ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/223

(2004/C 78 E/0227)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3113/03

by Maurizio Turco (NI) to the Commission

(22 October 2003)

Subject: Classification of the codes for the units of measurement of quantities exported shown on the Commission's database CATS (Clearance Audit Trail System)

The additional answer to Written Question P-3202/02 (1) incorporated extracts from the Commission's database CATS (Clearance Audit Trail System) containing data from Member States concerning export refunds for Community agricultural products to third countries.

In these extracts the various figures include the unit of measurement of the exported quantities, for which the codes are: 1; 10; 30; GRA; HL; Hl; hl; HST; k; K; kg; Kg; Kgs; KGS; NUM; NUMBER; P; q; ST; T; t; TON; U; UNI.

Can the Commission say whether ‘GRA’ should be taken to mean grams; whether ‘k, kg, K, Kg, Kgs and KGS’ should be taken to mean kilograms; whether ‘q’ should be taken to mean quintal; whether ‘TON, T and’ should be taken to mean tonnes; whether ‘HL, Hl and hl’ should be taken to mean hectolitres, and to what units of measurement the following codes correspond: 1; 10; 30; HST; NUM; NUMBER; P; ST; U; UNI?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(19 November 2003)

The additional answer given to the Written Question P-3202/02 concerns a listing of aggregated refunds paid for exports to several different destinations. The aggregates cover the financial years 1998 until 2001 and the details shown in that listing for the units of measurement are indicated as reported by the Member States.

Until financial year 2001, Commission Regulation (EC) No 2390/1999 (2) did not impose any standard codes to be used by the Member States for the units of measurement reported to the Commission. For that period, the CATS database thus contains the units of measurement as internally used by the Member States in their own computer systems, with the significance given at the national level for each financial year.

Confronted with this large variety of non standardised codes used by the Member States, the Commission has introduced standard codes for the unit of measurement when updating Regulation (EC) No 2390/1999 for financial year 2002. From financial year 2002 onwards, the Commission requires the following standard codes:

Character Significance K Kilogram L Litre P Piece

(1) OJ C 137 E, 12.6.2003, p. 172.

(2) Commission Regulation (EC) No 2390/1999 of 25 October 1999 laying down detailed rules of the application of Regulation (EC) No 1663/95 as regards the form and content of the accounting information that the Member States must hold at the disposal of the Commission for the purposes of the clearance of the EAGGF Guarantee Section accounts, OJ L 295, 16.11.1999.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/601

(2004/C 78 E/0636)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3700/03

by Marco Pannella (NI), Maurizio Turco (NI), Marco Cappato (NI), Gianfranco Dell'Alba (NI), Benedetto Della Vedova (NI) and Olivier Dupuis (NI) to the Commission

(10 December 2003)

Subject: Withholding of a study on anti-Semitism in Europe by the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia (EUMC)

Knowing that:

— on 22 November 2003 the Financial Times published on its front page a report to the effect that the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia (EUMC) had withheld a 112-page report on anti-Semitism in Europe which the Monitoring Centre itself had commissioned in 2002 from Berlin University's Centre for Research into Anti-Semitism;

— the Director of the Monitoring Centre, Beate Winkler, has stated that the decision not to publish the research was based partly on the fact that the period selected for consideration (May and June 2002) was not deemed representative and partly on the irreconcilable differences of opinion between the Monitoring Centre and the Berlin Research Centre concerning the concept of anti-Semitism.

Would the Commission say:

— why a report which furthers understanding of the way in which forms of anti-Semitism develop has been withheld from the people of the EU?

— what differences of opinion have arisen between the Monitoring Centre and the Berlin Research Centre concerning the concept of anti-Semitism?

— why the Eurobarometer survey (which was not based on scientific criteria) was published immediately (with consequences which are known to all), whereas the Monitoring Centre's report was kept secret?

— whether the Commission's representative to the EUMC was informed of the decision not to disclose the report?

Joint answer

to Written Questions E-3585/03, E-3587/03, E-3607/03 and E-3700/03

given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(30 January 2004)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Members to the reply it gave to written question P-3693/03 by Mr Laschet (1).

(1) See page 313.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 88/22

(2004/C 88 E/0023)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1311/03

by Bill Newton Dunn (ELDR) to the Commission

(7 April 2003)

Subject: The imprisonment of Dr Oscar Ellis Biscet by the Cuban authorities

The Commission may be aware of the imprisonment of Dr Oscar Ellias Biscet, a Cuban human rights activist, by the Cuban authorities.

Has the Commission:

1. Made representations to the Cuban Government about the imprisonment of Dr Oscar Ellias Biscet?
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/596

(2004/C 78 E/0630)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3580/03

by Proinsias De Rossa (PSE) to the Commission

(5 December 2003)

Subject: EU working time legislation

Further to its 15 October answer to my written question E-2611/03 (1), when did the Commission issue the two invitations to tender for a study on the consequences of the judgment of the Court of Justice in the SIMAP case (2)?

Why did it wait almost two and a half years before issuing the invitation to tender?

Does it believe such a completed study would have been useful for the preparation of its Communication on working time which is due by the end of 2003, and which it has already indicated will address the implications of the SIMAP judgment?

What views were presented by the Irish Government's representative at the meeting of national experts referred to by the Commission in its answer to written question E-0535/03 (3)?

Have any approaches been made to the Commission by the Irish Government requesting a possible Irish ‘derogation’ from the scope of Directive 2000/34/EC (4) in relation to junior doctors? What is or would be the Commission's response to such a request?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(16 January 2004)

As regards the invitations to tender for a study on the consequences of the judgment of the Court of Justice in the SIMAP Case (5), the Commission dispatched the letters of invitation to tender on 11 April 2002 and 18 December 2002.

The study was launched with a view to preparing for the communication on working time.

As for the Commission's meeting with national experts on working time, the Commission would refer to its answer to the Honourable Member's Written Question E-2611/03 (6). It must point out, however, that the purpose of the meeting was not to discuss the transposition of Directive 2000/34/EC (7), but the Commission's future communication on working time. At all events, no Member State reported difficulties with the transposition of that Directive.

Lastly, the Commission wishes to make it clear that no derogations can be made from the scope of Directive 2000/34/EC and none of the Member Sates has submitted a request for derogation.

(1) OJ C 58 E, 6.3.2004, p. 187.

(2) Judgment of the Court of 3 October in case C-303/98, Sindicato de Medicos de Asistencia Publica (SIMAP) and Conselleria de Sanidad y Consumo de la Generalidad Valenciana.

(3) OJ C 192 E, 14.8.2003, p. 199.

(4) OJ L 195, 1.8.2000, p. 41.

(5) Judgment of the Court of 3 October 2000 in Case C-303/98, Sindicato de Médicos de Asistencia Pública (SIMAP) and Conselleria de Sanidad y Consumo de la Generalidad Valenciana.

(6) OJ C 58 E, 6.3.2004, p. 187.

(7) Directive 2000/34/CE of the Parliament and of the Council of 22 June 2000 amending Council Directive 93/104/CE concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time to cover sectors and activities excluded from that Directive, OJ L 195, 1.8.2000.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/256

(2004/C 84 E/0303)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3866/03

by Robert Sturdy (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(16 December 2003)

Subject: Bird-trapping in Cyprus

In view of continued reports of bird trapping in Cyprus, what action is the Commission taking to ensure the adequate implementation and enforcement of the EC Birds Directive in Cyprus?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(17 February 2004)

The Commission continues to monitor the situation and the progress made by Cyprus in working towards meeting its obligations under Community law, not just in transposition but also in implementation and enforcement. As an Acceding Country, Cyprus will be required to fully implement and enforce the Birds Directive (1) (79/409/EEC) on 1 May 2004. No transition period has been given and no specific derogations have been requested by Cyprus. In October 2003 Cyprus adopted national legislation to transpose the requirements of both the Birds and Habitats Directives (92/43/EEC) (2).

The Commission clearly pointed out during the negotiation for accession that certain bird-trapping methods, like the ones involving the use of mist nets and lime sticks, are incompatible with the provisions of the Birds Directive. The practice is illegal in Cyprus and the Cypriot authorities have assured the Commission that they would step up efforts for effective enforcement of the law in question. Should problems be observed, then the Commission would raise them with the national authorities to seek their resolution. The Commission wishes to assure the Honourable Member that it will not hesitate to take all the appropriate measures, in order to guarantee the correct application of Community environmental law by its Member States.

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

(2) Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora, OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/25

(2004/C 78 E/0027)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0922/03

by José Ribeiro e Castro (UEN) to the Commission

(24 March 2003)

Subject: Serbia; assassination of the Prime Minister; instability

On 12 March the Serbian Prime Minister, Zoran Djindjic, was brutally murdered. The reason for the assassination seems to have been his determination to combat organised crime.

Can the Commission say:

— what information it has regarding who committed the crime;

— whether it considers that the Union should assist the Republic of Serbia at this time of emergency and political and social instability;

— whether it will be willing to continue to provide this assistance with regard to fighting crime and consolidating democratic institutions in Serbia;

— how it will be able to do this?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(8 May 2003)

The Commission has on various occasions, including during a personal visit by the Member of the Commission responsible for External Relations, the day after the assassination and the attendance of President Prodi at the funeral of Prime Minister Djindjic, strongly condemned this horrible deed and voiced its strong support for Serbia and Montenegro at this critical junction.

The Commission is not in a position to comment on ongoing criminal investigations in Serbia. Serbia has taken decisive action against organized crime and political extremism in recent weeks, which appears to be bearing fruit.

The Commission immediately reacted by discussing possible further assistance with the authorities, enhancing the Union's already very generous support. It is obviously important to do what we can to underpin the democratic, political and economic reforms necessary for a properly functioning State Union of Serbia and Montenegro.

As an example of this continued assistance, the Community 2003 Annual Program for Serbia (CARDS — EUR 229 million in 2003), which is in the process of adoption, includes substantial aid for justice and home affairs and institution building. The Commission has also spelt out possible additional support measures, including macro-economic financial assistance, technical advice, coordination of Member States' efforts and enhanced trade opportunities, in a joint letter with Mr Javier Solana sent to Union's Foreign Ministers in advance of the General Affairs and External Relations Council of 14 April 2003.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/736

(2004/C 78 E/0784)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2265/03

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(9 July 2003)

Subject: Deployment of a fund and provision of misleading information in order to dissuade authorities and other large users from using cheaper software available from a competitor

1. Is the Commission aware of the existence of Microsoft's internal e-mails and other documents, including ‘Microsoft Confidential’ of 16 July 2002, referred to by the International Herald Tribune?

2. Will the Commission compel Microsoft to make these documents available to it? The documents in question indicate that the company is using a special fund of USD 180 million to persuade authorities and large organisations to use Microsoft software rather than Linux.

3. When did/will the Commission take a decision on this?

4. Is it possible that the Commission may impose fines for the granting of unjustified discounts, similar to those imposed on such companies as Michelin and British Airways in the past, on account of the information to be obtained in this way or on account of a refusal to provide it?

5. What other ways of putting a rapid and complete end to such practices within the European market is the Commission considering?

6. Is Microsoft's use of members of its staff as ostensibly independent consultants or independent business-persons, with the aim of obtaining information from competitors or of acquiring potential customers, acceptable within the EU? Will the Commission inform the company that these practices, which are resorted to in America, are not permissible here?

7. When does the Commission expect that measures already taken or yet to be taken will permanently reverse Microsoft's further progress towards a total monopoly on the European market?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(25 August 2003)

1. The Commission is aware of the article referred to by the Honourable Member, and the contents of this article.

2. and 3. The majority of the Commission's resources in this area is currently devoted to the main ongoing investigation against Microsoft, which relates to allegations in the fields of interoperability and tying. Nevertheless, the Commission intends to examine Microsoft's licensing arrangements, including the allegations referred to by the Honourable Member, in greater detail.

4. It is premature to speculate on this question. The Commission confirms that unjustified discounts by a dominant company can constitute an abuse of Article 82 of the EC Treaty.

5. As outlined in the answers to questions 2, 3 and 4, the Commission intends to examine Microsoft's licensing arrangements in greater detail. It is therefore premature to consider potential courses of action before the allegations are properly examined.

6. The Commission has no information that the practices alleged by the Honourable Member are taking place within the Union.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/99

(2004/C 78 E/0098)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2250/03

by Maurizio Turco (NI), Marco Pannella (NI), Marco Cappato (NI), Benedetto Della Vedova (NI), Gianfranco Dell'Alba (NI) and Olivier Dupuis (NI) to the Commission

(7 July 2003)

Subject: Violation of religious freedom in China. Arrest of Father Lu Xiaozhou of the ‘clandestine’ Catholic church

The Catholic news agency UCA reports that Father Lu Xiaozhou of the ‘clandestine’ Catholic church was arrested on 16 June 2003 at Wenzhou (1 416 kilometres south-east of Beijing) as he was on his way to the hospital to attend to the sick.

The same afternoon, the security forces searched his house and seized all his belongings.

On 17 June 2003 Father Lu Xiaozhou was transferred to the Religious Affairs Bureau, with a view to forcing him to sign a letter agreeing to join the government-recognised Catholic Patriotic Association.

According to the agency dispatch, the priest will probably not be released until he has signed that letter.

These events occurred just a few days after 12 Protestants belonging to the clandestine church were arrested in a village in Yunnan Province.

In view of the above, can the Commission indicate:

— what information it has on this umpteenth violation of the right to religious freedom, recognised in Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights;

— what it will do to secure the immediate release of the Catholic priest and 12 Protestants arrested in June 2003;

— whether it will formally censure the Chinese Government for the intimidatory practices which the Religious Affairs Bureau uses to compel members of the clandestine churches to renounce their faith and join the official State-recognised churches?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(7 August 2003)

The Commission know nothing about Father Lu Xiaozhou's situation but will endeavour to find out. As it indicated in its answer to Written Question E-2216/03 (1) from the Honourable Members, religious freedom is one of the priorities pursued by the European Union its dialogue with China on human rights. It will raise, as it has already done on several occasions in the past, the cases of persons who are persecuted for practising their faith.

(1) See page 93.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/800

(2004/C 78 E/0849)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3299/03

by Horst Schnellhardt (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(7 November 2003)

Subject: Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (Flora, Fauna and Habitats Directive)

1. The main objective of the Flora, Fauna and Habitats Directive 92/43/EEC (1) is to conserve natural habitats in order to ensure biodiversity. The Natura 2000 programme accordingly prohibits any deterioration in the existing situation, thereby requiring Member States to take action as soon as any such deterioration is foreseeable. Does this mean that an existing form of usage must be upheld in order to maintain the status quo even where the benefit of such usage to mankind lapses? Can Member States be required to subsidise usage so that it can be maintained in order to conserve the status quo?

2. Once the areas of Community importance have been placed under protection, Member States must ensure monitoring of the conservation areas. Support for such monitoring has not so far been available from LIFE-Nature funding. Does the Commission intend to make financial resources available for monitoring?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(3 December 2003)

Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (2) includes in Article 6(2) the obligation for Member States to take appropriate steps to avoid, in the special areas of conservation, the deterioration of natural habitats and the habitats of species as well as disturbance of the species for which the areas have been designated, in so far as such disturbance could be significant in relation to the objectives of this Directive.

Member States are fully responsible for determining the way in which they will ensure compliance with Article 6(2) of the Directive, including, if necessary, guaranteeing the continuation of the present form of usage.

The same Directive includes, in Article 11, the obligation for Member States to undertake surveillance of the conservation status of the natural habitats and species referred to in Article 2 with particular regard to priority natural habitat types and priority species.

The LIFE financial instrument, through LIFE-Nature, allows support for the implementation of Directive 92/43/EEC and of the Natura 2000 network. It has, in that framework, supported surveillance and monitoring efforts in several Natura 2000 sites over the years. However, due to its limited scope, the LIFE programme cannot be used for the continued management of Natura 2000 sites in general, including monitoring activities. Any Community contribution for this purpose has to be seen in the light of Article 8 of the Directive, which foresees the co-financing of measures essential for the management of Natura 2000 sites. A Communication from the Commission on the application of Article 8 of Directive 92/43/EEC will be submitted soon to the Council and Parliament.

(1) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7.

(2) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/710

(2004/C 78 E/0759)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1285/03

by Mario Borghezio (NI) to the Commission

(4 April 2003)

Subject: European Union action to ensure civil and respectful treatment for prisoners of war in Iraq

Right from the outset of the war in Iraq we have seen disturbing images of the inhuman treatment to which prisoners from the Anglo-American alliance are being subjected. The conduct of the Iraqi authorities manifestly contravenes the provisions of the Geneva Convention as regards respect for prisoners of war. It may very soon be that EU citizens are prisoners of war of the Iraqi authorities too.

What action will the Commission take in this regard?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(15 May 2003)

The Commission is very concerned by the inhuman treatments of prisoners of war, in violation of the provision of the Geneva Convention, in this war as in any other conflict. In this regard, the behaviour of the Iraqi authorities interviewing publicly American prisoners, with intimidatory intent, represents a clear violation of the Geneva Convention. This behaviour is to be condemned.

The Iraqi government has been dissolved following the United States military occupation. Therefore, the risk of Union citizens becoming prisoners of the Iraqi authorities no longer exists.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/16

(2004/C 84 E/0018)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2210/03

by Claude Moraes (PSE) to the Council

(2 July 2003)

Subject: Progress on asylum in Thessaloniki

Will the Council please give its view on the progress made on the issue of asylum at the Thessaloniki Summit, particularly with regard to UK proposals to create ‘zones of protection’ to process asylum applications on or close to the borders of refugee producing countries?