ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/269

(2004/C 84 E/0316)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3940/03

by Daniel Hannan (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(19 December 2003)

Subject: Distortions in the sugar trade

Could the Commission explain how it proposes to tackle distortions in the sugar trade which mean that British confectioners employing a large number of people must pay 10 % more for sugar than competitors operating within the single market, and up to three times the rate of their global competitors operating outside it? Does this state of affairs not make a mockery of the EU's purported desire to create stability in employment and a genuine single market for trade purposes?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(5 February 2004)

The price variations that exist in the single market for every product reflect variation in the play of supply and demand from one place to another. The common organisation for the sugar market keeps prices in the Community at a considerably higher level than on the world market but also incorporates certain measures designed to soften the impact of these high prices on enterprises using sugar in the Community. Thus import duties are levied on food products with a high sugar content, export refunds are granted on sugar used in food products and production refunds are granted to the chemical and pharmaceutical industries on the sugar they use.

Aware nonetheless that there are constraints both internal and external on the organisation that necessitate a reform, in September 2003 we sent the Council and Parliament a Communication entitled Accomplishing a sustainable agricultural model for Europe through the reformed CAP — the tobacco, olive oil, cotton and sugar sectors (1). This presents three types of option for the future of the Union's sugar organisation. All three entail a reduction in prices. We are confident that the discussions in progress with the Member States and Parliament will lead to a solution ensuring sustainable development for the sugar sector to the satisfaction of both users and consumers.

(1) COM(2003) 554 final.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/507

(2004/C 84 E/0584)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3409/03

by Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(18 November 2003)

Subject: Appointment of privatisation advisers for the Post Office Savings Bank

On 24 October Nikos Christodoulakis, the Greek Minister for the Economy and Finance, announced the decision to privatise the Post Office Savings Bank and to appoint the firm J P Morgan as privatisation advisers. The official decisions of the Interministerial Privatisation Committee on the Post Office Savings Bank and the appointment of privatisation advisers have not yet been published. Nevertheless, according to reports in the Greek press, J P Morgan has already taken up its duties.

Is the direct appointment of privatisation advisers, without a competition, consistent with Community law? What procedures ought to have been followed?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(9 January 2004)

The question should be answered in the light of the services to be provided by the privatisation advisers in question. However, the nature of these services is not clear from the text of the question.

Therefore, the Commission would ask the Honourable Member to communicate to it all relevant information. Furthermore, the Commission will request from the Greek authorities the necessary information to be able to establish whether or not there has been an infringement of public procurement Community legislation.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/122

(2004/C 84 E/0158)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3952/03

by Catherine Stihler (PSE) to the Commission

(22 December 2003)

Subject: Standards on laying gas pipes

Can the Commission inform me what standards are in force in Europe so far as the laying of gas pipes through domestic properties is concerned?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(6 February 2004)

The Commission does not have any competence on the question of the grant of rights of way for laying gas pipelines through domestic properties, which entirely falls under the competence of Member States. As a consequence, the Commission does not dispose of any information on corresponding standards in force in Europe.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/392

(2004/C 78 E/0415)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1873/03

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(6 June 2003)

Subject: Listing requirements

Has the Commission made any proposal, or does it intend to make any proposal, that will limit the ability of Member States to legislate for higher corporate governance or transparency requirements than in EU directives and regulations if companies are to be listed on exchanges in their territory? Similarly, does the Commission propose or intend to propose any measure that would circumscribe the listing requirements to be imposed on companies from third countries?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(7 July 2003)

The question raised by the Honourable Member is very similar to the one he already raised as Written Question P-2561/02 (1).

The reply given by the Commission to that previous question is also fully applicable to the present one. In addition, the Commission wishes to make the following remarks:

As regards corporate governance, the Communication on Company Law and Corporate Governance adopted by the Commission on 21 May 2003 (2) outlines the approach that the Commission intends to follow in these areas. It includes an Action Plan, prioritised over the short, medium and long term, without pre-empting the approach that will be applied — as a result of the consultation opened until 31 August 2003 — to each initiative announced, this Action Plan concerns directly only European companies.

As regards transparency requirements, the Commission assumes that the Honourable Member refers to the recent Commission proposal for a Directive on the harmonisation of transparency requirements with regard to information about issuers whose securities admitted to trading on a regulated market in Member States (3). This proposal covers requirements in relation to the disclosure of periodic and ongoing information about such issuers. It would allow the issuer's home Member State to impose more stringent requirements in this respect, but not the host Member State. With regard to the majority of the bond markets, and with regard to third country issuers of shares or bonds, the home Member State would be the one where the company's bonds are admitted to trading on a regulated market. For the remaining, the home Member State will be the one where the issuer has its registered office, in practice very often the one where the issuer's securities are also admitted to trading on a regulated market. The proposal is currently discussed in the Parliament and in the Council.

(1) OJ C 222 E, 18.9.2003, p. 10.

(2) COM(2003) 284 final.

(3) COM(2003) 138 final.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 88/399

(2004/C 88 E/0405)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2307/03

by José Ribeiro e Castro (UEN) to the Commission

(14 July 2003)

Subject: Timor – 1999 massacres; trial of those responsible; Indonesia – human rights

In his answer to the earlier written question (E-0921/03 (1)) on the same subject Commissioner Patten said that the Union was constantly following the activities of the ad hoc court set up to judge crimes committed in East Timor and would be able to return to the issue when the latest judgment, expected at the beginning of May, was known and before appeal proceedings were launched.

Can the Commission therefore say:

— what information it currently has on the work of the ad hoc court;

— what conclusions it draws from it;

— what degree of credibility the court's decisions have, in the light of the requirements of the primacy of the rule of law and full observance of international human rights legislation;

— what programmes between the EU and Indonesia are under way or being planned as regards good governance, strengthening of the judicial system and respect for human rights?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(15 September 2003)

The Commission, through its Delegation in Jakarta and together with the Member States Representations in Indonesia, has been monitoring closely the course of the Ad Hoc tribunal on East Timor.

Following the most recent verdict, issued on 5 August 2003, the Union issued a ‘Declaration’ in which it expressed its disappointment and stated that ‘the deficiencies in the process have jeopardised the credibility of the verdicts’.

The Commission intends to encourage the competent authorities to improve the proceedings for the appeal process, according to international standards of justice to ensure that the verdicts are proportionate to the seriousness of the crimes committed.

Considering the deficiencies of the judicial system in Indonesia, the Commission has a standing commitment of EUR 13 millions to the ‘Partnership for Good Governance’ programme, implemented by the United Nations Development Programme UNDP. The Commission is also designing a EUR 11 million ‘Judiciary Support Programme’, focused on the training of judges and prosecutors. Moreover, the Commission is considering a request by the National Commission on Human Rights KOMNAS HAM for specialised technical assistance in the field of investigation techniques, in conflict areas in Indonesia.

(1) See page 337.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 88/417

(2004/C 88 E/0424)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2507/03

by Paolo Bartolozzi (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(29 July 2003)

Subject: Charges in the tourist industry

The ever closer union of the peoples of the Member States must find expression in the free movement of persons and goods in Union countries.

Under the Schengen Agreement, European citizens are entitled to move freely on Union territory without being subjected to national constraints.

In some parts of Italy (for example Tuscany) many local authorities require tourists to pay entrance fees, thus restricting de facto the free movement of persons at no charge.

Does the Commission agree that, without overstepping its powers, the Union should intervene in order to guarantee the safe, free movement of persons at no charge on Union territory and call on Member States to remove the difficulties currently preventing it?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(16 September 2003)

The information provided in the question does not allow the Commission to have a clear and complete assessment of the problem referred.

The Commission would like to recall from a general point of view that the Court of Justice has ruled, in its judgment of 16 January 2003 (case C-388/01) with regard to entrance fees to monuments etc., that advantageous rates discriminating between foreign and national tourists without any direct link with the need to protect either public order, security or health (see Article 46 EC) or any other overriding requirement in the general interest are incompatible with Community law (Articles 12 and 49 EC).
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/830

(2004/C 78 E/0883)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3581/03

by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(5 December 2003)

Subject: Shrimp fishing in Svalbard

Svalbard shrimp fishing by the Community fleet is seriously impeded by the obligation that no more than four EU fishing fleet units be present at any one time. This practice has been imposed for some years, and there is thus a danger that it will become established, with all the negative consequences it presupposes for the Community fleet, which is unable to take up the full fishing effort allocated to it yearly (519 days). In addition, this limitation is imposed in the brief months in which access can be had to the region, due to the adverse weather conditions which prevail there for most of the year. The Commission's reply of 8 May 2002 to my previous Written Question E-1037/02 (1) stated that it was fully aware of the problems which the situation of the Svalbard shrimp fishery posed for the Member States concerned, and that it would ‘continue to endeavour to engage the Norwegian authorities in a dialogue, which will lead to improved access conditions for the Community shrimp fleet’. No progress whatever has been forthcoming, and certain Community fleets, e.g. the fleet working in NAFO, have seen their catches seriously reduced, which means that an additional effort to find alternatives is called for.

Can the Commission tell me why there have been no improvements in the situation of the Community shrimp fleet?

Given that the fishing effort is already limited by the number of vessels, can the Commission not negotiate the abolition of the ‘at any one time’ obligation, or simply not accept it?

Do the EU's bilateral relations with Norway not permit of a reasonable improvement of the situation for our shrimp fleet?

What steps has the Commission taken to improve the presence of the Community shrimp fleet in Svalbard?

What new steps is it intending to take so as to improve the current situation which, from any point of view, is unsatisfactory?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(26 January 2004)

The question of improved access conditions for the Community shrimp fleet fishing in the Svalbard area has been discussed with Norway on several occasions and most recently at a high level meeting in March 2003.

Norway is not willing to consider an increase in fishing days but has indicated that they could consider an increase in the number of vessels allowed in the area at the same time. However, they link such an increase in the number of vessels with, for them, a satisfactory solution to a number of other outstanding issues, including improved conditions for Norwegian export of shrimp to the Union.

The Commission has agreed with Norway to have a high level meeting again in principal in June 2004 to continue the dialogue and to find among other issues a satisfactory solution to the access problems for Community vessels fishing shrimp at Svalbard.

(1) OJ C 229 E, 26.9.2002, p. 172.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/265

(2004/C 78 E/0265)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3336/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(12 November 2003)

Subject: Suspected violation of the rights of the employees of Alcatel Italia S.p.A.

With reference to the answer of 23 October 2003 given by the Commissioner Mrs Diamantopoulou to question P-2897/03 (1), it should be noted that the restructuring plan would lead to the fragmentation of a well-established industrial centre with ultra-modern structures and equipment and highly specialised workers. Furthermore, there would be serious social repercussions, since a large percentage of the workforce are women and young people.

Finally, it appears that Alcatel has obtained substantial funding from the Region of Lazio and the Italian government in the past.

In view of all this, can the Commission say:

1. whether it does not consider that the plan is contrary to the procedures laid down in Directive 2001/23/EC (2) and Directive 2000/78/EC (3);

2. what steps should be taken to safeguard the jobs of women and young people?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(23 December 2003)

Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishes a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation. It prohibits discrimination in employment on the grounds of religion or belief, age, disability or sexual orientation. The Member States must implement it in their national law by 2 December 2003 at the latest. Member States may request an additional period of up to three years to implement the provisions of the Directive on age and disability discrimination. Differences of treatment on grounds of age may be justifiable if they are objectively and reasonably justified by a legitimate aim, such as employment or labour market policy (article 6). Directive 2000/78/EC does not set out special procedures concerning corporate restructuring.

The facts mentioned by the Honourable Member do not appear to come under the scope of Directive 2001/23/EC (4). Thus, Article 1 of this Directive states that it applies to any transfer of an undertaking, business or part of an undertaking or business to another employer as a result of a legal transfer or merger. Under the terms of the Directive, a transfer means a transfer of an economic entity which retains its identity, meaning an organised grouping of resources which has the objective of pursuing an economic activity, whether or not that activity is central or ancillary.

This particular case seems to concern restructuring leading to job losses but not involving the transfer of an undertaking, business or part of an undertaking or business to another employer.

(1) OJ C 65 E, 13.3.2004.

(2) OJ L 82, 22.3.2001, p. 16.

(3) OJ L 303, 2.12.2000, p. 16.

(4) Council Directive 2001/23/EC of 12 March 2001 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the safeguarding of employees' rights in the event of transfers of undertakings, businesses or parts of undertakings or businesses, OJ L 82, 22.3.2001.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/896

(2004/C 78 E/0947)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-4024/03

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(9 January 2004)

Subject: Free-standing ovens

Further to the Commission's answer to Written Question E-3307/03 (1), will it state whether free-standing ovens with a shoulder height oven/grill compartment have been banned in the UK as result of Council Directive 73/23/EEC (2) (or any other EU legislation)?

Will the Commission provide a list of free-standing ovens (by make and model) that are prohibited from being placed on the market in the UK by Council Directive 73/23/EEC?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(12 February 2004)

Further to the Commission's response to the Honourable Member's Written Question E-3307/03 with respect to Directive 73/23/EEC (3), the Commission is not aware of measures taken in the United Kingdom to restrict the free movement or placing on the market of any free-standing oven with a shoulder height oven/grill compartment.

Market surveillance is the responsibility of the Member States and the Commission is not directly involved unless the Member State concerned notifies such a measure under the safeguard clause procedure as described at Article 9 of the above Directive. In this respect, no such notification has been received to-date.

(1) OJ C 70 E, 20.3.2004.

(2) OJ L 77, 26.3.1973, p. 29.

(3) Council Directive 73/23/EEC of 19 February 1973 on the harmonization of the laws of Member States relating to electrical equipment designed for use within certain voltage limit, OJ L 77, 26.3.1973 amended by Council Directive 93/68/EEC of 22 July 1993, OJ L 220, 30.8.1993.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/32

(2004/C 78 E/0032)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1431/03

by Pierre Jonckheer (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(24 April 2003)

Subject: Open-cast coal mine in northern Leon (Valle de Laciana, Spain)

On 14 June 1999, the Department of the Environment and Regional Planning for Castille and Leon adopted the environmental impact statement for the exploitation of the Fonfría open-cast mine in view of the measures proposed in the environmental restoration plan and monitoring plan, with it being understood that these measures would help improve the current state of the environment and leave the landscape much the same as it was originally. This approach is inadmissible because it fails to take into account many factors.

In particular (1):

(a) extraction estimates for the mine are for 18 579 705 cubic metres, 3 500 000 cubic metres of which will be deposited on two slag heaps. Slag is currently being tipped in the Fonfría watercourse, as a result of which the spring itself has disappeared under the waste, despite the fact that it was supposed to have been protected under the corrective measures proposed;

(b) the northernmost slag heap juts into a Community-financed area of afforestation;

(c) the environmental impact assessment makes no mention of the existence of lakes which are of great ecological importance or of the various other springs besides Fonfría. Neither is any reference made to the changes to or the disappearance of various streams or of a large area of juvenile oak trees resulting from a series of forest fires (in the Orallo mountains);

(d) the environmental impact survey was carried out in isolation, as if this were the only mine in the area, without taking into account the proximity of other mines (including Feixolín), certain cuttings that have already been mined out, others which are currently being exploited, cuttings that are in the process of being authorised and several others at the study stage. The end result will be a large scar several kilometres long and the destruction of thousands of hectares.

Will the Commission investigate these issues? Does it not think it should order the suspension of mining activities and require that the environment be restored and the respective European funding repaid (2)?

(1) Detailed documentation on the subject was presented to the European Commission by the Asociación Laciana para la Defensa de la Naturaleza (Laciana Environmental Protection Association) on 18 May, 9 July and 10 October 2002, file No 2001/4914, SG(2001) A/10264. See also Written Question E-1892/02.

(2) As the Commission itself has indicated, the company MSP has received millions of pesetas from the Regional Government of Castille and Leon, in line with decisions relating to the ECSC, since the Coal Plan was implemented in 1998. This aid is completely at odds with the aid received between 1992 and 1996 for LIFE projects for the conservation of brown bear populations and their habitats in the Cantabrian Hills (ECU 8 625 266, 75 % of which was paid by the EU).