ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 88/35

(2004/C 88 E/0038)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1497/03

by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission

(5 May 2003)

Subject: Destruction of EU property in Palestine

What is the current situation regarding EU-financial infrastructure in Palestine that has been destroyed or damaged the continuing conflict in the region?

Answer by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(23 June 2003)

The Commission, upon the request of the Union's Presidency, compiled a preliminary list of EU-funded (Commission and Member States) projects which have either been destroyed or damaged by Israeli military forces. The list of destroyed projects is regularly updated by the Commission office in Jerusalem in coordination with the Member States' representative offices in Jerusalem and Ramallah. This task has been made difficult by the conditions on the ground. The list was last updated on 14 December 2002 bringing total damages to EUR 24 014 000. Of this total, about one-quarter was financed by the Community and the remainder by the Member States.

The exercise is limited to the replacement costs of physical infrastructure (construction and equipment), excluding indirect losses such as project delays or suspensions. Moreover the list does not make reference to a number of EU-funded projects which are unable to funtion properly due to Israeli military actions, for instance access to the European hospital in Gaza or delays (as a result of closures of access to raw materials) to infrastructure projects.

This matter has been raised with the Israeli authorities on several occasions, most notably by the Presidency of the Union in January 2002, and also at the Association Council with Israel on 21 October 2002.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/57

(2004/C 78 E/0056)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1937/03

by Mihail Papayannakis (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(13 June 2003)

Subject: Corinth-Patras railway link

Various local organisations have complained that no account has been taken of the special regional planning study on the Gulf of Corinth funded by the EU's Envireg programme in the construction of the new rail link between Corinth and Patras. Furthermore, the method generally adopted in such cases, namely the construction of tunnels and viaducts at a distance from the coast and built-up areas, has been completely ignored. Given that the construction of railways is a project of key importance for the region as a whole, would the Commission examine whether this project is being carried out in the most appropriate manner, so as to cause least damage to the environment?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(29 July 2003)

The responsibility for the design and implementation of major infrastructure projects, such as the construction of a new railway, lies with the authorities in the Member State in accordance with the principles of decentralised management that apply to the Structural Funds. It is for these authorities to determine an appropriate balance between economic, societal and environmental considerations, and to ensure respect for regulatory requirements.

As concerns the railway Korinthos-Patras, the application submitted by the Greek authorities for European co-funding met all the required conditions, including those relating to environmental terms and conditions.

The study to which the Honourable Member refers dates back to the early nineties. It did not give rise to a legally binding spatial planning framework for the area covered by it, nor did it concern specifically the track design of the railway.
3.

The Commission follows the strategy laid out in the TACIS Regulation 99/2000, which states, as one of the priorities, the improvement of nuclear safety by ‘supporting the development and implementation of spent fuel, and decommissioning and nuclear waste management strategies, including in North West Russia in the context of wider international co-operation’. Besides the projects mentioned under point 1 for Chernobyl, the TACIS Program is funding projects to tackle the issue of nuclear waste in North West Russia. For instance, the Commission is: — taking part in the Northern Dimension Environmental Fund (NDEP), managed by the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD), to which the TACIS programme contributes with EUR 40 million and, — funding projects like the ‘Lepse’ Project to take care of spent nuclear fuel from ice-breakers, which is stored aboard this ship. Some preliminary works (about EUR 2 million) were carried out in 1998-1999. Further support is foreseen for the completion of the works regarding defuelling. In Kazakhstan, the TACIS Program is to carry out a project in two steps to remedy the nuclear waste problems of the Semipalatinsk nuclear test site, resulting from more than 460 nuclear weapons tests that took place during the period 1949-1989. For this project, EUR 1 million is allocated in the Annual Programme 2003. Furthermore, up to EUR 4 million are foreseen in the 2004-2006 Multiannual Indicative Programme.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/318

(2004/C 78 E/0321)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3768/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(11 December 2003)

Subject: Update on the use of funds from the Leonardo programme for the Macerata municipality

In response to my previous question(E-1066/03 (1) asking whether the Macerata municipality had submitted projects and obtained funding under the Leonardo programme, the Commission stated on 8 May 2003 that Macerata had not applied for such funding.

Will the Commission state, again in respect of centrally managed funds, whether any projects were submitted subsequently and, if so, what decision has been taken on them?

(1) OJ C 268 E, 7.11.2003, p. 151.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/100

(2004/C 84 E/0137)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3790/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(11 December 2003)

Subject: Update on funding for the city of Siena under the action programme to promote civil protection

In reply to my earlier question E-l102/03 (1) asking whether the city of Siena had submitted projects and obtained funding under the action programme to promote civil protection, the Commission said on 22 April 2003 that the municipality had not submitted any application.

Can the Commission say whether, since that date, any projects have been submitted and what the outcome was?

(1) OJ C 268 E, 7.11.2003, p. 144.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/139

(2004/C 84 E/0177)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-4037/03

by Hiltrud Breyer (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(12 January 2004)

Subject: Health reform and natural remedies in Germany

As part of its health reforms, Germany has changed the law and made competition between conventional pharmaceutical medicines and natural remedies virtually impossible. Although experts have been working on a positive list of medicinal products including herbal, homeopathic and anthroposophic remedies for years, the German Government's so-called health reform has now removed the possibility of reimbursement for natural medicines through health insurance schemes. Thanks to the health reform, a distortion in competition has emerged that benefits pharmaceutical products. Many patients use natural treatments and remedies, which produce better results in many cases than conventional treatment. These successes should not be brought to an end by market competition between pharmaceutical and natural products favouring the former. As well as the prospect of worse treatment for patients opting for natural medicine, small manufacturers of natural remedies in particular are threatened with bankruptcy.

How does the Commission view this situation from the point of view of competition law?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(10 February 2004)

It is established case law of the European Courts that Community law does not detract from the powers of Member States to organise their social security systems and to adopt, in particular, provisions intended to govern the consumption of pharmaceutical preparations in order to promote the financial stability of their health-care insurance schemes (1). Based on the description given by the Honourable Member, the Commission does not have reason to believe that the legal provisions adopted by the German legislator with the object of refusing insured persons the right to be supplied with prescription-free medicinal preparations at the expense of the statutory sickness funds would infringe European competition law.

(1) See for example Judgment of the Court of 7 February 1984 in Case 238/82 Duphar BV and others v. The Netherlands State [1984] European Court Reports 1984 page 523.
3.

Current Community pharmaceutical legislation does not compel industry to study medicines for the use on children. However, the existing regulatory framework already provides incentives to orphan products. Regulation (EC) No 141/2000 of the Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 1999 on orphan medicinal products (1) provides incentives to the pharmaceutical industry to develop and authorise medicinal products for serious, rare diseases where no satisfactory method of treatment exists. This legislation applies equally to diseases affecting children and adults. In 2000, following major input from the Union, the International Conference on Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Registration of Pharmaceuticals for Human Use (ICH) guideline E11: ‘Clinical Investigation of Medicinal Products in the Paediatric Population’ was finalised and implemented in the Union. In 2001, the European Medicines Evaluation Agency set up the Paediatric Expert Group of the Committee for Proprietary Medicinal Products. The Paediatric Expert Group provides advice on the study and use of medicines for children and is developing guidance for investigators and the industry on such use. Following a resolution of the Council of Ministers, the Commission has been developing and consulting on proposals for a new Regulation that aims specifically to address the need for greater study and authorisation of medicines for children. The Commissions' proposals are currently the subject of an extended impact assessment (EIA) that is due to report in the first quarter of 2004. Following the results of the EIA, it will be possible to finalise the proposals for adoption by the Commission. Pending the results of the EIA, to speed up the legislative process, the Commission has set up an informal ad-hoc working group of the Pharmaceutical Committee (which has representation from all Member States) to advice on its informal draft proposal. In addition, the Commission is continuing its discussions with other stakeholder groups.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/319

(2004/C 78 E/0325)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3772/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(11 December 2003)

Subject: Update on the use of funds from the Leonardo programme for the Prato municipality

In response to my previous question (E-1072/03 (1)) asking whether the Prato municipality had submitted projects and obtained funding under the Leonardo programme, the Commission stated on 8 May 2003 that Prato had not applied for such funding.

Will the Commission state, again in respect of centrally managed funds, whether any projects were submitted subsequently and, if so, what decision has been taken on them?

(1) OJ C 268 E, 7.11.2003, p. 151.
1.

As regards publication of the results of the sanitary inspections carried out on importation, it should be noted that import controls fall entirely within the competence of the Member States. In general terms, Member States are not required to take samples of every import consignment for laboratory analyses, nor are they required to publish the results or inform the Commission of them. Only when a risk is identified during these controls are Member States obliged to inform the other Member States and the Commission via the Union's rapid alert system (RASFF). The Commission then informs the country of origin. In the case of nitrofuran contamination of poultry meat imported from Thailand and Brazil, specific Commission Decisions applied, under which Member States were required to check each consignment of poultry meat imported from these countries for the presence of nitrofurans and to notify the Commission of the results via the RASFF. The Decision remains fully in force in relation to Brazil while the level of testing in relation to imports from Thailand is now 20 %. These Commission Decisions are safeguard measures and therefore, by definition, temporary. A summary of RASFF notifications is published each week on the web-site of the Directorate General (DG) for Health and Consumer Protection. The reference in the question to checking the possible use of meat and bone meal in animal production in third countries is not appropriate in this context. Community legislation concerning the import of poultry products does not impose a feed ban on third countries comparable with the feed ban that is in place in the EU. The existence of an effective feed ban in a third country is an important element in the geographical BSE risk (GBR) assessment, which in turn can have an impact on the import conditions for animal products from ruminants from that third country. Community legislation does not forbid the use of meat and bone meal (MBM) for poultry in third countries wishing to export poultry meat to the Community. There is no scientific evidence to demonstrate a link between the feeding of MBM to poultry and the risk of BSE transmission to humans. In any case, the Brazilian authorities have assured the Commission that MBM is not used in Brazilian poultry production, as it is not cost competitive with vegetable proteins such as soya.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/96

(2004/C 84 E/0125)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3778/03

by Jürgen Zimmerling (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(11 December 2003)

Subject: Protection of personal rights

The extent to which personal rights are protected varies greatly within the EU. In some Member States the burden of proof is on the legal or natural person who makes statements which constitute an invasion of privacy, whereas in other Member States this is not the case. In certain Member States, protection of the privacy of contemporary public figures is almost entirely neglected in favour of freedom of the press, and a case on this issue is currently pending at the European Court of Human Rights.

Does the Commission consider it necessary to put forward proposals on achieving a sufficient level of protection in all Member States, and does it believe it is in a position to do so? Does it consider that legislation should be proposed laying down appropriate fines for violations of personal rights, based on Article 7 of the proposal for a regulation on non-contractual obligations?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(30 January 2004)

The Commission agrees with the Honourable Member's analysis of the divergences in the substantive civil law of the Member States regarding violations of personal rights and the protection of privacy.

For the moment the Commission has no plans to propose harmonisation of the Member States' substantive law of civil liability regarding personal rights where non-material damage predominates and the evaluation by the courts depends heavily on the local socio-economic context. Council discussions on the Commission proposal for a Rome II instrument on the law applicable to non-contractual obligations have shown that all Community initiatives which impinge on press freedom are highly sensitive on account of the close link with the Member States' concepts of public order and constitutional principles.

While the Rome II proposal does not seek to approximate the substantive law, it does seek to improve the degree of equality as between victims of a violation of personal rights since it proposes that the same law be applicable irrespective of the Member State whose courts are seized. The purpose of the initiative is thus to improve the foreseeability of legal situations of victims engaging in cross-border litigation.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/835

(2004/C 78 E/0888)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3614/03

by Esko Seppänen (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(5 December 2003)

Subject: Cultivation of sweet rowanberries

The Commission has exclusive competence for agricultural support. Hence this question: have the authorities of a Member State acted correctly in not allocating agricultural support to all farmers on the same basis but allocating it according to their place of residence? The Finnish authorities have not granted the appropriate support to farmers who cultivate sweet rowanberries in what the authorities consider to be the ‘wrong’ part of the country, i.e. in an area which is not a berry cultivation area. Are rowanberries which have been bred so as to make them sweet defined as berries or fruit?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(29 January 2004)

Member States can as their priorities dictate subsidize particular crops provided that the aid is compatible with Community law. Up to now they have had to submit all such proposed aids to the Commission for clearance as compatible (see Community guidelines for State aid in the agriculture sector (1)). We have however recently adopted as part of the CAP reform a set of rules (2) under which Member States will be able to grant agricultural aids falling into certain categories without first having to request our approval. These block exemptions will speed up implementation of the new agricultural State aids and also facilitate implementation of the national programmes to raise environmental, animal welfare and hygiene standards in agriculture.

In the absence of precise information on the measure to which the Honourable Member refers we cannot comment on its compatibility with Community law.

On the question of whether the fruit (pihlajanmarja in Finnish) yielded by the rowan tree (Sorbus aucuparia) is a fruit or a berry, we consider that it is a berry and hence also a fruit, since berries are by definition also fruits.

(1) OJ C 28, 1.2.2000.

(2) Commission Regulation (EC) No 1/2004 of 23 December 2003 on the application of Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty to State aid to small and medium-sized enterprises active in the production, processing and marketing of agricultural products, OJ L 1, 3.1.2004.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/653

(2004/C 78 E/0695)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3833/03

by Roberto Bigliardo (UEN) to the Commission

(12 December 2003)

Subject: Provincial authorities' involvement in the management of EU Structural Funds

In the context of EU Structural Fund programming, responsibility for the use of Community funds lies with the relevant regional authorities, with the involvement of local authorities — in this instance, at provincial level. In Objective 1 regions, including in Italy, provincial authorities have, under framework agreements concluded with the relevant regional authorities, taken on a significant role in the management of funds available under the Regional Operational Programme (ROP).

1. Given the above, can the Commission state whether the authorities in Objective 1 regions in Italy should in fact provide for the involvement of provincial authorities in the management of ROP funds and whether this might not act as a barrier to the funds being used on schedule as a result of lengthy coordination procedures?

2. Whether the involvement of local authorities in the management of ROP funds (at provincial level) is nominal or real, given that local authorities were not involved in the drafting of the 2000-2006 Community Support Framework?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(27 January 2004)

The Honourable Member's two questions relate to the principle of partnership involvement in the programming and management of assistance (part-financing) from the Community Structural Funds.

That principle is set out in Article 8 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 of 21 June 1999 laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds (1): ‘Community actions … shall be drawn up in close consultation … between the Commission and the Member State, together with the authorities and bodies designated by the Member State within the framework of its national rules and current practices …’. Article 8 also requires Member States to ensure association of the relevant partners at each stage of programming.

Accordingly the administrative authorities in charge of Operational Programmes must, if they are to ensure that the partnership principle is correctly and effectively applied, associate the local authorities in partnership if national rules require them to do so or if they consider it advisable to do so. This entails setting appropriate consultation procedures.

(1) OJ L 161, 26.6.1999.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/320

(2004/C 78 E/0327)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3774/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(11 December 2003)

Subject: Update on the use of funds from the Leonardo programme for the Terni municipality

In response to my previous question (E-1074/03 (1)) asking whether the Terni municipality had submitted projects and obtained funding under the Leonardo programme, the Commission stated on 8 May 2003 that Terni had not applied for such funding.

Will the Commission state, again in respect of centrally managed funds, whether any projects were submitted subsequently and, if so, what decision has been taken on them?

(1) OJ C 268 E, 7.11.2003, p. 151.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/511

(2004/C 78 E/0532)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3289/03

by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(5 November 2003)

Subject: Portuguese workers without rights in the North Sea

Various workers, including Portuguese nationals, have been working on North Sea oil platforms in the Dutch sector, some of them for over ten years, in the Catering Logistic Management branch, without being granted equal rights with local workers.

The argument used for this discrimination namely that they officially reside in Portugal and work two weeks on and two weeks off is simply inadmissible.

The Dutch company does not sign them up for social security, nor pay their travel expenses; nor do they have any social rights (family allowance, unemployment benefit, compensation for accidents at work, etc.).

Given that the Netherlands are an EU Member State, how can the failure of Dutch companies comply with the most elementary workers' rights be justified?

What measures will be taken to review the situation?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(4 December 2003)

The Commission would like to emphasise first of all that Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 (1) coordinates the national social security systems of the Member States in order to ensure that persons moving within the Union enjoy the highest standard of social protection. This Regulation includes, in particular, a set of rules establishing the applicable social security legislation in situations where workers have links with two or more Member States. These rules are mandatory and do not allow insured persons to choose the social security legislation which they would prefer to see applied.

In order to establish which legislation is applicable, the Commission intends to ask the Dutch authorities for an explanation to determine whether this is a case of the posting of workers in the context of the provision of services and whether Community law has been properly observed.

(1) Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the Council of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons and their families moving within the Community, OJ L 149, 5.7.1971.