ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/552

(2004/C 84 E/0629)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0220/04

by Mario Borghezio (NI) to the Commission

(30 January 2004)

Subject: Threats to Po Valley producers as a result of the euro's excessive rise against the dollar

The European Trade Commissioner, Pascal Lamy recently expressed concern at the strength of the euro exchange rate against the dollar, saying that this could harm Europe's competitiveness, yet at the same time the spokesman for the Commissioner for economic and monetary affairs, Gerassimos Thomas, confirmed the Commission's determination to pursue a strong euro.

Statements by ECB President Jean-Claude Trichet that the strengthening of the single currency is having a negative impact on exports seem to confirm Mr Lamy's concern, but he goes on to say that exports are holding up despite the strong euro.

What measures does the Commission intend to take to allay the fears expressed, in particular by small businesses in the Po Valley, that any further strengthening of the European currency could cause losses of around two billion euros to producers in the north-east of the Po Valley within a few months?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(5 March 2004)

The euro has undergone an appreciation of around 25 per cent against the dollar since the start of 2003. However, what matters for competitiveness is the real effective exchange rate. The real effective exchange rate is based on the evolution of the euro against a basket of currencies, weighted according to their importance in the external trade of the euro area. It also takes into account differences in inflation rates. The euro-area real effective exchange rate has only appreciated by around 8 % since January 2003 (when deflated by nominal unit labour costs) and by 3 % since 1999.

While a strengthening euro does have a negative impact on the competitiveness of euro-area exports, this effect has been offset by a rebound in the growth of world trade, as economic activity in the major regions of the global economy continues to strengthen. Furthermore, a stronger euro helps to support higher domestic demand in the euro area.

The Commission believes that a stable exchange rate is in Europe's interest. It will closely monitor developments in foreign exchange markets over the coming months.

Concerning small businesses (up to 50 employees) in the Po Valley, one of the major objectives of Structural Funds actions in Italy is to promote an increase in the competitiveness of firms, notably by promoting product and process innovation, in order to strengthen their export-capacity: Small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) also benefit from the leverage effect of venture capital and guarantee instruments managed by the European Investment Fund.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/549

(2004/C 84 E/0626)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0205/04

by Mario Borghezio (NI) to the Commission

(29 January 2004)

Subject: Protecting SMEs against multinationals: the case of Ford dealers in Italy

The commercial policy pursued in recent years by the company Ford Italia, centring on the ‘mopping-up’ of leading car dealers and their concentration under the direct control of figurehead companies, has created great difficulties for the old dealers, with dozens of SMEs deliberately being eliminated from the market.

Does the Commission not consider this abusive conduct of the multinational Ford in respect of its dealers to restrict the freedom to compete of SMEs operating in the automotive trade market, and therefore also to occasion prejudice to the more general interests of the consumer, by creating a situation where there is unfair competition from companies only ‘autonomous’ of the mother company in appearance?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(15 March 2004)

Like other suppliers, car manufacturers are generally free to distribute their products as they see fit, providing that their distribution system does not infringe Article 81 or 82 of the EC Treaty. They may therefore choose to distribute their products through their own outlets, or through car dealers that are commercially independent.

Ford currently operates a quantitative selective distribution system in Italy. Quantitative selection allows the car manufacturer to reduce the number of dealers in its network, so long as the contractual notice periods are respected. As Commission Regulation 1400/2002 (1) makes plain, such a system is permissible under Article 81 of the EC Treaty, provided that the agreements in question contain none of the serious restrictions of competition set out in Article 4 of the said regulation, and provided that the conditions set out in Articles 3 and 5 are met.

Ford's decision to exclude certain dealers from its network and to move towards a more vertically-integrated distribution structure is also unlikely to infringe Article 82 of the EC Treaty, since Ford can not be said to be in a dominant position on the Italian market.

As far as takeover activity is concerned, the Honourable Member should note that the dealer sector in Europe is highly fragmented, and levels of concentration are generally insufficient for the Community merger rules to be called into play.

It would therefore appear that the Commission has no grounds to take any action in respect of Ford's move to consolidate its Italian distribution network.

(1) Commission Regulation (EC) No 1400/2002 of 31 July 2002 on the application of Article 81(3) of the Treaty to categories of vertical agreements and concerted practices in the motor vehicle sector, OJ L 203, 1.8.2002.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 88/496

(2004/C 88 E/0508)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0341/04

by Philip Claeys (NI) to the Commission

(4 February 2004)

Subject: Introduction of a ‘Made in the EU’ label

According to reports, the Commission is contemplating the idea of introducing a ‘Made in the EU’ label.

Is this information correct? If so, when will a concrete proposal be issued?

What added value does a European label give over and above the Member States' national labels?

Have representatives of industry already been consulted on this? If so, what were their reactions?

Will it be possible to combine the European label with a national label?

Answer given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(2 March 2004)

In the light of renewed interest shown by some industry sectors and Member States in the development of a Community Regulation on origin marking, the Commission opted to prepare a working document submitted to the 133 Committee on 19 December 2003, setting out the implications of such a scheme, in order to launch the debate. At this stage, the Commission is not presenting any concrete proposals, but has instead invited Member States to consult domestically on the subject.

The paper — available on the Commission's External Trade website — gives an overview on the pros and cons of a ‘made in the EU’ origin marking and indicates the options to be considered, namely:

— the option of origin marking both for imports and domestic market products on a purely voluntary basis;

— the approach of a mixed system with a compulsory origin marking for imports and a voluntary scheme for domestic products;

— and the third option of a compulsory origin marking both for imports and for domestic products.

The document does not specifically address the question of national origin marking schemes and it is worth underlining that no proposal has been made to question the continued use of them. It is for all interested parties at the national and EU level to determine their interests in the issue of developing a Community Regulation on origin marking, including the value added of implementing a ‘made in the EU’ origin claim and, if they favour change, the nature and scope of any possible regulation.

The Commission has already contacted different representatives of the industry and consumers and is receiving their comments and suggestions. Considering the current stage of consultations, the Commission could submit to the Council and to the Parliament the results of these consultations at the end of March 2004, though a longer period could be necessary.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 88/172

(2004/C 88 E/0180)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0214/04

by Giles Chichester (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(30 January 2004)

Subject: Details of EU funding to the Palestinian Authority

Several constituents of mine have written to me to express their concerns about the much publicised doubts over the use of European Union funds by the Palestinian Authority (PA). To date, detailed information and accounting of the funds the EU provides the PA, to either substantiate or negate the allegations, have been lacking.

In view of the continued allegations concerning the misuse of EU funds to the PA and the confidentiality of the European Parliament Working Group looking into this matter, can the Commission explain (a) the level of EU funding to the PA over the past three years; (b) the details of the purpose of the budget (as stated in the PA application) and (c) what sums are anticipated for 2003-2004?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(10 March 2004)

The total level of European Community assistance (excluding bilateral Member States assistance) to the West Bank and Gaza, including humanitarian aid, food aid and support to non governmental organisations (NGOs), over the last three years has been as follows (commitment basis). For the year 2000: EUR 225,86 million, for the year 2001: EUR 149,39 million and for the year 2002: EUR 326,31 million. This includes humanitarian assistance in favour of Palestinian refugees in Jordan, Lebanon and Syria.

EC financial assistance over the last few years has tried to strike a balance between short-term emergency assistance and more strategic forward-looking development support in preparation for a future democratic Palestinian state.

The total level of European Community assistance (excluding bilateral Member States assistance) to the West Bank and Gaza, including humanitarian aid, food aid and support to NGOs in 2003 was EUR 255,78 million. This includes humanitarian assistance in favour of Palestinian refugees in Jordan, Lebanon and Syria. Programming for 2004 has not yet been completed, but the level of support will be comparable to the level of support extended in recent years.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/924

(2004/C 78 E/0977)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0064/04

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

(20 January 2004)

Subject: Alarming rise in unemployment in Galicia: 7 465 newly unemployed people in December 2003 out of a total of 23 419 for Spain as a whole, bringing the rate of unemployment in Galicia to 12,36 %

There was a steep rise in the number of unemployed people in Spain in December 2003, with 23 419 new jobless, the worst rise in the last ten years. Of these 7 465, or 32 % of the total, were in Galicia, although the region accounts for only 7 % of the population. The unemployment rate in Galicia is now 12,36 %. This adverse trend, further evidence of a link between low income and unemployment, calls for special measures to tackle both serious problems simultaneously, particularly in Objective 1 regions such as Galicia.

Is the Commission already aware of this negative trend in employment in Galicia? Is it willing to consider special development measures to combat unemployment, in liaison with the Galician and Spanish authorities?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(10 February 2004)

The Commission closely monitors developments in the employment situation in all of Spain's autonomous communities.

As regards Galicia, for the 2000-2006 programming period, the regional authorities submitted a regional development plan to the Commission that reflected the region's potential and weaknesses and included some employment-related measures. In response to this plan, the Commission decided to actively contribute to development in Galicia by co-financing its Integrated Operational Programme for 2000-2006. This programme stems from the Community Support Framework defining the development strategy for the Spanish regions covered by Objective 1, including creating and maintaining jobs.

The Structural Funds contributed EUR 3 430 million out of a total budget of EUR 5 087 million. The financial breakdown by Fund was as follows:

(million euro) EC Participation ERDF ESF EAGGF Total: 3 430,058 2 335,7 392 702 358 100,00 % 68,10 % 11,43 % 20,48 %

This operational programme can be modified according to the way in which the region's job market evolves. The mid-term evaluation, laid down in Article 42 of Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 (1), has recently been finalised. It will form the basis for any modification of the programme deemed necessary and for possible reprogramming.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 of 21 June 1999 laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds, OJ L 161, 26.6.1999.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/367

(2004/C 84 E/0425)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0345/04

by Eluned Morgan (PSE) to the Commission

(10 February 2004)

Subject: Trans-European Transport Networks

Does the Commission agree that the development of the Trans-European Transport Networks should take into account existing wildlife sites such as Natura 2000 sites?

Does the Commission intend to carry out a full strategic environmental assessment to ensure that negative impacts on the environment are minimised?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(29 March 2004)

The development of the Trans-European Transport (TEN-T) network takes into account existing Wildlife and the Natura 2000 sites as follows:

— Decision No 1692/96 on the Community guidelines (1) currently being revised by the European Parliament and the Council of Ministers, makes clear that any TEN-T project must fully comply with EU environmental legislation. According to Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985, on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (2), Member States must carry out an environmental assessment. At the level of plans and programmes, they have to implement the Directive of the Parliament and of the Council on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment (3) by July 2004. Article 6 of the Habitats Directive (4) also requires Member States to assess plans (and projects) in relation to their impact on Natura 2000 sites;

— the Commission has carried out an Extended Impact Assessment of its proposal to revise the TEN-T Guidelines on 1 October 2003 (5) including the evaluation of environmental, economic and social impacts by taking interrelations of projects, corridors and modes into consideration as well as traffic and economy forecast for alternatives. The study included the analysis of the proximity of the priority projects with Natura 2000 sites;

— the Commission makes sure that before any Community funding is granted, evidence of the application of Community environmental legislation is shown. For this purpose, in the allocation of the TEN-budget since 2001, the Commission requests a specific declaration by the authority in the Member State responsible for monitoring of Natura 2000 sites, confirming that the procedure specified in Article 6 of the Habitats Directive has been followed.

(1) Decision No 1692/96/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 23 July 1996 on Community guidelines for the development of the trans-European transport network, OJ L 228, 9.9.1996.

(2) OJ L 175, 5.7.1985 amended by Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997, OJ L 73, 14.3.1997.

(3) Directive 2001/42/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 27 June 2001, OJ L 197, 21.7.2001.

(4) 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.

(5) Commission staff working paper SEC(2003) 1060.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/627

(2004/C 84 E/0702)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0554/04

by Proinsias De Rossa (PSE) to the Commission

(26 February 2004)

Subject: Paid paternity leave

What action has the Commission taken in response to paragraph 10 of the European Parliament's resolution (P5_TA(2003)0369) of 3 September 2003 on implementing the social policy agenda which urged the Commission to submit a proposal for a directive, based on Article 141(3) of the Treaty, on paid paternity leave?
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 88/696

(2004/C 88 E/0715)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0409/04

by Carlos Coelho (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(6 February 2004)

Subject: Rights inherent in European citizenship

The Treaty of Amsterdam further rounded out the definition of European citizenship, by adding that it did not replace but supplement national citizenship; at the same time, the Treaty consolidated the rights arising form European citizenship.

Consequently, with the Charter of Fundamental Rights promulgated in Nice in 2000, a single text brought together all the personal, civic and political rights, as well as the economic and social rights, which European citizens are guaranteed to enjoy.

Amongst these is the right to vote or stand in elections to the EP, or in local elections in one's country of residence within the EU.

I was therefore extremely surprised to learn, from a letter sent by the International Secretary of the Maltese Nationalist Party, Dr Jason Azzopardi, of the worrying fact that hundreds of Maltese citizens are having their rights infringed, by being refused the right of voting in the forthcoming June elections to the European Parliament, because they are temporarily residing outside their own country, for purposes of work, training or study.

Is the Commission aware of this situation? And how does it view behaviour of this kind, which seems to be a clear violation of a guaranteed right of all European citizens?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(15 March 2004)

I would refer the Honourable Member to the Commission's answer to written question E-0118/04 from Ms Frassoni and Mr Cohn-Bendit (1).

(1) See page 682.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/209

(2004/C 84 E/0253)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0383/04

by John Bowis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(12 February 2004)

Subject: Postage rates

What steps is the Commission taking to ensure that the postage rules for letters sent between Member States — and in particular the ‘E’ stamp — are comparable, allowing for exchange rate variations?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(9 March 2004)

In the question, the Honourable Member raises the question of the comparability of postage rates for cross border mail and in particular the ‘E’ stamp.

The Community framework for postal services is set by the Postal Directive 97/67/EC (1), as amended by Directive 2002/39 (2). This Directive provided for a harmonised regulatory framework based on general principles leaving a significant margin of manoeuvre for Member States in compliance with the Subsidiarity principle.

In terms of postal tariffs, these general principles are set in Articles 12 and 13 of Directive 97/67/CE.

Article 12 sets general principles that the tariffs for universal services should be affordable, geared to costs, transparent and non discriminatory. Furthermore, Article 13 requires that, in setting terminal dues for intra Community cross-border mail, the Member States shall encourage their universal service providers to respect the following principles — that terminal dues be fixed in relation to the costs of processing and delivering in-coming cross border mail — that levels of remuneration be related to the quality of service achieved and that terminal dues be transparent and non-discriminatory.

The above principles apply to all universal service tariffs including those collected through electronic stamps.

In practical terms, however, as there may be differences in the costs of delivery in the Member States, there may be differences between cross border tariffs and terminal dues, (and, therefore the price of electronic stamps for cross border services), even where they are geared to costs.

Finally, in terms of the actual organisation of the collection of tariffs, such as the E Stamp, Article 8 of the said Directive states that Member States have the right to organise the issue of postage stamps in accordance with their national legislation.

(1) Directive 97/67/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 15 December 1997 on common rules for the development of the internal market of Community postal services and the improvement of quality of service, OJ L 15, 21.1.1998.

(2) Directive 2002/39/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 10 June 2002 amending Directive 97/67/EC with regard to the further opening to competition of Community postal services, OJ L 176, 5.7.2002.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/797

(2004/C 84 E/0893)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0468/04

by Richard Corbett (PSE) to the Commission

(23 February 2004)

Subject: Competition in the glass sector

Is the Commission aware that EU glass manufacturers face two kinds of unfair competition? First, they face competition from the plastics industry who have been set far lower recycling targets under the Packaging and Waste Directives than those set for the glass industry. Secondly, from glass manufacturers in the accession states who have a long-term derogation from having to meet environmental standards arising from the implementation of the Kyoto Agreement.

Will the Commission be vigilant in ensuring that the implementation of these desirable Directives does not cause unfair competition by allowing competitors to escape obligations that should equally be placed upon them? If necessary, will the Commission propose the necessary rectifying legislation?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(31 March 2004)

The influence of recycling targets on the competition between various packaging materials does not depend on the level of the targets but on the costs related to recycling. The recycling costs per tonne are substantially higher for plastics than for glass and the use of secondary glass also saves costs to buy primary raw materials to a higher extent than is the case for plastics. Even though the recycling targets are different for the various materials, it is therefore difficult to evaluate whether there is an effect on competition between the materials and what material would get more favourable conditions. However, if there is any such effect, it is likely to be small compared to other factors influencing competition such as production costs, consumer convenience etc.

The Commission proposal (1) for new recycling targets was based on the view that all packaging materials should contribute to reducing their environmental impacts through recycling levels reflecting their specific costs and benefits. The levels of the recycling targets were extensively discussed by the Parliament and the Council during the legislative procedure which led to the adoption of Directive 2004/12/EC of 11 February 2004 (2). There are currently no reasons to propose a modification of the targets.

The EU legislation that allows the European Union to meet its commitments under the Kyoto Protocol does not foresee any derogation for Accession States.

(1) Proposal for a Parliament and Council Directive amending Directive 94/6 2/EC on packaging and packaging waste, COM(2004)127 final.

(2) Directive 2004/12/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 amending Directive 94/62/E, OJ L 47, 18.2.2004.