ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 65/63

(2004/C 65 E/066)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1210/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(2 April 2003)

Subject: Use of funds under the Framework for action on sustainable urban development in the European Union by the municipality of Ancona

In September 2002, the monitoring committee of the Italian Ministry for Economic Affairs issued a report on the spending of EU funds.

The report reveals the alarming slowness and inefficiency with which EU funds are allocated to projects by some regional authorities.

The grave concerns about the inadequate use of European funds by local authorities have frequently been echoed by the Commission.

Bearing in mind that some local authorities, such as the municipality of Ancona, urgently need to use European funds to promote sustainable urban development,

can the Commission state:

1. whether the municipality of Ancona has submitted projects for the Framework for action on sustainable urban development in the European Union?

2. whether the municipality of Ancona has secured funding for these projects?
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 33/104

(2004/C 33 E/105)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1314/03

by Jean Lambert (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(7 April 2003)

Subject: Voting rights for EU citizens when living in another EU country

I have recently been contacted by a British citizen who has been living in Austria since 1981.

As a result of his extended absence he is unable to vote in national elections in the UK, due to UK rules which state that after 15 years of absence a citizen can no longer vote in UK elections.

However, he is not able to vote in national elections in Austria either. Austrian rules allow non-Austrian citizens to vote only in local and European elections.

There is no time limit on how long Austrian citizens living abroad are able to continue voting in Austrian national elections. This difference in attitude of the Austrian and UK authorities has led to this anomalous situation.

This situation is problematic, as clearly as a British and EU citizen this individual ought to be able to vote in the national elections either of his country of residence or of his country of citizenship. Voting is a key democratic right and to be denied this right is serious.

What is the Commission's view on this situation?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(15 May 2003)

The Honourable Member raises the point that United Kingdom citizens having been living abroad for more than 15 years lose their right to vote in the United Kingdom.

The Commission refers first the Honourable Member to its answer to Written Question E-1301/02 from Mr Michael Cashman (1), and confirms that Community law guarantees only that every Union citizen has the right to vote and stand as a candidate at elections to the European Parliament and at municipal elections in the Member State in which he resides, under the same conditions as nationals of that State. The right to vote of own nationals of a Member State in elections of that Member State belongs fully to the competence of the Member States, independent whether those citizens reside in its territory or outside of its territory, as explicitly confirmed in the relevant Directives 93/109/EC (2) and Directive 94/80/EC (3).

(1) OJ C 92 E, 17.4.2003.

(2) Council Directive of 93/109/EC of 6 December 1993 laying down detailed arrangements for the exercise of the right to vote and stand as a candidate in elections to the European parliament for citizens of the Union residing in a Member State of which they are not nationals, OJ L 329, 31.12.1993.

(3) Council Directive of 94/80/EC of 19 December 1994 laying down detailed arrangements for the exercise of the right to vote and stand as a candidate in municipal elections by citizens of the Union residing in a Member State of which they are not nationals, OJ L 368, 31.12.1994.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 65/62

(2004/C 65 E/065)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1206/03

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(2 April 2003)

Subject: European educational programmes including Turkey

Turkey is participating in the Socrates, Leonardo da Vinci and Youth Programmes. For 2004, numerous programmes have been agreed by the Turkish Government and the European Union involving universities, educational institutions and young people in general. Do they include programmes in Kurdish? Can programmes in Kurdish be organised in European Union Member States with Kurdish immigrant communities?

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(5 May 2003)

Turkey is not yet participating in the Socrates, Leonardo da Vinci and Youth Programmes. Preparatory measures are now being implemented with a view to its full participation in these programmes in 2004. The terms and conditions for its participation will be the same as those applied to the other Candidate Countries, and will follow the programmes' rules.

Decision No 451/2003/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 27 February 2003 establishing the second phase of the Socrates programme (1) provides that the eligible languages for the actions targeting foreign languages learning within Lingua and Comenius are the official languages of the Community, together with Irish and Lëtzeburgesch, and with priority given to the less widely used or less widely taught of these languages. Minority or regional languages are not eligible under these actions.

By extension, the same principle shall apply to Turkey's participation in the said programmes.

Outside the framework of Lingua or Comenius language projects, it is important to notice, however, that regional and minority languages may constitute the subject and collaboration theme of other Socrates or Leonardo da Vinci projects.

(1) OJ L 69, 13.3.2003.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 33/168

(2004/C 33 E/167)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1769/03

by Dominique Vlasto (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(28 May 2003)

Subject: Compensation from the IOPC Fund for the damage caused by the Prestige disaster

The Prestige sank on 13 November 2002. On 9 May the IOPC Fund announced that the victims of the Prestige oil slick would initially receive 15 % of the total estimated damages, which amount to almost EUR 1 billion.

The author of this question shares the indignation of the victims, who, six months after the disaster, are being offered derisory compensation for the damage and work it caused. In the Erika II legislative package the Commission proposed setting up a Community compensation fund, the COPE Fund. This text was adopted by Parliament at first reading in June 2001 and appears to have been held up in the Council ever since.

1. Can the Commission say whether any progress has been made on this proposal?

2. Tax-payers in the Member States are going to have to fund the remaining compensation for the damage caused by the Prestige wreck. The COPE Fund would have been a way of remedying this scandalous situation. As the COPE Fund has not been established, owing to being held up in the Council, can the Commission propose alternative solutions?
1. to 3.

In France in the public sector and in the State-subsidised private sector, teachers are recruited by way of competitions open to Community nationals. After the competition, successful candidates have to undergo a training period at IUFM (‘Institut Universitaire de Formation des Maîtres’), validated by an examination. After passing this examination, candidates obtain the teaching certificate (certificat d'aptitude à l'enseignement'). Currently, French legislation provides that teachers from other Member States have to sit the recruitment competition. However, by reason of their qualifications and the training already received in their Member States of origin, they are exempted from the training and final examination which follow the competition. The Commission has so far accepted this situation in view of the fact that under Community law, nothing prevents a Member State from making use of the competition system for the recruitment of public servants and of the distinction that must be drawn between recognition procedure and recruitment procedure. In fact, Council Directive 89/48/EEC of 21 December 1988 on a general system for the recognition of higher-education diplomas awarded on completion of professional education and training of at least three years' duration (1) which governs the recognition, among others, of teaching qualifications, confers upon the migrant the right to take up or pursue his profession in the host Member State ‘on the same conditions as apply to its own nationals’, i.e. with the same rights and the same obligations. The advantage for teachers in this situation is that, although having to sit the competition, they are not subject to any compensatory measure under Directive 89/48/EEC. In relation to the question whether migrant workers who are already working in the French private education system are allowed to participate in internal competitions only after three years' experience of working in the French private education system the Commission would like to give the following information. In accordance with the case-law of the European Court of Justice (2), the Commission considers that migrant workers' previous periods of comparable employment acquired in another Member State must be taken into account by the French private education system for the purposes of access to an internal competition in the same way as applies to experience acquired in the French system. The French authorities recently provided the Commission with information on the admission requirements for internal competitions to recruit teaching staff in private educational establishments under contract: under the same conditions as French nationals, candidates from a Member State other than France have to satisfy conditions concerning qualifications as well as conditions relating to their services. With regard to the period of public service required, public services rendered in another Member State are considered as services rendered in France.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 33/240

(2004/C 33 E/245)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2260/03

by Margrietus van den Berg (PSE) to the Commission

(8 July 2003)

Subject: European licensing system for professional football clubs

In the Netherlands, the Royal Dutch Football Association has set up a new licensing system for professional football clubs which is transparent, sound and geared to clubs' long-term solvency; it will come into force in the 2004/2005 football season.

What does the Commission think of a European licensing system along the lines of the new Dutch system? Is it willing to encourage a UEFA changeover in the near future?

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(22 August 2003)

The Commission would remind the Honourable Member that it can intervene only in matters within the Community's jurisdiction. Sport is the responsibility of the Member States and of sporting organisations.

The Commission is, in principle, in favour of developing licensing systems for professional football clubs, provided these are compatible with Community law. With this in mind, the Commission takes account of fair competition, as recommended in the Nice Declaration (1). Licensing systems can indeed help to ensure the sound financial management of clubs and thus to correct certain questionable developments which have been observed in professional football.

(1) Point 2 of the ‘Declaration on the specific characteristics of sport and its social function in Europe, of which account should be taken in implementing common policies’, Annex to the Presidency Conclusions of the Nice European Council, 8 December 2000.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 33/94

(2004/C 33 E/091)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0934/03

by Graham Watson (ELDR) to the Commission

(26 March 2003)

Subject: Seychelles

Has the Commission seen the copies of the videocassettes filmed in the Seychelles by Pauline Ferrari?

Would it not agree that these demonstrate clearly human rights abuses by the regime

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(22 April 2003)

The Commission is not aware of the videocassettes mentioned.

The Community's relations with the African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) States are based on respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, as defined in the Cotonou Agreement.

Should the Commission consider that there is a violation of these values, all appropriate instruments provided for by the Cotonou Agreement will be applied.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 65/146

(2004/C 65 E/162)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2416/03

by Concepció Ferrer (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(21 July 2003)

Subject: Communication on PVC strategy

The Commission's answer to my oral question H-0259/03 (1) provides no information over and above what has been known for two years now. At the same time, the subject of the strategy on PVC referred to in that question formed part of the Commission's work programmes for 2002 and 2003. In the light of the above, could the Commission specify when it is that it intends to present the specific communication on PVC? Could it explain why the Review of chemicals policy and the Thematic strategy on recycling only take into consideration PVC and do not cover other materials?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(18 September 2003)

While it is not possible to give a precise indication of when the Commission will be in a position to bring forward its planned Communication on the environmental issues of polyvinyl chloride (PVC) many of the issues arising are the subject of ongoing work. A study is currently being carried out to compare the life-cycle assessments of PVC and other potential substitute materials in a wide range of applications and first results are expected early in the new year. The Commission is also keeping under continual review progress towards the achievement of the voluntary commitment made by industry to phase out lead stabilisers in PVC by 2015 and increase recycling of PVC by an additional 200 000 t by 2010, as well as assessing the level of ambition of this commitment. For that purpose senior Commission officials, together with Members of the European Parliament, are members of the monitoring group which will oversee the operation of the voluntary commitment. As regards other aspects mentioned in the Commission's Green Paper, consideration is currently being given to banning the use of cadmium in PVC, and, in the case of phthalates, risk assessments are still ongoing.

The Communication (2) towards a thematic strategy on the prevention and recycling of waste, while not addressing PVC specifically, addresses it indirectly under the prevention and recycling of waste in general.

The framework legislation on Chemicals, which is expected to be adopted later this year, while not focusing specifically on PVC, will cover chemicals in general and their uses in products.

(1) Written answer of 13.5.2003.

(2) COM(2003) 301 final.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 65/205

(2004/C 65 E/220)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2730/03

by Herbert Bösch (PSE) to the Commission

(10 September 2003)

Subject: Compliance with European legislation in connection with the privatisation of VOEST in Austria

Media reports suggest that agreements exist between individual interested parties in connection with the imminent privatisation of VOEST via the stock exchange. The Austrian newspaper ‘Der Standard’ reported on 1 September 2003 an alleged ‘secret meeting’ between existing Austrian VOEST shareholders for the purpose of allocating amongst themselves the maximum possible stockholding when the shares are sold. Those invited to this meeting are said to include the managing committee of the Vienna stock exchange, banking representatives, a member of the VOEST management board, a member of the VOEST works council and politicians from Upper Austria.

Are such internal agreements in the run-up to the privatisation of a public-sector undertaking via the stock exchange in conformity with European law?

If not, what countermeasures will the Commission be taking?

Does EU law contain provisions preventing the disposal of a public sector undertaking at less than its value and hence to the detriment of the public interest?

Does a general legal framework exist at EU level that compels Austria to privatise VOEST or other public-sector undertakings?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(23 October 2003)

The Commission does not have enough information at its disposal to offer the Honourable Member a satisfactory answer. In the absence of details and established facts which would enable the Commission to carry out the necessary investigation into possible breaches of Community stock exchange law or Community competition law, the Commission regrets that it is unable at the moment to reply to the first and third questions. It therefore asks the Honourable Member to provide it with whatever information he has on this matter.

The Commission cannot answer the second question while the first question remains unanswered.

With regard to the fourth question, Article 295 of the EC Treaty gives the Member States the option of determining whether a given undertaking should belong to the public sector or the private sector.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 33/170

(2004/C 33 E/171)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1798/03

by Wolfgang Ilgenfritz (NI) to the Commission

(21 May 2003)

Subject: Refunds for sugar-processing operations

In accordance with the Brussels Agreement (2002/C 152/05) (1), the firm Agrar Invest Tatschl imports sugar from Serbia and Croatia. Tatschľs customers use the sugar imported from Serbia or Croatia in the manufacture of juices, chocolate, etc. and then export the finished products to third countries.

The current intervention price for sugar is approximately euro 699 per tonne. The world market price, on the other hand, is only about euro 250. The sugar-processing operations should therefore receive a refund of approximately euro 450 per tonne for sugar imported for processing from Serbia and Croatia when the finished products (juices, chocolate) are subsequently exported to third countries (export of Non-Annex I products from the Union's customs-free territory with application for an export refund).

The refund in question works without any problem in Germany and Italy. I do not understand why Austrian sugar-processing operations have so far been placed at a disadvantage by the refusal to grant them refunds.

The Austrian Finance Ministry took action on this matter last year (28 March 2002) by sending a request to the Commission for clarification on whether Austrian firms were eligible for refunds in these circumstances. So far the Commission has not replied.

I would therefore like answers to the following questions:

1. Are refunds possible for Austrian sugar-processing operations?

2. If so, can refunds be retroactive?

3. What procedure must be gone through to obtain retroactive refunds?

4. If not, on the basis of which directives is a refund impossible?

Supplementary answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(22 August 2003)

It is up to the competent national authorities to decide whether or not export refunds can be granted pursuant to the Community regulations. Operators should therefore contact them in the event of any problem.

In the case raised by the honourable member, the Commission takes the view that sugar imported from Croatia and Serbia used to manufacture the processed products referred to in Annex V to Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/2001 of 19 June 2001 on the common organisation of the markets in the sugar sector (2) should not receive refunds pursuant to Article 27(3) and (12) of that Regulation. The Commission will take the appropriate initiatives to ensure uniform interpretation of these provisions as soon as possible.

(1) OJ C 152, 26.6.2002, p. 14.

(2) OJ L 178, 30.6.2001.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 65/206

(2004/C 65 E/222)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2749/03

by Jan Dhaene (PSE) to the Commission

(15 September 2003)

Subject: Refund of the German HGV toll (LKW-Maut) by the government of the Flemish Region

The government of the Flemish Region plans to provide compensation for lorry drivers operating in Germany by refunding them part of the cost of the Eurovignette. Lorry drivers who can prove that they have driven for at least 30 days or at least 60 days on the German road network are refunded 1/12 or 2/12 of the cost of the Eurovignette respectively. This refund is in addition to the existing rules under which to 2/12 of the Eurovignette costs are refunded. In practice this will therefore mean that some Flemish road haulage operators recover one-third of the cost of the Eurovignette. Furthermore, the Belgian Federation of Road Haulage Operators, FBETRA, is advising its members to pass on the cost of the HGV toll to their clients.

Does the refund of part of the cost of the Eurovignette by the Flemish Region comply with European law?

Does this refund create a precedent? In other words, can Member States refund environmental taxes levied in other Member States to35 300 private individuals or legal entities?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(21 October 2003)

The Commission has no information regarding a plan by the Flemish Region to reimburse part of the charges paid by consignors who use German motorways.

In principle, the Commission needs detailed information before it can comment on the admissibility of reimbursing road user charges in a Member State. Such a measure is in any event liable to constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 87 of the EC Treaty, given that a measure of this kind involving a transfer of public resources and conferring an advantage upon certain undertakings may threaten to distort competition and affect trade between Member States. All Member States must notify the Commission in advance of any new aid, and the Commission will, as appropriate, assess the aid's compatibility with the internal market.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 33/101

(2004/C 33 E/100)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1243/03

by Chris Davies (ELDR) to the Commission

(2 April 2003)

Subject: Death of dolphins

The UK Fisheries Minister has proposed (20 March 2003) that it should be a legal requirement for some UK fishing vessels to attach pingers or other acoustic warning devices to nets in a bid to keep dolphins and porpoises from being caught.

Will the Commission now introduce similar measures with the requirement that they apply to all EU vessels using fishing methods of concern in this respect?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(15 May 2003)

The use of acoustic deterrent devices (pingers) has proven successful in reducing by-catches of small cetaceans in certain type of fisheries. The Commission is aware that such a measure has already been made mandatory since 2000 by Danish authorities, and is at present under consideration by the United Kingdom authorities within their consultation paper published on 20 March 2003.

As stated in the answer given to Question H-0122/2003 by Mrs McAvan (1), the mandatory use of acoustic alarms in certain gillnet fisheries is part of a package of measures under preparation and for which the Commission has already engaged a consultation with stakeholders. The Commission intends to finalise this package as a proposal to the Council within the coming months.

(1) Written answer of 11.3.2003.