ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 88/281

(2004/C 88 E/0288)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1161/04

by Mario Mauro (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(20 April 2004)

Subject: Foundry sector: shortages of raw materials

Europe is undergoing a serious steel and foundry crisis, which, by extension, affects all major steel users, from construction firms to the automobile and electric appliance industries.

This crisis has two causes: China's decision to reduce coke exports, with serious repercussions in Europe, and a rise in scrap prices due to a shortage of material and as a result of speculation.

The shortage of raw materials, coke and scrap is a stark reminder of the need for Europe to be in a position to produce its own coke that can be used in steel production, rather than having to rely on imports from producer countries that provide such materials only after meeting their own needs.

The difficulty of finding scrap in turn makes it more difficult to continue to supply electric steel furnaces, making them less sustainable.

Can the Commission indicate what measures it intends to take to increase the ‘circulation’ of raw materials on the market?

Joint answer

to Written Questions P-1105/04, P-1148/04 and E-1161/04

given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(29 April 2004)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Members to its replies to Written Questions P-0949/04 by Mr Costa (1), E-1020/04 by Ms Muscardini (2) and P-1028/04 by Ms Thomas-Mauro (3).

(1) OJ C 84 E, 3.4.2004, p. 698.

(2) OJ C 84 E, 3.4.2004, p. 929.

(3) See page 275.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/398

(2004/C 84 E/0461)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0435/04

by Michl Ebner (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(18 February 2004)

Subject: EURO 1

Under Directive 1999/96/EC (1) stricter emission limits for new heavy goods vehicles will be introduced in two phases. In the first phase, EURO 4, nitrogen oxide emissions will have to decrease by 30 % and particulate emissions by 80 % of current levels from 2006 onwards.

The second phase, EURO 5, which will apply to all new heavy goods vehicles from October 2009, requires a 60 % reduction in nitrogen oxide emissions. The Commission is also looking at a further phase in reducing emissions, EURO 6, which is being considered for 2012-2013.

When is the Commission thinking, for example, of applying these standards, which aim to reduce emissions from new vehicles only, to older vehicles in the EURO 1 category or taking these highly polluting vehicles off the road?

(1) OJ L 44, 16.2.2000, p. 1.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/432

(2004/C 84 E/0503)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0586/04

by Bill Newton Dunn (ELDR) to the Commission

(26 February 2004)

Subject: Horse passports

How many of the Member States have implemented European Commission Decision 2000/68/EC (1)? Is the Commission satisfied that they have done so correctly?

Does the Commission have any plans to allow the use of freeze marking and/or microchipping as acceptable methods of identification?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(1 April 2004)

According to Article 4 of Commission Decision 2000/68/EC of 22 December 1999 amending Commission Decision 93/623/EEC and establishing the identification of equidae for breeding and production, Member States shall ensure that as from 1 July 2000 at the latest, registered equidae and equidae for breeding and production are accompanied during their movement by the identification document as referred to above. This Decision is addressed to the Member States.

Decision 2000/68/EC does not oblige Member States to notify the legal provisions they have implemented to comply with the provisions of this Decision. So far, the Commission has not received any complaint relating to the failure of a Member State to implement the above Decision.

Community animal welfare legislation does not contain specific restrictions of the use of these methods. With regard to mutilations in general, Council Directive 98/58/EC of 20 July 1998 concerning the protection of animals kept for farming purposes (2) stipulates that relevant national provisions shall apply in accordance with the general rules of the EC Treaty.

The Commission is aware that in certain Member States electronic transponders are used for the identification of equidae. Furthermore, freeze marking and hot branding are used to mark equidae. Freeze branding was required by Community legislation for equidae vaccinated against African horse sickness when this disease occurred on the Iberian Peninsula in 1989.

The legislation in force allows additional active marking in excess of the identification by passport. In such cases, details about the applied marks have to be specified in the identification document.

(1) OJ L 23, 28.1.2000, p. 72.

(2) OJ L 221, 8.8.1998.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 88/240

(2004/C 88 E/0242)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0876/04

by Struan Stevenson (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(22 March 2004)

Subject: Illegal fishing in waters around the Azores

The Portuguese authorities publicly revealed that 63 foreign vessels were fishing in waters around the Azores in January and February, 20 of them within the 100-mile limit.

The Portuguese media have claimed that the Commission's position in this matter is that it considers these fishing activities to be legal, since they are in accordance with the opinion of the Commission's ‘Legal Service’.

However, Article 15 of Regulation (EC) No 1954/2003 states very clearly that the old regime protecting the Azorean waters will be repealed only after 1 August 2004 or after the approval of new fishing-effort legislation.

Does the Commission assume full responsibility for the present situation of uncontrolled and unrestricted fishing in water around the Azores?

If this is not the case, what is the Commission intending to do?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(26 April 2004)

The Commission can confirm to the Honourable Member that it has defined its position on the application of Regulation (EC) No 1954/2003 (1). That position was communicated to Member States, in the form of a speaking note, at the meeting of the Council internal/external fisheries policy group on 19 February 2004.

It follows from that document that the fishing activity of Community vessels which are not Portuguese is legitimate, in the area contained between 100 and 200 nautical miles around the Azores, with regard to the relevant provisions of the Regulation referred to above.

The Commission does not know about unmonitored or illegal activity in the waters referred to. At any event, if Community law is not being complied with it is up to the national administrative or judicial authorities to take appropriate measures with a view to correct application of the Community rules. In addition, the Commission may institute proceedings under Article 226 of the EC Treaty against a Member State which is not complying with Community law.

In any case, the Commission clearly wishes fishing activity in that area to be undertaken in a manner which is satisfactory and acceptable to all parties concerned.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 1954/2003 of 4 November 2003 on the management of the fishing effort relating to certain Community fishing areas and resources and modifying Regulation (EC) No 2847/93 and repealing Regulations (EC) No 685/95 and (EC) No 2027/95, OJ L 289, 7.11.2003.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/649

(2004/C 84 E/0731)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0652/04

by Paulo Casaca (PSE) to the Commission

(9 March 2004)

Subject: Commission against elementary rules of safety at sea

According to document IP/04/159, the Commission believes that the Greek authorities' requirement that cabotage vessel crews on domestic routes must pass a Greek language proficiency test is illegal.

The principle whereby it is obligatory for crews on cabotage routes to know the language of the countries served is elementary common sense; it applies to the Norwegian cabotage lines, for example, linking Norway with its North Sea and Baltic neighbours.

Can the Commission confirm that IP/04/159 is even correct?

Will it provide me with the results of the enquiry which it undoubtedly carried out before proceeding legally to dispute in any way the application of the principle whereby it is obligatory for crews of cabotage vessels working off the coast of Europe to know the local language?

Can it explain how it intends to assume its responsibilities if there is an accident caused by failure to respect this basic rule of safety at sea?

Can it explain how it reconciles this profoundly irresponsible attitude with its guarantees that it is committed to ensuring safety at sea?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(14 April 2004)

The Commission believes that imposing a knowledge of Greek on all crew members, including those who are not responsible for assisting passengers in emergency situations, is unacceptable.

The Commission would recall that the Community legislation, in particular Directive 2001/25/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 April 2001 on the minimum level of training of seafarers (1), lays down rules regarding on-board communication, among other things. Article 17 of the Directive requires the Member States to ensure that crew members on passenger ships who are responsible for assisting passengers in emergency situations have sufficient skills to communicate with them. A knowledge of the languages appropriate to the principle nationalities of the passengers carried on a particular route is one of the requirements which may be demanded.

With regard to the Honourable Member's reference to the rules which apply on Norwegian ships, the Commission will gather the necessary information from the Surveillance Authority of the European Free Trade Association (EFTA).

(1) OJ L 136, 18.5.2001.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/573

(2004/C 84 E/0650)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0327/04

by Dana Scallon (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(10 February 2004)

Subject: County Clare and Objective I of the Structural Fund

I understand from the Commission's previous correspondence that County Clare will remain eligible for Objective 1 in transition until 2006.

However, County Clare will become part of the new North-West constituency (formerly known as Connacht Ulster)in 2004. At that time, can the Commission confirm that the existing Connacht Ulster counties will maintain their Objective 1 status, but County Clare will not share this status?

Does the Commission not anticipate difficulty in this situation whereby it will be the only county in the North-West constituency not enjoying Objective 1 status, even though this county shares the same difficulties and needs as the counties of Connacht Ulster?

Can the Commission confirm whether County Clare will continue to have a different status from the other counties of North-West after 2006?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(29 March 2004)

The process for determining eligibility for Objective 1 support for the 2000-2006 period is set out in Article 3, paragraph 1 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 of 21 June 1999 laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds (1). The rules mean that, once estabilished, the list of eligible regions remains in force for the entire programming period, 2000-2006.

As the Commission indicated in response to Written Question E-3699/03 (2), the eligibility of County Clare for Objective 1 in transition will not be affected by its inclusion in the North-West constituency for the purpose of elections to the Parliament. The Commission can therefore confirm that the eight counties of Cavan, Donegal, Galway, Leitrim, Mayo, Monaghan, Roscommon and Sligo remain eligible for Objective 1 until 31 December 2006 while Clare will remain eligible for Objective 1 in transition.

It is not expected that the inclusion of Clare in the North-West constituency will have any impact on the implementation of programmes in the regions eligible for Objective 1 and Objective 1 in transition respectively.

It is too early to speculate on matters of eligibility for support under the Structural Funds. In the third report on economic and social cohesion (adopted by the Commission on 18 February 2004), the Commission proposes to maintain the current Objective 1 eligibility criteria for the new ‘Convergence and competitiveness’ priority.

(1) OJ L 161, 26.6.1999.

(2) OJ C 78 E, 27.3.2004.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/332

(2004/C 84 E/0390)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0210/04

by Markus Ferber (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(30 January 2004)

Subject: Language discrimination in job advertisements

A number of magazines repeatedly publish job advertisements seeking to recruit applicants with English as their mother tongue, although the jobs are within EU institutions or at consultancy firms focusing on European policy. Particular emphasis is placed on linguistic background as a criterion for recruitment (‘English mother tongue’/‘native English speaker’: examples can be seen at www.lingvo.org/eo/2/15). These advertisements discriminate against applicants with equivalent professional qualifications and a very good knowledge of English, but whose mother tongue is not English.

Discrimination of this kind on the basis of linguistic background is expressly prohibited under Article 21 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights.

Can the Commission therefore answer the following questions:

1. What steps has the Commission taken to prevent such discrimination?
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/904

(2004/C 84 E/0999)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0893/04

by Werner Langen (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(22 March 2004)

Subject: Costs of cross-border transfer payments

At the beginning of July 2003, Regulation (EC) No 2560/2001 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council on cross-border payments in euro entered into force, under which cross-border transfers within the euro zone must be treated in the same way as transfers within a Member State.

In a specific case where a transfer was made from the Stadtsparkasse Köln to the Crédit Lyonnais, the receiving bank imposed a charge for the transfer even though the IBA number and BI code were stated.

As this is a violation of Regulation (EC) No 2560/2001:

1. are banks — particularly receiving banks — permitted to impose transfer charges of their own despite the new regulation?

2. if not, can the amount be reclaimed?

3. what action can the Commission take to deal with such cases?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(23 April 2004)

According to Regulation (EC) No 2560/2001 of the Parliament and of the Council of 19 December 2001 on cross-border payments in euro, the charges levied by an institution in respect of cross-border electronic payment transactions in euro shall be the same as the charges levied by the same institution in respect of corresponding domestic payments in euro. This rule applies to electronic payment transactions (payments by card and withdrawals at cash dispensers) in euro up to EUR 12 500 from 1 July 2002 and to credit transfers from 1 July 2003.

This rule means that charges taken to the originator shall be the same as for a national payment. The same applies to charges taken to the beneficiary. In most countries, as a general rule, charges are not applied to the beneficiary. However, it may happen that, for specific operations (non standard payments like, for example, credit transfers where the originator has indicated that the beneficiary should take all the charges) the beneficiary is charged for a cross-border transfer. The charge may not be higher, however, than the corresponding national payment. The Commission issued an interpretative note on practical aspects of implementation of Article 3 of Regulation 2560/2001 and in particular the notion of ‘corresponding payments’ to eliminate any ambiguity in this respect and ensure a correct implementation of the Regulation.

The information given by the Honourable Member in his written question on the specific transfer made from the Stadtsparkasse Köln to the Crédit Lyonnais does not allow the Commission to conduct a more detailed analysis. Further information would be needed in this regard.

As regards the enforcement of the Regulation, national authorities should guarantee that it is applied adequately and consistently. Article 7 of the Regulation indicates that the compliance shall be guaranteed by effective, proportionate and deterrent sanctions. This does not prevent citizens from trying to get redress also from their bank directly.

(1) OJ L 344, 28.12.2001, p. 13.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/324

(2004/C 84 E/0376)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0167/04

by Christopher Heaton-Harris (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(29 January 2004)

Subject: Commission's accounting systems

I understand the Internal Audit Service, in a report entitled ‘IAS Review of the Commission's Accounting Framework — Final Report’ dated 15 April 2003, made a number of recommendations to the Commission regarding the accounting systems.

Has DG BUDG performed a detailed inventory of all past programmes such as ECIP and JOP? If not, will the Commission be performing such inventories, and if so when?
2.

In its letter of formal notice, the Commission criticised the practical implementation of the deposit and return obligation laid down in the Verpackungsverordnung (Packaging Regulation) because of the absence of comprehensive and mutually compatible return systems. If there is no functioning, nationwide arrangement for deposit clearing between return systems, it is reasonable to assume that retailers might decide to stop stocking some or all of the beverages concerned. The Commission is therefore currently examining whether and, if so, in what way the deposit and return system, in its current form, has the effect of restricting the import of beverages into Germany. As regards the problem of ‘Insellösungen’ (‘stand-alone’ or ‘individual’ solutions), these have the effect of increasing production costs and can restrict imports from other Member States, because manufacturers have to set up their own production/packaging lines for some parts of the German market.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/956

(2004/C 78 E/1013)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0545/04

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(26 February 2004)

Subject: CAP: consequences of the distribution of the reduction in income in agriculture and financing of techniques which promote animal welfare or are environmentally sound for use on small farms

1. Is the Commission aware of the report commissioned by the Netherlands Minister of Agriculture, Nature Management and Fisheries and submitted on 1 April 2003 by the Agricultural Economics Research Institute (LEI) which analyses the impact of the Commission's reform proposals on developments in agriculture and particularly on farm incomes, and which indicates in particular that in the Netherlands the areas under cereals and fodder maize will decline substantially while cultivation of potatoes and vegetables will increase, the area of pastureland will increase by 5 % and family incomes will fall by 28,4 % from their present level of approximately EUR 30 000, the largest fall being 49 % in dairy farming?

2. How is this decline in income likely to work out for the EU as a whole in the categories less than 25 ha, 25-50 ha, 50-75 ha, 75-100 ha, 100-500 ha, 500-1 000 ha and more than 1 000 ha, broken down in percentages by type of farm in arable farming and livestock farming?

3. In the reform plans, the Commission rightly intends to emphasise farming which promotes animal welfare and is environmentally sound, as an additional condition for payment of subsidies. How will the Commission ensure that this emphasis does not result in the most subsidies going to large farms which have greater resources by means of which to apply new and expensive techniques, while smaller farms which have already opted to adopt organic cultivation methods unaided are placed at a disadvantage?

4. Small farms in the new Member States which currently operate without new environmentally friendly techniques are particularly likely to find themselves at a disadvantage as regards the share they receive of grants to help finance desirable technical innovations. What will the Commission do to prevent this?

5. In view of the anticipated unintended effects, will the Commission amend elements of its reform plans?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(22 March 2004)

The Commission is collecting the information it needs to answer the question. It will communicate its findings as soon as possible.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/332

(2004/C 84 E/0389)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0201/04

by Herbert Bösch (PSE) to the Commission

(29 January 2004)

Subject: Linguistic discrimination in job descriptions

In its replies to a number of written questions tabled between 2001 and 2003, the Commission stated its intention to use its legal powers to combat the use of a ‘native speaker’ criterion in job advertisements published by technical support agencies, non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and private firms (co)financed by the European Commission.

However, between September and December 2003 alone, some 60 advertisements for posts at such firms and organisations (www.lingvo.org/eo/2/15) were published stipulating ‘English mother tongue’ or ‘native English speaker’.

On what legal basis can the Commission take action over job advertisements that use a ‘native speaker’ criterion? On what occasions has the Commission made use thereof?

Has the Commission made contact with the firms Intrasoft and Ogilvy, as it undertook to do in its reply to Written Question E-2226/03 (1), and what has been the result of this contact?

(1) OJ C 33 E, 6.2.2004, p. 236.