ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
1. and 2.

Mid-term evaluations for the current rural development programming period, including the less-favoured area measure, were to be presented by the Member States by the end of 2003, which was done for almost all programmes. A Community-level conspectus of these evaluations will be available in 2004. Further information can be expected from updatings of the mid-term evaluations, from the ex-post evaluations and from a special evaluation of the less-favoured areas. The evaluation at present available to the Commission is for the previous programming period (1994-1999). That Community-level evaluation analysed whether the policy objectives defined in the relevant Regulations were achieved, and uses the national ex-post evaluation reports to support and illustrate the analysis. The final report (Evaluation of the Regulation (EC) No 950/97 (2) measures for improvement of agricultural structures) contains the following conclusions on compensation: — the support system for the less-favoured areas has clearly achieved its purpose of compensating for the impact of natural disadvantages on production costs, — the lack of a common, standard definition of support in these areas may, however, be a factor explaining the undercompensation in some of them and the overcompensation in some of those where the handicap is small or even insignificant compared to the ‘non-less favoured areas’ in the Member State concerned.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/725

(2004/C 78 E/0775)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1795/03

by Terence Wynn (PSE) to the Commission

(28 May 2003)

Subject: Manufactured products from third countries

Why does the Commission allow manufactured products to enter the EU from third countries that do not meet minimum health, safety and environmental standards that EU companies have to comply with? Would the Commission agree that by allowing such products into the EU, the direct result is the loss of European manufacturing jobs?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(14 July 2003)

Products marketed in the European Union, whether they originate from third countries or Member States, are subject to the same technical rules governing product safety or setting out requirements relating to health and/or environmental protection.

The requirements on producers, whatever their origins, are therefore the same throughout the Internal Market. The EU directives on product safety or on requirements relating to health or environmental protection can therefore affect the marketing of products in the EU.

The Commission is also committed to a comprehensive strategy aimed at promoting Europe's regulatory approach in certain third countries (and in particular the EU's principal trading partners) with regard to both enterprise policy and aspects of standardisation for industrial sectors. One of the objectives of this upstream strategy is to promote awareness and the implementation of Community rules by producers of products manufactured in third countries.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/642

(2004/C 78 E/0682)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3759/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(10 December 2003)

Subject: Update on use of funding from the 2000 City Twinning Programme by the municipality of Pistoia

In its answer to question E-1026/03 (1), which asked whether the municipality of Pistoia had submitted projects and secured funding under the 2000 City Twinning Programme, the Commission stated that no funding had been granted for the year 2000.

Can the Commission say whether the municipality has submitted any projects and obtained and used any funding in the budget years since then?

(1) OJ C 242 E, 9.10.2003, p. 208.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/616

(2004/C 78 E/0650)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3627/03

by Marianne Thyssen (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(5 December 2003)

Subject: Access to the labour market for new EU citizens and non-EU citizens

On 1 May 2004, 10 new Member States will join the EU. Transitional measures have been agreed regarding access to the labour market. Member States may adopt a more flexible approach and open up their labour markets earlier than agreed.

As the Commission knows, some Member States have concluded bilateral agreements with third countries, for example concerning access to the Member State's labour market for the purpose of performing seasonal work.

Would it not be logical for citizens of the new Member States — as from 1 May 2004 — to be given at least the same access to the labour market as is given to certain non-EU citizens on the basis of bilateral agreements, ‘inter alia’ for the purpose of performing seasonal work?

Will the Commission propose a measure to prevent discrimination between new EU citizens and non-EU citizens?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(28 January 2004)

The Commission draws the attention of the Honourable Member to the principle of ‘Community preference’ for free movement of workers, contained in the provisions of the Accession Treaty. On the basis of this principle, notwithstanding the application of the transitional period, to which the Honourable Member refers, ‘the present Member States shall, during any period when national measures or those resulting from bilateral agreements are applied, give preference to workers who are nationals of the Member States over workers who are nationals of third countries as regards access to their labour market’.

Therefore upon accession Union citizens from acceding Member States cannot be subject to provisions less favourable than those applicable to citizens from third countries. The Commission will closely monitor this issue and take appropriate action in cases where discrimination between new Union citizen and non-Union citizen is reported.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/155

(2004/C 78 E/0159)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2702/03

by Bill Miller (PSE) to the Commission

(11 September 2003)

Subject: Illegally-sourced timber

The Commission will be aware that the world's rainforests are rapidly diminishing, especially in the Amazon Basin and Indonesia. Much of the timber from these illegal operations finds its way into Europe.

What steps has the Commission taken to outlaw illegally-sourced timber in Europe?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(7 October 2003)

The Commission shares the Honourable Member's concern at the rate of deforestation of the world's rainforests. According to research conducted by the Commission's Joint Research Centre, the highest rates of deforestation are in South-east Asia (0,91 % per annum). Because it has a larger area, the deforestation rate for the Amazon Basin is less in percentage terms, but similar in absolute terms to that of South-east Asia, at about 2,5 million hectares (ha) per annum.

The Union is undoubtedly a market for some of the illegally harvested timber traded from these regions. However, in the case of South-east Asia, East Asian countries such as China and Japan constitute the main market for exports of tropical timber. In the Amazon basin most of the timber is consumed internally — one widely quoted estimate being that 80 to 90 % of Brazilian timber is consumed within Brazil. Generally speaking, the extent to which illegal logging accounts for deforestation is difficult to separate from other factors such as agricultural expansion and infrastructure development.

Aware of the impact of illegal logging not only on the environment, but also in undermining good governance and the rule of law, the Commission adopted a Communication entitled ‘Forest Law Enforcement, Governance and Trade (FLEGT) -Proposal for an EU Action Plan’ on 21 May 2003 (1). The Action Plan describes a series of proposed measures to reduce illegal logging in affected countries and to exclude illegally harvested timber from the Union. These include a proposal for voluntary, but binding agreements to be made with interested countries, allowing for the identification of legally harvested timber, including legislation allowing for the exclusion of timber from these countries not identified as being legal under such agreements. At the time of writing, the Commission is awaiting the views of the Council and the Parliament on the FLEGT Communication before it can take any substantial further steps in pursuit of these proposals.

(1) COM(2003) 251 final.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 88/439

(2004/C 88 E/0445)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2843/03

by Astrid Thors (ELDR) to the Commission

(25 September 2003)

Subject: Placement of children in institutions in Latvia

The Council attaches very great importance to the applicant countries' respect for the political criteria for accession laid down by the European Council meeting in Copenhagen, particularly those concerning democracy, the rule of law, human rights and protection of minorities (Council's written answer of 4 June 2003 to question H-0350/03).

Has the Commission at any stage considered the situation of children in children's homes in Latvia, particularly given that the Commission has actively endeavoured to develop similar strategies in other applicant countries?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(22 October 2003)

Since the opinion of 1997, the Commission has concluded in its annual Regular Reports that Latvia continues to comply with the so-called Copenhagen political criteria, namely the respect for democracy, the rule of law, human rights and the protection of minorities. Latvia has continued to address any existing outstanding issue in this area.

In the context of children's rights, Latvia has ratified several Conventions such as the European Convention on the Exercise of Children's Rights (May 2001) and also the European Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Decisions concerning Custody of Children and on Restoration of Custody of Children (April 2002). Within the obvious budgetary constraints of a country in transition, Latvia continues to invest in upgrading social institutions, including children's homes.

Latvia is primarily responsible for its children's policy. However, the Commission has provided assistance for projects via non-governmental organisations (NGOs) active in this field, under the horizontal Access programme in order to support the situation of children and children's homes in Latvia. This support has been directed at child care institutions such as orphanages, schools with ‘risk’ children, day support centres for children suffering from unfavourable conditions and families with socio-psychological and rehabilitation reintegration as well as socially and health wise endangered children, including street and abused children.

The Commission will continue to monitor the situation in Latvia until accession. The ongoing encouraging developments regarding economic and social cohesion as well as availability of future Structural Funds will certainly also contribute to further improvements and upgrading of social institutions, including children's homes in Latvia.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/385

(2004/C 78 E/0407)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1763/03

by Torben Lund (PSE) to the Commission

(28 May 2003)

Subject: Legislation in the EU, the Member States and the applicant countries concerning horse-keeping

In recent years, there have been many examples of cruelty to animals. In some cases, there are no laws to safeguard animal welfare and, in other cases, the laws are not observed. The outcome in all too many cases is gross maltreatment. Unfortunately, the same applies to horses and ponies which are maltreated and often subjected to gross cruelty during rearing, selling and transport.

Will the Commission therefore say what welfare rules apply to horse-keeping in the EU, the Member States and the applicant countries? Does the Commission know of any studies on the welfare of horses and ponies in the EU, the Member States and the applicant countries? What new initiatives does the Commission intend to take to secure the welfare of horses and ponies?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(4 August 2003)

Council Directive 98/58/EC of 20 July 1998 (1) lays down minimum standards for the protection of animals, including equidae, bred or kept for farming purposes. However, Article 1 of the Directive excludes animals intended for use in competitions, shows, cultural or sporting events or activities from its scope. In addition, Council Directive 90/426/EEC of 26 June 1990 (2) details the animal health conditions governing the movement and import from third countries of equidae. Commercial transport of equidae for distances of over 50 kilometres is governed by Council Directive 91/628/EEC of 19 November 1991 concerning the protection of animals during transport (3) as amended by Council Directive 95/29/EC of 29 June 1995 amending Directive 90/628/EEC (4).

Member States may also apply additional national legislative measures concerning animal welfare. The Community ‘acquis’ regarding welfare of equidae will apply from date of accession to the acceding States as agreed in the Accession Treaty. The Commission is intensively monitoring the transposition of the Community legislation and its implementation in the Acceding Countries.

In relation to scientific research the European Commission has supported various animal welfare projects under current and previous Framework Research Programmes. Scientific advice has also been provided by the Scientific Committee on Animal Health and Animal Welfare. The Committee's recent report on the Welfare of Animals during Transport considered in detail the transport of equidae and included a detailed bibliography.

Scientific advice provides a sound basis for the drafting of legislative and policy proposals and the forthcoming legislative proposal on the protection of animals during transport, including horses, is only one example of a Commission initiative aimed at safeguarding the welfare of equidae.

(1) OJ L 221, 8.8.1998.

(2) OJ L 224, 18.8.1990.

(3) OJ L 340, 11.12.1991.

(4) OJ L 148, 30.6.1995.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 88/636

(2004/C 88 E/0652)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3091/03

by Glenys Kinnock (PSE) to the Commission

(14 October 2003)

Subject: Peter Shaw/Georgia

Would the Commission confirm that the Georgian authorities, including the Prosecutor-General, are actively considering the need to investigate the circumstances surrounding the kidnap of Peter Shaw?

Is it the case that two individuals connected with kidnapping have been released, allegedly for lack of evidence? In a previous answer (E-2700/03 (1)) on the Peter Shaw case, the Commission indicated that the Georgian authorities would provide a written report on their investigations. Is this the case, and has this detailed report been forwarded to the Commission?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(7 November 2003)

The Commission continues to use every opportunity to stress to the Georgian authorities the importance it attaches to the identification and bringing to justice of the perpetrators of Peter Shaw's kidnapping. The Commission expects the Georgian authorities to maintain their commitment to the investigation into his kidnapping.

The Commission has no information concerning the Honourable Member's question as to whether two individuals connected with the kidnapping have been released.

The Commission confirms that it has requested a detailed written report on the state of the investigations into the kidnapping from the Georgian authorities. The Georgian authorities have indicated that they will respond to this request once they have sufficient information to bring a case to court. The Commission will continue to press for such a request.

The Member of the Commission responsible for External Relations continues to pay very close attention to this matter and has personally raised it, including the need for a written report, with the Georgian Minister of Foreign Affairs, Mr Irakli Menagarashvili when he attended the recent Union-Georgia Cooperation Council.

(1) See page 433.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/651

(2004/C 78 E/0693)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3827/03

by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(12 December 2003)

Subject: Funding for the network of Carrefours and Info-Points

The European network of Carrefours and Info-Points Europe recently publicly protested at the decision of the Directorate-General for Press and Communication of 29 September to cancel the annual allocation of EUR 20 000 for Carrefours and Info-Points Europe and its proposal merely to maintain collaboration in distributing documentation, training and running helpdesks. They complained that this ‘unilateral decision, taken without any consultation and at such short notice’ would affect the budget and activities of all the structures involved.

Can the Commission therefore say what measures it is considering in order to take account of the commitments already made by these organisations, bearing in mind the promise that funding would be maintained until the end of 2004?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(3 February 2004)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to written E-3007/03 by Mr Santini (1)

(1) See page 448.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/52

(2004/C 84 E/0058)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3116/03

by Maurizio Turco (NI) to the Council

(22 October 2003)

Subject: Illegal imports of textile products from China

On 10 October 2003 the textile workers' union of Barletta (BA) organised a protest against the illegality of Chinese textile imports and called on the European Union to take practical steps to combat such imports.

Can the Council say:

— what information it has concerning controls at borders and in Community territory on all forms of illegality (circumvention of the law, tax evasion and counterfeiting of trademarks), compliance with international agreements on imports from non-Community countries, in particular from the Far East, and the payment of customs duty, and what steps it will take to step up these controls;

— what measures it will promote for the introduction into Far Eastern countries of checks on respect for international conventions on human rights, including those dealing with pay conditions for workers?

Reply

(8 March 2004)

1. The imports the Honourable Member refers to are subject to the same EC rules as any other imports into the EC. At the EU-China Summit held on 30 October 2003 in Beijing, both sides expressed their hope for an early conclusion of a customs co-operation agreement, and looked forward to starting negotiations very soon, with the common aim of concluding the agreement in the first half of 2004. They agreed that such an agreement should cover mutual administrative assistance on customs matters, particularly in the field of combat against commercial frauds including counterfeiting.
Inrelationtoquestion5ofWrittenQuestionE-1022/02,theCommissionwouldliketoexpressthatitis
awarethatinanumberofMemberStatesthereareseriousshortagesofcaptains.ItisconfidentthatonthebasisofthejudgementsoftheCourtthissituationshouldbeimprovedviacross-bordermobility.
InrelationtoWrittenQuestionE-2069/01byMrMartensandothers,theCommissionwouldliketo
expressthat,veryrecently,itsattentionwasdrawntoapossiblenewproblemofrecognitionofdiplomasofmasters.OnthebasisofrequestedadditionalinformationtheCommissionwillassessthisissue.Ifthe
HonourableMembershaveadditionalinformationaboutthisaspect,theyareinvitedtosendittothe
Commission.
3. Asafollow-uptothejudgementsoftheCourt,theCommissionintendstomonitorcloselythe
correct application of this jurisprudence by Member States, including where appropriate by bringingmattersbeforetheCourtonthebasisofArticle226oftheECTreaty.
(2004/C78E/0255) WRITTENQUESTIONP-3283/03
byFrancescoSperoni(NI)totheCommission
(30October2003)
Subject:Bananas
Atypeoffruitcalled‘bananito’isonthemarketinPadania(andprobablyinotherplacesintheEU).
Accordingtothewebsite‘www.baby-banana.com’indicatedonthepackages,thisfruitbelongstoaspeciesofbanananogreaterthantencentimetresinlength.
CouldtheCommissionindicatewhetherornotthistypeoffruitisgovernedbyRegulation2257/94(
1)?
(1) OJL245,20.9.1994,p.6.
AnswergivenbyMrFischleronbehalfoftheCommission
(19November2003)
TheCommissioncaninformtheHonourableMemberthattheproductstowhichherefers,theso-called
‘bananitos’or‘babybananas’,arebananas8to12cmlongbelongingtothesubgroupsSweetFig(AA)andFigAppleandApple-Prata(AAB).VarietiesofthesesubgroupsarenotcoveredbythequalitystandardssetoutinAnnexItoCommissionRegulation(EC)No2257/94of16September1994layingdownqualitystandards for bananas. These apply only to bananas of varieties of the Musa (AAA) spp subgroupsCavendishandGrosMichel. Forbananasofother varieties it isonlythe general foodstuffmarketingrequirementsthathavetobeobserved(plantandpublichealthstandards,labellingrulesetc.).
(2004/C78E/0256) WRITTENQUESTIONE-3293/03
byClaudeMoraes(PSE)totheCommission
(7November2003)
Subject:StructuralFunds
DoestheCommissionkeeprecordsorhaveabreakdownoftheamountandtypeofStructuralFunding
allocated to EU constituencies, regions or cities that can be made available to MEPs? Are there, forexample,centrallykeptrecordsforsuchfundsforLondonintheUK,specificallyfortheLondonBoroughsofIslington,HackneyandWalthamForest?27.3.2004EN C78E/255 OfficialJournaloftheEuropeanUnion
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/136

(2004/C 78 E/0139)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2632/03

by Maurizio Turco (NI) to the Commission

(2 September 2003)

Subject: Refunds on exports from Member States to the Vatican City State of fresh and frozen beef (code 0201) for 1999. Inconsistencies between CATS and OECD data.

In response to questions E-1477/03 and E-1480/03 (1) relating to refunds on exports of agricultural products from Member States to the Vatican City State (VCS), Commissioner Fischler stated on 21 May 2003 that the Commission was collecting the information it needed to answer the question and would communicate its findings as soon as possible.

The following supplementary data can be supplied in relation to the export of fresh and frozen beef (code 0201):

(a) the European Commission's CATS (Clearance Audit Trail System) database shows that in 1999: — 57 984 kg were exported from Belgium to the VCS with a refund of EUR 40 732,82, equivalent to aid of EUR 0,70/kg; — 163 960 kg were exported from Ireland to the VCS with a refund of EUR 93 598,44 equivalent to aid of EUR 0,57/kg; — 395 920 kg were exported from Italy to the VCS with a refund of EUR 256 405,34 equivalent to aid of EUR 0,65/kg; — 345 782 kg were exported from Holland to the VCS with a refund of EUR 268 925,00 equivalent to aid of EUR 0,78/kg;

(b) the OECD (Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development) database shows that in 1999: — 12 200 kg were exported from Ireland, 472 800 kg from Italy and 363 000 kg from Holland to the VCS,

(c) This indicates that: — unwarranted aid of EUR 127 366,75 was paid on an additional 209 744,00 kg not shown in the OECD data; — no application was made for aid of EUR 63 179,91 for the export of 94 098 kg on which Community aid could have been paid.

Could the Commission state the technical reasons for the foregoing of this Community aid?

Does it not agree that the increasingly patent omissions and the discrepancies between the data from the different institutional sources seriously affect the credibility of these institutions and might be due to possible fraud against Community funds, or is it already able to discount this possibility of fraud?

(1) OJ C 70 E, 20.3.2004, p. 45.