

Religious freedom in Cambodia is guaranteed by article 31 (Chapter III) of the Constitution. In the absence of an in dept-analysis at this stage, the Directive as well as measures adopted until now by the Ministry of Cults and Religious Affairs, which are put in place to avoid the risks of religious conflicts, do not appear to violate the Universal Declaration on Human Rights nor the provisions of the Cambodian Constitution.

The Commission does not find any reason, at present, to believe that the government will use this Directive to discriminate against any particular religious groups.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 65/67

(2004/C 65 E/075)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1219/03

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 Pistoia

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 Pistoia, urgently need to use European funds to promote sustainable urban development,

can the Commission state:

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

2. whether the municipality of Pistoia has secured funding for these projects?
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 65/26

(2004/C 65 E/026)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0411/03

by Eija-Riitta Korhola (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(17 February 2003)

Subject: Carriage of oil in sensitive sea areas

In the Baltic there are several areas such as the Gulf of Finland, the Danish sounds, or the Aland Islands where the natural environment is particularly vulnerable to the risks posed by shipping. It is presumably the case that in the North Sea, on the Atlantic coasts, and in the Mediterranean there are also easily identifiable areas of a similar kind, where it might be necessary to restrict the carriage of dangerous substances by sea in order to avert risks.

Is the Commission willing to consider designating Particularly Sensitive Sea Areas in EU territorial waters so as to ensure that the carriage of dangerous substances by sea through those areas can be restricted where necessary (for instance as dictated by weather and other conditions)?
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 65/53

(2004/C 65 E/052)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1186/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(1 April 2003)

Subject: Use of funds from the FIFG by the municipality of Ancona

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 Ancona, urgently need to use European funds to support structural measures in the sector of fisheries, acquaculture and the processing and marketing of the relevant products,

can the Commission state:

1. whether the municipality of Ancona has submitted projects for the FIFG?

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

(2004/C 65 E/071)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1215/03

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 Massa

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 Massa, urgently need to use European funds to promote sustainable urban development,

can the Commission state:

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

2. whether the municipality of Massa has secured funding for these projects?
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 65/171

(2004/C 65 E/188)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2539/03

by Karl-Heinz Florenz (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(29 July 2003)

Subject: Chemicals policy — the REACH System

The following questions arise in connection with the Commission proposal for a regulation on the registration, evaluation and authorisation of chemicals (REACH).

The proposal for a regulation affects the food industry in varying degrees:

(a) the general nature of the scope (Point 1) means that in all cases there is a duty to undertake a Chemical Safety Assessment/Report — CSA/CSR — and, where appropriate, draw up a safety data sheet;

(b) furthermore, all substances which are not covered by a derogation in respect of Points 8-11 are subject to a registration and authorisation procedure.

Re (a) General scope:

— Will the Commission explain to what extent food, feeding stuffs and fertilisers are affected by the REACH system and subject to the duty to undertake a CSA/CSR? Will food be treated differently, depending on whether it is used as a finished product for the final consumer, or as an intermediate product or in the non-food sector?

— Can the Commission explain why food and feedingstuffs additives do not fall within the scope of the rules?

Re (b) Registration and authorisation duties:

— Annex II of Chapter II of the proposal provides for derogations from the registration obligation for a number of substances. Can the Commission explain which criteria were determinant in making these derogations? Why is saccharose, but not fructose for example, exempt from registration obligation?

— the proposal for a regulation provides that intermediate products shall be subject to a modified registration obligation. Why is provision made for only two locations?

— Why are only feedingstuffs containing proteins, but not others, exempt from the registration obligation?

— Can the Commission explain on what basis the term ‘intended use’ is to be defined and applied?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(16 September 2003)

The Commission is currently reviewing the draft of the REACH legislation in the light of the responses to the recent Internet consultation. Following this review, the Commission may revise some parts of the draft related to the issues raised in the question. The general aim of the review is to ensure that the draft legislation achieves its aims in the most cost-effective and efficient manner.

(a) It should be noted that REACH is being designed so as not to duplicate the provisions of other legislation. Thus the interface to other legislation is being tailored according to the scope and content of each other relevant piece of legislation.

(b) It should be noted that the exemptions referred to in Annex II are carried over from current chemicals legislation.

As the review of the draft legislation is still in progress, it is not possible to give more detailed responses to the other issues raised by the Honourable Member.