ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/859

(2004/C 78 E/0913)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3821/03

by Joan Vallvé (ELDR) to the Commission

(12 December 2003)

Subject: Environmental impact of the extension of the Eivissa Airport

My question E-0209/03 (1) of 3 February 2003 addressed the environmental impact which would be caused by the scheme to enlarge Eivissa Airport.

In its reply of 14 March 2003, the Commission stated that it was processing a complaint lodged in this connection. On 11 September 2003, in Question E-2745/03 (2) I asked whether the Commission had reached any specific conclusions as a result of the complaint lodged.

Mrs Wallström's latest reply, of 16 October 2003, stated that the Commission had approached the Spanish authorities to request full details of the scheme in question, a copy of the impact statement and of the measures adopted to respect the obligations deriving from Article 6 of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992, on the conservation of natural habitats and woodland fauna and flora (3).

Furthermore, the Commission said that it intended that this case should form part of an exchange with the Spanish authorities within the framework of the bilateral meeting to be held on October 2003, which would consider the whole picture of complaints and infringements in the environmental sphere involving Spain.

Has the Commission now received the information requested from the Spanish authorities? Has the planned bilateral meeting been held? If so, what conclusions were reached with regard to resolving the problem of the infringement of various EU environmental directives in connection with the enlargement of Eivissa Airport?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(5 February 2004)

As was announced in the reply to the Honourable Member's Written Question E-2745/03, the Commission has discussed with the Spanish authorities the application of Community Environmental Law to the project of the enlargement of Ibiza airport, during the bilateral meeting held in Madrid in October 2003. Subsequently the Spanish authorities have sent a report containing their comments on the facts raised.

This report indicates that the Enlargement Project of Ibiza Airport is currently undergoing an impact assessment procedure according to the provisions of Community Law.

The Spanish authorities claim that they have taken into account the allegations made by different organizations and institutions in the course of this procedure. They have consequently modified the project so as to restrict the foreseen works to the area situated beyond the limits of the Natura 2000 site ES0000084 (Ses Salines d'Eivissa i Formentera). As a matter of fact, the only interventions included currently in the project are a new runway for emergency landings and a new platform for fire-fighting drills.

The Commission is currently assessing the information provided by the Spanish authorities. As soon as this assessment is complete, the Commission will be able to draw its conclusions on this case.

(1) OJ C 222 E, 18.9.2003, p. 163.

(2) See page 161.

(3) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 88/116

(2004/C 88 E/0122)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2804/03

by Elisabeth Jeggle (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(19 September 2003)

Subject: Urbs Asia Contract No Ala/95-21-b7-3010/39

The town of Schelklingen is the Commission's partner in the above development aid programme with the town of Cagayan de Oro (the Philippines). The auditor which the municipal authorities had originally intended to employ to check the final accounts of the project is no longer available and, since this was the Schelkingen supervisory authority, its services would have been free of charge.

The Schelklingen municipal authorities are therefore obliged to find and commission a new project auditor. Initial estimates put the cost of this at approximately EUR 15 000 per inspection, so that the three inspections required by contract would amount to EUR 45 000. Since no provision was made for this expenditure and it cannot be paid for out of the municipal budget, savings will have to be made in the projects' budget.

In view of the above, will the Commission say:

1. Can it suggest an economical, unbureaucratic way for the municipal authorities of the town of Schelkingen to carry out the three final project audits, without restricting the projects financially?

2. Can it retrospectively authorise the cost of final project audit?

3. Will it help solve the problem by permitting the necessary costs of the final project audits to be paid for out of the project budget?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(23 October 2003)

1. According to Commission procedures applicable to this grant contract, projects accounts must be audited on an annual basis. The audit firm must be an independent body, not a city internal department. The City of Schelklingen is invited to inform the Commission of the proposed change (including name, address and status of substitute) before recruiting the new audit firm.

2. To increase the audit budget provided for in the contract budget, a request for a budget modification must be sent to the Commission (and approved by them) prior to enforcing the changes. The modification can consist for instance of reallocating the contingency costs to the audit costs. Terms of the contract in the General Conditions indicate the conditions under which a budget may be reallocated.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/90

(2004/C 78 E/0089)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2197/03

by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(2 July 2003)

Subject: Cattle transport — CATRA findings

The Commission announces in its communication IP/03/854 that the CATRA research project makes recommendations on the transportation of cattle (over long distances).

According to the findings of this study, animals experience the greatest stress during loading and unloading. Also, cattle transport vehicles need better, more appropriate design. The study also calls for improvements in the design of lairage facilities.

What concrete measures will the Commission be taking in these areas in order not only to improve the quality of the meat — as it states in its communication —, but also to ensure that transportation of animals takes place under the best possible conditions for them?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(4 August 2003)

A legislative proposal on the protection of animals during transport was adopted by the Commission on 16 July 2003. Scientific advice provides a sound basis for the formulation of policy proposals by the Commission and the recent findings of the Community-funded cattle transport (CATRA) research project provide valuable information in this regard. Additional inputs concerning this issue include an opinion from the Scientific Committee on Animal Health and Animal Welfare and the outcome of a detailed stakeholder and public consultation.

The legislative proposal takes these various elements into account in order to improve the protection of animals during transport. The Commission's proposal covers inter alia animal loading and unloading, handling facilities, vehicle standards and the training of personnel. The Commission believes that a step-by-step approach represents the best means of securing real improvements in animal welfare over the short to medium term. Consequently, the Commission proposal aims to ensure that the high standards recommended by scientists are implemented by the creation of proper legislative instruments, facilitating improved control and enforcement by the national competent authorities.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/544

(2004/C 78 E/0572)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3424/03

by Mario Borghezio (NI) to the Commission

(18 November 2003)

Subject: Eurostat scandal — unanswered questions

How often has the Commission discussed Eurostat since September 1999? On what dates did these discussions take place?
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/234

(2004/C 84 E/0277)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3349/03

by Koenraad Dillen (NI) to the Council

(13 November 2003)

Subject: Eurobarometer opinion poll

October's Eurobarometer opinion poll, carried out at the Commission's request, on ‘Iraq and peace in the world’ claims that 59 % of Europeans view the State of Israel as a threat to world peace. The opinion poll was carried out by EOS Gallup Europe. After its findings were made known, the European Council, through Italian Foreign Minister Frattini, distanced itself from the survey (Le Figaro, Tuesday, 4 November).

Is this an instance of disagreement between the Council and the Commission? Why did the Council say that the Commission had sent out a ‘false signal’ with this survey? Was there any consultation between the Council and the Commission on the matter?

What would the Council's actual response be if it was itself asked whether ‘Israel present's a threat to peace in the world’?

Is this the first time that the Council has distanced itself from an opinion poll carried out at the Commission's request? If not, when has this happened before?

Does the Council agree with the Israeli Ambassador to Italy that such an irresponsible survey makes it more difficult for Europe to play a part in the Middle East peace process?

What approach to the Israeli authorities will the Council take so as to combat the negative image of Europe to which this survey may give rise among the Israeli population?

Reply

(9 March 2004)

1. The Eurobarometer opinion poll the Honorable Member of the European Parliament is referring to has been carried out under the authority of the European Commission, which has already explained its position on the outcome. The Council has not commented on the opinion poll specifically.

2. The Council is however concerned with Israel's role in the Middle East Peace Process. The specific expectations by the EU towards Israel in this context, and the reasoning behind it, were raised at the EU/Israel Association Council on 18 November. They were spelled out in the EU Statement prepared for that occasion, with a view to giving a complete and transparent picture of the EU position, including to the Israeli population.

3. The Council does not see any direct implications of the survey on the EU's role in the Middle East Peace Process. The Council will continue to pursue its balanced policy to promote peace in the Middle East based on the Quartet Road Map and is confident that this policy will also find recognition with the Israeli public.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/222

(2004/C 84 E/0266)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3123/03

by Olivier Dupuis (NI) to the Council

(22 October 2003)

Subject: Deportation of Chechens

A Chechen mother and her two children, aged six and seven, who arrived at Roissy airport on 2 October, were deported to Moscow on 12 October. According to the newspaper ‘Libération’, the woman, whose husband had been kidnapped by masked men, had chosen to flee Grozny after receiving threats whilst she was looking for her husband. The French authorities deemed that the asylum claim was unwarranted, as the woman had been unable to identify the men who had abducted her husband. In Brussels, the Belgian authorities refused a request for asylum from Mr Said-Magomed Khachukaev, deputy editor of The Chechen Times, and on Monday 13 deported him either to Germany or to Moscow, depending on the source.

Is the Council aware of these deportations of Chechen citizens and those of Mr Khachukaev and the mother and two children mentioned in Libération in particular? Does the Council have even a vague idea of the dangers facing Chechens expelled to Russia? Does the Council intend to adopt a common position according to which the Member States would agree not to deport Chechen refugees until the Russian authorities were able to guarantee a minimum amount of respect for basic rights in Chechnya? What initiatives does the Council plan to take to acquire the necessary means to collect ‘detailed information about the cases of civilian abductions’ (see the Council's answer to question E-0748/03 (1))? Does the Council not think that the embassies of the 15 Member States and the 10 applicant countries, the Commission Delegation in Moscow and organisations such as Amnesty International, Memorial, Human Rights Watch and Médecins du Monde could provide it with in-depth information about the abduction of civilians and, more generally, the very serious human rights violations committed in Chechnya?

Reply

(9 March 2004)

The Council informs the Honourable Parliamentarian that it is not competent to intervene in individual asylum applications in the Member States.

Regarding the adoption of a common position as referred to in the question, the Council informs the Honourable Parliamentarian that it is not, at that stage, for seen by the Council.

Finally, the Council invites the Honourable Parliamentarian to address directly his last question regarding the in-depths information about the abduction of civilians to the relevant authorities.

(1) OJ C 51 E, 26.2.2004, p. 48.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/24

(2004/C 84 E/0026)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2449/03

by Georges Berthu (NI) to the Commission

(23 July 2003)

Subject: Conservation of hedgerows

Hedgerow conservation appears very often to be in the general interest because hedgerows safeguard biodiversity and inhibit run-off and soil erosion, etc. In France, some départements now grant aid for the replanting of hedgerows.

However, besides planting there is also the question of upkeep, which in a way is currently a free service provided by the farmer to the local community.

Does the Commission think it would be possible to offset the cost of this service by introducing assistance for the annual maintenance of hedgerows?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(12 September 2003)

Agri-environmental measures are included in the measures provided for in the national rural development plan for France. The plan contains a list of measures in this area that can be adapted by each region wishing to implement them. Planting, improving and maintaining hedgerows are listed as measures eligible for assistance from Community funds. Therefore, aid for the maintenance of hedgerows already exists.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/367

(2004/C 78 E/0386)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1364/03

by Maurizio Turco (NI) to the Commission

(10 April 2003)

Subject: Exploitation of Community citizens by the Vatican City State

In view of the fact that:

— the Vatican City State receives around EUR 9 million per year (EUR 6 million in 2002 and EUR 12 million in the Jubilee year) from the sale of gifts and souvenirs;

— around 50 European citizens of Italian nationality are employed in the sale of these articles;

— these people work on commission on the basis of an ‘oral contract’ for percentages that vary from 2-3 % to 8-10 % and for between 8 and 10 hours every day with a 30-minute break for lunch. At the end of the day after having loaded away the goods and emptied the cash boxes, for which they are jointly responsible, they are paid cash in hand;

— this has been going on since 1976;

— despite the undertakings made to regularise their situation, a private company is soon to be made responsible for managing their stalls, and would immediately ‘regularise’ the position of these ‘clandestine’ workers by depriving them of any rights;

— in the eyes of the Italian Republic these people are unemployed, and therefore benefit from public services, including health care;

— what action will the EU take with regard to a State which is exploiting Community citizens?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(16 May 2003)

The current legal instruments at the Commission's disposal make no provision for Community action in situations similar to those described in the written question.

The Commission will transmit a copy of the written question and the corresponding Commission reply to the Mission of the Holy See to the Union Institutions for its information and follow-up as appropriate.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/125

(2004/C 84 E/0161)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3983/03

by Maurizio Turco (NI) to the Commission

(6 January 2004)

Subject: Closure of the multiregional operational programme for water resources under Objective 1 for Italy in the context of the 1994-1999 Community Support Framework

Given that:

— In letters dated 31 March, 29 April and 25 November the questioner asked the Regional Policy DG for access — by virtue of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 (1) on public access to documents — to the final assessment report on the multiregional operational programme on water resources in the Objective 1 regions - Regulation (EEC) No 2081/93 - CSF 1994-1999.

— Each time the Commission replied that it was waiting until the end of the programme when the documents would be available and then that it was waiting a few more months, the next deadline specified being January 2004.

— On 19 November 2002, in its press release 47/2002 on Special Report 1/2002 concerning the multiregional operational programme for water resources — CSF 1994-1999 — the Court of Auditors pointed out, pending certification of the expenditure balance, which was expected to be forwarded during 2002, the achievement of two not insignificant results: full utilisation of the Community funds and completion of the planned measures.

Can the Commission say:

— when Italy sent the final assessment report, or what the timetable was for the final closure of the programme;

— whether and how many times it asked for explanations about and corrections to the final report;

— whether it is normal for a programme, which was supposed to be concluded in 1999, to be concluded four years later and why, one year after the actual conclusion, the final report is still not available?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(17 February 2004)

We can inform the Honourable Member that the final assessment report from the national authorities reached us on 24 November 2003.

In his second question he speaks of the ‘final report’ and not of the ‘final assessment report’. These are in fact two different documents.

The ‘final report’, which is required before action can be taken to close the programme, was sent by Italy on 7 March 2003, i.e. within the time limit set in Article 52(5) 2nd subparagraph of Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 (2).

In a note of 12 May we then asked for further information on this ‘final report’ and by a note of 24 November received a full reply from Italy.

On that basis we sent a proposal for closure to Italy on 4 December, and received Italy's assent to this on 16 January.

In reply to the Honourable Member's last question, the programme was closed in line with the Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 procedures.

(1) OJ L 145, 31.5.2001, p. 43.

(2) Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 of 21 June 1999 laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds, OJ L 161, 26.6.1999.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/141

(2004/C 78 E/0145)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2638/03

by Maurizio Turco (NI) to the Commission

(2 September 2003)

Subject: Refunds on exports from Member States to the Vatican City State of butter and other fats and oils derived from milk, milk products (code 0405) for 2001

In response to questions E-1477/03 and E-1480/03 (1) relating to refunds on exports of agricultural products from Member States to the Vatican City State (VCS), Commissioner Fischler stated on 21 May 2003 that the Commission was collecting the information it needed to answer the question and would communicate its findings as soon as possible.

The following supplementary data can be supplied in relation to the export of butter and other fats and oils derived from milk, milk products (code 0405):

(a) the European Commission's CATS (Clearance Audit Trail System) database shows that in 2001: — 125 200 kg were exported from Austria to the VCS with a refund of EUR 211 760,72, equivalent to aid of EUR l,69/kg; — 21 000 kg were exported from Germany to the VCS with a refund of EUR 35 700, equivalent to aid of EUR l,70/kg;

(b) the OECD (Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development) database shows that in 2001: — 123 400 kg were exported from Austria and 21 200 kg from Germany to the VCS,

(c) This indicates that: — unwarranted aid of EUR 3 044,48 was paid on an additional 1 800 kg not shown in the OECD data; — no application was made for aid of EUR 340 for the export of 200 kg on which Community aid could have been paid.

Could the Commission state the technical reasons for the foregoing of this Community aid?

Does it not agree that the increasingly patent omissions and the discrepancies between the data from the different institutional sources seriously affect the credibility of these institutions and might be due to possible fraud against Community funds, or is it already able to discount this possibility of fraud?

(1) OJ C 70 E 20.3.2004, p. 45.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/500

(2004/C 78 E/0521)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3239/03

by Martin Callanan (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(3 November 2003)

Subject: Bird killing in Malta

Given reports of widespread illegal hunting and trapping of birds in Malta, what action is the Commission taking to ensure the full implementation and enforcement of the Birds Directive (79/409/EEC (1)) on the Maltese islands?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(16 December 2003)

As an acceding country, Malta will be required to fully implement and enforce the ‘Birds’ Directive 79/409/EEC (2) on 1 May 2004 with the exception of the transition period that was granted to allow the trapping of seven species of finch until 31 December 2008. The Commission continues to monitor and report on the progress made by Malta in working towards meeting this obligation and the latest state of play was reported in the Comprehensive Monitoring Report (CMR) issued in November 2003.

The CMR concluded that Malta is partially meeting the commitments and requirements in nature protection. It also observed that enhanced efforts are required to prepare the lists of proposed nature protection sites and special bird protection areas, including the completion of the consultation process. Considerable efforts are also needed to ensure better enforcement of Malta's commitments regarding the Birds Directive. Producing an enforcement strategy should be a priority of the national Ornis Committee.

The Commission will continue to monitor the situation in the period before accession.

(1) OJ L 103, 25.4.1979, p. 1.

(2) Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds, OJ L 103, 25.4.1979.