ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 88/197

(2004/C 88 E/0202)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0624/04

by Marjo Matikainen-Kallström (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(1 March 2004)

Subject: Dumping of imported Norwegian and Faeroese rainbow trout

The question whether the provisional anti-dumping duty laid down by the Commission last September should continue to apply on a definitive basis (for five years) to imports of large rainbow trout from Norway and the Faeroes is at this moment under consideration. The Commission has proposed a 19,9 % anti-dumping duty on rainbow trout imported from Norway.

As far as EU fish-farmers are concerned, enforcement of the duty is vital for the continuation of their livelihood. In 2003 Norway supplied almost 7 million kilos of rainbow trout to the Union Member States at the extremely low price of EUR 2,46 per kilo. Production costs in Norway and, for example, Finland are approximately EUR 3,50 per kilo.

The Norwegian dumping stems from overproduction. Last year Norway granted 50 new production licences and offered 60 more for sale at the end of the year. Fish-farming losses in Norway totalled EUR 190 million in 2002 and were even higher last year. About 20 % of production is accounted for by rainbow trout.

In its role of overseeing the internal market, what steps will the Commission take, and within what timeframe, to eradicate harmful dumping from the market?

Answer given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(2 April 2004)

After the imposition, in September 2003, of provisional anti-dumping duties on imports of large rainbow trout from Norway and the Faeroe Islands, the Commission has examined all submissions from the interested parties concerning the provisional findings. In January, a price undertaking had been accepted from exporters from the Faeroe Islands.

The provisional findings have been, after in depth examination, confirmed by the Member States. Indeed, by Council Regulation (EC) No 437/2004 (1) a definitive duty of 19,9 % on imports of large rainbow trout originating in Norway and of duties ranging from 42,6 to 54,4 % on imports of the same product from the Faeroe Islands, with the exception of the imports originating from the exporters having offered the price undertaking accepted by the Commission, have been imposed. The imposition of these measures aims at removing the injurious dumping found during the investigation conducted by the Commission. It is therefore expected to restore a level playing field in the Community market protecting thus the Community industry from unfair competition. The definitive anti-dumping measures will apply for a period of five years, which is normally necessary to counteract the dumping which is causing injury.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 437/2004 of 8 March 2004 imposing definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of large rainbow trout originating in Norway and the Faeroe Islands, OJ L 72, 11.3.2004.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 88/250

(2004/C 88 E/0255)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0935/04

by Hans Kronberger (NI) to the Commission

(22 March 2004)

Subject: European environment and health strategy – SCALE

Early last summer, the Commission launched the European environment and health strategy (SCALE).

In its press release (IP/03/823) of 11 June 2003, the Commission describes the five key elements of the strategy. The second of these is ‘children’, as they are particularly susceptible to environmental agents. In this connection the Commission claims that 157 million children in Europe are suffering from special environment-related problems.

According to ‘A Community of fifteen: key figures’, 2000 edition, in 1998 less than 20 % of the population of the EU consisted of children aged from 0 to 14. Assuming the population of the EU to be around 370 million, the population would include 74 million children under 15 at the absolute maximum. Even if one allows for the increase in the EU's population due to enlargement, it would hardly be possible to arrive at a figure of 157 million children in Europe.

The Commission:

1. What criteria did it use to arrive at the figure of 157 million children in Europe?

2. Could the figure quoted by the Commission be due to a misprint?

3. If so, how many children are really suffering from environment-related problems in Europe?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(30 April 2004)

1. The Commission has quoted the figure of 157 million children in Europe based on the United Nations (UN) Population Data Base as no data was available from Directorate-General Eurostat at this stage. The figure refers to the population of children aged 0-15 in Europe in 2000. The figure, however, refers to the total number of children inhabiting Europe and not to the number of children suffering from environmentally-related diseases.

2. The figure quoted by the Commission is not due to a misprint. The relevant reference website is: (www.un.org/popin/data.html).

3. At this stage, the Commission does not have reliable figures on how many children are suffering from diseases related to the environment across Europe. It has been estimated that up to one fifth of the total burden of disease in industrialised countries can be attributed to environmental factors (1). In this respect, children are an important target group as they are particularly vulnerable to environmental hazards. One important development in this context is the significant increase in childhood asthma observed in developed western societies to levels where around 10 % of children are suffering from asthmatic symptoms. The environment and health monitoring work to be developed as a key priority of the EU Environment and health strategy will make it possible to develop specific estimates on the numbers of children affected by diseases related to the environment.

(1) How much global ill health is attributable to environmental factors?, K. R. Smith et al, Epidemiology 1999.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 88/279

(2004/C 88 E/0284)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1078/04

by Philip Claeys (NI) to the Commission

(1 April 2004)

Subject: Political neutrality of the Info-Point Europe of the Province of Flemish Brabant

On 15 April the Flemish Brabant Info-Point Europe is to hold a debate in the provincial government building in Leuven on the European elections. Although five parties represented in parliament are to take part in Flanders in the forthcoming European elections, only representatives of three parties have been invited to participate in this debate, namely Marianne Thyssen (CD & V), Saïd El Khadraoui (SPA) and Dirk Sterckx (VLD). A small party, the ‘Greens’, has not been invited. Likewise the Vlaams Blok, despite the fact that it came in third in Flanders in the last European election. Contacted by telephone and asked about this, the Info-Point Europe said that the debate concerns Flemish Brabant and Europe. However, one of the participants does not live in the province concerned, unlike one of the two Vlaams Blok MEPs who does live there. The Info-Point Europe and the province of Flemish Brabant have apparently decided on a completely arbitrary basis that the Vlaams Blok is not to be invited. The Flemish Brabant ‘Info-Point Europe’ evidently only wishes to provide part of the information about the European Parliament.

The leaflet containing an invitation to the debate includes not only the logos of the Info-Point Europe (which receives financial support from the Commission) and of the province, but also the European flag.

Does the Commission consider it usual for a public service partly financed by it to arbitrarily exclude political parties from public debate?

Are Info-Points Europe not required to show political neutrality?

What measures are intended to prevent such a deplorable state of affairs?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(30 April 2004)

The Commission thanks the honourable member for his question.

The Commission would like to draw his attention to the fact that the debate ‘U stemt toch ook voor Europa?’ was organised by the Leuven Info-Point Europe and not by the Commission.

Like the other information relays for the general public subsidised by the Commission, this Info-Point is provided by a host structure, in this case the Province of Flemish Brabant (Provincie Vlaams-Brabant), under an agreement with the Commission whereby the host structure and its Info-Point act in their own name and assume full responsibility for the information they supply to the public and the measures taken in order to do so.

Their objectives and activities must be based on the Union's principles and aims and respect the diversity of opinion of its citizens. The Commission has inquired into the case at hand and has not observed any violation of these principles.
2. and 3.

As long as the provisions concerning the regional monopoly for chimney sweeps exist, the affected parties in Germany are obliged to engage local chimney sweeps to sweep and check their chimneys, and face the threat of penalties if they infringe these rules. The affected parties in Germany do of course have the right to point out the possible incompatibility of certain provisions with Community law during administrative procedures or subsequent legal procedures. The primacy of Community law requires that national law which infringes Community law is examined by the national authorities and courts and, if appropriate, is not applied (1). Lower courts can also refer questions on the interpretation of the Treaties to the European Court of Justice (ECJ). In cases where Member State courts have the final say, they are obliged to bring the matter of the compatibility of national law with EU law before the Court of Justice (Article 234(3) of the EC Treaty). Under the Treaties establishing the European Communities, the European Court of Justice alone takes the final decision on whether legal provisions are compatible with EU law. The Commission can reach such a decision in its role as guardian of the Treaties, but cannot itself make this legally binding. The Court of Justice can establish that a national law infringes European law and call on the Member State concerned to amend the law to comply with EU law (Article 228(1) of the EC Treaty). If the Member State fails to do so, the Court of Justice may impose a lump sum or penalty payment on it (Article 228(2) of the EC Treaty).
2.

Regarding assistance to the Algerian authorities to help them properly and concretely deal with these issues, MEDA cooperation for the period 2004-2006 focuses on ‘third generation’ programmes, that is projects that support good governance, and in particular justice, non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and media. This is in line with the 2003 Commission Communication on Human Rights which aims at maximising the effectiveness of the instruments at the disposal of the EU and its Mediterranean partners in the field of human rights and democracy. Algeria is also a focus country under the 2003-2004 European Initiative for Democracy and Human Rights. This Programme aims at supporting NGOs through micro projects directed towards civil society. Furthermore, pending ratification of the Association Agreement, the Commission has continued to raise the issue of human rights and in particular that of the ‘disappeared’ and ‘mass graves’ in various fora and most notably at the last Troïka meeting which took place in Rome in November 2003. In its talks with the Algerian authorities, the Commission has in particular highlighted the need to grant families' associations legal recognition if proper interaction with those directly concerned is to be guaranteed in this process. It is the Commission's intention, with active support from the Council, to raise this issue again following the 8 April 2004 presidential election.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/341

(2004/C 84 E/0400)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0240/04

by Mario Borghezio (NI) to the Commission

(2 February 2004)

Subject: Huge discount from banks to the ‘Democratici di Sinistra’ party in violation of the principle of free competition

On 22 December 2003, the banking syndicate providing credit to the Italian political party Democratici di Sinistra (Democrats of the Left) — headed by the Carisbo Bank (San Paolo — IMI Group), with a claim of around EUR 30 million, and also comprising Banca Intesa and Capitalia, each with claims of EUR 21 million, and Monte dei Paschi di Siena, with a claim of around EUR 3,5 million — reached an agreement on total debt clearance via a settlement transaction providing for the writing-off of 50 % of the colossal overall debt of EUR 235 million. This huge discount was granted to a political party in precisely the same period in which shareholders and bondholders in companies with ties to the above-mentioned banks saw their legitimate interests being damaged and in which the selfsame banks implemented a rigid policy on overdraft reduction vis-à-vis debtor SMEs.

Would the Commission agree that this privileged treatment, which contrasts with that afforded by many banks to ‘ordinary’ debtors, constitutes a grave and manifest violation of the principle of free competition enshrined in Community law?

Will the European Central Bank call on the Italian Central Bank, Bankitalia, to ensure respect for this principle and the provisions of Articles 101 and 102 of the Treaty on European Union, not least because some of the Italian banks concerned are Bankitalia shareholders (controllers ‘controlled’)?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(5 March 2004)

In the area of competition policy, the Commission is responsible for the application of Articles 81 and 82 of the EC Treaty.

Article 81 of the EC Treaty prohibits agreements between undertakings, decisions of associations of undertakings and concerted practices which may affect trade between Member States and which have as their object or effect the prevention, restriction or distortion of competition within the common market. According to Article 82 of the EC Treaty, any abuse by one or more undertakings of a dominant position within the common market or in a substantial part of it shall be prohibited insofar as it may affect trade between Member States.

The facts described by the Honourable Member do not amount to an infringement of the competition rules, in particular articles 81 and 82 of the EC Treaty, since there is no evidence of a prevention, restriction or distortion of competition or an abuse of a dominant position within the common market or in a substantial part of it that may affect trade between Member States.

The Commission would like to remind the Honourable Member that it cannot take a position on matters concerning the European Central Bank.
1.

The high number of bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) cases arising after the introduction of a prohibition against using mammalian proteins in feed intended for ruminants in 1994 indicated a significant degree of contamination between ruminant feed and feed intended for other species and containing these proteins. Therefore, a prohibition on the use of animal proteins in the feeding of all farmed animals was necessary. It has also proved necessary to ban the use of non-ruminant protein in feed for control reasons. In particular, analytical methods to differentiate ruminant from non-ruminant proteins in feed are not available. Therefore, if non-ruminant proteins are being used in feed, it is not possible to detect the presence of potentially infected ruminant proteins. The current extended feed ban can only be reconsidered when methods detecting heat treated species specific proteins are validated. Such methods are currently not available and therefore the arguments to keep the extended feed ban are still applicable. The Commission continues to provide financial resources to support research on such methods (Stratfeed project, ring trials in 2003 and 2004).
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/643

(2004/C 84 E/0724)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0634/04

by Giovanni Procacci (ELDR) to the Commission

(25 February 2004)

Subject: Possible infringement by Italy

The Italian association LAPET (Independent Association of Taxation Analysts and Experts) wrote on 3 February 2003 to the Commission's DG Competition and DG Internal Market concerning a possible infringement of Community law by Italy. There appears to have been a clear breach of Community law in Italy in relation to Legislative Decree No 241 of 9 July 1997 (notably that law's Article 36).

Under that law, privileges are awarded to taxpayers who accept to have their accounts inspected by professionals who are qualified under the conditions laid down in the same law to undertake the necessary certification. Such professionals have to be auditors whose names have been entered for at least five years on the tax accountants', general accountants', commercial experts' or labour consultants' register, and must also have audited taxpayers' accounts during the tax period covered by the certification.

Can the Commission provide information on current practice in this respect and state what measures have been or will be taken?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(25 March 2004)

The Honourable Member is referring to information received by the Directorates-General for Competition and for the Internal Market in 2003. The presumed infringement concerns the exclusive right given to accountants who are registered for at least five years and have kept the accounts of a company to issue the so-called ‘heavy visa’.

In many Member States certain activities are reserved for certain professions. The Commission would like to draw attention to the newly published Report on Competition in Professional Services (1), where it analyses the existing regulations in the field of the liberal professions and sets out the Commission's thinking on the scope for reforming or modernising specific professional rules. The Report recognises that some regulation in the sector of professional services is justified although it believes that, in some cases, more pro-competitive mechanisms can and should be used instead.

It should also be stressed that the Member States are free to reserve activities for certain professions provided that they respect the principles of non-discrimination (nationality) and proportionality (and in particular provided that the measure is likely to achieve a legitimate objective such as the protection of consumers/customers through the justified qualifications-based requirement).

In order to be able to assess the alleged infringement, the Commission has requested further information from the informant and Italy is examining the file. At present, it cannot yet say what the result of its investigation will be.

(1) COM(2004) 83 of 9.2.2004.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/696

(2004/C 84 E/0782)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0900/04

by Glenys Kinnock (PSE) to the Commission

(24 March 2004)

Subject: Breastfeeding in public places

Is the Commission aware that many women in a number of Member States experience difficulty when they attempt to breastfeed in a public place?

Does the Commission consider that this is discriminatory against both mother and baby and that efforts should be made to change attitudes to what is a perfectly normal and acceptable practice?

Answer given by Mr Dimas on behalf of the Commission

(16 April 2004)

The Community legislation in the area of equal treatment between women and men covers issues relevant to the field of employment and occupation at this stage. The issue of breastfeeding in public places is not, therefore, an issue of discrimination within the meaning of existing Community legislation.

As the Honourable Member has said, this is a matter of attitudes to what is considered normal and acceptable practice in a society. The Community Framework Strategy on gender equality (2001-2005) (1) is supported by an action programme which aims at raising awareness on gender issues in EU policies, developing statistics and indicators and transnational networking of actors to promote gender equality. Among the objectives of the strategy is ‘promoting gender equality in civil life’ and ‘promoting change of gender roles and stereotypes’ which is about changing behaviour, attitudes, norms and values. This theme is a priority theme within the gender equality programme for 2004 and 2005.

(1) OJ C 337 E, 28.11.2000.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 88/201

(2004/C 88 E/0208)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0667/04

by Proinsias De Rossa (PSE) to the Commission

(9 March 2004)

Subject: Reopening of western rail corridor between Sligo and Cork in Ireland

Following the publication of the report ‘West on Track’ which estimates that the western rail corridor between Sligo and Cork in Ireland could be reopened for under EUR 250 million and that there would be significant potential for freight traffic on the route, as well as the apparent decision by the Irish Minister for Transport to reject the opinion of his Government's Strategic Rail Review, which concluded that the line would not be viable, could the Commission indicate if the possibility of re-opening this line has been raised with it by the Irish Government? What would be the Commission's response to such a proposal? Does the Commission believe that such a proposal or part of it would be eligible for EU support under the Marco Polo or other EU programmes?
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 88/549

(2004/C 88 E/0560)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0918/04

by Proinsias De Rossa (PSE) to the Commission

(26 March 2004)

Subject: Random motor insurance checks in Ireland on vehicles from other Member States

What reply, if any, did the Commission receive from Ireland in response to the reasoned opinion that it sent to Ireland in July 2001 (as announced in press release IP/01/1101) regarding Ireland's practice of making random insurance checks on vehicles from other Member States, thereby possibly infringing the First Motor Insurance Directive (72/166/EEC (1))? What subsequent action did the Commission take, or is still considering taking, with regard to this matter?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(30 April 2004)

Following the reasoned opinion sent by the Commission on 26 July 2001, Ireland has come into line with Community law by amending its legislation. In view of the Commission's concerns on the matter, Ireland agreed to replace the administrative arrangements providing for the implementation of Article 2(1) of the first Motor Insurance Directive (2) with regulations on a statutory basis. This provision abolished the checks on green cards for vehicles normally based in a Member State entering the territory of another Member State with a view to facilitating the free movement of vehicles and persons within the EU.

In particular, Section 4 of the Irish pieces of legislation called ‘European Communities (Road Traffic) (Compulsory Insurance) (Amendment) Regulations (S.I. No 463 of 2001)’ now provides such statutory cover with effect from 12 October 2001. According to the new provision, Section 69 of the Irish Road Traffic Act, 1961 (Law No 24 of 1961), which originally allowed random checks of vehicles from other EU countries, shall no longer apply to mechanically propelled vehicles which are normally based in EEA and EU countries other than Ireland.

Following the amendments of the Irish law bringing them into conformity with Community law, the Commission closed these infringement proceedings at its meeting held on 20th March 2002.

(1) OJ L 103, 2.5.1972, p. 1.

(2) Council Directive 72/166/EEC of 24 April 1972 on the approximation of the laws of Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles, and to the enforcement of the obligation to insure against such liability, OJ L 103, 2.5.1972.