ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3394/02

by Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(28 November 2002)

Subject: Olive production register in Greece

Will the Commission say what stage has been reached in drawing up the olive production register in Greece and what amounts of funding have been made available? What are its views on the progress made so far and what consequences might the delay have?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(11 December 2002)

Under Commission Regulation (CE) No 2366/98(1) the olive tree registers are being replaced by a modern Geographical Information System (GIS) called Olive GIS.

In Greece the work has been divided into two phases.

The Ministry of Agriculture, in charge of the implementation, has contracted the work to consortia of companies:

- phase one, which contains the creation of the reference material using aerial photographs, has been completed at a cost of EUR 2 919 527;

- phase two covers the implementation of both olive and vineyard GIS at the same time. In Greece the vineyard register has not yet been implemented. This second phase covers the identification of olive trees and vineyards on the aerial photographs as well as the verification with the declaration, and is divided into 14 contracts, each covering a different geographical zone. The value of the contracts for this part is estimated to be EUR 29 215 134 for the olive GIS and EUR 8 168 703 for the vineyard GIS.

The second phase started very late due to problems linked to public contracts. Two of the 14 contracts still have to be signed. The first tangible final results are expected by the end of 2002 while the main part of the work is expected to finish in the first semester of 2003.

The Commission will evaluate, according to rules defined in Commission Regulation (CE) No 2366/98, the completeness of the system once the Greek authorities announce it to be ready in a final report.

In the absence of a working GIS the Greek authorities are obliged to control 10 % of the applications on-the-spot.

As from 1 November 2003, olive oil produced from olive trees not covered by an approved GIS will be excluded from aid payment for olive oil. So if the GIS is not in place by this date, no aid will be paid by the European Agriculture Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) for the olive oil in question(2).

(1) Commission Regulation (EC) 2366/98 of 30 October 1998 laying down detailed rules for the application of the system of production aid for olive oil for the 1998/1999, 1999/2000 and 2000/2001 marketing years, OJ L 293, 31.10.1998.

(2) Council Regulation (EC) No 1513/2001 of 23 July 2001 amending Regulations No 136/66/EEC and (EC) No 1638/98 as regards the extension of the period of validity of the aid scheme and the quality strategy for olive oil, OJ L 201, 26.7.2001.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3374/02

by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(27 November 2002)

Subject: Marta Andreasen's criticism of the accounting systems

Can the Commission state the reasons why Marta Andreasen has not been allowed to make public statements concerning the Commission's allegedly faulty accounting systems if the Commission now considers, as it repeatedly states, that none of the points raised by Marta Andreasen reveals anything more than what is already known?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(17 December 2002)

The Staff Regulations of the European civil service clearly require officials to exercise the greatest discretion with regard to facts and information coming to their knowledge in the course of, or in connection with, the performance of their duties. Such a requirement is common to public services in democracies.

According to established case law, this obligation is intended primarily to preserve the relationship of trust which must exist between the European institutions and their officials or other employees.

Mrs Andreasen was properly reminded of her statutory obligations as an official and requested to seek the prior agreement of her hierarchy before making public statements.

Mrs Adreasen has only once ever requested prior agreement before making public statements and that very recently on 2 December 2002.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2817/02

by Bill Newton Dunn (ELDR) to the Commission

(30 September 2002)

Subject: Lemon curd and mincemeat

A British newspaper, The Sunday Telegraph, which is notorious for its habit of inaccurate and ill-researched anti-EU propaganda, alleged on 21 September 2002 that, in a proposed revised version of the EU Directive on fruit jams, jellies and marmalades and sweetened chestnut puree, it will in future be illegal in the United Kingdom to put lemon curd or mincemeat on a label.

What is the truth?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(18 October 2002)

Lemon curd is a product made, mainly, from an emulsion of edible fats or other oils (or both), sugar, whole egg or egg yolk (or both), and any combination of lemon puree, lemon pulp or lemon.

Mincemeat is a product made mainly from a sweetening agent, vine fruits, citrus peel, sugar or any other carbohydrate, suet or equivalent fat and vinegar or acetic acid with or without other ingredients.

Council Directive 2001/113/EC of 20 December 2001, relating to fruit jams, jellies and marmalades and sweetened chestnut purée intended for human consumption(1), defines the names jam, extra jam, jelly, extra jelly, marmalade, jelly marmalade and sweetened chestnut puree. Products bearing these names must have a composition that corresponds to the definitions in the Annex (I) of the Council Directive 2001/113/EC.

The said Directive does not provide for a prohibition to use the names mincemeat or lemon curd for the products described at the beginning of this reply.

(1) OJ L 10, 12.1.2002.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1029/02

by Anna Karamanou (PSE) to the Commission

(15 April 2002)

Subject: Tragic death of 14 girls in Saudi Arabia

The newspaper, Arab News; and Amnesty International report that 14 girls lost their lives and dozens of others were injured in a fire at their school in Mecca on 11 March 2002 when the religious police (Muttawah) prevented them from fleeing the fire because they were not wearing headscarves and no male relatives were present to collect them. Furthermore, the religious police prevented rescue teams from entering the school as men are not allowed to mix with women. This tragic event is a stark illustration of the appalling effects of gender discrimination on human life. Moreover, Saudi Arabia is a party to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW).

Will the Commission exert pressure on the government of Saudi Arabia to launch an investigation as a matter of urgency into these tragic deaths and bring those responsible to justice to prevent similar occurrences in the future? Will the Commission make representations to the Saudi Government to put an end to the policies and practices which devalue the lives of women and perpetuate discrimination against women?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(21 May 2002)

As the Commission does not yet have a Delegation in Riyadh, it has learned about the tragic death of the fourteen girls in Saudi Arabia mainly through the media. Obviously, if the reports about the circumstances are correct, this is totally unacceptable and unforgivable. The Commission will raise the matter at the Middle East and Gulf (Comem) working group in the Council and ask Member States for further information.

The human rights situation, including gender discrimination, in Saudi Arabia is of serious concern to the Commission. It regularly raises these matters within the framework of the yearly meetings of the Union/Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) Joint Council. Furthermore, there will be a human rights clause in the Free Trade Agreement with the GCC, which is currently being negotiated.

The Commission is planning to open a Delegation in Riyadh towards the end of 2002. This presence on the ground will be an important development in our bilateral relations, enabling us not only to strengthen our human rights dialogue with the Government of Saudi Arabia, but also to take up certain, individual cases.

The Commission wishes to assure the Honourable Member that it will continue its efforts to improve the human rights situation, including gender discrimination, in Saudi Arabia.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2835/02

by Jorge Hernández Mollar (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(9 October 2002)

Subject: EU assistance for bottling Malaga wine

On Spain's entry to the European Union in 1986, the majority of Andalusian wine was sold abroad unbottled. Wine producers in Jerez have almost entirely abandoned the practice, but a third of all Malaga wines are still exported unbottled.

Although about two million litres of Malaga wine are produced every year, only a third is exported, and of that only a third is bottled. However, Malaga wine producers are determined that in five years' time all Malaga wine will be sold in bottled form, which will avoid its inclusion on the list of semi-generics, a denomination category which is not respected abroad, particularly in the United States.

Will the Commission indicate to what extent it will support the Malaga wine producers' aims to ensure that in five years all Malaga wine will be exported in bottled form with a denomination of origin?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(21 November 2002)

On the matter of bottling of wine in the region of origin reference should be made to the Court of Justice's judgment of 16 May 2000 in case C-388/95(1).

It must nonetheless be stressed that bottling of Malaga wines in the region cannot by itself solve the semi-generic problem. Agreements with the countries using these are indispensable.

The Commission is doing all it can to conclude bilateral agreements with other countries on trade in wines and spirits and is at present negotiating with the United States.

(1) [2000] ECR I-03123.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2968/02

by Jens-Peter Bonde (EDD) to the Commission

(22 October 2002)

Subject: Open competition COM/A/6/01 Administrators (A7/A6) in the fields of external relations and management aid to non-member countries

Could the Commission answer the following points regarding the recruitment competition COM/A/6/01 and in particular specify:

- How many candidates were finally included in the reserve list?

- How many citizens from each Member State were finally included in the reserve list?

- How many candidates that have or have had a contract with the European Commission or any other EU Institution came to the interview (exam f)?

- How many candidates that have or have had a contract with the European Commission or any other EU Institution were finally included in the reserve list? (Please specify for each Member State.)

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(6 December 2002)

Competition COM/A/6/01 has just been completed. According to the notice of the competition, Field 1 concerns external relations for which the reserve list figure is 80, and Field 2 concerns management of aid to non-member countries for which the reserve list figure is 250.

Statistics concerning this above open competition are sent direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat.

The Commission is collecting the information it needs to provide full factual answers to the last two questions. It will communicate its findings as soon as possible.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2882/02

by María Valenciano Martínez-Orozco (PSE) to the Commission

(14 October 2002)

Subject: Case brought by the Commission against the Kingdom of Spain Case C-358/01 importation of cleaning agents containing bleach

Can the Commission say what stage has been reached in the above proceedings?

Can it say whether it has received any response to its request from the Spanish Government?

What concrete measures will it take to resolve this case and ensure that Community legislation is complied with?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(18 November 2002)

The infringement procedure mentioned by the Honourable Member is Procedure No 1999/4134 relating to Spanish legislation on liquid bleach.

The Spanish authorities have replied to the Commission at the various stages of the administrative proceedings launched under Article 226 of the EC Treaty.

Since the Commission does not consider the responses provided to be satisfactory, Spain has not complied with the reasoned opinion and has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 28 of the EC Treaty by refusing access to the Spanish market for products lawfully manufactured and marketed in other Member States under the name of cleaning agents with bleach or a similar term, when these have chlorine concentration of less then 35 grammes/litre. As a result, the Commission has brought this case before the Court of Justice (Case C-2001/358).

This case is currently pending before the Court.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2655/02

by Robert Evans (PSE) to the Commission

(13 September 2002)

Subject: Maajid Nawaz, Ian Malcolm Nisbett and Reza Pankhurst held captive in Egypt

Maajid Nawaz, Ian Malcolm Nisbett and Reza Pankhurst are three young British Muslim men who have been detained in Egypt for five months. There have been concerns raised about their treatment, including allegations of torture and breaches of the Geneva Convention. The British Government has issued a formal complaint to the Egyptian Government concerning their treatment.

What action is the Commission taking to support the UK Government in this case and end the abuses of these men's human rights?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(3 October 2002)

The 26 persons of the Al Tahrir group, including the three British nationals referred to by the Honourable Member, were arrested in April 2002 and eventually charged on 4 August 2002 with belonging to a banned organisation and propagating its goals, i.a. the overthrow of the present Egyptian government and the installation of an Islamic Khalifat. The case is due to be heard before an Emergency State Security Court on 20 October 2002. A fourth Briton arrested at the same time was released without charge.

The Commission is aware of allegations of mistreatment made by members of Al Tahrir in Britain and of official British contacts with the Egyptian authorities to gain information on this point. There were also problems of access to the detained British men

at their arrest although the Commission understands that there is now regular consular access. As it is normal in such cases, the matter is being handled bilaterally by the British authorities. The Commission Delegation in Cairo and other Member State embassies are kept fully informed.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3075/02

by Ulpu Iivari (PSE) to the Council

(22 October 2002)

Subject: Double taxation of orchestras

Under Community legislation and in particular Article 49 of the EC Treaty, Member States are forbidden to restrict the freedom to provide services by means of double taxation. Avanti!, a Finnish chamber orchestra financed mainly by public funds, was subjected to double taxation in Germany, in the Land of Schleswig-Holstein, when it performed at the Schleswig-Holstein music festival in August 2001. It had to pay tax to the Land on its appearance fees, even though, in accordance with the taxation agreement between Germany and Finland, it produced evidence supplied by the Finnish authorities to the effect that its activities were subsidised, the tour that it was making had been publicly funded, and it functioned as an employer, in other words it paid the musicians' wages, from which it deducted tax, and was responsible for the employer's contributions. The orchestra has already been in correspondence with the Land tax authorities about the double taxation for nearly two years, and there is no end in sight.

Does the Council consider that cases of this kind impede the operation of the internal market? What will it do to improve its operation and specifically to tackle the problems linked to double taxation?

Reply

(18 February 2003)

It is not for the Council to comment on the application of a Member State's tax provisions. Furthermore, the Council would remind the Honourable Member that Article 293 of the EC Treaty provides that Member States shall, so far as is necessary, enter into negotiations with each other with a view to securing for the benefit of their nationals inter alia the abolition of double taxation within the Community.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1990/02

by Stavros Xarchakos (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(8 July 2002)

Subject: Right to vote for non-Community nationals

The Greek press reports that the population in many areas in Greece is deeply concerned that economic migrants, who have poured into Greece in their hundreds of thousands in recent years (many of whom have obtained the green card work permit), will soon acquire the right to vote in local and regional elections. Such a step would clearly affect the sovereignty of the Greek people and compromise the mandate given by local communities to local representatives.

Is there any causal relationship between the green card and the granting of the right to vote to non-Community nationals under Community legislation?

Is the Commission aware of any cases where temporary workers who are non-Community nationals have acquired the right to vote in Greece and the other Member States of the Union?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(9 August 2002)

The Honourable Member's question concerns the third country national's right to vote in the Member States.

The right to vote of third country nationals residing in a Member State in elections of that Member State belongs solely to the competence of the Member States. Regarding municipal elections, this is explicitly confirmed in Directive 94/80/EC(1), which provides that nothing in that Directive affects each Member State's provisions concerning the right to vote or to stand as a candidate of third country national who reside in that State.

Because of the lack of the competence there is no Community law concerning a right to vote to third country nationals or relation between a green card and voting rights.

The Community law does not prevent a Member State from deciding to grant citizens of non-Union countries resident in that Member State the right to vote in elections. The Commission is aware that certain Member States like for example Spain, Ireland, Netherlands, Finland and Sweden have granted the right to vote also to certain non-Union citizens in certain elections. However because this is not a matter for the Commission, it does not have comprehensive information as regards elections, exact persons having the voting right or conditions to vote at its disposal.

(1) Council Directive 94/80/EC of 19 December 1994, laying down detailed arrangements for the exercise of the right to vote and stand as a candidate in municipal elections by citizens of the Union residing in a Member State of which they are not nationals OJ L 368, 31.12.1994.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2830/02

by Isidoro Sánchez García (ELDR) to the Council

(9 October 2002)

Subject: Military manoeuvres involving Spain and NATO in Fuerteventura (Canaries)

During the last two weeks of September 2002 the seas off the island of Fuerteventura in the Canaries one of the EU's outlying regions were the scene of a series of military manoeuvres, organised by the Spanish Ministry of Defence with NATO participation.

These quite disproportionate activities provoked considerable surprise among local civilians and tourists on the island, and also surprised the Canaries authorities, who had not been officially informed that the manoeuvres would take place. Meanwhile, about a score of the rare cetaceans which inhabit the seas off the Canaries were washed up dead on the coasts of Fuerteventura.

Despite the acute sensitivities of the local population, the surprise of the tourists and the political representations made in consequence by the Canaries institutions to the Spanish authorities, the manoeuvres went on.

In whatever circumstances, given that this was a defence-related event falling within the scope of the Community legislation on the common foreign and security policy, and, specifically, Articles 21 and 28 of the Treaty on European Union,

1. Will the Council suggest to the Spanish government and NATO that they should take the necessary action to provide compensation for the economic and social damage arising to the island of Fuerteventura, and take all steps to ensure that this incident is not repeated

2. Will the Council ensure, in the context of EU/NATO relations, that military manoeuvres are planned so that environmental considerations are taken into account and significant ecological consequences are avoided?

Reply

(18 February 2003)

It is not for the Council to state its views on relations between a Member State and an international organisation of which that State is a member.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1827/02

by Luis Berenguer Fuster (PSE) to the Commission

(27 June 2002)

Subject: State aid procedure initiated for Terra Mítica pursuant to Article 88(2)

The autonomous government of Valencia has authorised the regional ministry of finance to endorse a new loan of EUR 145 million for the Alicante Theme Park Company, which brings the total sum of loans given to the company to ESP 556 million, the majority of which has been earmarked for Terra Mítica, and the remainder for the Ciudad de la Luz project, both of which are linked to a certain extent.

There are also reports that Terra Mítica has not been paying the interest on the loans granted to the Theme Park Company, which had been endorsed by the Valencia government.

Is the Commission aware of these facts? If so, are they likely to have repercussions on the state aid procedure for Terra Mítica?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(12 August 2002)

The Commission was not aware of the information referred to by the Honourable Member.

It would point out that the guarantee allegedly granted by the Generalitat Valenciana to Sociedad Parque Temático de Alicante for a new loan of EUR 145 million that it is reported as having contracted cannot in itself constitute state aid since Sociedad Parque Temático de Alicante is not engaged in any commercial activity. By contrast, any additional financial assistance that Sociedad Parque Temático de Alicante may have been in a position to grant to Terra Mítica on the back of its guaranteed loan might contain elements of aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) of the Treaty. The Commission will therefore contact the Spanish authorities in order to check this information and, if it turns out to be well founded, will ask them whether additional financial assistance has been provided to Terra Mitica by Sociedad Parque Temático de Alicante.

As already indicated to the Honourable Member(1), the Commission takes the view that the Terra Mítica and Ciudad de la Luz projects are separate projects.

The Commission will also write to the Spanish authorities in order to ascertain whether, as reported, Terra Mítica is not paying any interest on the loan granted by Sociedad Parque Temático de Alicante.

The Commission will be certain to inform the Honourable Member direct of its findings as regards the two aspects of his question. It would note that the question raises the possibility of additional unlawful aid having been granted to Terra Mítica. It will treat this aid as a separate case from that in respect of which a formal investigation had previously been initiated under Article 88(2) of the EC Treaty(2) and on which the Commission adopted a final decision (absence of aid and compatible aid) on 2 August 2002.

(1) Letter from Mr Monti dated 5 February 2002.

(2) OJ C 300, 26.10.2001.