ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/674

(2004/C 84 E/0761)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0803/04

by Markus Ferber (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(15 March 2004)

Subject: Application for a grant by Mr Doriano Cataffo

My office has received a question from the lawyers' firm of Kiederle, Dr Schulz & Kollegen of Augsburg, acting on behalf of its client Mr Bernhard Oswald, Pfarrer-Steinacker-Str. 15a, D-86551 Aichach, Germany.

In 2002, Mr Oswald instructed Mr Doriano Cataffo, Via R. Ricci 46, I-84129 Salerno, Italy, to apply to the Commission for a grant. Using the money, Mr Oswald intended to buy a plot of land at Herzog-Max-Str. 7, D-86551 Aichach/Unterwittelsbach, Germany, in order to build a guesthouse there. Mr Cataffo had promised him that he would be able to obtain EU funding for the project under the Community Support Framework 2000-2006.

Although Mr Cataffo has been paid for his work, it does not appear that any application has been made. Mr Oswald therefore wishes to bring an action against Mr Cataffo.

I would ask the Commission to answer the following questions in order to clarify the situation:

1. Did Mr Cataffo submit an application for a grant as described above, on behalf of Mr Oswald?

2. If so, was the application approved, and has the money been paid?

3. Is it in principle possible for aid to be granted for such building projects?

4. Is the Commission aware of the activities of Mr Cataffo, who, according to Kiederle, Dr Schulz & Kollegen, has acted in similar ways on a number of occasions?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(16 April 2004)

The Commission has found no evidence that the project quoted by the Honourable Member has been co-financed by Structural Funds through the current 2000-2006 Objective 2 Programme for Bavaria. The Bavarian authorities responsible for the management of the projects supported by the programme are not aware of a request in this respect. There is no evidence that any other EU aid instrument available to Bavarian authorities has been involved.

Any submission for obtaining funds has to be addressed to the designated managing authority in Bavaria responsible for the above programme.

Mr. Cataffo has come to the attention of the Commission on a previous occasion as a result of Written Question E-2566/03 submitted by the Honourable Member (1).

(1) OJ C 78 E, 27.3.2004.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/546

(2004/C 84 E/0622)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0194/04

by Avril Doyle (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(29 January 2004)

Subject: Flight and duty time limitations for airline pilots

While being committed to the cause of aviation safety, and a supporter of the goal to harmonise flight and duty time limitations (FTL) within the EU, some criticism of the current proposals governing FTL has come to my attention.

In light of this criticism, what plans does the Commission have to get the Simpson proposals independently assessed on a medical/scientific basis?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(2 March 2004)

The Commission finalised on 10 February 2004 an amended proposal for a Regulation amending Council Regulation (EEC) No 3922/91 on the harmonisation of technical requirements and administrative procedures in the field of civil aviation (1). This new proposal integrates, under Annex III, Subpart Q, the Flight Time Limitation scheme proposed by the Parliament (2). In addition, the Commission proposes to add a new article to Regulation (EEC) No 3922/91 (3) introducing a revision of the aforementioned Subpart Q based on a scientific and medical evaluation of its provisions to be carried out by the European Aviation Safety Agency.

After the future extension of the European Aviation Safety Agency's (EASA) tasks to air operations, as provided by Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 1592/2002 (4), the Commission will require EASA to proceed to this scientific and medical assessment.

(1) OJ C 311 E, 31.10.2000, as modified by the amended proposal presented by the Commission pursuant to Article 250 (2) of the EC Treaty, OJ C 227 E, 24.9.2002.

(2) Report No A5-0263/2002 of 10.7.2002.

(3) Council Regulation (EEC) No 3922/91 of 16 December 1991 on the harmonisation of technical requirements and administrative procedures in the field of civil aviation, OJ L 373, 31.12.1991.

(4) Regulation (EC) No 1592/2002 of the Parliament and of the Council of 15 July 2002 on common rules in the field of civil aviation and establishing a European Aviation Safety Agency, OJ L 240, 7.9.2002.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/703

(2004/C 84 E/0789)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1040/04

by Enrico Ferri (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(29 March 2004)

Subject: Requirements for entry in the studbook, transposition of Community legislation

Further to my parliamentary question of 27 October 2003 and the Commission's answer (P-3312/03 (1)), it is important to point out that the question concerns a matter falling within the sphere of competence not only of DG SANCO but also of DG MARKT, in addition to the fact that the Commission has merely replied that it was not aware of the problem and has not expressed its views on the substance of the matter.

Will the Commission, represented by Commissioner Byrne and Commissioner Bolkestein, indicate what steps have been taken to check whether the Community legislation relating to the sector has been properly and adequately transposed?

Has the Commission checked whether the existence of the assessment committee which I referred to is admissible?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(23 April 2004)

The Commission would like to reassure the Honourable Member that it followed up the information he provided in Written Question P-3312/03 of 27 October 2003.

As indicated in its answer, the Commission had no knowledge of the existence in Italy of a morphological test for entering stallions in the studbook and a committee to carry out the assessment.

However, following the written question, the Commission decided to open an own-initiative investigation, registered as No 2004/2069, in order to clarify the facts and draw the appropriate conclusions.

The investigation is being carried out by the Directorate-General for Health and Consumer Protection, which is the service responsible for Directive 90/427/EC (2) on the zootechnical and genealogical conditions governing intra-Community trade in equidae.

A letter was sent to the Italian authorities on 31 March 2004 asking for confirmation of the existence of this test and requesting a copy of the relevant national legislation.

(1) OJ C 70 E, 20.3.2004, p. 254.

(2) Council Directive 90/427/EEC of 26 June 1990 on the zootechnical and genealogical conditions governing intra-Community trade in equidae, OJ L 224, 18.8.1990.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 88/281

(2004/C 88 E/0287)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1148/04

by Renato Brunetta (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(6 April 2004)

Subject: Availability of ferrous metal scrap on the Union market

Is a known fact that the overwhelming increase in the consumption of steel products in eastern Asia (China, India, Taiwan and Thailand) and substantial renewed consumption in the United States have led to a massive and sudden increase in the amount of ferrous metal scrap purchased by these manufacturers in the Union. European steel producers have therefore had to face not only steep price rises (between EUR 70 and 250 per tonne) but actual problems in finding scrap metal, which have led to production being suspended, and obvious repercussions on fulfilling supply contracts. The higher price of metal scrap has naturally increased the price of finished steel products.

In view of the principle – often mentioned by Parliament – of the strategic need for the Union to be able to rely on a strong, independent and competitive European manufacturing industry, and the importance of steel products for a whole range of industrial consumer goods, can the Commission say:

— how it intends to tackle this situation, which has now become a structural problem and how it intends to implement the above-mentioned principle now that safeguarding the European electrical steel industry has become a real problem, with the attendant risk – likely to emerge in the next few months – of a rise in the prices of finished products containing steel;
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/399

(2004/C 84 E/0464)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0438/04

by Michl Ebner (PPE-DE)to the Commission

(18 February 2004)

Subject: EURO 6

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.

It would be desirable to introduce these limits before 2012, as the pollution of residential areas and air pollution in general could have escalated considerably by then.

What is the Commission's view on this?

(1) OJ L 44, 16.2.2000, p. 1.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/410

(2004/C 84 E/0477)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0475/04

by Marianne Thyssen (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(23 February 2004)

Subject: Language discrimination in notices of vacancy

I have learned from the www.lingvo.org/eo/2/15 website about a number of instances of discrimination on the grounds of language which manifestly infringe Community legislation on the free movement of workers. More specifically, this involves the ‘native-speaker’ condition applied by EU-funded NGOs, technical support offices and private companies when recruiting staff.

I am aware that the Commission has already set out its views on this issue in several answers to written questions. The fact that the Commission has drawn the attention of its staff to the possibility of notices of vacancy being discriminatory and asked them to take the requisite measures vis-à-vis their contractors is a step in the right direction. What is more, it is encouraging to note that the Commission has emphasised that, where appropriate, it will use the powers conferred on it under Community law to prevent the inclusion of the ‘native-speaker’ condition in notices of vacancy.

However, the parliamentary questions on this issue that have been tabled repeatedly since 2001 clearly demonstrate that the Commission has been making inadequate use of its powers under Community law in order to clamp down definitively on these practices. Accordingly, there is a sharply increasing feeling of resentment at the Commission's passive attitude to the problem inside the European Parliament and across the entire political spectrum.

I should be grateful if the Commission would indicate why, despite the proven infringements of Community law, it has not, to date, used its powers under Community law? On the basis of the provisions of the European Treaty, will the Commission henceforth take firm action to combat any form of language discrimination in notices of vacancy published by organisations which it (co)funds?
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/445

(2004/C 84 E/0519)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0717/04

by Avril Doyle (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(10 March 2004)

Subject: Johne's disease

What plans does the Commission have to address the animal welfare issues posed by Johne's disease in the EU?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(1 April 2004)

The Commission is obviously concerned at the serious animal health and welfare issues posed by the occurrence of Johne's disease (paratuberculosis) within the EU.

With a view to increasing the available scientific knowledge, a number of specific research projects have already been funded under the Community's Framework Programmes to investigate this disease. These have considered aspects such as improved diagnostic methods, epidemiology and risk assessment, the role of wildlife in disease transmission and management tools to control the disease in domestic ruminants.

The Commission has also recently requested the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) to issue a scientific opinion on the risk of transmission of the causative organism Mycobacterium avium subsp. paratuberculosis via bovine semen.

The Commission will carefully analyse the outcome of this work and ongoing scientific advances with a view to taking appropriate steps to safeguard the health and welfare of animals within the EU.

In addition, it should be noted that programmes for the control and/or eradication of Johne's disease are in principle eligible for Community co-financing within the framework of Council Decision 90/424/EEC of 26 June 1990 on expenditure in the veterinary field (1). However, to date, no Member State has submitted such a programme to the Commission for consideration.

(1) OJ L 224, 18.8.1990.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/323

(2004/C 84 E/0373)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0164/04

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 the Commission imposed a high level of quality control over financial data and the accompanying explanatory texts as recommended by the IAS?

Has the terminology used in respect of financial data been simplified as recommended by the ECA?
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/323

(2004/C 84 E/0374)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0165/04

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 the Commission taken steps to ensure that the terminology used in the financial report clearly conveys the data presented?

Can the Commission guarantee that quality control over the financial data presented by DGs has been improved considerably?
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/672

(2004/C 84 E/0758)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0792/04

by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(11 March 2004)

Subject: Return of property by Turkey

Many of the Assyrian-Chaldean-Syriac and Armenian people who were deported in the Ottoman Empire in 1915 were liquidated. The Turkish State later seized their property on the grounds that those who had been liquidated had disappeared and were no longer looking after their property. These seizures took place, ‘inter alia’, between 1951 and 1960. In official documents and decisions, the Turkish State calls this property ‘surrendered Armenian assets’.

Will the Commission consider taking measures to induce Turkey to return this property to the Assyrian-Chaldean-Syriac and Armenian owners?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(19 April 2004)

The question of the confiscated and seized properties of non Moslem communities in Turkey has been repeatedly mentioned in the Commission's Regular Report in past years.

In particular, in its Regular Report of October 2002, the Commission mentioned ‘in the case of non-Moslem religious communities, only properties declared under Law No 2762 of 1936 are legally recognised, and all properties not listed in 1936 have been taken over by the Turkish State or may be confiscated. Armenian, Greek and Catholic properties have been confiscated, or are at risk’. In its Report of November 2003, the Commission mentioned that ‘the question of confiscated properties, which is a major concern of non-Moslem religious communities, has still not been addressed. Given these communities’ lack of legal status, their properties are permanently at risk of being confiscated and attempts to recover property by judicial means encounter numerous obstacles.'

The Commission has recently been informed that as part of their efforts to address the problems of the non-Moslem communities, the Turkish authorities have recently decided to compile an inventory of the properties confiscated and seized since 1936.

The Commission will continue to follow this matter closely.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/533

(2004/C 84 E/0610)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0102/04

by Paulo Casaca (PSE) to the Commission

(22 January 2004)

Subject: Paying for water

In light of current Community legislation and the ‘polluter pays’ principle, does the Commission believe that water consumption should be paid for, whether totally or partly, in proportion to the amount consumed?

If so, can the Commission find a basis for this in the current legal framework?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(4 March 2004)

The Community has, through the Water Framework Directive (1), thoroughly restructured its water policy. One of the key elements of the Directive is the principle of supporting environmental objectives by economic instruments, in particular water pricing reflecting the costs.

By 2010, based on economic analysis and participation of citizens and stakeholders, Member States will have to ensure adequate pricing of water-related services, reflecting the principle of recovery of costs.

To this purpose, Member States have to ensure by that date:

— that water pricing policies provide adequate incentives for the users to use water resources efficiently, and thereby contribute to the environmental objectives of the Directive;

— that an adequate contribution of the different water uses, disaggregated into at least industry, households and agriculture, is made to the recovery of the costs of water services, based on an economic analysis due by the end of 2004 and taking into account the polluter pays principle.

Details of how to charge for water use are, within the above framework, the responsibility of Member States. In this context Member States will have some discretion to apply the principle of cost recovery, having regard to the social, environmental and economic effects of the recovery as well as the geographic and climatic conditions of the region or regions concerned. At the same time, the principle of cost recovery does not prevent the funding of particular measures such as preventive or remedial measures.

(1) Directive 2000/60/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy, OJ L 327, 22.12.2000.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/627

(2004/C 84 E/0701)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0553/04

by Proinsias De Rossa (PSE) to the Commission

(26 February 2004)

Subject: Revision of pregnant workers directive

What action has the Commission taken in response to paragraph 7(g) of the European Parliament's resolution (P5_TA(2003)0369) of 3 September 2003 on implementing the social policy agenda which urged the Commission come forward with proposals to amend Directive 92/85/EEC (1) on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health at work of pregnant workers and workers who have recently given birth or are breastfeeding, in the spirit of the proposals contained in the European Parliament's resolution (A5-0155/2000 (2)) of 6 July 2000, particularly concerning the duration of maternity leave?

(1) OJ L 348, 28.11.1992, p. 1.

(2) OJ C 121, 24.4.2001, p. 473.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/441

(2004/C 84 E/0513)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0644/04

by Harald Ettl (PSE) to the Commission

(25 February 2004)

Subject: Further information on question concerning portability of supplementary pension rights

In its reply of 19 February 2004 to Question P-0207/04 (1), the Commission stated that it was currently investigating the scope for the adoption of a binding EU legal act concerning similar minimum provisions to protect mobile workers in relation to the preconditions for access to occupational pension schemes, qualification periods, reassessment of inactive entitlements (i.e. the entitlements of people who have left a scheme but have not yet reached retirement age) and the arrangements for transferring entitlements.

What stage have the considerations and preparations with regard to the substance and feasibility of the proposal for a directive reached?

What is the Commission's timetable for the assessment?

When will the Commission submit the proposal for a directive?

Answer given by Mr Dimas on behalf of the Commission

(1 April 2004)

As stated in its answer to the Honourable Member's Written Question No P-0207/04, the Commission is currently investigating the potential benefits of adopting a binding EU act establishing minimum requirements similar to those already in force in a number of Member States.

The Commission will take account of Member States' experience, drawing on the expertise of the Pensions Forum. Over the coming months it will collect from the Member States and Pensions Forum experts the information it needs in order to be able to present a proposal for legislation in autumn 2004.

(1) OJ C 78 E, 27.3.2004.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/921

(2004/C 78 E/0974)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0057/04

by Camilo Nogueira Román (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(20 January 2004)

Subject: Welfare expenditure in the Spanish state and the situation in the EU

According to the Spanish National Statistical Institute, welfare expenditure in the Union accounted for 28,4 % of GDP in 1995 but only 27,3 % in 2000. Spending per inhabitant per annum varies enormously between Member States — from EUR 7 754 in Denmark and 7 035 in Germany to EUR 3 715 in the Spanish state and 3 765 in Portugal, the latter two being the lowest levels in the EU.

Does the Commission intend to take any type of economic or legislative measures aimed at reducing this disturbing gap affecting the populations of the different Member States?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(23 February 2004)

The Treaty of the European Union establishes in Article 137 that the Community shall support and complement the activities of Member States in the field of social security and social protection of workers, and allows the Council to adopt measures designed to encourage cooperation between Member States, excluding any harmonisation of their laws and regulations.

In this context, the Commission does not intend to propose any financial or legislative measures aimed directly at reducing the differences in per capita spending on social protection as these would amount to a substantial interference of the EU in the organisation and financing of social protection systems, which should remain a competence of Member States.

The Commission prefers to encourage Member States to become increasingly engaged in the modernisation of social protection systems through the application of the open method of coordination which is based on common objectives, monitoring of performances through common indicators and the exchange of experiences.

Moreover, differences in social protection expenditure per inhabitant are not only determined by policy, as they also reflect different levels of economic performance, age structures and the strength of informal solidarity networks as those based on the family.

It should also be noted that the evolution over time of social protection expenditure as a share of gross domestic product (GDP) is generally countercyclical. The share rises as growth slows down and falls during an economic upswing.