ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/217

(2004/C 78 E/0222)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3070/03

by Christoph Konrad (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(20 October 2003)

Subject: Distortions of competition caused by the German Foreign Trade Act

1. Is the Commission aware that the Federal German Government is intending to introduce in the armaments industry a new authorisation and notification with regard to the sale to foreign buyers of more than 25 % of shares in domestic undertakings to foreign buyers? If so, what is the Commission's reaction thereto, and has it delivered an opinion thereon?

2. This new Federal Act is to apply to undertakings which manufacture or trade in goods for export. It is claimed that the aim of the authorisation obligation is to monitor the relocation of German undertakings and dominance by third countries, but only in respect of the sensitive armaments industry.

3. The definition and demarcation of what is covered by the term ‘armaments industry’ in the broadest sense of the term is vague. What does the Commission intend to do to prevent the danger that such an authorisation of one EU Government might introduce a politically motivated dominance in other economic sectors as well and thus decisively restrict the competitiveness and entrepreneurial freedom of the German undertakings concerned?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(27 November 2003)

While, according to Article 56 of the EC Treaty, all restrictions on the movement of capital between Member States and between Member States and third countries shall be prohibited, according to Article 58 EC, the provisions of Article 56 EC shall be without prejudice to the right of Member States:

— to take all requisite measures to prevent infringements of national law and regulations;

— to lay down procedures for the declaration of capital movements for purposes of administrative information; and

— to take measures which are justified on grounds of public security (Article 58 (1) b of the EC Treaty).

In his question, the Honourable Member refers to a German federal law which is at the drafting stage. While any further position by the Commission would require an analysis of existing legislation and its definite wording, an authorisation/notification procedure with regard to the sale of more than 25 % of shares in domestic undertakings to foreign buyers in the sector of armament manufacturing and export trade might be covered by these prudential considerations. The Commission will of course monitor that the scope of the application of this new law will not give rise to concerns in the sense of Article 58(3) of the EC Treaty (arbitrary discrimination, disguised restriction on the free movement of capital).

On the basis of the information available, the Commission does not intend to take specific measures to cope with Member States' initiatives such as the one described by the Honourable Member. The Commission will, however, continue to ensure that the free movement of capital is not unduly restricted.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 88/438

(2004/C 88 E/0443)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2741/03

by Richard Corbett (PSE) to the Commission

(11 September 2003)

Subject: Croatia

When it considers Croatia's application for accession to the European Union, will the Commission look at the situation in Krajina as regards the return to their homes of the population driven out by the Croatian army in 1995? Does it consider that the possibility for displaced persons to return home and the treatment of minorities are matters that falls under the Copenhagen criteria for membership of the European Union?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(26 September 2003)

When it considers Croatia's application for accession to the Union the Commission will review the extent of compliance of Croatia with the criteria laid down in Articles 49 and 6 of the Treaty establishing the European Union and further enshrined in the conclusions of the European Council of Copenhagen (1993). According to the latter (‘Copenhagen criteria’) a prospective member must: (i) be a stable democracy respecting human rights, the rule of law, and the protection of minorities; (ii) have a functioning market economy and the capacity to cope with competitive pressure and market forces within the Union; (iii) adopt the common rules, standards and policies that make up the body of Community law.

Therefore the review of the process of refugee return in Croatia, and the treatment of minorities will be crucial to assessing the Government's fulfilment of the Copenhagen criteria, on the basis of which the Commission will make its recommendation to the Council on whether or not to open accession negotiations with Croatia in spring 2004.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/94

(2004/C 84 E/0123)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3731/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(10 December 2003)

Subject: Update concerning the funds for the SAVE II programme for the municipality of Terni

With reference to question E-0973/03 (1), in which the Commission was asked whether the municipality of Terni (Italy) had submitted projects and obtained funds under the SAVE II programme, the Commission replied on 25 April 2003 to the effect that no proposal had been submitted.

Can the Commission state whether, since then and up to the present, it has received any SAVE II projects from that municipality?

Joint answer

to Written Questions E-3704/03, E-3705/03, E-3706/03, E-3707/03, E-3708/03, E-3709/03, E-3710/03, E-3711/03, E-3712/03, E-3713/03, E-3714/03, E-3715/03, E-3716/03, E-3717/03, E-3721/03, E-3722/03, E-3723/03, E-3724/03, E-3725/03, E-3726/03, E-3727/03, E-3728/03, E-3729/03, E-3730/03 and E-3731/03

given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(28 January 2004)

The Commission informs the Honourable Member in the context of the 25 written questions with regard to the Communes of Ancona, Carrara, Firenze, Livorno, Macerata, Massa, Perugia, Pesaro, Pisa, Pistoia, Prato, Siena and Terni that Altener II and SAVE II both ended in 2002, so no more projects were invited and presented since April 2003.

With regard to written question E-3716/03, the city of Pistoia had submitted one proposal for the Altener II programme in the Calls for proposals 2001. This proposal ‘Resred’ did not succeed and was not granted support, because the independent experts' evaluation concluded that the proposal did not demonstrate sufficient European added value and replication potential, focussing on pre-feasibility studies mainly in Italian and Greek municipalities; in addition, other problems regarding the proposed approach, project team, budget, etc. led to the negative result.

(1) OJ C 268 E, 7.11.2003, p. 169.
2.

What kind of initiatives will the Commission take to prevent any recurrence of such incidents which jeopardise the safety of passengers?
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/424

(2004/C 78 E/0444)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2772/03

by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission

(16 September 2003)

Subject: Levels of professional indemnity cover for small insurance firms

Is the Commission planning to instigate any European lower limits regarding professional indemnity cover? One of my constituents is concerned about the level of EUR 1 million cover he has to pay as a small insurance firm.

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(23 October 2003)

The Honourable Member is most likely referring to Directive 2002/92/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 9 December 2002 on insurance mediation (1). This Directive will establish a legal regime, which ensures a high level of professionalism for insurance intermediaries and reinforces the information requirements to be provided to customers. Customers will therefore be better protected.

The Directive requires that any insurance intermediary shall be registered with a competent authority in his home Member State, provided that he meets strict professional requirements in relation to his professional competence, good repute, professional indemnity cover and, where the insurance intermediary manages funds of his clients, appropriate financial capacity.

The Directive requires that an insurance intermediary shall hold professional indemnity insurance covering the whole territory of the Community or some other comparable guarantee against liability arising from professional negligence, for at least EUR 1 million applying to each claim and in aggregate EUR 1,5 million per year for all claims. This insurance cover or financial guarantee is not required when an insurance undertaking, a reinsurance undertaking or another undertaking on whose behalf the insurance or reinsurance intermediary is acting, takes the full responsibility for the intermediary's actions (in accordance with Article 4 (3) of the Directive).

Once the insurance or reinsurance intermediary has been registered in his home Member State he may conduct business in the entire Community under the freedom of establishment and the free provision of services.

The Directive shall be applied by Member States as of 15 January 2005.

(1) OJ L 9, 15.1.2003.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/618

(2004/C 78 E/0653)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3645/03

by Salvador Jové Peres (GUE/NGL) and Pedro Marset Campos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(9 December 2003)

Subject: European Union/Morocco agreement

At a conference held in Almeria on 24 October 2003, a Commission official acknowledged that the fruit and vegetables imported from Morocco to European markets had on a number of occasions exceeded the quotas laid down by the association agreement. He specifically acknowledged that Morocco had imported into Europe quantities of tomatoes and courgettes in excess of the authorised quotas. According to press reports, he explained that the new courgette quota negotiated with Morocco was nothing new and posed no threat to producers in south-eastern Spain, since Morocco had previously been importing similar quantities illegally, and the impact on the market would go unnoticed.

If the Commission was aware that import quotas were being exceeded, why did it take no action? Following the renewal of the EU/Morocco association agreement, how will it monitor compliance with these quotas? What action will it take if the quotas are exceeded?
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/374

(2004/C 78 E/0396)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1594/03

by Emilio Menéndez del Valle (PSE) to the Commission

(6 May 2003)

Subject: EC-Israel trade agreement

On 17 May 2001 the European Parliament said ‘whereas Israel's improper implementation of its trade-related agreements is causing the benefits of Community preferences to accrue illegally to goods produced in illegal settlements’ and called on ‘the Commission and the Member States to take decisive measures to correct any violation of rules of origin by Israel under the trade agreement with the EU and to inform Parliament, so as to avoid any indirect complicity in illegal settlements’ (European Parliament resolution on the situation in the Middle East (1)).

Is Israel continuing to establish the origin of its exports without making a distinction between those produced in Israel itself and those produced in its illegal settlements?

Does the Commission consider that Israel is currently violating the Protocol on Rules of Origin to the EC-Israel Association Agreement?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(5 June 2003)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to the joint reply it gave to oral questions H-0266/03, H-0268/03, H-0270/03, H-0272/03, H-0278/03, H-0283/03, H-0287/03 by Mr Lipietz, Mrs Banotti, Mr Cushnahan, Mrs Morgantini, Mr Pronk, Mr Dhaene and Mrs Sandbaek during question time at Parliament's May 2003 session (2).

(1) OJ C 34 E, 7.2.2002, p. 356.

(2) Written reply of 13.5.2003.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/493

(2004/C 84 E/0570)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2496/03

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(25 July 2003)

Subject: World current account discrepancy

Will the Commission estimate for last year, and project for this year, the size of the world current account discrepancy both in euros and as a proportion of GDP? Will it give its explanation of the discrepancy and say whether it believes that unrecorded foreign exchange receipts for some or all Member States are a reason for it? If so, what is the likely scale of the under-recording and is there any reason to believe that it might vary between Member States? What effect would such under-recording have on the observed current account balances for the Member States?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(3 September 2003)

The Commission does not produce estimates of the size of the world current account discrepancy. The International Monetary Fund (IMF) is the only international organisation for which enough information is available to produce such estimates.

The latest world current account discrepancy figures, as calculated by the IMF, refer to the year 2001, and they totalled EUR – 131,1 billion. Using the World Bank estimate of gross domestic product (GDP) for the year 2001 (EUR 34 748 billion) the world current account discrepancy corresponds to 0,38 % of world GDP. The average discrepancy for the period 1995-2001 was EUR -49,4 billion, displaying a negative sign during all the period 1995-2001 with the only exception of 1997.

Regarding Member States contribution to the global asymmetry, the only source available to the Commission (Eurostat) is the size of the asymmetries observed in the Balance of Payments of the Union (1). In 2001 intra-Union current account asymmetries reached EUR 34,3 billion (0,39 % of Union GDP). The imbalance is positive, meaning than reported credits exceed reported debits in the case of the Union Balance of Payments. Preliminary results for 2002 point to a discrepancy of EUR 31,4 billion. This positive imbalance represents a structural feature of the intra-Union current account balance over the period 1995-2001. Over this period the intra-Union current account balance showed an average positive discrepancy of EUR 42,5 billion.

For further details, two annexes are sent direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat.

(1) More detailed information is available in Eurostat, 2002. Asymmetries of Current account in the intra-UE balance of payments, Working Papers ans studies (available at http://europa.eu.int/comm/eurostat/Public/datashop/print-catalogue/EN?catalogue=Eurostat&collection=12-Working%20papers%20and%20studies&product=KS-AO-02-004-_-N-EN).
2.

All Member States have introduced visual requirements that correspond with the minimum requirements of the above mentioned Directive. As the Honourable Member has been informed of in the Commission's reply to his previous questions E-1231/03 (2), E-2568/03 (3) and E-2569/03 (4), a special working group for vision has been established in 2003 which plans to screen the legislation/actual situation in the different Member States during the coming year 2004. The results of this examination will be made public by the Commission as soon as they are available.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 88/444

(2004/C 88 E/0452)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2990/03

by Professor Sir Neil MacCormick (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(6 October 2003)

Subject: Benes Decrees (October 2002)

With reference to the background papers and expert reflections prepared in relation to the Commission's official opinion on the Benes Decrees (October 2002), I request the following information:

1. What sources were used?

2. What were the main considerations?

3. Did the Commission administration follow consultations?

4. If yes, with whom?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(24 October 2003)

The document entitled ‘The Czechoslovak presidential decrees in the light of the “acquis communautaire” — Summary Findings of the Commission Services’ dated 14 October 2002 was made available to the Parliament and the public at large. A further copy of this document is now sent directly to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat.

1. Apart from the relevant Czechoslovak primary legal texts, European and international law, the main sources used were the relevant rulings by Czech courts, in particular the Constitutional Court and the Supreme Court, as well as various other information papers submitted by Czech officials. All these sources have been listed in annexes 1 to 3 of the document of 14 October 2002 referred to above. In addition, the Commission consulted a variety of legal opinions, of its own Legal Service as well as from independent experts.

2. The main considerations are set out in the above-mentioned document of 14 October 2002. Essentially, the question to be answered in the document was whether the decrees posed an obstacle to the Czech Republic's accession to the Union in the light of the ‘acquis communautaire’. The conclusion of the Commission's investigation is that this is not the case.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/613

(2004/C 78 E/0647)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3621/03

by Antonios Trakatellis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(5 December 2003)

Subject: Presence of chlophen in food produced in various regions of Greece

The published conclusions drawn from research carried out by Athens University and the Demokritos research centre have established the presence of chlophen in milk produce in various regions of Greece, such as Kozani and Aspropirgos.

In view of the danger associated with the presence of chlophen in food and the fact that these regions are industrial areas in which clophen discharges have been identified in the past, will the Commission say:

1. whether the competent authorities have carried out checks in the above regions,

2. what measures the Commission intends to take to test for the presence of clophen in food produced in the above regions, and

3. whether there will be a special control programme and, if so, when it will begin to operate? Should clophen be found in food and thus constitute a serious health hazard to consumers, what measures will the Commission take?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(22 January 2004)

The Commission is not aware of the published conclusions drawn from research carried out by Athens University and the Demokritos research centre concerning the presence of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) in milk produced in various regions of Greece.

Consequently the Commission can not currently provide an answer to the questions concerning this study.

The Commission has requested the report to the competent authorities of Greece and will be able to provide an answer to the questions of the Honourable Member after receipt of the report.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/266

(2004/C 84 E/0313)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3921/03

by María Bergaz Conesa (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(18 December 2003)

Subject: Illegal practices in use of water from the Segura Basin (Murcia, Spain)

The Spanish State Prosecutor is currently investigating illegal practices with regard to use of water from the Segura Basin, the laxity of the Hydrographical Confederation in prosecuting illegal extraction of water and the favouritism shown to certain businesses. Before the chief prosecutor of the Madrid High Court of Justice, the chairman of the Segura Hydrographic Confederation has acknowledged that most of the cases brought against alleged illegal water extraction had lapsed.

The legal proceedings currently involve the trial of a business group which is accused of using political contacts in order to commit an alleged fraud, by manipulating European subsidies for the re-afforestation of a burnt-out wood, a process which ended with the installation of drip irrigation.

It is intended that the Segura Basin will receive 450 hm3 from the Ebro water transfer.

Is the Commission aware of the large number of existing irregularities in controls on illegal extractions of water from the Segura Basin?

Is the Commission aware of the alleged fraud involving European subsidies?

Is the Commission aware of other, similar cases?

Does the Commission intend to decide the funding of the Ebro water transfer before these irregularities are identified and resolved?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(18 February 2004)

The Commission is aware through public sources that the Spanish judicial authorities are conducting enquiries into alleged illegal practices relating to the use and allocation of water resources and to the possible misuse of European subsidies relating to the Segura basin. The European Anti Fraud Office (OLAF) remains available to provide assistance to the Spanish judicial authorities in the event that such assistance is required.

The Commission is also aware, again through public sources, that there are many allegations/denouncements of illegal abstractions of water in the Segura as well as in other river basins in the South-East of Spain.

The Commission's future decision concerning the possible allocation of Community funds for the implementation of the Ebro transfer will be made according to the existing rules and procedures as set down in the relevant regulations, and in full compliance with the applicable Community legislation and policies including those relating to the environment.
The Commission has no information on the alleged practices in Member States concerning meat of domestic animals, rabbit meat or wild game meat.

Directive 2000/13/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 20 March 2000 concerns the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the labelling, presentation and advertising of foodstuffs (1). Article 2(1) requires that labelling used must not mislead the purchaser as to the characteristics of the foodstuff or attribute to the foodstuff effects or properties, which it does not possess.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/61

(2004/C 78 E/0062)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1971/03

by Cristiana Muscardini (UEN) to the Commission

(13 June 2003)

Subject: Flying ultralight aircraft

Pleasure and sports flights on board ultralight aircraft are apparently governed by specific regulations in all EU Member States. Under the Italian regulations, pilots of such aircraft may be given the green light to fly without being required to show their ‘flight plan’, unlike pilots of standard flights. At present most states accept that such flights may even cross borders; however, the Italian authorities have recently stated that they are not prepared to recognise a German ‘green light’ given to flights over Italian territory because the relevant documents are not identical in the two countries.

Even though the equivalence of such documents is a matter falling within the jurisdiction of the Member States, does the Commission not consider that the governments of the Member states should be asked to harmonise their regulations on procedures and the documents required for authorisation to fly such aircraft, in particular since such harmonisation would remove an obstacle to the exercise of a sporting activity which is very popular among young people?

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(24 July 2003)

The Commission welcomes all efforts to remove obstacles to free movement in general and to the exercise of a sporting activity in particular.

However, on the basis of the information given, the Commission cannot give a precise reply to the question asked, namely how Community law could be involved in this case, because the rules to which the Honourable Member refers do not seem to be based on discrimination on grounds of nationality.

The Honourable Member is requested to bear in mind that the Community is not competent to deal with the question of harmonisation between the Member States of regulations on the procedures and documents required for authorisations to fly ultra-light aircraft.

The problems of harmonisation of such documents therefore lie solely within the competence of the Member States.