ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
2.

The EU has a robust Common Position on Burma/Myanmar, which was first adopted in 1996 and has been strengthened on a number of occasions since. The Common Position includes an EU visa ban and a freezing of funds held in EU countries for the members and families of the government, senior military and security officers and other persons or entities benefiting from government policies. All bilateral aid, other than strictly humanitarian assistance, is suspended. Separately, EU preferential trade concessions were withdrawn in 1997 because of forced labour. The Common Position also includes an arms embargo imposed in 1990 and the suspension of defence co-operation since 1991. The arms embargo was further strengthened in 2003 to include the prohibition of technical training or assistance related to arms and military equipment. In addition, the Commission and Member States have committed themselves to using their best endeavours to encourage other arms exporting States to subscribe to the restrictive principles of the EU Code of conduct on arms export of May 1998. In accordance with this, the Commission has urged a number of third countries to avoid taking any initiative which may reinforce military control in Rangoon.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/629

(2004/C 78 E/0665)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3692/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(9 December 2003)

Subject: Update on use of funding from the Daphne programme by the municipality of Siena

In its answer to question E-1015/03 (1), which asked whether the municipality of Siena had submitted projects and secured funding under the Daphne programme, the Commission stated that a number of proposals had been submitted, but that the outcome of the assessment would be available in July 2003.

Can the Commission say whether the projects submitted actually received funding and, if not, why they were not considered suitable?

Have any other projects been submitted in the meantime?

Joint answer

to Written Questions E-3690/03, E-3691/03 and E-3692/03

given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(19 January 2004)

In 2003 the Daphne programme received the following proposals from the municipalities in question:

— two proposals from the municipality of Florence: Education and Youth Policy Department, Education Unit;

— one proposal for the municipality of Pesaro: Social Services;

— one proposal from the municipality of Siena: Equal Opportunities Committee.

The Commission did not accept these proposals for Community funding because they were not of the required quality.

The applicants were duly informed of this decision as well as of the reasons why the proposals were rejected. Moreover, in its correspondence, the Commission indicated which aspects of the proposal needed to be improved.

It also stated that new proposals could, of course, be submitted under the next call for proposals in 2004.

Since there was no further call for proposals in 2003, the Commission did not receive any other proposal.

(1) OJ C 51 E, 26.2.2004, p. 62.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/411

(2004/C 78 E/0432)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2649/03

by Paul Rübig (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(10 September 2003)

Subject: Comparison of electricity network tariffs in the Commission's second benchmarking report

The Commission's ‘Second benchmarking report on the implementation of the internal electricity and gas market’ (Brussels, 7 April 2003) shows the differing rates of progress towards liberalisation in the individual Member States.

The report is available on the following Internet site: (http://europa.eu.int/comm/energy/electricity/ benchmarking/doc/2/sec_2003_448_en.pdf).

Table 1 ‘Implementation of the Electricity Directive’ on page 4 of the report (column headed ‘Overall network tariffs’) reveals that Austria, Germany and Luxembourg have above-average network tariffs.

What data and/or studies were used as the basis for ascertaining the level of network tariffs?

Who supplied the data?

On what consumption indicators and parameters is the analysis based?

How was European comparability ensured (differences in pattern of consumption, security of supply, topology, etc.)?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(13 October 2003)

The study was based on information submitted by national Ministries and electricity and gas regulatory authorities. In some cases analysis from industry associations was used, for example the ‘Verband der Elektrizitätswirtschaft’ (VdEW) and ‘Verband der Netzbetreiber’ (VdN) in Germany. This is explained in more detail in Section 2 of the Annex to the document.

Standard customer types based on the price information collected by Eurostat were used, in particular:

— large industrial user 24 Gigawatt hour (GWh) per year;

— small commercial user 50 Megawatt hour (MWh) per year;

— domestic user 3500 Kilowatt (KWh) per year.

The three Member States mentioned by the Honourable Member have above average network tariffs for the customer types used.

Generally speaking, it is considered that national regulators are best placed to make the final decision on the appropriateness or otherwise of network access charges. It is true that topology may explain some differences but the other factors identified (security of supply, consumption patterns) are not so different on an individual Member State basis. As noted in the report, the lack of effective regulation in certain Member States and an inadequate level of unbundling are also likely explanations of these differences.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/553

(2004/C 78 E/0588)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3456/03

by Adriana Poli Bortone (UEN) to the Commission

(20 November 2003)

Subject: Cofinancing of NGOs

The Commission has made provision to reduce the allocation of resources for cooperation on poverty from EUR 199,9 million in 2003 to 193,8 million in 2004. In 2002 the Commission selected as ‘good projects’ only 20 % out of a maximum of 50 % which it could have financed. Can the Commission say which NGOs obtained funding, under what budget lines, what projects were completed and what short- or long-term term results were achieved?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(22 December 2003)

The results of calls for proposals are published on EuropeAid's website at: http://europa.eu.int/comm/europeaid/projects/ong_cd/index_en.htm

The list gives the beneficiary's name, the project title and the beneficiary country. A list of operations cofinanced in the developing countries in 2002 under line B7-6000 is being sent direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat. In 2002, EUR 199,2 million was committed out of the EUR 199,9 million available under line B7-6000.

Each budget line is governed by a regulation specifying the eligible beneficiaries which can only be nongovernmental organisations (NGOs) (e.g. B7-6000) or non-profit organisations which are not necessarily NGOs (e.g. B7-6002).

Operations cofinanced with NGOs under B7-6000 are monitored. The last monitoring report of about a hundred operations highlighted their quality in terms of results and sustainability. The final payment of the Community contribution is subject to approval of a final report consisting of a technical part, which usually contains the evaluation results, and a financial part, including an external audit report.

In 2000, the Commission carried out an overall evaluation of line B7-6000. While pointing to shortcomings in the overall impact of the line owing to the diversity of operations, NGOs and its geographical coverage, the evaluation recognised the positive results of the majority of operations cofinanced. It can be read on the Internet at the following address: (http://europa.eu.int/comm/europeaid/ evaluation/program/otherrep.htm).
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 88/480

(2004/C 88 E/0493)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-4010/03

by Reino Paasilinna (PSE) to the Commission

(8 January 2004)

Subject: Safeguarding electricity supplies

The directive concerning common rules for the internal market in electricity (2003/54/EC (1)) was adopted on 26 June 2003. Its preamble (particularly Recitals 23, 24 and 26) stresses security of supply, protection of vulnerable customers and maintaining public service standards.

What practical measures has the Commission taken to ensure that Member States comply with their obligations as referred to above? A particular concern, especially in wintertime, is security of supply. The widespread and protracted power cuts in the past year have demonstrated the vulnerability of the existing networks.

How will the Commission ensure that a fully operational internal market in the field of electricity networks does not render operations increasingly unreliable?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(6 February 2004)

The issue of security of supply is a crucial issue for the successful operation of the internal market. This applies equally for the maintenance and the increase of public service levels and the protection of vulnerable customers. These issues are, therefore, given great emphasis in the new Electricity Directive 2003/54/EC (2), which requires Member States to monitor the demand/supply balance in their electricity systems and to provide for the necessary fall back mechanisms which they can use should the market not be able to guarantee security of supply.

Member States are now implementing this Directive into their national legislation. The Commission will evaluate whether they have complied with their obligations on these issues when national legislation is notified to it. Should a Member State fail to implement the Directive correctly, the Commission will commence an infringement procedure. However, the Commission expects that Member States will faithfully transpose the Directive. The Commission will in any event carry out a process of benchmarking and comparison of the approaches taken by Member States to promote best practice among the Member States.

Furthermore, on 10 December 2003 the Commission published a proposal for a Directive concerning measures to safeguard security of electricity supply and infrastructure investment (3). This proposal intends to ensure that Member States have a clear security of supply policy established in advance to ensure regulatory stability and a clear apportioning of responsibilities. In addition, it seeks to guarantee that the necessary investments in cross border infrastructure will be made to ensure both security of supply and the full development of competition throughout the internal market.

(1) OJ L 176, 15.7.2003, p. 37.

(2) Directive 2003/54/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2003 concerning common rules for the internal market in electricity and repealing Directive 96/92/EC — Statements made with regard to decommissioning and waste management activities.

(3) COM(2003) 740 final.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/403

(2004/C 78 E/0425)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2405/03

by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(21 July 2003)

Subject: Motor-vehicle insurance

On 19 June 2003, the Belgian Insurance Ombudsman presented her annual report. In the evaluation of her report, the Ombudsman was reported in the newspaper ‘De Standaard’ to have noted that young people, above all, as well as elderly drivers were being systematically refused insurance or that their policies were being swiftly cancelled if they made a claim.

In its answer to Oral Question H-0525/02 (1), the Commission stated that free trade in insurance products was in the interests of the vast majority of motorists who could choose the insurance company which rewarded good drivers by charging lower premiums.

With a view to ensuring that drivers in general and young drivers in particular may secure affordable third-party liability insurance cover, the new Belgian Government is proposing that insurance companies should be required to offer new drivers policies valid for a period of five years or longer.

Does the Commission acknowledge that this refusal of cover for principally young drivers but also for elderly drivers is in breach of the spirit of Article 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and of the virtually identical Article II-21 of the Draft Treaty establishing a European Constitution? If so, what measures will it take to prevent such discrimination? If not, what arguments can it put forward in support of this manifest discrimination on the ground of age?

Does the Commission acknowledge that young and elderly drivers find it particularly difficult to secure motor-vehicle insurance and that the free trade in insurance products does not, therefore, benefit this considerable group of motorists? If so, what measures will it take on behalf of consumers? If not, what arguments can it put forward to underpin its divergent point of view?

Is the Commission aware of the Belgian Government's intention to require insurers to offer new drivers policies valid for five years or more? Is that requirement in compliance with Community law? If not, what alternatives will the Commission propose so that young drivers in particular may nevertheless secure affordable (compulsory) third-party liability insurance?

(1) Oral answer given on 3 September 2002.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/233

(2004/C 84 E/0275)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3282/03

by Anne André-Léonard (ELDR) to the Council

(30 October 2003)

Subject: Harmonisation of European legislation in respect of boatmasters' certificates for recreational craft

Parliament and the Council recently amended Directive 94/25/EC (1) on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States relating to recreational craft.

This directive is centred on the establishment of environmental and safety standards for the construction of such craft.

However, a further aspect which should not be overlooked is the need for Community harmonisation in the area of boatmasters' certificates for recreational craft.

In this connection, does the Council envisage the introduction of a European boatmaster's certificate? If so, what measures does it intend to take to ensure effective regulation in this area?

Reply

(9 March 2004)

The Council attaches great importance to legislative or administrative provisions designed to contribute to raising safety standards in all areas under exclusive or shared Community competency. The recently amended Directive by the European Parliament and the Council on recreational craft should be seen also in this context.

Regarding possible measures to harmonise a European boatmaster's certificate for recreational craft, the Council points out that any such proposal would fall within the Commission's right of initiative. To date, no such proposal has been submitted to the Council.

(1) OJ L 164, 30.6.1994, p. 15.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/434

(2004/C 78 E/0455)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2819/03

by Proinsias De Rossa (PSE) to the Commission

(19 September 2003)

Subject: Environmental impact assessments in Ireland

On 22 July, the Commission announced (IP/03/1070) that it was referring Ireland to the European Court of Justice concerning the possibility, inter alia, that Irish authorities allow a decision to be made before rather than after an environmental impact assessment has been fully assessed in line with the EIA Directive.

What specific cases in Ireland is the Commission concerned about in this regard?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(28 October 2003)

The Commission's concerns derived from its examination of the way in which the impact of the Kildare Bypass motorway project on an internationally important wetland, Pollardstown Fen, and an associated aquifer were assessed.

More specifically, despite advice from the statutory nature conservation authority that the information provided by the developer was seriously deficient, certain important studies on the likely impacts were only undertaken after the decision approving the project was already taken.

Whilst the Commission did not challenge the specific project, it decided to challenge the underlying approach taken on the basis that it was not compliant with the requirements of Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (1).

(1) OJ L 175, 5.7.1985, p. 40.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/452

(2004/C 78 E/0477)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3301/03

by Nicole Thomas-Mauro (UEN) to the Commission

(7 November 2003)

Subject: Info-points Europe

A message has recently been sent to the various Info-points Europe informing them that they were to lose European subsidies.

The Info-points Europe were set up to enable members of the public to obtain information about Europe.

The withdrawal of subsidies manifestly conflicts with the new information strategy adopted in 2002. The Commission seems to take the view that the entry into force of the new Financial Regulation on 1 January 2003 is a sufficient condition for this withdrawal.

What financial support systems does the Commission propose to introduce?

Are any other measures planned to enable these bodies to operate?
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/715

(2004/C 84 E/0803)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0243/03

by Nirj Deva (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(4 February 2003)

Subject: Kenya Westlands-St Austins road scheme

Will the Commission ensure that it complies with its duty under Article 288 (ex 215) to make good any damage caused by its institutions or by its servants in the performance of their duties in the light of suggestions made by local people at the instigation of Lutz Salzmann, former Head of the EU Delegation in Kenya, in 1996?

Will the Commission fund the borehole that has been requested by the local community in the light of the destruction of the water table and the contamination of the general water supply brought about by contractors working for the EU?

Will it also consider supporting the creation of a health clinic in the Rung iri/Gitaru area to counteract the respiratory damage which affects local people and was caused by the contractors during construction work?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(14 March 2003)

Please refer to decision by the European Ombudsman on complaint 983/29.10.96/ABU/KENYA/XD/BB against the Commission of 29 April 1999, in which the Ombudsman concluded that ‘on the basis of the European Ombudsman's enquiries into this complaint, there appears to have been no mal-administration by the European Commission, and the European Ombudsman has therefore decided to close the case’.

Consequently, it is not correct to say that the Commission or its servants caused any damage, destruction and contamination to the water supply, health, or the general environment affecting local people.

This not withstanding the Commission Delegation in Kenya has repeatedly advised and continues to advise the local community about the funding possibilities for community based projects through the Community Development Trust Fund (CDTF) programme, which is financed from the European Development Fund. The fund very successfully aims to help local communities to meet some of their priority needs (health, water, education, roads, income generating activities, etc). Furthermore, the Delegation facilitated contacts between the local community and CDTF and provided them with an outline proposal for a community water project in their areas prepared by a local engineering and development consultancy.

Unfortunately, the local community to date failed to introduce any application for project funding with CDTF.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 88/652

(2004/C 88 E/0669)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3857/03

by Raffaele Costa (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(16 December 2003)

Subject: Development aid programme for India

A series of projects have been financed under the development aid programme for India, which amounted to EUR 84 million in 2001. Would the Commission state the exact number of projects funded and whether, in the case of each project, it checked the successful implementation of the costs involved and the initiatives launched?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(2 February 2004)

The amount referred to by the Honourable Member consists of the total disbursements (EUR 84 million) for India during the year 2001. In comparison, disbursements amounted to over EUR 103 million in 2002 and about the same amount in 2003.

In 2001, the portfolio of the main Community development co-operation activities under implementation in India can be divided into three broad categories:

— twelve agricultural and rural development projects implemented by government agencies;

— two sector support programmes (one for education and one for health and family welfare);

— four projects implemented by large non-governmental organisations (NGOs) (three on rural development and one on education).

In its most recent report (Special Report No 10/2003 on the ‘Effectiveness of the Commission's management of development assistance to India in targeting the poor and ensuring sustainable benefit’), the Court of Auditors concluded that the Commission's management has been successful in targeting the poor and in addressing sustainability. Moreover, the Commission ensures that all its main projects (over EUR 1 million) are subject to an external monitoring at least once a year.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/271

(2004/C 78 E/0271)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3353/03

by Hiltrud Breyer (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(13 November 2003)

Subject: Equal treatment of men and women in sport

Men and women are treated differently in a number of different sports: for example, female boxers are not allowed to compete at the Olympic Games.

Does the Commission feel that this unequal treatment on the basis of gender is compatible with EU law?

If not, what legislation should be used to prevent discrimination in sport?

If it does, is the Commission thinking of closing the loopholes in the law, with, for example, the planned directive on equality between men and women outside the workplace?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(6 January 2004)

The European Union already has substantial legislation on gender equality in employment.

Council Directive 76/207/EEC of 9 February 1976 on the implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women as regards access to employment, vocational training and promotion, and working conditions (1) guarantees equal treatment for men and women in sport, provided they are professional sportspeople and fall within the definition of a ‘worker’.

In addition, on 5 November 2003 the Commission adopted a proposal for a Council Directive (2) implementing the principle of equal treatment for women and men outside the labour market. The aim of this Directive is the progressive implementation of equal treatment.

With regard to women's competitions at the Olympic Games, the Commission is unable to comment on a matter which is not within its jurisdiction. The International Olympic Committee (IOC), which organises the competition, is a private body whose job it is to organise the event not only according to sporting criteria but also in line with commercial criteria. The rules for participation in the Games are decided jointly by the International Olympic Committee and international sports federations.

(1) OJ L 39, 14.2.1976.

(2) COM(2003) 657 final.