ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 70/215

(2004/C 70 E/231)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3094/03

by Harald Ettl (PSE) to the Commission

(20 October 2003)

Subject: Mobbing in the workplace

The European Commission has frequently emphasised that it will draw up efficient policy measures to combat the phenomenon known as ‘mobbing in the workplace’ and publish a Green Paper which will include a detailed analysis, an action plan and a specific timetable.

What measures will the European Commission take in order to review the appropriateness and the scope of a specific Community instrument concerning mobbing in the workplace?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(25 November 2003)

In its Communication entitled ‘Adapting to change in work and society: a new Community strategy on health and safety at work 2002-2006’ (1), the Commission announced that it would ‘examine the appropriateness and the scope of a Community instrument on psychological harassment and violence at work’.

The Commission is currently compiling and analysing the information available in this area. The analysis takes into account inter alia the legislative and/or regulatory initiatives adopted or planned in the Member States.

Accordingly Parliament's resolution on harassment in the workplace (2) and the opinion on violence at work adopted by the Advisory Committee on Safety Hygiene and Health Protection at Work (3) will also be taken into account.

On the basis of the above, the Commission plans, in the course of 2004, to consult the social partners on the possible direction of Community action in this area, in accordance with Article 138 of the EC Treaty.

(1) COM(2002) 118 final.

(2) A5-0283/2001, 19.9.2001.

(3) COM(2003) 346 final.
1.

A table detailing commitments and payments by country of external assistance for 2002 on the Community Budget is sent direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat. These numbers are of a provisional nature, and the definitive figures by country will only become available towards end of April 2003. The figures by region are in general higher than those in the geographical budget chapters, because expenditure under the thematic budget lines (such as fisheries agreements, humanitarian aid, food aid, cofinancing with non-governmental organisations, human rights, etc.) has been allocated, whenever possible, to the beneficiary country.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 70/220

(2004/C 70 E/236)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3107/03

by Adriana Poli Bortone (UEN) to the Commission

(22 October 2003)

Subject: Trans-European networks

The Van Miert document, under heading 3, refers to Corridor 8.

However, the Commission proposal of 1 October 2003 no longer includes that corridor aming the 29 priority projects.

In reply to the protest of the Italian delegation to the Transport, Telecommunications and Energy Council, Commissioner de Palacio appears to have stated that the reason for its exclusion is the impossibility of allowing access to the corridor to countries which are not as yet EU Member States.

This exclusion criterion has not, however, been applied to other priority projects that appear on the 1 October list, including No 7 (motorway route Igoumenitsa/Patras-Athens-Sofia-Budapest), No 18 (inland waterway route Rhine/Meuse-Main-Danube) and No 22 (Rail line Athens-Sofia-Budapest-Vienna-Prague-Nuremberg/Dresden).

Will the Commission reconsider the exclusion of Corridor 8 from the priority list, given its crucial importance for the democratisation process in the Balkan region?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(26 November 2003)

The report of the high level group, which was composed of representatives of the 15 Member States, the 10 new ones, Bulgaria, Romania, EIB and the Commission and chaired by Mr Karel Van Miert, was delivered to the Commission on 30 June 2003. It includes in list 3 (Other projects important for territorial cohesion) the rail line Bari-Varna. This line is within the pan-European Corridor VIII as defined in the Ministerial Conferences in Crete and Helsinki in 1994 and 1997.

The mandate of the high level group was to identify priority projects on the transEuropean transport network (TEN-T). As Corridor VIII is located outside the territory of the Union, (with the exception of the ports of Bari and Brindisi), and will remain so after enlargement, it was not within the mandate of the group to consider it, or any other corridor, for inclusion in the list of TEN-T priority projects.

By the same logic the Commission did not include Corridor VIII in its proposal to modify Decision on the TEN-T guidelines adopted on 1 October 2003 (1). Projects 18 and 22 which follow the route on certain pan-European Corridors concern exclusively works located on the territory of the Union or Acceding Countries.

(1) COM(2003) 564 final.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 70/64

(2004/C 70 E/067)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1846/03

by Mario Borghezio (NI) to the Commission

(3 June 2003)

Subject: Incompatibility between the holding of a Community decision-making office and membership of the Bilderberg Club and the Trilateral Commission

The Bilderberg Club — one of the most secretive organisations wielding covert globalist power — can count amongst its members and/or assiduous participants at its closed meetings the Commission President, Roman Prodi, and the following Commissioners: Mario Monti, Erkki Liikanen, Frederik Bolkestein, Pedro Salbes Mira, Günther Verheugen, Chris Patten and Antonio Vitorino. A further associate is Tommaso Padoa Schioppa of the European Central Bank.

Furthermore, some of the above are also members of the Trilateral Commission, another covert centre of globalist power.

Will the Commission say whether the Commissioners in question can confirm the above information and, if so, whether they consider that, in the interests of transparency, they should disclose membership of such bodies in their official CVs?

Does the Commission not think that secret affiliations of this nature may lead to serious and irremediable conflicts of interest between Commission decisions and the purposes, objectives and secret (or, at least, highly confidential) decisions of the Bilderberg Club and the Trilateral Commission — non-democratic bodies whose members are co-opted and which are not subject either to the ballot box or to scrutiny by the media?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(6 August 2003)

The Commission would refer to the answer it recently gave to Written Question E-1370/03 by Ms Patricia McKenna (1) on the same subject.

As was explained in that answer, the status of member of the Bilderberg Club is not defined by the statutes of the Club and occasional attendance at one or other meeting does not mean that a person can be deemed to be a member of the Club, nor does it warrant a reference in the declaration of interests provided for by the Code of Conduct for Commissioners.

Moreover, no Commissioner is a member of the Trilateral Commission, whose statutes exclude persons holding public office from membership.

With regard to the last paragraph, which raises the question of a possible conflict of interest, it should be pointed out that this is not the case as occasional attendance at meetings of outside bodies does not imply that the person concerned shares their objectives or takes part in their decision-making processes.

(1) OJ C 268 E, 7.11.2003, p. 192.
—

on 17 September 2003 the authoritative daily newspaper ‘Il Corriere della Sera’ published an article according to which: (a) the owners of the company Eapa — Francesco Guerrini and Manuela Chiossi — have been under house arrest since 12 September on charges of aggravated fraud involving a sum of EUR 2,3 million; (b) during the initial investigations Guerrini apparently claimed that he had merely ‘transferred’ pupils from one course to another in order to ensure that even the least frequented courses were provided for the benefit of all. His partner, who used to be the secretary of a former member of Lombardy Regional Council belonging to the AN party and was chosen as a director of Eapa because of her political connections, went further and confirmed that some of the courses financed by the Region were never actually held; (c) in order to prove their good faith the two claim that the Regional inspectors knew about and even approved the device of ‘filling up’ the courses by means of false enrolments from pupils and teachers who had never actually been seen; (d) another source of embarrassment for the Region was the statement made by a young Milanese woman, who was the first to report the alleged fraud. Discovering that she was enrolled for a fictitious course she personally reported the anomaly to the Region's chief inspector in 2002. The only response she received was an unpleasant letter from Eapa reproaching her for informing the Regional authorities and threatening to sue her for damages. At this point she reported the whole affair to the Public Prosecutor's office.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 70/84

(2004/C 70 E/086)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2318/03

by Armando Cossutta (GUE/NGL) to the Council

(14 July 2003)

Subject: European citizens' right to privacy

The EU-US summit was held on 25 June this year. One of the topics was or should have been the TIA project (originally ‘Total Information Awareness’, subsequently changed to ‘Terrorism Information Awareness’), basically a project to provide a gigantic apparatus for gathering and analysing information obtained from the most varied sources, ranging from existing data banks to commercial transactions, from people's movements to intercepted communications. According to Stefano Rodotà, the guarantor of the Italian privacy watchdog, we are witnessing a new dimension of surveillance, which increases the power of the State to obtain any personal data, irrespective of who gathered it and the original purpose for which it was gathered. The European Parliament, via its President Pat Cox, made its views clear: ‘we cannot let the US dictate law in Europe’.

1. What was the outcome, as regards the TIA, of the summit meeting between the EU and the US held on 25 June this year?

2. Does the Council not consider that US legislation on the subject cannot and must not have extraterritorial validity and that, if necessary, the most appropriate way of settling such issues is by international treaty?

3. Did the Council uphold the principle that it is unacceptable that the United States should gather, by any means at its disposal, information resulting from communications freely exchanged between European citizens?

4. What steps will the Council take to safeguard the privacy of European citizens?

Reply

(8 December 2003)

The Council would inform the Honourable Member that there was no discussion of TIA at the summit with the United States on 25 June 2003. The Council notes the points on which the Honourable Member has expressed concern.

The Council would remind the Honourable Member that at the end of 2002 it approved an agreement between Europol and the United States covering, inter alia, the transmission of personal data. The Europol Joint Supervisory Body (the authority for the protection of personal data) gave a favourable opinion concerning that agreement. The EU's position concerning the protection of personal data is therefore well known to the United States. The Council intends to insist to the United States authorities — as the Commission is doing — on full respect for the European position and the need to find an appropriate solution that meets European standards. The Council also invites the Honourable Member to refer, in this connection, to the position stated on the transmission of data concerning passengers in Opinions 6/2002 and 4/2003 of the Article 29 Working Party on the Protection of Individuals with regard to the Processing of Personal Data.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 70/79

(2004/C 70 E/080)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2167/03

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Council

(30 June 2003)

Subject: Permanent solution to the problem of addressing the sensitivities surrounding the name of the state of Macedonia, taking account of the different demands of Macedonians, Albanians and Greeks

1. Does the Council recall that, following the withdrawal of the Republic of Macedonia from the former Yugoslav Federation, demands were made to add a specific designation to the name of the country to distinguish it from Greek Macedonia, which incorporates the three northern regions bordering the Republic of Macedonia and the Aegean Sea?

2. How long can the provisional compromise reached in 1993 be maintained under which, in a reference to the recent past, the words ‘former Yugoslav’ were inserted before the name ‘Republic of Macedonia’, in the light of the fact that the name ‘Macedonia’ is commonly used by everyone both within and outside the country, while the obscure English abbreviation ‘FYROM’ is used by the EU and certain other states?

3. Can the Council confirm that in 1993 other extended names were also considered which did not relate to the past but to the present and future, such as Northern Macedonia, Nova Macedonia, Vardar Macedonia or Slavo-Macedonia? Was the latter name only dropped because the one-sided emphasis on a single large population group resulted in objections from the predominantly non-Slav population in the north and west?

4. Does the Council consider, following the recognition, encouraged by the EU, of the equality of the two population groups which each form the majority in their respective regions of the country, that it would help contribute to permanent peaceful coexistence on the part of the two peoples in a common state if the names of both majority populations were to be included in the extension — sought by those outside — of the official name of the country?

5. Is the Council prepared, in order to achieve a definitive solution and finally abandon the name ‘FYROM’, to look into whether a compromise between all concerned can be reached on the basis of a name like ‘Makedonija-Ilirdia’ or variants in which ‘Shipero’ or ‘Albano’ are added to the name of the country?

Reply

(8 December 2003)

The Council would remind the Honourable Member that the EU recognises the country in question as ‘the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia’. This is also the name under which is was admitted as a Member to the United Nations on 8 April 1993 pending settlement of the difference that had arisen over its name.

It is up to the countries and parties most concerned, not to the Council, to come to a final understanding on the issue.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 70/67

(2004/C 70 E/070)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1930/03

by Lennart Sacrédeus (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(13 June 2003)

Subject: Population movements in the oil-rich areas of Sudan

The bloody civil war in Sudan has claimed two million lives. Four million people have fled their homes. European Coalition on Oil in Sudan (ECOS), a network of 70 European organisations, predominantly church-based and other Christian bodies, notes that tens of thousands of Sudanese nationals have been forced to flee from Reweng County in the West Upper Nile region as a result of conflicts over oil extraction, and with the knowledge of the oil companies. A large proportion of the revenue which oil brings into Sudan goes on military expenditure. Only 2 % of the Sudanese budget is spent on health care, while 48 % goes for military and police purposes, e.g. the purchase of Russian Mig 29 fighters, Mig 24 helicopter gunships and Τ 72 tanks.

What measures is the EU taking through the Commission to influence the Sudanese government and the oil companies to halt this deliberate movement of population from the oil-rich areas? What is the EU doing to persuade countries not to sell expensive high-technology weaponry to the warring parties in Sudan?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(17 July 2003)

The Union has always been concerned with the situation of Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs) from the different areas of the civil conflict, but in particular from those areas in which oil is extracted. This issue was raised in the Union/Sudan Political Dialogue that took place in December 2002 in Khartoum.

The signature by the parties in the context of the Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD) Peace Negotiations of the two Memoranda of Understanding, which concern the cessation of hostilities and protection of civilians, constitute a major step forward. According to Commission's information IDPs are returning to their areas of origin.

The Commission has no competence as regards the behaviour of oil companies, in particular those that are active in Southern Sudan, since their countries of origin are not within the Union (China, Malaysia, India, etc.). The only European company present there, Lundin, suspended its operations for the last 18 months.

As regards the trade in arms the Union fully applies and complies with the United Nations resolution that forbids the sale of arms to Sudan. However, the Commission is aware that both parties are buying arms from countries outside the Union.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 70/256

(2004/C 70 E/277)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3324/03

by Torben Lund (PSE) to the Commission

(12 November 2003)

Subject: Authorisation of the harmful toxic spray ‘Paraquat’

The Commission is expected to authorise the inclusion of the harmful toxic spray ‘Paraquat’ on the EU's positive list of approved substances. Denmark has banned the marketing and import of this toxic spray since 1994. Approval at EU level may restrict Member States' scope for upholding rules safeguarding the environment and consumers with the result that, for example, Denmark may be compelled to allow imports of foodstuffs containing residues of this toxic substance which is regarded as lethal for mammals and birdlife.

Will the Commission therefore explain the reasons for which this substance is now to be approved and the extent of its knowledge of scientific data relating to the harmful characteristics of Paraquat and to available substitutes? How can Denmark and other Member States uphold or adopt more far-reaching restrictions on Paraquat so as to protect consumers, animal life and the environment from this substance?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(27 November 2003)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to written P-3093/03 by Mr Ettl (1)

(1) OJ C 65 E, 13.3.2004, p. 266.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/331

(2004/C 78 E/0349)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3885/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(16 December 2003)

Subject: Alcatel Italia: possible checks on funding granted by the EU

The multinational firm Alcatel is, as regards turnover, the territory it covers and its number of employees, one of the world's largest producers of public and private telecommunications equipment. In Europe too it is well-represented, with a branch in nearly every EU country. However, in the last few months Alcatel Italia has announced that it wants to close the plants in Italy. The company has used structural funding to step up employment and productivity, but it is not clear whether the funding was used to invest in the EU or whether it was used for investments in ‘emerging’ countries, such as China or other areas outside the Community.

In view of all this, can the Commission say:

1. in how many EU countries Alcatel has obtained funding;

2. what other plants in the EU may be closed down;

3. what instruments can be used to ascertain that the funding granted to Alcatel has actually been used in EU countries, rather than countries outside the EU?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(29 January 2004)

The Commission is collecting the information it needs to answer the question. It will communicate its findings as soon as possible.
2.

Why was it that, as a result of the above decision, out of the 20 proposed projects those selected did not include the improvement of the 12 best Roma cultural and information centres but a centre in Sofia, a centre in Sliven and two centres in the coastal settlement of Varna, in which connection the assessment of the urgency of the last of these projects caused particular astonishment and serious disappointment, especially in the country's second city, Plovdiv, which has a large Roma population?
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/13

(2004/C 84 E/0013)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1974/03

by Rodi Kratsa-Tsagaropoulou (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(5 June 2003)

Subject: Rehabilitation of earthquake victims in Attica

There are serious social problems in the areas of Attica affected by the earthquakes of 1999, in particular housing and unemployment. The National Action Plan for social integration incorporates retraining schemes to promote the employment of earthquake victims who were unemployed or lost their jobs owing to the damage caused by the 1999 earthquake. Moreover, unemployed earthquake victims were entitled to places on the new jobs programme with higher benefit.

What is the take-up rate for the above programmes and how effective have the measures been? Does the Commission know how many participants managed to obtain employment after training? Is it satisfied with the policy pursued by the Greek Government?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(4 July 2003)

A National Action Plan for Social Integration is drawn up every two years by each Member State under the open method of coordination. The objective is to set out an overall strategy embracing all measures aimed at minimising social exclusion and promoting the integration of disadvantaged people.

An Action Plan therefore does not constitute a programme in the Structural Funds sense and is not part-financed by the European Union, although specific activities under it may be part-financed if they are included in a Community Support Framework (CSF) currently being implemented.

Vocational training and employment assistance measures for victims of the 1999 Athens earthquake part-financed by the European Social Fund (ESF) were included in the ‘Social Exclusion’ programme under the second Community Support Framework (CSF II) 1994-1999. This programme has been wound up with a take-up rate of 97,77 %.

An ex-post evaluation is now being carried out. This will reveal whether the objectives laid down have been achieved and how effective the measures financed have been.

The Commission will inform the Honourable Member as soon as the results of this evaluation are available.